User Profile: Blest

Blest

Member Since: January 11, 2013

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • October 1, 2014 at 2:05pm

    When I was in college a couple years ago, I noticed a lot of people becoming addicted to all sorts of things. It ranged from video games and caffeine, to pot, alcohol, sex, and pain killers. However, regardless of the addiction, I found that they all had something in common: they were dull.

    People seem to think that drugs and drinking and sex, that these things are exciting. They aren’t. I’ve never met an interesting pot head before. I’ve never met a witty drunk, or a promiscuous person who found joy in life’s simple pleasures. All the Facebook addicts I met were boring and anti-social, in spite of their thousands of “friends”.

    Strangest of all, none of the books I read for reading assignments seemed to notice this dull, boring side of things. It wasn’t until I discovered writers like G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, that I found my ideas confirmed. Chesterton criticized addiction, vices, and hedonism as the “Carpe Diem Religion”. But he noted that hedonists and addicts were not happy people. They were profoundly UNHAPPY. Doing what you feel like doing all the time makes you unhappy and dreadfully dull. C.S. Lewis noticed something similar. He said that God sees our passions as too dull. We make a big deal about eating, drinking, and sex, all while infinite Joy is being offered to us. He says we are like a child who would rather make mud pies in the slums, than to go on an all-expense paid cruise at sea.

    Responses (1) +
  • October 1, 2014 at 1:48pm

    I’ve seen you post this kind of stuff a lot, and I’m tired of it. So I want to know, what happened to you? What did the world do to you that made you turn your back on the person you were when you were a child?

    Think back, think hard, and try to remember who you used to be. When did you abandon silliness and fun for flippancy and scorn? When did you leave behind joy and become so bitter? I don’t understand why you have chosen to be this way, but you can change again. And I dare say that you should.

    Your life is too short, and too precious, to waste on cynicism and flippancy.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] October 1, 2014 at 11:19am

    Well, kudos for him trying to help the homeless.

    In spite of that, I still almost fell out of my chair laughing at the line that said “provides food and shelter to the homeless during the frigid winter season”. It’s California for crying out loud! They don’t even HAVE a frigid winter season. I’m not even sure if they have winter seasons at all.

    Responses (3) +
  • October 1, 2014 at 10:41am

    This is just absurd. It’s a piece of art. You cannot censor an artist’s free speech based on religious discrimination. That’s against the law. And you cannot force people to remove statues that are interpreted as “religious”. If that were the case, you’d have to tear down Mount Rushmore, because all of the people up there were religious men, and that could be an endorsement that religious men are better than non-religious men.

    This is not “the state establishing religion,” this is a DONATED piece of artwork. Somebody created a beautiful piece of art, which would sell for quite a lot of money, and GAVE IT TO THE SCHOOL. That isn’t the school preaching, that is the school displaying a valuable piece of cultural artistry. If the school is defined as “the state”, and the school only displays secular artwork, that means that “the state” is effectively discriminating against religious artists, denying them their 1st Amendment rights of free speech.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] October 1, 2014 at 10:33am

    I have no problem with an atheist monument in an atheist community where 99% of the parents in the area are atheists and want their kids brought up in an atheist environment.

    Again, this is ART WORK. Since you are defining the school as “an arm of government”, then it is against the law to censor somebody’s artwork and remove it from a public area, just because it is religious. That’s against the law. If an artist displays his work on public property, that is somebody DONATING a piece of culture to the state. It isn’t the state promoting religion, it’s the state displaying a cultural piece of art.

    The government doesn’t get to decide whose free speech and artwork is good or not. That’s totally against the Constitution. Public property means EVERYBODY paid for it, thus EVERYBODY has a right to be there, and express their opinions. If you want to donate your own atheist statue to the school, go ahead. But the community (the people who paid for the land and keep it clean) may reject your artwork based on their own standards.

    You cannot force people to silence their own artistic speech just because it’s religiously themed. You could interpret ANY piece of art as religious. You would have to remove every statue of Martin Luther King Jr. from government property, because he was a preacher.

  • October 1, 2014 at 10:27am

    What public money? It was a donation from an artist…

    If you take it down for religious reasons, you’re violating a dozen anti-discrimination laws which say that the government cannot discriminate against people for exercising their free speech. And, last time I checked, artwork is considered a form of constitutionally protected speech.

    The only way to take this statue down, legally, is to ban all artwork, period. Because if you only display secular artwork on public property, you’re violating the 1st Amendment rights of the artists you reject, and you’re discriminating against people because of their religion.

  • [2] October 1, 2014 at 10:24am

    Oh noes! Statues and artwork! So much unpeace! Gots ta stop the unpeace! That statue has BIBLE VERSE on it! It might come to life and crush people, or cut off their heads! It makes unpeace and interferes with 10-stick learning! It puts dangerous scary unpeace ideas in heads of younglings. Younglings might reject government aid and be self-sufficient! CANNOT HAPPEN! Must stop evil artwork!

  • October 1, 2014 at 10:21am

    I find it hilarious that one of the primary arguments that atheists give for God’s non-existence is that they cannot physically touch or see God. Why doesn’t God come out of hiding? This is obvious evidence to atheists that God doesn’t exist.

    And now, we’ve got an atheist who refuses to show himself to people, and won’t face all the people who he annoyed and bothered. We cannot physically touch or see this person. Why doesn’t he come out of hiding?

    By your own logic, this must mean that this atheist doesn’t exist.

  • October 1, 2014 at 10:17am

    Because anonymous people are cowards. If you truly believe in atheism, you will come out and face your critics. You don’t file complaints and hide behind anonymity. If your goal in life is to annoy, bother, and otherwise be an obnoxious brat, the least you can do is show your face to all the people whose lives you’ve intruded upon.

    I always hear atheists talking about “evidence”. They don’t believe in God because God doesn’t show himself. What irony that is…

  • [1] October 1, 2014 at 10:12am

    That’s fine. Just know that you’re now on MY list of people to sue for civil rights violations, religious discrimination, and a plethora of other anti-discrimination laws.

    Seriously. If you’re going to post ignorant things like this online, at least mask your IP address so people can’t tell who you are.

    So stupid…

  • [2] October 1, 2014 at 10:10am

    But there’s nothing in the law that says schools cannot display religious artwork on public grounds. In fact, there are several laws that say schools most certainly CAN do this. Because one, artwork is a form of speech. So if you say that the school is “the state” in the “separation of church and state”, then the school would be essentially censoring free speech based on religious discrimination. And that’s against the law.

    If you don’t define the school as “the state”, then there is no “separation of church and state” issue at all.

    So if you want to define a public school as “the state”, then that’s fine. But if you do, that just opens you up to a lot of lawsuits where “the state” is silencing free speech and oppressing people based on their religious beliefs.

  • October 1, 2014 at 10:04am

    So, what you’re saying is that all artwork should be banned from schools, right? Because art is subjective. Art is open to interpretation. And I can interpret ANY piece of art as religious if I want to.

    So I can have any school remove any piece of art on display simply because I decide that it’s unconstitutional? GREAT! Time to go tear down some public monuments! Oh! And what if I decide that the fountain outside a government building looks like a Baptismal? Can I get that removed too? There are Bible verses on public monuments to Martin Luther King Jr. Does that mean I can sue the government for forcing me to believe the words of a ***** preacher from the Bible Belt?

    Don’t you see how absurd this is? The School is not Congress. They aren’t making laws establishing religion. The teachers are not forcing kids to pray to Jesus if they don’t want to. All they’re doing is displaying a piece of DONATED artwork (meaning no public money was spent on it). If you don’t like the message that the artist conveyed, that’s YOUR problem.

    Cry me a river. Build me a bridge. Then get the !@#$ over it.

  • [1] October 1, 2014 at 9:57am

    You’re just wrong in this situation.

    First off, public schools are not “the state”. Just because a school is funded by the state, doesn’t mean that it is the state. For if that were true, then the school could make laws, enforce them, and so on.

    Second, this is a piece of artwork that was donated to the school by a private individual. You cannot tell schools that displaying donated artwork is against the rules, simply because the artwork has been interpreted as religious. That would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. It would also be a violation of anti-discrimination laws saying you cannot discriminate against somebody based on their religion. If only secular artwork is allowed to be displayed, then you are discriminating against artists based on their religion.

    There are genuine cases where teachers are going around forcing kids to pray to Jesus when they are not Christians. I get that. Those kinds of situations need the Freedom From Religion Foundation. But this is NOT one of those situations. This is clearly a piece of art work (it’s a statue). You cannot tell schools to censor art work based on religious discrimination. That’s against the law.

  • [3] October 1, 2014 at 9:49am

    It’s a privately donated piece of artwork.
    No public funds are spent on it.
    Nobody is being forced to believe what it says.

    It is art.
    Deal with it.

    Responses (1) +
  • [5] September 30, 2014 at 5:13pm

    It’s amazing, if you study the Bible and history, you will notice that two themes always emerge when children are mass-slaughtered or used for child sacrifice.

    Carthage sacrificed babies to Moloch,
    to mystically empower troops in war.

    Egypt murdered Israeli babies
    to empower those who owned Israeli slaves.

    Rome murdered babies
    to empower the economy and the empire.

    The Moors murdered babies
    to empower their conquest of Europe for Allah.

    The European Pagans murdered babies
    to mystically empower their druids and barbarians.

    The Enlightenment Europeans murdered babies
    to empower those who had affairs and sexual indiscretions.

    The Evolutionists murdered babies
    to empower the civilized races through eugenics.

    The modernists murder babies
    to empower women to abuse their bodies like prostitutes.

    The Chinese murder babies
    To empower their government to keep their people in check.

    The devil murders babies
    To empower his kingdom.

    You see, it was explained long ago that a woman would one day give birth to one who would destroy the devil. He tried to stop Moses by murdering every Jewish baby. He tried to stop Jesus by murdering all the little boys in the Roman empire. Those were both small events compared to the One Billion babies murdered in the last 60 years.

    Satan knows that somebody is coming to smash his head. And he’s doing everything in his power to prevent them from being born.

  • [1] September 30, 2014 at 11:17am

    Read the prophecies concerning the “Mountains of Israel” in the books of Ezekiel and Isaiah. It mentions the Arab nations, and says that they will be one of the last groups of people on the earth to accept God, but only after great suffering.

    The spirit of anti-Christ was mentioned in the New Testament several times, saying it already existed in the earth even when Jesus was around. So the anti-Christ has been around for a long, long time, but the body of Christ, the Church, has held back that spirit from dominating the earth.

    That’s why so many people believe that the Rapture must come before the anti-Christ can be fully realized into an individual ruler: because as long as the Church exists, that spirit can be cast out of a person. As long as the Church is around, the Church does battle against principalities, powers, rulers of darkness, and spiritual wickedness. So the only way the anti-Christ spirit can gain dominion over the earth is if there is no Church standing in the way.

  • September 30, 2014 at 11:10am

    That was the dumbest video I’ve ever seen.

    “How did the Kangaroos get to Australia?”
    They hopped… Duh.

    “How did the animals survive in the Ark if it was air-tight?”
    God was inside the Ark with them. God is the source of life, and can breathe life into things. If that kind of person is with you in the Ark, you’re not going to suffocate.

    “If Adam and Eve didn’t know right from wrong, why were they punished?”
    They weren’t punished. They chose to put faith in the serpent’s words, rather than God’s words. Faith in God’s words was the only thing allowing them to be in the presence of God. When they instead put faith in the snake’s words, they doubted God, and could no longer remain in His presence without being incinerated by His glory.

    “Why would God put a forbidden tree in the garden?”
    Because without an option to reject God, then free will wouldn’t truly be free. Love is a choice, and if you are never given the option to reject God, then it’s also impossible for a person to love God. God could have created robots that would never disobey Him. But robots are incapable of choice, or love.

    If this guy’s video wasn’t so melodramatic and absurd, it would have been decent. There are answers to all of this guy’s questions, and they’re really not that hard to figure out. You don’t even need to study theology. Just read the Bible and maybe read a couple of C. S. Lewis’ sermons.

  • [3] September 30, 2014 at 10:57am

    Anti-Christ is a spirit. The Bible says that the spirit of anti-Christ was already in the world back then, when Jesus walked the earth.

    Israel isn’t anti-Christ. In fact, the number one song in Israel in 2012 was a song called “Messiah”, talking about the coming of the Christ. They don’t think Jesus was Christ, but Jews most certainly believe that the Messiah, the Christ, is coming. They are far from being anti-Christ or anti-Messiah.

  • [3] September 30, 2014 at 10:55am

    I don’t think any of these “theologians” have done significant study into this topic. The Rapture came from the idea that the Church is supposed to follow in the footsteps of Christ.

    If Jesus healed the sick, the Church should heal the sick.
    If Jesus cast out demons, the Church should cast out demons.
    If Jesus resurrected the dead, the Church should resurrect the dead.
    If Jesus was persecuted, the Church will be persecuted.
    If Jesus was killed, the Church can be killed.
    If Jesus rose from the grave, the Church can rise from the grave.
    If Jesus ascended to heaven, the Church can ascend to heaven.

    So the “rapture” is merely this: the church, the body of Christ, repeating Jesus’ final act on this earth.

  • [10] September 26, 2014 at 12:35pm

    There’s a lot of skepticism about this, but there’s also some pretty strong evidence for it. People in the American Midwest have unearthed relics from ancient Syria and ancient Egypt in the soil as they dug it up and plowed it for farming. Strange objects made thousands of years ago have been dug out of coal mines in the Appalachians, and so on.

    Most people attribute this kind of stuff to being evidence of the Flood of Noah. It makes sense that if trees and plants were buried in the flood, along with metal tools and objects, that they would turn into coal over thousands of years and the metal would be trapped in the coal veins.

123 To page: Go