LOS ANGELES – The biggest Hollywood buzz from Sunday’s 2008 MTV Video Music Awards may have been Britney Spears’ hailed comeback, but taking a close second would likely be the crude antics of little-known British comedian Russell Brand, who took shots at President Bush, Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, and the family-friendly Jonas Brothers, among others.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Kevork Djansezian)Host Russell Brand is seen on stage at the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards held at Paramount Pictures Studio Lot on Sunday, Sept. 7, 2008, in Los Angeles.
Brand, who is relatively unknown in the United States but is popular in the United Kingdom, urged Americans Sunday to vote for Barack Obama, called Bush “that retarded cowboy fella,” and labeled Palin a “VILF.”
"Some people – I think they're called racists – say America is not ready for a black president,” the VMA host said in front of the celebrity-filled crowd at the Paramount Studios lot in Los Angeles. "But I know America to be a forward thinking country because otherwise, you know, would you have let that retarded cowboy fella be president for eight years?”
While Brand’s political comments certainly brewed up a storm, what drew arguably the biggest response was Brand’s repeated jabs at the Jonas Brothers and the purity rings they wear as a symbol of their vow not to have premarital sex.
The band of three brothers, whose father is a pastor, famously wear the rings on their left-hand ring finger to remind themselves of their "promise to ourselves and to God that we'll stay pure 'till marriage." They also abstain from alcohol, tobacco and drugs.
At one point during Brand’s time onstage, the British funnyman pretended he'd stolen a Jonas Brother's virginity as he played with a ring in his hand.
“Let me tell you, it was an enjoyable and pleasant experience and I wish the rest of the Jonas brothers the best of luck because over the course of the evening I want a collection of these bloody things,” he said.
Following Brand’s comments, American Idol winner and fellow purity ring wearer Jordin Sparks took to the stage, and before presenting an award, defended the evangelical Christian brothers with a quick statement.
"I just wanna say, it's not bad to wear a promise ring because not every guy and a girl wants to be a slut, OK?" Sparks stated, drawing the applause of the crowd.
While many have been supportive of Sparks’ stance, some have been angered by the implication that those who don't abstain are "sluts."
Sparks assured News.com.au, however, that while she doesn’t feel bad for what she said, she “didn't mean to offend anybody if I did."
The openly Christian music star also told FOXNews.com's Pop Tarts column later Sunday night at the In Touch magazine after-party that she was more than happy to put Brand in his place.
"Somebody had to do it," she said.
Shortly after Sparks’ onstage comment, Brand apologized, but managed to squeeze some punch-lines into his apologies – both onstage and off.
“I’ve gotta say sorry ‘cause I said them things about promise rings; that was bad of me,” he said before presenting television stars Lauren Conrad and Chase Crawford.
“I don’t want to piss off teenage fans,” he added before making another off-color joke.
“Promise rings, I’m well up for it … but a bit of sex, occasionally, never hurt anybody.”
Offstage, Brand told The Associated Press, "I feel a bit bad that I kept talking about their vows to chastity, and I'd like to take this opportunity to say no one ever have sex again. It's a mad idea. What a way to spend an evening."
It is well known in the United Kingdom that Brand is a former heroin addict, sex addict, alcoholic and has had numerous run-ins with the police, having been arrested nearly a dozen times for public indecency. Brand talks openly about his addictions to sex and drugs in his autobiography My Booky Wook.
RSS
scitsonga,
You said "You arn't making much sense here....hard to know how to respond..."
I know its hard for you to keep up with something over your head. But if you think for a moment you'd understand. Try it.
wb, "I recall the 'experts' on both sides saying"
Well those experts turned out to be correct on almost all accounts from troop strength to cost to post invasion problems such as looting and general lawlessness, all of which the neo-nut jobs from bushie to chinie and dumbsfeld pretty much dismissed.........a bunch of incompetent fools
Scit, I've read his speeches. I've read the news reports. I dont see him saying anywhere how long it would take to win in either iraq or against terrorism.
I recall the 'experts' on both sides saying it would take 5-7 years for Iraq to be handled properly (though I can't seem to find it online anywhere) - though it may be it was only from one side, I recall both sides saying something similar.
Can you please provide links?
wb, bush said the fight against terrorism would be long. you were referring specifically to the iraq invasion and occupation. all bushie's handlers and his masters chinie and dumbsfeld said iraq war invasion/occupation would be short cheap and not require a lot of troops as I have largely outlined below.
do "We found terrorists there being cared for by Iraq!"
Well sure, terrorists are everywhere, there have always been terrorists, there will always be terrorists. bushie & chinie will tell you terrorist are under your bed too.
proph "I thought you were more up on current event than that. Iraq was about WMD. I can't believe in all your "knowledge" that you would ask a question like that. "
You arn't making much sense here....hard to know how to respond...
"exactly my point, so then why did we invade Iraq? "
We found terrorists there being cared for by Iraq! One of the terrorists we found was tied to the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Our government with one united voice (except Obama) said we will go where the terrorists are. If you harbor terrorists we will come after you...and we did.
I read in Time Magazine a quote of Kadaffi (like I spelled that right) who said that Iran was being stupid in their behavior with their neuclear program and was going to end up like Saddam if they didn't change their ways. If Libia is talking like that...!!!!!!
Nothing wrong with that, brother.I was born in Missouri, but have lived in Virginia most of my life.Anyway, just curious.
Eagle,
Naw. I've been through there a few times when I was an OTR Truck Driver. Beautiful state. That whole area, Viginias, Carolinas, Georgia. It was gorgeous.
I'm a colorado boy. Born and raised.
I love your comment about the hair, igh.I just wish I had as much hair as he does.Oh, well.
Prophet, did you ever live in Virginia? You kind of remind me of a guy I once went to church with, named Dan Sloan.That's a good thing, by the way.
steve,
What do you mean?
wb, the only thing I remember Bush saying was that the American people needed to realize the fight against terrorism would be a long one, but I'm not sure he ever gave a specific timeline for that or the war in Iraq.
I think his hair style will catch on.
scit, please provide reference. I can find nothing online where Bush said how long it would take. I distinctly recall seeing TV coverage of it taking at least 5-7 years. I recall it coming from both sides of the isle.
DP and scitsonga, thanks for dealing with the matter raised.
Problems, prophet and jester?
Well, Iraq began about WMD, turned into ousting a genocidal dictator, and now we're dealing with local terrorists and other detractors as we attempt to rebuild their country.
sctisonga,
You said "proph "Terrorists don't behave like typical armies."
exactly my point, so then why did we invade Iraq?"
I thought you were more up on current event than that. Iraq was about WMD. I can't believe in all your "knowledge" that you would ask a question like that.
Iraq and the war on terror are two different things. I figured you would have known that. I guess I was wrong.
proph, how bout this, I think we can both agree that not all so-called athiests are bad and not all so-called christians are good. I do believe, based on the ones I know and have met, that the vast majority of christians are good and decent people and that most atheists, that I know, are decent people who just happen not to think there is a god. I dont think you have to have a faith in god to be a decent human being.
moore
"The US knew going into Iraq that it would take 5-7 years to accomplish the goal. Looks like we're right on track. "
Ah, NO. Not exactly ronald dumbsfeld, chiney and the other neo-nuts told the american people that the iraqi's would welcome us with open arms, would cost less than 50 billion dollars and be funded with iraq oil money. we wouldn't need much more than 100,000 troops. They did not say it was going to be 5 to 7 years
Skeptical ME experts and many military experts that were shut out from dumbsfeld's iraq war "planning" were saying at least 5 to 7 years, need at least 350,000 troops to secure the country and would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, now were talking trillions and we will be in iraq and Afghnistan a long time due to very poor, if any planning. Dude, where do you get your information, because it is way flawed.
proph "Terrorists don't behave like typical armies."
exactly my point, so then why did we invade Iraq?
The US knew going into Iraq that it would take 5-7 years to accomplish the goal. Looks like we're right on track.
"The US needs to get smarter fighting terrorism..."
I'd like to know what that would be? Terrorists don't behave like typical armies. They have no permanent, defined place of command. They are not a country. They are in every country in the world, even ours. They are British, American, Australian, African, German, French. They don't wear BDU's. They wear slacks and a shirt. They blend in with their surroundings, perfect guerilla warriors. They could be your neighbor, and you'd never know it.
In killing a rattlesnake, you don't go cutting off the tail. You go right for the head.
But I guess only those who have lost loved ones in a terrorist attacks would truly understand why we are doing what we are doing. Those of us who were unaffected, sit in our cushioned love seat, watching liberal CNN bash our war on terror, eating our McDonald's Big Mac, and whine about how much this is costing us. Well, I almost want to pray that all those people who think that way would have a loved one murdered savagely by a terrorist. Just to see how they would react. But the love of God compells me to pray that our war against a cunning, suicidal enemy would be successful.
citsonga,
Do you believe that athiests are evil? In their past is the murder of 100's of millions of innocent people (Christians and non-Christians alike). As my list shows, the atrocities of athiests are horrendous. Do you think it fair for me to clump ALL athiests into the category of evil, just because of what some atheists did? Should I look at you as an evil person because of what another bearing your title did?
I think we can both agree that the answer is no. I know that not all athiests are bent on murder and genocide. Many of them are fine, law abiding, peaceful people.
But yet, there are those who would like to clump all Christians as warmongers simply because of what a few have done (errantly I might add) in the past.
The litmus test for Christianity is this. Love, peace, holiness, truth, mercy, faith. A person who kills in the name of "God" is no more a Christian than Stalin was. Anyone can say they are a Christian. Few can actually be one. "We will know them by their fruits."
So I would appreciate it if "militant" athiests would grow up and quit saying that because someone murdered or killed in the name of God, that all Christians are bad.
"You single out clinton"
Actually, it was the luck of the draw. Bin-nutty wasn't in a position during the Reagan years. Actually, they documented those sorts of pull outs all the way back to Carter.
When Clinton pulled out (don't go there people) Bin-nutty took it as a sign of weakness by the US (in a trail of weakness). Just like much has happened by the luck of the draw to Bush...this one get's tied to Clinton.
prophet "And people like you are the little fawns, trembling in the brush, saying "oh poor me...poor me...." Don't martyr yourself. Grow some manhood."
You OK there prophet, sounding a bit nutty...
dp "Apparently, Osama viewed Clinton pulling troops out of places they were blowing things up as a sign of weekness and that we would bow before their terrorist might."
You single out clinton, but perhaps you forgot that reagan pulled the Marines out of Lebanon after a couple hundred marines were killed in the bombing there. Many analyst at the time thought this was viewed as a green light for terrorist.
wbmoore "I dont think its a bad thing that the US is hunting terrorists. But I happen to think that terrorism is different than war. "
Yet the US fights terrorism as if it is the same kind of war in many respects- invading countries with little to show in the long run except more of the same. The US needs to get smarter fighting terrorism, not tougher in a military sense of invading countries. Even US military leaders are now saying this. Consider this: bin Laden might have spent 1 to 2 million dollars carrying out 9-11. What has the US spent in total in response. Two trillion give or take a hundred billion or so and bin Laden is still out there. bin laden has achieved more than the goal of 9-11, he is contributing to the bankruptcy of america and has the US booged down in two wars that show no sign of ending anytime soon and the costs continue............
dp "In the case of the Islamic terrorists they simply want all of us dead."
From oppression comes terrorism, the seeds of oppression the US helped to plant in the ME have come back to bite us.
steveh20 "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."
Yes indeed. The US has been a sponsor of terrorist groups many times in its history, but to the US, they were "freedom fighters" Recall reagans contras, he referred to them as "freedom fighters" really a bunch of murderous thugs the US Congress decided to stop funding.
prophet,
you have stumbled upon the truth. Yes, some christians were murdered by the nazi's too. Jews however were specifically targeted for extermination. hitler was able to take advantage of centuries of anti-semitism in europe. Anti-semitism which was quite prevalent among good church goers (and non-church goers), made the Holocaust possible. Without wide spread anti-semitism, the Holocaust would not have occurred.
Perhaps you might want to brush up a bit on the history of Vietnam. Do a little research on HoChiMinh and his repeated attempts to rid Vietnam of its colonial occupiers, the French, going as far back as appeals to W. Wilson and to H. Truman. His appeals were ignored. Had the US backed Minh, he would have been a US ally, instead he had no choice but to ally with the Soviets. HoChiMinh was a nationalist above all else. He and his people were fighting for freedom from the French, then the Japanese, then back to the French and finally to fighting the US. HoChiMinh was doing what you might do if your country was occupied by a foreign power- FIGHT THE OCCUPIERS. Lets see here, about 2 million Vietnamese were killed, many tens of thousands from US bombers, much of the country laid to waste and poisoned by agent orange. Millions of Vietnamese injured, with lost limbs, disease as a result of agent orange, napalm burns, you name it. Over 55,000 americans killed. What did it accomplish in the end? What would Jesus have done?
Looks like you see everything in black & white--
atheist bad, christian good.
agnostic bad, christian good.
muslim bad christian good.
An interesting observation i have made over the years is many christians I know tend to favor military intervention in places such as Vietnam and Iraq, yet when I ask them if they know anything of the history or culture of the countries, they know almost nothing. My atheist and agnostic acquaintances tend to oppose those interventions, many times on moral grounds. Perhaps you might see some irony in this.
He steve...actually it's all terrorism. Even some of what our courts are doing in CA could be considered terrorism. So I understand your point.
Many here in the USA have sand in the ear when it comes to terrorism and what is really going on.
In the case of the Islamic terrorists the goals are different. Crazy as some of them were the IRA had a goal someone could actually give them..."independence". No matter what side of that war you're on...it's still a negotiable goal.
In the case of the Islamic terrorists they simply want all of us dead. Not exactly an 'obtainable goal'. I by far do not agree with the IRA tactics nor do I agree with all of the tactics used in dealing with them. Both sides had their stubborn points.
In the case of the Islamic extreamists...it isn't stubborness on their part...it's just plain stupidity. There is nothing simply laying stubborness aside is going to accomplish.
The IRA was looking for "freedom". The Islamic terrorists are looking to exterminate.
I dont think its a bad thing that the US is hunting terrorists. But I happen to think that terrorism is different than war. If the attacks had occurred in Ireland, I doubt Steve would have been as bothered. However, it was on innocent people in London.
I think Steve is right to be upset that people finance terrorist organizations, whether those terrorists be attacking England or the USA, and whether those doing the financing are Muslim or Irish Americans.
However I don't think that the terrorists that attacked the US is fighting are freedom fighters, as they had freedom before they attacked.
is it really a wonder that americans defeated the british in the revolutionary war? and that we had to bail them out of WWII? not really. at least if they all think like steve.
steve,
" I was in Oxford street, London, when the IRA blew up a bomb, some people where killed, I know fear." Poor baby. "Some people were killed."
I should give you the names of two people that I know personally who were in the near vicinity of the WTC 9/11 attack (one was actually in the first tower when it was hit). "Some people" were killed during that attack. So there are many Americans here who know about fear. People throwing themselves from hundreds of stories to their death because of the terror of dying in a raging fire. Hanging out windows trying to escape the flames, because there was no where else to go.
Here's what the public thinks about terrorism. Flight 93.
So, you can go stick your head back in the sand, continue to worry that "some people" died in a little bombing, and don't worry about fighting terrorism. I think the difference between you and America, is that we go out there to hit them with our military before they hit our innocent civilian population. You just wait for them to come and kill your civilians.
I do agree that Bush should have spent more military assets in Afghanistan than in Iraq, but we are still out there hunting them down. Americans have become the hunter in the war of terrorism. And people like you are the little fawns, trembling in the brush, saying "oh poor me...poor me...." Don't martyr yourself. Grow some manhood.
DP
One mans terrorist is another mans freedon fighter. In 1981 I was in Oxford street, London, when the IRA blew up a bomb, some people where killed, I know fear. I call those people terrorists, but to the people in the bars of New York collecting money for the good old boys, they where freedom fighters. It still grates with me slightly when I hear from the states about the war aginst terror. I know you will understand where I am coming from.
Steve
"the average American believes the US is always the good guy. "
As a rule...everyone everywhere thinks they are the good guy. I was watching a special on FOX News about terrorism that came on last night. It tracked the time-line of terrorism back to the time of Carter.
Did you know the terrorist behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center was found in Iraq after we went in? In fact, as it turns out, there was quite a bit of traffic through Iraq of quite a bit of terrorists over the past few decades. This data is simply "this person did this and we found them in Iraq". Quite indesputable (unlike my spelling).
Apparently, Osama viewed Clinton pulling troops out of places they were blowing things up as a sign of weekness and that we would bow before their terrorist might.
The evidence really is quite interesting. One of the things that adds to its credibility is that CNN isn't running stuff like that! :0
scitsonga,
The holocaust included the mass murder of Christians.
Vietnam was a war against the atrocities committed by atheist China in that country.
You said you won't waste your time...which is good. Because you would be wasting your time posting a lot of incorrect information. So thank you for not wasting both of our time.
dp, "I don't just limit it to the US. It's most every country in one way or another "
We are in definite agreement there, but the average American believes the US is always the good guy. Sometime the US is, sometimes not so good as I have described below...
here prophet, let me repost what I had below and we can start from there. I can develop a very long list of crimes commited by church goers against the american indian alone, then I could make a list of atrosities against the jews in europe by church goers. How about you take a look at my post first and tell me how I have it wrong.
what church going folk did to africans (enslavement and genocide), american indians (enslavement and genocide), Vietnamese (bombing and killing), holocaust (genocide against the jews of europe), etc. But here on CP, the good church goers cant bring themselves to face fact, so I wont waste my time. Its always the other religion or atheist or agnostic thats evil.......
scitsonga,
You said "jester, I can come up with a list as prophet has done listing what church going people did to africans (enslavement and genocide)."
Ok. Let's see it.
"Its the seeds that the US sowed as I described earlier, and we continue to do so."
I don't just limit it to the US. It's most every country in one way or another as a major player or a minor one. Mankind does what is right in their own eye and it comes back to bite them.
In quality control terms, I called it trying to catch the arrow. The arrow gets launched with no real long term plan or careful aim. We then run around with the target trying to catch the thing.... The last thing that happens is everyone blames everyone else for everyones stupidity.
You'll find God's way of doing things in the Gospel is to see problems from afar and seek to avoid them.
dp, i did goto the nam page you listed, interesting reading, thanx.
"Iran and the list goes on has been involved with terrorism and tied to 9/11 directly or indirectly"
Its the seeds that the US sowed as I described earlier, and we continue to do so.
"Why was the US in Vietnam?"
the question was mostly rhetorical...
You will find a fairly objective and correct answer to your question in this article:
http://www.vietvet.org/jeffviet.htm
Unlike the Iraq war, most American involvement in war is due to a government asking for our help as was the case in Vietnam. In the case of WWII it was because we got nailed in Pearl Harbor. In the case of Iraq, we left sleeping dogs lie until they were tied to 9/11. It is nothing more than liberal propoganda that they were not involved. Iraq, Iran and the list goes on has been involved with terrorism and tied to 9/11 directly or indirectly. It's almost like giving kids money to go do what they want.
Our founding fathers knew that. This is why people are suppose to run our country and not 'a government'. America is suppose to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. When government (especially the courts) forget that...our freedom is in danger.
"Because the Democrats dragged us in!"
Got strated with Truman, gradually escalated with Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon finally brought it to an end.
"Why was the US in Vietnam?"
Because the Democrats dragged us in!
dp Why was the US in Vietnam? Why did one imperial power (US) replace another (France). France occupied Vietnam since the 19th C, HoChiMinh wanted France out. As far back as the presidency of Wilson, HoChiMinh pleaded with the Americans to help get the French out. They were our ally, we didnt. It was not until the 1950's that the French were defeated and left only to be replaced by the US. Had we sided early with Minh, he would have been a US ally rather than being forced into the Soviet camp. The US dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs , especially N. Vietnam, that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. Its hard for me to see how the US thought it the right thing to do. Ignorance of history is a dangerous thing. Had the US done its homework, it would have learned Hochiminh was a nationalist above all else, not a communist, and millions of lives and the destruction of a country would have been spared.
"listing what church going people did to africans (enslavement and genocide), american indians (enslavement and genocide), Vietnamese..."
At the end of the Vietnam war 7 missionaries were captured. 5 of them were ours. I was at a school for missionary kids in 75-76 in Malaysia. The 'odd' missionary was a woman who's husband had been killed by the vietcong in 1962 when their daughter was about 3. She was a student at our school and her mother came to work at the school when they were released.
When the missionaries were being moved from one part of the base to another one of them was moving a bit slow so he was pushed by a soldier. The next day there was an assembly of the entire 'base'. The missionaries were held in their 'hut'. The leader of the base had the soldier brought up to the front. He explained that the missionaries had done nothing but teach people how to read and write, take care of medical care in villiages and show love to people. They were not the enemy. They were to be treated with respect. Then he had the soldier shot as an example! The base commander explained to the missionary that was how they did things and it was not the missionaries responsibility nor could he have done anything to stop it. The base commander knew how the missionary would have felt about it and that was why they had been kept in the hut!
Apparently, the "north" Vietnamesse army differs with your assessment....
dp "The problem is sin. Sin is a lack of moral behavior and it condemns us."
one mans sin is anothers pleasure. To many drinking is a sin, to me it is one of lifes pleasure as long as it, as all things, is done in moderation...
dp "If moralizing and condemning is wrong...why do you do it with almost all your posts? Your very post does what you say is wrong!"
Please tell me where I dictate what you can and cant do in your personal life. Perhaps you are correct on one point, I do tend to condemn those that feel the need to impose their beliefs on others.
"if christians (and muslims and jews) would stop the moralizing and condemnation of those that hold other views,"
moralizing --verb (used without object)
1. to reflect on or express opinions about something in terms of right and wrong, esp. in a self-righteous or tiresome way.
If moralizing and condemning is wrong...why do you do it with almost all your posts? Your very post does what you say is wrong!
As we can all plainly see, one need not be part of a faith in God to moralize or condemn. People use almost anything as an excuse.
The problem is sin. Sin is a lack of moral behavior and it condemns us. Christ came to die for us so that we could be restored to a relationship with Him. Now, religion without restoration leads to conflict. This is the problem. It doesn't matter if it's Islam, 'Christianity' or secularism ... without restoration you will have conflict. Athiests are some of the most dogmatic people I know (running neck and neck with the extreme fundamentalist Christians).
You have Christianity born of restoration through Jesus Christ...then you have everything else. It's the everything else that makes such a mess. Jesus said, "I come that you might have life and have it more abundantly". The later in the Bible we read "we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers." Jesus also said that as much as it is up to you to live at peace with others.
Sin is its own enemy and needs nothing else to be destructive.
well, hes right about the president haha.
Actually DP, if christians (and muslims and jews) would stop the moralizing and condemnation of those that hold other views, the world would be a much better place then christians, muslims, jews, atheists and agnostics could live together in peace.
jester, I can come up with a list as prophet has done listing what church going people did to africans (enslavement and genocide), american indians (enslavement and genocide), Vietnamese (bombing and killing), holocaust (genocide against the jews of europe), etc. But here on CP, the good church goers cant bring themselves to face fact, so I wont waste my time. Its always the other religion or atheist or agnostic thats evil.......
It's much like the situation with my friend. His wife beat him up while I was on the phone with them (she called me!) and then she called the police..."he beat me, he beat me...oh, he beat me!!!" So, they put him in jail with no investigation. She told me he never hit her.
Christians MUST be wrong. Christians MUST be the ones who victimize. Christians MUST be the bad guys. Why? If Christians are actually followers of Christ then the world is faced with the truth. It must make it's choice.
Truth is of no interest to someone who does not want it.
i was actually hoping for something a little more intellegent from scity boy. but i guess when youre trying to swallow a pill called "truth" that is that big you tend to choke a lot and its hard to get anything out. personally i would give proph more than just one point but i dont want it to go to his head. lol. that was some very good information. and theres no argument against it.
thanx for keeping score there cookies, i'm sure you are an unbiased observer.....LOL
yes prophet, I'm sure the killers were all atheist, atheist are natural born killers, be afraid, be very afraid of atheists. and agnostics too.
here is a statistic for you: about 2 million civilian Vietnamese killed in both the north and south vietnam during the US lead war there. Im told most americans are christians, hmmmm.
1948: 70 Baptists are martyred (some buried alive) by Chinese atheists.
1948: 500,000 in underground churches are martyred in Russia.
1948: 2,500 Christians die in Hungarian prisons.
1949: 1.2 million Tibetans (not all Christians though) were massacred by atheist China.
1950: 500,000 more killed by atheist Chinese.
1950: 200,000+ North Korean Christians killed by atheist government.
1950-1980: 900,000 Christians "liquidated" in Eastern Europe by atheists.
1950-1980: 5 million Christians die in prison camps in USSR.
1952: 74,000 Christians die in vicious persecution in China.
1959-1963 (only three years time): 25 million (25,000,000)Christians die in "great leap forward" in China.
1959: 15,000 Christians killed by atheist Castro in Cuba.
1962: 10,000 Baptists killed in Albania by atheists.
1966: 2.5 million Christians killed or in prison camps during "Proletarian Cultural Revolution" in atheist China.
1969: 7,000 Roman Catholic leaders killed by atheists in Czechoslovakia.
1970: 60,000 Protestants die in mass killings by KGB.
1974 20,000 Christians killed or imprisoned by communists in Laoz.
1975-1985: 65,000 Christians butchered by atheists in Vietnam.
1975-1979: 2 million slaughtered by atheist Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, including all Christians.
1977-1980: 90,000 Christians die in "Red Terror" in Ethiopia.
1979-1983: 70,000 die in Sandista Revolution in Nicaragua.
1980: 400 Christian Soldiers refuse to kill Afghanis and are executed.
1980-1993: 30,000 Christian peasants are killed by "Maoist Shining Path" guerillas in Peru.
1984: 5,000 Christians die in communist Poland.
1989: 3,000 die in Tiananmen Square massacre by atheist China.
1989: 20,000 Christians massacred by secret police in Romania.
At present time there are millions of Christians still in prison camps in China.
So scitsonga is worried about what will happen in an theocracy? Lets see what all the benefits we have to look forward to in an atheistic government. I know I've posted this in another thread, but it's worth reposting here.
1789: 5,000 clergy martyred by atheists in France
1871: 20,000 clergy martyred by atheists in Paris
1917: 1 million Russsian orthodox believers martyred by Bolsheviks in USSR
1918: 60,000 orthodox martyred by Bolsheviks in Georgia
1921-1950: 15 million Christians die in prison camps in USSR
1925-1950: 1.2 million Christians die as USSR tries to liquidate Roman Catholicism.
1927: 500,000 Iranian Christians are slaughtered by USSR...many by crucifixion.
1927: 600,000 all German origin Lutherns are killed by Stalin
1928: 95% of all orthodox parishes martyred in Ukraine.
1929-1937: 14.5 million Christian peasants are starved to death by order of Stalin.
1927-1938: 200,000 Christians exterminated in Belarus, USSR
1935: 1 million in underground churches martyred in USSR
1937-1945: 120,000 martyred in final attempt to destroy orthodox church in USSR.
1938: 30,000 Armenian orthodox and Catholics martyred by Soviet Secret Police.
1940: 150,000 shot or die in prison in Baltics.
1944: 5,000 Christians die in Albania
1945: 3.5 million Ukrainian Catholics killed by atheist Soviets.
My reading of Scripture tells me that God created all mankind from one man.
Acts 17:26-27
26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
As for whether Christians should be compared to the Taliban, only if atheists and agnostics should be considered the Taliban of the faithless. We live in a society where people are free to elect people who will do what they believe is best for this country. The immoral are attempting to pervert the culture and shove their lack of morality down the throats of those who DO have faith. Is this not what the Taliban do? If you claim conservative Christians are like the Taliban, then you must accept that atheists and agnostics are as well.
As for whether this is the place to keep an eye on those who would endanger this country, I suggest you are barking up the wrong tree. The conservative Christians that I have seen post on CP might believe strongly that God has sent His Son to die for your sins, but they love God and others too much to actually use force. This is very different from the immoral who are passing laws to make it illegal to even say that there is something wrong with certain behavior - they are attempting to make it illegal to speak truth, even for religious reasons (which goes directly against the constitution in a number of ways).
I agree with Daniel Paul. There has never been a Christian Europe. There were and are people there who believe in Christ. But there are many more who choose to do what THEY desire rather than what God desires. I have said it before: people who want to do bad things will do them and use any means available to justify their actions. This does not mean they are Christians.
sctisonga, and I say this in love to all my Christian brothers and sisters and I am as guilty of it as many other Christians are. But our God is not only big enough to defend Himself, but there are some things He has not chosen to share the answer to with His children, at least those of us who are still living on earth. And scitsonga asks us some of the questions that God has not chosen to give us the answer to and that is purely God's perogative and the bottomline is God knows exactly what He is doing. But, scitsonga, He has given us the answers to the most important questions in life. Those are why He made us and how we can enter into a personal relationship with Him through the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ and what happens when we do. But like many you appear to want all the answers before you'll even believe there is a God let alone put your faith/trust in Him. But why do you hold God to a higher standard than you do human beings, for instance if you're married your wife? I'd be willing to bet if you put her through the same 3rd degree you're putting God through she would have told you to take a long walk off a short pier or don't let the door hit you on the way out. Reality is to some degree you took a very unscientific leap of faith when you chose to marry her. And the reality is the same is true when a person chooses to not only believe in God, but to enter into a personal relationship with Him, it requires a very unscientific leap of faith. As you well know my prayer is that one day you'll be willing to take that leap.
"Actually in christian europe that did indeed occur. Torture & Death and religious wars."
Actually there was never a Christian Europe. There was a religious Europe which used Christianity as an excuse to do horrible things. Christ died to save us. He never killed to save us.
Do not confuse Christianity with the Christian religion.
scitsonga, looks like your in quite a dog fight here, but I did notice you didn't respond to my response to the gift of sex and that I didn't see it as dirty and cheap?
prof "So, I'll leave the comparing of us to the Taliban to the immature. "
The Taliban are an extremist element of Islam, the vast majority of muslims are good and decent people, just as are the majority of christains. However, there are extremist elements of christianity that have traits not too different from the Taliban and if given the power, would be bad, very bad.....
Sorry you feel the discussion immature, perhaps I touched a nerve...
proph, "I see the optimal word here is "did". "
yes, in the past, thanks to the founding fathers in the US and enlightened leaders in Europe to supplant the authority of aristocracy and established churches in social and political life with democratic principals. The reason I visit CP is to keep an eye on those radical christian elements that would like to return to theocracy , oppression and superstition that once ruled christian europe and early european america. Some of the same forces that lead to genocide against the indigenous peoples of the americas.
"You see, even in a theocracy, you still have the human element of "free will","
Question for you since you brought this up. Would heaven be a theocracy? Would there still be free will? If god requires perfection and does not tolerate sin, how would people that go to heaven be "sinless" and "perfect" and "good" as humans are so seriously flawed and "sinful" as christians like to remind us. Would there be lobotomies of sorts or turned into robot like creatures so that heaven would be "sinless" and humans well behaved. I know plenty of christians that I cant imagine being "sinless" in heaven.
And your "Your immoralizing and judgemental statements are very similar to that of past atheists who have killed and tortured countless people for their beliefs as well."
You'd hate to think what would happen to gays in a theocracy? Well, we wouldn't be able to keep them from loving each other, but all we could do was what we're trying to do now. Keep marriage as God intended it to be...between a man and a woman. We would continue to love the homosexual and pray for them (as many true Christians already do). In a real theocracy, they wouldn't be denied employment or anything like that because of their orientation. Whatever their sin would be, God will deal with them when they stand before Him.
You see, even in a theocracy, you still have the human element of "free will", as demonstrated in Israel's early history.
"Actually in christian europe that did indeed occur."
I see the optimal word here is "did".
Let me repeat my post and see if you can answer truthfully, instead of something that happened in the past.
Are we Christians threatening to kill you if you don't convert? Or are we using the correct, legal, democratic way? The same way you are promoting your views. So what's your beef? It's a democracy. It's not a monarchy and you're king. It's a democracy, and we are well within our legal, moral, and ethical bounds in our fight. So, I'll leave the comparing of us to the Taliban to the immature.
I can use tortures and such that were instituted by atheists as a club to beat you with, but that was decades and centuries ago. Let's keep this discussion on a mature, intelligent level.
prophet "Are we Christians threatening to kill you if you don't convert?'
Actually in christian europe that did indeed occur. Torture & Death and religious wars. Huge reason why americas founding fathers didnt want religion in government- theocratic state, hence the first amendment.
Your moralizing and judgemental statements are very similar to that of the Taliban. The Taliban had the power to enforce their beliefs prior to their overthrow and end to their theocratic state. It is important not to give christian extremists in the US the kind of power the taliban had in afghanistan. i hate to think what might happen to gays in a christian theocracy.
Another thing is someone did DNA tracing (it will take a while to track down) but DNA leaves a generational trail. The math behind DNA says as you go backward the DNA trail gets smaller and smaller eventually leading to a one man one woman model. (See what you learn listening to the radio?)
No matter which side of the issue you take it would be logical that even evolution started with one man and one woman at the same time. If man 'evolved by chance' but woman didn't at the same time then there would be no off-spring to foster the human race. Not only that but the man and woman would have to have evolved on the same place on the planet at the same time...by chance. You do the math.... Just how possible is that?!? It makes the chaos theory actually look very predictable....
"You an American version of the Taliban perhaps?" I don't know. Are we Christians threatening to kill you if you don't convert? Or are we using the correct, legal, democratic way? The same way you are promoting your views. So what's your beef? It's a democracy. It's not a monarchy and you're king. It's a democracy, and we are well within our legal, moral, and ethical bounds in our fight. So, I'll leave the comparing of us to the Taliban to the immature.
prophet, "So I will let you continue to think that you're no better than a pig."
Yeah, well, hmmmm, looks like you missed the point.
OK DP, Thanks for answering the question, reasonable answer......
I can't use God to explain our place in nature, because you don't believe in Him. So I will let you continue to think that you're no better than a pig.
"Is it possible in your minds that there is a chance that it is myth? Just curious thats all."
That which is possible and that which is probable are two different things. It is possible this is all your imagination. It is possible that none of this exists at all and you are actually in a loony bin with people listening to you and wondering what Christian Post is. It is possible you are only part of a dream.
It takes faith to believe most anything. You are taking someone's written word for it. Take what is taught in history class about the revolutionary war. Perhaps it's all lies and the red coats marrooned us here as a prison coloney. This is where what is probable comes in. It simply is not probable. Too much evidence exists to the contrary.
Now, with Adam and Eve.... One can argue that it is possible that it is a myth. However, if you know the author and have a relationship with Him then the believability is based on your relationship.
Simply put...I take God at His word. You don't. We both have faith in one side or the other.
proph, humans are members of the animal kingdom. humans are not vegetable, humans are not minerals.
proph "Read the Bible. It's right there in black and white. " There's plenty of stuff in "black and white" dont make it true, dont make it factual.........
prophet , "God expects us to practice self-control. Those who engage in premarital sex have none. They are slaves to their animal instincts, and are weak. "
The Taliban in Afghanistan say much theh same thing. They are very judgemental and beleive they know whats best for all and attment to impose their beliefs on others. You an American version of the Taliban perhaps?
Glad we dont have a theocray here in US. I am thankful for the 1st amendment, let's just hope we as a nation continue to minimize religion in of government.
scitsonga,
Read the Bible. It's right there in black and white. You should read my entire message, then maybe you wouldn't look like such a fool.
prophet "From what I gather, Adam and Eve were the FIRST created humans on earth, but not the ONLY created beings. So Adam and Eve's children didn't necessarily marry each other."
The beauty of religion is you can just make this stuff as you go along, dont need data, dont need evidence, dont need proof. All you need is an imagination to make a story that conforms to ones desired worldview.
scitsonga compares himself to a dog. He doesn't think he's any better than a cow.
Well, that may be so, but God created me in HIS image, and God is not a cow or a dog. God expects us to practice self-control. Those who engage in premarital sex have none. They are slaves to their animal instincts, and are weak.
Let's pray that God would help scitsonga realize that he is more than an animal.
"Were adam & eves childen married when they had sex? And was that incest?"
If you read Genesis 4, you will realize that their children went elsewhere to get married. From what I gather, Adam and Eve were the FIRST created humans on earth, but not the ONLY created beings. So Adam and Eve's children didn't necessarily marry each other.
prophet "Sex is wrong outside the covenant of marriage."
I dont think so, its a natural drive that all animals, including the human animal have.
dp and wbmoore, my impression of adam & eve is its just another another biblical myth. It appears you take it as factual. Is it possible in your minds that there is a chance that it is myth? Just curious thats all.
"Were adam & eves childen married when they had sex? And was that incest?"
If you did something today and a law was passed next week against it...would you be guilty? No. Many of the laws came about down the road.
"As they say, sex is the opera for the poor and not so poor"
What a great quote....
To being really honest I think that some of the last few posts have elevated sex and marriage to a lofty position it really does not deserve, its just one part of a succesful marriage(and of course marriages can be succesful without it also, depending on what each partner wants) and I wonder that if some of the views below are not refelctive of the sex obssesed cultutre we live in today, albeit. wrapped in religious language. Whilst intimacy with ones partner is nice, have a nice walk in the cool of the evening just talking to each other can be just as intimate in its own way...but you knew that already, and I have a confession to make I did that with other girls before I was married.
Sex, don't place it on a pedestal it dosn't deserve.
Steve
wbmoore,
I have to say, after reading your explanation of adam & eve thing, their offspring procreating and the genetic mutation thing, I am reminded why i am in the sciences and not religion......
Our society strives to remove all barriers to people doing what they want. In the process, they remove any emphasis on self-control and emphasize selfishness that leads to hedonism. To do this, society wants to remove God from their lives because being reminded of Him and His love and righteousness and coming judgement makes them feel bad. These are some of the reasons our society is slowly degrading.
scitsonga said, "nature has made the sexual drive too strong and pleasurable to abstain from."
Hogwash! That might be true for dogs, but we are more than dogs. The only way your statement could be true is if no one could abstain from the pleasure of sex. But many have abstained and do abstain. It only takes self-control; God's power helps, but there have been plenty who did not have sex outside of marriage.
God has made us to be able to follow His will. His will is that we love Him with everything we are, love our neighbor as we love ourselves, that we accept the saving efforts of His Son for our sins and that we grow to become more holy because He is holy. This does not mean to not have self-control, but to exercise self-control.
"Were adam & eves childen married when they had sex? And was that incest?"
Marriage is the commitment of a man to a woman to go through life together. This includes sex, children, and emotional and physical support. When there were no others around, it was sufficient to make the commitment to each other, without formal recognition. As societies grew, such formal recognition became necessary.
Yes, it was incest, since the word is defined as sex between closely related people. However, there was no problem with it at the time, because Adam and Eve had no flaws in their genes that would affect their children or even their grandchildren. It was not until later, after the consequences of Adam's and Eve's sin had impacted our genes via mutations, that it became an issue. At that time, the law was given to avoid incest, to protect us.
The problem becomes simple and is born out by divorce. Those who will not save themselves for marriage will not do what is needed to save their marriage as a rule. If the 'marriage gift' of sex is not valued for marriage then marriage itself is not valued.
scitsonga,
You said "you make sex sound like something dirty and wrong." Well, you're partly right. Sex is wrong outside the covenant of marriage.
scitsonga, just the opposite sex is one of the most wonderful gifts God gave us. With it we can create life and when kept in the context of a marriage of one man and one woman it allows for an intimacy that both physically and emotionally and perhaps even spiritually allows the two to become one. And when sex is reserved for marriage it becomes a gift of one's total self to their partner in marriage. But when sex is taken for granted or as a right then indeed in many cases it can become cheap and dirty.
believer "and allows young men and women to present themselves clean and pure to their future husband or wife."
you make sex sound like something dirty and wrong. I have had a strong sex drive since I was very young, I didnt ask for it, I engaged in it and I never felt guilty about it. The drive was something that nature gave me and billions of others, thats why the planet is overrun with humans.
dp "The problem is that once passion sets in BC is the last thing on their minds. It's like going down a steep hill with no brakes."
So, abstinence only teaching? Deny knowledge and wisdom about reproductive help to teens? Didn't seem to work for palins teen. I think the answer is: provide knowledge and be prepared........
wb moore "God's word is clear that sex outside of marriage is a bad thing. for that reason alone, people should not do it."
Were adam & eves childen married when they had sex? And was that incest?
believer, "but abstinence is 100% totally effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies"
true enough, but nature has made the sexual drive too strong and pleasurable to abstain from. Avoiding getting into a car accident is only 100% effective if you avoid cars. Life is risky, we all need to find the right balance. Its important to be responsible towards sex - protect yourself and your partner as well as possible to minimize risk. . As they say, sex is the opera for the poor and not so poor. The US needs to do a better job of teaching teens about sex, and providing BC to those that choose to engage in sex. Abstinence only programs, as sarah palin can attest, is not effective.
And as others have pointed out, God's word is clear that sex outside of marriage is a bad thing. for that reason alone, people should not do it.
"Which is why we taught our kids all about birth control."
The problem is that once passion sets in BC is the last thing on their minds. It's like going down a steep hill with no brakes.
"The bottom line is that when we adjust the law of God to our own preferences, we are basically becoming a law unto ourselves."
Not only that, we are creating God in OUR image.
"there is nothing wrong with people wanting to have sexual relationships with their partners outside marriage either"
People are free to do what they want, but to believe there are no negative consequences is to blind oneself to truth.
Problems with sex outside of marriage include the facts of sexually transmitted disease and single parent pregnancy, as well as the simply fact that it shows a distinct selfishness and lack of respect for the other party, as well as it often teaches unrealistic expectations of marriage and sex. These things often adversely affect marriage expectation and commitment which lead to the breakdown of trust in the family and the breakdowns of family all together, which adversely affects society as a whole.
Steve,
It might be normal for unmarried people to have sex with their "partner", but it is outside of God's law. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.-Prov. 14" The bottom line is that when we adjust the law of God to our own preferences, we are basically becoming a law unto ourselves. Why not go all the way and just admit you think you are god. That's what you do when you decide to pick and choose what is right and wrong. Forget all the consequences of sex outside of covenant marriage. The fact is it's sin against a holy God. It's rebellion. Jesus said "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
" There's nothing wrong with expecting people to control themselves and not have sex outside of marriage."
quite right too, in fact feel free to take that approach in your life(just out of interest my wife and I did not have sex with each other before we married), however there is nothing wrong with people wanting to have sexual relationships with their partners outside marriage either. My kids (well they are grown up now) have responsible sexual relationship with their partners, and they don't appear to be out of control, sometimes it can be very busy around the breakfast table.
Plus there are some STDs like genital herpes that a condom in many cases will not protect a person from getting.
"nothing is 100 %"
The only person to have ever gotten pregnant and not have had sex first was Mary, mother of Jesus of Nazareth. Other than that, not having sex is the ONLY 100% effective way to ensure a girl will not get pregnant.
Condomns do not offer 100% protection from diseases transmitted through sex. Abstinence does offer such protection.
Yes, not having sex before marriage can be challenging. But we expect people to control themelves and not steal when they want things. We expect people to control themselves and not physcially strike someone when they are angry. We expect people to control themselves and not do things that are wrong. There's nothing wrong with expecting people to control themselves and not have sex outside of marriage.
Believe it or not, many people worldwide grow up and do not have sex until they get married, and this has been the case throughout history.
Self control is a virtue, and should be taught to our children. It is not something to be disparged.
scitsonga, birth control used properly is usually 100% effective, but abstinance is 100% totally effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and allows young men and women to present themselves clean and pure to their future husband or wife.
Easier said then done, wb, easier said than done....have you forgotton what a heady mixture sex and youth can be I know I haven't? Which is why we taught our kids all about birth control.
wbmoore "Birth control is not 100% effective. She should have not had sex."
nothing is 100 %, but BC when properly used is nearly 100% effective. My girlfriend on pill, never got preg. people will have sex, its a strong natural drive, provide good BC and unlikely pregnancy will occur.
"she should have used BC"
Birth control is not 100% effective. She should have not had sex.
prophet "Tell that to the teenage girl with the unwanted pregnancy."
she should have used BC......
So SLopez, you know I am a liberal do you, I wonder how you know my political leanings, Oh I get it, I might disagree with you so I must be a liberal, of course what logic!! As for name calling, I was more shall we say commenting upon your lazyess in copying my reply....actually I quite like steveho, it sounds quite festive really, feel free
I became a Christian at the age of 14, so I can remember enduring a great deal of ridicule for not engaging in premarital sex.You were seen as some kind of weirdo if you didn't.Teenage guys were expected to be sexually active.We need to pray for our young people, because as bad as it was for me back then, the peer pressure has to be a lot worse now.
steveh20: Just like a liberal, have to start the name calling. It's funny how you liberals are, start the attacks and name calling when you have nothing else to say. I will refrain from the name calling myself and not call you steveho, I meant steveh20. Oops!
People who have no self-control over themselves always ridicule those who do. It's always been like that. I think it's because they feel it necessary to drag others down to their level, because they're too lazy to change themselves.
Russell Brand in his comments said "but a bit of sex, occasionally, never hurt anybody." Tell that to the teenage girl with the unwanted pregnancy. Of course it doesn't hurt HIM. He can't get pregnant.
I think Russell Brand plays the tune and some of you good folk dance to it far too readily. To be honest don't give him the oxygen of publicity he desires, same goes for that that silly boy band by the way.
"Think your reading far too much into it, I think she was just being gobby and got right up peoples noses... -Steveh20"
I'm not sure what gobby means, but it seems to me that Brand's comments were far more offensive than Sparks's. I think a lot of us Americans take exception to individuals like Brand coming in and telling us how stupid we are and insulting a good portion of the country that believes in pursuing godliness. The U.S. isn't exactly a pretty picture morally speaking, but God help us if we end up half as messed up as England in that regard.
Haven't the foggiest idea of what you are writing about..
"Steve20, you still haven't given me a "fresh" argument to respond to. When you do, I will lead by example."
Never set out to give a fresh arguement, felt it was rich of you to make that comment at the end of your monolog, anyway don't copy me make up with your own comebacks!! Maybe you should be sloppy not slopez
Nice hair.
I don't think a purity ring determines whether people will have sex outside of marriage or not. I do think if it helps someone not have sex outside of marriage, then more power to them. But it is will power and God's power and intelligent choices that will prevent one from having sex outside of marriage.
Now, as to what Jordan Sparks said, I think she did well. And I think she is right, not everyone wants a man or a woman who is a slut. But no, not wearing a purity ring does not make one a slut.
By definition, promiscuous females are sluts. But the term has come to be applied to men as well (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slut).
Promiscuous is defined as not restricted to one sexual partner (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promiscuous)
So, as I understand the English language, people who have sex outside of marriage are promiscuous, by definition - and therefore, sluts.
Brand who? never heard of him. Pass.
WOW, with all the great talent in America and the rest of the world why would MTV pick a "former heroin addict, sex addict, alcoholic" to host a show as a role model for our youth. Come on guys, America deserves better than that. No less a Brit who our military has defended since WWII, has the nerve to come over and insult our President, political system and faith. It's time to take his GUEST visa and kick his sorry behind back over the Atlantic. He's not welcome in my house, stop forcing rude people in our homes, Hollywood. I'm so proud of Jordin Sparks, apparently she said what most of us are too afraid to, judging by the applause.
Steve20, you still haven't given me a "fresh" argument to respond to. When you do, I will lead by example.
Think your reading far too much into it, I think she was just being gobby and got right up peoples noses...
steveh20, no I think there were some there who know their lives are not what they should be with regards to their sexual behavior and she, whether she meant to or not, hit the nail on the head and it hurt.
believer
When you say the truth hurts, do you mean that "yes" those who don't wear rings are sluts? I can't interpret what you wrote any other way..
"please use a better argument than Bush lied and the government is worse off and the war on terror was wrong and blah blah blah. "
What, so you're saying he didn't lie, or that the USA govt., and USA economy aren't in dire times? mkay i'm sorry, but A LOT of the mess this country is in directly b/c of such actions by the wannabe cowboy.
Can I add one other thing, whether they wear rings or not, boy bands are rubbish arn't they....Go on admit it, its not a sin.
:-p
Steve
With regards to Jordin Sparks' remarks that although they were not as well thought out as they could have been she is an 18 year old as compared to Russell Brand who is a 33 year old. And as far as the anger towards her remarks go, one has to wonder if for some of those who got angry it's simply a reaction to the old adage "the truth hurts".
"MTV VMA Host Draws Rebuke"
Why is anyone offended or suprised by this? Christ said this kind of thing would happen.
----------------
We are in spiritual war folks, the first thing we should do to fight is to get on our knees, then preach the gospel to the world, just as Christ commanded.
------------------
Why is Christian artists involved in these shows? It's MTV! MTV is not known for it's Christian values!
O for the days of "Video Killed the Radio Star". There was still hope for MTV back then. Now it is nothing more than a sea of pagan revelry that lashes out at everything that doesn't sink to their level of disgusting slime, the sort of which is not so easily washed off. Anathema to MTV.
You cannot expect anything else from the Godless likes of russell brand, He is a God hater, and he hates Christians.
Jesus said the World hated him, And it would hate His followers as well.
While brand may be the Liberal's poster boy for there feelings and thoughts toward our President and those who serve the Lord Jesus; would any of them want him to date there daughters?
Something to think about.
steveh20, he was 4 when she became the Prime Minister and 15 when she left office so I'm not sure how much of an impact she had on his life.
Maybe she didn't say it perfectly, quickly improvising in front of a huge live and television audience, but I think it was admirable that Jordin Sparks stood up for the Jonas Brothers and their decision to wear purity rings. Good for her! MTV is such a bad influence on America's youth - mainstreaming immoral and perverted behavior; it's a disgrace. Tila Tequila (MTV's bisexual dating show), this Russel Brand guy with his offensive jokes, etc.. too bad they won't just go back to playing music videos like the old days.
"I challenge you liberals to come off with a new and "fresh" argument."
To be honest I think you should lead by example....
Russell Brand is a walley, however I should set the record striaght that he has already been governed by a conservative woman, namely Maggie Thatcher.
Oh, and by the way, are am I to take it that if a boy or girl does not wear a ring they are sluts? Sparks by name, not bright by nature?
Steve
P.s I must agree though with Red Eye on Fox last night, what he said about that silly boy band was quite amusing.
Believe it or not, it's actually exciting that people like Russel Brand, Whoopi Goldberg, Bill Maher, George Lopez, and all the liberal left comedians, musicians and actors make these sort of comments and attacks against Bush, Palin and conservatism. This shows us two things: First, that they are deeply fearful of being governed by a conservative woman. Second, that conservativism and spirituality has struck the liberal left with a jab to the jaw that they are still trying to recover from. There are going to be attacks on both sides, but I have NEVER seen conservatives make such brutal, personal and nasty attacks like the left has. Mark my words, Mcain and Palin will win this election. People are not that stupid to follow a man (Obama) that they still don't know, and elect a man (Biden) who has lost touch with the common folk. One last thing, I know that there will be negative responses to this comment, but please, for the sake of good arguments, when you comment back, please use a better argument than Bush lied and the government is worse off and the war on terror was wrong and blah blah blah. I challenge you liberals to come off with a new and "fresh" argument.