Do you wear a cologne called attitude? You could bottle the sneer dripping from your words and sell it for a tidy sum. Though it doesn't surprise me that you're actually advocating for Satan in the story, it was a lie no matter how narrow, obtuse, and willfully ignorant your interpertation is. They did die, that makes it a lie. God told them the truth about it.

It was not their lack of knowledge that made them "inferior", it was their faith in God that made them superior. Yet, God gave them the choice didn't He? Your argument here is null and void. He enjoyed a perfect relationship with them but He gave them the choice of knowing anyway. He warned them if they did it they would die. They chose not to trust God and lusted after his power, and then they reaped the consequences, which was seperation from God. It's the same story going on on Earth, right now, in every heart that has turned away from God. What He did, and is still doing, is fair and just. He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do, and He even gives you fair warning.

What's absurd is your nasty and sarcastic attitude. It's just pure arrogance; have you ever read the bible? You're here railing against something you have no understanding of. You're condescending to me about my intellect when even a child has a more cohesive understanding here than you do. Btw, regarding the ridiculous "blasphemy challenge"

John 6;39

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

As far as whether the Earth is old or young, I don't know. It isn't clear. I've seen models where the geology of the planet could be explained by a young Earth, and ones that dispute it. I don't really care, to tell you the truth. It makes no difference to me whether the Earth is young or old. Science hasn't proved it either way, and the bible isn't exactly clear on it, so there isn't a way for me to say definitively. To me the jury is out and it doesn't look like it will be back anytime soon. What is important to me is a relationship with Jesus Christ, not how old His creation is.

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did. They chose to believe the lie instead, and lusted after Gods power. Thus they sinned and became spiritually seperated from God. The perfect cannot be joined with the imperfect.
The whole point of our lives is to love God (and eachother) and live with Him forever in paradise. That's why He created Adam and Eve in the first place. Man sinned and fell, became seperated from God, and became mortal and lost their place with God.
Your argument is that it is immoral. Well how can you judge God? No sinner could and I include myself in that. How could an immoral being judge a moral one? It's only your excuse for not doing what He told us to do. God is Holy, but you have believed the lie that He isn't. You are choosing death over life, because that is all sin is. The soul that sins is the soul that dies, but Gods gift is eternal life.
In regard to the unforgivable sin, the reason it is unforgivable is because when you become a Christian you receive Gods Spirit. His Spirit is what transforms us, makes us a new creation. If you reject His Spirit, you cannot be transformed, so therefore you cannot be forgiven.
Everyone who has taken the so-called blasphemy challenge just to please their inner demons of being completely dead to Christ are mistaken. None of them have done anything unforgivable and can all still be saved.

I was going to suggest reading Byron's "Cain: A Mystery", which develops the immorality of original sin in a much more sophisticated and poetic fashion, but seeing that you did not even get the point of the nonstampcollector video I linked (if you even watched it), Byron would be way over your head.
You say: "God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did."
Have you even read the Bible? God is the one who lies, saying "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen.2:7); the serpent, OTOH, tells the truth (Gen. 3:4-7, italics mine):
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, [...]
It is the lack of knowledge that makes the fabled first humans inferior to (and dependant upon) their father-figure creator. Religion relies on ignorance, obedience and blind faith in authority, i.e. everything that demarcates a dependent infant from an independent adult.
You use a lot of religious terms as if they actually meant something. Please define these if you want your argumentation to be the least bit intelligible:
God; sin; moral (in relation to "God"), God's spirit.

Since you did not address the incest remark while continuing to speak of Adam and Eve as if they really existed, I'll assume that you really do think we all descend from only two humans, which is totally absurd. Do you also think the Earth is only 6000 years old? Perhaps the Sun revolves around it (Eccl.1:5)? And is it a flat disc (Is.40:22)?
(Btw, most of those who took the "blasphemy challenge" grew up Christian, so no, imaginary Sky-Daddy cannot forgive them)

>> ^shinyblurry:

God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did. They chose to believe the lie instead, and lusted after Gods power. Thus they sinned and became spiritually seperated from God. The perfect cannot be joined with the imperfect.
The whole point of our lives is to love God (and eachother) and live with Him forever in paradise. That's why He created Adam and Eve in the first place. Man sinned and fell, became seperated from God, and became mortal and lost their place with God.
Your argument is that it is immoral. Well how can you judge God? No sinner could and I include myself in that. How could an immoral being judge a moral one? It's only your excuse for not doing what He told us to do. God is Holy, but you have believed the lie that He isn't. You are choosing death over life, because that is all sin is. The soul that sins is the soul that dies, but Gods gift is eternal life.
In regard to the unforgivable sin, the reason it is unforgivable is because when you become a Christian you receive Gods Spirit. His Spirit is what transforms us, makes us a new creation. If you reject His Spirit, you cannot be transformed, so therefore you cannot be forgiven.
Everyone who has taken the so-called blasphemy challenge just to please their inner demons of being completely dead to Christ are mistaken. None of them have done anything unforgivable and can all still be saved.


I was going to suggest reading Byron's "Cain: A Mystery", which develops the immorality of original sin in a much more sophisticated and poetic fashion, but seeing that you did not even get the point of the nonstampcollector video I linked (if you even watched it), Byron would be way over your head.


You say: "God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did."

Have you even read the Bible? God is the one who lies, saying "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen.2:7); the serpent, OTOH, tells the truth (Gen. 3:4-7, italics mine):

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, [...]

It is the lack of knowledge that makes the fabled first humans inferior to (and dependant upon) their father-figure creator. Religion relies on ignorance, obedience and blind faith in authority, i.e. everything that demarcates a dependent infant from an independent adult.


You use a lot of religious terms as if they actually meant something. Please define these if you want your argumentation to be the least bit intelligible:

God; sin; moral (in relation to "God"), God's spirit.

* * *

Since you did not address the incest remark while continuing to speak of Adam and Eve as if they really existed, I'll assume that you really do think we all descend from only two humans, which is totally absurd. Do you also think the Earth is only 6000 years old? Perhaps the Sun revolves around it (Eccl.1:5)? And is it a flat disc (Is.40:22)?


(Btw, most of those who took the "blasphemy challenge" grew up Christian, so no, imaginary Sky-Daddy cannot forgive them)

Well, sperm is just very, very, very young children really...
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

1. she's fully clothed and dressed down
2. it's a kids show for fucks sake

This guy is a complete nut job.

...and so is Byron Williams!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

No coconuts in Byron Bay Australia- too cold for them to form. Though they do have coconut palms. It is nice all year round though.

The Work, by Byron Katie, is based on a similar idea: if we could entertain the notion that for every conviction that we may have about someone or something, that the opposite is also true, we are a step toward healing ourselves of all the judgements that cause us pain.

^
etymology of anarchy:

1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader" (see archon). Anarchism is attested from 1642. Anarch (n.) "leader of leaderlessness," a deliciously paradoxical word, was used by Milton, Pope, Byron. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913.

Anarchism at its root is about rejecting authority. Capitalism creates its own ideas of authority with property rights, and the accumulation and control of capital.

That's why they trash businesses, and then yell "Fuck the police" when the cops show up.

Ahh Kari Byron *sigh*

I have to say I'm not terribly deeply read on the 1970's crash, but no, I don't think it was a problem with deregulation. The little I've read about it tends to blame it on the oil embargo creating a market shift that the Fed misunderstood.

The Fed eventually brought inflation in line again though, which is why I think fears of the dollar collapsing entirely seem misplaced. If we can massively expand the money supply in a short time, we can massively contract it if it seems like hyperinflation is a risk.

I also disagree with characterizing regulation as being a function of quantity. It's part of what drives me nuts about politics. I write programs for a living, and usually the qualities people want from a program are results oriented (i.e. does it do what I want, is it easy to use, etc.), and they aren't really concerned with the number of lines of code, the level of complexity behind the interface, or the size of the program install (within reason).

Politics though seems to treat regulation as if the "size" of regulation is the main thing to consider, not whether it's adding value. Conservatives in particular try to create the idea that there's some sort of trade off to be had with regulation, that regulation inevitably does some amount of damage to an industry that's proportional to its "size".

It seems to me that requiring honest accounting is a pretty hefty regulation, that requires a lot of work from both the government regulators, and the private companies who comply. It also seems like it's necessary for the market to function properly.

When Congress waived its ability to regulate CDOs even at that level, they should have known what they were doing was dangerous. Certainly Byron Dorgan told them so.

Some economics is voodoo. Most of it isn't. Setting up and enforcing accountability and transparency through regulation should be a no-brainer.

Monetary policy is harder, but we've got quite a bit of data on it, and it's perhaps the most studied aspect of macroeconomics there is.

calvados' log!

0:50 -- this seems improbable

2:00 -- maybe if I'm a mopey fat guy with a beard I too will attract Kari Byron lookalike; further study is indicated

4:00 -- what the shit? duck and cover praps

4:20 -- well things seem to have taken a turn

5:15 -- I am not sure that man is a doctor

6:35 -- that's a lot of spelling mistakes in your special thanks boy

6:45 -- two detached cornea?

Oh, they would just busk in Byron, wouldn't they? If Bernard Fanning hadn't called Ben Lee a 'precocious c*nt', I wouldn't have much good to say about Powderfinger.

I long for the days of Custard and early 'Gurge.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'byron dorgan, financial, crysis, prediction, 700 billion, bailout' to 'byron dorgan, financial, crisis, prediction, 700 billion, bailout' - edited by shuac

How about shooting a life saver out of the air?

http://www.videosift.com/video/Extreme-Marksman-The-Bow-Byron-Ferguson

-Le Petit Prince by de Saint-Exupéry, because it permanently shaped the way I look at (and interact in) any and all attachments.
-Vinnie the Pooh, because in it's simplicity it provided unique and oh-so-valuable insights on social norms and the psychology of friendship.
-The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, because it gave me the final nudge to become a true bookworm. I like to boast - at age 5 or 6, I read it cover-to-cover in about 9 hours (refused lunch and dinner until I'd finished ).
-The Catcher in the Rye - I guess the most straightforward and requires no explanation.
-A Hero of our Time by Lermontov, because it presented me with a fatalist byronic hero and gave me a clear idea of someone I was very much like and I DID NOT want to become.

and last but definitely not least:
-The Lord of the Rings to which I practically exclusively owe my English skills - I started Book 1 in 1999, I think, with the thickest available dictionary in hand, which honestly, at first had to utilize for practically every sentence but finished Book 6 (not a month later) having clearly surpassed my English teacher in vocabulary and speech fluency.

It has happened before and it will happen again (I mean this kind of Sift Talk), so I guess it was just a matter of time before I participated.

I only stated the couple of books that actually altered my life somewhat (I'm saying this because I always somehow got the impression other people made their lists based on how artsy/fancy their titles sounded, which I really hope isn't true in most cases among Sifters).
Anyway, I guess it's also worth saying that I read every one of these before the age of 15, which helps explain why and how they have influenced my life to some extent.

It's funny though - by the time I was 16 I'd also read and re-read Hesse, Huxley, Orwell, Dostoyevsky, Nabokov, García Márquez, Rand, Joyce, Vonnegut, Fitzgerald, Kerouac, Burgess, Hemingway, Rushdie and other "classics", but most some of these managed was to entertain me mildly (Vonnegut, Hesse, Huxley, Joyce - yes, I really did enjoy reading Ulysses), while I actually hated having to finish some of them (Orwell, Rand, Burgess).

P.S. Oh and I think I speak for us all when I say - Sagemind - WHAT. THE. F*CK??

>> ^Sagemind:
I have to give two lists!

FICTION:
Clive Barker - Imagica
David Farland - Runelords
Dan Millman - Way of the the Peaceful Warrior
Frank Hurbert - Dune
John Fowles - The Magus
Alexander Dumas - The Count of Monte Cristo
L Ron Hubbard - Battlefield Earth
Jack L Chalker - Lilith: A snake in the grass
Jacqueline Carey - Kushiel’s Dart
Jack Kerouac - On the Road

"My spankings are not violent."

Could you please explain what violence is, because I'm pretty certain you've got a completely different definition of violence to most people. I suspect you mean it's not violent because it's me doing it.

I used to think there was no alternative to spanking until I saw Dr Tanya Byron on the House of Tiny Tearaways here in the UK. She had more control over the kids in the house than I would have ever thought possible. These were bad kids, like the one above. She was involved with them for only a few days and you could already see the difference by the end.

She controlled bad, naughty, young kids and did it far more effectively than I've ever seen it done before and all without ever lifting a finger.

Violence against your kids isn't necessary. It's your natural reaction, but when you see what really can be done and how much more effective it is, you realise how bad and unnecessary hitting children is.

If it sounds like I'm calling you a bad parent then yes, I suppose I am. I'm not saying it's your fault, the techniques she uses would need to be learned, they aren't your natural reaction. No-one ever gets taught these things and you wouldn't know about them if you were taught them. However, just because you don't know of a better way of doing things doesn't mean there isn't one.

You don't need to hit kids. Hitting a kid as punishment for them hitting you is just as fucked up as it sounds.

There's a big difference between respect and fear.