I heard "giardiniera" (garden salad), not "marinara". So did whatever cryptic agent that generates the captions.

Nice to hear such botanical enthusiasm.

I loved that show, it was so weird.

Fun fact about Bob Einstein: His brother is Albert Einstein, but you probably know that brother under another (stage-)name.
(keeping it cryptic)

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.

The reason for the Heaven and Earth part is to reaffirm what He said in the previous verse, which is that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. He is saying the law cannot be destroyed. The reason He was strongly reaffirming that is because that is exactly what the Pharisees accused Him of doing.

As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

lol

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

The law is not everything, but the context of that statement is that He is fulfilling the law. The "all" then is all that which is written for Him to fulfill. An example that ties in would be in Luke 4:21

Also, a main piece you are skipping over is where Jesus said He didn't come to destroy the law but fulfill it. That tells you the meaning of what He is talking about. He is definitely saying that the law can be fulfilled, and it can be fulfilled by Him. This is the meaning of the text, that He had come to fulfill it and would (and did) fulfill it.

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

He didn't oppose Gods law, He brought something into the situation that had never been there before, which is grace. Since He is the Lord, He can do that. That is exactly what He came to earth to do, which is to bring forgiveness and salvation by faith through grace.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?

I would venture to guess that the majority of the citizens of Israel had never killed anyone except perhaps if they were in the army. You make it sound like they were a bunch of barbarians running around and bashing peoples heads in. The reality is, everyone knew the law and knew the penalty of certain things was death. It probably would have been relatively rare that people were caught violating laws that led to the death penalty. Jesus followed the law perfectly but it doesn't mean He killed anyone. The only example we have in scripture of that situation is when He showed grace.

".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

It would have been right for Him to stone someone who broke the law but the person would be judged by the priests before that could happen. I just doubt that it ever did happen and nothing is mentioned about it in scripture.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Jesus is not a myth, first of all. Even Richard Dawkins believes He was a real person. I enjoyed Aesops fables; my grandfather gave me a book of them as a child (I wish I could find it now). I haven't looked them over in awhile so I can't say what I do or don't agree with. The question is, how are they objectively good? By that I don't mean, something that appeals to you personally. What I mean is, what makes them transcendent above mere human opinion?

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.
As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?
".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Your video, Top 10 Cryptic Gaming Moments - AVGN Clip Collection, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 76 Badge!

@dannym3141

It just felt like a bait and switch. They feed you in with in fact very plausible concepts of time dilation and black holes as we best know it, then hit you with a deux ex machinima so implausible that it makes my brain hurt.

I mean, we're meant to believe that future humans, in order to effect their continued existence create an eloborate, highly risky and convoluted system like this 'tesseract library' thing, with the completely unfounded apparent knowledge that Mcconaughey's character will both willingly jump into it and somehow know how to use it to communicate with his daughter, who will pick up on highly cryptic and unlikely signals, and know how to interpret them?

And then Mcconaughey's character also gets saved. Obviously. Why not just convey the information in a far more direct way? And by the way, I will say that the argument that there is a paradox (future humans save themselves in the past) that the video makes is not strictly true given Hathaway's team survives and it's plausible that while Earth perishes, their team eventually redevelops human society.

To me the way that the story suddenly becomes ridiculous at the end when the first half is so rooted in real actual science makes it pretty clear what happened. Some producer decided to overule the script writers and insert in an ending that is happy, sees the characters reunited lest they offend the crucial female demographic.

cryptic message indeed

NASA. -SA.
Details. -ails.

Sorry - my sense of humor is sometimes way too cryptic.

...and in case my answer to this was too cryptic, the reason why I think he shouldn't do this is it makes Samuel the racist to instantly assume an (perceived) identity/filmography mistake about a black man by a white man is automatically due to racism.
Racism hurts minorities the most, so they have even MORE reason to not be racist themselves, and to not see it where it doesn't exist.

Funny, i come from a background where young earth was a fact taught to me. By the time i was 10, the overwhelming evidence pointed towards at least hundreds of thousands of years and by the time i was 15, the whole thing was over for me. The church i was in, changed it's views (maybe the only thing they've admitted..) but that was after i was long gone. So i know young earth theories pretty well and they are all bullshit.

Let me ask you this, if creation is such big part of the bible, why does that story only last two pages? It's very vague and cryptic, the subtle changes between two different languages in those very first words allow all kinds of theories in them and i'm not talking about translations that are changing text deliberately, i'm talking about "honest to god" verbatim translations. Believing that Earth is old is not blasphemy. Believing that earth is young and then cherry picking the rest of the book as you wish.. That is the real blasphemy. If your Young Earth believer, you are also believing that owning of slaves is good etc all that stuff that you don't believe in. You can't say that one part is absolute truth taken literally and the next is not.

I don't think it has much to do with money, the studios could certainly afford to make great art for each of their movies. It comes down to what sells, cryptic artwork doesn't really tell you what's in a movie. You need to think of a poster as a 3 second commercial for your movie.

Cool AND cryptic! Thanks my man

Awww bully? poor @renatojj Unable to make good arguments so in an act of desperation plays the victimhood card. Boo hoo hoo...the gun lobby has a stranglehold on our gov't but we're being victimized and oppressed!! If only there was some way for you to...opt out which would end all of this. Freedom is a bitch isn't it?

Nothing cryptic about the relationship between freedom and responsibility. I'm the one who introduced the concept in this argument after all. That's not my complaint dummy. Responsibility is not the same as freedom. You're claiming (once again without anything to back it up) that freedom and responsibility are the same and that if you lower one, you lower the other. I'd ask you to back it up again, but you won't.

If you steal a gun, sure not having a permit doesn't stop you from using it, but you're in danger of losing those precious freedoms you seem to hold so dear. Again, you're changing the argument.

You like to use these loaded terms like freedom. How are you measuring freedom? Is it an objective measurement? Are there SI units for freedom? does a upstanding citizen have say..23 KWas (kilo-Washingtons) but maybe a convicted meth dealer only has 420 mWas? (milli-Washingtons) You seem to be the arbiter of what is freedom and what isn't so please, share with us your math!

Coercion??!! Again, you're using this loaded language to emotionally manipulate us. I think George Carlin called it "Spooky Language!" Which laws are coercion and which ones aren't? How can you tell? When I obey traffic laws, am I being coerced? When I decide to not kill someone with a gun because the law says it's bad, is that coercion too??? Your two examples you give are really bad. There is no difference between the two except for loaded language. One example has positive language, the other one negative. If only there was some objective measure other than your truthiness.

To your last point, but I already answered this in my previous post, by that logic, we shouldn't have ANY laws and thus we would become SUPER-Responsible!! It's a nice theory and all, but the reality is that life would degenerate into mob rule. How many other people have to pay for your "mistakes" before you learn your lesson? How much suffering and anguish does it take to "learn your lesson?" Sorry. I think you're not a student of history otherwise you'd know that this has already been tried in the past...the distant past. It doesn't work...that's why we have laws in the first place. The jury is in on this one. People generally like it that we have laws and an enforcement arm that attempts to stop the infringement of peoples' rights *before* it happens so that people don't have to "learn their lesson" at the expense of someone else's suffering.

You're a selfish sociopathic dick if you think otherwise.

It's all fun and games until someone infringes on *your* rights then suddenly, your stance changes. Or are you volunteering yourself to have a criminal come in and kill you and your loved ones. But hey, its ok. Freedom will teach the criminal a lesson...so it's all cool!!

Either you didn't already know this or you're just living up to your avatar pic. I'm starting to think it's the latter.

@VoodooV Wow, why are you being such a bully? You're not actually stopping to think.

The question you say I'm avoiding is the one I'm trying my best to explain on every post, yet you're constantly avoiding it yourself (as if there's something inextricably cryptic about the relationship between freedom and responsibility), all the while accusing me of being a coward. Like saying it repeatedly will make me or anyone else believe it.

Are you also placing on me the burden of thinking for the both of us?

If you want to own a gun, you buy, steal or make your own gun, there, you have a gun. The gun won't stop working if you don't have a permit! Is that math too hard to understand, is being overly antagonistic and close-minded your "debate strategy"?

The voting process, on the other hand, seems to be something that requires registration (again, I'm not an expert on voting, so forgive me if I'm wrong), otherwise we end up just shouting to ourselves, "I vote for X"!

I don't think rules inevitably destroys our freedoms, let's make a more refined distinction:

- If a rule is meant to stop people from infringing on each other's freedoms, if it's a rule that makes people less likely to coerce each other, it's a good rule because we end up with less coercion happening (even counting the coercion necessary to enforce the rule), we end up with a more civilized society. There are not many of those kinds of rules around.

- If it's a rule that imposes some regulation because we don't trust that people will be responsible enough to do what's best for them regarding something unrelated to coercion, we not only restrict their freedom by coercion (in this case, coercion by the government), it doesn't make coercion less likely, so it's likely a bad rule.

If I impose stricter gun control, as a government, I'm coercing people to comply with more rules, that means a little more coercion ends up happening in society, from government towards the people. Not counting that kind of coercion (necessary to enforce any rule), stricter gun control doesn't seem to make people directly less likely to coerce each other, does it?

My question was, "won't people be less inclined to be responsible if they have less freedom?". Like I said, if I make decisions for someone, I can make them act responsibly, but that doesn't make them more responsible, because I'm still the one making their decisions.

Freedom is a good teacher. If I let someone make mistakes and pay for them, they'll most likely avoid them all by themselves, eventually. If I make decisions for them though, they end up with less freedom, and, therefore, tend to act less responsibly, wouldn't you agree?

Lembeh straights are awesome. Every piece of scuzz you see floating by turns out to be some sort of cryptic animal.

The cardinal fish at 1:50 are invasive : (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wztxYxd7sYY