Sorry I didn't respond. I got a few replys and missed yours.

My first question is what is your PHD in.

My comment on that is, I dropped out of college. I didn't see a use for it. College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.

IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit. The rest are because Mommy or Daddy is famous. George Bush Jr didn't diserve to go to Yale. He got in because of who his dad was.

I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book and we had to buy it new. He would also sign the inside cover so people couldn't use the same book twice. If we didn't it would effect 5% of our grade. He was a greedy little shit.

Which is why Tenure is corrupting our Education system. I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers. I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.

Florida got rid of tenure, and you can search and read the benefits it has had on the children.

If you use College as a Vocational (Trade) school it still works. But I have alot of friends who have degrees in Communication and Physical Education who are having a hard time finding jobs and don't understand why. And I feel bad for them.

Art History majors. We are simply graduating 100x the amount of art history majors then there are jobs in art history.

I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.
>> ^MycroftHomlz:

^When replying to comments like this, I think it is useful to put my answer in context with my own experience.
My wife and I both recently finished our PhDs. We went to top ten institutions. As a graduate student, I received numerous awards, over 20 peer-reviewed publications, and outstanding letters of reference. I am telling you this to establish that I am a competitive candidate.
After graduation I had a temporary position, while working there I searched for a job. I applied to several jobs and fellowships, etc. Although I consistently made it to the final cut, I did not get an offer right away. Long story short, it took me a year to find a job.
My wife has been searching for a job for over a year. She applied to jobs at Safeway, Whole Foods, etc. to make ends meet. However, once they find out she has an advanced degree they toss out her application. Most industry positions require 2+ years industry experience. Hence, she can't get labor jobs because she is too educated, and she can't get industry jobs because she does not have industry experience.
Do you see the problem? And, I am sure we are not the only people who are struggling. In summary, I think reductive and simplistic rants like yours are naive at best and willfully ignorant at worst.

^When replying to comments like this, I think it is useful to put my answer in context with my own experience.

My wife and I both recently finished our PhDs. We went to top ten institutions. As a graduate student, I received numerous awards, over 20 peer-reviewed publications, and outstanding letters of reference. I am telling you this to establish that I am a competitive candidate.

After graduation I had a temporary position, while working there I searched for a job. I applied to several jobs and fellowships, etc. Although I consistently made it to the final cut, I did not get an offer right away. Long story short, it took me a year to find a job.

My wife has been searching for a job for over a year. She applied to jobs at Safeway, Whole Foods, etc. to make ends meet. However, once they find out she has an advanced degree they toss out her application. Most industry positions require 2+ years industry experience. Hence, she can't get labor jobs because she is too educated, and she can't get industry jobs because she does not have industry experience.

Do you see the problem? And, I am sure we are not the only people who are struggling. In summary, I think reductive and simplistic rants like yours are naive at best and willfully ignorant at worst.

'Verily I say unto you, the popstar shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. For teenage pop is an abomination unto the Lord, yay, as is the wearing of mixed fabrics.'

And they brought before Jesus a man named Biebarus, who was a Gentile, and a seducer of virgins. And many a young woman followed after, and there was weeping and throbbing of hearts.

'Behold, this man keepeth his hair as maidens do, and singeth in womanly tones. Pray cast out the demons that possess him, lest he become as the sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah.'

But Jesus, tiring of the multitudes, withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place, to enjoy the fellowship of his disciples.

Matthew 19:23-27



>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
boy. you're goin' to hell cause Jesus thinks that shit is gross.

I agree. Teenage-popmusic sucks.

1. Adam and Eve had a limited knowledge of good and evil by what God had informed them about..they knew enough to know it was wrong to disobey God.

2. God isn't merely good, like He is living up to some sort of standard. He is goodness itself. So when I call God good, I am not judging His character, I am describing it. I call God good because that is what He is, inherently. I am, like you, incapable of judging God, but I can describe Him. It's not a value judgement, it's really the definition of what good is and where it comes from.

>> ^acidSpine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sorry acidspine, I missed your question here.
1: When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in a state of innocence. The creation at that point was declared by God to be good. So Adam and Eve enjoyed a fellowship with God without any contamination of evil. However, God had to offer them a choice. If He didn't, they would have no more than puppets. He desired a loving relationship with them, but it would not be love if they had no choice. God wanted them to choose love and trust Him. The only way to give them a choice would be to command something that was not allowed.
So He gave them one rule, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them, saying that God was a liar and that the knowledge of good and evil would be a good thing, and that they would even be equal to God. The knowledge was this; to know the difference between good and evil. Before they gained this knowledge, they relied on God to tell them the difference. They enjoyed a state of innocence because of this. God wished them to be free of evil and to teach them step by step. They decided to betray God, however, and believe the devil..and when they ate of the fruit, the knowledge of evil brought to them fear and shame. Their innocent relationship with God was ruined. Their corruption meant they could no longer enjoy direct fellowship with God, so He cast them out of the garden. They also lost their immortality and began to die. Their sin brought death into the world. Obviously, it wasn't a good thing.
2: Well, first, all human beings are hypocrites. God is perfect and Holy. Ultimate justice could only be decided by a perfect being..all else would be hypocripsy and injustice. So our judgement will always be imperfect and unjust. If God broke His own laws, yes we could point the finger at Him. If He broke even one, it would mean He was imperfect and unqualified to judge us. We however are stained by our sins. It isn't rare to have broken almost every commandment even at a young age. If a murderer pointed the finger at you because he didnt like your behavior, would you take him seriously? God said if we even hate anyone we have committed murder in our hearts. So, pointing the finger at God when we ourselves are stained by sin is fairly ridiculous. We are born into this world with nothing, and life is a gift, but somehow we feel entitled to say God owes us something, as if God is our debtor. With sin on our minds, and corruption in our hearts, we say to God..what right have you to judge us! Well, He has every right..He is sovereign over His creation.
Isaiah 29:15-16
Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"
You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?
>> ^acidSpine:
Hey shiny, I know you like evangelasing so I have two simple questions for you that shouldn't take much time to answer. Here goes
1. What was the knowledge Adam and Eve supposedly gained by eating the forbidden fruit?
2. As human beings are we capable of judging god's moral character?
As a sweetener, if you answer both questions succinctly I will upvote this vid re-sifting it as it were (unless the recent downvote didn't remove a star point in which case I have nothing to offer)


Thats ok
I'll be breif. Your answer to the first question was that in the bible Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil after eating the fruit. But if they had no knowledge of good and evil how would they know doing the wrong thing was bad?
I'm not really sure that you answered the second question but I will just say if I'm not allowed to judge god as (non-existant) evil then you aren't allowed to judge him as good.
Thanks for the reply

>> ^shinyblurry:

Sorry acidspine, I missed your question here.
1: When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in a state of innocence. The creation at that point was declared by God to be good. So Adam and Eve enjoyed a fellowship with God without any contamination of evil. However, God had to offer them a choice. If He didn't, they would have no more than puppets. He desired a loving relationship with them, but it would not be love if they had no choice. God wanted them to choose love and trust Him. The only way to give them a choice would be to command something that was not allowed.
So He gave them one rule, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them, saying that God was a liar and that the knowledge of good and evil would be a good thing, and that they would even be equal to God. The knowledge was this; to know the difference between good and evil. Before they gained this knowledge, they relied on God to tell them the difference. They enjoyed a state of innocence because of this. God wished them to be free of evil and to teach them step by step. They decided to betray God, however, and believe the devil..and when they ate of the fruit, the knowledge of evil brought to them fear and shame. Their innocent relationship with God was ruined. Their corruption meant they could no longer enjoy direct fellowship with God, so He cast them out of the garden. They also lost their immortality and began to die. Their sin brought death into the world. Obviously, it wasn't a good thing.
2: Well, first, all human beings are hypocrites. God is perfect and Holy. Ultimate justice could only be decided by a perfect being..all else would be hypocripsy and injustice. So our judgement will always be imperfect and unjust. If God broke His own laws, yes we could point the finger at Him. If He broke even one, it would mean He was imperfect and unqualified to judge us. We however are stained by our sins. It isn't rare to have broken almost every commandment even at a young age. If a murderer pointed the finger at you because he didnt like your behavior, would you take him seriously? God said if we even hate anyone we have committed murder in our hearts. So, pointing the finger at God when we ourselves are stained by sin is fairly ridiculous. We are born into this world with nothing, and life is a gift, but somehow we feel entitled to say God owes us something, as if God is our debtor. With sin on our minds, and corruption in our hearts, we say to God..what right have you to judge us! Well, He has every right..He is sovereign over His creation.
Isaiah 29:15-16
Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"
You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?
>> ^acidSpine:
Hey shiny, I know you like evangelasing so I have two simple questions for you that shouldn't take much time to answer. Here goes
1. What was the knowledge Adam and Eve supposedly gained by eating the forbidden fruit?
2. As human beings are we capable of judging god's moral character?
As a sweetener, if you answer both questions succinctly I will upvote this vid re-sifting it as it were (unless the recent downvote didn't remove a star point in which case I have nothing to offer)



Thats ok

I'll be breif. Your answer to the first question was that in the bible Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil after eating the fruit. But if they had no knowledge of good and evil how would they know doing the wrong thing was bad?
I'm not really sure that you answered the second question but I will just say if I'm not allowed to judge god as (non-existant) evil then you aren't allowed to judge him as good.

Thanks for the reply

Sorry acidspine, I missed your question here.

1: When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in a state of innocence. The creation at that point was declared by God to be good. So Adam and Eve enjoyed a fellowship with God without any contamination of evil. However, God had to offer them a choice. If He didn't, they would have no more than puppets. He desired a loving relationship with them, but it would not be love if they had no choice. God wanted them to choose love and trust Him. The only way to give them a choice would be to command something that was not allowed.

So He gave them one rule, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them, saying that God was a liar and that the knowledge of good and evil would be a good thing, and that they would even be equal to God. The knowledge was this; to know the difference between good and evil. Before they gained this knowledge, they relied on God to tell them the difference. They enjoyed a state of innocence because of this. God wished them to be free of evil and to teach them step by step. They decided to betray God, however, and believe the devil..and when they ate of the fruit, the knowledge of evil brought to them fear and shame. Their innocent relationship with God was ruined. Their corruption meant they could no longer enjoy direct fellowship with God, so He cast them out of the garden. They also lost their immortality and began to die. Their sin brought death into the world. Obviously, it wasn't a good thing.

2: Well, first, all human beings are hypocrites. God is perfect and Holy. Ultimate justice could only be decided by a perfect being..all else would be hypocripsy and injustice. So our judgement will always be imperfect and unjust. If God broke His own laws, yes we could point the finger at Him. If He broke even one, it would mean He was imperfect and unqualified to judge us. We however are stained by our sins. It isn't rare to have broken almost every commandment even at a young age. If a murderer pointed the finger at you because he didnt like your behavior, would you take him seriously? God said if we even hate anyone we have committed murder in our hearts. So, pointing the finger at God when we ourselves are stained by sin is fairly ridiculous. We are born into this world with nothing, and life is a gift, but somehow we feel entitled to say God owes us something, as if God is our debtor. With sin on our minds, and corruption in our hearts, we say to God..what right have you to judge us! Well, He has every right..He is sovereign over His creation.

Isaiah 29:15-16

Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"

You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?

>> ^acidSpine:
Hey shiny, I know you like evangelasing so I have two simple questions for you that shouldn't take much time to answer. Here goes
1. What was the knowledge Adam and Eve supposedly gained by eating the forbidden fruit?
2. As human beings are we capable of judging god's moral character?
As a sweetener, if you answer both questions succinctly I will upvote this vid re-sifting it as it were (unless the recent downvote didn't remove a star point in which case I have nothing to offer)

They pulled their "Fellowship"

http://videosift.com/video/Our-God-Is-A-Macho-God

You probably have no idea but the scientific method was created by Christians who believed that matter behaved rationally because God created an orderly universe. The same goes for the idea of natural law. Some of the very greatest scientists who ever lived were Christians, and not lapsed Christians either, but pursued science as part of their Christian world view, with their love for Gods amazing creation.

Christianity has never been opposed to science, and neither am I. When I grew up I wanted to be an astronomer, and I had the math skills, I would probably be one today. I think the study of the Universe is extremely fascinating and wonderful. I just don't happen to agree with all the conclusions of modern science. Specifically the age of the Universe and its theories about origins.

As far as my church is concerned, there is no pressure to tithe. People give because they want to, not because anyone pressured them to do it. My church uses the money it gets to build wells for people who don't have access to clean water. The only time I ever hear money mentioned is when we're trying to raise some for a charitable cause. There are definitely some churches which are run around the tithe, but you won't find the Spirit of God there. We get together because we love God, and we study the bible and sing hymms. It's a fellowship. I'm not sure where you get your ideas from, but your salvation doesn't come from going to church. The church is a place where Christians gather together to worship God..going to church doesn't make you Christian, and pastors don't decide if you go to Heaven. A pastor is the same as anyone else in that regard.

In short you present a false dichotomy that doesn't exist in my world. I am an avid user of technology, and the beneficial use of science, but I oppose the conclusions of the secular worldview that is driving some aspects of it. If you don't think there is an agenda please watch the documentry "Expelled".

As far as my beliefs, I am not selling anything. I don't want your money. I am quite plainly just trying to save your life, because I honestly care about you as a human being. I cannot remain silent about the gospel in any case, because it is the good news and I am commanded by God to preach it.

>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
So, um, what were these lies that have been told to you all your life? That the earth is round and over 4 billion years old? That the sun is the center of the solar system? That there is undeniable evidence that suggests that man evolved from primates?
Now that you have found god and are visiting the church regularly (and likely investing a good amount of your accumulated agnostic secular materialistic wealth into the collection plate) you believe that those people are telling you the truth? Instead of providing evidence that supports their claims you are told to believe based upon faith? The church is asking you for your time, your money, your obedience, all in exchange for some supposed heavenly glory that you will never be certain that you will receive.
Tell me, what has the scientific community ever asked of you in return for the knowledge that they are offering?
Look around you, every modern convenience that you currently enjoy was made possible by science and engineering. Science drives our species forward, religion fights to hold us back while struggling to stay relevant.
Believe what you want, just keep it to your self. I don't need what you are selling.
>> ^shinyblurry:
My Dad is an atheist and my mom an agnostistic/near-theist..I was raised with no religion. Was an agnostic secular materialist by default. I received revelation of Gods existence a few years back. Although I am sad I was lied to all my life and believed the lies, I marvel at the fake world we live in, and am amazed more people don't see right through it..but then remember I used to be one of those people. Although I was never so arrogant as to rule out Gods existence, I have empathy for people who can't see it.

40% income tax on my wife and I right now would financially cripple us. We would not be able to afford housing or food. Right now, we have only about $100 a day to spend on consumables, and we are fiscally responsible adults. And we have 2 PhDs. I just got a fellowship for a postdoc at the best university in the country and it will barely cover the rent. And she is still looking for work there.

Indeed, it is likely that 10 years from now our combined income will place us in the highest tax bracket. It is also probably that I will recognize that there are people like me, who are just starting out, have a fantastic education, are looking for work, and struggling to make ends meet.

The arrogance of a flat tax speaks volumes about the ignorance and naivety of those of who propose such a ridiculously preposterous idea.

>> ^gwiz665:

Flat tax. 40 % income tax for everyone. End just one of the wars you're all fighting, and you'll be out of the economic crisis in 5 years.

I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime". Also with the ridiculous comparisons between scientology and Christianity. It was so egregious that I couldn't help but feel I should just go to youtube and find a Hitchens video and comment there as my reply.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

It's not the church that is making someone feel guilty, it's their own God given conscience that does so. People don't come to believe in Christ because they were guilted into doing so; that in itself is a ridiculous premise. People come to Christ in part because of personal conviction from their own conscience; they already knew they were guilty. They realize that it is not just other people they have offended but God Himself, and without a mediator they have no hope of standing on their own merits.

Yes, I know what you're implying, since you already shared your history with me. It's true many previous believers strike out in anger because they feel wronged for being indoctrinated. In your case, it's probably justifiable. However, it goes much farther than that. This kind of person tends to get disillusioned and emboldened, and goes to the other extreme, feeling cocky and self assured because they now perceive themselves as being elevated and enlightened over anyone who believes.

2 Peter 2:20-22

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

These sorts of people usually become worse sinners than anyone else because they feel above Gods laws. They treasure this new found "freedom" and don't want to give it up in their self righteouness. What they perceive as freedom from the law is really mental and emotional derangement from sin. So in the same manner they still hate Gods authority because they prefer their sins.

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

What's completely stupid here is your chain of reasoning. Christianity is centered on Christ; whether or not He existed is central. Most of what Christ said centered around His claim to be God, and judge of the entire world. If He didn't exist it isn't true. This is just babble at this point, dude.

Regardless of how people may have abused Christianity in the past does not speak to its truth. If anything it confirms it, as the bible warns countless times of false teachers and prophets who will try to distort the message and use it for gain. The early church flourished under heavy persecution, and Christians were murdered continually for the truth they shared. Do you think the church was so successful in controlling people that they could make them sing praises to Jesus while they were being burned alive? Give me a break.

What you're talking about is the catholic church, and they aren't Christians. They are basically a pagan religion that worships Mary and the Pope. There is a conspiracy in that so called church, a will to power. Among Christians, however, we exist in fellowship. You were part of a church once and you still apparently want to stay that way, so I think you understand about fellowship.

OH, AND I FORGOT. THEY DO NOT PASS AROUND A COLLECTION PLATE BEFORE, AFTER, OR DURING SERVICE. They have a small box for those at the back of the room that they mention once after the session. They actually cater to poorer people. And, they build most of their churches and projects themselves. You won't find a mega church in their ranks--although all their craftsmanship is top of the line.


>> ^hpqp:
I think the Buddhism you like is the philosophy. As for the Jehovah's witnesses, ugh. From what I've gleaned off the interwebs (in only a few minutes, so I could be wrong), they seem to wait for you to grow old and senile, then suck you dry (If I were you I'd keep an eye on my mother). Moreover, people who work their whole lives for the "brotherhood" apparantly get no social security, often work voluntarily for no wages, and are left hanging when they get old.
About their publishing market: http://www.freeminds.org/organization/business/how-the-watchtower-was-financed-pre-1990.html
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
But I will upvote this on one condition hp. Religion is far different than organized religion and "other" religions. Buddhisim (My pref) is nowhere near a money pit. I doubt Hinduism is either. Amish? Jehovah's Witnesses? (My mother's prefs and damn close to a loving fellowship. They are pretty meek believe it or not.)
Change the title a bit to reflect that and I will hit that blue arrow faster than you can say "Rich on pastor."
Ps.
I don't believe anyone should have tax deductions...not since money can be "funneled" around.

Jehovah's Witnesses are rather nice. Growing up, when I was dragged along by my mother to 100 different sects, all but one repulsed me. And that was the Witnesses.

The problem for them is that they have no allies whatsoever. They preach true love (Even to their enemies) and staying away from government because it is all corrupt (They even prohibit voting.) So other Christians hate them and make fun of them (And spread lies on the internet about them.)

They don't do holidays or other "fun" stuff. So most common people disdain them.

They are very serious about their religion. Which means non-believers disdain them as cultish.

More things they do/don't believe.

They do believe that the woman is a guidance for her husband and that the husband is head of the house. He should respect, lead, treasure and provide for his wife. They do believe in loving everyone. They take back members as many times as that member shows effort to live a wholesome life. But they won't tolerate drugs, violence, etc... They do believe homosexuality is a sin (Which is about the only thing they are truly ignorant on.)

They don't believe God will burn you in hellfire, or that you are too far to save. They don't promote backstabbing, loose morals or lies (How uncool is that?) They don't yell and speak in tongues, jump around or poke dolls.

In many ways they are a very good religions group hpqp, from those I met. They saved my mother's life when she should have been dead years ago from suffering. They gave her hope. And the fact that they are mocked actually makes me mad. It seems the truer you are to "Christ" the less respected you become. Ironic.

And yes, they are mostly elderly folk. However, a large number are youthful, powerful builds that are carpenters, artisians, etc. And their younger women are very attractive too.

>> ^hpqp:
I think the Buddhism you like is the philosophy. As for the Jehovah's witnesses, ugh. From what I've gleaned off the interwebs (in only a few minutes, so I could be wrong), they seem to wait for you to grow old and senile, then suck you dry (If I were you I'd keep an eye on my mother). Moreover, people who work their whole lives for the "brotherhood" apparantly get no social security, often work voluntarily for no wages, and are left hanging when they get old.
About their publishing market: http://www.freeminds.org/organization/business/how-the-watchtower-was-financed-pre-1990.html
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
But I will upvote this on one condition hp. Religion is far different than organized religion and "other" religions. Buddhisim (My pref) is nowhere near a money pit. I doubt Hinduism is either. Amish? Jehovah's Witnesses? (My mother's prefs and damn close to a loving fellowship. They are pretty meek believe it or not.)
Change the title a bit to reflect that and I will hit that blue arrow faster than you can say "Rich on pastor."
Ps.
I don't believe anyone should have tax deductions...not since money can be "funneled" around.

I think the Buddhism you like is the philosophy. As for the Jehovah's witnesses, ugh. From what I've gleaned off the interwebs (in only a few minutes, so I could be wrong), they seem to wait for you to grow old and senile, then suck you dry (If I were you I'd keep an eye on my mother). Moreover, people who work their whole lives for the "brotherhood" apparantly get no social security, often work voluntarily for no wages, and are left hanging when they get old.

About their publishing market: http://www.freeminds.org/organization/business/how-the-watchtower-was-financed-pre-1990.html

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

But I will upvote this on one condition hp. Religion is far different than organized religion and "other" religions. Buddhisim (My pref) is nowhere near a money pit. I doubt Hinduism is either. Amish? Jehovah's Witnesses? (My mother's prefs and damn close to a loving fellowship. They are pretty meek believe it or not.)
Change the title a bit to reflect that and I will hit that blue arrow faster than you can say "Rich on pastor."
Ps.
I don't believe anyone should have tax deductions...not since money can be "funneled" around.

But I will upvote this on one condition hp. Religion is far different than organized religion and "other" religions. Buddhisim (My pref) is nowhere near a money pit. I doubt Hinduism is either. Amish? Jehovah's Witnesses? (My mother's prefs and damn close to a loving fellowship. They are pretty meek believe it or not.)

Change the title a bit to reflect that and I will hit that blue arrow faster than you can say "Rich on pastor."

Ps.
I don't believe anyone should have tax deductions...not since money can be "funneled" around.

Also, it's important to check out the Youtube comments and the video uploader's description. If you did that, you'd know his non-dying performances outweigh his dying performances. Someone did all that work and now you don't need to: http://www.compleatseanbean.com/deathbycow.html

HE DIES IN:
Airborne - bye bye Toombs
Caravaggio - Rannuccio gets his throat slashed
Clarissa - Lovelace is skewered by Sean Pertwee
Don't Say a Word - Patrick Koster is buried alive
Equilibrium - Death by Poetry - Partridge is blasted away by Christian Bale while reading Yeats
Essex Boys - Jason Locke meets a nasty end in a Range Rover
Far North - Loki is frozen. Naked. In the snow. A chilling end if there ever was one.
The Field - the infamous Death by Cow - Tadgh falls over a cliff, pursued by a herd of stampeding cows
GoldenEye - Alec Trevelyan falls a long way down and is crushed by a satellite dish thing
Henry VIII - Robert Aske meets a gruesome end
The Island - Death by Clone. Merrick is shot in the throat by a nasty grabber thingy with a sharp
hook and a cable that gets wrapped around his neck, and while he's struggling with Lincoln
Six-Echo, the catwalk they're on collapses, and Merrick ends up dangling by the neck. Currently
the most creative dispatch of Sean's career. Definitely well hung.
The Lord of the Rings (The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King) - Death
by Orc. Boromir. Arrows. Need I say more?
Lorna Doone - Carver Doone drowns
Outlaw - Dead Dead Dead. Was there ever any question? Dead.
Patriot Games - Sean Miller is beaten up, boathooked and finally blown up by Harrison Ford
Scarlett - Lord Fenton is dispatched
Tell Me That You Love Me - Gabriel Lewis is stabbed by Laura. Or he stabs himself. We're not
quite sure about this one, actually.
The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion - Death by summoning a god's avatar. Martin Septim (the son of the Emperor, aka The Lost Heir) meets his X-Box end when he attempts to save the world.
The Hitcher - Surely you jest. You need to ask? (There were two different versions filmed. He dies
in both of them.)
War Requiem - The German Soldier dies, but returns in the afterlife


HE LIVES IN:
(Leo Tolstoy's) Anna Karenina
A Woman's Guide to Adultery
The Big Empty
The Bill
Black Beauty
Bravo Two Zero
Exploits at West Poley
Extremely Dangerous
Faceless
The Fifteen Streets
Flightplan
Fool's Gold
How to Get Ahead in Advertising
In the Border Country
Inspector Morse: Absolute Conviction
Jacob
Lady Chatterley
The Loser
My Kingdom for a Horse
National Treasure (But only because of a rewrite. In an early version
of the the script Ian Howe got eaten by alligators in the subways of
New York. Really. Honest. I wouldn't lie to you. I wouldn't.)
North Country
Percy Jackson (Zeus is more or less an immortal so death seems a bit
redundant, really...)
The Practice
Pride
Prince
Punters
Ronin
Samson & Delilah
Sharpe (14 films)
Sharpe's Challenge
Shopping
Silent Hill
Small Zones
Stormy Monday
Tom & Thomas
Troubles
The Canterbury Tales - The Nun's Priest's Tale
The Dark
The True Bride
The Vicar of Dibley
Troy
Wedded
When Saturday Comes
Windprints
Winter Flight

Major Theatrical Performances:
Macbeth ... Yes. He dies. And gets his head impaled on a spike.
Romeo & Juliet... What do you think?
Fair Maid of the West ... Spencer doesn't die!