@shinyblurry

If you ask why God gave us the concept of right and wrong, could it be that He knew which behaviors were good for us and which were bad? If you ask why God gave us consequences, could it be that God wanted to discourage us from bad behavior?

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

He gave them an honest choice and it was their choice that created sin. What God allowed is the condition to exist where sin was possible.

He created us and our conditions such that 100% of us (or 100% minus two, I suppose) would break those rules. It’s in our nature to break God’s rules. God made both our nature and his rules. God’s fault.

Why did God allow us to sin? Because if He didn't, we would be nothing more than robots.

What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

He must punish all sin...God cannot compromise His integrity to forgive us…

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

[me:]Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

[you:]God sent His Son over on His behalf, remember? Fellowship with God is a privilege, and to the extent that we abuse it, that is the extent to which He will remove Himself from it.

You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Why why why why why why? First, read some of the things I've said and connect the dots.

Because because because because because because your dots don’t connect. When I ask about a connection between two dots, you cite another totally new dot from scripture. When I ask about how to connect that dot, you assert another one with a rhetorical question. When I ask about that dot, you get frustrated and tell me to go study theology. Except within the same comment before you’ve had a chance to answer, I don’t believe I’m asking you the same question again and again. I’m asking you to justify the new information you’re giving me. If it’s frustrating for you, imagine how hard it is for me to accept it.

[me:]And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

[you:]They lost their innocence when they disobeyed God and ate of the fruit. Their nature fundamentally changed as a consequence. Also, death came into the world. The human experience went from paradise to paradise lost, and humans had to fend for themselves. The corruption was a confluence of all of these different factors.

You missed the question. What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

Wow! All that, and a mind reader too? You're awesome!

It takes a particularly high level of arrogance to tell someone you've never met, and haven't spent any significant amount of time interacting with, what they're actually thinking and how it's different from what they say they're thinking.

But sure...you're right, and everyone who disagrees with you is on the dark side. Whatever...>> ^swedishfriend:

Thinking in such absolutes has never led to anything good. It is a matter of degrees. The serial killer kills because that extreme of a thing is what it takes to feel anything. Without emotions you become passive. I am right about what I wrote. With some introspection on your end you will realize it too. Denying the dark side of yourself will force it to be expressed, which the tone of your comment clearly shows.
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^swedishfriend:
Yeah that is it exactly. He was telling himself and others that they really aren't bad guys because the workers want to be there. This shows that he does have empathy and does care. If he didn't care he wouldn't need to comfort himself like that. He is just really good at burying his empathetic feelings and making excuses to himself so that he will feel less bad about it. I am sure we can all relate to some degree. Everyone uses these tactics. We simply cannot help all the people in pain that we come across in our everyday lives. He has done it for so long, so much and regarding such serious situations that even desperately unfair conditions like these aren't enough to make him act properly. Not a good choice for a leader of anything.
>> ^enon:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I don't think there is any way to judge this comment unless we find out what Romney did with the factory after he bought it. I don't think he was bragging, and from what I've heard and read, his description of the fierce competition for jobs in China is accurate.

First off, you're previous comment, minus all the godly stuff, was quite beautiful and is how I strive to live my life - minus the godly stuff
In regards to Romney's comment -- from my vantage point it sounds more like he was expressing surprised relief that the slave labor factor he had just purchased was actually staffed by willing slave laborers rather than forced slave laborers and this somehow alleviates what ever remote feeling of guilt he might have had. It gave the appearance that either way he was going to work these poor women to the bone, it just made it easier on him now that he knew they were semi willing participants. Obviously this is all conjecture but I'm hard pressed to hear and sympathy or remorse in his voice, it was much more akin to "Did you know these mother fuckers actually WANT to work like this? So in reality we're doing good and turning a profit!" His voice has far more interest in that fact than disgust which is kinda the tipping point for me.
I try to remind myself that this can potentially happen to anyone. He was raised and has lived far away from what would be considered a working mans life and it is hard to feel empathy for someone if you are not able to relate to them or have never been taught it. I think it's pretty evident from his lifestyle that this holds true for him. He's not a bad person because he's evil, but because he's incredibly ignorant.


Seriously? You think his attempts to paint himself in a better light shows he has empathy?
No. It shows he realizes just how fucking sociopathic his behavior is, and he's trying to sell a "nicer, warmer" image of himself to his audience. He flat out does not care...he'd be just as willing to bleed those women dry, and profit from their blood. Because he's better than they are...they're just peons, and don't count for a thing, just like all of us. We're not him, so we don't count.

Thinking in such absolutes has never led to anything good. It is a matter of degrees. The serial killer kills because that extreme of a thing is what it takes to feel anything. Without emotions you become passive. I am right about what I wrote. With some introspection on your end you will realize it too. Denying the dark side of yourself will force it to be expressed, which the tone of your comment clearly shows.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^swedishfriend:
Yeah that is it exactly. He was telling himself and others that they really aren't bad guys because the workers want to be there. This shows that he does have empathy and does care. If he didn't care he wouldn't need to comfort himself like that. He is just really good at burying his empathetic feelings and making excuses to himself so that he will feel less bad about it. I am sure we can all relate to some degree. Everyone uses these tactics. We simply cannot help all the people in pain that we come across in our everyday lives. He has done it for so long, so much and regarding such serious situations that even desperately unfair conditions like these aren't enough to make him act properly. Not a good choice for a leader of anything.
>> ^enon:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I don't think there is any way to judge this comment unless we find out what Romney did with the factory after he bought it. I don't think he was bragging, and from what I've heard and read, his description of the fierce competition for jobs in China is accurate.

First off, you're previous comment, minus all the godly stuff, was quite beautiful and is how I strive to live my life - minus the godly stuff
In regards to Romney's comment -- from my vantage point it sounds more like he was expressing surprised relief that the slave labor factor he had just purchased was actually staffed by willing slave laborers rather than forced slave laborers and this somehow alleviates what ever remote feeling of guilt he might have had. It gave the appearance that either way he was going to work these poor women to the bone, it just made it easier on him now that he knew they were semi willing participants. Obviously this is all conjecture but I'm hard pressed to hear and sympathy or remorse in his voice, it was much more akin to "Did you know these mother fuckers actually WANT to work like this? So in reality we're doing good and turning a profit!" His voice has far more interest in that fact than disgust which is kinda the tipping point for me.
I try to remind myself that this can potentially happen to anyone. He was raised and has lived far away from what would be considered a working mans life and it is hard to feel empathy for someone if you are not able to relate to them or have never been taught it. I think it's pretty evident from his lifestyle that this holds true for him. He's not a bad person because he's evil, but because he's incredibly ignorant.


Seriously? You think his attempts to paint himself in a better light shows he has empathy?
No. It shows he realizes just how fucking sociopathic his behavior is, and he's trying to sell a "nicer, warmer" image of himself to his audience. He flat out does not care...he'd be just as willing to bleed those women dry, and profit from their blood. Because he's better than they are...they're just peons, and don't count for a thing, just like all of us. We're not him, so we don't count.

>> ^swedishfriend:

Yeah that is it exactly. He was telling himself and others that they really aren't bad guys because the workers want to be there. This shows that he does have empathy and does care. If he didn't care he wouldn't need to comfort himself like that. He is just really good at burying his empathetic feelings and making excuses to himself so that he will feel less bad about it. I am sure we can all relate to some degree. Everyone uses these tactics. We simply cannot help all the people in pain that we come across in our everyday lives. He has done it for so long, so much and regarding such serious situations that even desperately unfair conditions like these aren't enough to make him act properly. Not a good choice for a leader of anything.
>> ^enon:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I don't think there is any way to judge this comment unless we find out what Romney did with the factory after he bought it. I don't think he was bragging, and from what I've heard and read, his description of the fierce competition for jobs in China is accurate.

First off, you're previous comment, minus all the godly stuff, was quite beautiful and is how I strive to live my life - minus the godly stuff
In regards to Romney's comment -- from my vantage point it sounds more like he was expressing surprised relief that the slave labor factor he had just purchased was actually staffed by willing slave laborers rather than forced slave laborers and this somehow alleviates what ever remote feeling of guilt he might have had. It gave the appearance that either way he was going to work these poor women to the bone, it just made it easier on him now that he knew they were semi willing participants. Obviously this is all conjecture but I'm hard pressed to hear and sympathy or remorse in his voice, it was much more akin to "Did you know these mother fuckers actually WANT to work like this? So in reality we're doing good and turning a profit!" His voice has far more interest in that fact than disgust which is kinda the tipping point for me.
I try to remind myself that this can potentially happen to anyone. He was raised and has lived far away from what would be considered a working mans life and it is hard to feel empathy for someone if you are not able to relate to them or have never been taught it. I think it's pretty evident from his lifestyle that this holds true for him. He's not a bad person because he's evil, but because he's incredibly ignorant.



Seriously? You think his attempts to paint himself in a better light shows he has empathy?

No. It shows he realizes just how fucking sociopathic his behavior is, and he's trying to sell a "nicer, warmer" image of himself to his audience. He flat out does not care...he'd be just as willing to bleed those women dry, and profit from their blood. Because he's better than they are...they're just peons, and don't count for a thing, just like all of us. We're not him, so we don't count.

Yeah that is it exactly. He was telling himself and others that they really aren't bad guys because the workers want to be there. This shows that he does have empathy and does care. If he didn't care he wouldn't need to comfort himself like that. He is just really good at burying his empathetic feelings and making excuses to himself so that he will feel less bad about it. I am sure we can all relate to some degree. Everyone uses these tactics. We simply cannot help all the people in pain that we come across in our everyday lives. He has done it for so long, so much and regarding such serious situations that even desperately unfair conditions like these aren't enough to make him act properly. Not a good choice for a leader of anything.

>> ^enon:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I don't think there is any way to judge this comment unless we find out what Romney did with the factory after he bought it. I don't think he was bragging, and from what I've heard and read, his description of the fierce competition for jobs in China is accurate.

First off, you're previous comment, minus all the godly stuff, was quite beautiful and is how I strive to live my life - minus the godly stuff
In regards to Romney's comment -- from my vantage point it sounds more like he was expressing surprised relief that the slave labor factor he had just purchased was actually staffed by willing slave laborers rather than forced slave laborers and this somehow alleviates what ever remote feeling of guilt he might have had. It gave the appearance that either way he was going to work these poor women to the bone, it just made it easier on him now that he knew they were semi willing participants. Obviously this is all conjecture but I'm hard pressed to hear and sympathy or remorse in his voice, it was much more akin to "Did you know these mother fuckers actually WANT to work like this? So in reality we're doing good and turning a profit!" His voice has far more interest in that fact than disgust which is kinda the tipping point for me.
I try to remind myself that this can potentially happen to anyone. He was raised and has lived far away from what would be considered a working mans life and it is hard to feel empathy for someone if you are not able to relate to them or have never been taught it. I think it's pretty evident from his lifestyle that this holds true for him. He's not a bad person because he's evil, but because he's incredibly ignorant.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I don't think there is any way to judge this comment unless we find out what Romney did with the factory after he bought it. I don't think he was bragging, and from what I've heard and read, his description of the fierce competition for jobs in China is accurate.


First off, you're previous comment, minus all the godly stuff, was quite beautiful and is how I strive to live my life - minus the godly stuff

In regards to Romney's comment -- from my vantage point it sounds more like he was expressing surprised relief that the slave labor factor he had just purchased was actually staffed by willing slave laborers rather than forced slave laborers and this somehow alleviates what ever remote feeling of guilt he might have had. It gave the appearance that either way he was going to work these poor women to the bone, it just made it easier on him now that he knew they were semi willing participants. Obviously this is all conjecture but I'm hard pressed to hear and sympathy or remorse in his voice, it was much more akin to "Did you know these mother fuckers actually WANT to work like this? So in reality we're doing good and turning a profit!" His voice has far more interest in that fact than disgust which is kinda the tipping point for me.

I try to remind myself that this can potentially happen to anyone. He was raised and has lived far away from what would be considered a working mans life and it is hard to feel empathy for someone if you are not able to relate to them or have never been taught it. I think it's pretty evident from his lifestyle that this holds true for him. He's not a bad person because he's evil, but because he's incredibly ignorant.

The charge of sexual impropriety reeks of an intelligence attempt at character assassination. I fear and despise the government here but the apathy is what scares me even more....Can;t stand to live around the masses who sould give a fiddler's fuck about anything but their entertainment-minus-information robot-think.

Assange fucked-up because he's fighting a machine whose governor has been removed from the flywheel...that machine embedded in the side of a granite mountain and thought information flowing freely would somehow wake a few peeps up to the gravity of its size, scope, players, etc. He's one dude, man. He should have figured that his life would be a pain in the ass after the first trickle fell from his tap. Now, he will remain most likely, vilified and estranged from participation in the game. Not a smart move...BOLD, but not to wise.

Then there's the matter of leaking information without the need-to-know to any and all-comers: Pretty shitty of you Julian, even though your intentions were seemingly noble. To departmentalize without permission well, back to the not-too-bright scenario....Dude?? Did you think that a bunch of "Talking loud and saying nothingers" having your back in internet forums could defeat or sway the masses who devour scat from the Monster Media?? Poor choice of battle plans mister, read Art o' War n try to get the gyst!!

Hey, did you notice that the article that you linked has nothing to do with Voter ID? Fuckit, reading is hard, right?

Aw look, here's an anecdotal case that embodies how Voter ID disenfranchises people: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/17/1121432/-I-was-denied-free-voter-ID-today-Pennsylvania.
>> ^Mashiki:
No pretty sure I'm not. Pretty sure I remember the last 10 years pretty well, especially the previous election minus Obama pretty good too.
Hey did you catch this, looks like those voter ID laws might just be a good idea after all.
http://ohio.mediatrackers.org/201
2/08/17/voters-first-canvasser-arrested-for-submitting-fraudulent-petitions/

>> ^KnivesOut:

No, no, no, you were thinking of Rush Limbaugh saying he was going to move to Costa Rica because the Affordable Care Act was found to be constitutional.>> ^Mashiki:
Really? I seem to remember dozens of forum posts from liberals whining over the renewal of the patriot act. And I remember even more whining about if Bush won again. Of course nothing actually came of it. But to point out the obvious here, the liberal left does whine like small kids over things like this, especially when it benefits society as a whole, and voter ID laws do benefit everyone.


No pretty sure I'm not. Pretty sure I remember the last 10 years pretty well, especially the previous election minus Obama pretty good too.

Hey did you catch this, looks like those voter ID laws might just be a good idea after all.
http://ohio.mediatrackers.org/2012/08/17/voters-first-canvasser-arrested-for-submitting-fraudulent-petitions/

My parents had a cat, when I was growing up, that was deathly afraid of a blue shammie-like material. We called it devil material because she would freak out if it was brought close to her. It didn't smell strange to me...and AFAIK it was new when we bought it so it shouldn't have smelled like another animal that wasn't in the house. And she was afraid of it for months and years through many washings. And was afraid of materials like it, especially if they were blue. Was a weird....no one had any guesses as to why she was like that and we had her for all of her life minus a few weeks in the beginning when she was born to a half-tamed stray some neighbors of my grandma had. She lived to be almost 18 years old and never dropped these weird quirks, I just assumed they were because she was part siamese...they are known for being amped up and weird.

I'm a collector as well - right now I still have 5-600 (may be an over-exaggeration) star wars figs still in package and tons more out of package. Everyone who knows me always asks about value, what are they worth? I can't even put a price on them because I don't care - I like'em and I'm not selling. I collect because I like the stuff. Not so I can walk around and say, "my stuff is worth a lot, that's why I collect it".

I have comics & trading cards. I have the full complete set of the Dark Crystal trading cards - I don't care what they are worth - I like em! Star Wars, Marvel, Boris, Olivia, fantasy, baseball trading cards 1000s of them...


On that same note, stuff I have sold.
My full complete collections of Star Trek figures (plus DS9 figs) - gone
My full collection of X-men/X-force figures - gone
My full and complete set of Bat Man- animated series figs - gone
Full and complete set of vintage star wars figures (half still in packages)
My full and complete set of Tod McFarland Spawn/Wet Works/YoungBlood action figures (plus rare and limited release figs)
Robocop
TMNT
Robotec
Black Hole
Battlestar Galactica
Buck Rogers (from the TV series)
D&D lead figures
so much more...

I regret ever having to sell the stuff - there was a time with my first child when I had to choose between toys or formula & diapers. I made the right choice but I wish I had found a different way to come up with the cash. Especially now that I have two kids who would have loved to have that stuff.

I've replaced some of the vintage star wars stuff and I have tone of the new star wars figs from the past 15 years. I also have an almost complete set of Aliens vs. predator figs (minus the loader - I sold that off as well)

>> ^gwiz665:

Teaching can be proactive. You don't have to wait until your child sees something to teach them about it.
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^gwiz665:
Teach, don't enforce.
That's a generally good idea when training offspring.

It's a pleasant line to spout. But in reality just giving free rein on the internet to a child and saying 'come and ask me about things you see' is a great way to have a fucked up kid.



Yes, but you also don't give a child free reign on the internet. There's shit there, even when you don't go looking for it, which is just not going to do anything but harm them.

'Teach, don't enforce' works when people are older, have developed critical thinking (which should be taught WAY more than it is in schools btw), can process things properly. Kids under 10 (fairly arbitrary number really, plonk in whatever young age) just DO NOT have the ability to process things properly.

Definitely start teaching them about things before they start encountering them, so that when they do they are forearmed, and definitely don't try the iron 'YOU WILL NOT DRINK/do drugs/have sex/beat up goats' line. Definitely go the route of teaching them openly about the plus and minus points of things and let them make up their own mind.

But they have to be older to do that. There are a number of people on the sift who obviously have had little to do with children and think that libertarian ideals hold no matter what age you are. It doesn't work like that.

Music and arts are probably more important than math or history when it comes to developing critical and creative thinking skills. Healthy sex is as important as eating and sleeping and are all very important to memory function, logic, problem-solving, etc. You seem to think sex is so different from other human activities but it isn't. Categorizing things into social and non-social doesn't apply here since a major function of schools is to teach kids social skills so that they can be productive members of society.

99% of success in life depends on social skills. Right now the best and the brightest are not accomplishing anything because they are too shy or messed up by their history to use their abilities to the fullest.

Oh and condoms are a tool used in forging the mind. Sex is one of the most powerful forces that drives our beings so of course tools and knowledge regarding this major part of our lives is important.

Your version of schooling has never been and hopefully never will be. Please check out some of the research that is out there. There has been much talk the last few years about the serious problems caused by removing music and art programs from schools for example.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sex isn't something that is happening in school

Translation: I NEVER HAD SEX IN SCHOOL! ...or since

Blah, way to be a jerk and not stay on topic.
I shall be a little more clear with what I am saying as I think my message got lost in peoples spin on doing the hibbidy dibidy all the live long day.
Books, teachers, science labs, paper, pens, are part of the education process provided by the state. Having sex in the middle of the class is not. While sex education is a must, having sex in school is not on the curiculum as far as the state should be involved in. IE, condoms are not a pen, a book or any other tool used in forging the mind.
Like some have pointed out (tackfully unlike the nice person above), sex is part of the natural social evolution of a person. Right, but that isn't the focus of the classroom. Schools are for classes and expanding your mind, that is what the state is supposed to be providing. I have problem no problem with my taxes going to books and pens and things that are developing the young minds of tomorrow. But I have a problem with my tax dollars sponcering another childs sex life and/or other social, non-education things (recreational sex is not educational sex . I would be just as against schools providing some sort of free music program on the government dime on the logic that music is needed for a well devolped social mind.
I also don't preach ignorance or being unprepaired, I am just against paying for it on the government ticket. Schools shouldn't be in the business of providing anything but education. If someone can show me how a condom is an education device, besides maybe just learning how to put one on, then I will be convinced, otherwise, it is the school system trying to be more than it is roled to be. This isn't a night club, this is a school. Sex may happen on campus, that is not what I was saying at all, what I am saying is that is the subject of social interaction and not the domain of the school to provide materials for out of our tax budget. Once again, if someone can show how a condom is like a pen (hahaha don't go there), then I'll be more adpt to listen, but so far it seems like "ehh why not" kinda arguments? Perhaps I misunderstood yall as much as yall did me
And if they are just giving them away, then it should be avalible for all citizens everywhere, not just kids...and I would be against funding my fellow americans sex needs in the same way I am against this
Thanks everyone for your respectful comments...minus one

edit: And did no one else think that the video was totally biased? The lady arguing for the side of schools not providing for that thing had some very unconvincing speaking methodology

The bigger the mushroom cloud, the more awesome the show! During the build up of the show, I couldn't help but think of the Aliens warning voice "You now have T minus 10 minutes to reach minimum safe distance."

>> ^vaire2ube:

id worry far more about domestic violence here in WA.. we're all too busy driving to our jobs, trying to enjoy the non-rainy days, and get our medical mj.
tons of guns, not too many people, not too many random shootings. seattle is still that small city you can be safe in.


I wish I could agree with you about the small city vibe ... I've lived here my whole life [minus one year on Kauai] ... I even worked at bars in Pioneer Square back in the 70's ... I won't set foot there after dark in this day and age [and it's NOT because I'm an old fart now either by gum].

So far, just in the past month or two, there has been an overabundance of random, senseless shootings that have impacted many innocent lives. They haven't been confined exclusively to the areas where one might expect such occurrences either. As with many places in this world, few things are getting better and, in Seattle, I feel things becoming palpably worse in regard to public safety.

I do agree with you about domestic violence being a serious issue as well however.

Thanks for chiming in =o)