What do they mean “ Recently, scientists in Japan were surprised to find a species of oval squid raised in captivity could change its coat, depending on whether its tank was clean or covered in algae.”…are they students, because I saw this described and demonstrated in 88 in my marine biology class in Hawaii….then we dissected it….then we cooked and ate it as a class. Interesting teacher.

Absolutely not the first time they’ve been “caught” doing this…maybe the first time with high definition cameras, in one specific laboratory condition, with that specific species, raised in captivity, but this is every day behavior for many cephalopods, including squid, and absolutely not a new discovery.

Let’s see them decipher the intense flashings, strobing, color waves, slow fades, etc that they use to communicate and hunt. That might be a first….but I doubt it. Others have studied their insane chromatophores and their amazingly mailable mantles and how they use them for decades if not longer.

This is a neat bit of biology, but to pretend they just discovered this is outrageously dishonest. Get real, people knew squid camouflaged themselves amazingly well long before that guy named Jesus was fathered by a forced pedophilic inception. Almost like saying scientists just discovered newts like it moist, or that water is wet.

Ha. Yeah, the anti-terrorism acts are quite the broad legislation. You only need be suspected by any underachieving asshole in a uniform. And I love how Greenwald and the Guardian are handing this situation. UK is looking more and more like their former imperialist selves these days. Maybe they'll colonize India again to keep it safe from terrorism again. They can save Bangladesh for the US Empire.

Speaking of England and their imperialism and all that, I met Jim Sheridan last night. He's the Irish director who made In the Name of the Father and My Left Foot. Great guy.

I always get the names mixed-up with Greek mythos characters-I thought Sysiphus was female, related to Narcissus but that's a dude named Cephissus, the father of Narcissus the river god.

Dude, this live-action low-budget Burbank back-lot bastardization is burning my retinas❗❗

@legacy0100

It's less about "being white" and more about white privilege.

George Zimmerman is a "white sounding" name. Plus his father is a former judge. Two things which definitely worked to his favor if he in fact invoked them when police arrived.

If Trayvon had been the one holding the gun when police arrived..

Best believe he'd have been sitting in cell facing 1st degree murder charges on February 27th or 28th.

so if the statement 'god is three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being' defines trinitarianism, and the statement 'god is one person' defines unitarianism... you are a trinitarian, correct?

Yep, I am a trinitarian.

next... would you agree that among the founding fathers of the united states the following beliefs were held?

1. atheist (don't believe in gods)
2. agnostic (don't know what to believe)
3. deist (believe in an all-powerful creator god)
4. unitarian (believe as defined above)
5. trinitarian (believe as defined above)

I would agree that all of these views were represented, but the vast majority of them were trinitarians.

finally... where does the word 'trinity' and/or its derivations appear in the bible and/or ancient manuscripts?

The word trinity does not appear in the bible, but the concept of the trinity certainly does. There are many concepts taught in the bible which are not specifically named, so a lack of the word "trinity" isn't proof that there is no such thing. You have to go by what the bible teaches about the nature of God, and it teaches that the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God, and that there is only one God and not three Gods. Here are a couple of verses mentioning them together:

•Matt. 28:19, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
•2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.


>> ^Diogenes:
so if the statement 'god is three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being' defines trinitarianism, and the statement 'god is one person' defines unitarianism... you are a trinitarian, correct?
next... would you agree that among the founding fathers of the united states the following beliefs were held?
1. atheist (don't believe in gods)
2. agnostic (don't know what to believe)
3. deist (believe in an all-powerful creator god)
4. unitarian (believe as defined above)
5. trinitarian (believe as defined above)
finally... where does the word 'trinity' and/or its derivations appear in the bible and/or ancient manuscripts?

Man that wrong. But it was the family camp. Was it named by his father or grand father? That would put some distance from this shame. You could also say the apple does not fall from the tree. But then again he was a Democrat and did not switch until 1989.

Christians judge peoples behavior based on its conformity to Gods laws. We are commanded by God to take a stand against sin and to expose it, where ever it may be. We are not to judge the person, for only God knows the heart, but we are commanded to tell that person about sin, and judgement, and about the salvation of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 5:11

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Matthew 28:19

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

I'll try to break down this video for you, because I think you are ascribing arrogance and judgement to Ray when he is merely following the gospel and trying to save this woman..

First he asks her what happens to someone when they die. She gives an answer about "soul recycling" which establishes that she doesn't know or believe that she will face Gods judgement.

Hebrews 9:27

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

Next he asks her if she thinks she is a good person. She states she thinks she is. God says there is no one good:

Romans 3:10

As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one

Romans 3:12

All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one

The reason there is no one good is because of sin. So to show her she is not in fact a good person Ray asks her about sins she may have committed. She admits to lying, stealing, lusting and blasphemy. Ray then informs her that she isn't a good person in light of those sins. She attempts to turn it back around on Ray but never gives an answer as to how she could be good yet guilty of those sins.

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Next, Ray asks her if she will be innocent or guilty on judgement day. She affirms innocent. Ray then reminds her of the sins she just admitted to. Again, she tries to turn it around back on Ray but never gives an answer to how she will be declared innocent even though she is admittidely guilty of many sins.

The whole point of what Ray was trying to do was..

A. Establish to her that she is a sinner
B. Let her know she was going to be judged for those sins when she died
C. Let her know the verdict would be guilty without Christ

He wasn't trying to judge her, and said that flat out, that he was incapable of judging her. He also admitted that he was a sinner like her and was not perfect, that Christ was his only way out. I think people are getting offended by Ray when he suggests that this woman isn't a good person, because its the most popular lie that people like to believe. The truth is, no one is good, and everyone is a hypocrite who has never lived up to their own standard let alone the standard they judge other people by. People are not generally good, they are generally sinful. Everything Ray did here was by the book so I can't support your criticism here. I don't know what else Ray has done really..I haven't followed him too closely, but I don't see anything wrong with this.

>> ^enoch:
@shinyblurry.
judgement and discernment are not the same thing in the context you are trying to convey.
and you posted a most excellent verse to make your claim.please reread that verse...nothing about judging but EVERYTHING about patience and careful instruction.
to preach the word you have to understand the word.
ray comfort is clueless as a child when it comes to the word and he should be ashamed of his ignorance.
ambushing this young lady and then hiding behind scripture to defend his vitriol.
it is cowardly and vicious.
and one of the myriad reasons i find ray comfort to be a stellar douchebag of a human being.
at least YOU ask the questions shiny.
you seek to know and i have all the faith that you shall,but i plead with you to not give ray comfort any authority.he is a charlatan who dresses himself up as the faithful.
and yes..i AM judging him.

>> ^fford:
and the only people I've ever heard use it to describe ghosts are very old or dead (in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spook).


I would think that most people have heard it in common use in this context on cartoons such as Scooby Doo where it's used in most episodes. I suppose those cartoons are mostly quite old, though.

I haven't heard of the racist use of this word in the UK, but as said above, it appears to mainly be a US thing. Once again, I learn from The Sift.

Yes, "spook" has different meanings depending on the context. The only context I've ever heard it used to describe an intelligence operative is by conspiracy theory nutjobs (X-Files, anyone?), and the only people I've ever heard use it to describe ghosts are very old or dead (in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spook). As a racial epithet, I always associated it with old white southerners, and quantumushroom's grammar strongly suggests that context.

What any of this has to do with the video is beyond me. I just wish I didn't have to get 25 star points to downvote the damn thing.

Biblicism at its finest. The narrator failed to mention that the Trinitarian doctrine took a few hundred years to coalesce (something he was very eager to point out) because the Bible in its current form took a few hundreds years to be put together. During the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries there were still just different collections of the Synoptics, Pauline epistles, and various other letters. No one could really come together and meet to decide what was canonical and what wasn't until Constantine legalized Christianity and they could come out into the open.

As for the trinity in Scripture how about the Great Commission "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" or the words of Paul "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

>> ^spoco2:
so... after a quick read around, it would seem that Pentecostals are a subset of other Christian faiths in that they are pretty heavy on the whole being born again thing through babtism. (hence the bathing in Jesus's blood line I guess)
Again it's a whole spinoff thing based on reading of a COUPLE OF LINES of text written by some guy a long time ago... I will never fathom why people follow these things so blindly, so with utter conviction that what it says is true.
Baffling... still, upvote because it made me go and look up Pentecostals


Actually, baptism isn't the most identifying part of any Pentecostal doctrine. Many Christian groups are very focused on baptism (like Baptists!). Pentecostals are mainly distinguished by their focus on the day of Pentecost, when God gave the Holy Spirit to believers.

It should be noted that the group performing this song is even a subset of Pentecostals, and hardly representative of Pentecostalism as a whole, let alone Christianity. Most Pentecostal churches follow Christian belief on the revealed persons of God, and His triune nature, however this group is "oneness", a modern revival of modalism. Since they reject the Nicene Creed (among other statements of faith) and trinitarian doctrine most Christian denominations do not recognize so called "Apostolic" Pentecostal churches as being part of the Christian faith.

They're also pretty obsessed with J-E-S-U-S being the name of God, that must be spoken (with the modern English mangled pronunciation) during baptism to be saved. The don't believe the traditional Christian model of "In the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit" can save because it doesn't have the right magic word in it.

>> ^rougy:
It is, for some perverse reason, the goal of almost every Christian that I know of to convince an atheist to believe in God.


I wouldn't say perverse. Evangelism is a tenet of Christian faith as indicated in the Gospel according to Matthew: "Jesus drew near and said to them, 'I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age.'" (Matthew 28:18-20)

So all Christians are expected to spread the Word and bring more people into the Church. I was raised in a pretty liberal parish, but I've been to services in more conservative areas where they take an almost militaristic tone in converting others. I remember hearing a priest in a particular conservative parish say during a homily once that "25% of the United States is made up of Christians, so if everyone could just go out and convert three people..." and I forget the rest of the sentence because I was so disgusted.

I'm Christian (Roman Catholic, specifically), but I don't go out shoving my religion in others' faces. This is because (a) it's ineffective, (b) it assumes other beliefs are misguided or sinful, which I feel is wrong, and (c) I have an incomplete understanding of the Universe. So instead I use my time to question my faith and understand the world around me and only inject my own religious beliefs when the conversation turns to those ends, like it did here. I'm not exactly sure how that story was relevant, except to say that not all Christians are crazy, and that evangelism is a natural part of Christian dogma.

Besides, I wouldn't say that atheists never force their beliefs on others either. I use as my examples the two prominent atheists Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher, who both scoff at atheism and seem to take every opportunity to make their case for how ridiculous religious belief is. Dawkins wrote "The God Delusion" which is pretty self explanatory, and that's without even mentioning his own evangelism (lecture circuit). Maher pans religion every chance he gets on his show, and there's that movie he recently made on the subject. I don't find anything wrong with these things, as it's natural to want to turn others on to your point of view, but it's not fair to say Christians are rather pushy over this and atheists aren't. It's just that there seem to be a lot more Christians and certain sects tend towards intolerance.

Quite the book I wrote up there -- Congrats on reaching the end of my rambling.

Don't want to watch the trailer. Don't want to know what it is about. Going to the Arclight on Saturday to watch an early matinée, and I want to be wowed without influence. The only reason I haven't seen it yet is because the LA film audiences suck major bung-bung. They talk, they text message, they are just general ass-sucks of theater protocol and I refuse to be subjected to a packed theater of ass clowns. That said, this movie is well anticipated by me. Why?

A) All of my friends have said nothing but great things about it, and there's no better advertisement than word of mouth. B) Not that PT Anderson has ever made a bad movie, because he hasn't, but this is supposed to be the best one he's made since Boogie Nights. And, C) it has my all time favorite actor, Danial Day Lewis, for crying out loud! He's been consistently good in everything. Did you see In the Name of the Father? Genius! He was even perfect in Ballad of Jack and Rose, which wasn't a great movie, but a worthwhile piece to see just for DDL alone.

In the Name of the Father is still one of the best movies ever made. DDL is the best actor of our times, in my opinion. Okay, enough serious shit... back to fart jokes... PRRRFFT!

"A fundamental tenant of Christianity is evangelism: There is a scripted dogmatic call for Christians to go out and spread the Gospel."

bhyphenlow:

You're playing word games here. Fundamental, tenet (not tenant), scripted, and dogmatic all carry negative connotations. I could say the same thing and paint Christians in a different light: "Christians have the opportunity to share the good news with their friends and neighbors." Jesus never called Christians to cram a message down anyone's throat, but they are instructed to share their belief with those close to them.

I'm not sure if you are being serious, but I'll bite. If you've read the Bible, that is precisely what Jesus commands.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" Matthew 28: 19-20

That is about as clear cut as you can get. It's a fundamental tenant of the religion that you are supposed to go around the world converting and baptizing people in the name of Jesus. There's no proscribed limit to it being people "close to them" so I'm not sure where you are getting your facts.

bhyphenlow:

When was the last time you heard of an indigenous species (or did you mean people) being enslaved and murdered by representatives of any religion (or non-religion)?

Again, you've got be joking. Here's a short list.

We'll start with the Ancient Pagans.