I didn't laugh or celebrate when Katrina hit New Orleans the year after the US invaded Iraq. I won't celebrate a dam bursting in far east Russia the year after they invade Ukraine.

I don't think the people of Ussuriysk deserved wildfires any more than the people of California.

It's not karma. If you want you can call it bad luck, or mankind suffering due to our own effect on the planet.

Plus, I would have thought an AI wrote that script except I think it would have done a better job. Am I missing context when it comes to 'the flood'? Badly written, badly voiced, but not quite enough for me to downvote.

I have a complaint to register here, gentlemen, about a CERTAIN LACK of recognition for the single greatest accomplishment of mankind since the invention of language; the very reason carbon self-assembled; the reason a tiny speck of nothing exploded into a universe simply waiting for that golden moment on March 4 2016 when the fruition of all that is good and hopeful in the human -- nay, UNIVERSAL -- race was unveiled! How soon they forget! How soon do they receive their salvation than they turn their backs on it, forgetting the hypernova of joy and laughter that burst upon the world on that Day of Days! Such woe to thee, oh Babylon, for turning your back on the 1 hour and 48 minutes that banished all doubt of man's reason for existence! DAMNATION ON TO YOU WHO HAVE FORGOTTEN THE GREATNESS YOU SHOULD FALL TO YOUR KNEES AND BLIND YOURSELF LEST TO SEEK TO BEHOLD SOMETHING GREATER! ALL HELL AND TORMENT! ALL EVIL AND VILENESS FOR THOSE HORRID, HORRID SOULS WHO HAVE LEFT THIS SO-CALLED "VIDEO" INCOMPLETE! DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!

Look, I just like Zootopia a lot, alright?

DON'T JUDGE ME, YOU BASTARDS!

Neil Armstrong's Last Words On The Moon-

When Apollo Mission Astronaut Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous “One small step for man; one giant leap for mankind” statement, but followed it by several remarks, including the usual COM traffic between him, the other astronauts, and Mission Control. Before he re-entered the lander, he made the enigmatic remark “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky.”Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut. However, upon checking, [they found] there was no Gorsky in either the Russian or American space programs.

Over the years, many people have questioned him as to what the “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky” statement meant. On July 5, in Tampa Bay, FL, while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26- year-old question to Armstrong. He finally responded. It seems that Mr. Gorsky had died and so Armstrong felt he could answer the question. When he was a kid, Neil was playing baseball with his brother in the backyard. His brother hit a fly ball which landed in front of his neighbors’ bedroom window. The neighbors were Mr. and Mrs. Gorsky. As he leaned down to pick up the ball, he heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky, “Oral sex? Oral sex you want? You’ll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!”

230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Highlights:


Called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)





>Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)


>Asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)


>Objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)
>Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)


>Demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218)


>An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16)


>Wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53)

>Condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.
http://humanevents.com/2005

Neil Armstrong's last words on the moon. "Good luck Mr. Gorsky"


It seems when Apollo Mission Astronaut, Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous "One Small Step for Man, One Giant Leap for Mankind" statement, but followed it by several remarks - usual com traffic between him, the other astronauts and Mission Control.

Before he reentered the lander, he made the enigmatic remark, "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky." Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut, however, upon checking, there was no Gorsky in either the Russian nor American space programs.

Over the years many people have questioned him as to what the "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky" statement meant. A few months ago, (July 5th, 1995, Tampa Bay FL) while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26 year old question to Armstrong. He finally responded. It seems that Mr. Gorsky had finally died and so Neil Armstrong felt he could answer the question.

When he was a kid, he was playing baseball with his brother in the backyard. His brother hit a fly ball which landed in front of his neighbors' bedroom window. His neighbors were Mr and Mrs. Gorksy. As he leaned down to pick it up, he heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky. "Oral sex, oral sex you want? You'll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!"

Your video, For All Mankind — Official First Look Trailer | Apple TV+, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm sure they will gain more overall customers because they are owned by Proctor & Gamble. As I mentioned originally, there will be plenty of women and white knights who jump at the chance to support a company who decided to tag along onto the #metoo movement.

To me, that is part of the reason why I dislike this commercial so much. Not just because of it's huge and sweeping generalizations (practically every scene has one), but because their ad department had to know that an edgy commercial would do the same thing for them as it did for Nike. Does anyone think that the majority of actual corporate level people at Gillette/P&G give two fucks about #metoo? I know I don't.

It's just an ad targeted at a huge group of people that are easy to take potshots at currently. I find it little different than attack ads run by fucktards that want to condemn all Muslims for the act of terrorists or fundamentalist jihadists. The most screwed up thing about that analogy is that, realistically, there are largish groups of Islamic people that actually will cheer and throw celebrations when there is a terrorist attack. Yet you would be hard put to find large swaths of men out in the streets cheering on the effects of so called Toxic Masculinity.

Yes, we as men need to speak out. We need to support the evolution of mankind away from barbarism. But we don't need to succumb to propaganda that tries to purport that a man seeing a pretty lady walk past shouldn't attempt to say hi or introduce himself to her because that is bad. This ad, with one of the sweeping generalizations I mentioned earlier, would have you think that it is HORRIBLE for a man to do that and that a 'responsible' man would body check that guy. Because men should never try to meet women, only remain passive and allow the woman to come to them. I say fuck that, it is wrong to catcall women, but there is nothing wrong with going up and saying hi. This ad (and some other internet videos) would have you think it's the equivalent of throwing the lady down in the middle of a crowded walkway and having your way with her.

The ad could have been better, there were moments like the Terry Crews scene that I agree with, but they took the easy way out and just slammed men in general.

Basically the Emperor, a human who was effectively immortal due to his psychic power constantly regenerating his cells, began to be considered a god because of a combination of lies from the chaos lords and because some of his followers simply couldn't reconcile his existence without him being divine. He constantly fought against it, telling them he was not a god.

Due to the chaos lords interference, a cult formed that would accept him as nothing less than a God. They fought a huge war and the Emperor was triumphant, but was so wounded that he was going to die. Unfortunately, his mind and psychic powers control FTL travel and some other stuff, so he had his people modify a 'throne' he had been creating to help him control the daily duties his mind performed easier. The modifications would keep his mind functional even as his body rotted and decayed.

The great irony is that he began to be worshiped anyway and his skull is the symbol of the imperium because it shows his willingness to sacrifice himself to 'protect' Mankind.

The effect of trillions of human beings expressing a deep faith in His divinity has massively empowered the Emperor's mind and soul. Whatever He may have been before the Horus Heresy, the Emperor now truly is a God within the Warp, equal in power to any one of the four major Chaos Gods, and very likely as powerful as all four of them combined, as He has become perhaps the strongest spiritual force for Order in the Milky Way Galaxy. His mind must claim the life energies of 1,000 human psychics a day to empower FTL and other functions of the imperium.

It seems when Apollo Mission Astronaut, Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous "One Small Step for Man, One Giant Leap for Mankind" statement, but followed it by several remarks - usual com traffic between him, the other astronauts and Mission Control.

Before he reentered the lander, he made the enigmatic remark, "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky." Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut, however, upon checking, there was no Gorsky in either the Russian nor American space programs.

Over the years many people have questioned him as to what the "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky" statement meant.

A few months ago, (July 5th, 1995, Tampa Bay FL) while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26 year old question to Armstrong. He finally responded. It seems that Mr. Gorsky had finally died and so Neil Armstrong felt he could answer the question.

When he was a kid, he was playing baseball with his brother in the backyard. His brother hit a fly ball which landed in front of his neighbors' bedroom window. His neighbors were Mr and Mrs. Gorksy. As he leaned down to pick it up, he heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky. "Oral sex, oral sex you want? You'll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!"

-------------------------------------------

if you snope, you a dope. it a joke.

It looks like the whale is trying to indicate that it knows mankind is sentient. It further goes on to say, /\ STFU humans and stop polluting my home.
It may have taught itself those noises? To try communicating. If so THAT would be incredible.

How amazing and beautiful is that?

Not just on a surface level, although the sheer spectacle is still wondrous to behold.

But the *engineering behind it, the ambition, the unbelievable cajones on the three guys sitting atop a giant missile, the co-operation of basically an entire nation working to build something to advance the frontiers of humanity.... damn, I get teary-eyed just watching it.

Even if the motivations were ultimately political (beating those pesky reds!), sometimes we can still do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

*doublepromote one of mankind's finest hours.

I am open to rational answers, but not hokum. Using mythos to prove mythos is no answer.
I've said I'm not open to suspending rationality or sanity, you say that means I won't listen to you....um.....

The entirety of Christianity hinges on one thing; the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is a historical event and can be investigated that way. Jesus Christ is a real person who lived 2000 years ago in Israel. This isn't mythos and there is good evidence to believe it happened.

How do you know there's no FSM? I've seen exponentially more evidence of his existence than Yahweh's. I've eaten pasta. I absolutely believe in it more than Yahweh, but that's not a high bar.
Edit: How do you know there's no Allah? Odin? Zeus? Mythra? Mot? Cthulhu?

We both know that the fsm is a joke religion invented to mock Christianity.

The scripture tells us that men have worshiped other gods for thousands of years, but that what they worship are demons. So I believe those beings exist, but they aren't what they claim to be. One of Satans primary tools to deceive mankind is false religion. He provides supernatural confirmation of these religions. There is a desire in mans heart to worship God, and it gets corrupted so that man is willing to worship just about anything. In western culture, men idolize money, materialism, carnal lusts, even themselves. Our idols are less obvious but they are still idols.

One more time, my questions were 1.why is God's word so easily misstated, misunderstood, misidentified, misused, confused, and used for evil and hate? (Edit: especially given that properly interpreting it is allegedly the only way to escape eternal torture, seems like a set up.)

Any truth is easily misstated, misunderstood, misidentified, misused, confused, and used for evil and hate. This isn't a phenomenon unique to the scriptures; this is the reality of living in a fallen world. Corrupt men distort truth for their own gain. Look at the political situation in our country; how is what politicians do different from what prosperity preachers do? It really isn't.

The fact is that the gospel is very simple to understand; even a child could understand it, and they do. Gods word is very clear about our need for salvation and how to obtain it. It's man who overcomplicates it, distorts it for gain, or deliberately conceals the truth. Trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and believe He was raised from the dead. You don't need to be a theologian to understand that.

2.why is disbelief apparently worse than murder, rape, and slavery and so not covered by Jesus's sin erasing sacrifice and the only sin that's totally unforgivable.

How did you come to the conclusion that Jesus didn't die for unbelief? We all have unbelief that needs forgiveness which we receive by repentance. His atonement is not automatically transferred to everyone; the condition of receiving forgiveness is to believe. If you don't believe you won't receive forgiveness because you failed to meet the condition, not because unbelief is worse than murder necessarily. Dying without forgiveness for your sin is the problem, not that it can't be forgiven, but it can't be forgiven without repentance. It's kind of like this:

Let's say you had cancer and the only cure was in Los Angeles. You had no way to get there but God sent you a car to get you to Los Angeles and get the cure. When it arrived you didn't believe it would take you there so you didn't get in. A short time later you died of cancer.

So what was the reason you died? It was your unbelief that stopped you receiving the cure, but it was your cancer that killed you. In the same way it is your unbelief that keeps you from coming to Jesus Christ for forgiveness, so you will die in your sin.

I am interested in and open to an actual answer to either or both if you have one. It won't make me believe, but it might help me understand those who do a little better.

I'm happy to answer your questions newtboy..I just didn't want it to turn into another internet argument. I appreciate your candor

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

The right of today is absolutely radicalized. The last 8 years proved it.

The debate may not be settled, but the science and facts are....there are just many who refuse to accept it, but they have neither science or fact on their side.

Eating shrimp is a sin. Wearing a cotton poly blend is a sin. No where in the bible is there a chart saying one sin is worse than another.
EDIT: It actually says- "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.", which read closely means being bisexual is the abomination, not homosexuality.....BUT that's only for Jews, because Christians generally have the view that the New Covenant supersedes (i.e., replaces) the Old Testament's ritual laws, which includes many of the rules in Leviticus. Christians therefore have usually not observed Leviticus' rules, they only use them to attack others for behavior that makes them uncomfortable.


I don't think they've said you can't spout your hate, only that they'll challenge it...you have said they should not be allowed to be gay and married.

If government policy was a living wage for any job, the poor wouldn't stay poor and wouldn't need the handouts and programs you hate.

God and his son have failed miserably to elevate man....no wonder they want to be left out of the conversation.