>> ^shinyblurry:

The God I know is loving..He takes care of me and even the little things in my life. He is powerful..He controls everything that is going on. He is merciful..He forgives me when I screw up, which is often. He is just, righteous, true and pure. He is good..He does no evil. He is awesome..He created this beautiful Universe and all the intricate things in it. He changed my life..transformed my character..and leads me through every trial. He is wise..His ways lead to life. He is my Lord and my King. He is worthy of all honor and praise. He is the universal Savior, the one who takes away the sin of the world. He is eternal, he is omnipresent, He is Almighty God.
>> ^criticalthud:
@shinyblurry
respectfu
lly,
please explain your conception of god.
(via this primitive technology)



Ok, so to sum,

God to you is:
a "He"
has a son
is controlling, merciful, forgiving, awesome!, wise, worthy, eternal, omnipresent, paying attention to you.

one more question:
against a backdrop of countless different notions and characterizations of God through all manner of religions, cults and individual views, including yours, and the overall stupidity, pettiness, and self-serving nature of man, what would you say is more probable?:

a. God created us in his image
b. We created god in ours

The God I know is loving..He takes care of me and even the little things in my life. He is powerful..He controls everything that is going on. He is merciful..He forgives me when I screw up, which is often. He is just, righteous, true and pure. He is good..He does no evil. He is awesome..He created this beautiful Universe and all the intricate things in it. He changed my life..transformed my character..and leads me through every trial. He is wise..His ways lead to life. He is my Lord and my King. He is worthy of all honor and praise. He is the universal Savior, the one who takes away the sin of the world. He is eternal, he is omnipresent, He is Almighty God.

>> ^criticalthud:
@shinyblurry
respectfully,
please explain your conception of god.
(via this primitive technology)

@shinyblurry
respectfully,
please explain your conception of god.

(via this primitive technology)

I think your idea of people in former times being primitive is a gross mischaracterization, and I also believe God is quite capable of delivering and preserving His message in any generation. He would be a pretty poor God if He couldn't.


>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I agree with you on this point, fundementally. Left to ourselves, none of us could ever conceive of who or what God is. The only way we could know anything about God is if He told us. I believe that He did tell us, through His inspired word and by the work of His Son, Jesus Christ. He is the only way to know God, the way the truth and the life.
>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^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.

respectfully, I would challenge the notion that you, or any of us, are able to even remotely conceive of god.


So, you are satisfied that primitive man has adequately constructed the proper conception of god? Nailed it on that try, eh?

>> ^shinyblurry:

I agree with you on this point, fundementally. Left to ourselves, none of us could ever conceive of who or what God is. The only way we could know anything about God is if He told us. I believe that He did tell us, through His inspired word and by the work of His Son, Jesus Christ. He is the only way to know God, the way the truth and the life.
>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^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.

respectfully, I would challenge the notion that you, or any of us, are able to even remotely conceive of god.



So, you are satisfied that primitive man has adequately constructed the proper conception of god? Nailed it on that try, eh?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@criticalthud Direct Democracy isn't something to want, ask the great minds of the Greeks. The flailing desires of the mob tend to trample people, not enable them. I don't suppose this is actually an actual step in that direction, but I am seeing direct Democracy as raising in desirably among people, which I think would be a mistake.


I'm guessing greek society was still insanely primitive, although we tend to romance it. I think we evolved considerably, especially in the realms of our ability to exchange information.
But i recognize your fears, and I think at this stage of the consciousness, it would be a grand task indeed.
still, the potential is there for a much higher complexity in cooperation among the species.

@ZappaDanMan @MilkmanDan

Dad's Mormon and Mom's Southern Baptist--talk about a screwy mix. When I was in Sunday School (raised as a Mormon) the teacher told us the story of the loaves and fishes. I got it! People said they had no food so a very good man gave everything he had to them all--his unselfishness and generosity inspired them all to give up the food they were holding out for themselves--and all were fed. What a beautiful and inspiring story--then the teacher screwed it all up by saying that a "miracle" occurred and more food magically appeared. Makes for a much worse story. Instead of giving of himself just magically making food seems so trite (not to mention he could always just give everyone all the food they need. Poof! No more starvation).

I got a bible and read it cover to cover, twice. I wanted to know what it said--not memorize chapter and verse. All myths and verbal history of a primitive people (I was 11 years old).

Anyway, I just wanted to put in my two cents. Later.

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
Because their kind rarely acknowledges non-jews (and especially Arabs) as, well, pretty much anything, let alone bother shouting 'Shabes' at them which is a form of religious preaching (they're 'protesting' the workers doing manual labor during Shabat...).
>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^NinjaInHeat:
The irony being those are Arab stall workers...
why is it ironic?

in "their country" they demand that everybody respect "their godly laws", regardless of religion. i still don't see irony here.


While Ninja is partially correct, I believe their "Baaaaaaaing" primitive criticism is designated towards the sanctity of the market than to any other issue (among many) that might offend them.

Animals can't sin, it isn't about right or wrong for them. The passage states the way of all flesh had been corrupted..that could mean a number of things, but it isnt expressly said what that meant for animals. I think God might correct an animals behavior since it doesn't have free choice, personally. An animal doesn't have rights, they were put here under the dominion of human beings, for our benefit.

We're all born with a sin nature, so there isn't such a thing as an innocent person, child or not. I think it is to say that the world was so bent on evil at that point that they wouldn't have a chance. As far as where the water came from, it also came from underground. Here is one underground ocean that was discovered:

http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-discovered-earth.html

>> ^Grimm:
As silly as that statement is that all animals had become wicked...it can't be true according to the story since Noah and his crew had to collect a bunch to be saved.
You believe that all the children and all the infants were not evil but destined to be evil? Now what happened to this "freedom" that God gave them?
The reset button? Now that IS something I think an omnipotent being would be capable of. With one flip of the almighty reset button all the wicked men, women, and animals would be dead...gone...turned to dust. But this whole Noah has to build a big ass boat and collect all the species of the planet and then a rainstorm that floods the ENTIRE earth...even covering the tallest mountain? Have you even thought of how much water that is? That doesn't sound like the work of an omnipotent being. It sounds like a campfire story created by primitive men.>> ^shinyblurry:
It says all flesh, which would include animals. At that point the entire world had been overtaken by wickedness, so the children of the time were destined to grow up even worse than their parents. The animals, too, had their ways corrupted by their close contact with human beings. Basically, evil had reached a point of total saturation and God hit the reset button.
>> ^Grimm:
So you actually believe the was a point in time that EVERY living human was evil? Every man, woman, child and infant except for a single family?
Also why the need for this omnipotent being to destroy all living animals on the planet as well?

Sadly, it doesn't make me feel better that you feel like shit about it. It's a shame that you were now affected negatively twice by this whole incident. I mean that.

As for the girl scenario, it would be unfortunate that it had happened, but I cannot change my stance on something for a hypothetical situation, joke or not. I have (had) friends who have committed suicide, and it is incredibly tough to rationalize or justify their decisions, so I don't, as it is too late anyway; but there have been some failed attempts by friends too, that I am proud to say I helped in the "snap out of it" process. Some people want to live more than others I guess, and I think that decision is predetermined.

And lets face it, BoneR was going to be banned sooner or later for something, so I for one blame him, not you. It's just a shame when these things get out of hand. Either way, to each their own and thanks for a healthy exchange of Ideals. I dont care what all the other sifters say, you area a gentleman and a scholar. Your character shines though as well, mister Boise_lib.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^sme4r:
I politely disagree. I believe that with the amount of humans on the planet, if someone tells you to "jump off a bridge" and you do it, then it is merely natural selection at its finest. We cannot outgrow our primitive ways entirely, and if I have to change my online rhetoric because someone might have an issue with it, then I am now the one affected.
Depression is a real problem, but a vague term, and I refuse to censor myself because someone might take issue with it. You are correct, sir, in noting that you don't know who is on the other end of an online convo, but am I to assume that every person cant take a joke?
Bottom line: Do you really think BoneR wanted you to commit suicide? I don't.
Again, I am just stating my opinion. Love you guys and I respect you all. (to a certain degree )

I appreciate your polite disagreement.
You refuse to censor yourself--okay. I brought up a potential issue in order that people might think twice--I even said please. I did not advocate a new auto-ban rule. You say, "...if I have to change my online rhetoric because someone might have an issue with it, then I am now the one affected." I'm not advocating anyone force you to change your online rhetoric, but we all change our views and rhetoric all the time--it's called maturing.
Imagine this scenario:
A 13 year old girl from your neighborhood--you know her and her parents--jumps off a bridge to her death. Upon investigation it's found that the last thing she was doing was reading something online. The very last thing she read--her last action on earth--was a comment from you (not to her) saying, "Go jump off a bridge." Would you then say, "Well it's natural selection, she didn't deserve to live"? Or, would you feel bad that reading your comment was enough to cause a young person, with so much potential life to live, to jump? I refuse to believe that you would be so unfeeling as to say, "She should have been able to take a joke."
The whole premise of my posting was that someone, somewhere, might read what you write and it might trigger a suicide. That one person might even know that you were joking--that doesn't matter if Suicidal Ideation is involved. No, you shouldn't have to assume that every person can't take a joke--but you should, at least, know that not every person can.
My actions (over-re-actions) started a chain of events which caused BoneRemake to be suspended. If it makes you feel better I feel like shit over the whole incident. I'm sorry your friend got suspended for 2 weeks, but please remember--I don't have the power to suspend, or ban, anyone. I'm just a Standard Member; a noob. Also, please remember that you have only seen the parts of the conversations which are open to all. Neither you, nor I, have seen everything that happened.
I appreciate your saying openly what you believe instead of trying to bait me: as has happened. An open discussion may not change your mind--but it has shown me the depth of your character.
Thank You.

As silly as that statement is that all animals had become wicked...it can't be true according to the story since Noah and his crew had to collect a bunch to be saved.

You believe that all the children and all the infants were not evil but destined to be evil? Now what happened to this "freedom" that God gave them?

The reset button? Now that IS something I think an omnipotent being would be capable of. With one flip of the almighty reset button all the wicked men, women, and animals would be dead...gone...turned to dust. But this whole Noah has to build a big ass boat and collect all the species of the planet and then a rainstorm that floods the ENTIRE earth...even covering the tallest mountain? Have you even thought of how much water that is? That doesn't sound like the work of an omnipotent being. It sounds like a campfire story created by primitive men.>> ^shinyblurry:


It says all flesh, which would include animals. At that point the entire world had been overtaken by wickedness, so the children of the time were destined to grow up even worse than their parents. The animals, too, had their ways corrupted by their close contact with human beings. Basically, evil had reached a point of total saturation and God hit the reset button.
>> ^Grimm:
So you actually believe the was a point in time that EVERY living human was evil? Every man, woman, child and infant except for a single family?
Also why the need for this omnipotent being to destroy all living animals on the planet as well?

>> ^sme4r:

I politely disagree. I believe that with the amount of humans on the planet, if someone tells you to "jump off a bridge" and you do it, then it is merely natural selection at its finest. We cannot outgrow our primitive ways entirely, and if I have to change my online rhetoric because someone might have an issue with it, then I am now the one affected.
Depression is a real problem, but a vague term, and I refuse to censor myself because someone might take issue with it. You are correct, sir, in noting that you don't know who is on the other end of an online convo, but am I to assume that every person cant take a joke?
Bottom line: Do you really think BoneR wanted you to commit suicide? I don't.
Again, I am just stating my opinion. Love you guys and I respect you all. (to a certain degree )


I appreciate your polite disagreement.

You refuse to censor yourself--okay. I brought up a potential issue in order that people might think twice--I even said please. I did not advocate a new auto-ban rule. You say, "...if I have to change my online rhetoric because someone might have an issue with it, then I am now the one affected." I'm not advocating anyone force you to change your online rhetoric, but we all change our views and rhetoric all the time--it's called maturing.

Imagine this scenario:

A 13 year old girl from your neighborhood--you know her and her parents--jumps off a bridge to her death. Upon investigation it's found that the last thing she was doing was reading something online. The very last thing she read--her last action on earth--was a comment from you (not to her) saying, "Go jump off a bridge." Would you then say, "Well it's natural selection, she didn't deserve to live"? Or, would you feel bad that reading your comment was enough to cause a young person, with so much potential life to live, to jump? I refuse to believe that you would be so unfeeling as to say, "She should have been able to take a joke."

The whole premise of my posting was that someone, somewhere, might read what you write and it might trigger a suicide. That one person might even know that you were joking--that doesn't matter if Suicidal Ideation is involved. No, you shouldn't have to assume that every person can't take a joke--but you should, at least, know that not every person can.

My actions (over-re-actions) started a chain of events which caused BoneRemake to be suspended. If it makes you feel better I feel like shit over the whole incident. I'm sorry your friend got suspended for 2 weeks, but please remember--I don't have the power to suspend, or ban, anyone. I'm just a Standard Member; a noob. Also, please remember that you have only seen the parts of the conversations which are open to all. Neither you, nor I, have seen everything that happened.

I appreciate your saying openly what you believe instead of trying to bait me: as has happened. An open discussion may not change your mind--but it has shown me the depth of your character.

Thank You.

I politely disagree. I believe that with the amount of humans on the planet, if someone tells you to "jump off a bridge" and you do it, then it is merely natural selection at its finest. We cannot outgrow our primitive ways entirely, and if I have to change my online rhetoric because someone might have an issue with it, then I am now the one affected.

Depression is a real problem, but a vague term, and I refuse to censor myself because someone might take issue with it. You are correct, sir, in noting that you don't know who is on the other end of an online convo, but am I to assume that every person cant take a joke?

Bottom line: Do you really think BoneR wanted you to commit suicide? I don't.

Again, I am just stating my opinion. Love you guys and I respect you all. (to a certain degree )

Can a man who views a 2-5,000 year old anthology of primitive fairy tales as more compelling than a scientific fact be trusted with the highest position of power in the land?

If we waited for perfection, no one would ever have kids. Just saying. And I was offered 3 months time with my kids... So I understand. It was in no way paid, but it was there. My choice to work for a company that isn't run by fucking retards who care only about money at the expense of others (Not saying business is a bad thing, but most businesses don't "live within their means" so they can provide actual benefits to the employees, you know, the job creators?)

>> ^gorillaman:

@razzyl @Yogi and to a substantially lesser extent @packo
We should not be encouraging people to live beyond their means.
Anyone embarking on as expensive and time-consuming a project as parenthood should be prepared for the costs involved. We're not living in so technologically primitive a condition that effective birth control mechanisms are beyond any of us. Given that, it's not unreasonable to expect that we plan for our children in a rational and responsible way.
If I decided for personal reasons to take three months off work to, say build a hot rod or bicycle around asia, I wouldn't ask anybody else to cover the cost. These are individual choices and they require individual investment. Your reward for raising a child is whatever genetic and emotional fulfilment, and the price you pay is hundreds of thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of hours of work. If that's not a bargain you're willing to make then don't. Nobody's forcing you, least of all your boss who only wants you to show up for work so that together you can cooperatively better yourselves and society.
It's precisely because I value our species' future that I oppose incentivising excessive population growth. Globally we're oversubscribed on resources and running up debts we may never be able to repay. Our economies are predicated on a perpetual growth incline that is literally physically impossible. These calamities need to be taken in hand, and it's time to put our instinctive urge to flood the world with progeny behind us.