@SDGundamX I find some logical lackings in that example.

First off, the machine difference. If I shoot someone, the gun is technically doing it but the person controlling it held liable. If I run someone over with my car, that is even more abstract, as the car is being controlled by a wheel which I then control, yet, I am still liable. I don't see any other legal justification for the difference in this case, unless you are saying machines like alarms need to be held liable in the same light that citizens are. There is no compelling logical distinction to make an alarm that makes a false alarm any less liable for those whom programmed it than one who shoots a gun which has an E-trigger. (devils advocate here, I obviously don't have a problem with false alarms being protected speech)

I also beg to differ about intentionally. The only provable intention of speech is what is said. If I say fire, the only thing you can actually prove is that I said fire. You can't show that I meant to cause a panic, you can't show that I saw fire and said fire. You can't pretend to know, beyond a reasonable doubt about intentionally of speech, it is ALWAYS circumstantial. Intentionally of speech doesn't pass our own critical evidence criteria. I can't actually believe this legal framework even exists. ( Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. I do not salute you!)

And the "is dangerous" can only be use in an a posteriori sense, not an A priori sense. For example, what if I yelled fire in a crowded theater but instead of panic, only laughter was had? What if I steped on a pair of pliers, yelled pliers in my reaction and people thought I meant fire, and someone else screamed fire? I am liable for causing a falsity of a fire claim? Or what if I yelled pliers guess someone would think I said fire and cause a panic for me? It is all very very wishy washy for matters of A priori laws. You only know if something as abstract as speech will be dangerous after it has been said. You can try and make good judgement based on past experience, but that is no grounds to create A priori laws for words and conditions.

Let us look at the example again. A man was taunting a dog, like a god damned fool no less. However, the action resulted in no harm. So, I ask, where is the danger? It is theoretical danger of a sort that didn't happen in this case, yet, he is still guilty of a crime of danger. A danger that didn't exist is the crime for which he stands guilty, a mockery of justice. There are MANY things that I do that don't have a useful purpose as far as the greater good of society. Are you saying that only rights that do good are to be allowed? Are we to have enumerated rights now instead of enumerated restrictions? The kind of document I always took the constitution for is everything is fair game...you don't have to justify any action, ever. The exception to that is just that, the exceptions. We restrict the absolute freedom of people to harm other people, but as for everything else, it is allowed even without proper justification for its existence and participation. It seems a tenancy for people whom create moral laws to abide by this logic, but only sometimes; when concerning an issue that evokes a certain kind of emotional response thing change. For other issues that their heart strings don't match up with, they won't accept the heart string justification of others, saying they are creating a theocracy or separation of church and state or some other non-sense (not that the separation is non-sense, but that other peoples moral claims are any less valuble because they come from religion is preposterous, and insulting).

I think it is pretty unfair to characterize the judge in the way you have. He basically has the a slightly different position on the first amendment than yourself, most likely revolving around the core arguments I just set out (I don't know that, though). I don't think me calling you the same thing you called him; IE "not knowing how the first amendment works" would be fair either, because it is fair to say that throughout legal history, the decisions handed down from the courts have been contradictory in many regards. I could name 3 other case law examples where this should be protected speech, but throwing around case law is just silly, I am resolved to say this is a very convoluted subject...and more so than should be. We should seek some clarity in a legal sense of what the first amendment is all about, philosophically, or else this debate will never end to any non-contradictory, case by case way.

Edited for grammarerar

^Human vs. Human being is just playing on semantics.

My point is the entire debate revolves around what point you consider a fetus to be human in the sense as having the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us. For ease I'll try and refer to that as human being here.

From what you've said it seems before the 2nd trimester, you don't consider the fetus a human being. Is it one from the 2nd trimester on? If so, does it have the same rights and freedoms as other human beings starting then? This would ultimately mean terminating it is covered by laws on murder.

As for basing it on brain development, I dislike that as a reason for it being too fuzzy. There is NO clear line to say right there is the point where the ability for consciousness and feeling pain has developed. We just really don't have a good clear definition of consciousness, let alone the brain development required to achieve it. I still stand that implantation in the womb is the only really clear and firm line to be drawn.

And no its not a dupe because of the 30 seconds.

It takes on a whole different angle, it does not revolve around the rifle scene like the rifle scene does, this is about shrimp.


" You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. Dey's uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that's about it.
Source(s):
imdb.com "

>> ^marbles:

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^marbles:
Well, we have 2 people: One from the left (@ MaxWilder), and one from the right (@ quantumushroom), that both agree Ron Paul doesn't have a chance at winning. Why? Because he's not part of the corrupt establishment.
So I ask: Why stay trapped in the false left/right political structure? Why continue to vote for establishment clowns that just tell you what you want to hear?
The Left/Right Statist Collectivist Mass Delusion

While that article is full of wonderfully insulting and entertaining generalities and prejudices, it does absolutely nothing about the problem. The only way out of this statist/corporatist mess is to reform elections.
First, at a minimum we need to abolish corporate funded election campaigns. Ideally everyone would have the exact same access to promote their platforms. Not sure how that would happen for libertarian ideals, but personally I have no problem with state funding.
Secondly, we need to abolish "first past the post" elections. As far as I can tell, a Condorcet method is the only viable election type.
After that we would need to eliminate the revolving door from government office to lobbying and corporate board member.
Anybody who wants to implement those changes has my full support.

I fully agree with getting rid of "first past the post" type elections. But the other problems you cite are direct consequences from things you support like government unions and healthcare. How can you be against corporate funding, but support what enables it? And the only way to eliminate the revolving door is by removing the incentive of gaining government office. If the government doesn't have the power to pick winners and losers, then the corporate world will have no reason to influence or infiltrate it.


There is absolutely nothing about the fundamental role of government unions or healthcare that relates to funding politicians. As the system works now, both must pay of politicians in order to remain in existence, or their opponents will hatchet them. With a system of voting that would allow the political spectrum to shift back to the center where rational compromise exists, they wouldn't have to worry about getting defunded. Or if they did get defunded, it would be because that's what the people really wanted, not some extreme wing.

I'm not sure how you could possibly eliminate the government's power to pick winners and losers. We'd need to eliminate the ability of elected officials to pick a winner and then later get hired by the winner. That would remove the temptation to vote based on potential personal gain.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^marbles:
Well, we have 2 people: One from the left (@ MaxWilder), and one from the right (@ quantumushroom), that both agree Ron Paul doesn't have a chance at winning. Why? Because he's not part of the corrupt establishment.
So I ask: Why stay trapped in the false left/right political structure? Why continue to vote for establishment clowns that just tell you what you want to hear?
The Left/Right Statist Collectivist Mass Delusion

While that article is full of wonderfully insulting and entertaining generalities and prejudices, it does absolutely nothing about the problem. The only way out of this statist/corporatist mess is to reform elections.
First, at a minimum we need to abolish corporate funded election campaigns. Ideally everyone would have the exact same access to promote their platforms. Not sure how that would happen for libertarian ideals, but personally I have no problem with state funding.
Secondly, we need to abolish "first past the post" elections. As far as I can tell, a Condorcet method is the only viable election type.
After that we would need to eliminate the revolving door from government office to lobbying and corporate board member.
Anybody who wants to implement those changes has my full support.


I fully agree with getting rid of "first past the post" type elections. But the other problems you cite are direct consequences from things you support like government unions and healthcare. How can you be against corporate funding, but support what enables it? And the only way to eliminate the revolving door is by removing the incentive of gaining government office. If the government doesn't have the power to pick winners and losers, then the corporate world will have no reason to influence or infiltrate it.

>> ^marbles:

Well, we have 2 people: One from the left (@ MaxWilder), and one from the right (@ quantumushroom), that both agree Ron Paul doesn't have a chance at winning. Why? Because he's not part of the corrupt establishment.
So I ask: Why stay trapped in the false left/right political structure? Why continue to vote for establishment clowns that just tell you what you want to hear?
The Left/Right Statist Collectivist Mass Delusion


While that article is full of wonderfully insulting and entertaining generalities and prejudices, it does absolutely nothing about the problem. The only way out of this statist/corporatist mess is to reform elections.

First, at a minimum we need to abolish corporate funded election campaigns. Ideally everyone would have the exact same access to promote their platforms. Not sure how that would happen for libertarian ideals, but personally I have no problem with state funding.

Secondly, we need to abolish "first past the post" elections. As far as I can tell, a Condorcet method is the only viable election type.

After that we would need to eliminate the revolving door from government office to lobbying and corporate board member.

Anybody who wants to implement those changes has my full support.

>> ^Stormsinger:

After spending a decade and a half deeply involved in online communities, both as a member and as staff, I feel compelled to point out that explicit standards of conduct aren't really much help. The vast majority of people already understand what's "over the line", and making an explicit list of "forbidden" words and actions works mostly as fodder for the rules lawyers ("I didn't say fag, I said fhag, so you can't ban me!"). And people who cross the lines of common decency are -still- going to claim that they're only in trouble because the powers that be don't like them.

I'm personally fine with guidelines just as we already have...they're clear enough that anyone who cares can understand. However, I'm not a fan of the semi-anonymous, pseudo-automated "X votes means a ban" style of systems. I prefer to rely on the judgement of a known person or small group of persons.

I'm definitely not suggesting we try to come up with some list of "bad words." I think our issue is hostility, not obscenity.

I'm just saying we need to be a little more clear than "personal attacks," especially when personal attacks get tossed around all the time. People saying "it's persecution" have a legitimate case -- they've been singled out and punished for breaking a rule that everyone breaks.

I think if we're getting people into the "I didn't say fag, I said fhag" mode at least some of the time, it'd be an improvement over the near universal "it's persecution!" response we've seen when people get reprimanded for bad behavior. If our community's argument over bans centered on the circumstances of the incident and interpretation of the rules, then I think we could deduce that the community's reached some sort of consensus that the rules are legitimate, and there's a need to mete out punishments if they're broken.

The arguments I've actually seen here tend to revolve around some sort of argument about dag's worthiness as our king. I don't think that's a healthy place for us to be.

I like the idea, especially @Deano's channel theme tip. If you ever get to the jazz channel, I'll put myself up for participation.

I'm only afraid that there will be too little subject material. The activity on the sift comes and goes, and I have a hard time imagining what interesting could come out of discussing the discussion on the latest cat video. The majority of what "happens" on the Sift over a week revolves around the top 15 videos, and while the quality of the comments are usually above youtube level, I have to admit that they are not always newsworthy. And I hate to say it, but when you say "talking about what's happened on the Sift over the past week" I visualize @dag and @kronosposeidon gossiping about the latest Sift drama / Siftquisition and what it means for the future of the community. As entertaining as that might be, such dramas are best left untouched after they have fizzled out, in my opinion.

What I'm trying to get at with all these unnecessary words is that it would be good to hear a little more precise what you think to fill the time spot with. I'm sure you have some ideas, since you have come so far as to propose starting a podcast. I'd just hate to see a good initiative fizzle out because of unrealistic expectations.


Wow, I'm such a spoilsport. I promise that my next comment will be more positive.

No, probably not. I just look at the evidence in front of me and draw conclusions.

Sorry to have misunderstood.

I thought the whole world revolved around me. Guess it doesn't.


>> ^blankfist:

@bareboards2, not everything I write is about you.

>> ^jmzero:

She's an American plant working to destabilize the country by imposing Western values (ie. neocolonialism). The Judeo-EUmerican media-industrial alliance is doing this to prevent Saudi Arabia from introducing a gold-backed dinar (which would empower third world countries).
It's no coincidence the plot revolves around driving. Driving-> Cars-> Oil-> Black Gold-> Gold-> Dinars-> Qadaffi-> Oprah-> Jamba Juice-> Juice-> Jews. Microsoft. Wintel. CO-INTEL-PRO? So. Vie. Et.


OMG...you are so right!
*puts tinfoil hat on*
;-)

She's an American plant working to destabilize the country by imposing Western values (ie. neocolonialism). The Judeo-EUmerican media-industrial alliance is doing this to prevent Saudi Arabia from introducing a gold-backed dinar (which would empower third world countries).

It's no coincidence the plot revolves around driving. Driving-> Cars-> Oil-> Black Gold-> Gold-> Dinars-> Qadaffi-> Oprah-> Jamba Juice-> Juice-> Jews. Microsoft. Wintel. CO-INTEL-PRO? So. Vie. Et.

Greek scientists might disagree with you >> ^teebeenz:

>> ^notarobot:
2500 years ago, the scientific consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth. Just sayin'. >> ^teebeenz:
Actually Im well aware of the source of the information, its called the scientific consensus. Perhaps you should check your sources of information better.


Science didnt exist 2500 years ago.

Stirring the pot for no reason. If you don't like a video, downvote it, or avoid it. People have difference of opinion, this is not a little pond, you have to deal with it.

The reason the sift is a good place to be, is because we are so different people. If you don't like it and want to change it to only include your version of reality, then this is not the place for you. I don't think any of the internet really is, when you think about it.

Videosift has a fine filtering mechanism - or well, IS a filtering mechanism, to sift out the crap from the internet. Sometimes things get through that you may not like. Plenty of stuff on here annoys the crap out of me, but I just go around it or even downvote it.

A finishing note is, everything does not revolve around you. I certainly didn't promote that one to attack you or any of the women of the sift - I did it because I like boobs in motion and the video is fun if stupid, and to piss off all the white knights templar who have all the right opinions on the sift.

The cunt punching video is not sexist. The topless chair jousting (http://videosift.com/video/Topless-Chair-Jousting-New-Olympic-Sport-for-2012) video is not sexist. They are no more sexist than all the Old Spice commercials with Isiah Mustafa flexing his pecks to sell deoderant.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Do you wear a cologne called attitude? You could bottle the sneer dripping from your words and sell it for a tidy sum. Though it doesn't surprise me that you're actually advocating for Satan in the story, it was a lie no matter how narrow, obtuse, and willfully ignorant your interpertation is. They did die, that makes it a lie. God told them the truth about it.
It was not their lack of knowledge that made them "inferior", it was their faith in God that made them superior. Yet, God gave them the choice didn't He? Your argument here is null and void. He enjoyed a perfect relationship with them but He gave them the choice of knowing anyway. He warned them if they did it they would die. They chose not to trust God and lusted after his power, and then they reaped the consequences, which was seperation from God. It's the same story going on on Earth, right now, in every heart that has turned away from God. What He did, and is still doing, is fair and just. He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do, and He even gives you fair warning.
What's absurd is your nasty and sarcastic attitude. It's just pure arrogance; have you ever read the bible? You're here railing against something you have no understanding of. You're condescending to me about my intellect when even a child has a more cohesive understanding here than you do. Btw, regarding the ridiculous "blasphemy challenge"
John 6;39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
As far as whether the Earth is old or young, I don't know. It isn't clear. I've seen models where the geology of the planet could be explained by a young Earth, and ones that dispute it. I don't really care, to tell you the truth. It makes no difference to me whether the Earth is young or old. Science hasn't proved it either way, and the bible isn't exactly clear on it, so there isn't a way for me to say definitively. To me the jury is out and it doesn't look like it will be back anytime soon. What is important to me is a relationship with Jesus Christ, not how old His creation is.
>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did. They chose to believe the lie instead, and lusted after Gods power. Thus they sinned and became spiritually seperated from God. The perfect cannot be joined with the imperfect.
The whole point of our lives is to love God (and eachother) and live with Him forever in paradise. That's why He created Adam and Eve in the first place. Man sinned and fell, became seperated from God, and became mortal and lost their place with God.
Your argument is that it is immoral. Well how can you judge God? No sinner could and I include myself in that. How could an immoral being judge a moral one? It's only your excuse for not doing what He told us to do. God is Holy, but you have believed the lie that He isn't. You are choosing death over life, because that is all sin is. The soul that sins is the soul that dies, but Gods gift is eternal life.
In regard to the unforgivable sin, the reason it is unforgivable is because when you become a Christian you receive Gods Spirit. His Spirit is what transforms us, makes us a new creation. If you reject His Spirit, you cannot be transformed, so therefore you cannot be forgiven.
Everyone who has taken the so-called blasphemy challenge just to please their inner demons of being completely dead to Christ are mistaken. None of them have done anything unforgivable and can all still be saved.

I was going to suggest reading Byron's "Cain: A Mystery", which develops the immorality of original sin in a much more sophisticated and poetic fashion, but seeing that you did not even get the point of the nonstampcollector video I linked (if you even watched it), Byron would be way over your head.
You say: "God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did."
Have you even read the Bible? God is the one who lies, saying "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen.2:7); the serpent, OTOH, tells the truth (Gen. 3:4-7, italics mine):
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, [...]
It is the lack of knowledge that makes the fabled first humans inferior to (and dependant upon) their father-figure creator. Religion relies on ignorance, obedience and blind faith in authority, i.e. everything that demarcates a dependent infant from an independent adult.
You use a lot of religious terms as if they actually meant something. Please define these if you want your argumentation to be the least bit intelligible:
God; sin; moral (in relation to "God"), God's spirit.

Since you did not address the incest remark while continuing to speak of Adam and Eve as if they really existed, I'll assume that you really do think we all descend from only two humans, which is totally absurd. Do you also think the Earth is only 6000 years old? Perhaps the Sun revolves around it (Eccl.1:5)? And is it a flat disc (Is.40:22)?
(Btw, most of those who took the "blasphemy challenge" grew up Christian, so no, imaginary Sky-Daddy cannot forgive them)



http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

*edit:damn,embed wont work.well so much for me making a funny!now my day is just ruined..RUINED i tell ya!

>> ^shinyblurry:

Do you wear a cologne called attitude? You could bottle the sneer dripping from your words and sell it for a tidy sum. Though it doesn't surprise me that you're actually advocating for Satan in the story, it was a lie no matter how narrow, obtuse, and willfully ignorant your interpertation is. They did die, that makes it a lie. God told them the truth about it.
It was not their lack of knowledge that made them "inferior", it was their faith in God that made them superior. Yet, God gave them the choice didn't He? Your argument here is null and void. He enjoyed a perfect relationship with them but He gave them the choice of knowing anyway. He warned them if they did it they would die. They chose not to trust God and lusted after his power, and then they reaped the consequences, which was seperation from God. It's the same story going on on Earth, right now, in every heart that has turned away from God. What He did, and is still doing, is fair and just. He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do, and He even gives you fair warning.
What's absurd is your nasty and sarcastic attitude. It's just pure arrogance; have you ever read the bible? You're here railing against something you have no understanding of. You're condescending to me about my intellect when even a child has a more cohesive understanding here than you do. Btw, regarding the ridiculous "blasphemy challenge"
John 6;39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
As far as whether the Earth is old or young, I don't know. It isn't clear. I've seen models where the geology of the planet could be explained by a young Earth, and ones that dispute it. I don't really care, to tell you the truth. It makes no difference to me whether the Earth is young or old. Science hasn't proved it either way, and the bible isn't exactly clear on it, so there isn't a way for me to say definitively. To me the jury is out and it doesn't look like it will be back anytime soon. What is important to me is a relationship with Jesus Christ, not how old His creation is.
>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did. They chose to believe the lie instead, and lusted after Gods power. Thus they sinned and became spiritually seperated from God. The perfect cannot be joined with the imperfect.
The whole point of our lives is to love God (and eachother) and live with Him forever in paradise. That's why He created Adam and Eve in the first place. Man sinned and fell, became seperated from God, and became mortal and lost their place with God.
Your argument is that it is immoral. Well how can you judge God? No sinner could and I include myself in that. How could an immoral being judge a moral one? It's only your excuse for not doing what He told us to do. God is Holy, but you have believed the lie that He isn't. You are choosing death over life, because that is all sin is. The soul that sins is the soul that dies, but Gods gift is eternal life.
In regard to the unforgivable sin, the reason it is unforgivable is because when you become a Christian you receive Gods Spirit. His Spirit is what transforms us, makes us a new creation. If you reject His Spirit, you cannot be transformed, so therefore you cannot be forgiven.
Everyone who has taken the so-called blasphemy challenge just to please their inner demons of being completely dead to Christ are mistaken. None of them have done anything unforgivable and can all still be saved.

I was going to suggest reading Byron's "Cain: A Mystery", which develops the immorality of original sin in a much more sophisticated and poetic fashion, but seeing that you did not even get the point of the nonstampcollector video I linked (if you even watched it), Byron would be way over your head.
You say: "God let them know it was wrong to disobey Him by outlining the consequences if they did."
Have you even read the Bible? God is the one who lies, saying "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen.2:7); the serpent, OTOH, tells the truth (Gen. 3:4-7, italics mine):
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, [...]
It is the lack of knowledge that makes the fabled first humans inferior to (and dependant upon) their father-figure creator. Religion relies on ignorance, obedience and blind faith in authority, i.e. everything that demarcates a dependent infant from an independent adult.
You use a lot of religious terms as if they actually meant something. Please define these if you want your argumentation to be the least bit intelligible:
God; sin; moral (in relation to "God"), God's spirit.

Since you did not address the incest remark while continuing to speak of Adam and Eve as if they really existed, I'll assume that you really do think we all descend from only two humans, which is totally absurd. Do you also think the Earth is only 6000 years old? Perhaps the Sun revolves around it (Eccl.1:5)? And is it a flat disc (Is.40:22)?
(Btw, most of those who took the "blasphemy challenge" grew up Christian, so no, imaginary Sky-Daddy cannot forgive them)



Since you continuously miss the subtleties of my critiques while avoiding the actual questions that are being posed, I will spell it out as simply as I can. (Note that my intellectual condescension, which you are right in spotting, is based entirely on your unintelligent responses and childish emotional reactions, your disregard for logic, your circular reasoning and your incessant ad hominem attacks. But please, don't let my "nasty and sarcastic attitude" get in the way of your reasoned and logical argumentation... for which we are still waiting.)


1. On the literal reading of Scripture: My question as to whether you took the Adam/Eve/Eden myth as factual and historical truth is crucial, and since you continued to base your argumentation on the assumption that it is, I followed up with questions pertaining to other literal readings of the Bible, i.e. YEC, geocentrism and flat earth theory. In later comments you dance around the issue of the Earth's age, but refuse to address one of my first questions: is all humanity the actual descendants of the fabled Adam and Eve? If not, the whole theory of original sin crumbles. You might argue, as the begrudgingly-evolution-accepting catholic church does, that "original sin" is equivalent to "human nature", which completely voids the whole "created in His image" and "free will" things.

2. On hypocrisy and cherry-picking: I wish I could say how surprised I am at you being oblivious to your hypocrisy and self-contradiction, but it is all too common among religious apologists. You accuse me of "narrow, obtuse, and willfully ignorant" interpretation, of arrogance, ignorance and condescension (I fully own up to that last one), and in the very same lines are guilty of all of the above. What makes your interpretation correct, and mine - which is based directly on the actual text - incorrect? Oh yes, your dogma, which declares that there is only one correct reading of the Bible, i.e. the Christian one, no matter how contrary to the text it is. You assume that any one who contradicts your creed with the help of your holy book "has no understanding" of it... and I'm the arrogant one? I could be a theology major for all you know, and while I am not, I have read the Bible thoroughly enough to know it for what it is: a collection of myths, romanticised history, laws and poetry, written by men.

Concerning the "blasphemy challenge", if I understand your reasoning cherry-picking logic, there is no need to believe in God, the Bible or any Christian creed, since we're all going to heaven anyway, right? But then, in a later comment you proclaim that only some are chosen ("many are called..." I know). What happens to those who are not and, more importantly, how will you get out of that without contradicting yourself?

3. Please do not skirt the questions: note that the "answers" to my earliest questions, repeated here, were unintelligible due to your use of terms (see below) which need clarification.

>>"So the story of Adam and Eve is not just a myth, and we are all descendants of incestuous sex (twice, if the story of Noah is taken into account)?

So God values blind obedience higher than natural curiosity, and expects Adam and Eve to obey without knowing that disobeying is "bad" (since they don't yet have the knowledge of good/evil)?

So it is moral to punish an infinity of generations of humans for what their ancestors supposedly did? And then present the "gift" of forgiveness if you submit to the god who caused you to be "sinful" in the first place??"


>>"You use a lot of religious terms as if they actually meant something. Please define these if you want your argumentation to be the least bit intelligible:

God; sin; moral (in relation to "God"), God's spirit."