All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".

Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/index.htm

And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU

So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

He's demonstrating the seperation of comment and video.

This idea of "a wall of seperation" of church and state came from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a baptist association while he was in France. It has been misinterpreted in recent times as a principle of exclusion of religion from government, but is this really what Jefferson intended? If he did, you might want to ask yourself why Jefferson attended church every sunday..in the house of representitives. You might want to ask why Jefferson closed presidential documents with "In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ", or why he negotiated treaties that used federal funding to pay for Christian missionaries to evangelize the indians. You also might want to ask why public education was teaching the scripture in schools, and why nearly every state had its own church..and why many states wouldn't allow non-christians to be elected to public office.

This idea of "freedom from religion" has no basis in history, or in the intentions of our founders. The secular community apparently feels that they can move in to this house that Christianity built and evict the ones who built it. It would be a bit like you inviting me to stay at your house and then I tell you that I am going to redecorate it the way I please and would you please stay in your room and never come out again.

Consider the words of William Rehnquist in a supreme court ruling about this issue:

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts


>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no legal anything found anywhere guaranteeing "freedom from religion". The State is not allowed to establish a religion or promote one religion above others. That's it.
The statements are plainly contradictory. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from a government religion or any promotion of religion by the government. Also, as Boise_Lib notes above, it's impossible to have true freedom of religion without also having freedom from any other religion being imposed upon you. Intelligent people may disagree over whether certains actions constitute imposition of religious principles or doctrine, but the idea that the Constitution does not guarantee a level of freedom from religion is patently false.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Heh - I used to think the sound of stuck pigs was unpleasant but seeing the Garlician/Vampiric reaction to one tiny, inoffensive comment from Shinyblurry has provided me with quite a bit of amusement. I think this - if nothing else - is sufficient evidence to entirely disprove Bill Maher (as if anything he ever said needed disproving). The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck.

Actually, most of the responses to shiny were funny, eloquent and well reasoned. Although I will agree that a few were just rude.

The reaction basically proves that some atheists can be assholes. Big surprise. However, there is an "atheist dogma" that insists on vitriol. I will also say that many theists don't share their religions blind adherence to despicable or ridiculous positions. People are people, theist or atheist and there will always be good or bad people in both groups.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

You're either really ignorant or being totally disingenuous. Frankly, neither would surprise me. Instead of making bullshit statements, how about you back them up with some "basic reality"? You cannot confuse the personal beliefs or ideologies of individual atheists with the concept itself, even if a large percentage of atheists happen to share them. BTW, it's "catechism".

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
On a side note - I am also quite amused with the hypocrisy of Athiests when it comes to Obama and his war on religion. Last week Obama said that he deliberately passes laws and pushes agendas because he thinks that is what Jesus wants.

Hang on, Obama is at war with religion while at the same time passing laws and pushing agendas based on religious belief?

At least, you're consistently inconsistent... carry on...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now if George W. Bush had said that, then every Athiest Trog-Lib-Dyte would have started screaming bloody murder. And yet when a leftist radical twit like Obama does it the fiery indignation of the liberal left about the "Wall of Seperation" suddenly goes all quiet. Most illuminating... Most illuminating indeed for anyone who isn't blinded by partisan idiocy. Leftist goons also seem utterly uninterested in the "Wall of Seperation" when it comes to Obama's war on private charity hospitals. What a bunch of pathetic losers.


I assume you're referring to Obama saying that Jesus wants people to pay higher taxes? Well, aside from the fact that that is entirely consistent with the teachings of Christ (don't remember Christ ever encouraging anyone to go to war or benefit the rich), frankly we have better things to do than criticise Obama when he's doing what we want. Personally, I don't really have a problem with (most of) the moral teachings of Jesus. I would prefer a president that bases his decisions on rationale, but since that will never happen I will settle for one that doesn't claim that god told him to kill arabs or fix gays or whatever.

And that's the crux of the issue. Many people "on the left" (nothing to do with atheism, you'll note) are disenfranchised with Obama. They wanted a progressive, but got a centre-right politician. But they're also realists. They look at Obama, and then look at the alternatives (when only one of your candidates accepts scientific reality and lost and the least insane of the rest is a young earth creationist who wants to repeal the civil rights act, you know you have problems), and they go "best of a bad lot"

Heh - I used to think the sound of stuck pigs was unpleasant but seeing the Garlician/Vampiric reaction to one tiny, inoffensive comment from Shinyblurry has provided me with quite a bit of amusement. I think this - if nothing else - is sufficient evidence to entirely disprove Bill Maher (as if anything he ever said needed disproving). The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck. And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

On a side note - I am also quite amused with the hypocrisy of Athiests when it comes to Obama and his war on religion. Last week Obama said that he deliberately passes laws and pushes agendas because he thinks that is what Jesus wants. Now if George W. Bush had said that, then every Athiest Trog-Lib-Dyte would have started screaming bloody murder. And yet when a leftist radical twit like Obama does it the fiery indignation of the liberal left about the "Wall of Seperation" suddenly goes all quiet. Most illuminating... Most illuminating indeed for anyone who isn't blinded by partisan idiocy. Leftist goons also seem utterly uninterested in the "Wall of Seperation" when it comes to Obama's war on private charity hospitals. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

If you believe there's no difference between the genders you're trying a little too hard.

There's no doubt my son and daughter fit easily into seperate genders. We've given them both the same opportunities to pick their interests. Bit when my son picks up a stick it becomes a gun and when my daughter picks up the same stick she'll use it to train her horse. They both cook and clean and work to earn money that they have to manage but there's no doubt that there brains are fundamentally different.

You may argue that we have unconsciously reinforced roles for our children or that media and corporations have influenced their development but that ignores millenia of societal structures across the whole planet by cultures that in no way influenced each other and certainly were not influenced by modern media. It's obvious that corporate marketing reacts to gender roles rather than fabricating them. The idea of a conspiracy to suppress or elevate one gender through recognition of that genders inherent traits is horse shit. The inequality between genders in any culture is not a product of the difference between the genders themselves but a result of the values of that culture. Denying gender differences does not solve the problem of inequality in any culture, it only demonstrates a lack of real understanding of the problem.

My children can be anything they want. My son does not need to be encouraged to be something he's not in order to satisfy someone's intellectually dishonest bias that he is somehow no different from his sister. If you want to tackle the violence and suppression of the female gender in some societies then you have to address the political and social issues at the root. Pretending that making less pink toys is the solution is lazy and ignorant.

>> ^kymbos:

Good God - you're a Deadwood fan as well? Our similarities are disturbing.


Seperated at birth? You decide.

your response was long and the first half just reiterated me being a gnostic but i am what some may consider a "christian" gnostic.

So, as a Christian gnostic, what parts of the bible do you feel are authorative and what do you throw away? Do you consider the Old Testament to be valid?

so i dont see god as a failure nor evil.
i view god very much like the trinity.
father,son,holy ghost
or..
mind,body,spirit.
both work fine.
also if you changed the word "matter" to represent "ego"
then you would be closer to how i view the battle of "good" vs "evil"
i would say it is ego vs spirit.
you would say god vs devil,but we would be saying the same things.

I take it you don't believe Satan exists? If you don't believe in the fall, what is your narrative as to how things got the way they are?

the inherent differences in our philosophy are simply this:
internalization.
externalization.
i believe the teachings of christ (and others) hold the key to free ourselves from the ego (which is the ultimate liar).salvation starts when we realize we are spiritual beings with the spark of the divine.the creator if you will.spirit,soul,chi work also and that the ego seeks to dominate the spirit,pulling us ever further from our true self and our creator.(indivisible btw).

you view this dichotomy in a totally different light.jesus/god are outside.seperate and only through humility and acceptance that christ is lord and savior and died for your sins can you (or anybody) achieve salvation.(be saved)

I don't think it is that black and white. What you seem to believe is that you're one with God, and that by awakening your spiritual self (through gnosis i assume) you can conquer the ego and be free.. What I believe is that we each have a sinful nature which is corrupt and separates us from God. I believe that Christ conquered that nature as a man on the cross, and that through His substitutionary atonement, we are reconciled back to God and reborn in the spirit.

So, this isn't externalizing it. We come to Christ to be healed, but that is just the beginning. Being born again means to become a new creation and receive the Holy Spirit. It is not simply to bow to Christ and thank Him for salvation. It is to be remade in the image of Christ, and that is inside and outside.

Neither it is separateness from God, because the body of Christ is unity with God. We are in Him and He is in us and He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. Christ is the head of the body of Christ, as the Father is the head of Christ. We are sons and daughters of God and co-heirs with Christ.

so when you ask if i believe christ was savior i would answer yes..most certainly,but i come to that conclusion by a different path and different tools.
yet we both use the bible.
pretty neat huh?
but you ONLY use the bible as your authority and that is fine but i tend to use..well...everything..but thats another conversation.

Yet, how can He be savior when you say you can save yourself?

so now we come to what do i tell these lost and broken people who have experienced a crisis of faith.
well...
i dont attack their religion.
i allow them to talk and let that spike of uncertainty bubble to the surface so i can get a better look at it.if i am going to help anyone i have to know where the pain is yes?

you have to realize that the majority of the people i deal with came from very strict,authoritarian and fundamentalist families.they were usually sheltered from the real world (not always a bad thing) and the culture shock alone is a trauma in itself and many times the parents are not exactly curious people but their children are (or the ones that came to me).

the first thing i do is hand them a scofield study bible (i have a stack of them) and tell them to read JUST the words of jesus and get back to me when they are ready.scofield has all the words of jesus highlighted in pink,cant miss em.

now you may ask "why would enoch do that"?
simple.many religions have a long LOOOONG list of doctrine and dogma by having that person read just the words of jesus we get to cut 80% of that crap out and focus on the words of jesus.

Do you believe all the words of Jesus (in the bible) are truth?

here is what "sin" actually is.this may not sound biblical but it actually is.jesus spoke of it often.
sin is when you KNOW/FEEL something is wrong and you CHOOSE to do it anyways.

On the contrary, sin is when you disobey the direct commands of God. Plenty of people don't know or feel it is wrong to commit all sorts of crimes, and wouldn't otherwise know, if God didn't set a standard for behavior. According to this standard, it wouldn't be wrong to murder if someone didn't know or feel it is wrong.

and dont get me started on "original sin" utter nonsense that piece of garbage.the church was unable to make its case centuries ago and still has failed to make the case for original sin. i suspect you disagree...thats ok but dont engage me on this one.i aint budging.

The bible doesn't contain the words "original sin". What it says is that God created the world perfectly, but because Adam and Eve sinned, they brought death into the world through sin. And that since then, man is born with a corrupt nature that is spiritually separated from God. How does your narrative differ from this? Do you believe that God doesn't care about sin?

i mean.
what do you tell a 22 yr old boy who is gay that god has not forsaken him?
that he is not some abomination?
that his father is wrong for beating him with a pipe in a rage and throwing him out of the only house he has ever known?
how can this boy who was raised in a god fearing house believe for a second that god loves him when according to the bible he would not?raised to believe god was not only all-knowing but all-loving except him.

well you point to the scofield bible and ask that boy to find a verse where jesus says he hates fags.thats what you do.
because it jesus doesnt say that.

I'm surprised that this is what you believe.. Of course it isn't right for a father to beat their child and throw them out. That definitely isn't demonstrating the love of God. But that has nothing to do with the boys spiritual situation.

What Jesus says is that marriage is between a man and a woman, and sex outside of marriage is a sin. There is no room in Gods plan for homosexual behavior. Now, people are born with all sorts of adverse conditions. Some people are born with cancer, or with deformed bodies. Has God forsaken them? Everyone has their own special challenges. So, a person who has homosexual desires, does he have to act upon them? Some people have sexual desire for children, or animals. Is that right? Weren't they just born that way?

or the girl who was raped and the family convinced her it was her fault because she had sinned against god and that was her punishment.

or one of my most precious whose family member had molested her for years and when she finally got the courage to say something about it only to be told to shut up.that she was a liar (not even possible with this girl) and again...her fault and punishment from god.

i could go on and on and on.

Your examples are people acting sinfully and disobeying the direct commands of God to say that sin isn't what the bible says it is. What this is just proves how bad sin really is.

what i do for these very special people is get them to understand they are spirit.
that they have a spark of the creator (made in "his" image) and that spark is their true selves.
and to cherish that spark.
i show them love.
true love of the spiritual kind.the altruistic love our spirits crave to give and receive.
that it is possible to love themselves and to forgive those who rejected them.judged them and forsook them.

You're forgetting the greatest commandments:

Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your spirit, and all of your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself.

They need to love God first and everything else will follow. I think what you're substituting for the love of God is the love of self, because you perceive you have a piece of God within you. Unless you are born again, you don't have the Holy Spirit. You can't get near a holy God with a sinful nature.

i teach them the power of forgiveness.
to forgive themselves..for to forgive yourself you first have to KNOW yourself and to do that...well..you have to swim through a river of your own shit to truly know yourself.
i teach them to be free.
and in the doing they become free to love others as openly and honestly as they were meant to and to understand that many people,most actually,do not understand the true gift jesus gave us:love and forgiveness=freedom.

The true gift Jesus gave us was His precious blood. What we need is Gods forgiveness for our sins. Without His forgiveness, we will face judgement. You don't seem to believe that is going to happen. If you want to believe that, this is your right. To teach other people this, you are potentially endangering them. What happens if you stand in front of God and He shows you that what you taught people about being free and forgiving themselves sent some of them to hell?

i do not use dogma nor doctrine to teach these things.
i do not seek these people out,they find me and my obligation is to honor that path they found to me as the will of the creator.
some have needed a room to stay and heal their wounds.
i give that place of security for them.( i do this for addicts also)
i do not charge money for i do not consider helping another human being out to find themselves a service but rather a kindness in recognizing another spirit.
and here is the neat part that has always tickled me:i have never wanted for anything.car dies? i get gifted a new one a week later.
short on the electric bill? i find a lottery ticket with almost the exact amount i needed.
needed a vacation to go back home?
friend offers out of the blue to buy me a plane ticket.

Before I became a Christian, I was led like this too, with signs and all sorts of little perks. I thought I was doing Gods work, but it turns out that I was being influenced by evil. There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. Don't count on those signs because they aren't necessarily from God. If they aren't, how would you tell?

a few that i have helped went back to the church.
one woman i counseled for 12 yrs (really abusive husband) who is now a devout baptist like you!
aaand she is studying at a bible college,which of course i have to mess with her cuz they dont allow women to perform mass but i do help with her homework sometimes.

That's cool..I'm not a baptist though. I enjoy sermons from baptist pastors but I am non-denominational, so I don't ascribe the everything that baptists believe.

ok..now im just rambling.
it is late and im stupid tired but i wanted to respond before i went to bed.busy day tomorrow.
hope this gives you a clearer picture.not gonna proof read so it may just be gibberish.
in any case..
always a pleasure my friend.

I always enjoy our conversations. I hope you don't take offense at anything I said..I am just representing the truth I know and trying to figure out where you're coming from. God bless.


>> ^enoch

thanks for the response my friend.
though you are still using bullet form..ewww.

understand i use the term gnostic to give people a reference point,but that is all.
i am not ritualized like a sophian or strict adherence like a rosacrucian,but i would still be considered an apostate by the church...any church.

your response was long and the first half just reiterated me being a gnostic but i am what some may consider a "christian" gnostic.
so i dont see god as a failure nor evil.
i view god very much like the trinity.
father,son,holy ghost
or..
mind,body,spirit.
both work fine.
also if you changed the word "matter" to represent "ego"
then you would be closer to how i view the battle of "good" vs "evil"
i would say it is ego vs spirit.
you would say god vs devil,but we would be saying the same things.

the inherent differences in our philosophy are simply this:
internalization.
externalization.
i believe the teachings of christ (and others) hold the key to free ourselves from the ego (which is the ultimate liar).salvation starts when we realize we are spiritual beings with the spark of the divine.the creator if you will.spirit,soul,chi work also and that the ego seeks to dominate the spirit,pulling us ever further from our true self and our creator.(indivisible btw).

you view this dichotomy in a totally different light.jesus/god are outside.seperate and only through humility and acceptance that christ is lord and savior and died for your sins can you (or anybody) achieve salvation.(be saved)

so when you ask if i believe christ was savior i would answer yes..most certainly,but i come to that conclusion by a different path and different tools.
yet we both use the bible.
pretty neat huh?
but you ONLY use the bible as your authority and that is fine but i tend to use..well...everything..but thats another conversation.

so now we come to what do i tell these lost and broken people who have experienced a crisis of faith.
well...
i dont attack their religion.
i allow them to talk and let that spike of uncertainty bubble to the surface so i can get a better look at it.if i am going to help anyone i have to know where the pain is yes?

you have to realize that the majority of the people i deal with came from very strict,authoritarian and fundamentalist families.they were usually sheltered from the real world (not always a bad thing) and the culture shock alone is a trauma in itself and many times the parents are not exactly curious people but their children are (or the ones that came to me).

the first thing i do is hand them a scofield study bible (i have a stack of them) and tell them to read JUST the words of jesus and get back to me when they are ready.scofield has all the words of jesus highlighted in pink,cant miss em.

now you may ask "why would enoch do that"?
simple.many religions have a long LOOOONG list of doctrine and dogma by having that person read just the words of jesus we get to cut 80% of that crap out and focus on the words of jesus.

there have been a few times that is all i have had to do.set them on a path that is simple and not so laden with hail mary's and guilt and 'supposed" to's.

baptists are the ones where i have to address sin.
they read the bible and they think they understand sin.
oh hell no.they dont have a clue and while there are some great passages in the bible that address sin..something gets lost in translation sometimes and the church does not help.

here is what "sin" actually is.this may not sound biblical but it actually is.jesus spoke of it often.
sin is when you KNOW/FEEL something is wrong and you CHOOSE to do it anyways.

and dont get me started on "original sin" utter nonsense that piece of garbage.the church was unable to make its case centuries ago and still has failed to make the case for original sin.
i suspect you disagree...thats ok but dont engage me on this one.i aint budging.

i mean.
what do you tell a 22 yr old boy who is gay that god has not forsaken him?
that he is not some abomination?
that his father is wrong for beating him with a pipe in a rage and throwing him out of the only house he has ever known?
how can this boy who was raised in a god fearing house believe for a second that god loves him when according to the bible he would not?raised to believe god was not only all-knowing but all-loving except him.

well you point to the scofield bible and ask that boy to find a verse where jesus says he hates fags.thats what you do.
because it jesus doesnt say that.

or the girl who was raped and the family convinced her it was her fault because she had sinned against god and that was her punishment.

or one of my most precious whose family member had molested her for years and when she finally got the courage to say something about it only to be told to shut up.that she was a liar (not even possible with this girl) and again...her fault and punishment from god.

i could go on and on and on.

what i do for these very special people is get them to understand they are spirit.
that they have a spark of the creator (made in "his" image) and that spark is their true selves.
and to cherish that spark.
i show them love.
true love of the spiritual kind.the altruistic love our spirits crave to give and receive.
that it is possible to love themselves and to forgive those who rejected them.judged them and forsook them.
i teach them the power of forgiveness.
to forgive themselves..for to forgive yourself you first have to KNOW yourself and to do that...well..you have to swim through a river of your own shit to truly know yourself.
i teach them to be free.
and in the doing they become free to love others as openly and honestly as they were meant to and to understand that many people,most actually,do not understand the true gift jesus gave us:love and forgiveness=freedom.

i do not use dogma nor doctrine to teach these things.
i do not seek these people out,they find me and my obligation is to honor that path they found to me as the will of the creator.
some have needed a room to stay and heal their wounds.
i give that place of security for them.( i do this for addicts also)
i do not charge money for i do not consider helping another human being out to find themselves a service but rather a kindness in recognizing another spirit.
and here is the neat part that has always tickled me:i have never wanted for anything.car dies? i get gifted a new one a week later.
short on the electric bill? i find a lottery ticket with almost the exact amount i needed.
needed a vacation to go back home?
friend offers out of the blue to buy me a plane ticket.

a few that i have helped went back to the church.
one woman i counseled for 12 yrs (really abusive husband) who is now a devout baptist like you!
aaand she is studying at a bible college,which of course i have to mess with her cuz they dont allow women to perform mass but i do help with her homework sometimes.

ok..now im just rambling.
it is late and im stupid tired but i wanted to respond before i went to bed.busy day tomorrow.
hope this gives you a clearer picture.not gonna proof read so it may just be gibberish.
in any case..
always a pleasure my friend.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
buh, buh, buh... I wanna go NEXT!
Wow! So many questions...
How long is it distance-wise?
How fast did it get going?
What is it there for?
Why were there no other cars on the track?
How do the cars get back up to the top?

Without knowing a thing about it...
-It's got to be a good 3-4 km.
-Didn't look faster than 50km/h (30mph)
-Making money or having fun, depending on what side of the cash you're on.
-No other cars for the same reason there's only ever 1 car on any roller coaster. Collisions.
-I'd think you slide it off at the bottom and head back up the tram with it under your arm. Repeatedly.


Don't you guys don't know Sommerrodelbahnen? :-)

They are very popular in Alps' tourist regions (i.e. Austria, Switzerland and southern parts of Germany). I'd go so far and say every ski area has at least one of them. They serve a single purpose: entertain tourists in summer months.

Nearly every time there's other cars on the track. That's why its not so easy to go down without braking. most of the time you have some mom with their kid (usually there's one and two seated cars) in front of you. So braking is not a question of braveness but of collision prevention ;-)

Mieders is one of the longest tracks but a bit more boring compared to others which offer 360 curves etc.

The carts get pulled up on a seperate track, on older tracks you wear seatbelts, some have racing car like "H" belts and the newest and fastest have the same metal "bars" that roller coasters have. the cars cannot slip of the track because it's built something like that:

__cccc
cccccccc
cccccccc
cc_TT_cc
ccc__ccc

Where "c" is cart and "T" is track, "_" can be ignored ;-)

The only downside: A ride usually is pretty expensive.

It seems to me i just got a promising business idea for the US :-D But i guess those tracks are not popular in the Rockys etc. because you guys have 12 months of snow in your ski areas i assume whereas in most ski areas of the alps ski season is from early november to late march.

seperate but equal.

I don't see here is any real denying that she's (A) left her family to (B) hang out with a bunch of hippies. 'Left' doesn't mean she has divorced or seperated. It just means she's out doing an activity. Families do things like that all the time, and as long as the husband is on-board with it, supportive, and things have been arranged to have been taken care of while she's gone then fine. What's the problem?

However - what if the husband WASN'T exactly on board with this? What if she just told him "I'm going" and then upped and took off without making arrangements or otherwise taking the steps to make sure her kids were looked after? What if she just really wanted to go be part of this OWS thing, ran out the door, and expected other people to pick up the slack 'indefinitely' as she puts it? I'd say that's quite another story, and I would also agree with F&F that a person who does such a thing is scum. Family comes first.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/she_plans_to_stray_awhile_opuo0dDOjE39dfRDdUZ1sM

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/awol_fla_mom_off_wall_39RPeFcS8xHypyOrCbeh4I

None of the news I've seen so far has obtained the words of the husband. All references to him and the kids are second or third-hand "they said" kind of stuff. I'd be interested to have someone in the media talk to the husband and get his official story about what happened. The interviews with this woman don't inspire confidence in her reasoning capabilities. She seems high-strung, combative, highly emotional, and subject to outbursts. I'd rather get the opinion of someone a bit more steady. Maybe she's right. Maybe she's full of crap. I don't know. What's the husband got to say? The only quote I've seen of his says that he is "puzzled". That doesn't exactly tell me what he really thinks, whether they planned this, or whether he is supportive or not. It implies that he doesn't really have any interest in OWS, but not much else.

>> ^lantern53:

O'Rourke used to be quite a hipster, the editor of the National Lampoon so many of you young people probably don't know his formerly anarchist self. He just grew up.
Grayson is certifiably insane, however.
Now Wall St. may have fouled up but it was the US gov't which was holding the gun to it's head. Only a gov't could foul things up this badly. The economy goes up and down in cycles, but when the gov't gets involved, serious interference takes place and since the gov't is so powerful (more powerful than Wall St, I guarantee you), the bankers have to do what gov't wants.
This depression is exactly what happens when a powerful gov't interferes in free markets. So if you want to Occupy anything, Occupy the Capitol building.


this is so assbackward its stunning
the government forced them to create CDO's? to bundle up non-AAA holdings and sell them as AAA? to extend themselves beyond their ability to cover their loses?

the problem was the government wasn't protecting it's citizen's interest; they removed regulation after regulation, allowed banks to get involved in too risky endeavours (seperate function of different types of banks), increased the amount of leverage allowed, etc etc

the government should have been the protection to the greed and stupidity capable in FREE MARKETS... and make no mistake, it was SOLELY GREED and STUPIDITY that led to this...

FREE MARKETS as the solution is such incredible SH_T, because all that means, is that it's unregulated... and then the whole lie of supply/demand being the saviour and great equalizer is revealed, the concept of competition comes to an end... as then the amount of money you have determines the flow of the market, have competition? buy them out... lobby to have rules and regulations put into place that prevent you from ever having competition, etc... FREE MARKETS work in the big boy's best interest, not the consumer or the little guy...

btw... because the US government is SO much in the pocket of big money interests... all this is happening (and has been) for the past 30yrs...

repeat: the 30yrs leading up to this recession, government protection/involvement in free markets has been continually lessened.... through removal of regulation meant to protect consumers/main street and through institution (thanks lobbies) of laws/regulations that allowed wall street/banks to literally destroy 20% of the wealth accumulated over the past 200yrs... only to be bailed out by the government in their pockets (and then most of these banks used the bailout money to consolidate power, buyout other banks, and grow even more TOO BIG TO FAIL)

ignorance/culpability... I'm not sure which you more reek of

That's a laugh..the first thing you did in our "debate" is try to argue I am a troll. Then we had a little contentious back and forth in which my answers were perfectly adaquete..the problem was that you copped out and ran away. Here is our final exchange:

"@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:

Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?

2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.

Does the irony escape you?"

My reply:

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

You never answered to any of this. This was your final reply:

Shiny quoted conserva-facts-don't-affect-me-pedia.com; conversation ended. You fail.

You used the excuse that I had quoted conservapedia about zooasterism to Enoch to run away from our debate. So please get off your high horse..and you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.


>> ^hpqp:
You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).
Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).
Yours satanically,
Lucy Furr
edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.
>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

holy extraovercomplicatedness batman!

1 egg
1 cup self raising flour
1 cup milk - (just add a little more if you want them thinner)
turn em when they bubble, butter em as you stack em, sweeten em as you eat em.
my 6 year makes them for us on the weekend.

as reggie watts says "why shit so crazy?"

i hope i'm not disrespecting americans knowledge of all things pancake. after all they did come up with the microwaveable jimmy dean pancake and sausage on a stick. sausage wrapped in pancake. microwaveable. with choc chips. on a stick. and microwaveable.

>> ^shponglefan:

My tried-and-tested pancake recipe:
2 cups all-purpose flour
1/2 cup rolled oats
3 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1-2 tablespoons brown sugar (depending on desired sweetness)
1 tablespoon of maple syrup
1 3/4 cups milk (I use Vanilla-flavored soy milk)
1 egg
2 tablespoons light olive oil
1 tsp each of nutmeg and cinnamon
Mix dry and wet ingredients seperately, then whisk together until lump-free, let stand until thickened, and then cook on medium heat. After about 30 seconds in the pan I add some sort of fruit combination into the pancake including blueberry, raspberry, pineapple, strawberry, apple, etc. I then cover the fruit with some more batter. Blueberry & pineapple is an especially delicious combo. Cook until golden on each side, then top with maple syrup or whipped cream (or both).