@shinyblurry:

Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.

Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.

Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.


Could you perhaps refer me to some documents wherein St. Ephrem or St. Basil averred that the literal interpretation of the Bible is primary? Ephrem appears to have struck a middle ground between literalism and pure metaphorical interpretation, and St. Basil was a student of Origen's writings. Granted, St. Basil assiduously avoided the bizarre flights of fancy that plagued some of the Christian writers in the 4th century, but he was hardly a literalist in a strict sense--the literal sense was only one important sense in which to take the sacred writings.

If you want to support your point, a particular reference to Genesis will do best.

As far as Ambrose goes, it stretches the truth to say that he was a "mentor" of Augustine. Certainly, Augustine speaks rather highly of Ambrose in the Confessions. But Augustine writes with rather rose-colored glasses. A sober-minded approach to the life of Ambrose reveals that he was as much a political animal as he was spiritual. And even in the Confessions it is not recorded that Ambrose paid much attention to Augustine. If I recall correctly, Augustine doesn't record a single word that Ambrose said to Augustine outside of a public sermon in which Augustine was a member of the congregation.

In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.


In the traditional sense, certainly. There are other senses by which one might claim to be Christian--pointing out the tradition from which one derives one's moral compass, for instance. In this sense, many atheists can probably claim to be Christian atheists, rather than, e.g., Muslim atheists.

Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.


Do they sin much less than usual? I haven't seen any sign of it. The statistics don't seem to bear it out. Nor does my personal experience. Of the best and most morally astute people I know, only one was Christian. The rest were Buddhist, Muslim, or Pagan.

In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.


To worship and devote yourself to a single God, like Jesus Christ, has a specific term in Hinduism--bhakhti yoga. It is the path of love and devotion.

No matter which god you pursue with this ardent and holy love, you will achieve the same result--sanctification, rebirth, and the descending dove of the Holy Spirit.

The forgiveness of sins is a psychological projection. Eternal life is yours regardless of what any god says.


Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?

As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.


As far as deception goes, I will quote to you the Gospels, Luke 11:17-19: 'But He knew their thoughts and said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls. If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges.'

How can a demon bring holy ecstasy? How can a devil cast out division and hatred, and bring in such divine love?

And with regard to intolerance, it's almost entirely pointless to quote to me the first apocryphon of John--the so-called Gospel of John. I'm well aware of what it says. I've spent a lot of time considering it. That's why I think it's incorrect.

It does no good at all to suggest that it's someone else who's being intolerant. On the one hand, it looks like you're blame-shifting, too much the coward to take responsibility for the statement. On the other hand, you are providing no reason to think that the quotation provides any authority whatsoever, and undermining your position by your own indolence.

Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.

Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.

Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?

As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.

>> ^HadouKen24:

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Nice links. I like this particular section very much:

As for accountability of teachers and administrators, Sahlberg shrugs. "There's no word for accountability in Finnish," he later told an audience at the Teachers College of Columbia University. "Accountability is something that is left when responsibility has been subtracted."

For Sahlberg what matters is that in Finland all teachers and administrators are given prestige, decent pay, and a lot of responsibility. A master's degree is required to enter the profession, and teacher training programs are among the most selective professional schools in the country. If a teacher is bad, it is the principal's responsibility to notice and deal with it.

@robbersdog49
This will forever be a discussion between people who work with colours.
In the print industry, the photographic industry or the artists of the world.

The truth is it's different for what ever your process is.
RGB for Light
CMYK for Print
& RYB for artists
I work in all three industries and need to switch my brain back and forth between them constantly.

What they are showing here at the most primary level is the RYB colour wheel that kids learn first. It's basic paints and crayons. These are the base pigments used in paints; Cadmium Yellow & Red, Phthalocyanine (Phthalo) Blue or Cobalt Blue. The closest paint colour to magenta would be a Quinacridone.
The primary colours are the ones all others are made from. These are the ones you can't make by adding something else. We use the chemicals that are the absolute most pure to create these pigmants. They are the highest level of purity and intensity a colour can be. Once you start mixing them, the intensity can only be reduced.
Of course these would be balanced using a titanium white, Iron Oxide Black (plus Umber & Sienna).

As we get older, science class points out that light works differently and is a process that works in subtractive colour. Light being white and the other colours being made by adding filters to block various parts of the spectrum.A blue surface isn't so much blue as it just holds on to all wavelengths of the spectrum but reflects the part of the spectrum that is blue. (Etc.)

In indusry, (and most people still don't under stand this process), the printing process uses Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Key (Black) (in a transparent or dot)layered fashion to simulate a full colour image.

And don't forget Hexachrome (CMYKOG) which also ads the Orange and Green coloured inks (because simple CMYK cannot simulate every colour).

The CMYK colour system is a simulation of colour and are NOT primary colours. Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black are the primary colours within that system only.

ROY G BIV
R Y B are more accurately the Primary Colours in the light and colour spectrum. The coulours between them OG(I)V are all Secondary colours.

*Sidenote: Magenta is an odd coulour which comes from that one man out theory. Indigo is the invisible colour in the spectrum that breaks the rule. That's why in order to create a Cyan colour in paint, we use a Quinacridone pigment. Quinacridone is a transparent colour only and can't be made opaque without mixing it with another pigment and loosing it's purity. It's a damm expensive pigment so it's rarely used.

>> ^robbersdog49:

Primary colours of light are Red Green and Blue.
Primary colours of pigment are Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black.
I'm a geeky printer so this bugs the hell out of me. Blue is a mix of Cyan and Magenta, so it's not primary. It's a mix. Red is a mix of Magenta and Yellow.
Maybe they just weren't clever enough to find rhymes for Magenta or Cyan. It's just a shame they had to be wrong.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Skeeve:
@marbles I imagine a significant portion of it went to the BC government as tax (with a small percentage of that going to the federal government). Lottery winnings are not taxable in Canada, so the government takes a hefty sum off the top.
Thankfully a significant portion of the government's gaming revenue goes back into the community.

Thanks for the lesson in Doublespeak. So what is this tax called?
Even if so, there's no disclosure about where the other money went. And really there's more than 3.3 mil missing since I just subtracted the retail value of the prizes. There's a long list of "suppliers and sponsors" that donated prizes or sold prizes at cost.


Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Just because the news show didn't say, doesn't mean the information is unavailable. Also, there is no concrete reason to assume validity on the report. Fox News should have shown everyone that at least.

Also, when @Skeeve said "winnings are not taxable" they meant the recipient is not taxed, the lottery is. Lottery takes in 10mil, government takes 5mil, winner gets prize of 5mil. Unlike the US, where the tax burden is on the recipient, which only really makes the lottery look better. Powerball is kinda lame that way. "biggest payout" but you lose over half almost immediately. I like the Canadian lottery system, you keep what you kill.

I don't think Doublespeak means what you think it means.

As for what the tax is called, I'm not sure, but I think most of it is just plain old GST.

With regards to the disclosure, most of that information is protected by Section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, so without FOI request you aren't going to find out. You can find audit reports of various raffles and lotteries at the Ministry of Public Safety's website but they will be redacted to adhere to the freedom of info laws.

Anyway, it's not a scam or fraud - they are audited regularly to ensure compliance with the rather strict gaming laws.>> ^marbles:

>> ^Skeeve:
@marbles I imagine a significant portion of it went to the BC government as tax (with a small percentage of that going to the federal government). Lottery winnings are not taxable in Canada, so the government takes a hefty sum off the top.
Thankfully a significant portion of the government's gaming revenue goes back into the community.

Thanks for the lesson in Doublespeak. So what is this tax called?
Even if so, there's no disclosure about where the other money went. And really there's more than 3.3 mil missing since I just subtracted the retail value of the prizes. There's a long list of "suppliers and sponsors" that donated prizes or sold prizes at cost.

>> ^Skeeve:

@marbles I imagine a significant portion of it went to the BC government as tax (with a small percentage of that going to the federal government). Lottery winnings are not taxable in Canada, so the government takes a hefty sum off the top.
Thankfully a significant portion of the government's gaming revenue goes back into the community.


Thanks for the lesson in Doublespeak. So what is this tax called?

Even if so, there's no disclosure about where the other money went. And really there's more than 3.3 mil missing since I just subtracted the retail value of the prizes. There's a long list of "suppliers and sponsors" that donated prizes or sold prizes at cost.

ratios hard :-|,
subtracting is much easier for some than division

@mgittle I think we agree in the broad strokes, and overall conclusion, but I think you have some of the minor details wrong.

You and others here have asserted that banks can "loan out more than they have". This is false, according to everything I've ever read or seen happen in my own work life (in financial services).

Here's my own version of a logical proof. If I want to take out a loan from the bank to buy something, the bank actually has to give real money to someone. But, the Federal Reserve is the only agency that can create dollars legally. Therefore, the bank must have enough dollars in some account in order to pay out the initial loan amount, or it can't issue the loan.

So where do banks get the money to lend out? Well, for a traditional bank, it comes from the checking and savings accounts of regular people, as well as out of capital accumulated from profits. This is that "some account" whose name is actually the bank's "reserve account" at...the Federal Reserve. To cover withdrawals from those savings accounts, banks are legally required to keep a fraction of their total capital in reserve -- hence the name "fractional reserve banking".

So, how does the Fed inject new money into the economy? It anonymously buys government bonds from banks, using freshly created money. What if the Fed wants to take money out of the economy? Well, it sells government bonds, and destroys the cash it gets in return for the sale. No physically currency really gets created or destroyed, of course, it's just adding and subtracting numbers from the relevant reserve accounts.

Here's wikipedia's explanation of the Fed's monetary policy process, which is more detailed and authoritative than mine.

You also make the case that paying off debt hurts the economy because it shrinks the money supply. That's true! Which is why right now the economy is seriously in need of the Fed expanding the monetary base. Right now everyone's trying to pay down their debts (deleverage, in the financial lingo), and it's sucking all the money out of the economy. The Fed needs to work overtime to pump more money into the economy to take up the slack. Unfortunately, the banks have been wanting to keep way more than their usual in reserves -- they aren't loaning out the money the Fed is creating, they're just piling it up in their account at the Fed.

Because of that, it's never leaving the building, much less entering into the economy where it might potentially cause inflation. That's why I've been trying to tell marbles that monetary base expansion != inflation...they're two different terms for a reason!

It's also why I think abolishing the Fed or returning to a gold standard just makes things worse for everyone. One can argue that the Fed is pursuing the wrong monetary policy (for exmaple most liberal economists say it's been too timid about expanding the money supply), but this whole attempt to make the whole seem like some sort of illegitimate scam grates on me.

Without the Fed trying to expand the monetary base, you'd get something like 20% unemployment, and outright deflation, rather than just a low and declining rate of inflation.

So let's deal with some factual claims here. Cafferty's entire premise hangs on this Washington Times article, which makes the claim that there are $3 in tax increases for every $1 in cuts.

Except, the Washington Times is lying when it says that. According to the WT article itself, the proposal outlines $4.4 trillion in deficit reduction, $1.5 trillion of which is tax increases. That's $1.93 in cuts for each $1 in taxes, nowhere near the $0.33 in cuts per $1 in taxes that the Washington times states.

So how do they arrive at their figure? Well, they subtract out a bunch of things that are "supposed to happen anyways". Things that people like @blankfist insist Obama won't do, such as ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a series of budget cuts that he'd agreed to in the debt ceiling deal a few months back.

Never mind that ending the Bush tax cuts is also something that is "supposed to happen anyways", and the new taxes proposed are more than offset by specific new cuts.

Which reminds me, Cafferty says there are no specific cuts of any kind. Before saying that, maybe he should read the plan? Or maybe even just read the entire Washington Times article he's relying on so heavily. The Washington Times' own conservative (in every sense of the word) estimate is that there are $580 billion in specific cuts, mostly coming from Social Security and Medicare, which Cafferty says have been left untouched.

Then, Cafferty says we have a $1 trillion a year deficit. Except now he is adding in all the things he subtracted from Obama's plan because they were "going to happen anyway." He's including the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, he's including all the spending that will be cut because of the debt ceiling deal, and he's including the deficit from the Bush tax cuts.

If you're going to subtract those things out as legitimate sources of deficit reduction, then you've also got to subtract them out of your estimate of what the deficit is going to be in the future. If you don't, then you're being straight up dishonest, and exaggerating the size of the gap between the plans for deficit reduction, and the deficit itself.

I suspect Cafferty did this accidentally, but still, it's not like there aren't people at CNN who could've fact checked him before he said this on air.

Anyways, here's a much more fair assessment of the Obama plan, if you're looking for some balance on the topic.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I don't know if you watch the Top 15 Sifters of the Week listing.
Last night all of a sudden I was way ahead of you--which was funny because you were Way ahead of me for several days.
Then today we swapped places again--I think they screwed up and mixed up whose votes were whose.
You me and @Barseps are doing pretty good with only three queues


nah, It's correct. It's based on a rolling 7 days on your own videos (everything in your recent videos que added up). After 7 days videos get removed from your recent and those votes are subtracted from your weekly total.

Thanks for illustrating the point of this video.

No one outside the tea party believes that a column of numbers listing US federal debt on wikipedia is an inaccurate liberal conspiracy.

No one outside the tea party performs subtraction on two sets of numbers found in a table, notices that they are roughly comparable in size and then claims one is "3 times as much" as the other.

And no one outside the tea party seriously thought that cut cap and balance was a compromise.

I'm done feeding you.

@GeeSussFreeK

No, not in the way I think you mean. The FED doesn't function as a bank of deposit, they function as an interbank lending facility, where the money being lent is created (or recycled) by the FED itself. Bonds and treasury securities are the primary source of the reserve, although there are other assets in play as well.

Technically, any debt incurred by the government is a liability of the public taxpayer, given that the government is expected to pay those debts off by using tax income. The Bond is, by definition, a loan TO the government. It is also the only legal way the government is allowed to get money, aside from taxes. Which is why the give them to the FED.

Let the logic of THAT sink in. We loaned money to ourselves by going into debt to ourselves, and then immediately turned around and called it a 'bank asset' and used it to loan more money out to every one else. If you subtract back to the start of the whole equation we, quite literally, end up with zero 'real' dollars in existence.

It's confusing, but that's the point. If people don't understand how badly they are getting screwed, they don't do anything to stop it.

They are too close. That is my royal decree.

It adds nothing, it only subtracts.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, 6000 years. Don't take my word for it..look up the artifacts he mentions. The bible says that before the flood humans were quite advanced..and this is evidence for it. Can our understanding of history account for ancient batteries that generate electricity? How about a computer that can do addition subtraction multiplication and division? Models of modern airplanes? Heiroglyphics of helicopters? Obviously we have it wrong if any of those things existed. Wake up, you're being lied to.
>> ^kulpims:
shiny, you christians are total idiots. you advocate that the Earth, universe, everything is like, what - 6000 years old? and now you come up with this bullshit ...



The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Can you show me scientific , peer reviewed paper or study that invalidates all the methods used that currently point to the age of the earth being well over 6k years old ?

Don't u think that the whole universe is under 6 k years old as well ?

Also there is no way to know that the bible is the word of god or not just something made up by man. So you are basing your whole motivation and argument of a book that contains fictional stories , incosistancies , has been edited over the years , no real direction as to what is Allegory or what is meant to be read as factual / literal.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Just in case you don't know , you realize there is nothing stopping creationists gathering actual evidence and putting together scientific theories that are better than the current ones and as a result proving that the earth is 6k years old if it in fact was ?