Some of Aston Martin's cars are so beautifully designed that they transcend automotive design and are almost pieces of sculpture that also move.

This thing, though... it's just butt ugly. I'm sure it's great fun to drive, but I find it hard to believe it's the same company that designed this.

Consciousness is not limited to our physical existence because we have a soul that transcends the material world

Looks like that scene near the end of Transcendence.

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.

The reason for the Heaven and Earth part is to reaffirm what He said in the previous verse, which is that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. He is saying the law cannot be destroyed. The reason He was strongly reaffirming that is because that is exactly what the Pharisees accused Him of doing.

As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

lol

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

The law is not everything, but the context of that statement is that He is fulfilling the law. The "all" then is all that which is written for Him to fulfill. An example that ties in would be in Luke 4:21

Also, a main piece you are skipping over is where Jesus said He didn't come to destroy the law but fulfill it. That tells you the meaning of what He is talking about. He is definitely saying that the law can be fulfilled, and it can be fulfilled by Him. This is the meaning of the text, that He had come to fulfill it and would (and did) fulfill it.

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

He didn't oppose Gods law, He brought something into the situation that had never been there before, which is grace. Since He is the Lord, He can do that. That is exactly what He came to earth to do, which is to bring forgiveness and salvation by faith through grace.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?

I would venture to guess that the majority of the citizens of Israel had never killed anyone except perhaps if they were in the army. You make it sound like they were a bunch of barbarians running around and bashing peoples heads in. The reality is, everyone knew the law and knew the penalty of certain things was death. It probably would have been relatively rare that people were caught violating laws that led to the death penalty. Jesus followed the law perfectly but it doesn't mean He killed anyone. The only example we have in scripture of that situation is when He showed grace.

".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

It would have been right for Him to stone someone who broke the law but the person would be judged by the priests before that could happen. I just doubt that it ever did happen and nothing is mentioned about it in scripture.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Jesus is not a myth, first of all. Even Richard Dawkins believes He was a real person. I enjoyed Aesops fables; my grandfather gave me a book of them as a child (I wish I could find it now). I haven't looked them over in awhile so I can't say what I do or don't agree with. The question is, how are they objectively good? By that I don't mean, something that appeals to you personally. What I mean is, what makes them transcendent above mere human opinion?

Glad to hear you stating things as you did, I largely agree with you.

The trick playing out in Canada now is that because we've expanded the definition of protected classes more quickly than the US, the protected classes rights are interfering more and more.

I do not believe that religion should be a protected class in the same way as race, gender or ethnicity. Similarly sexual orientation and gender identity shouldn't be either. Race, Gender and ethnicity are all assigned at birth and can largely be determined by blood test and demonstrated to be something entirely outside an individuals control, choice and behaviour.

Religion is the most easily demonstrated as deserving a different status of protection than the others in that most religions ALL hold the others as heretical. Declaring other faiths immoral is necessary to religious freedom and I take as the very positive basis of America's freedom of religion notion being a wonderful agreement between Catholics and Protestants to agree to disagree over war.

More controversially, I would also class your sexual preferences and identity in with religion as a different degree of protected class. There is an element of behaviour and choice here that can not be determined at birth with any manner of blood test or parental bloodline.

More simply, the right to discriminate should not exist for immutable things people are born to and remain beyond their choice or control, while the right to discriminate based upon behaviours is entirely necessary and important. If you want to believe Scientology can help you heal broken limbs and transcend the world your free to it, but I'm gonna treat you differently than a sane person. To similarly treat someone different based upon race or gender though is unacceptable.

I still think about this a lot, lol. And I totally agree with his reference to extraterrestrials living on a different wavelength/dimension. And I always come back to what humanity has accomplished in such a short time period relative to the Universe itself.

There's no doubt that extra-dimensions exist that we have no clue about, so there could be existence beyond our capability to imagine in those dimensions. But, even more so - the Universe as we know it is chaotic in a way that it wouldn't be complicated to imagine advanced civilizations finding a way out of the "material" world somehow to find permanent safety. Which might mean transcending bodies into another form that can exist in one of these "realms". Humans are babies in the Universe - the impossible is possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A10V_t95VfI

Really hard not to get a sense of smug superiority since uBlock Origin has kept me from seeing any of this Youtube ad crap for years. And somehow, I don't even feel guilty about it.

While the uninformed masses wallow pitifully in a mire of advertising, I gloriously dance on the surface of their pit of writhing flesh. I, God among insects, transcend their hellish torture of video ads and clickthroughs, reveling in the ability to watch whatever I want as soon as I click the play button! Muahahahaha!

...OK, maybe that strayed slightly beyond "smug superiority" and into "disturbing sociopath" territory. But it still feels good!

It almost pained me to sift it, because I'm an Avs fan and the old rivalry is still there for me a little bit.

But this transcended my bias on that pretty easily. Young kid, hero in his first NHL callup, Russian connection like so many of your team's greats (Fedorov and the all-Russian line were killer back in the peak days of Wings/Avs rivalry), happening in one of the final days at the Joe, plus this weird statistical quirk added in -- enough to make me jump up and be a Wings fan when I saw it!

Here's hoping that both of our teams pull off rebuilds ASAP and stop being cellar-dwellers. Young kids like this are probably key to that!

I am a fan of Alien Rez, not because of Joss Whedon's patchwork script, but because at least it had the familiar comedic elements of Jean-Pierre Jeunet and his usual returning ensemble cast (Ron Pearlamn, Dominique Pinon), as well as Sigorney Weaver being a badass mother.

Just my opinion. I love all of Jeunet's films; as wild and varied as the genres, his film style and character driven stories transcend the genre. City of Lost Child, Amelie, Delcatessen, Micmacs -- really excellent track record. Cool bit of science fiction in all of his films, even if just sort of a chaotic sense of fate and surrealism.

Ridley Scott is hit or miss -- but then again, Ridley Scott has far more a prolific film career so it's like arguing the planetary distances versus the intergalactic distances, we can't fully comprehend the multitude of influences involved in making a film and the secret to making it a good film, so what does it matter if it's 1 astronomical unit, 2 light years, or 26 billion light years, it's all beautiful art.

My kindness aside, his last 5 films: Robin Hood, Prometheus, The Counselor, Exodus, The Martian -- typical and BORING blockbustery movies. 1492 and everything after have been epic suck fests. Even Hannibal was a let down. They're all movies you're sort of excited about, if it weren't for the fact that he drags them out and adds little element of noticeable flair. Like Spielberg, hidden in realism. I want the stylistic elements of Alien and Blade Runner and Legend that PULLED YOU OUT of the movie experience to say loudly: This is art.

The soundtracks especially -- Ridley Scott replaced the original scoring of his movie Legend, which was a dazzling score by Tangerine Dream -- he replaced it with Jerry Goldsmith in rerelease... which sort of makes it all come full circle when you listen to the awful, typically EPIC score of Prometheus, minus all the atmosphere that the original soundtrack provided.

I'm going to go ahead and *quality this because there are so very few music videos these days that transcend their music and could be taken as works of art on their own.

The quotes in that article really drive home the apotheosis of the word 'cuck'. It's a word whose meaning has died and transcended into some generic status that is completely beyond me - everything and everyone is cucked or cucking or a cuckhole. I gotta stop reading this shit and get a cucking pizza while playing No Man's Cuck...

An indicator of a developed nation is electronic bus signs, but London has transcended past that into the artesian phase of development.

Wow, didn't expect to see the comments section explode like this. Seems like some people took what he was saying seriously in spite of the multiple disclaimers he gives the audience that this whole bit is a joke.

I could absolutely see why someone who is an actual Cosby rape victim and takes Jefferies's words seriously would be offended. I could absolutely see someone not being able to transcend their own personal pain in order to see the irony in this bit. But this seems like a wholly different kind of joke from the one Dave Tosh allegedly made in which it was really unclear whether he was joking or not about inviting audience members to rape a woman for daring to heckle him during a set. I don't see any malice in this routine whatsoever.

If you don't find it funny, that's fine. Every joke doesn't have to be funny to every single person on the planet. And if you don't approve of rape jokes, that's fine too. Like Reginald D. Hunter says, go ahead and withhold your laughter. "But take it from the rest of us who did laugh--it was fuckin' funny."

Seems like a problem that transcends presidential terms.

My mother makes fairy houses.

End confession.

She travels a lot to national parks and when she stops on a trail, she makes a hidden fairy house. Silly, of course. But what I've always found interesting about what she does is the idea of hidden, impermanent art that will probably never be seen. But if one person ever discovers one of her creations...the transcendent moment. That's beautiful to me. If she took a picture it would diminish what she does.

I'd appreciate this snow art more if there were no video. If it were unclaimed. Well, I'd appreciate the IDEA of this art, because I'd likely never actually know about it. And that's a kind of beauty.