>> ^shinyblurry:
To know God is to Him personally. You could pray: "Jesus, if you're everything the bible says you are, I will follow you". If you can't go that far, simply ask if what I've said is true. God will show you, if you sincerely want to know. You managed to pass through the Christian religion missing the entire point of why it even exists. That is, to have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, and the lover of your soul. God bless.


Tried that once. For a while, I seriously wanted Jesus and the good things people said of him to be true. Too bad reality doesn't work that way. I doubt you'll read the rest of this, much less respond, but here's what that experience taught me:

It's a beautiful comforting lie, and if you cling on to it hard enough, you will distort your reality to confirm what you want to believe. It's what happens when people thank god for saving them after an earthquake, instead of cursing him for causing the earthquake in the first place. It's why for every religion, no matter how disparate they seem, you will find people fervent enough in their beliefs to claim a personal relationship with their "god".
Christianity is not special and your "relationship" with god is not special. There are many like you, although they do not share your belief, share you delusion in belief.

The truth will reveal itself to you, if you sincerely want to know. But I think you'd rather shield yourself in your faith, in your armor of lies rather than seriously consider the possibly that your god simply does not exist. Such a thing would go against everything you've believed in since you were young, something that's an integral part of your very identity. To truly consider such a possibility would shatter the very foundations of your world, and you, like most Christian religious people, are simply not strong enough to handle it.

Bravo!!

So much cynicism in the comments. Remember when you were young and un-jaded and you'd simply enjoy something for what it was? Full of optimism and seeing the glass half full rather than half empty? I'm guilty of being cynical myself, but sometimes it is just worth it to laugh and love in life without feeling the need to announce every slight suspicion of anything you suspect is out of place.

Please just watch it again and enjoy the beauty of what you see, not what you think that you might see.

Because you're missing out big time.

I reread every comment you made in this thread, and at no point until now did you assert that the peasant is the king's servant, much less his slave as you have now suggested. Not until I suggested that the peasant is in fact free to think as well as act did you suggest that the peasant was a slave. Even if we assume that the peasant is in fact a slave, you have still not demonstrated that his mental condition is in any way relevant to his ability to "perform his job", or "provide for his family", which I have proposed as his motivation for working, irrespective of his belief in an actual king.

You could have tried reading the original comment, which stated:

Now lets say one day you refuse to work, refuse to submit to his authority. You say to yourself, I don't believe this King is really real; I've never seen him with my own eyes.. This a conspiracy, I will just do whatever I want. You even decide to go into the towns square to tell others to stop working for this King. That it is a fools errand, the King is a hoax you say. You're wasting your lives when you could live for yourself! Yet, when the King gets wind of this he tells his soldiers "Fetch my ungrateful servant and bring him in front of me"

The peasants life is intrinsically tied to the King. The peasant is not just working to earn a wage, but to be freed from his obligation..to be freed from slavery basically..not only that but to attain what he could never attain on his own, for himself and his family: a future. Without the reward, the peasant would have to eke out a subsistance existence until he died. His motivation is not a living wage, it is freedom from having to produce. The only way he can do this is by living a life pleasing to the King. The King expects obedience, ie the peasant has to work. The King expects results, ie the work has to be satisfactory and yield a good harvest. The King expects gratitude, ie the work is not proportional to the reward.

Nothing the peasant could ever do in his entire life could earn that reward. Upon receiving the reward, the peasant will certainly be grateful. If he didn't believe the reward existed though, he would simply hate the King for having to work for him. He would desire to flee the Kings authority and live for himself. He would seek out the company of people who felt the same way about the King and form conspiracies against Him. He would recruit other people and say the King was unjust, that there was no reward.

Now say the King had mercy on these peasants who were rebelling against him. He was a good King and cared about his subjects. He only wanted to reward them ultimately, but neither could he force them to believe his promise. So, for a time he let the peasants have a piece of his land to cultivate. They constantly gave him problems, either by raiding his stocks (because they could not sustain production for themselves), or encouraging others into disobedience. He was occassionally forced to kill some of the worst offenders, for the sake of the stability of the Kingdom.

His plan was to ultimately move everyone onto His land, after enough was stored up so no one had to work any longer. He would send emissaries into the places of rebellion, to encourage the peasants to return. He offered complete forgiveness for their crimes, if they would only work again for the sake of the Kingdom (which was in their own self-interest). Some listened, but others did not want to give up their freedom and killed the emissaries or drove them out.

Eventually it came time to pass that the Kings plan came to fruition. All the peasants who obeyed the King lived with Him on his land in harmony with one another, with enough to last them the rest of their days. The rebellious peasants could no longer raid the Kings stocks because they were completely shut out. They begged to be let in, because they were now starving, but it was too late..the King was neither going to take from the reward of those who earned it, to give to those who didn't, and who were presented every opportunity to change their ways, nor was he going to pollute the harmony he had cultivated (harmony based on gratitude for the reward and his justness)..for the rebellious peasants were neither grateful nor did they think the King was just. For them, it was here today and gone tomorrow..that is how they lived and that is how they died.

People have certainly been argued into believing in Jesus is their savior. They are typically called children. But, to get to the crux of your argument, until I can believe in god, I can't believe in god. Or rather, until I believe in god, I will have no reason to do so. That is about as circular as you can get.....

No, I am saying that until you feel that you need to be saved, for whatever reason, then you won't come near Jesus. You have to feel you need a savior before you look for one. Curiousity might get you near, but it won't make you follow Him. It is useless to argue someone into knowing Jesus..Jesus Himself predicted the kind of Christians that would produce in the parable of the sower: A weak one the devil will come steal away in times of hardship.

Your arrogance truly knows no bounds, does it? First off, you're about 2 decades off in your estimation. Second, as I quite clearly noted in parens, my interest in knowing the lawmakers in DC has nothing to do with whether or not I accept the rules of society. I am in fact deeply interested in the persons that would rule us. Let me ask you - can you name more than 50% of the 535 elected representatives in Congress, and more than 50% of their aides? I deeply care who our elected officials are, what they are doing, why they run, and their ultimate goals (so far as they may be elucidated), but my reasons for doing so have absolutely nothing to do with acceptance of their "authority over me". I think it is you that needs to reread this discussion and find the truth of what was written. You "know" that I have not searched for a god? What incredible presumptuousness. Are you now claiming not only to know God's love, but also when and where He will demonstrate it? Are you the arbiter of God's will????

Don't know don't care pretty much spells it out doesn't it? Seems like that is pride in being uninformed to me. This is the comment that made me think you were young, because that kind of apathy is very common among youth. Generation Emo doesn't give a shit, doesn't want to work, does everything based on feelings, and hasn't thought too deeply about anything because they want instant answers to everything. I concede its possible you have honestly looked, and perhaps God will lead you to Him later, if there is something in your heart that desires to know Him. Whatever it was though, it wasn't good enough. Have you ever tried doing the things that are pleasing to God first, before jumping up and down in his throne room and demanding He dance for you like a court jester? Yes, I do know Gods love. That's why I am here.

It's a philosophical question. Not caring isn't a valid answer to the question.
Not valid for you. Take off your blinders. You do not get to determine what is or is not valid for everyone else's intellectual endeavors.

I accept [that] people see things differently but this question only has so many answers.
This question, as with all questions, has as many answers as individuals as are willing to answer it. If you refuse to accept an answer as "valid", you must logically provide evidence why that is so.

Come on..this issue has been deliberately complicated to an extreme..when it is quite simple. The question of whether the Universe was created is entirely valid and relevant, though atheists will try to make it seem ridiculous, because they want to avoid the simple truth that there are only 3 answers to that question, because if they answer truly they have a burden of proof. I think if you're going to be an atheist, have the balls to admit it and stop playing these childish games with semantics. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe the Universe was created by God(s), period.


Okay, lets start very simply. What does morality mean to you and how does it apply to the world?
I will glady entertain this question, but I do fear that this poor thread is terribly off course. You or I should create a new talk post in the religion or philosophy talk page to continue this. I'll gladly do that if you want.

I think it's doing just fine..however it may be necessary because of the broken comments system..the page is already freezing a bit. I'll get back to you if you don't want to continue on here.

Yes, Shiny it is!
With how long it took, I can't imagine ever making it to the next level. (All I have to do is double my sifts from 500 to 1000). That should only take the better part of a couple years

In reply to this comment by enoch:
diamond?
sweet....
remember when you were young?
and you shone like the sun?
so shine on you crazy.........

Remember when you were young, you shone like the sun,
Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky.

Many congrats demon_9. You have excellent taste in music (aka. similar to mine) and you're a really nice guy to have around (aka. unlike me). You've really shot through the ranks in record time - quality powersifting.

*sticky

>> ^quantumushroom:
Statists like Fraken don't believe in individual liberty and the required risks that real freedom entails.
But you knew that when this never-funny clown stole the election.


Yeah heaven forbid that everyone be given the opportunities to succeed in life without being constantly terrified of getting sick and losing everything they've worked for.

Funny how Franken stole his election, but Bush won fair and square. Did you suffer a massive head trauma when you were young or were you born this stupid?

>> ^gtjwkq
Your definition of a "just society" seems mostly based on one person being forced to provide for another against their will.


That statement is exactly what's wrong with the teabaggers and conservative in general. You all seem to think that it's a one for one exchange, you get screwed because you're getting someone else's bills. Here's a simple analogy so you can understand the concept without straining too hard.

You have ten people going out to lunch. Lunch costs 5$. Occasionally someone forgets their wallet or is short, so the rest of the group pools their money, and picks up lunch for that person. So while everyone is out 60 cents extra, they can safely know that if they're short one day they'll get their lunch taken care of by the rest of the group.

Conservatives are happy to receive the free lunch as long as they don't have to pay the pittance to give someone else a meal.

The goals of a society should be betterment of the whole, through group effort; not individual accumulation of wealth. Conservatives need to get over their greed.

Great guitar hero song. Second only to The Killers "When You Were Young".

Remember when you were young, you shone like the sun.
Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky.

Well I for one am glad you're still here, to carry the torch for all that is Siftworthy. It didn't seem right that it's only been a little over a year, since you seem to be one of the old hands already. Congrats on your Yellow Star, I don't think you can do much damage to the Sift, it's pretty durable at this point.

In reply to this comment by NeuralNoise:
hey Schmawy, now that I´ve reached gold and am mad with my newly achieved power I´d like say that my first good impression of the sift came from you, when you were young and prone to avatring, and kinda influenced my stay, so you can be partially blamed for any screw-up I may do here. Just a warning...

hey Schmawy, now that I´ve reached gold and am mad with my newly achieved power I´d like say that my first good impression of the sift came from you, when you were young and prone to avatring, and kinda influenced my stay, so you can be partially blamed for any screw-up I may do here. Just a warning...

Cm' on! How many of you had the nerve to make a terrible video when you were young?

*Cough *cough
http://www.youtube.com/user/thepowerofbeingabeas

Your video, The Killers: When you were young, has made it into your personal Highest Rated Videos listing. Congratulations on a job well done. For you contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Ep4 was where we learnt why C3PO was such a tool ... he was built by George Lucas.

Star Wars has to be the most over rated movie series of all time. You know how bad Ep1 - Ep3 are? That's pretty much how bad Ep4 - Ep6 look if you didn't see them when you were young enough to get lost in the fantasy. Instead of Jar-Jar, you get a moon full of teddy bears - who can beat a heavily armed but apparently untrained army.

I knew someone who saw Ep1 when they were very young and he raved about it exactly like people 10 - 20 years older than me rave about Ep4 - Ep6. Thankfully, he grew out of it.

http://lyricwiki.org/The_Weepies:Can't_Go_Back_Now

Yesterday, when you were young,
Everything you needed done was done for you.
Now you do it on your own
But you find you're all alone,
What can you do?

You and me walk on, walk on, walk on,
Cause you can't go back now.

You know there will be days when you're so tired that you can't take another step,
The night will have no stars and you'll think you've gone as far as you will ever get

But you and me walk on, walk on, walk on
Cause you can't go back now

And yeah, yeah, go where you want to go. yeah, yeah, be what you want to be,
If you ever turn around, you'll see me.

I can't really say why everybody wishes they were somewhere else
But in the end, the only steps that matter are the ones you take all by yourself

And you and me walk on, walk on, walk on
Yeah you and me walk on, walk on, walk on
Cause you can't go back now
Walk on, walk on, walk on
You can't go back now