You mean apart from the time he got angry in the temple (or is wrath not a deadly sin if your dad is god?).

How about the time he questioned gods plan (let this cup pass from me)?

Jesus wasn't perfect.

And "good enough" for what? To get into heaven? Thanks, but no. If it's a choice between fornication and indulgence for my mortal time or having to spend an eternity with god.... sign me up for the sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.

DAMNNNN! I always love me some nature's wrath.

No one else has thrown it in yet, so I will:

"Revenge is a dish best served cold..." (Khan, Star Trek II, "Wrath of Khan")

Apparently, preferably with a snowblower...

Saw Wrath of Khan on the list, hesitated to push play.
Saw Old Yeller . . . nope.avi

It would take super-human effort to one-up Brent Spiner's failed attempt to cast Data as TNG's 'Spock' in Nemesis, with that pathetic carbon-copy Wrath of Khan script.

Nothing about this looks appealing. Jumping from "reconstructing ship" to "destroying recently reconstructed ship" does nothing for me. Clearly nothing is sacred and everything can be pooped back out brand-new, this incarnation already has its first resurrected character, so what's at stake here?

Ever since Wrath of Khan, Star Trek writers have been convinced they can only produce Khan-a-likes as a path to success. I was only partially onboard after the first film, I checked out completely after the last one, but I'm particularly surprised at the laziness of this one. The CG and action direction seem to be the only areas that are getting any creative engineering in any of these films.

It won the Olympics. Tell me it won the gold medal. I fear its wrath.

OK. I concede that sometimes the later parts of a series can be better than the second one. ;-)

But among the three Nolan Batman Movies, the second one is by far the best.

And nobody would argue the Terminator 2 is better than 3, 4 and 5 (and in my opinion even 1).

Star Trek 2 (The Wrath Of Khan) is still one of the best Star Trek movies.

> Die Hard 3 was WAY better than the snooze fest sequel.
> Samuel L. Jackson, man.

Back then I thought that DIe Hard 3 was more part of the Lethal Weapon series than a real Die Hard movie, but after 4 and 5, the majority rule makes it clear that Die Hard and Die Hard 2 are not part of the Die Hard series. ;-)

Considering the dick-waiving that the whole Star Trek vs Star Wars thing always devolves into, I actually enjoyed the light-heartedness of this skit.

That said, the purpose of the stories told by each is meant to be completely different. That Star Wars goes for the simpler, classic hero's journey doesn't make it a lesser work, it just has a more singular focus, and the original trilogy did it well. But when you have a strong foundation like that, you really can't expand on it without losing a lot of the charm of the basic story. That's part of why the sequels were so disappointing. They couldn't retell the hero's journey without being a rehash, and by focusing on the hero's downfall, they had to up the complexity of the plot. But how complex can you make a plot before it just drags the movie down? (The exception was Clone Wars, which was able to circumvent this because it had more space to tell the story.)

This is why I am fairly certain that the new Star Wars movies will be lacking. They can either go the simple route and end up with a rehash, or the complex route, and end up with a similar mess to the prequels. There's a fine line they need to ride in order to make a good set of movies, but there are a lot of things working against them, from the expectations of the Star Wars fans, to the concessions writers have to make to appeal to the mass audience of modern movies. (To say nothing of Abrams, whose insultingly abysmal treatment of Star Trek gives me little confidence.)

Now on the Star Trek end, the stories are meant to be more complex, with commentaries on philosophy, modern politics, and the human condition (as well as showing the unique technological possibilities that the future held). Most of the stories were designed for introspection, and that's a major part of what made the show popular.

But if you lose that introspection and focus on action and special effects, the stories become empty. This is why many of the later movies, which again had to focus on mass appeal, were so lacking. (Movies like Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, Generations, and First Contact avoided this because they were able to draw on the richness of the show to round out the themes they were trying to express, but even still, they weren't quite up to par to the shows when it came to the fundamental concepts of Star Trek.) The same goes for much of Voyager and Enterprise, which often ended up going more for appeal than intellect. (Perhaps the writers ran out of things to say, perhaps the audience just got dumber, who knows.)

So in the end, which one is nerdier? Star Trek, hands down, and as ChaosEngine said, it's a good thing.

Which one is better? That depends on what kind of story you're looking for.

But in the end, there's no denying . . .


Riker is a freaking boss.

OMFG... really bob... really... It's people like you that made me ashamed of being a Christian when I was a Christian. Completely believing anything they are told or read from someone with supposed authority without actual critical thought of the original source themselves.

I've hear that Jefferson never meant to exclude religion from politics and believed and repeated it myself for years. Then you know what I did? I actually read the letter that Jefferson wrote. I could have my son, who's going into 6th grade read it and he'd tell you the same thing I'm about to tell you. It's about keeping religion from unduly influencing politics. Especially when you read it in context with the letter that the church sent him that he was responding to, and it becomes more apparent if you read his drafts which were much more to the point.

Yes the phrase "wall of separation" does come from the letter and not the Constitution, but the 1st Amendment includes an establishment clause that prevents the government from favoring one religion over the others. Remember the pilgrims came here to escape a Christian nation that favored one form of Christianity over all others. Admittedly they were more about the fact they couldn't persecute others the way they thought they God wanted them to, but it was the government's church that prevented them from doing so. You can't even be King or Queen of England unless you belong to the Church of England, and if you were Catholic at some point in your past, you are disqualified, even to this day. Yeah, the Church of England no longer has as much influence over the laws as it did when the pilgrims and other early settlers escaped England to come here,

And if the only reason Christians are good is because of fear of punishment or hope for reward, then they are horrible people. Millions of people are good because they are good people without their faith dictating to them to be so. Most people of other faiths are good without the racist brutal Abramic God of the Bible. Most atheists are good without any god. Most pagans are good with their various gods. This insane all morality comes from God alone didn't make sense even when I was at my most evangelical, Fox News watching/defending mode. There were too many people in the world who's good without God and even in those days the concept that somebody would be good only because the Bible tells them so, or they are afraid of God's wrath if they don't is backwards. And as I read the Bible more and more, it became apparent that the far rights obsession with people's sin over love was misplaced (though the far right's sickening defense of Dugger shows a great deal of hypocrisy since if Dugger was on the Left, they'd be all about his sin rather than showing any sort of love, it's when others sin differently than they do they get upset, like at the gays). It was reading the Bible that moved me to the left as the clear Christian way, since the right defends and loves the people Jesus condemned and shames the people that Jesus defended and told us to love and help. It eventually got to the point I couldn't hold onto faith when over half the Christians of this Nation just blindly follow what they are told in church and on Fox News over the truth that Jesus and the Bible was teaching and thinking they were doing the Christian thing at the same time. I then began to do a critical analysts further and eventually became an atheist, because they are all equally bad/good. There is nothing new or original in the Abramic faiths that wasn't there before or since either in the same region or elsewhere... all those other elsewhere's where Jehovah somehow couldn't make himself known, as if he was just a figment of one small regional tribe or worse a racist jerk not worthy of following.

Anyhow, the best way to maintain Christianity is to keep it out of politics. Because what happens if you set things up to let religion influence politics and the Muslims gain power? Then you'll be crying how religion shouldn't influence politics. Or perhaps not that extreme, perhaps some form of Christianity that other Christian's don't agree with gains power and influence? Perhaps the Morman's or the Catholics or the Jehovah Witness? At what point does religious influence stop? When laws are passed that any church that doesn't practice or allow the speaking in tongues is outlawed? The 1st Amendment is designed to keep religion out of politics in order to protect religion.

Let's break that last sentience out again. The 1st Amendment's establishment clause is designed to keep religion out of politics in order to protect religion. The whole point is to keep one form of one faith from dominating all other forms of the same or other faiths. It protects those other forms Christianity and other faiths.

Finally there is no war on Christianity. I admitted that long before my fall from faith. I was there with it all, with how it was targeted, but the reality is there is no war on Christianity here... all that's happening is specific forms of Christianity are loosing their influence on other Christians and society as a whole, and they are very vocal about how it's persecution, because like the pilgrims, they are no longer allowed to persecute others the way they want to. Maybe if the people screaming about how Christianity is being persecuted while they try to deny equal rights to others because they sin differently than us, would actually show the love of Christ and behave the way He actually would have in modern society rather than trying to show how Christian they are, then perhaps Christianity wouldn't be losing the numbers they are. I know I, and many other atheists, likely wouldn't have had at crisis of faith if it wasn't for the far right. I never would have explored the logical and theological problems with Christianity and the Abramic faiths... I'd probably eventually found a more Quaker, left leaning (most the Quaker "Friends" related churches in this area are the far evangelical right Fox News types) type church that seems to be more in line with the Bible and teachings of Jesus, but the far right pushed me into a far more critical mode than I would likely ever have gone to on my own. So keep it up those on the far right, you are the ones destroying and making a war on Christianity. You push more and more people away, and more and more people stop seeing any difference between the far right and radical Islam.

People enter hell because of their sin and willful rejection of God. You are saying that people have no way of knowing, but the scripture says something different. You say you have never seen or heard anything, but what I find when talking to atheists is that they've had plenty of experiences, supernatural or otherwise, to point them towards God but they chose not to go that way. In any case, I'll be praying for God to speak to you in a way you can understand.

I think you're hung up on some of the wording of Matthew 7:14 where Jesus said there are few who find the narrow way, and not the meaning of it. It is not saying that people through no fault of their own end up on the broad way, the scripture says they enter into it. That implies a choice, and to find is to obtain something, which means they know what they are going after in the first place.

Being paralysed is not the same as death.

Jesus took the entire punishment for sin; He bore the fullness of Gods wrath against sin. The scripture says He was actually made sin for us. Whatever He experienced was far worse than what people experience in hell. No human being could bear that, eternally or otherwise. He could bear it becase He is special, that's the point. He didn't just bear the punishment for sin, He defeated death and disarmed the power of death and hell over human beings, all who put their faith and trust in Him as Lord and Savior.. He came not only to die for our sins, but also for many other reasons, one such reason was to destroy the works of the Devil.

Jesus saw everything pertaining to life and death, to judgment and the afterlife. He is an eyewitness, you simply don't believe Him. Everyone will know Jesus is Lord when they stand before Him; the scripture says that even the demons believe (and tremble). Knowing who He is and knowing Him personally are two different things entirely. If you enter into eternity without knowing Him, then it is too late. If God expects you to know His Son, it stands to reason He will provide a means for you to do so. It is up to you to respond to that.

I think the author of this video, and presumably the Christians who have spoken to him, have a fundamental misunderstanding about what the bible says about atheists or those who don't believe. I don't know why messenger seems to think this was my argument for theism; I don't recall saying anything like this to anyone on this site, although I could be wrong.

What I believe is that yes, atheists are not able to see or comprehend the things of God because they are spiritually discerned:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But that isn't the end of the story:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Romans 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

So, the colorblind person is given glimpses of Gods power and deity, through the creation, and other kinds of revelation such as in their conscience, to know that there is a God who created them and that they are accountable to Him. If it were simply that nonbelievers couldn't see God, they would have an excuse. Yet, that isn't what the bible says. In the end it's not that nonbelievers can't see God, it's that at some point in their lives they have seen God and rejected Him.

Most atheists I've spoken to have had supernatural experiences for which they cannot write off with materialistic explanations. Some will even change from atheism to theism in the course of a conversation because they suddenly realize that they had suppressed the truth of their own experience. God can and does give ample evidence of His existence and everyone at some point in their life will see it clearly and have a clear choice to make. It's when you choose to suppress the truth that you become self-deceived. It's not up to me to prove to someone God exists; it is up to me simply to be a faithful witness and pray they would respond to the revelation they already have.

Fair comment. We'll certainly never be able to measure it. As with anything of a philosophical nature, there are thought experiments we could conduct, and though they might come up with wrong answers, there's a better chance they're right than arbitrarily picking a side, and human civilization was doing just fine before organized religion entered into it.

Expanding on your point about obeying your priest (and giving myself an opportunity to quote my most hated Bible verse), the lesson the Bible teaches in that vein is to obey not just priests, but all human authority because all leaders were placed there by God.

Romans 13
1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.

When Morgoth in that day of doom
had slain the trees and filled with gloom
the shining land of Valinor,
there Fëanor and his sons then swore
the mighty oath upon the hill
of tower-crownéd Tún, that still
wrought wars and sorrow in the world.
From darkling seas the fogs unfurled
their blinding shadows grey and cold
where Glingal once had bloomed with gold
and Belthil bore its silver flowers.
The mists were mantled round the towers
of the Elves' white city by the sea.
There countless torches fitfully
did start and twinkle, as the Gnomes
were gathered to their fading homes,
and thronged the long and winding stair
that led to the wide echoing square.

There Fëanor mourned his jewels divine
the Silmarils he made. Like wine
his wild and potent words them fill;
a great host harkens deathly still.
But all he said both wild and wise,
half truth and half the fruit of lies
that Morgoth sowed in Valinor,
in other songs and other lore
recorded is. He bade them flee
from lands divine, to cross the sea,
the pathless plains, the perilous shores
where ice-infested water roars;
to follow Morgoth to the unlit earth
leaving their dwellings and olden mirth;
to go back to the Outer Lands
to wars and weeping. There their hands
they joined in vows, those kinsmen seven,
swearing beneath the stars of Heaven,
by Varda the Holy that them wrought
and bore them each with radiance fraught
and set them in the deeps to flame.
Timbrenting's holy height they name,
whereon are built the timeless halls
of Manwë Lord of Gods. Who calls
these names in witness may not break
his oath, though earth and heaven shake.

Curufin, and Celegorm the fair,
Damrod and Díriel were there,
and Cranthir dark, and Maidros tall
(whom after torment should befall),
and Maglor the mighty who like the sea
with deep voice sings yet mournfully.
'Be he friend or foe, or seed defiled
of Morgoth Bauglir, or mortal child
that in after days on earth shall dwell,
no law, nor love, nor league of hell,
nor might of Gods, nor moveless fate
shall defend him from wrath and hate
of Fëanor's sons, who takes and steals
or finding keeps the Silmarils,
the thrice-enchanted globes of light
that shine until the final night.'

If I find that I'm wrong on the day that I die and I stand in front of God, exposed as the person that I am...then I want to stand in front of God as the person that I am.

I don't want my sins forgiven by the sacrifice of another. I don't need my slate wiped clean by ritualistic confession and contrite acts. I am human; flawed and broken and wonderful. I will stand in front of your God for all my actions, thoughts and intentions.

In my life I have callously hurt others, I have taken what wasn't mine, I have dispensed wrath and sought vengeance. Because I am weak and selfish and scared.
But I also endeavor to heal more than I injure, give more than I take and provide comfort to others when things seem darkest. Plus....I always smile and ask how you are. That's important.

As a thoughtful, empathetic human being, I know that the positive actions of other humans is the only balance against the entropy that surrounds us. We are our own hope and salvation against a random universe that has our destruction built into the very laws that compel it.
I don't do good things because I fear judgement. I don't do them because I'm commanded to. I do good things because I'm one small part of a community that extends as far as humanity can reach. The effect of my actions, positive and negative, ripples out, rebounds and reflects infinitely. I do good things because it's good to do them.

If I'm wrong, I'll be judged by your God and if I'm found lacking in my actions then I'll own my sins and the consequences. But if the balance of my life has been positive and I am found unacceptable only because I could not believe in the existence of a Creator...if the sum total of my affect on others matters less than my ability to accept illogical supernatural conclusions....then your God is Evil.

Besides, if your god is omniscient, then he knew how he would judge me when he created the universe. So I had no real power over my actions. If he did, in fact, give me free will such that he did not know how I would live my life, then he's not omniscient. In which case, upon our meeting, he will disappear in a puff of logic.