@bcglorf
thanks man.
that was a most excellent reply.

then we are in a fundamental disagreement on the practices of monsanto.
i was under the understanding that percy had been targeted by monsanto because of cross pollination coming from his neighbors farm.which then found its way into his crop.

monsanto claimed the genetic markers gave them property rights and that percy was liable.

maybe i misunderstood.

and most documentaries are trying to make a point and by its very nature will be biased.so i agree with your point there but i cannot agree that monsanto is somehow some benevolent multi-national corporation who has not enacted and used with extreme prejudice an army of lawyers to silence and intimidate those who would speak out against them.

they make scientology look like a bunch of bed wetters.

i guess my main problem,politics and corruption aside,is that we are talking about a basic necessity:food.

you cannot patent life.
if you change the fundamental nature of that life there should be open and transparent study and discussion.
in both of these cases the public is left in the dark and any questions or dissent is met with legal papers.

i mean.who besides a corporation would develop a "suicide gene"?

i am not saying this is a simple issue but the situation does deserve some serious scrutiny.

anyways.thanks for the great response my friend.

I would posit this question: Can one post on religious websites freely without issue if you don't talk about (or believe in) Jebus?
Answer: No, one will be lambasted and inundated with outrage for suggesting another point of view where it's not wanted. (it makes little difference which religion we're talking about).
Neither act is right, I just wish to point out that the intolerance is almost always coming FROM the religious side, not towards it. The religious are just hyper sensitive, never having had to defend their position before (because they effectively silenced all dissenting opinion(s)). The non-religious are hardened by centuries of oppression from the religious, so we don't complain about it as much, we expect it from a certain percentage and try to ignore them.
I feel you can post on secular websites freely without issue if you don't talk ONLY about Jebus.

I understand now why you garner such hostility from other Sifters . Still at least your trying to engage me intellectually, in that respect at least you may consider yourself light years ahead of most of your brethren.

I garner hostility here because most of the sifters here grew up in Christian households and they've rebelled against their parents and God and they don't want to hear anything about Him. This is their sanctuary where they enjoy mocking God and Christians without any dissenting voices. I'm here because I care but I wouldn't be here unless God told me to be here. I've tried to leave a few times and He keeps sending me back. Although not so much lately.

There appear to be two fundamental points of disagreement/misunderstanding here.

...Instead we apply Hegel's Dialectic:

Thesis- all statements are false

Antithesis- therefore the above statement must be false and some statements must be true

Synthesis- statements can be both true and false simultaneously!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are two ways, and only two ways, to know truth. Either you are omnipotent, or an omnipotent being reveals it to you. Since humans are not omnipotent it is impossible to know truth unless it is revealed to us by an omnipotent being, ie God. If you think there is another way to know truth, name it. Otherwise what is there to debate? If you don't think it's possible to know truth then you don't know anything. If you don't know anything then you have nothing to talk about.

"Nothing is true" is mere expression. It is a poetic sounding mantra which contains therein a deeper wisdom about the foundations of all human knowledge. You are not specially equipped to break the problem of "under-determination" as outlined by Philosophers like David Hume. God himself could appear to you and say/do anything he liked, it would not change the fundamental limits of the human condition.

Could God reveal Himself to you in a way that you could be absolutely certain of it? It doesn't matter what we can prove to one another; God could sufficiently prove Himself to me (He has) or to you and it would transcend every piece of rationale you've offered.

How could you possibly know for certain that it was not Satan out to trick you? Satan is a deeply powerful being after all, powerful enough to fabricate a profound spiritual experience don't you think? How could you ever prove that the God you worship is not the greatest impostor in the cosmos beyond all doubt?

I know it for certain because God has made me certain. I've seen things only an omnipotent God could do, such as arranging and timing circumstances which would require Him to be in complete and precise control of everything and everyone. Satan certainly can generate profound spiritual experiences (and blindness), which is why he is able to deceive the whole world.

I ask this because the God you worship DEMANDS that you do in fact worship him (and only him) on threat of divine punishment. No true God would ever require worship, let alone demand it! What kind of sick egotist are we dealing with? (the changes in the system related to that whole Jesus thing don;t make a difference here. Either This "God" started perfect or it is not what it claims to be! Past crimes count no matter what token amends were made later on)

God doesn't need us, woo. He had perfect love within His Trinity relationships before He created anything. He doesn't demand that we worship Him because He is egotistical, He commands us to worship Him to put us in right relationship with Him as the supreme good and sustainer of all things. He is the only appropiate object for our adoration, which also puts us in right relationship with other people. Human beings are built to worship; that is why the world is littered with the carcasses of false idols. I don't just mean pagan deities, I mean power, money, fame and all of the other things human beings lust and pine away for. The thing man most likes to worship is himself. Humanists worship the intellect, and the accomplishments of human civilization. These too are idols. Everyone has something they worship, when God is the only appropiate object of our worship. The love that we have to give to all of those things comes from Him, and that is why we return it to Him, which in turn leads to greater love for all people and things. Every other kind of worship is selfish and ultimately spiritual dead(and destructive). Thus this command to worship Him alone (we were created to be in relationship with Him) is for our growth, our protection, and so that we can be who He created us to be.

Your not the only one to have experienced encounters with things you might call "Gods" or "Angels/Daemons". But the God I found lies entirely within and demands/threatens ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and sets ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONS. It knows that all Monads (souls) will inevitably make their way back to it, and that it has the patience of eternity with which to wait.

How do you know that?

The fundamental difference is that this God did not create the universe (an absurd answer which demands infinitely more explanation than it provides), this God is created BY THE UNIVERSE!

The explanation you provide only pushes the "absurdity" back one step; you're still left with the same problem as you say I have. Yet, it is not a problem to believe in something eternal. To believe something came from nothing wouldbe the absurdity. Do you believe the Universe is eternal?

We are all "God" experiencing itself subjectively as it evolves teleologically towards perfection. If Consciousness is eternal then this is the only outcome that makes any sense. God being perfect and beyond all time experiences everything it is conceivably possible for a perfect being to experience within an instant of non-time. With all of eternity stretched it before it does the only sensible thing it could do, it commits suicide and returns the universe to a state of pure potential, ready to undergo the experience of evolving from the most basic "mathematical" principles to fully actualised and all powerful consciousness (i.e. back at God again). A fundamental part of this entire process is the journey from elemental and animalistic unconsciousness to fully self aware enlightened consciousness, the highest truth then is to discover that you yourself are God (at least in-potentia), not some mysterious external power.

If God is perfect, which He is, then He isn't limited. His joy never ends; it is the limitation of the human intellect that prevents you from understanding an infinite being, so you have devised a scenario based on those limitations where you impose a limitation on Gods experience so that He is forced to "commit suicide" in order to have new and enjoyable experiences. An infinite being experiences infinite joy. A perfect being will always be perfect. God doesn't evolve; a perfect being has no need to evolve or ever become "basic". He is eternally perfect, and we are not.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

The other is your conviction that the Gospel is absolutely true and that you appear to see everything related to it and the greater human spiritual quest via this filter. I'm not going to trade scripture with you on matters of pedantry it'll take all day and get neither of us anywhere. Instead I shall focus on one key argument that undermines the entire house of cards. If the God of Abraham and the old testament is one in the same as the God of which Jesus preaches (/is in corporeal form) and further more that the Old testament is in some way a true account of his/its actions......Then the God of Abraham and Jesus is demonstrably A. not perfect and B. malevolent/incompetent.

Yes, the God Abraham is the God Jesus is referring to. The error is that you think you understand God better than Jesus did. Jesus is the perfect representation of God; His exact image. If you've seen Jesus you have seen the Father. They are one and the same in terms of their character and every other attribute. You don't see that because you don't understand the scriptures. Jesus did, which is why He said things like this:

John 17:23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.

The atheist version of studying the bible is to look for something that seems to contradict the claims of Christians so that they can throw it in the garbage and be done with it. You would see the same God that Jesus represents in the Old Testament if you understood the history that it presents.

Go ask the Benjamites or the Canaanites how they feel about this "God". Or how about the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? The firstborn of Egypt? etc. etc.

Go ask the criminals on death row how they feel about the judge and prosecutor who sent them there. Does that mean they don't deserve to be there?

Yaweh demands Abraham sacrifice his own son, truly the act of a benevolent creature no? And while were on the subject what kind of "God" demands a blood sacrifice for anything? Even if it was a legitimate test of Abrahams faith (a highly dubious notion unto itself) what about the poor goat sacrificed in his sons stead?
This leads into the key difference between the Gnostic God/The Buddha/Dau/Chi etc. (Esoteric) and the Abrahamic God (Exoteric).....

God didn't ask Abraham to do anything that He wasn't willing to do Himself, but unlike Abraham God did sacrifice His son. This is what I mean when I say that you you're not understanding what you're reading. The sacrifice of Issac is a picture of Jesus Christ. You don't see these things because you don't know what to look for.

One merely offers the wisdom to transcend the suffering inherent in mortal life and make ones way back to union with that which we were all along. It is not invested in the material world, it is merely a higher expression of consciousness no longer bound by emergent natural laws. It never judges, it never condemns or punishes and it helps only those who are ready to help themselves.

The other demands blood sacrifices, incites genocides, sets strict rules and threatens you with damnation if you don't obey, demands worship (WORSHIP! WTF!!!!), inspires/authors deeply contradictory and difficult to understand written works (it expects you to accept on faith alone), claims to be a perfect creator of a universe into which suffering and imperfection are inherent (perfect beings do not create imperfect things) etc. etc.

Here is the difference..the God you describe wants to "help" you out of a situation that it created because of its own limitations and need for self-gratification. It is not only responsible for evil, but it does nothing about it. The God you describe is limited, selfish and immoral.

The way you describe my God is a strawman argument in itself. It is not an accurate representation of the biblical account. The God of the Universe created a perfect Universe and endowed His creatures with free will. The creatures He created freely chose to do evil and this is what brought sin and death into the world. This is the reason for the imperfection, and God, at great personal cost to Himself, restored and reconciled His creation through Jesus Christ.

You won't be able to understand the bible without Gods help:

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

That's why I suggested you read the gospel of John, if you really do want to understand God accurately, and pray for assistance.

I don't side with Lucifer (I think she has the opposite problem to Jehova i.e. enlightenment at all costs as quickly as possible and damm the journey to get there), but I do recognise her as the fundamentally opposing force to Jehovah/Allah out of which a higher synthesis emerges (Abraxas the Gnostic God of light, or whatever you want to call it). Jehovah represents supreme attachment to the material world (R>0),

It's a false dichotomy. What you're describing when you refer to God is the gnostic demiurge, which bears no resemblence to the God of the bible. There are no opposing forces to be spoken of because there is no actual duality. God is only light and the only thing He is attached to is His children, because He freely loves them. He is the only power in the Universe. Satan has a paper kingdom; it is just shadows on the wall. In any case, you can't escape the corruption caused by your sin nature. If you shatter a mirror, no matter how well you glue it back together it will never reflect purely again. It doesn't need to be repaired, it needs to be replaced. This is why Jesus said you need to be born again:

John 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

When you receive Jesus as Lord and Savior, He will send the Holy Spirit to live inside of you and make you a new person. You are spiritually dead in sins and transgressions, but the Holy Spirit will regenerate your spirit and cleanse you from all of your sin.

while Lucifer supreme attachment to the spiritual/mental (R=0). A wise man see's the two as a personification of the two highest drives in the human psyche and thus concepts to be transcended/mastered.

Satan desired one thing, which was to be God. He became prideful because of his great beauty and intellect and based on his ignorance of Gods true nature, he tried to form a rebellion against God to replace Him and was kicked out of Heaven. This is essentially the process you are describing for those who believe they are God. All Satan is trying to do is duplicate his errors in you and as many other people as he can so that he can destroy them before his time comes. He can't strike back at God directly so he goes after his creatures. Satan is an imitator; he is a potter just as God is a potter. He is doing everything possible to shape and mold you into his image and character, and he has entire universes of deception waiting for you, filled with as much "secret knowledge and wisdom" as you desire. He has a door for every kind of person, every kind of philosophy; his is the broad road that leads to destruction. Jesus said enter through the narrow gate:

Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Either way I regard worshipping the God of Abraham as the "one true God" to be a supreme mistake, if Jesus professes to preach that same God's gospel then following him would be a supreme mistake also. I show no fealty to torture Gods, I have more self respect than that.

You surely prefer the idol you have created in your own mind, because that is the god who allows you to do whatever you want. That's all this is really about. Do you know what Jesus said the reason is that men won't come to God?:

John 3:19-21

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

You don't get to decide who God is, and just because you don't think you should be accountable for what you've done in this life doesn't mean you won't be.

For the record. I love you as much as any other creature in this cosmos but I don't pray to anything for your soul to be saved. Truly it was never in jeopardy in the first place! That part of you which lies beyond the limits of mortality will find its way back to the highest state eventually no matter what, even if it takes eons. In the mean time however I'm happy to waste a small portion of said eons arguing (I suspect futilely) with you on the internet.

God loves you and I love you, and that's why I am telling you all of this. The highest state is the lowest state:

Mat 23:11 The greatest among you shall be your servant.

Mat 23:12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

(I'll get back to you on some of your other more specific points at a later point, I don't have the time or inclination to dig out the texts to make those counter arguments right now.)

Take your time. God bless.

@enoch

you honestly think this shitstorm of a "discussion" is a good example of debate and discourse? It started off nice enough but the @shinyblurry web-bot detected the word atheist in its search algorithms and ran its "scripture_dump_#647.bat" script and then insecure @chingalera heard the commotion and decided that enough people weren't paying enough attention to him so he had to enter the fray.

and of course the people who just haven't been around long enough to know how those two operate unwittingly took their bait and assumed that these people were actually genuine and engaged them and viola! instant shitstorm

This has nothing to do with taking offense. You honestly think we ignore people merely because we disagree with them? Fuck that and fuck you for thinking so. We ignore people because we don't think they add anything to the discussion and their posts eventually become noise and distraction.

This has everything to do with people who have no actual interest in the community here and are just here to push an agenda or they're here to agitate people in a non-constructive way.

there is NO debate in this thread, there is NO discourse here. just brick walls and trolling.

@messenger this is EXACTLY why moderation is needed because this thread demonstrates exactly how there is NO self-moderation going on. Things are blowing up now until the next time someone falls for the chigalera/shinyblurry trap and we do this all over again lather rinse repeat and zero progress.

This sift keeps naively assuming that everyone wants to contribute constructively. Not everyone does. Some people are just attention whores. Dissent and offense is fine as long as it can be done constructively and you can at least make a decent argument to back it up. Most of us do that here, but non-insignificant number of us don't And sometimes you have to pull out the weeds.

Not every opinion is equal. You want debate and discourse here? Well there are rules and a structure to that. If you can't back your shit up or you commit blatant logical fallacies or are non-constructive, expect to get your ass kicked. That isn't squashing dissent, that's enforcing a standard.

what a profoundly sad thread this has become.

i am not referring to the most excellent posts by @Chairman_woo and his discourse with @shinyblurry.

no.

it is the ignore function use i am talking about.
what an intellectually weak and vapid excuse to not engage with those who you may disagree with or (gasp) not actually like.

are your tender sensibilities so fragile as to not survive scrutiny of one who may disagree? or is it the manner in which they disagree?
is THAT the measure of how you judge anothers ideas?
words?
and you find this to be a valid reason?
this makes sense in your world?

well allow me to point out that without the dissenting voice challenging your preconceptions and only allowing those that parrot the same homogenized,pastuerized vanilla-same cloned vomit will only serve to create a stagnant pond of lifeless banality.

but as long as you are safe in your little bubble world in which you are always right and the circle-jerk perpetuates a lackluster and flaccid worldview.then thats ok right? as long as the echo chamber reflects how RIGHT you are.

@chingalera offends you?
good! because maybe you needed to be offended.

@VoodooV we have to apologize to @bareboards2 for derailing her thread?
no we fucking dont.
human discourse is by its very nature an ugly evolving creature.so get over yourself.love your commentary,hate your high horse..so get the fuck off it.

@bareboards2 is a very nice and sweet woman,and sometimes can be sensitive but she is a big girl and i dont think we will find her weeping in a dark,curtains drawn room.in fact i am willing to bet she loves the fact her video got such a great discussion going.so who are you to judge? or tell us what we should or should not do for that matter?

this brings me all back to my main point.
the sift used to have a vibrant community that discussed,argued and debated.the arguments were legendary and we still see old skool sifters refer to these people with fondness,even if they disagreed with them vehemently.
they were passionate and had something to say.
the list reads like a funeral march to those great voices who have passed and no longer engage in the sift:@MINK,@rougy,@choggie,@thinker247,@joedirt

what do we have now?
bunch of panty waist pussies who will only jump on the band wagon because other people join in the carnage.jumping on @BoBknight,@shinyblurry,@Lantern.
its like a bully convention with free crystal meth.
these folks might as well be black living in mississippi in the 1800's.
look! a chrsitan fundamentalist!
a conservative right winger!
lets lynch em......

and those tired pussies dont even have the courage to choke on their own hypocrisy.
wont even acknowledge that those in the minority have some serious balls to post comments on a secular left site.
this hasnt become a self-masturbatory thread.
its one big circle jerk.

so to those old skool peeps that i know still lurk here on the sift.
please come back.
for the love of god come back.
because these pussies are to busy sucking each others dicks.

im going to get some fresh air because you fuckers have sucked all the vibrance out of the air and left it stale with your own hubris.

and for the love of christ.get the fuck over yourself.

there's a difference between stating a dissenting opinion (and defending it) and just dropping down a troll post and running away.

and we're talking about a community forum here, not the nation as a whole. forums need moderation. something I wish the sift would be more active about.

Ya, but when we ban out all the idiots, then we can only argue fine points of what we who are left all believe.

Allowing dissenting opinions, however ignorant, is what made democratic (the concept, not the party) countries great.

death education?

yeah. I was with the video for the first couple minutes, but then it degenerates into paranoia and conspiracy theories.

Education system sucks, but it's not quite that bad. There is plenty of dissent in our system, maybe there isn't enough critical thinking, but this video acts like it's squashed utterly which is bull.

it just seems to me that the guy went through boot camp and is confusing it with the rest of the world.

His example of the TV anchors regurgitating the same headlines verbatim is just a bit unfair. sure it's a bit depressing to hear anchors repeat the same line exactly but that's what anchors are. They're paid to look good and read the news and that's it. if you're just trying to stay in touch with what's going on, that's all you need. If you want in depth analysis. That's not what your daily news is for.

Debt only seems to matter when you're a Republican and a Democrat is in the White House.

And yeah, Democrats? you weren't complaining enough when Bush ran up the debt. I know Cheney and co had a fun little "why do you hate the troops?" campaign going on to squelch any dissent but that really isn't an excuse.

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

I'd like to offer a dissenting view to the prevailing one - I liked this. The darkness, the guys surrounded by mountains of eggs, the stoic way they are prepared. A+++ would vote again.

I'm totally on board with all the dissenters.

Totally boring slow cooking of an uninteresting dish. The only interesting part is the way the creepy cook is eye-balling the camera.

In the interest of maintaining online video *quality control, I'm inclined to down-vote, but I don't want to cause any hurt feelings, so I'm just down-voting in spirit...

Did you feel it?

Chongqing is a fascinating city. We have some good friends who stayed with some family for a few months as students who are from there and they are all very aware of the corruption of their government and are certainly not afraid of dissent.

A few inputs for consideration, largely to do with making this site more inviting:

- Re the quoted point - this is true if someone is heavily motivated to do so, and has the right habits (routinely visiting video sites, knows what the community will like, understands how to position and title a sift for best attention, knows how to efficiently do the complicated process of sifting, is motivated), but might not be for occasional users like myself that do a fair bit of browsing and only a little contributing.

- The term "probationary" is a little negative in connotation and not really welcoming. From an online dictionary, the definition that best applies is "A process or period in which a person's fitness, as for work or membership in a social group, is tested.". Feels like applying for a job, and is not exactly welcoming new members with open arms. It's easy to understand why new members need a special differentiating status to prevent people from creating lots of vote-spamming accounts and the like, but that word and the accompanying big red stamp sends the wrong signal to those that are first checking out how this site works.

- All that being said, getting rid of the P isn't really the point. It's being given the privileges that most membership-oriented on-line communities offer for being a member in good standing, even if that member has a low interaction count. That includes doing more self-care on one's own videos (as already mentioned), reducing the thresholds at which increased privileges are opened up, and - dare I say it - having the ability to contribute a dissenting opinion (i.e. a downvote) more readily.

- Conversational threads like this getting promoted to the front page are an excellent sign of a healthy attitude in this community.

Gonna throw out what will probably be an unpopular dissenting opinion.

To quote Harlan Ellison: Pay the fucking writer.

I am pretty much the only person I know who doesn't download/torrent/stream media.

I'd love to, but I genuinely believe in rewarding creators, even if that creator is "Hollywood" or "labels" or whatever other faceless entity that can afford to be ripped off.

Amanda Palmer didn't come out of obscurity and raise $1.2 million on kickstarter. She was an established artist. An unknown band down the road won't raise that money.

Oh and since people are gonna hate this anyway, living statues are the single least creative bit of street theatre ever.

Rant over

lyrics

Bugger The Bankers 

When I was a lass I was proud of my class, like my father and mother before me
They taught me to fight for my civil rights, but it’s always the same old story – 
The rich reign supreme while the poor can but dream under Labour or Liberal or Tory 
And I say -
Bugger the bankers and politicians, bugger the bureaucrats too 
Bugger the buggers who make up the rules
And if you're one of them - bugger you
And if you're one of them - bugger you 

The system is bent and the money’s all spent, we’re badgered from every direction
The workers get taxed while the wealthy relax with nary a moment’s reflection
Where there’s brass, there’s muck and they don’t give an arse 
‘Cos we’re programmed against insurrection
And I say -
Bugger the bankers and politicians, bugger the bureaucrats too 
Bugger the buggers who make up the rules
And if you're one of them - bugger you
And if you're one of them - bugger you 

DANCE BREAK 

Now all you good people with passion to vent, don’t give up the struggle for justice 
But I’ve done my time on the protesters’ line and these days I show my dissent
By loitering within my tent
And I say -
Bugger the bankers and politicians, bugger the bureaucrats too 
Bugger the buggers who make up the rules
And if you're one of them - bugger you
And if you're one of them - bugger you, oh 

Bugger the bankers and politicians, bugger the bureaucrats too 
Bugger the buggers who make up the rules
And if you're one of them - bugger you
And if you're one of them - bugger you 
And if you're one of them - bugger you 

© Suzy Davies 2012