*ban
Renee Hill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykwuohum6JE

...and that's how Renee Zellweger was born

similar themes can be found in the work of the philosopher, Rene Descartes, whose insight that “The conquest of nature is to be achieved through measure and number” was derived from an inspired vision of an angel.

Enjoy
http://videosift.com/video/Save-Your-Love-Renee-Renato

Tags for this video have been changed from 'renee, ka xiong, cover, vega choir' to 'renee, ka xiong, cover, scala choir' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

Tags for this video have been changed from 'renee, ka xiong, cover' to 'renee, ka xiong, cover, vega choir' - edited by dystopianfuturetoday

That was in Montreal, on Wolfe Street, between Rene-Levesque and Ste-Catherine. Because of the sudden rains we had on Monday (30 mm in 45 minutes), the manhole backed up and with the pressure of the compressed air, turned it into a geyser!

Oh, okay, so you believe everything you read. That's not very intelligent, or at least it's not very SMART. The bible was written hundreds of years ago, and has since been translated and re-translated to and from dozens of different languages. Individuals and groups in power throughout different points in history have taken it upon themselves to modify the bible, adding and omitting pieces here and there to suit their agenda. They knew that gullible sheep, unable to think for themselves, are easily swayed by religion, and what better way to control a populace than by attacking their very basis for the way they live their lives?

God pre-exists everything. We know God exists because He lets us know, and He would let you know that if you sought Him out. The New Testament was written 2000 years ago. The Old Testament is at least 1000 years older than that. We have copies of the early manuscripts so we know what the original bibles looked like. So the translations today are accurate, and this idea that they are corrupt is just outright false. Yes, man has used the bible for evil ends, but this is no different from anything else man does. The very reason that Jesus Christ came to Earth is because man is so desperately wicked and needs Gods redemption.

Additionally, if one is intelligent, and they believe in ancient myths, obviously they're going to be some of the greatest minds the world has ever known, right? That's why all the geniuses of the world are devout Christians or whatever religion you want to name, right? WRONG.

NASA is not run by rocket scientists who go to church on Sunday. Great inventors and genius-level individuals such as Stephen Hawking are not religious specifically BECAUSE they are intelligent. They are able to think for themselves, not be told what to think.

Some of the greatest minds in history were devout Christians..and some of the greatest scientists:

Francis Bacon - Originated the scientific method
Johannes Kepler - Laws of Planetary motion
Galileo Galilei - Father of modern astronomy
Nicolaus Copernicus - Heliocentric Universe
James Clerk Maxwell - Electromagnetic field
Neils Bohr - the Atom
Louis Pasteur - germ theory of disease
Rene Descartes - Philosopher and mathematician
Issac Newton - Invented classical mechanics
Max Planck - Founder of quantum mechanics

A lot of modern science is built on the backs of Christian thinkers, as you can see, and that is just a short list. Today, around 10 percent of scientists believe in God. At least 50 nobel laureates believe in God. Now, if you want to talk about great thinkers, how about Albert Einstein? He believed in God. Although not a Christian, here is what he had to say about Jesus:

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."7

Of course, religion and science are completely unrelated topics, and one does not have to be non-secular in order to be a scientist, but typically, the two mindsets would conflict, as religionists base their beliefs off of emotion and other irrational concepts. Scientists use a thought process, experimentation, and ruling out possibilities in order to come to conclusions and figure out FACTS about the universe around us. There are scientists who believe in the possibility of a god, but it takes a different form than that of some all-seeing being that created everything. I'll never try to explain that to you, though, as you're too blinded by foolish nonsense that has been force-fed to you since childhood.

I will leave you with this though: Adam and Eve. Here's some fruit. I'm going to tempt you with it, and then create a snake to TALK to you and tell you you should eat some of it, and THEN I'm gunna come back and be all "OH SHIT WHAT THE FUCK?! I SMITE THEE FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!" just to fuck with humanity. Wow. You worship a pretty evil, and vindictive force. Why would you want to do that? The fucker's up there just fucking with us like a little kid with a magnifying glass over an ant hill. Jesus christ, you must really enjoy misery. I'll take the reality of humanity surviving on our own acquiescence and compassion over that bullshit any day!

I base my belief off of personal revelation. I was an agnostic my entire life and raised without religion, and I was a secular humanist and a strict materialist who didn't see any evidence for God or spirit. God woke me up to the truth and let me know He is real. If you want science facts, you only have to examine the first page of the bible:

In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER)

And God said, “Let there be light (ENERGY),” and there was light.

It took mankind 3000 years to catch up and figure out the Universes foundation is based on these principles. There is also no better description which uniquely fits the big bang theory. Creation ex-nihilio, which is creation from nothing.

The serpent you're referring to was Satan. God put the tree there because He gave mankind free will to follow His commands or not. He also warned them of the consequences if they ate of the fruit. Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and believe the lie because Satan promised them they would have Gods power if they did it. So, instead of trusting God, they lusted after His power and betrayed Him. That's why they were kicked out of the garden. Their sin brought death into the world.

No, God didn't damn us for eternity. It's the very reason God sent His son Jesus to die on the cross, to save us from this fate we created and redeem mankind. So we could have eternal life with God again in the Kingdom of Heaven. We are sinners, and the wages of sin is death. Gods gift of salvation is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

A fair statement, and I understand and tend to agree with where you're coming from.. I chose to challenge you only because I am familiar with the work that IONS (the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which Mitchell founded based, partly, on this original seminal experience), and the research they do on the paraliminal levels of consciousness and the expanded ranges of human potential. I'm quite familiar with the scientific rigor with which they approach such research and the basis upon which they rely on multiple ways of "knowing," that does not simply base all knowledge on logic and reason, but also on phenomenal experience, qualitative understanding, and intuitive inquiry. There are multiple approaches to epistemology that include and extend beyond mere logic and reason -- and the scientific wisdom it yields just as valid, reliable, and valuable to attained human knowledge.

Personally, I understand Mitchell's quote as a form of "received" wisdom, not unlike Rene Descarte's vision of the "Angel of Truth" which ultimately gave rise to the cogito ergo sum, Archimedes' moment of Eureka which served as the basis fo displacement as a measurement of density, or Sir Isaac Newton's revelation of mathematics as encapsulating the laws of universal physics.


>> ^WKB:

>> ^Trancecoach:
And on which form of epistemology do you base that statement?
>> ^WKB:
>> ^Trancecoach:
I think Mitchell's use of the term, "divinity" refers to the force or power inherent in humanity's reason and capacities to acquire knowledge, rather than in the "magic" of one's faith in a deity.
>> ^WKB:
>> ^Trancecoach:
My sense is that a lot of our international issues can be resolved after a critical mass of people make it out of Earth's gravity and are able to look down on its fragile state from above...
Astronaut, Edgar Mitchell said about the experience of spaceflight, "The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes ... The knowledge came to me directly."

The first half of your statement I agree with in absolute completeness. Understanding our vulnerable situation is indeed reason to work together to ensure the survival of us all.
While I am no astronaut, I could not disagree more with the second half. I think that contemplating the fragile nature of life on this planet and the amazing accomplishments our species has accumulated is a reason to celebrate our knowledge, not our faith. Reason, evidence, and knowledge is what has allowed us to even contemplate this issue. Faith has done nothing to solve the problems of leaving the atmosphere, surviving the vacuum, achieving a stable orbit, or reentering the world safely. To suddenly take the amazement of life as we now understand it, thanks to science, and chalk it all up to some divine magic seems insulting to the knowledge, reason, and human intellect that has gotten us here.


I really doubt that based on the context of the statement. "Life wasn't an accident based on random processes," "the knowledge came to me directly,"... sounds like magic talk to me.


I had to look that word up to make sure I knew what the heck it means. I'm not sure where the nature of knowledge comes into it. I am simply pointing out that it seems to me that the ideas Mitchell brings up in the very sentence in which he uses the word divinity are evidence to support the idea that he is talking about a divine creator. (Which is what I meant by, 'magic,' no offense intended.) I see no evidence that he is using the word divinity to celebrate humanity's reason and capacity to acquire knowledge based on the provided quote. I have great admiration for Edgar Mitchel, and anyone who risks their life to help expand human understanding of the universe as he did, but that particular quote of his seemed to me to ring hollow.

It would have to be *eia. Can't propagate the species that way.

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
I think more *fail and not so much eia, but funny nevertheless

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Then Rene Belloq sweeps in and says, "Again we see there is nothing you can possess which I cannot take away."

good analysis...

here is a selection of statements he made and for which he is currently being prosecuted:

Fitna(film)
"The Islam wants to conquer, subjugate and destroy our civilization. In 1945 Nazism was conquered, in 1989 Communism, and now we most conquer the Islamic ideology"
The movie show images of a future Holland as a Islamic country. A postcard of The Netherlands which s only shows minarets, a violent decapitation and images of terrorist attacks.

Volkskrant, 08-08-2007
"The root of the problem is the fascistic Islam, the sick ideology of Allah en Mohammad demonstrated in the Islamatic Mein Kampf: The Qur'an. The texts of the Qur'an leave little to the imagination."
as sanderbos said, referring to Mein Kampf is a big no-go in Western Europe.

"Ban that book (the Qur'an). Just like Mein Kampf!”
It is still illegal to sell Mein Kampf in the Netherlands. You are allowed to own it and trade it but not to buy it however.

De Pers, 13-02-2007
"Enough is enough. Close the borders, no more Muslims for the Netherlands, export as many as possible. Take away the Dutch passport of Muslim criminals"

Volkskrant, 07-09-2006
"Close the borders for non-western immigrants'
“We have to stop the tsunami of Muslims. It is a matter that touches our heart.”

>> ^sanderbos:
Well rougy,
Dutch 'liberal' here, not a Wilders fan.
The court case is completely ridiculous, of course he should be able to say what he wants, especially since he is a politician and has to be able to express things even if they defy laws (since politicians define laws), and because he represents a large constituency of Dutch voters (8 percent in last election, could be up to 30% according to some polls).
However, this speech, man he or his (famous) lawyer seemed to have cobbled together all divine phrases of free speech and wrapped them together in a nice little presentation. Anybody can put together a speech like this ("wasn't it Voltaire who said 'as much as I despise your opinion, I will defend your ability to speak it'" is a staple of such speeches, and no it wasn't Voltaire).
You must understand that Wilders' other thoughts include a tax of say (pinky to mouth) a thousand dollars per hijab (islam head scarf) to fix the economic crisis.
The situation on free speech in the Netherlands is super unclear. Because we are such a liberal free country, nobody really bothered/ bothers to ensure those rights are also legally documented. So on some fronts the freedoms of speech are very limited if prosecution occurs (almost yearly people are put in prison over making pretty tame references to the queen, giving somebody the finger is technically an offense).
In this particular case, the Dutch DOJ first decided not to sue, then some hippy who can't deal with anybody not agreeing him (Rene Danen) forces the DOJ to reconsider, if you read the verdict of that case you can see it is all about Nazi Germany references, a big no-no in the Netherlands (Wilders compares the Quran to Mein Kampf, as in both books that cause people to do bad things).
Anyway, this is just part of the whole Wilders big clown extravanganza show that is going on for years now. He is just making outregeous claims and getting in trouble everywhere to drum up support (actually I am most impressed by the way he does these things, as he does really little press or other public things yet gets the press to talk about him constantly). I think it is unclear what will happen if he gets into power (which probably won't happen all too soon, in part because of him the Dutch political landscape is superfragmented now, any coalition created in the next four years will be crazy enough without him in it).

Well rougy,

Dutch 'liberal' here, not a Wilders fan.

The court case is completely ridiculous, of course he should be able to say what he wants, especially since he is a politician and has to be able to express things even if they defy laws (since politicians define laws), and because he represents a large constituency of Dutch voters (8 percent in last election, could be up to 30% according to some polls).

However, this speech, man he or his (famous) lawyer seemed to have cobbled together all divine phrases of free speech and wrapped them together in a nice little presentation. Anybody can put together a speech like this ("wasn't it Voltaire who said 'as much as I despise your opinion, I will defend your ability to speak it'" is a staple of such speeches, and no it wasn't Voltaire).
You must understand that Wilders' other thoughts include a tax of say (pinky to mouth) a thousand dollars per hijab (islam head scarf) to fix the economic crisis.

The situation on free speech in the Netherlands is super unclear. Because we are such a liberal free country, nobody really bothered/ bothers to ensure those rights are also legally documented. So on some fronts the freedoms of speech are very limited if prosecution occurs (almost yearly people are put in prison over making pretty tame references to the queen, giving somebody the finger is technically an offense).
In this particular case, the Dutch DOJ first decided not to sue, then some hippy who can't deal with anybody not agreeing him (Rene Danen) forces the DOJ to reconsider, if you read the verdict of that case you can see it is all about Nazi Germany references, a big no-no in the Netherlands (Wilders compares the Quran to Mein Kampf, as in both books that cause people to do bad things).

Anyway, this is just part of the whole Wilders big clown extravanganza show that is going on for years now. He is just making outregeous claims and getting in trouble everywhere to drum up support (actually I am most impressed by the way he does these things, as he does really little press or other public things yet gets the press to talk about him constantly). I think it is unclear what will happen if he gets into power (which probably won't happen all too soon, in part because of him the Dutch political landscape is superfragmented now, any coalition created in the next four years will be crazy enough without him in it).

Ten years ago I was 19 and a born-again, holy-rolling Christian. Worked in an automotive factory making parts for the Toyota Camry. You may be driving a faulty Camry at this moment. Sorry if you die. I was a bad employee and was let go.

Nine years ago I was living in my birth town near Mt. Rushmore, lazily pretending to work in a lumber yard as I lost my religion under the watchful eyes of George Carlin, Rene Descartes and my own sense of logic. I moved back to my home state and promptly watched my grandmother die of a heart attack.

Eight years ago I was working in an injection molding plant, getting tattooed and listening to Slipknot while the towers fell. I laughed while watching them fall, because it looked like a movie. Don't let Michael Bay film a tragedy.

Seven years ago I was working under the Golden Arches, getting tattooed and arrested. No conviction, though. If the glove don't fit...

Six years ago I was moving to the City of Trees for a girl. Yeah, I know...

Five years ago I watched Bush get re-elected, and thought about Rage Against the Machine lyrics.

Four years ago I watched the girl move out of my apartment a week after I started college. Somehow I failed that semester.

Three years ago I started making sandwiches and pretended to enjoy the company of customers. I may have also gotten laid that year at some point. I think.

Two years ago I still made sandwiches, but I quit school because the American education system is ridiculous.

One year ago I worked for the Evil Empire of Mr. Sam Walton and lived with a bunch of vegan hipsters. WTF was I thinking?

This year I started by walking out of Wally World and into the land of unemployment and living in a friend's house while I got back on my feet. (Which means I'm making sandwiches again.)

In between all of those I read halves of interesting books, wrote halves of my own interesting books, wrote halves of interesting pieces of music, memorized numbers, found number patterns, made friends, lost friends, smoked the occasional joint, smoked the occasional cigarette, drank too much, lost a few thousand dollars in poker and spent too much time on Facebook and Videosift, from which I've been banned two or three times.

Edit: Somewhere in there I watched my mother try to commit suicide twice. Forgot about that.