The only thing you proved is there are idiots in every crowd. You know, like the Tea Party guy with the sign that said, "Keep your gov't hands off my Medicare!"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Let's see. This week alone there have been complaints (by the OWS crowd mind you) for the following things... Theft of personal property, arrests of people disrupting businesses, unsanitary conditions, public sex, voyerism, and one accused rape. OWS people have been filmed threatening others, making racist rants against jews, and bullying people who ask them simple questions.
And this guy says anyone who doesn't 'get them' is just part of some mysterious, invisible 'system' trying to keep them down. Whatever keeps you jazzed, I guess. But at some point the OWS crowd is going to have to accept that there is no man behind the curtain trying to crush them and keep the public from understanding the message that even this guy says is too vague to make any sense. They're doing a perfectly good job of alienating the public all on thier own.

Let's see. This week alone there have been complaints (by the OWS crowd mind you) for the following things... Theft of personal property, arrests of people disrupting businesses, unsanitary conditions, public sex, voyerism, and one accused rape. OWS people have been filmed threatening others, making racist rants against jews, and bullying people who ask them simple questions.

And this guy says anyone who doesn't 'get them' is just part of some mysterious, invisible 'system' trying to keep them down. Whatever keeps you jazzed, I guess. But at some point the OWS crowd is going to have to accept that there is no man behind the curtain trying to crush them and keep the public from understanding the message that even this guy says is too vague to make any sense. They're doing a perfectly good job of alienating the public all on thier own.

Interesting. It truly points out how naive we are in our day to day thinking. But then again that's good enough to get us through the day.


But when it comes to such seeming simple question of GOD or evolution we stick to what is easy to grasp, that is our common day to day reasoning.

Watching this made me think of evolution. If a particle can be here and there at the same time and if the cat can be dead and alive at the same time can the grand concept of evolution be true? If plants and nature use quantum physics daily how is that part of evolution?

Pure abstract science is cool It really makes one think.

1. Adam and Eve had a limited knowledge of good and evil by what God had informed them about..they knew enough to know it was wrong to disobey God.

2. God isn't merely good, like He is living up to some sort of standard. He is goodness itself. So when I call God good, I am not judging His character, I am describing it. I call God good because that is what He is, inherently. I am, like you, incapable of judging God, but I can describe Him. It's not a value judgement, it's really the definition of what good is and where it comes from.

>> ^acidSpine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sorry acidspine, I missed your question here.
1: When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in a state of innocence. The creation at that point was declared by God to be good. So Adam and Eve enjoyed a fellowship with God without any contamination of evil. However, God had to offer them a choice. If He didn't, they would have no more than puppets. He desired a loving relationship with them, but it would not be love if they had no choice. God wanted them to choose love and trust Him. The only way to give them a choice would be to command something that was not allowed.
So He gave them one rule, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them, saying that God was a liar and that the knowledge of good and evil would be a good thing, and that they would even be equal to God. The knowledge was this; to know the difference between good and evil. Before they gained this knowledge, they relied on God to tell them the difference. They enjoyed a state of innocence because of this. God wished them to be free of evil and to teach them step by step. They decided to betray God, however, and believe the devil..and when they ate of the fruit, the knowledge of evil brought to them fear and shame. Their innocent relationship with God was ruined. Their corruption meant they could no longer enjoy direct fellowship with God, so He cast them out of the garden. They also lost their immortality and began to die. Their sin brought death into the world. Obviously, it wasn't a good thing.
2: Well, first, all human beings are hypocrites. God is perfect and Holy. Ultimate justice could only be decided by a perfect being..all else would be hypocripsy and injustice. So our judgement will always be imperfect and unjust. If God broke His own laws, yes we could point the finger at Him. If He broke even one, it would mean He was imperfect and unqualified to judge us. We however are stained by our sins. It isn't rare to have broken almost every commandment even at a young age. If a murderer pointed the finger at you because he didnt like your behavior, would you take him seriously? God said if we even hate anyone we have committed murder in our hearts. So, pointing the finger at God when we ourselves are stained by sin is fairly ridiculous. We are born into this world with nothing, and life is a gift, but somehow we feel entitled to say God owes us something, as if God is our debtor. With sin on our minds, and corruption in our hearts, we say to God..what right have you to judge us! Well, He has every right..He is sovereign over His creation.
Isaiah 29:15-16
Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"
You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?
>> ^acidSpine:
Hey shiny, I know you like evangelasing so I have two simple questions for you that shouldn't take much time to answer. Here goes
1. What was the knowledge Adam and Eve supposedly gained by eating the forbidden fruit?
2. As human beings are we capable of judging god's moral character?
As a sweetener, if you answer both questions succinctly I will upvote this vid re-sifting it as it were (unless the recent downvote didn't remove a star point in which case I have nothing to offer)


Thats ok
I'll be breif. Your answer to the first question was that in the bible Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil after eating the fruit. But if they had no knowledge of good and evil how would they know doing the wrong thing was bad?
I'm not really sure that you answered the second question but I will just say if I'm not allowed to judge god as (non-existant) evil then you aren't allowed to judge him as good.
Thanks for the reply

>> ^shinyblurry:

Sorry acidspine, I missed your question here.
1: When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in a state of innocence. The creation at that point was declared by God to be good. So Adam and Eve enjoyed a fellowship with God without any contamination of evil. However, God had to offer them a choice. If He didn't, they would have no more than puppets. He desired a loving relationship with them, but it would not be love if they had no choice. God wanted them to choose love and trust Him. The only way to give them a choice would be to command something that was not allowed.
So He gave them one rule, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them, saying that God was a liar and that the knowledge of good and evil would be a good thing, and that they would even be equal to God. The knowledge was this; to know the difference between good and evil. Before they gained this knowledge, they relied on God to tell them the difference. They enjoyed a state of innocence because of this. God wished them to be free of evil and to teach them step by step. They decided to betray God, however, and believe the devil..and when they ate of the fruit, the knowledge of evil brought to them fear and shame. Their innocent relationship with God was ruined. Their corruption meant they could no longer enjoy direct fellowship with God, so He cast them out of the garden. They also lost their immortality and began to die. Their sin brought death into the world. Obviously, it wasn't a good thing.
2: Well, first, all human beings are hypocrites. God is perfect and Holy. Ultimate justice could only be decided by a perfect being..all else would be hypocripsy and injustice. So our judgement will always be imperfect and unjust. If God broke His own laws, yes we could point the finger at Him. If He broke even one, it would mean He was imperfect and unqualified to judge us. We however are stained by our sins. It isn't rare to have broken almost every commandment even at a young age. If a murderer pointed the finger at you because he didnt like your behavior, would you take him seriously? God said if we even hate anyone we have committed murder in our hearts. So, pointing the finger at God when we ourselves are stained by sin is fairly ridiculous. We are born into this world with nothing, and life is a gift, but somehow we feel entitled to say God owes us something, as if God is our debtor. With sin on our minds, and corruption in our hearts, we say to God..what right have you to judge us! Well, He has every right..He is sovereign over His creation.
Isaiah 29:15-16
Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"
You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?
>> ^acidSpine:
Hey shiny, I know you like evangelasing so I have two simple questions for you that shouldn't take much time to answer. Here goes
1. What was the knowledge Adam and Eve supposedly gained by eating the forbidden fruit?
2. As human beings are we capable of judging god's moral character?
As a sweetener, if you answer both questions succinctly I will upvote this vid re-sifting it as it were (unless the recent downvote didn't remove a star point in which case I have nothing to offer)



Thats ok

I'll be breif. Your answer to the first question was that in the bible Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil after eating the fruit. But if they had no knowledge of good and evil how would they know doing the wrong thing was bad?
I'm not really sure that you answered the second question but I will just say if I'm not allowed to judge god as (non-existant) evil then you aren't allowed to judge him as good.

Thanks for the reply

Sorry acidspine, I missed your question here.

1: When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in a state of innocence. The creation at that point was declared by God to be good. So Adam and Eve enjoyed a fellowship with God without any contamination of evil. However, God had to offer them a choice. If He didn't, they would have no more than puppets. He desired a loving relationship with them, but it would not be love if they had no choice. God wanted them to choose love and trust Him. The only way to give them a choice would be to command something that was not allowed.

So He gave them one rule, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them, saying that God was a liar and that the knowledge of good and evil would be a good thing, and that they would even be equal to God. The knowledge was this; to know the difference between good and evil. Before they gained this knowledge, they relied on God to tell them the difference. They enjoyed a state of innocence because of this. God wished them to be free of evil and to teach them step by step. They decided to betray God, however, and believe the devil..and when they ate of the fruit, the knowledge of evil brought to them fear and shame. Their innocent relationship with God was ruined. Their corruption meant they could no longer enjoy direct fellowship with God, so He cast them out of the garden. They also lost their immortality and began to die. Their sin brought death into the world. Obviously, it wasn't a good thing.

2: Well, first, all human beings are hypocrites. God is perfect and Holy. Ultimate justice could only be decided by a perfect being..all else would be hypocripsy and injustice. So our judgement will always be imperfect and unjust. If God broke His own laws, yes we could point the finger at Him. If He broke even one, it would mean He was imperfect and unqualified to judge us. We however are stained by our sins. It isn't rare to have broken almost every commandment even at a young age. If a murderer pointed the finger at you because he didnt like your behavior, would you take him seriously? God said if we even hate anyone we have committed murder in our hearts. So, pointing the finger at God when we ourselves are stained by sin is fairly ridiculous. We are born into this world with nothing, and life is a gift, but somehow we feel entitled to say God owes us something, as if God is our debtor. With sin on our minds, and corruption in our hearts, we say to God..what right have you to judge us! Well, He has every right..He is sovereign over His creation.

Isaiah 29:15-16

Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"

You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?

>> ^acidSpine:
Hey shiny, I know you like evangelasing so I have two simple questions for you that shouldn't take much time to answer. Here goes
1. What was the knowledge Adam and Eve supposedly gained by eating the forbidden fruit?
2. As human beings are we capable of judging god's moral character?
As a sweetener, if you answer both questions succinctly I will upvote this vid re-sifting it as it were (unless the recent downvote didn't remove a star point in which case I have nothing to offer)

Hey shiny, I know you like evangelasing so I have two simple questions for you that shouldn't take much time to answer. Here goes

1. What was the knowledge Adam and Eve supposedly gained by eating the forbidden fruit?
2. As human beings are we capable of judging god's moral character?

As a sweetener, if you answer both questions succinctly I will upvote this vid re-sifting it as it were (unless the recent downvote didn't remove a star point in which case I have nothing to offer)

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^bcglorf:
Snide comments have their place, but in this context your just sympathizing with a deposed tyrannical dictator.

Says the cheerleader for Western colonialism and imperialism.

You say that like Gaddafi's fall is a bad thing...
Oh right, you believe that. In case you haven't noticed, the world is wising up and rejecting your kind en mass. Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have already thrown your ilk out, and with any luck the Syrian and Iranian people will manage similar gains in the future.

You say that like NATO actually gives a damn about helping the Libyan people. You're a fool if you think that's the case.
Oil and Gold. Notice how they never targeted any of the oil infrastructure with the bombings? No, they targeted residential areas and civilian infrastructure. Lol, and you think they're there to help the people. They're there to help themselves! Bomb and pillage.


What's wrong with you?

I said Gaddafi's defeat is good for the Libyan people. Do you agree with that or not? It's a simple question.

Attacks don't bother me. I silently applaud them, as it tells me the other guy has exhausted any valid argument and can only toss peanuts from the gallery. Bravo. (golf clap)

Regardless... I have link after link to articles proving the central tenants of "Anthropogenic Global Warming" to be based on faulty data, bad models, or otherwise completely falsifications. Day after day the 'science' that served as the foundation of the Warmies argument is repeatedly falling into disrepute. It isn't settled science, as the Warmies try to make it out to be. It gives REAL scientists a bad name, to be frank, to be associated with such poor research.

This week's shining example? (There are new ones all the time, so this is hardly unusual...)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45447

All the reports on dying polar bears from global warming? Completely faked. This bozo (who got millions in federal grants BTW) 'peer reviewed' his so-called research with his WIFE. His data (ha) was 4 polar bear corpses he saw while flying around. He never examined the bodies. Now he is in total CYA mode, as the harsh glare of scrutiny comes to bear (no pun intended). Like most arguments that Warmies make, it falls apart when even BASIC, simple questions about methodology come up. The Warmie movement is a house of cards built on shoddy data, bad proceedures, and alarmist rhetoric. Like most scams of this sort, the perpetrators have very little recourse except to attack those who are trying to keep them honest. If everything is so cock-certain as the Warmies claim - then surely you have naught to fear from honest criticism of the data when it is well-founded?

>> ^chilaxe:

It might be easy to answer a simple question wrong if it's late at night and you're distracted with what's going on across the street, and being put in a high stakes situation with police can make people nervous as well. Perhaps he misinterpreted it as "Do you live at this house (the house across the street)?"
This seems to be one of the few police brutality videos on the sift that could actually happen to rationalists.


Yeah I suppose you're right. I can't help but feel that this entire situation could have been avoided if he had answered that one question differently though. Having said that, the officer is still an asshole.

It might be easy to answer a simple question wrong if it's late at night and you're distracted with what's going on across the street, and being put in a high stakes situation with police can make people nervous as well. Perhaps he misinterpreted it as "Do you live at this house (the house across the street)?"

This seems to be one of the few police brutality videos on the sift that could actually happen to rationalists.

>> ^Longswd:

I suspect it was a swallow. He could have gripped it by the husk.


It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a 10 pound fawn. Now supposing two swallows carried it together?

Thanks for quoting me correctly. I appreciate it.

I'm not sure of your point, though. Illinois and Massachusetts, two states out of 50, have weird laws. The citizens of those states should protest to their legislators. ACLU should be called in and see if these laws are constitutional.

What do you want me to think?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Remember, you said
>> ^bareboards2:
Love the cameras. Cameras and the internet are weaving a web of protection around each citizen.
Too cool, baby!

And before you said
>> ^bareboards2:
[edit] Allowing for hyperbole and "all" and "yearn" ....
1. Yes
2. Yes.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@bareboards2
1 - Was all that stuff invented & perpetuated out of a sincere need to protect you?
2 - Do you sincerely believe that 95% of police wake up yearning to prevent every citizen, as much as possible, from being robbed or raped or murdered?
Those are simple questions you've refused to address so far.


Just in case you're still havin' trouble letting it all sink in..
>> ^bareboards2:
I said that I am glad that cops have cameras on their cars. Transparency.
I am glad that the internet is spreading the videos far and wide. Public empowerment.
This is how we protect ourselves.
Replay what Anna says at min 2:55 a few times
Hah. Kumquat?

Remember, you said

>> ^bareboards2:

Love the cameras. Cameras and the internet are weaving a web of protection around each citizen.
Too cool, baby!


And before you said

>> ^bareboards2:

[edit] Allowing for hyperbole and "all" and "yearn" ....
1. Yes
2. Yes.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@bareboards2
1 - Was all that stuff invented & perpetuated out of a sincere need to protect you?
2 - Do you sincerely believe that 95% of police wake up yearning to prevent every citizen, as much as possible, from being robbed or raped or murdered?
Those are simple questions you've refused to address so far.



Just in case you're still havin' trouble letting it all sink in..

>> ^bareboards2:

I said that I am glad that cops have cameras on their cars. Transparency.
I am glad that the internet is spreading the videos far and wide. Public empowerment.
This is how we protect ourselves.

Replay what Anna says at min 2:55 a few times

Hah. Kumquat?

[edit] Allowing for hyperbole and "all" and "yearn" ....

1. Yes
2. Yes.

And I have actually already said these are my beliefs in other, private exchanges. I know I am wordy, perhaps you missed it.

I'm not nitpicking your words, I didn't even mention your words.

I look at each vid with a critical eye and look at the evidence presented. I go to other sources. I gather data. I inquire.

I don't trust anyone, actually. I question everything.

Sorry you don't like my approach. Sorry I don't share your world view. [edit] --

Just ignore me. You'll feel better, I suspect.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bareboards2

1 - Was all that stuff invented & perpetuated out of a sincere need to protect you?
2 - Do you sincerely believe that 95% of police wake up yearning to prevent every citizen, as much as possible, from being robbed or raped or murdered?
Those are simple questions you've refused to address so far.