*quality

As a non physicist, normal person with an interest in science, to me extra dimensions always made sense. Consider the quantum fluctuations of empty space, with extra dimensions it's not particles popping in and out of existance, but rather particles moving in and out of our observable 3 dimensions.

It looks so bad because there's a clash between the dimensions of the object being forced by the videosift app and the optimal width of the player. If you make it 416px by 374px it looks a lot better (width="416" height="374")

http://www.tinyuploads.com/images/cqq28T.png
http://i.tinyuploads.com/TZxku0.png


In reply to this comment by dag:
Wow - has the CNN embed become the ugliest piece of bloatware ever? Thank god they've got the "Mixx" button there - does that place even still exist?

Edit: nope it doesn't. You guys can't get mad at us for not removing Revver from our accepted hosts list - we've got our shit together more than CNN.

I would quote back to you the bit where you mention Rosa Parks, but i sense it would be pointless.

The point is, should someone be allowed to get away with rape because bringing them to justice 'would push them too far'? Should any criminal be forgiven their crime because they threaten others with more crime? That would be a charter for scum like Assange to get away with murder.


>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^thumpa28:
Seriously, I cant believe youre comparing Rosa Parks to a scumbag like Assange. Rosa Parks took a stand at the risk of her liberty and even her life. She represented freedom against tyranny and fought for what she believed in.
Assange believes in nothing else but self promotion and when that landed him in deep water, self preservation at the cost of everyone who sheltered him and even paid for his freedom. Assange has never taken a stand in his life, if he had been on that bus he would not have supported Rosa Parks, he would have fled at the first sign of trouble or got coerced into the lynch mob. How many chinese dissident informants, fighting much the same fight for freedom against overwhelming odds, are now in jail or worse because Assange released the unredacted cables out of nothing but another attempt to keep himself in the limelight?
Assange should face the sexual assault charges, we in the UK have a long and lengthy tradition of separation of the judiciary and the organs of state, which includes our intelligence services. As much as it pains me to say so, Assange would receive a fair extradition hearing (whose decision he fled) and a fair trial in Sweden. Hes done the damage now, whilst I wouldnt complain if he had a sudden CIA inspired cardiac arrest, thats the realm of Bond and Bourne.
Dont confuse Assange with Wikileaks. Wikileaks was started up with a reason in mind, Assange took it over as his one man puppet show.
>> ^dannym3141:
There is such a thing as taking a stand. Sometimes, when humans are pushed beyond what they think is acceptable, they are willing to risk terrible consequences.
Rosa Parks did it with racism. How many poor 'negros' got slaughtered, beaten ...god knows what the trickle down effect would be... in the aftermath of ANY bold defiance by their brethren at the time? So then should we prefer the status quo? Should Rosa Parks also take a dum dum to the nuts because of she didn't tow the government line?
I think Assange is/was doing the world a great service, though we may not know it yet and we may never if we don't come out of this dark age. At some point, someone had to make a stand against this all-pervading government corruption. If he is a rapist, then he should be brought to justice - but how can you trust law/court justice when the law/court is effectively an involved party?>> ^thumpa28:
Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.





Before i even read your comment, in what dimension did i compare Rosa Parks to julian assange? I read it a few times before posting to make sure i wasn't. Please read it again and adjust your comment accordingly, this must be a misunderstanding?
Furthermore (though this is beside the point), if this were 1955 and i used the same argument to support Rosa Parks, you would probably be outraged that i dare compare a scumbag like Rosa Parks to ....I dunno, the blokes who said "I'm Spartacus"? Choose any you like pre-1955.
Regardless, the two parties are irrelevant. The underlying point is that when people are pushed to what they consider their limits (and our limits are all different) then they are prepared to risk hurting themselves and others in the interests of those who come after us.

>> ^thumpa28:

Seriously, I cant believe youre comparing Rosa Parks to a scumbag like Assange. Rosa Parks took a stand at the risk of her liberty and even her life. She represented freedom against tyranny and fought for what she believed in.
Assange believes in nothing else but self promotion and when that landed him in deep water, self preservation at the cost of everyone who sheltered him and even paid for his freedom. Assange has never taken a stand in his life, if he had been on that bus he would not have supported Rosa Parks, he would have fled at the first sign of trouble or got coerced into the lynch mob. How many chinese dissident informants, fighting much the same fight for freedom against overwhelming odds, are now in jail or worse because Assange released the unredacted cables out of nothing but another attempt to keep himself in the limelight?
Assange should face the sexual assault charges, we in the UK have a long and lengthy tradition of separation of the judiciary and the organs of state, which includes our intelligence services. As much as it pains me to say so, Assange would receive a fair extradition hearing (whose decision he fled) and a fair trial in Sweden. Hes done the damage now, whilst I wouldnt complain if he had a sudden CIA inspired cardiac arrest, thats the realm of Bond and Bourne.
Dont confuse Assange with Wikileaks. Wikileaks was started up with a reason in mind, Assange took it over as his one man puppet show.
>> ^dannym3141:
There is such a thing as taking a stand. Sometimes, when humans are pushed beyond what they think is acceptable, they are willing to risk terrible consequences.
Rosa Parks did it with racism. How many poor 'negros' got slaughtered, beaten ...god knows what the trickle down effect would be... in the aftermath of ANY bold defiance by their brethren at the time? So then should we prefer the status quo? Should Rosa Parks also take a dum dum to the nuts because of she didn't tow the government line?
I think Assange is/was doing the world a great service, though we may not know it yet and we may never if we don't come out of this dark age. At some point, someone had to make a stand against this all-pervading government corruption. If he is a rapist, then he should be brought to justice - but how can you trust law/court justice when the law/court is effectively an involved party?>> ^thumpa28:
Assange is a self obsessed rapist (believe it or not that what they call people who have sex where the other party refuses or withdraws consent) whose lust for publicity has led to lots of death. The 1300 in Kenya by his own admission and the Taleban thanking wikileaks for helping them identify those who cooperated with the americans and what about an Iranian spy to name but a few we know about. Chinese dissidents, middle eastern journalists, people fighting for democracy in dangerous places have suffered because of this self serving turd.
How many people have suffered and died so Assange could lap up the publicity, shouting about the freedom of speech whilst gagging his own staff and of course planning to stiff the morons who looked after him whilst he was fighting extradition and especially those who posted bail. Everything out of his mouth is designed to keep Assange safe, by playing on the Great Satan angle and finding those fools idiotic enough to lap it up and throw money at the cause, especially those who posted bail for him, then left looking like right twats when he did a runner to the Ecuadorians. What a bunch of muppets.
Quite frankly, after all this nonsense the US wont bother to try and extradite him. I just hope the UK grabs him when he steps outside the one place the fucker can hide, preferably using a dum dum round to the nuts, before dragging his pathetic self off and slamming him into jail where he will face trial for being self obsessed, even during sex.
>> ^Hybrid:
You think this isn't about getting him extradited to the US via Sweden? That's one thing I and nearly everyone else in this thread do agree on. Be in no doubt, if Assange ends up on Swedish soil, he will end up on US soil soon after.>> ^Babymech:
Hybrid, don't be ridiculous. It would be illegal for Sweden to extradite him to the US. It would be political suicide for any Swedish politician or authority to be anywhere near involved an extradition to a country that practices the death penalty. Barbarians.






Before i even read your comment, in what dimension did i compare Rosa Parks to julian assange? I read it a few times before posting to make sure i wasn't. Please read it again and adjust your comment accordingly, this must be a misunderstanding?

Furthermore (though this is beside the point), if this were 1955 and i used the same argument to support Rosa Parks, you would probably be outraged that i dare compare a scumbag like Rosa Parks to ....I dunno, the blokes who said "I'm Spartacus"? Choose any you like pre-1955.

Regardless, the two parties i use as examples are irrelevant. The underlying point is that when people are pushed to what they consider their limits (and our limits are all different) then they are prepared to risk hurting themselves and others in the interests of those who come after us, and the point you missed was that it is impossible to tell whether this is "a valiant stand" or not.

I should mention that i'm also british, and i'd insist that it's a bit naive to think that britain is immune to corruption, especially in the wake of the last few years. Our government is surely at least as corrupt as the US's. As a british man, i'm appalled to think that anyone (not necessarily you) is in favour of disrespecting another nation by marching into their embassy, compounded by the fact that THIS DOESN'T CONCERN US. Hell, if you're that much behind justice, why aren't you arguing in favour of britain granting him asylum and doing everything in our power to make sure he faces correct charges and doesn't disappear off the face of the earth? Are you after justice or baying for blood!?

Whatever. Disagree on what assange is or isn't; it's clear that you have strong feelings about assange and as i said before, this just shows how difficult an impartial trial would be for him. Please don't disagree that britain needs to concentrate on BRITAIN for a while, though.

>> ^dirkdeagler7:

>> ^dannym3141:
Firstly, i'm not happy with his or the writer in the story's understanding of the words "quantum" and "dimension". Especially the former. And secondly i'm questioning that any ..."quantum effect"... occured because he made a huge assumption that the umbrella man was involved. I can think of a billion reasons why it might have happened (however unlikely).
This is an interesting story so i have no idea why he started with the quantum spiel. Heartwarming story about a conspiracy theorist who was cured

The way i read it is, if you understand some about physics you may think you know the universe and it all makes sense. However if you start to look deeper and at the minor details of the universe, aka the quantum level, things start to become much less logical and intuitive. Therefore you must dig hard to find the true nature of things at this level, and often times the truth will be more strange or surprising than you ever imagined.
When people were first discovering that there was a charged particle orbiting a nucleus do you think they assumed it was actually a cloud or probability and not a constant circling point? Of course not that would seem absurd at first, much as it would be absurd to think that the umbrella man was a guy protesting actions by JFKs father!


That's a decent explanation of what he was trying to say, but i still think he said it poorly. A quantum dimension? A very small dimension? I hope it wasn't foolish to misunderstand.

I agree that it would be absurd to assume he was protesting JFK's father but that's not the point being made is it? I thought the point being made was that it was absurd to think anything other than him being there for 'shenanigans', which i think is bullcrap. I think it's an expected result to find he's there innocently.

>> ^dannym3141:

Firstly, i'm not happy with his or the writer in the story's understanding of the words "quantum" and "dimension". Especially the former. And secondly i'm questioning that any ..."quantum effect"... occured because he made a huge assumption that the umbrella man was involved. I can think of a billion reasons why it might have happened (however unlikely).
This is an interesting story so i have no idea why he started with the quantum spiel. Heartwarming story about a conspiracy theorist who was cured


The way i read it is, if you understand some about physics you may think you know the universe and it all makes sense. However if you start to look deeper and at the minor details of the universe, aka the quantum level, things start to become much less logical and intuitive. Therefore you must dig hard to find the true nature of things at this level, and often times the truth will be more strange or surprising than you ever imagined.

When people were first discovering that there was a charged particle orbiting a nucleus do you think they assumed it was actually a cloud or probability and not a constant circling point? Of course not that would seem absurd at first, much as it would be absurd to think that the umbrella man was a guy protesting actions by JFKs father!

Firstly, i'm not happy with his or the writer in the story's understanding of the words "quantum" and "dimension". Especially the former. And secondly i'm questioning that any ..."quantum effect"... occured because he made a huge assumption that the umbrella man was involved. I can think of a billion reasons why it might have happened (however unlikely).

This is an interesting story so i have no idea why he started with the quantum spiel. Heartwarming story about a conspiracy theorist who was cured

>> ^BoneRemake:

Where the fuck did little one come from ? you watch some elven sci fi movie while high ?


no! i am from anutter dimension

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

I think we have to take certain things for granted because not everything can be proven empirically. There is no way to empirically prove that the Universe is actually real. To say that it is real you have to rely on your senses and reasoning. You can't say those are valid without using viciously circular logic. "My reasoning is valid because my reasoning says so" Without assuming certain things, apriori, the world would be unintelligable. Neither could you do science. To do science you have to assume the uniformity in the nature. How do you prove it? By assuming the future will be like the past. What is the evidence that the future will be like the past? The past. It's the same vicious circularity.

As far as Gods existence goes, I never assumed either way. I knew I didn't have enough information to say either way, so I was agnostic by default. I only changed my mind when I received evidence. I wasn't under any pressure to do so, nor was I even looking to do so.

So, while science has a pitiless indifference to how you feel in regards to what is true, it is not the sole arbitor of what is true. This idea that empiricism is the only way to determine truth cannot be proven empirically, ironically. It is an assumption that materialists make with no actual evidence. The argument seems to be that since we can build a space shuttle, empiricism must the way. Yet, that isn't a logical argument. Empiricism might be useful, but it isn't the only method of inquiry that is useful. Everything has its place, and empiricism has a hard limit to what it can prove.

Yes, there certainly is material out there. Does that we can see and test material means that material causes are the only possible solution? We can't see dark matter, dark energy, other universes, other dimensions, yet scientists have no trouble postulating about what we can't see. So why not postulate that the Universe has a non-material causation? Why not an intelligent causation? I would say the evidence is a lot more convincing for intelligent design than other Universes, yet science only considers one to be plausible. Don't you think that is irrational?

I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence. Isn't it possible that you are staring at something divinely ordered but don't realize it?

>> ^gwiz665:

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.
I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.
It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.
Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.
If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

Who defined it? Don't avoid agency by using the passive voice.

That's what I mean by "rule", a pre-determined consequence. Who determined that disobedience would have to result in death (or the other "death" or whatever)? Surely God, right?

Natural death temporarily exists..the second death is eternal

Who gave the law? Enough with the passive voice.

Again, a ton more passive voice to avoid the issue of God's agency. God, himself, determined to give the law. If it's because of sin, God invented sin too. God invented sin and made us imperfect. God made commands that were against our natures to follow. Why not just not make those commands? It's like a parent leaving out a jar of cookies, and commanding the two-year-old not to eat them. What do you think is going to happen?

I've said pretty clearly that God defined what we should or shouldn't do, and outlined consequences for those actions. If you ask why God gave us the concept of right and wrong, could it be that He knew which behaviors were good for us and which were bad? If you ask why God gave us consequences, could it be that God wanted to discourage us from bad behavior?

Neither did God create sin. God created the conditions in which free will creatures could make a choice between obeying or disobeying God. He didn't create them to sin, and neither did He cause them to sin. He gave them an honest choice and it was their choice that created sin. What God allowed is the condition to exist where sin was possible. Why did God allow us to sin? Because if He didn't, we would be nothing more than robots.

I thought words had meaning. What the hell are you talking about with two deaths? Death is death. Now there's two kinds? why not eighteen kinds? Which kind did Eve bring?

The two kinds of death are, when the body dies, and when your soul is cast into hell.

This isn't a good analogy. A king is a mortal who has to maintain a false authority (unless you think that kings rule by divine providence). This king made a mistake, an oversight, and later realized the consequences of his mistake. So, he fudged it by letting his son keep his second eye (a tiny punishment compared with losing both eyes) took out one of his own (again, not a big deal, comparatively) and called it even. God doesn't make mistakes. God doesn't make oversights and later realize the consequences. He knew right from the beginning what would happen.

Are you saying that God was afraid of losing his authority or losing the force of law? How can there be any consequences for God when God invented the consequences and can change them at will?

It is a good analogy because it illustrates the conflict between justice and mercy, and why God sent His Son. On one hand, God is holy, and He must punish all sin. On the other, He is merciful and wants to forgive us. What I am saying is, God cannot compromise His integrity to forgive us. Therefore, He sent His Son to take our punishment, in our place, so that He could offer us forgiveness through the cross. If you want to know why God will not lower His standards, use some common sense. Should we just let murderers and rapists go free in the hopes they will reform themselves? Will this encourage or discourage more crime? What about the victims?

Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

God sent His Son over on His behalf, remember? Fellowship with God is a privilege, and to the extent that we abuse it, that is the extent to which He will remove Himself from it.

Exactly. And if my parents had also invented cars and paedophiles and put them near my house, I would ask them why the hell they did that. Wouldn't you? God created the law to protect us from a danger that God created himself. Why did he create the danger in the first place? Whim?

We created the evil in this world, not Him. He gave us laws to keep us from evil.

No, we are animals, and before God's law existed, we didn't know better. Otherwise, why make laws? I'm afraid to ask you to define "his image", but I've got to know how much we could possibly resemble an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent entity. Why make sin and laws and conscience and death and hell in the first place?

You believe you are an animal. And we did know better..God gave us a conscience to know right from wrong, and God told Adam and Eve what was good, and not good, to do. If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

Why why why why why why? First, read some of the things I've said and connect the dots. Second, God created us to have fellowship with Him.

Death 1 or Death 2? Why does God need to punish us at all? Does that do any good once we're dead? Is he just trying to terrify the living into doing his will while we're still alive?

I've already answered about punishment. Again, God wants us to have fellowship with Him. Rebellion against God is a choice; God gives everyone enough information and opportunities to make the right choices.

So, man was uncorrupted before, but capable of sin, then immediately decided to sin and became corrupted. Simpler to say man was corrupted from the beginning, no? And it was just God's bad luck that the very first people he ever made screwed the pooch right off the bat? Or did he know they would screw up? Or did he design them to screw up? Did he make us a little too independent an rebellious? Could things have turned out any other way than they have?

Man wasn't corrupt before he sinned; he was created innocent. However, he was imbued with the ability to make a free choice. God didn't create man to sin, as I've said, and neither did he force man to obey him. He simply gave him the choices, showed him what was good and what wasn't, warned him of the consequences, and let him make the choice.

Did God know they would screw up? There is some contention there among theologians. Some believe that He did, and that He allowed creation to go forward to demonstrate His glory. I don't necessarily believe that, because scripture shows God dynamically interacting with His creation. If it were true that God knew absolutely everything that would happen, it would mean He was just "going through the motions". I believe that God does have an absolute foreknowledge about how His creation will turn out, and that He does know the future, but that He leaves some things open to give us free will.

And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

They lost their innocence when they disobeyed God and ate of the fruit. Their nature fundamentally changed as a consequence. Also, death came into the world. The human experience went from paradise to paradise lost, and humans had to fend for themselves. The corruption was a confluence of all of these different factors.

Falsifying things is how scientists discover real truth. If you can falsify something, then it's false. If you can't, it might be true. Scientists who propose theories are often the ones who try the hardest to falsify them. If they can do so, they know they were wrong, or maybe a bit off-base. If they can't, then it stands as a very good theory. That's what I'm doing when I ask all these questions. I cannot possibly believe anything which on its face is impossible. What I'm trying to understand is you, the faithful person. In the face of what I see as a mind-numbing array of internal inconsistencies in the Bible, I'm curious to understand how an otherwise rational person doesn't see the same thing I do. So far, you've cleared up some misconceptions I did have, but otherwise you've managed to dance around things by changing definitions of words, defining things only vaguely, removing agency from God, and telling me I don't understand. The only thing I have ever done is challenge the theory you've put in front of me for my criticism. If it's true, then I'll eventually realize it, right? But the more I plumb its depths, the less plausible it is.

The only way you'll realize it is if the Holy Spirit changes your heart. Until then this remains the truth:

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.

If I had such a son, and I'd also invented meth and venereal disease and made the human body both vulnerable and attracted to both of them, then I'd be pissed off at myself more than at him, and I would "uninvent" them both. And even in the real-life situation, my wife and I wouldn't resort to an ultimatum like hell. We would talk openly with him about what he's doing, what effects he thinks it's having on himself, on us, and on the rest of the family, and whether that's what he wants. We'd try and get the rest of the family to support him likewise. If he showed no intention of stopping and it was damaging the home environment, we would probably decide, regretfully, to ask him to leave with the understanding that any time for the rest of his life that he wanted to return and live like a family again, we would welcome him with open arms. What I wouldn't do is build a torture chamber in the basement and threaten him with it, then consign him there forever if he didn't change. That wouldn't be just.

God didn't invent the evil in the world, man did. Yes, you would kick him out of the house if he refused to change. What if after you kicked him out, he was shot and killed? Did you force him to act that way? Or did you do everything in your power to help him, and change him? Whether you think hell is fair or not, and remember that is based on your own imperfect sense of justice, I think you have to admit that people are ultimately responsible for their own choices. If God makes it clear what the consequences are, when someone ends up in hell, who else do they have to blame but themselves?

coming down from God out of heaven...

Cool. So it's only up to the last book of the Bible that heaven is in the clouds, and now heaven is on Earth. You're right that that's different from what's in the video, but it's no more ridiculous to talk about living in the sky than to talk about living in an alternate parallel dimension on Earth.

No, it's not. There is a Heaven in which God dwells, but He moves His dwelling place to Earth to live with us. That is what it says through the entire bible. What you're referring to is the pop-culture misconceptions of what scripture says. People hear their entire lives about scripture from the culture and assume they're true, and then they repeat them to others as fact, like in this video, because they are ignorant of what scripture actually says. Many of the bibles most ardent critics have never actually read it. Neither is it an "alternate parallel dimension" on Earth. It is here, on this Earth.

>> ^messenger

@shinyblurry

Sin is defined as disobedience to Gods commands

Who defined it? Don't avoid agency by using the passive voice.

Natural death temporarily exists..the second death is eternal

I thought words had meaning. What the hell are you talking about with two deaths? Death is death. Now there's two kinds? why not eighteen kinds? Which kind did Eve bring?

This isn't a rule, it is simply a consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

That's what I mean by "rule", a pre-determined consequence. Who determined that disobedience would have to result in death (or the other "death" or whatever)? Surely God, right?

The law was given because of sin

Who gave the law? Enough with the passive voice.

On one hand He desired to be merciful to the prince, his son, but on the other hand he had to maintain his standard of justice to maintain the integrity of his authority in the kingdom. Therefore, to solve this conflict between justice and mercy, he put one of the princes eyes, and one of his own.

This isn't a good analogy. A king is a mortal who has to maintain a false authority (unless you think that kings rule by divine providence). This king made a mistake, an oversight, and later realized the consequences of his mistake. So, he fudged it by letting his son keep his second eye (a tiny punishment compared with losing both eyes) took out one of his own (again, not a big deal, comparatively) and called it even. God doesn't make mistakes. God doesn't make oversights and later realize the consequences. He knew right from the beginning what would happen.

Are you saying that God was afraid of losing his authority or losing the force of law? How can there be any consequences for God when God invented the consequences and can change them at will?

The law was given because of sin, and the law couldn't make anyone perfect. What the law did was serve as a mirror unto man to show him what sin is. What was required was someone to perfectly fulfill that law so man could be reconciled back to God. Until that point, man had been spiritually separated from God because of sin.

Again, a ton more passive voice to avoid the issue of God's agency. God, himself, determined to give the law. If it's because of sin, God invented sin too. God invented sin and made us imperfect. God made commands that were against our natures to follow. Why not just not make those commands? It's like a parent leaving out a jar of cookies, and commanding the two-year-old not to eat them. What do you think is going to happen?

It took a sinless person to build that bridge and restore mans fellowship with God.

Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

Why did your parents tell you not to play in traffic or take candy from strangers? For your protection.

Exactly. And if my parents had also invented cars and paedophiles and put them near my house, I would ask them why the hell they did that. Wouldn't you? God created the law to protect us from a danger that God created himself. Why did he create the danger in the first place? Whim?

Because we're not animals, and because we know better. He created us in His image and gave us a conscience to know right from wrong. We are set apart for His purposes.

No, we are animals, and before God's law existed, we didn't know better. Otherwise, why make laws? I'm afraid to ask you to define "his image", but I've got to know how much we could possibly resemble an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent entity. Why make sin and laws and conscience and death and hell in the first place?

Death was a punishment for sin.

Death 1 or Death 2? Why does God need to punish us at all? Does that do any good once we're dead? Is he just trying to terrify the living into doing his will while we're still alive?

It is when man chose to sin that his nature became corrupted.

So, man was uncorrupted before, but capable of sin, then immediately decided to sin and became corrupted. Simpler to say man was corrupted from the beginning, no? And it was just God's bad luck that the very first people he ever made screwed the pooch right off the bat? Or did he know they would screw up? Or did he design them to screw up? Did he make us a little too independent an rebellious? Could things have turned out any other way than they have?

And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

If you want to understand it, then instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.

Falsifying things is how scientists discover real truth. If you can falsify something, then it's false. If you can't, it might be true. Scientists who propose theories are often the ones who try the hardest to falsify them. If they can do so, they know they were wrong, or maybe a bit off-base. If they can't, then it stands as a very good theory. That's what I'm doing when I ask all these questions. I cannot possibly believe anything which on its face is impossible. What I'm trying to understand is you, the faithful person. In the face of what I see as a mind-numbing array of internal inconsistencies in the Bible, I'm curious to understand how an otherwise rational person doesn't see the same thing I do. So far, you've cleared up some misconceptions I did have, but otherwise you've managed to dance around things by changing definitions of words, defining things only vaguely, removing agency from God, and telling me I don't understand. The only thing I have ever done is challenge the theory you've put in front of me for my criticism. If it's true, then I'll eventually realize it, right? But the more I plumb its depths, the less plausible it is.

...but one day he starts doing meth on your kitchen table and bringing hookers into his room every night. Are you going to compromise your standards and say that is okay or are you going to lay down the law and give him an ultimatum?

If I had such a son, and I'd also invented meth and venereal disease and made the human body both vulnerable and attracted to both of them, then I'd be pissed off at myself more than at him, and I would "uninvent" them both. And even in the real-life situation, my wife and I wouldn't resort to an ultimatum like hell. We would talk openly with him about what he's doing, what effects he thinks it's having on himself, on us, and on the rest of the family, and whether that's what he wants. We'd try and get the rest of the family to support him likewise. If he showed no intention of stopping and it was damaging the home environment, we would probably decide, regretfully, to ask him to leave with the understanding that any time for the rest of his life that he wanted to return and live like a family again, we would welcome him with open arms. What I wouldn't do is build a torture chamber in the basement and threaten him with it, then consign him there forever if he didn't change. That wouldn't be just.

coming down from God out of heaven...

Cool. So it's only up to the last book of the Bible that heaven is in the clouds, and now heaven is on Earth. You're right that that's different from what's in the video, but it's no more ridiculous to talk about living in the sky than to talk about living in an alternate parallel dimension on Earth.

>> ^Lowen:

(tiny spider voice) nooooo, not the dubstep! crappy techno most people think is dubstep but isn't!


Sorry, couldn't resist lol.

>> ^seltar:

Removed from pets! Thanks >> ^ant:
Pets? bugs



You're welcome.