>> ^shinyblurry:

The proof that you're not is that you give no regard to the sin itself. You are using a relative standard to judge his crime, whereas God uses an absolute standard. There is no such thing as a minor sin in Gods eyes. God is holy and His standard is moral perfection. Moral perfection is what God calls good, and everything short of that is evil. He has also ordained the death penalty for all sin.
Neither was the crime itself picking up sticks. The actual crime was rebellion. It is not a minor thing to break Gods law, which the man knew full well he was doing. God punished Him not only for rebellion, but also as a public example to the rest of Israel that His laws were to be taken seriously. You have to remember that the Jews were His chosen people, and that they had entered into a covenant with God willingly. They agreed to follow His laws and adhere to His standards, and His standard was that they would be holy as He is holy. This meant that they would obey His law unceasingly with no exceptions. They also agreed with God that if they did not obey His law, they would incur the penalties He laid out.
I will agree that stoning is a particularly harsh punishment, but while you don't think the punishment fits the crime, that is because you don't understand how bad sin really is. Consider for a moment that what I said earlier is true, that one sin led to all of the madness that we see in the world today. If you can comprehend that, maybe you'll start to get the idea why God would use such a punishment as a deterrent.
You say there is no way a loving God would ever do that, to which I reply, that a loving God would do everything possible, including invoking extremely harsh punishments, to prevent as much sin as possible and protect His creation from the greatest amount of harm. To not take extreme measures against sin would actually be a point against Him, and not for Him.
>> ^Asmo:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll address it. I think stoning was used as a deterrent. He ordained an admittedly harsh punishment to keep His people from sin. While you don't see sin as a big deal, it is what caused the corruption of this entire world and all of the suffering therein. Every negative thing that has ever happened here stemmed from just one sin, and each of us have committed hundreds, if not thousands of sins. Sin is a big deal and I feel that punishment was a reflection of the seriousness of sin.
Look up stoning videos on Liveleak sometime and tell me how a supposed god of infinite love would prescribe it for collecting firewood on the sabbath... I condemn people who use stoning as monsters. By any standard, it appears that I am morally superior to your god... = P



Hi, shinyblurry.

I haven't responded to any of your posts in a while, but this time your answer made me throw up in my mouth a little so I thought I'd chime in. Let me read back to you what you just said:

"Moral perfection is what God calls good, and everything short of that is evil. He has also ordained the death penalty for all sin."

But in the Christian tradition, the ONLY being capable of moral perfection is God himself. Humans can strive for it, but never achieve it. So what you have essentially said is that God created imperfect creatures and now punishes them repeatedly, mercilessly, and arbitrarily with death for being imperfect. That doesn't sound much like a loving (or rational) God to me.

"I will agree that stoning is a particularly harsh punishment, but while you don't think the punishment fits the crime, that is because you don't understand how bad sin really is. Consider for a moment that what I said earlier is true, that one sin led to all of the madness that we see in the world today. If you can comprehend that, maybe you'll start to get the idea why God would use such a punishment as a deterrent."

Except that "deterrent" didn't work, did it? After Numbers 32-36 there are countless more examples of the people sinning in the Bible. So you're basically saying the poor guy in this passage died for nothing and that the supposedly omnipotent God who commanded the death was unable to see that this deterrence would fail. Nevermind that picking up sticks is treated as a far worse form of "rebellion" than the other various sins recounted both before and after this story in the Bible in which many of the characters are given less severe punishments or the chance to repent. So much for the Christian god being a god of mercy...

These kinds of contradictions and irrationalities are apparent to anyone who takes even a brief moment to consider them... and you wonder why the Sift isn't flocking to your evangelical banner?

The proof that you're not is that you give no regard to the sin itself. You are using a relative standard to judge his crime, whereas God uses an absolute standard. There is no such thing as a minor sin in Gods eyes. God is holy and His standard is moral perfection. Moral perfection is what God calls good, and everything short of that is evil. He has also ordained the death penalty for all sin.

Neither was the crime itself picking up sticks. The actual crime was rebellion. It is not a minor thing to break Gods law, which the man knew full well he was doing. God punished Him not only for rebellion, but also as a public example to the rest of Israel that His laws were to be taken seriously. You have to remember that the Jews were His chosen people, and that they had entered into a covenant with God willingly. They agreed to follow His laws and adhere to His standards, and His standard was that they would be holy as He is holy. This meant that they would obey His law unceasingly with no exceptions. They also agreed with God that if they did not obey His law, they would incur the penalties He laid out.

I will agree that stoning is a particularly harsh punishment, but while you don't think the punishment fits the crime, that is because you don't understand how bad sin really is. Consider for a moment that what I said earlier is true, that one sin led to all of the madness that we see in the world today. If you can comprehend that, maybe you'll start to get the idea why God would use such a punishment as a deterrent.

You say there is no way a loving God would ever do that, to which I reply, that a loving God would do everything possible, including invoking extremely harsh punishments, to prevent as much sin as possible and protect His creation from the greatest amount of harm. To not take extreme measures against sin would actually be a point against Him, and not for Him.

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll address it. I think stoning was used as a deterrent. He ordained an admittedly harsh punishment to keep His people from sin. While you don't see sin as a big deal, it is what caused the corruption of this entire world and all of the suffering therein. Every negative thing that has ever happened here stemmed from just one sin, and each of us have committed hundreds, if not thousands of sins. Sin is a big deal and I feel that punishment was a reflection of the seriousness of sin.
Look up stoning videos on Liveleak sometime and tell me how a supposed god of infinite love would prescribe it for collecting firewood on the sabbath... I condemn people who use stoning as monsters. By any standard, it appears that I am morally superior to your god... = P

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'll address it. I think stoning was used as a deterrent. He ordained an admittedly harsh punishment to keep His people from sin. While you don't see sin as a big deal, it is what caused the corruption of this entire world and all of the suffering therein. Every negative thing that has ever happened here stemmed from just one sin, and each of us have committed hundreds, if not thousands of sins. Sin is a big deal and I feel that punishment was a reflection of the seriousness of sin.

Look up stoning videos on Liveleak sometime and tell me how a supposed god of infinite love would prescribe it for collecting firewood on the sabbath... I condemn people who use stoning as monsters. By any standard, it appears that I am morally superior to your god... = P

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

Yes, it is indeed Swedish, for whoever is interested I did a quick translation of what I could make out of what was said.

00:08 Cameraman: Well, lets get to it.
00:22 Anders: No!
1:38 Cameraman: This went superb Anders!
1:42 Cameraman: It was a little jump straight out of the hole.
1:45 Anders: Yes, well it's a strong machine too.
1:49 Cameraman: Yes, good method this.
1:50 Anders: If it hadn't been a Ferguson the transmission would have broken instantly.
1:52 [Unintelligible.]
2:33 Anders: Well that's finally done!
2:37 Cameraman: Have you ever run down like that before Anders?
2:38 Anders: No, never.
2:41 Anders: So now it's midday Sunday, and we are back to where we started yesterday, early Saturday morning. So much for that firewood.
>> ^calvados:

^is this Swedish? I was just about to say we need a Soviet channel.

>> ^rellik:

Should've weighed the tripod down.


Yes, with dynamite!

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

>> ^daxgaz:
the blade is very thin and i bet that was very soft wood. When splitting firewood i have sunk mine pretty deep in to the stump. not quite this deep, but i could see that happening.>> ^HugeJerk:
How the hell did that first throw penetrate the wood that deep?


You split firewood with a shovel? You know they actually invented a tool for that job... Like 25,000 years ago.


i have a hatchet and a wood maul too. But, those are heavy and only do the one job, which is not ideal for camping. The shovel is light, has a holder and does many jobs. It's also thinner and sharper than a hatchet so it's much better for splitting a large piece down to kindling (not as good as a machete, but better than a hatchet). I will say, on the negative side, it does have a tendency to bind up in a log if it is too long where a hatchet would split the log.

>> ^daxgaz:

the blade is very thin and i bet that was very soft wood. When splitting firewood i have sunk mine pretty deep in to the stump. not quite this deep, but i could see that happening.>> ^HugeJerk:
How the hell did that first throw penetrate the wood that deep?



You split firewood with a shovel? You know they actually invented a tool for that job... Like 25,000 years ago.

the blade is very thin and i bet that was very soft wood. When splitting firewood i have sunk mine pretty deep in to the stump. not quite this deep, but i could see that happening.>> ^HugeJerk:

How the hell did that first throw penetrate the wood that deep?

Lies! - I've made firewood before - and I used an axe!

Edit: I'm starting to think I was doing it all wrong!

It already seem it will be lots of fun, in a way I won´t be exactly entertained...
cheers!

In reply to this comment by laura:
Heads up, we're collecting firewood now:
http://parody.videosift.com/talk/PREPARE-YE-for-the-Roast-of-neuralnoise
...and remember, don't hate me, you asked for this. muahahahahaha

Heads up, we're collecting firewood now:
http://parody.videosift.com/talk/PREPARE-YE-for-the-Roast-of-neuralnoise
...and remember, don't hate me, you asked for this. muahahahahaha

"Have you ever noticed that a lot of people are walking around these days using their 'feet'? Oh, you have? Well, have you noticed they wear clothes? Oh, you have and you think I'm an old crank whose long outlived his usefulness and will be known for nothing after his passing? Well, you little mound of mouse shit, have you ever walked into Buchenwald two weeks before VE day and seen the corpses stacked like firewood and be the first reporter to file a story on the atrocities there? You ever flown in a B-17 over Germany while the Luftwaffe was shooting the thing into flying Swiss cheese? Well, I have. So fuck you.

I'm Andy Rooney."

Mohammed said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah” (Al Bukhari vol. 4:196).

Sura 5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.”

Sura3 3:64: “Verily Allah has cursed the Unbelievers and has prepared for them a Blazing Fire to dwell in forever. No protector will they find, nor savior. That Day their faces will be turned upside down in the Fire. They will say: ‘Woe to us! We should have obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger!’ ‘Our Lord! Give them double torment and curse them with a very great Curse!’”

Sura72:15 “The disbelievers are the firewood of hell.”

Sorry I just had to, I find it strange when people try to convey the Quran as a book written by a group of kittens and puppies.

I could link to some beheading videos, quite a few terrorist attacks, cite numerous famous examples of insane laws in muslim countries(hanging gays, 20 years for downloading documents about women's rights, marrying 9 year olds to 60 year olds, everything going bat shit crazy over a few cartoons etc etc) but I'm sure you probably know even more examples than me.

So my question is, what's so peaceloving about the Quran?
Muslims seem to have double standards everywhere.. if a western woman travels to a muslim country, she better put on a veil, so she does not offend and make everybody around her nuts but if we in the west demanded in the streets for women wearing burqas and other muslim attire to remove them immidietly and put on western clothes, shit would hit the fan. What I'm trying to say is that muslim culture does not seem to have any tolerance for anything but itself.

Slightly off topic. Pardon.

>> ^chilaxe:
When Asian countries send us products, we give them currency that has a known conversion rate to other currencies. Currency represents labor. There's nothing special about it.


What kind of labor is it backed by? A haircut for another American? A consultation session for the government? An insurance policy? How many service jobs are we going to create before the world demands more basic things like soap, cars, televisions, fuel, food, and washing machines. They're not going to be able to meet future demand of these things if they keep throwing their products and legitimate money into our economy in exchange for our services and illegitimate money.

We aren't legitimately competing with the Yuan either, the Yuan is linked to the dollar. That means other countries inflate in sync with us to artificially suppress the value of their currency. They do so because they follow the Keynesian myth that a weak currency is good for exports. But why would you want to export something you make instead of consume it yourself, unless you felt you were getting something more valuable? Why would you INTENTIONALLY devalue your own currency to obtain a currency whose value wouldn't be high against it unless you did so? It's a paradox, but one that Chinese people were willing to make as wall street convinced them that tech stocks and home growth were legitimate. Now they've been burned twice by demand bubbles that they helped fuel by loaning towards consumption. That's why they're suffering now, not because their economy is unsound, but because they took the money we paid them with and recycled it into ours.

If they ever flooded the world with their 2 trillion dollar reserves, it's game over for the dollar. We don't have 2 trillion worth of their currency sitting in a vault to counteract it. Our labor services would become dirt cheap for us and others, but foreign imports would skyrocket in dollar terms. Domestic products would all get exported to richer countries, our standard of living would disappear overnight.


One of the reasons the US economy maintains the highest GDP per capita PPP in the world for nations above 5 million people is because it has a highly skilled workforce. Denigrating that workforce as "non-factory-working" or "paper" is meaningless as long as the rest of the world needs skilled labor.


GDP numbers are worthless, they're adjusted for the CPI. If the government lies about how much inflation they're creating, which I've already explained to you, they can remarkably overstate GDP. That's how despite this horrific mess last year, you still had dumbass economists coming on tv saying that we're not in a recession because GDP was still above 0%. But if inflation was calculated more honestly like it was 30 years ago, we'd have negative GDP every quarter. Instead, we claim to be growing a fraction of a percent despite being the epicenter of the problem.

If you think that we can deficit spend 100x more on military than anyone else, 50x more on entitlements than anyone else, and perpetually convince foreign savers to finance it in exchange for a negative inflation-adjusted yield, then you are sadly mistaken. Unless the Fed hyperinflates, we are going to have to set interest rates higher than they've ever been, possibly 30%, to lure in foreign buyers. Interest rates that high would make the correction of excesses unfold quicker, but hyperinflation is worse because we never recover from that. It looks like we're going that route, and that's what has Peter concerned. Foreigners have stopped buying bonds at these low interest rates, so the Fed has to buy them with pure inflation, new illegitimate dollars unbacked by labor. This is what's called "monetizing the debt," and it fails in every country that tries it. That picture in the video of the lady stuffing her oven with paper money worth less than firewood is from Weimar Republic Germany, a hyperinflationary episode in the 1920s that made people desperate and willing to follow Hitler.