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.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'book, children, numb, tongue twister' to 'book, children, numb, tongue twister, seuss' - edited by jonny

>> ^Fletch:

"Comfortably Numb"... was the singing worse than the guitar?


Pretty sure it's a toss up =oD

"Comfortably Numb"... was the singing worse than the guitar?

Just wanted you to know you aren't alone in not liking some of the "male" humor around here.

I don't think it is a good thing -- but I have gotten numb to it. It is a good coping mechanism. And especially when it becomes clear there is nothing you can do or say that will make a difference. So why bother.

And. I remember feeling pretty much a lone voice calling out into the wilderness, and how crappy that felt.

So. You aren't alone.


In reply to this comment by tsquire1:
The fact that a comment critiquing rape culture gets downvoted, and one that promotes rape culture gets up voted, reveals a heavy nerdbro tendency on this site that is really quite sick.

No, I dont care if it is 'just a joke'. You infantile nethipsters that make these comments never have to worry about being raped, never have to worry about what they wear walking down the street and if it will promote 'catcalls'. You don't have to worry about facing violence by going out at night or, if you do get sexually assaulted, have to worry about who will even believe you.
Plainly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
That is why it is funny to you. Because you are that removed from reality. Your laughter is a privileged laughter. Your cynicism is anti-human.
>> ^Hybrid:

You wouldn't be saying that 30 mins after I put some Rohypnol in your drink.

A lot of you might shy away from watching this, feeling that it's another talk from some self help guru that's going to make you uncomfortable. Just know that this woman is a major heavyweight, and that her muses get backed up by volumes of mind-numbing research before she speaks. You won't come away from this with a temporary high, you'll get tools to make you a better person. Don't miss out.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Yogi:
"You're gonna see a lot of drug seeking behavior in your practice...because it works."
-House
That doctor should have his license to practice taken away. I blame the cops for a lot of heartless things in this story, but the doctor is responsible for her health and well being and he is just shit at his job...Unless she died from some sort of aneurysm that couldn't be detected then maybe he's off the hook.

She was complaining about leg pain and numbness. The first thing they should check in that situation is for blood clots. If a blood clot broke off and lodged in her heart or lungs she could have (probably did) die directly from medical negligence.


Very good, yes I saw this while watching House as well. Good consult Dr. Boise_Lib.

>> ^Yogi:

"You're gonna see a lot of drug seeking behavior in your practice...because it works."
-House
That doctor should have his license to practice taken away. I blame the cops for a lot of heartless things in this story, but the doctor is responsible for her health and well being and he is just shit at his job...Unless she died from some sort of aneurysm that couldn't be detected then maybe he's off the hook.


She was complaining about leg pain and numbness. The first thing they should check in that situation is for blood clots. If a blood clot broke off and lodged in her heart or lungs she could have (probably did) die directly from medical negligence.

The -caines rely on certain enzymes in your blood stream to interact with them in order to produce the numbing effect. I, apparently, lack these enzymes so at least lidocaine (which is what they usually use at the dentist even though they still call it Novocaine) doesn't work on me.

I had a root canal a few years ago with full feeling despite a ridiculous amount of shots to try to get me numb. I had my finger ribboned with a scalpel a week and a half ago under the same conditions.

It's really not that uncommon to find someone who doesn't respond to the anesthetic, yet nobody believes me when I tell them it's not going to work. That's the worst part. I end up paying for the shit because they insist on giving it to me after I tell them it doesn't work, then they start dicking around and have the nerve to act surprised when it becomes apparent that I can feel what they're doing.

I guess I have a high pain tolerance or something because the root canal for me wasn't anywhere near as bad as people who were numb described it as being. The worst part was the cramp in my jaw from having my mouth propped open for so long. (Insert joke about whores here.)

Not looking forward to having wisdom teeth pulled, though. I hope they can put me out for that and I hope whoever drives me home doesn't make a video.

Had some nerve damage in the left side of my lower jaw and lower lip when I had my teeth out. They warn you it's a possibility. I could move them, but they felt numb and the feeling slowly came back over the next week. Made it really bad about eating, like being novacained up for a long time.

It unfortunately didn't help with the pain, that was full intensity and there's nothing quite like a mouth injury...you just can't help but aggravate it.

Went on to have bell's palsy in that side of my face, always wondered if they were related.

Then over the years my teeth shifted around, caused my jaw to not align properly when I would bite down and now I have to wear a mouth guard because my front teeth strike when I bite down...so I don't slowly chip away my teeth by striking them at night when I sleep. Hit them enough during the day if Im not paying attention. When money allows going to have to get some adult braces to shift everything around and pull my jaw into better alignment.

Not a huge advocate of getting the wisdom teeth out, but I was basically told that if they come in bad they would ruin the teeth next to them if I didn't get them out.

>> ^TheFreak:

Oh man, I wish I'd been put out. Had them out by an army dentist during the gulf war. A few shots of novacaine and right to work with the torture tools. I'll never forget the sound of the tooth being cracked away from my jaw and the dentist on top of me with his knee on my chest for leverage. Only one side too, so there went 5 years of orthodontics as my teeth shifted after the removal. Still, I should be glad they removed them at all. First time in a couple PFCs just ground the teeth down to nubs to keep them from putting pressure on the other teeth. Fucking army. Had splinters of tooth coming out through my gums for a year.


My dad waited to get his wisdom teeth out, and they became impacted and then infected. He woke up one day with his jaw swollen out on one side and had to have an emergency extraction. He only found one doctor that would do it. They numbed him, but he was in too much pain for it to dull it out. Then the doctor straddled his chest and stuck a big steel bar with a crook into his mouth and hammered on the end of that with him watching and aware the whole time. Hit until he broke his tooth into a couple pieces and pulled them out. After he told me that, as soon as my dentist mentioned on needing to get my wisdom teeth out I was like "Do it but knock me out!"

Right, so..

1.) I never said Ron Paul is some panacea for the world's troubles.

2.) I even admitted that Paul is more or less a racist homophobic religious cuke.

3.) I don't think Paul or any single person should have that much power to begin with.

The fact that we're still stuck with a two-party system in which we vote for one president "in charge of everything"..

..as opposed to 50 governors and local communities making their own decisions for their own goddamn selves is mind-numbing.

Point is:
The immediate effects and sincere discussions that would take place in the wake of such a radical candidate becoming president are the best thing that could happen for the American political process at this conjunction in our history.

For fuck's sake, YOUR AVATAR & GALAXY STAR ARE A GUY FAWKES MASK! You should support a grassroots underdog upheaval like the one Paul represents more than anyone on this site.

Ron Paul represents the chance to reclaim our Foreign Policy from Warmongers; our Economics from Speculators; our Health, Safety, Labor, and Ideas from Robber Barons.

But then again, he did stereotype blacks as fleet-footed so.. I guess you make a good counter-point.
>> ^NetRunner:

Hah. No. Of course not.

I'd liked to remain as status quo-y and entrenched in my beliefs as the Conservative Republicans I like to gripe about.

But it's okay cause I wear & cheer lead for the blue team while I do so.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
You got any solutions, bro?
Or just more fallacious arguments?

As a freshman at Wilmington's Laney High School, Jordan tried out for the varsity basketball team and was cut. The next year he was cut again soon after the season began, while his best friend, Leroy Smith, made the team. Jordan told Reader's Digest that when he discovered he had been dropped from the varsity again, "I went through the day numb. After school, I hurried home, closed the door to my room and cried so hard. It was all I wanted--to play on that team."

He added: "It's probably good that it happened. It made me know what disappointment felt like. And I knew that I didn't want that feeling ever again."

You actually don't have to study, I found just reading the textbook the night before the exam would get me 90s in high school. The worst part about this method of studying is that the literature is literally mind numbingly boring, and if you fall asleep you're fucked.