>> ^Payback:

PRECIOUSSSSSSSS!!!!!


Levitron of the Ring! =o)

Your video, Simon's Cat - "Shelf Life", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Mine just collects dust in the shelf corner.

heh heh... sweet

not as dangerous as it looks though...
i was doing similar from the age of seven

check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrCrAwn4Aks

it's a popular summer surfspot on the south shore of the hawaiian island of oahu called china walls - my house is visible for a few seconds in this vid as it pans quickly to the left - i swam in waves like that almost every day of my life

on a side note, that lava shelf is where they filmed some of the coastal scenes in the lost series

A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.

It's impossible for us to say how God perceives His Creation (beyond what He told us). What we do know is that the second person of the Trinity entered time and became a man, and lived 33 years here on Earth. The Father was certainly capable of loving His Son while He was a man, and interacting with Him in this temporal reality. Therefore God is certainly capable of having meaningful relationships with His creatures as well. It says that in Him we live and move and have our being, meaning, that we are intimately connected to God at all times. I would further say that we have no actual idea of what time is, or how it relates to eternal things. What we do know is that it is always 'now'. I have a feeling that the 'now' moment and eternity relate in some way.

Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.

God had perfect love before He Created anything, so He did not create from a lack; He created it out of the abundence of His love.

It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything

His immutability relates to His essential nature, His perfect goodness. His character doesn't change. He is Holy and Just and always will be. This doesn't mean that God cannot have a novel thought or feel anything. Jesus wept, for instance. If you took this bizzare idea of immutability to its logical conclusion, God would be frozen in place and could not do anything at all. Clearly an omnipotent being is essentially unrestricted in His actions. The problem here is we are limited temporal beings trying to imagine what an unlimited eternal being is like. The distance between us and God is far greater than the distance between us and bacteria. This isn't to pass it off as "God is mysterious", because as I've pointed out, your definitions are inconsistant with what we do know. But you have to admit that there is an essential barrier to understanding what it is like to be God, simply because of our finite and subjective nature. How does a being who was born understand eternity? He can't, at least, not without an eternal being explaining it to him.

First you say, "Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle".

Then you say, "Christians are under a New Covenant and don't follow those laws".

Which is it? Is being gay against the bible, or is it not against the bible?

It was not just a prohibition for israel, it is also for Christians, as detailed in Romans 1:18-32


>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.
Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.
It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything.
So, can you explain how God can be perfect, yet be unfulfilled and have desires?

@shinyblurry

A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.

Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.

It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything.

So, can you explain how God can be perfect, yet be unfulfilled and have desires?

disclaimer: I am a batman fan, I have a whole shelf full of Batman graphic novels so take what I say with a grain of salt

I really enjoyed both Batman Begins and the Dark Knight. I thought both stories were well told and well shot. Ironically, I felt the best parts of both movies was when Batman wasn't on screen. Bales "bat-voice" just didn't really work, and I didn't feel they captured the detective or martial artist aspects of the character that well.

I would actually say that the Arkham Asylum/City games are the best representation of my idea of Batman in any medium. The threefold split between predator, fighting and puzzle solving is the essence of Batman to me.

As for this, I think it will be more of the same. I am expecting a good story and a technically well executed film (although I agree with Deano, I thought the football field looked rubbish as soon as I say it).

That said, it is telling that in 130 seconds of trailer, there is about 4 seconds with Batman in it.

Congratulations! Your video, Kitten Will Not Vacate The Boob Shelf, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 4 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

Thank you for the promote, sir!

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote. Boobs and cats together don't get enough attention on this site.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Kitten Will Not Vacate The Boob Shelf, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Everyone wants a boob shelf to call their own.

I like both Chris and Sam, but after reading the passage I think Sam was irresponsible in his writing - though I see it as more glib than malicious. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who disagrees, but the way I interpret the passage is...

"If Muslim Jihadists - who fear not death and want nothing more than to nuke us for religious reasons - ever came to power in a state that possessed nuclear weapons, our only option would be to nuke them first. It would be horrible, absurd, unthinkable and would result in millions of deaths and would likely lead to retaliation.... BUT IT WOULD BE THE FAULT OF RELIGION."

I think the problem is three-fold, a) that he mounts an argument that justifies preemptive global nuclear war, b) that, sadly, he paints our conflict as one of religion and not one of foreign policy and c) that he sees Muslims as crazy people who would sacrifice the lives of their children in exchange for dead Americans and heavenly virgins. This is indefensible.

Let me respectfully remind my good sift libs that Middle Eastern rage against the US has to do with foreign policy, not religion. It's blowback. It was Bush that said they hate us for our freedom, and Chomsky (on the left) and Ron Paul (on the right) that said they want us to stop bombing them, building bases in their countries and installing puppet dictators. Are we really going to side with the Bush doctrine instead of having to concede something to a person of faith?

Again, I like both these guys and would rather they didn't fight, but Hedges makes a fair point. We atheists aren't used to being criticized from the left and it puts us in a weird position. I don't think Sam is a hater, I think he just wrote an irresponsible couple of paragraphs in haste.

Anyway, the full passage is below. Judge for yourself. Tell me where I'm wrong.

SAM HARRIS: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the nineteen hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry. The Muslim world in particular must anticipate this possibility and find some way to prevent it. Given the steady proliferation of technology, it is safe to say that time is not on our side."