<slow clap>

(The applause, not the venereal disease)

At this point I believe Videosift is pranking me. Nicole Smith has somehow risen from the dead, morphed into a tall airline hostess on top of the Burj whatever and of all improbable things possible has adopted my venerable family surname? WTaF? Actually her late ex-husband appears to not be related to our line of Ludviks AFAIK.

Come on NASA,

The shuttle and now the Orion spacecraft have been and are designed by congressmen and women for make work projects in their states.

The shuttle, although a marvel of engineering, was a death trap due to putting the most venerable structures down the stack.

ISS is a fantastic endeavour, but its low earth orbit and NASA has been struggling with a new direction for decades. The moon... no wait... asteroids... no wait... Mars... hold on... the moon.

Just PICK ONE, at least DOUBLE the funding to NASA and make whatever new project a national initiative. The American space industry can do unbelievable things when the proper foresight is put is place backed by money. (hay, maybe take some out of the military complex?!).

We will see if the Moon remains a target for NASA, maybe that will change when your current "leader" is removed... I am mean voted out of his "office".

The bible wasn't written as a book. It is a compilation of discrete articles, written at different times, in different places, by different authors, that are venerated by the church.

Importantly, as I explained above, the Orthodox church (the original church) and the Catholic church (the first schism) have a written and oral Tradition that outlines the meaning of everything (specifically to avoid this situation).

THE HAPPIEST AND MOST FESTIVE OF BIRTHDAYS TO AND FOR YOU VENERABLE SIR!

ENJOY!

Actually, most satanists believe in veneration of the self over others. "Do whatever thou wilt" as it were.

Pretty much like any other religion, it's a mystical justification for behaving in the manner they want to (much like christianity is a justification for being judgmental and annoying ; ).

You just received a gift of 2 Power Points from gorgeous member @lucky760. What a studly, venerable, distinguished gentleman.

They did Lust wrong. Who cares about virtual teabagging? Lust should've been the pathetic veneration or more frequently, the abuse of female gamers

@oritteropo

I must of missed that point somewhere along the way. It seems as viral as Venereal Disease.

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.

>> ^Asmo:
How wonderfully arrogant. You refuse to accept something ergo it doesn't exist...

I've yet to see one..that's why I invited you to come up with one. You say you don't have to, and I say, you don't have one. If you did you would have used it already.

>> ^Asmo:
No, there aren't, and no, there isn't.

"How wonderfully arrogant. You refuse to accept something ergo it doesn't exist..."

>> ^Asmo:
There is conjecture and hypothesis predicated on belief. In the absence of belief, the "evidence" ceases to function.

The Universe from nothing - logical absurdity

abiogenesis and macro evolution - conjecture and hypothesis predicated on belief

The atheist answer "we don't know, and we're working on it, but you're still wrong"

The theory of God has explanatory power, and is a better explanation for the evidence, such as fine tuning in the Universe, and information in DNA. Scientists cannot explain why the Universe appears fine-tuned for life, so they postulate that we there are multiple universes, and we just happen to be in the one that looks designed. The problem with that theory, besides the complete lack of evidence, is that it violates occams razor by multiplying entities unnecessarily. "I don't know" is not an answer, or a reason to reject a better theory.

>> ^Asmo:
He might have been a real person (much like Hercules/Herakles might have been a real person), but the miracles attributed to him remain unproved.

There is powerful evidence for the resurrection, even that skeptical bible scholars accept. The empty tomb is not as easily written off as many atheists who have never studied the matter imagine. My entire contention is that you can test the claim by asking Jesus to come into your life. It is not a matter of me proving it to you, it is a matter of God revealing Himself to you. He will give you the undeniable evidence that you're looking for. This isn't a game..God loves you and wants you to know Him. All you need to do is ask Him to come into your life and He will do it.

>> ^Asmo:
Yes. I particularly enjoyed the part where god commanded the israelites to commit genocide or where Lot fucked his daughters (you'd think god would have seen that coming and made him leave behind his daughters in S&G cos they were nasty..) It has been venerated for so long that few actually think to question it, and then of course everyone interprets it according to their own beliefs anyway, and ignores the bits they don't want to take notice of (the point of the video above).

You say you've read the bible and this is what you got out of it? Or is it that you've read infidels.org? Are you honestly telling me this is what you've gotten out of your reading of the bible? Even Richard Dawkins respects the bible as a work of literature and historical resource.

>> ^Asmo:
I've also read texts from many other religions. I think the buddhists come closest to the mark.

"The Buddha said that no one should simply believe what he said, but we should all think for ourselves and discover the truth through analytical meditation."

I don't subscribe to their religious views but I like how they think.

Scripture tells us to discern all things. It's not a matter of blindly believing something, as you seem to be implying. If that was all it was, I wouldn't believe it either. It is because of the correspondence to reality, and the undeniable evidence I have received, that I believe it.

>> ^shinyblurry:


It's not that you don't need one, it's that there aren't any.

How wonderfully arrogant. You refuse to accept something ergo it doesn't exist...

>> ^shinyblurry:

There are plenty of logical arguments for the existence of God, and evidence that He created the Universe.

No, there aren't, and no, there isn't.

There is conjecture and hypothesis predicated on belief. In the absence of belief, the "evidence" ceases to function.

>> ^shinyblurry:
I would certainly claim that pulling a deity out of your hat is nonsense. I didn't pull Jesus Christ out of a hat; He is a real person, who claimed He is Gods only Son, which God proved by raising Him from the dead.

He might have been a real person (much like Hercules/Herakles might have been a real person), but the miracles attributed to him remain unproved.

>> ^shinyblurry:


Have you ever read the bible?


Yes. I particularly enjoyed the part where god commanded the israelites to commit genocide or where Lot fucked his daughters (you'd think god would have seen that coming and made him leave behind his daughters in S&G cos they were nasty..) It has been venerated for so long that few actually think to question it, and then of course everyone interprets it according to their own beliefs anyway, and ignores the bits they don't want to take notice of (the point of the video above).

I've also read texts from many other religions. I think the buddhists come closest to the mark.

"The Buddha said that no one should simply believe what he said, but we should all think for ourselves and discover the truth through analytical meditation."

I don't subscribe to their religious views but I like how they think.

Valid my ass.

The brand of free market bullshit that this guy pedals has fucked our entire system, led us to endless corporate war, created vast economic disparity, corrupted our politics beyond imagination, and wrought havok on the underclasses.

We should have national healthcare like the rest of the civilized world. Until we get that, I see no problem whatsoever in asking insurance companies to hand out contraceptives free of charge. Contraceptives are a lot fucking cheaper than the medical costs involved in both pregnancy and treating venereal disease, so this is a gift to the insurance industry. One wonders why they didn't think of it themselves.

Yes, I do hate this clown and his ideology that has failed time and time and time and time and time and time again. If he even once took some responsibility for his miserable career of failure, I might be more sympathetic. If he hadn't gone down to OWS to talk shit, I might be more sympathetic. I'm sick of these assholes. I think Schiff should be called out and reprimanded, and that's precisely what I did. I should remind you that my comments and downvotes are dissent as well, and that Mr. Schiff has a much bigger megaphone than my measly single downvote. Deal with it.

And why is it that I should not be permitted to dissent against Peter Schiff in your mind? Why should I not have the right to rail against this guy with my comments and downvotes? If you don't want your sacred cows charbroiled, then keep them in the fucking barn. Otherwise, you are going to have to learn to live in a world where people might disagree with you.

>> ^moodonia:

>> ^honkeytonk73:
All religions are cults.

There are sets of criteria which define what is a cult and what is a religion, I understand that most people feel the need to share their personal beliefs whenever the subject of belief arises but lumping the two together is inaccurate.


I see where you are coming from.. however:

According to most mainstream English dictionary definitions of the word "cult", all religions fall into said category. The concept of a religion being non-standard (unorthodox), not mainstream, or not 'right' rests solely as the opinion of the individual perceiving said religion in question. It is a matter of perspective. My declaration that all religions are cults puts them all on equal ground without a preference to the religion of my familial ancestry. Calling one's own religion a 'true religion', and all others cults, comes from a false/biased perspective. That makes it one's own definition, not a standardized definition.

While a roman catholic might consider themselves a member of a 'true religion', they just might consider a southern baptist group in Oklahoma to be a cult. Meanwhile the baptists mentioned would consider the roman catholics 'cult-like' with their insistence of ritual and pomp and circumstance surrounding their traditions... most of which are not even in the Bible, and were mostly developed for it's 'oooh ahh' factor with colorful shiny costumes and incense.

Were the Greeks, Romans or Egyptians.. all members of 'cults'? Their religion most certainly was mainstream and heavily followed during their age. Could they be labeled as cults today? Most certainly. Just because a religion is main-stream, or followed by a majority does not make it any less a cult.

Merriam-Webster: "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents"
Wikipedia: "A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object."
Dictionary.com: "a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. "
thefreedictionary.com: "A system or community of religious worship and ritual."
Oxford: "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object"
Websters: "Followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices."