I always thought it was odd that Dove has this "Real Beauty" campaign, but is itself a subsidiary of Unilever, one of the largest multinational personal care companies whose 'other' ad campaigns are responsible for the creation of the very issues this "Real Beauty" campaign is trying to combat.

In 325, the Council of Nicea set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius. Led by bishop Athanasius, the council established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and condemned Arius' teaching that Christ was the first creation of God. The creed adopted by the council described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father."

Mormons reject the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus Christ was the first born of the Father in spirit and the only begotten in the flesh. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches that God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one Godhead while remaining 3 distinct beings. The Father and the Son have glorified physical bodies, while the Holy Ghost has only a body of spirit.

The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."

Facts about the doctrine of the Trinity:
It is not mentioned in the Bible
It does not make philosophical sense
It is not compatible with monotheism
It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus

In Matthew 3:16-17 of the KJV of the New Testament we read an account that includes all 3 members of the Godhead:

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Mormons assert that Jesus was not speaking to himself about being pleased with himself, but rather that God the Father was pleased in His son Jesus for being baptized while the Spirit of God descended upon Him (Jesus). This statement also implies that it (The Holy Spirit) was not there beforehand.

John 17:20-21 “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us”

Mormons believe that it is that perfect unity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead.


See also:

John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Matt 17:1-5 “...after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

“And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

“And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

“Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

“While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”

John 1:1-2, 14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Matt. 12:31-32 “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man (another name for Jesus Christ), it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by PlayhousePals.

*isdupe=http://videosift.com/video/Dove-I-love-you-Cat-Trying-to-sleep-here

sorry, but
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Dove-I-love-you-Cat-Trying-to-sleep-here

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by mintbbb. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

"The living language is like a cowpath: it is the creation of the cows themselves, who, having created it, follow it or depart from it according to their whims or their needs. From daily use, the path undergoes change. A cow is under no obligation to stay in the narrow path she helped make, following the contour of the land, but she often profits by staying with it and she would be handicapped if she didn't know where it was or where it led to." --E.B. White

Little known fact: many irregular verbs started out as regular ones, and over time changed to irregular. One example is "drive." It used to be drive/drived/drived. Then, in what was to become Canada and the U.S., people started saying drive/drove/driven. English who visited the colonies were so distressed at this that they raised alarms about the deterioration of the language. One included, "What's next? 'dive/dove/diven'?" At the time, "dive" was also a fully regular "~ed" verb, and in time, it too changed to "dive/dove", but not "diven". Is our language now in a fallen state?

In a population, young people, typically, are the language innovators. Almost all permanent change to language comes originally from teenagers. So now some young people are saying "text/text/text". Looking at other verbs which follow the pattern --cut/cut/cut, cost/cost/cost, put/put/put, hit/hit/hit-- it seems there's a pattern: they all end in "t". Seems like the language is continuing to evolve in the same way it always has. Whether this language innovation will stick has yet to be seen.

But language will change from the way you learned to speak it. There is no doubt about that. You can accept it, or you can get stressed, but it's happening.

sheesh last week I killed about 30 or so squirrels in the back yard.

of course right now they are open season on the as far as hunting and they are sooooo good.

normally try and keep quail or dove, squirrel, deer/elk , and sometimes gator in the freezer most the time.

Beef has gotten soooo outrageously expensive in the south east. So it's now become much cheaper and better economically to kill our meat instead of buying it.

we have a great local butcher, you bring him pretty much any animal and he'll butcher it, wrap it and set it up however ya want, like x amount of ground "beef", steaks, ribs, roasts from Deer/Elk/Wild pig

squirrels and smaller stuff I do myself though.

@BoneRemake

I was watering my rose garden and you walked by my place
I almost ran up to you in a lustful, unsensitive haste
I almost cried cause I acted so insensitive
But I wanted you to know about the feather-soft warmth I could give

I respect your feelings
I respect your gender
I respect your existence
I'll always be tender
Cause I respect your feelings
As a woman and a human

I'll be the pansy-growing gardener of our bouquet of love
A flower-wielding soldier with the grace of a dove
I'll love you all, heart, mind and soul, I'd never think of anything cheap
I'll read you some of my poems before you go to sleep

I respect your feelings
I respect your gender
I respect your existence
I'll always be tender
Cause I respect your feelings
As a woman and a human

@shinyblurry:

Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.

Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.

Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.


Could you perhaps refer me to some documents wherein St. Ephrem or St. Basil averred that the literal interpretation of the Bible is primary? Ephrem appears to have struck a middle ground between literalism and pure metaphorical interpretation, and St. Basil was a student of Origen's writings. Granted, St. Basil assiduously avoided the bizarre flights of fancy that plagued some of the Christian writers in the 4th century, but he was hardly a literalist in a strict sense--the literal sense was only one important sense in which to take the sacred writings.

If you want to support your point, a particular reference to Genesis will do best.

As far as Ambrose goes, it stretches the truth to say that he was a "mentor" of Augustine. Certainly, Augustine speaks rather highly of Ambrose in the Confessions. But Augustine writes with rather rose-colored glasses. A sober-minded approach to the life of Ambrose reveals that he was as much a political animal as he was spiritual. And even in the Confessions it is not recorded that Ambrose paid much attention to Augustine. If I recall correctly, Augustine doesn't record a single word that Ambrose said to Augustine outside of a public sermon in which Augustine was a member of the congregation.

In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.


In the traditional sense, certainly. There are other senses by which one might claim to be Christian--pointing out the tradition from which one derives one's moral compass, for instance. In this sense, many atheists can probably claim to be Christian atheists, rather than, e.g., Muslim atheists.

Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.


Do they sin much less than usual? I haven't seen any sign of it. The statistics don't seem to bear it out. Nor does my personal experience. Of the best and most morally astute people I know, only one was Christian. The rest were Buddhist, Muslim, or Pagan.

In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.


To worship and devote yourself to a single God, like Jesus Christ, has a specific term in Hinduism--bhakhti yoga. It is the path of love and devotion.

No matter which god you pursue with this ardent and holy love, you will achieve the same result--sanctification, rebirth, and the descending dove of the Holy Spirit.

The forgiveness of sins is a psychological projection. Eternal life is yours regardless of what any god says.


Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?

As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.


As far as deception goes, I will quote to you the Gospels, Luke 11:17-19: 'But He knew their thoughts and said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls. If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges.'

How can a demon bring holy ecstasy? How can a devil cast out division and hatred, and bring in such divine love?

And with regard to intolerance, it's almost entirely pointless to quote to me the first apocryphon of John--the so-called Gospel of John. I'm well aware of what it says. I've spent a lot of time considering it. That's why I think it's incorrect.

It does no good at all to suggest that it's someone else who's being intolerant. On the one hand, it looks like you're blame-shifting, too much the coward to take responsibility for the statement. On the other hand, you are providing no reason to think that the quotation provides any authority whatsoever, and undermining your position by your own indolence.

Poor doves!

>> ^shuac:
One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?


Because the fight choreography and direction are peerless; the film's fight scenes easily rival anything that I've ever seen, and I've seen my share of action movies.

Because the critical consensus is that it's an instant classic.

Because it's breaking through into the mainstream more than any martial arts film I can think of since Ong Bak.

Because it is awesome.

Some quotes from reviews:

David Fear -- Time Out: And in terms of beautifully coordinated film violence—the kind involving flying fists and feet, whizzing blades and ballistic superbattles—Gareth Evans’s insta-classic Indonesian crime flick is leagues above every kinetic bullet-ballet and martial arts epic of the past decade. Whether this 31-year-old Welsh director will eventually be mentioned in the same breath as legendary chaos orchestrators like Sam Peckinpah or John Woo remains to be seen. For now, Evans can take pride in the fact that he’s set the bar for cinemayhem impossibly high.

Andrew O'Hehir -- Salon: “The Raid” is a witty, pulse-pounding instant midnight classic, an immediate sensation at the Sundance and Toronto festivals that should appeal to cinema buffs, action freaks and a pretty large mainstream audience besides. It offers some of the best Asian martial-arts choreography of recent years and an electric, claustrophobic puzzle-palace atmosphere that’ll leave you wrung out and buzzed.

Ty Burr -- Boston Globe: Not yet 30, Evans is a master of visceral tension and release. “The Raid’’ repeatedly slows down, gathers force, and rushes forward using all the elements of filmmaking at a director’s disposal: editing’s ability to expand and contract time; the camera’s gift for revealing information through motion and light; a good musical score (by Joseph Trapanese and Linkin Park’s Mike Shinoda) that can cue audiences to respond or just play with their heads. At times, “The Raid’’ feels like pure cinema.

Nordling -- Ain't it Cool: Then, there are the action sequences, which are so exquisitely orchestrated that they build like a symphonic suite of pain and kickassocity. This movie builds and builds, each fight even bigger than the one before it. I can't imagine an audience that won't be on their feet for some of them - and the action choreography is damn near perfect, with cinematography to match. Sure, there's some shakycam, but it's only to build the intensity because Uwais and director Gareth Evans have planned each fight so well that it's never confusing, not once. The geography is flawless. The film wisely lays out the building early on, so that you unconsciously understand where everyone is in the building and even in the same room. I haven't seen such confident action direction since John Woo unleashed the doves in THE KILLER and, yeah, HARD BOILED.

Thank you again. This song definitely needs more love!
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*doublepromote

I agree with the previous two comments. I read the first 3 books as they came out and each one was as good as or better than the next. Then... I waited for the 4th book, and I waited, and he promised, and I waited, and he promised. Then FIVE YEARS LATER the book was released. I read the first 3 again just to bring myself up to date and then dove into the Feast for Crows. It was, sadly, not worth a 5 year wait but with it's release came the promise in the epiloge that this was only half of the story that he had written, that the other half would be released in a like sized book to be release within a year...

Cut to SIX YEARS LATER!!!!

Massive a-hole indeed.

A-hole or not I am still addicted to the written series and will buy both hardcover and kindle versions of the books that follow.

PS: YAY HBO! You ROCK!

The wings part annoys me. I'm calling "Balloon Boy".

...in a spiritual form would you need wings? to fly? because there's gravity? what do you walk on? do you have physical mass? what do you fly on - air? would you suffocate? where would you fly to? is there up and down? Why are his wings smaller, because he's young? but everyone in heaven is young, are all wings graduated by growth of age? can you flap them? extend them? or are they vestigial what type / genus of wings are they? dove wings? eagle wings? bat wings? (don't even get me started on how spiritual wings could become vestigial in spirit form without evolution)