You tell me that you understand science, and were once very scientific, then you drop --excuse me-- a giant turd like this. I could as easily say, "If the Theory of Evolution is correct, then all living creatures are evidence of Theory of Evolution's correctness," and it would still be a meaningless statement because if we already know something is true (as in the premise), then evidence is redundant. It's precisely when we don't know something that evidence becomes useful. This is probably the hardest part about talking to you -- your weak grasp on how science and logic work. And don't take this as an internet ad hom. I'm being straight with you, really. It's not your strong suit. Own it.

Actually, I think that it is you who is demonstrating a weak grasp of logic here. It seems that what I was getting at went right over your head. What you've done here is rip my statement out of its context, and then claimed I was using it in a meaningless way that I never intended. It is a straw man argument, really, and yes you did use ad homs. A giant turd? Saying that its really hard to talk to me because of my weak grasp of science and logic? Come on. I had thought that our dialogue had transcended these kind of petty caricatures.

In context, the statement is designed to get you think outside the box you're in and weigh both sides of the issue equally. It's not an argument in itself. The statement that if God exists, everything that exists is empirical evidence for God is a logically valid statement. If God exists, everything you're looking at right now if proof that He exists. Obviously, this statement by itself doesn't help you determine whether God actually exists or not. You could just as easily say that if God doesn't exist, everything that does exist is proof that He doesn't exist. Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? You haven't addressed this, but simply have taken a leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism. You say, I don't see the Planner, and I didn't see the Planner make this Universe, therefore it is not designed until proven otherwise. The problem with this is that you can't even begin to justify this assumption until you can explain why either possibility is any more likely than the other. You can't say you don't see any empirical evidence because it might be staring you in the face everywhere you look. To analyze how either possibility is more likely than the other you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

Taking it a step deeper, the fact is, you would only expect to see exactly what you do see, because you are in fact a created being. A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him. The crux is though that this environment is also finely tuned. You should expect to see what you do, but you should also be surprised to find that it is finely tuned. It a bit like being taken out for execution in front of a firing squad of 100 expert marksmen 3 feet away, and finding yourself alive after all of them opened fire. You should not be surprised to find yourself alive, because obviously you would have to be alive to find yourself alive, but you should be surprised to find that 100 expert marksmen missed you from 3 feet away. In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe.

What you have on your hands is a Universe full of empirical evidence that it was or wasn't designed. There are only two possibilities; the Universe was either planned or unplanned. Again, how would you tell the difference? What would you expect to see which is different from what you do see? What would make either possibility more likely? That is the point. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Supernatural creation is easier to understand, but just about any other explanation is as or more plausible. When you consider some of the extreme coincidences that are required for us to exist, it stretches the mind. But we've had billions of years to evolve, and if we're talking about the whole universe, it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that? There is no evidence that it is less plausible, you simply assume it is. Sure, if you use your magic genie of time and chance you could imagine just about anything could happen. Scientists agree:

Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, Harvard
Physics and Chemistry of Life p.12

The odds of any of this happening by itself far exceeds the number of atoms in the Universe, and there is no actual proof that it actually could happen by itself, but you still believe it to be more plausible. Why is that? In the end, why is it plausible that anything would exist at all? Why isn't everything equally unlikely in the end? Notice what George Wald said? He said time itself performs the *miracles*. He said that because the existence of life is nothing short of a miracle, but even knowing that, you would still say God is implausible. I think these arguments are what is implausible.

Look at how these scientists come to the same conclusions as you have:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

I would take a declarative statement about him, and see what implications it had, what predictions it made, then see if they were testable, either theoretically or practically. Like theoretically if God is omniscient, it means he knows everything, and if I can find an example of something he absolutely cannot know, then I've proven he's not omniscient.

What God says is that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. He also calls the wisdom of this world, foolishness. So God has directly said that it is only by His revelation and not our understanding that we can come to know Him. A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

In any case, it's easy to think of things God doesn't know or can't do. God doesn't know what it feels like to not exist. God can't remember a time that He didn't exist. God can't make a square circle, or an acceptable sin. This doesn't prove anything. A better definition would be, omniscience is knowing everything that can be known, and omnipotence is being able to do everything that can be done.

Or practically, if God answers prayers, then I can test that statistically. Now, you say that God refuses to be tested, but that also means that if people are sincerely praying, but someone else is measuring the effects of those prayers, that God will choose not to answer those prayers, "Sorry! I'm being tested for, so I can't help you out today." This puts the power of denying God's prayers in the hands of scientists -- ridiculous. So there's two tests for God.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

This is self-fulfilling prophecy. The only reason the Jewish people came back to form a country again is because their holy book said they were entitled to do so, divine providence. Like Macbeth likely never would have become king of Scotland if he hadn't been told so by the Weird Sisters.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

I'm no biblical scholar, but I found three places where the destruction of Jerusalem is predicted. The first is in Micah 3:11-12, where it simply states that it will happen at some point. It doesn't say when, nor describe any of the circumstances. The second one I found is Daniel 9:24-26, where there's some detail that sounds kinda like Jesus, except that it was supposed to happen within 70 weeks (16 months) of when God spoke to Daniel, roughly 530 years BC. Or if you understand that the signal to begin the 70 weeks hadn't been issued yet, then Jerusalem was to have been build a mere 16 months before it was destroyed by Titus, which clearly isn't the case either. It also predicts the end will be by flood, but it was by fire, and then manual labour of soldiers, if Josephus' account is to be believed (he wasn't impartial).

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all. Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Luk 19:41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it,
Luk 19:42 saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side
Luk 19:44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

I would have to accept Jesus as messiah before I could accept this argument. And if I had already accepted him as messiah, then the argument would be meaningless, just like the one about the universe as evidence for God's existence.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is. Consider this quotation by Napoleon:

"What a conqueror!--a conqueror who controls humanity at will, and wins to himself not only one nation, but the whole human race. What a marvel! He attaches to himself the human soul with all its energies. And how? By a miracle which surpasses all others. He claims the love of men--that is to say, the most difficult thing in the world to obtain; that which the wisest of men cannot force from his truest friend, that which no father can compel from his children, no wife from her husband, no brother from his brother--the heart. He claims it ; he requires it absolutely and undividedly, and he obtains it instantly.

Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Louis XIV strove in vain to secure this. They conquered the world, yet they had not a single friend, or at all events, they have none any more. Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him; and they are joined to him much more closely than by any ties of blood and by a much more intimate, sacred and powerful communion. He kindles the flame of love which causes one's self-love to die, and triumphs over every other love. Why should we not recognize in this miracle of love the eternal Word which created the world? The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

I have filled multitudes with such passionate devotion that they went to death for me. But God forbid that I should compare the enthusiasm of my soldiers with Christian love. They are as unlike as their causes. In my case, my presence was always necessary, the electric effect of my glance, my voice, my words, to kindle fire in their hearts. And I certainly posses personally the secret of that magic power of taking by storm the sentiments of men; but I was not able to communicate that power to anyone. None of my generals ever learned it from me or found it out. Moreover, I myself do not possess the secret of perpetuating my name and a love for me in their hearts for ever, and to work miracles in them without material means.

Now that I languish here at St Helena, chained upon this rock, who fights, who conquers empires for me? Who still even thinks of me? Who interests himself for me in Europe? Who has remained true to me? That is the fate of all great men. It was the fate of Alexander and Caesar, as it is my own. We are forgotten, and the names of the mightiest conquerors and most illustrious emperors are soon only the subject of a schoolboy's taks. Our exploits come under the rod of a pedantic schoolmaster, who praises or condemns us as he likes.

What an abyss exists between my profound misery and the eternal reign of Christ, who is preached, loved, and worshipped, and live on throughout the entire world. Is this to die? Is it not rather to live eternally? The death of Christ! It is the death of a God."

Nope. Eternal means within all time. It implies that such an entity wouldn't necessarily exist outside of time. Maybe you meant a different word, but "eternal" doesn't describe whoever created time, if words have meaning.

Words do have meaning. Check any dictionary; the definition I used is there:

e·ter·nal/i't?rnl/
Adjective:

Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.
(of truths, values, or questions) Valid for all time; essentially unchanging.

What is this (especially the bits in bold) based on? It this biblical? Your intuition?

Isaiah 29:13

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men

1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart

You can give God all of the lip service you want, but He is only interested in what is in your heart.

Yes, the Lord will test your sincerity:

1 Peter 1:6-7

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

Also, if God knows everything, then what could he possibly be "testing" for? You only need to test things if you don't already know. And if he does know, the he's just messing with my head, in which case, it's not a test.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

>> ^messenger

>> ^legacy0100:
>> ^pumkinandstorm:
>> ^papple:
I only got 24 votes when I sifted this before <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/frown.gif">
http://videosift.com/video/Ballgirl-Removes-Cricket

At least you got an upvote from @BoneRemake on yours. All I got from him was a downvote and nasty comment. Perhaps he prefers crickets...or people that aren't named pumkinandstorm?

He likes to be a troll, leaving asinine comments on my page every now and then, so I share your misery. I just put him on my ignore list and it's gotten better.
BTW, shouldn't this video be a dupe then? There is an earlier submission available but the link is down. It can be revived with this link. I don't know it's a tricky situation....


Thank you @legacy0100 I didn't even know I could "ignore" people, but that's a great idea - will definitely try that! I wish there was a block button so that "someone" can't continue to downvote my videos on a regular basis. @papple could you please revive your dead video so we can confirm that it's the same video? When you do, I will dupe this one and transfer the votes to you - Please send me a note when you get it working. That should make it less tricky!

>> ^pumkinandstorm:

>> ^papple:
I only got 24 votes when I sifted this before <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/frown.gif">
http://videosift.com/video/Ballgirl-Removes-Cricket

At least you got an upvote from @BoneRemake on yours. All I got from him was a downvote and nasty comment. Perhaps he prefers crickets...or people that aren't named pumkinandstorm?


He likes to be a troll, leaving asinine comments on my page every now and then, so I share your misery. I just put him on my ignore list and it's gotten better.

BTW, shouldn't this video be a dupe then? There is an earlier submission available but the link is down. It can be revived with this link. I don't know it's a tricky situation....

"we dont understand why he likes the bathroom filled with bubbles"
how can you NOT understand the sheer magnitude of awesome?
and she wants to grow up to be a dalek?
who doesnt?

what a great vid @alien_concept!

"Damn he likes to parrty, with two Rs" LOL LOL LOL

Let's see...

A bunch of students were invited to a seminar that described as being about "bullying". They are instead exposed to anti-religious bigotry and sexual innuendo. Rather than sit and listen to insults directed at their belief system, they decided to leave. As they leave, the speaker taunts them further and uses profanities. Oh - yeah - that's not bullying. :eyeroll: This guy is a class-A hypocrite and a jack@$$.

Let's change the parameters slightly. A bunch of journalism students are invited to a speech about Community Service, and the speaker is an Iraq War veteran who starts calling the Koran a bunch of bullcrap, and talking about how much he likes to dress up his lover in a burqa (wink wink). 100 or so Muslim students are offended and get up to leave, and the guy calls the audience's attention to them and starts calling them a bunch of pansy-@$$ cowards. Ha ha ha. Still "not bullying"?

I feel sorry for the kids, but frankly I hope this slimeball keeps doing stuff like this. It proves to everyone (except for the radical, leftist fringe lunatic crowd) just what a sleaze he is. He's a bigot just as bad as the bigots he claims to condemn. He isn't against bigotry and hate. He's just against any bigotry and hate of which he hasn't personally approved. That makes him a demagogue, and his audience is simply other bigots... Bigots like this...

"Can we just hurry up and make it a high crime to be religious already?"

Classic anti-religious hate and bigotry on parade. Savage of course is constantly going around fomenting such sad, unfortunate, hate-filled suckers. Amazing that these same zealots can mourn the difficulty of achieving a 'peaceful society', and yet fail to see that the primary reason for all this violence is staring at them every time they look in the mirror.

For the last 20 or so years, my family has owned a yellow-naped Green Amazon parrot. He's finicky, and very territorial around his cage. He's quite a bit larger than these Caiques, but smaller than a Macaw. When we let him out of his cage, he's not nearly this... playful. He usually just wants to hide in a corner until he feels safe enough to explore. If you handle while they're still very young, then they can be this playful. It really depends on how their raised.

In general, social animals, that is to say, animals that flock or group with animals from the same or even similar species (the birds on Telegraph Hill in SF come to mind, they're not a homogeneous flock) tend to make better pets than animals that lead solitary lives in the wild (cats, reptiles, etc). They tend to have a more defined personality, and have more capability to read social cues and take training.

The things is, birds know they're fragile - most of their bones are only paper-thin. So they posture up, get defensive and territorial around their cages. To train them, you usually have to take them out of their place of power, that is, their cage, to another space that they don't have as much familiarity or control.

The Amazon my family has kept for 20 years, as I said, is very finicky. But 20 years of trust built up has made him a little more friendly to me, at least. He tolerates my mom, and used to be outright hostile to my dad (the bird would kick grit from the bottom of his cage at him, lunge to bite at him if he got close to his cage. But I'm the only one he'll let pet him on a consistent basis, and even then, if he's in a mood he might lunge at me. He also hasn't had much training at all, and to handle him by hand is to risk getting bit HARD. No one else in the family has attempted it, and I usually get bit in the process His jaws put out a LOT of force. Usually he tries to play with my earrings or hair, but winds up chomping my ear or scalp. I don't hold it against him, he's probably trying to figure out how to climb to the top of my head. If you want to handle animals, you have to accept that getting bit or scratched will be an inevitability.

My wife's family took care of a Grey Amazon that found his way to their home about 20 years ago. You could say the bird adopted them. One of his legs was busted - he likely broke it himself to break free of what chained him down, and he still managed to fly away with clipped wings. Most birds keep their beak ground and well-kept, but he let his beak over-grow, curving to one side of his upper beak and hooking upwards in a manner that looked threatening. His cage was left open frequently so he could bop around, but usually he'd just want to climb up someone's leg all the way up to their shoulders. He was very rough around the edges, likely because of the constant pain of a disfigured leg, but eventually warmed up to me and let me scratch his head. He passed away a couple years ago, around Christmas time. He is missed.

>> ^messenger:
Wow. I'm surprised to hear there are Christian churches that don't practice sacraments. Do you mean, none of them? No weddings, no communion, no confession, no confirmation, no last rites, no.... the other ones? Especially communion seems a strange omission since you were commanded by Jesus to do so. Or did you interpret, "Do this in memory of me" to only apply to the Apostles?


You won't find the word sacrament in the bible. Marriage, that is fine. Baptism too, although it isn't sprinkling like the catholic church teaches; it is full body immersion. Child baptism is not biblical. Christians should take communion, but not according to the pagan rituals of the catholic church, or regarding what they call the "trans-substantiation". The cracker does not literally become the flesh of Jesus, nor the wine His literal blood. It is simply something we do to symbolize our fellowship with Him, and the body of Christ.

The rest you have mentioned are nowhere to be found in the bible. They simply come from the traditions of the catholic church. It is not a Christian institution, and this is why neither you or your family has ever come to know Jesus Christ.

>> ^messenger:
With my question here, I was indirectly taking issue with your assertion that only if I pledge myself to Jesus can I truly commune with God. So in my question, my intent was to find out if you ever fully give yourself to any religion before Christianity, like become an active, fervent follower. I'm guessing the answer is no. If I'm right, then I don't see how you can say Christianity is the only way to commune with God. If I'm wrong, and you did fully dedicate your soul to some other religion first, then I'd simply like to hear about that experience.


My experience was, that after I became aware that God exists, He led me through the various religions and philosophies of the world over a number of years. He gave me clues along the way, leading me step by step, until He finally brought me to the bible. This was not a natural progression for me, because I had a big resistance to Christianity. It was actually one of the religions I thought was the least likely to be true. But He had given me signs beforehand about truth that was in the bible that I didn't understand at the time, so that when I started to read the bible, I could see it was His book. This gave me enough faith in it to give my life to Christ, and when I did, He supernaturally transformed my life. This isn't stated metaphorically; I mean it in a literal sense.

>> ^messenger:
I think you know what I believe and don't, and what I know and what I don't. At this stage, I think definitions are just semantics, and I'm not going to explain again what those words really mean. So, here's my official statement with all the contentious words taken out: I don't believe that any description of God I've ever heard is true, and I don't know if my belief is accurate.


What that means is that you don't know if there is a God or not. That makes you an agnostic and not an atheist.

>> ^messenger:
Seriously? You cannot claim to understand science, and then state that the burden for a non-claim lies with the person not making the claim. Scientist Anna says, "I believe the Higgs boson exists." Scientist Bob says, "I don't believe that the Higgs boson exists." Neither of them have any evidence. Anna is introducing a novel assertion about something. Bob isn't. Bob can ask Anne to prove it exists. Anne cannot ask Bob to prove it doesn't exist. Anne may, however, ask Bob why he doesn't believe it exists, since the Standard Model predicts its existence. If Bob shows why be believes the prediction is false, either by showing the SM has been used incorrectly, or stating he doesn't believe in SM at all, that's the end of his "burden" for that question. He does not have to scientifically prove the Higgs boson doesn't exist. He can't. It's logically impossible.


I understand I have my own burden of proof, but if someone wants to say that I am wrong, they are making a negative claim. It's up to them to provide reasons to substantiate their claim, and no, I don't think this need constitute absolute proof. If they're just saying "I don't know", then that is a different story. Most atheists don't want to concede that they don't know, because then they would have to admit that God could possibly exist, so they invent a new definition of atheism to obscure their true position.

>> ^messenger:
The theistic equivalent is you asking my why I don't believe in God. To this I tell you that to me, there's insufficient evidence, which is a position you should understand since it was exactly your own position until you got some direct evidence. That's the end of my "burden".


It depends on what you're trying to claim, about your own beliefs, or mine. Yes, I can relate to your position, having been there. That is why I describe atheism as religion for people who have no experience with God. I too was a true believer in naturalistic materialism until that veil was torn, and then I immediately realized that everything I knew, was in some way, wrong. Can you even conceive of such a thing, messenger? Do you care enough about the truth to be willing to let the tide take your sandcastle away from you?

>> ^messenger:
An equivalent for you might be if I asked you to prove to me that Thor and Ra don't exist. You couldn't. You could only give your reasons why you believe they don't exist. Same here. I'm in the same position as you, except I don't believe that Thor, Ra or Yahweh exist.


I wouldn't try to prove to you that Thor or Ra do not exist. I believe they do exist, but that they are not actually gods. They are fallen angels masquarading as gods, as with every other false idol.

>> ^messenger:
And my point is I wouldn't spend any effort trying to rule it out at all. I would just assume you're another false buried money promiser and move on. The reason I'm talking now isn't to rule anything out -- I never accepted the premise to begin with.


That's exactly the point; your conclusion is fallacious. You merely assume I am wrong because some people have made similar claims which were false. That is not a criterion for determining truth. If you had an incurable disease and only had a few days to live, and some people came to you promising a cure, and some of those claims turned out to be false, would you refuse to entertain any further claims and simply assume they are all false? I think not.

>> ^messenger:
Changing my whole perspective of the universe is an immense effort of mind. It's not "nothing". And why would I bother? Just to win an argument with you? Like I said above, I don't for a minute accept it's true, so I have no motivation for spending any energy proving it.


What effort does it take to entertain a possibility? You could simply pray something like this:

Jesus, I admit that I do not actually know if you are God or not. I would like to know whether it is true. Jesus, if it is true then I invite you into my life right now as Lord and Savior. I ask that you would forgive me for all of my sins, sins that you shed your blood on the cross for. I ask that you would give me the gift of faith, and help me turn from my sins. I ask that you send your Holy Spirit to me right now. I thank you Jesus for saving me.

If you pray that and sincerely mean what you say, then I have no doubt Jesus will answer it.

>> ^messenger:
1. No. If that's true, he gave me my life, and he can take it away if he wants to, but I have no respect for Indian givers.


It's appointed one for man to die, and then the judgment. He isn't going to take away your life, he is going to judge the one you have. Do you believe that you should be above His law?

>> ^messenger:
2. No. I don't serve anyone. He can do what he likes. He made me the way I am -- someone who relies on empirical evidence and sceptical about all superstition, and if he doesn't like it, it's his own fault. He should love me the way I am. And if he does, he should just let me come into heaven because he loves me, not because he needs me to worship him. I don't like egotists any more than Indian givers.


That isn't true; you serve yourself. If God has a better plan than you do, and your plan can only lead to a bad end, why wouldn't you serve God?

Yes, God made you the way you are, a person who knows right from wrong and has sufficient understanding to come to a knowledge of the truth. He loves you, but not your sin. He gave you a conscience to know right from wrong, and when you deliberately choose to do wrong, it isn't His fault. Yet He is patient with you, because He wants you to repent from your sin, so you can go to Heaven. As it stands now, you're a criminal in His eyes, and you are headed for His prison called hell, and He would be a corrupt judge if He just dismissed your case. But He is merciful and doesn't want to send you there. That is why He has given you an opportunity to be forgiven for your sins and avoid punishment. He sent His only Son to take your punishment, so that He can legally dismiss your case and forgive you, but also you must repent from your sins. If you refuse to stop doing evil, why do you think you should be allowed in?

>> ^messenger:
3. Yes and no. Yes, if Jesus turns out to be God, then there'll be no faith required. I'll know it. You can't disbelieve something you know is true. But no, I wouldn't trust him. A god isn't by definition benevolent or omni-anything. If he told me to accept that anal sex is a sin, he and I would get into a debate about what "sin" really is, why he defined sins to begin with, why he created the universe such that people would sin, why sin displeases him, and how those people can be faulted for following God's own design. And if the only way he could convince me he was right was by threatening me with eternal torment in a pit of fire, and promising to reward me with eternal happiness if I agreed with him, then I'd think he must have a pretty weak argument if he has to resort to carrot and stick tactics. I likewise don't like people who resort to violence or threats of violence to make people agree with them.


There'll be no faith required when you die and see Jesus at the judgment seat, but it will also be too late to receive forgiveness for your sins. Neither is God trying to convince you that He is right, because your conscience already tells you that you are wrong. You know that you are a sinner, and that you've broken Gods commandments hundreds, if not thousands of times. You're acting like I don't know you are a human being. What are you possibily going to have to say to a Holy God with your entire life laid bare before Him?

Ask yourself these questions; if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him? Would you serve Him the rest of your days? Would you place your entire faith and trust in Him alone?

1. No. If that's true, he gave me my life, and he can take it away if he wants to, but I have no respect for Indian givers.

2. No. I don't serve anyone. He can do what he likes. He made me the way I am -- someone who relies on empirical evidence and sceptical about all superstition, and if he doesn't like it, it's his own fault. He should love me the way I am. And if he does, he should just let me come into heaven because he loves me, not because he needs me to worship him. I don't like egotists any more than Indian givers.

3. Yes and no. Yes, if Jesus turns out to be God, then there'll be no faith required. I'll know it. You can't disbelieve something you know is true. But no, I wouldn't trust him. A god isn't by definition benevolent or omni-anything. If he told me to accept that anal sex is a sin, he and I would get into a debate about what "sin" really is, why he defined sins to begin with, why he created the universe such that people would sin, why sin displeases him, and how those people can be faulted for following God's own design. And if the only way he could convince me he was right was by threatening me with eternal torment in a pit of fire, and promising to reward me with eternal happiness if I agreed with him, then I'd think he must have a pretty weak argument if he has to resort to carrot and stick tactics. I likewise don't like people who resort to violence or threats of violence to make people agree with them.

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.

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, NHL Cameraman Finds Something He Likes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^critical_d:

could have been a cameralady


Yeah! Boobs are for everyone, male or female.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't DFT's ban "self imposed?" ....... meaning he can come back if or when he likes?

What a fucking stupid ass response. BEcause my friend is exposed to .... because my friend does... my friend.. my friend does this.. You MUST be retardedly drunk to make such stupid ass comments like that. You think each distric/station/region reacts the same way your "friends" station does it makes it proper to group All the stations as one. Your a fuckin tool this night. Sleep tight and realize in the morning how ignorant your words are. People train and improve their life saving skills required to excel at the job.
In reply to this comment by doogle:
so, what do they do? My friend plays Lord of Ultima all day. All the better since there can be an attack any time, and he's always ready. His tribe relies heavy on him to defend anytime during the day while they're at their actual work work (they can't play the game at work work). The scant chance he's off on a call during the day is minimal, but he has seniority so he can choose that dead dead time. Not (only) because it's less busy, but because he likes to have hours like other non-firefighters.

So, I ask, what do they do when they're not on a call? Maybe like my other friend who play video games on the arcade coin-op they recently moved into the station...

Maybe... others' taxes? Building a school in Africa? Writing that screenplay? Tell me.
In reply to this comment by BoneRemake:
That is a fantasticly ignorant comment. I hope you are as drunk as I am. To state the obvious, Firefighters do NOT sit on their ass all day waiting for calls. I do not know what hill billy town you are from, but in centers with populations worth mentioning, Firefighters fuck around productively.
In reply to this comment by doogle:
Disgusting. You're not hired by the state to turn against it. You don't like the retirement plan? Learn another trade where you can sit on your ass all day waiting for an incident.