As with all things, it's not necessarily a law change that need to happen. Laws don't drive the zeitgeist, the zeitgeist drive laws (or should).

People need to be dissuaded from wanting to have guns. In Europe, people don't really want a gun, and don't even see a need for one. Sure, there are hunters and they have guns, and sure you can get one if you're in a dangerous area with bears and shit, but actually getting a gun is when you're hunted by mafia or something like that and you're desperate. Why would you ever want to walk around with a gun? I don't really get it.

Perhaps people have a fantasy about being a hero, where they shoot the bad guy. Everyone has that as a kid; most kids also grow up.

There's something deeply satisfying about firing a gun - power at your fingertips. Control. Maybe it's a control thing. People don't like to be out of control, with a gun they always have something to fall back on to control the situation.

Maybe it's a macho thing, although women carry guns too. I don't know the statistic of it, but I would imagine more men do than women. Men are intrinsically destructive while women are creative - it's our nature. We men beat up our rivals to gain access to that sweetest fruit of all: peach. Perhaps it's an extension of power; an penis extension. Don't pull the trigger, squeeze it tenderly. You are the gun; look down the aim at your target and fire.

Maybe there's some brain vs brawn in it. I would wager good money that as intelligence goes up, gun ownership goes down. No statistics to back it up, but I'd love to see if it's true. Brains are taking over everything - it's the decade of the Nerd. Joss Whedon and JJ Abrams could get all the girls and gets all the admiration in the big world, while Dick McKickaball failed to make the team and married Candace the exotic dancer his friends hired for him on his 21st birthday. But at least he could shoot JJ Abrams in the face with his 4½ inch death stick.

Society doesn't really gain much from guns does it?

It has its own market and thus gets people to move money around with someone around to skim the top. dft said this in point 2 as well. This could be done for worse stuff though - snuff porn has a market; heroin has a market.

Mutually Assured Destruction is always a fun acronym to throw around. If everyone does eye for an eye, the world will go blind, I've heard somewhere. Probably a shitty western or something.

Feelings of security? If I have a gun, do I feel safer from the people around me that may or may not also have guns? I would feel safer in my home, I think. If I feared home invasions. Home invasions are a weird thing; very rare in europe to the best of my knowledge, even though we don't have guns. Seems like something that would only happen if there was an enormous disparity between poor and rich, making the poor desperate (and lazy) enough to want to do a home invasion. If Brian the Aryan Man-God makes 10 million billion $$ a year, and Rommel the Dirty Mexican doesn't get anything because he has to pay child support off his social security and also cover his meth addication, then the chance of Rommel doing a home invasion is greater than if Rommel makes half of what Brian does. Maybe we need to raise the floor, instead of raising the ceiling on the extrema of wealth to lose the desire of guns.

Maybe it's all of the factors at once, and we have someone like the NRA pushing everyone to want all of them. I want security. I'm afraid. I have a small dick. Home invasions happen all the time. Schools get shot by crazies, I need to defend myself.

Bang!

Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!

There... the demons went away. Guns are your friends.

Hobbit Hole Breakfast: Two eggs fried right into the center of grilled Cheddar bun halves. Served with two strips of bacon and crispy hash browns topped with melted shredded Cheddar cheese and bacon.

Shire Sausage Skillet: Shire sausage with seasoned red-skinned potatoes, sautéed mushrooms and fire-roasted peppers and onions served on a sizzling skillet. Topped with shredded Cheddar cheese and two eggs.

Frodo's Pot Roast Skillet: Slow-cooked pot roast, herb-roasted carrots, celery, mushrooms and onions over broccoli and seasoned red-skinned potatoes served on a hot sizzling skillet. Topped with shredded Cheddar cheese and served with dinner bread.

The Ring Burger: A hand-pressed burger topped with Pepper Jack cheese, bacon, sautéed mushrooms and mayo on a grilled Cheddar cheese bun. Crowned with three crispy onion rings and served with lettuce, tomato, red onions, pickles and a side of wavy-cut French fries.

Gandalf's Gobble Melt: Tender sliced turkey breast and savory stuffing topped with melted Swiss cheese placed on grilled potato bread with a cranberry honey mustard spread. Served with your choice of side and gravy for dipping.

Dwarves' Turkey & Dressing Dinner: Tender sliced turkey breast, savory stuffing, gravy and cranberry sauce served with your choice of two sides and dinner bread. Feeds a band of Dwarves. Or one hungry human.....or Bear.

Lonely Mountain Treasure: Seed Cake French Toast cut into nine squares and served with a side of cream cheese icing for dipping.

Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies: Six bite-sized round red velvet Pancake Puppies® made with white chocolate chips and sprinkled with powdered sugar. Served with a side of cream cheese icing for dipping.

Bilbo's Berry Smoothie: Made with a delicious blend of raspberries, blueberries, pomegranate and nonfat yogurt.

Lone-Lands Campfire Cookie Milk Shake: A thick hand-dipped milk shake with a delicious blend of premium vanilla ice cream and s'mores cookie pieces topped with a dollop of whipped cream. Served with a little extra in the tin.

How can we have a substantive conversation if you're not willing to put in any effort to actually understand the subject matter, either for or against? If you're content with your blind faith in whatever scientists tell you, then you're just as dogmatic as you accuse me of being. The video I provided is very good and it chronicles the history of deep time, as well as the science behind it, in exacting detail using the methodology of geologists. You could watch 10 minutes of it, and if you decided you didn't like it, you could turn it off.

As far as the paradigm shift goes, here is a quote from the father of uniformitarianism, Charles Lyell:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

P.S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”

As you can plainly see, Charles was scheming to deceive the church into accepting his uniformitarian theories even though he knew they contradicted scripture. He wasn't interested in a scientific investigation of the facts:

From a lecture in King’s College London in 1832

I have always been strongly impressed with the weight of an observation of an excellent writer and skillful geologist who said that ‘for the sake of revelation as well as of science—of truth in every form—the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence

He had an agenda and his bias is plain to see. He completely excluded the testimony of scripture apriori before he even began. That is the beginning of why there was a shift in geology as the intelligentsia embraced his theories and began to teach it at Universities. There was no spectacular confirmation of any of this; in fact the evidence he gave about Niagra Falls to supprt his theory has been completely falsified.

3:29 - A tenderizing moment.

sound delicious.
on another note, you've got a been-everywhere-seen-everything kinda vibe to ya. i dig it.>> ^chingalera:

Never had one, knew the name and never had a clue....they look frikkin' delicious
Worked at a place in Durango (sous chef) that has a Chicken Cordon Bleu done similarly:
Wad of grated Gouda, balled-up
Tenderized chicken breast
Smoked Ham, (no cheap stuff)
Wrap ham around cheese, chicken around ham, dunk, Panko, deep fry 5 mins, transfer to oven, 25 mins-
Served with the sauce, heavy cream, egg, wine....white wine sauce.
The Heart-Stopper we called it in the kitchen. Bout 1450 calories on yer plate

Never had one, knew the name and never had a clue....they look frikkin' delicious

Worked at a place in Durango (sous chef) that has a Chicken Cordon Bleu done similarly:

Wad of grated Gouda, balled-up
Tenderized chicken breast
Smoked Ham, (no cheap stuff)

Wrap ham around cheese, chicken around ham, dunk, Panko, deep fry 5 mins, transfer to oven, 25 mins-

Served with the sauce, heavy cream, egg, wine....white wine sauce.
The Heart-Stopper we called it in the kitchen. Bout 1450 calories on yer plate

>> ^deathcow:

TENDER !!!


'n juicy O(:)O

TENDER !!!

Just an aside gents, most ladies prefer the softness of a silky, well-groomed beard on their privates should one venture south of the pelvic cirlcle....
Always remember: "Razor stubble troubles, a tender taffy-puller!!"

Next, next
Naked as sin An army towel covering my belly Some of us blush Somehow knees turning to jelly
Next, next
I was still just a kid There were a hundred like me I followed a naked body A naked body followed me
Next, next
I was still just a kid When my innocence was lost In a mobile army whorehouse Gift of the army, free of cost
Next, next
Me, I really would have liked A little bit of tenderness Maybe a word, a smile An hour of happiness
But next, next
Oh, it wasn't so tragic The high heavens didn't fall But how much of that time I hated being there at all
Next, next, next
Now I always will recall The brothel truck, the flying flags The queer lieutenant who slapped Our asses as if we were fags
Next, next
I swear on the wet head Of my first case of gonorrhea It is his ugly voice That I forever hear
Next, next, next
That voice that stinks of whiskey Of corpses and of mud It is the voice of nations It is the thick voice of blood
Next, next, next
And since then each woman I have taken to bed Seems to laugh in my arms To whisper through my head
Next, next
All the naked and the dead Should hold each other's hands As they watch me scream at night In a dream no one understands
Next, next
And when I am not screaming In a voice grown dry and hollow I stand on endless naked lines Of the following and the followed
Next, next, next, next
One day I'll cut my legs off Or burn myself alive Anything, I'll do anything To get out of line to survive
Not ever to be next Not ever to be next

Excuse my ignorance but is a marked bill not legal tender in the US? I see notes with stuff written on them all the time over here.

i do not think i can call what i do officially work.
since i am a man of faith i tend to keep my life very simple and with as little trappings that would hinder my work.
1.wake up and first coffee and then morning prayers.

2.check emails for those in need of advice and counsel.(and dick around on facebook and VS)

3.procrastinate in getting out to my scheduled appointments (which is why i am always running late.i have some serious discipline issues concerning punctuality).the flavor of the appointments vary from addiction counseling to tarot readings and sometimes they may be just a spiritual boost for someone who is low and in need of company.(i live in a community with many elderly,and loneliness is a heart breaker).

4.usually around 4pm i start wrapping that part of the day up and head home for a shower and mid-afternoon prayer in order for me to get ready for the second part of my day where i bartend/wait tables at my long time friends resturaunt.

5.i do not make any actual tangible legal tender for the first part of my day.i may trade deal for something i need but usually i rely on the generosity and graciousness of those i help.i.e:the clothes i wear,the car i drive,the computer i am using right now were all gifted to me.even the house i reside in is a gift (well..kinda).

6.i do not own a credit card nor do i have a bank account.the cash i make from bartending and waiting tables is the cash i use to live and my paycheck goes to child support for my youngest child.

7.work till 10pm-11pm.come home.check emails again to see who or what needs help and in what fashion.mess around on facebook or VS for a bit and then off to study,read a book or watch something interesting.

8.night time prayers of gratitude for the day and all those who touch me,which can happen as early as 1am or as late as 3-4am.(depending on how much i am procrastinating).

i do fit family and friends (even a lovely woman) in that schedule but it is not always easy.thank god they love me.

About your perceived arrogance. I'm not judging anybody on the Sift. You alone are the one who came here with a single-purpose account to try and convert people to your faith. I'm telling you how you come off and how it's affecting your goal. Your spamming of what I consider nonsense into the middle of what I consider rational discussions and your indifference to the fact you're irritating people, in my mind, gives me licence to be blunt. You could accept it as honest criticism and go from there.

I think you, and many other people here, see me through a fun-house mirror made up of your preconceived notions about God and Christians in general. The reasons I am here are not so cut and dry, but I certainly feel that God wants me to talk to people here.

About evidence. You and your religion are the ones showing up uninvited and making incredible claims. If you're making the claim, it's to you to provide a way to prove it. The only way a claim has any meaning is if there's some way to falsify it. But your claim is designed in such a way that it is literally impossible to falsify it. That's the weakness that inspired the spoof deities like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Bertrand Russell's Teapot: in practice, one is exactly as falsifiable as the other. In theory, your faith has seemingly falsifiable statements, but in practice, every time one of them is falsified, theologians and apologists work endlessly to somehow "make" it still hold true, sometimes by changing the meaning of words retroactively, or claiming retroactively it was just a metaphor or whatever. Sometimes it's a legitimate save, but usually it's intellectually dishonest. When someone points that out, you come up with some other intellectually dishonest way of getting out of that too.

This website is open to the public, is it not? If so, then in what sense am I uninvited?

My claim isn't "designed", it is simply the fact of what I believe. I don't modify it to escape someones inquiry. You like to make some bold claims about what it is, or isn't, but you never happen to back them up with evidence. As I told you earlier, it is falsifiable. You could prove it to be logically inconsistent. You could find the body of Jesus. You could disprove the major facts of the bible. You cannot claim it is unfalsifiable. The problem with your spoof deities is that they have no explanatory power. A flying teapot explains exactly nothing..

Here's an example of what I mean: You make the claim that God is all-loving. To me, if words have meaning, "all-loving" that means God will only do loving things. But he commits mass murder several times. Now, any human that even once had ever beat somebody up, even in the heat of passion, would be disqualified from the category of "all-loving". But for God, there's always an apologist loophole because you'd decided beforehand that God was all-loving and will stop at nothing to make sure that label sticks.

What the scripture says is that God is love. Not that He is loving, but that He is love itself. Yes, it is true that God took the lives of thousands of people in the Old Testament because of disobedience. That is indisputable. What you're claiming is that this was "mass murder". The fundamental question being posed here is, does God have the right to take a life? If He does, then there is nothing unjust about what He did, and therefore it is not inconsistent with His love.

Now, God is the author and sustainer of life. Meaning, that life is a gift and a privilege for human beings. There is no fundamental right to be alive. Neither is there anything we can do to continue our life a second longer than God ordains. When we are born and when we die is entirely in His hands. He is the one who is causing our lungs to receive breathe, who is maintaining the coherence in our atomic structure. So what life we do have is a tender mercy from God, especially considering the fact that all of us abuse His creation and spit in His face on a constant basis.

Further, God has ordained that the punishment for sin is death. The people you speak of in scripture were all sinners, and most of them grievous sinners at that. Why is God unjust for enforcing His law? What is wrong with God enforcing His law at His prerogative?

Considering that we live because of God, and that it is a gift which can be revoked at any time because of sin, why is it unjust for God to do so? If you're going to say I am being intellectually dishonest, then prove it and explain why. Where is the flaw in my reasoning here?

Or the claim of intercessory prayer. Of the rigorous studies that have been done, all have said there is no correlation between prayer and positive health effects, even when religious groups sponsor the study. To anybody using reason, this proves that prayer doesn't work. But you need so badly for it to be true that you ignore the statistical evidence, and rely instead on anecdotes or the studies (however rigorous) that showed a positive effect, or you dismiss all the studies because they are science, and science is a false religion, or whatever. Regardless, as the result, "Prayer doesn't work" is unacceptable, any results by any method you will invent fault with, even if you agreed to the method beforehand.

Some Christians may feel that way, but only because they don't understand scripture:

Luke 4:12

And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

The Lord doesn't perform on camera for skeptics because He isn't a guinea pig subject to our experiments. Those who test the Lord will not get any results.

Hebrews 11:6

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

>> ^messenger

You mentioned a bunch of metaphysical rules of the universe above. I'm assuming that since God created the universe and everything and everything, that he created both the physical rules and these metaphysical rules too.

* "sin" --> Rule: Sin exists and is defined by a particular set of actions/thoughts/etc.

Sin is defined as disobedience to Gods commands

* "death" --> Rule: Death exists

Natural death temporarily exists..the second death is eternal

* "Their sin brought death into the world." --> Rule: When the first person sins, death will come to everyone.

This isn't a rule, it is simply a consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

* "He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life." --> Rule: For humans to be forgiven for our sins and be released from death, someone had to be sacrificed.

There is a story about a King who decreed that anyone who committed the crime of adultery would have their eyes put out. This was enforced in the land for some time, until one day the prince of the kingdom was caught in the act. The King then was faced with a dilemma. 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 story is similar to the reasons why God sent His Son to the cross. It was the solution to the conflict between His justice and His mercy.

* "What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God" --> Rule: The sacrifice had to be a perfect human to be effective.

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. It took a sinless person to build that bridge and restore mans fellowship with God. That is why Jesus serves as a bridge between man and God, because it is only through His righteousness that we can reach God. Our good works are not good enough; they are like filthy rags before a Holy God.

So, why did God invent these particular rules? Why did he invent the concept of sin in the first place?

Why did your parents tell you not to play in traffic or take candy from strangers? For your protection.

Why not let us rut around like the other animals doing whatever occurs to us without the need for judgement?

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.

Why did he invent death if he loved us so much?

Death was a punishment for sin. However, it was also a tender mercy. If mankind was immortal, we would be eternally separated from God.

Why did he create the rule that when one person sinned, the whole of creation would die (especially after he created humans such that they would sin all the bloody time)?

It wasn't a rule, but simply a consequence. When He created human beings, they were not made such that they would sin all of the time. It is when man chose to sin that his nature became corrupted. It's like how traits are passed down from their parents genetically..we inherited their sinful nature.

Why did God create such a horrible place as Hell? Why not just love Satan and Satan's angels (all his creations) enough so that they would be good again as he expects from you and me?

We don't know whether there was an offer of reconciliation to Satan or not. What we do know is that today they all stand condemned. Salvation is not "God loving us enough so we'll be good again".

Why would God create such an impossible condition for the forgiveness of sins that he would have to create and send his son to be killed by his fallen creation?

I gave an explanation for this earlier. I will say that His standard for goodness is moral perfection; that is inherent to His nature.

This all sounds like plot-driving fantasy writing to me (Rule: the one ring can only be destroyed by being dropped into the fires of Mount Doom; Rule: Fairy dust and happy thoughts will give you the ability to fly; Rule: Walking into the special closet without thinking about it will put you in Narnia), and that's why I think the Bible is fiction too. They're such random rules of cause and effect (not to mention some of the random rules of sin itself) that they can only lead to disaster and disappointment... unless they're just plot devices that lead to a bunch of awesome fantasy stories. And that's what I currently believe.

As you learn more I hope you will begin to make the connections between what we have been talking about for the past year or so. Although you are developing a more in depth understanding of the gospel, it is still on a superficial level and you have many misconceptions. 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. There is nothing logically contradictory about the gospel. It is internally consistent in every respect, and its depths are inexhaustible.

If God doesn't want to send us to Hell, why did he invent rules so that he would? Can't God just change or break his own rules and stop sending us to Hell?

Let's say you have a perfectly well behaved son, 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? You don't want to do anything that would harm your son, because you love him, but neither are you going to approve of his behavior, or endanger the well being of the rest of the household. You are going to let him know there are very real consequences to his behavior and enforce the rules.

God is Holy and just.

By who's definition? What can those human words of judgement possibly mean when applied to a god? And if we are following the human meaning of "just", how is it just to create the concept of sin, create death, create rules where if you sin you die, create hell as the punishment for sin, and then create humans such that we would definitely sin? That's not just in the least. And yes, you say that you and I have the chance to redeem ourselves, but what about those of us who lived and died before we had that chance? Why should they all have to suffer? They will never have the chance to accept Jesus as saviour.

God has given us progressive revelation. As I've said before, you don't go to hell for what you didn't know, you go to hell for what you do know and reject. Everyone prior to the cross was saved according the amount of revelation God had given them. For the gentiles, it would on the basis of their conscience. For the jews, it was on the basis to their adherance to the law.

The words holy and just wouldn't mean anything if God hadn't give us revelation about Himself. They mean something because of who He is. It is without Him that they would become meaningless. Essentially, it is all to say that God is perfect. Or as they say in philosophical circles, that He is a maximally great being, possessing every possible perfection.

We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.

That's a new one for me. Can you give me a quote? I was pretty sure heaven was up in the sky somewhere, even according to the Bible. Didn't Jesus "rise" into heaven?

Revelation 21:2-5

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.

If my fine is paid in full and I've been given eternal life, why am I praying for anything?

For the same reason that if you wish to enter a door you must first walk through it.

>> ^messenger

Perhaps this will shed some light on the subject:

"We posted the cut-from-real-life short drama Cicada a fortnight ago, and now we have the teaser trailer for Amiel Courtin-Wilson's feature follow up, simply titled Hail.

Hail is the evolved beast-cousin of Cicada, and is another docu-drama based on the real life stories of actor and ex-con Daniel P. Jones. The Hollywood Reporter describes it much better than I could:

Daniel P. Jones is an artistically inclined ex-convict playing a lightly fictionalized version of himself in Aussie auteur Amiel Courtin-Wilson's out-there docu-drama. Dissonant and brutal, but also unexpectedly tender, Hail melds coarse reality, extreme close-ups, nightmarish montages - including one featuring a dead horse falling from the sky - and a soundtrack that's alternately jarring and lovely.

Hail was the first Australian dramatic feature in nearly a decade to screen at the Venice International Film Festival and today we have word that the film has also been selected for Rotterdam, which starts later this month.

Now to that dead horse. As you can see in the teaser trailer below, the film features a sequence with a horse being dropped from a plane and falling slowly towards earth. It's pure madness, and 100% real. And I'm hoping makes sense in the final film. Tarsem eat your heart out!"
http://twitchfilm.com/news/2012/01/horses-rain-from-the-heavens-in-hail.php