Ok, I came here to post a smart arse comment about how there was only one time a ford driving around SF was awesome, but sweet monkey jesus, that was freakin' epic. Full on, throw-up-the-devil-horns awesome.

And if you've ever driven around San Fran and not wanted to do that.... you have no soul.

I have to admit I find this pretty shocking myself. I personally don't believe that stoning is ever a justifiable action for anything, ever, period. What I find incredible is that I'm even having to take a stance AGAINST stoning in this day and age. Although of course it still goes on legally in several countries. This fact doesn't make it acceptable, it just makes it more disgusting.

Shiny, personally I'm disappointed. I was ready to give it a shot and read the bible all the way through, to give it the benefit of the doubt and try to approach it and what you said with an open mind. I saw this video and thought for sure you would dismiss it as false or something similar, but to see you essentially defending it, I just can't accept that the actions described in this verse are moral. I will never accept them as moral.

If this makes ME immoral in god's eyes than Shiny you had better get some stones ready because here's another sinner deserving of sinner's death.


>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^shinyblurry:
The proof that you're not is that you give no regard to the sin itself. You are using a relative standard to judge his crime, whereas God uses an absolute standard. There is no such thing as a minor sin in Gods eyes. God is holy and His standard is moral perfection. Moral perfection is what God calls good, and everything short of that is evil. He has also ordained the death penalty for all sin.
Neither was the crime itself picking up sticks. The actual crime was rebellion. It is not a minor thing to break Gods law, which the man knew full well he was doing. God punished Him not only for rebellion, but also as a public example to the rest of Israel that His laws were to be taken seriously. You have to remember that the Jews were His chosen people, and that they had entered into a covenant with God willingly. They agreed to follow His laws and adhere to His standards, and His standard was that they would be holy as He is holy. This meant that they would obey His law unceasingly with no exceptions. They also agreed with God that if they did not obey His law, they would incur the penalties He laid out.
I will agree that stoning is a particularly harsh punishment, but while you don't think the punishment fits the crime, that is because you don't understand how bad sin really is. Consider for a moment that what I said earlier is true, that one sin led to all of the madness that we see in the world today. If you can comprehend that, maybe you'll start to get the idea why God would use such a punishment as a deterrent.
You say there is no way a loving God would ever do that, to which I reply, that a loving God would do everything possible, including invoking extremely harsh punishments, to prevent as much sin as possible and protect His creation from the greatest amount of harm. To not take extreme measures against sin would actually be a point against Him, and not for Him.
>> ^Asmo:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll address it. I think stoning was used as a deterrent. He ordained an admittedly harsh punishment to keep His people from sin. While you don't see sin as a big deal, it is what caused the corruption of this entire world and all of the suffering therein. Every negative thing that has ever happened here stemmed from just one sin, and each of us have committed hundreds, if not thousands of sins. Sin is a big deal and I feel that punishment was a reflection of the seriousness of sin.
Look up stoning videos on Liveleak sometime and tell me how a supposed god of infinite love would prescribe it for collecting firewood on the sabbath... I condemn people who use stoning as monsters. By any standard, it appears that I am morally superior to your god... = P


Hi, shinyblurry.
I haven't responded to any of your posts in a while, but this time your answer made me throw up in my mouth a little so I thought I'd chime in. Let me read back to you what you just said:
"Moral perfection is what God calls good, and everything short of that is evil. He has also ordained the death penalty for all sin."
But in the Christian tradition, the ONLY being capable of moral perfection is God himself. Humans can strive for it, but never achieve it. So what you have essentially said is that God created imperfect creatures and now punishes them repeatedly, mercilessly, and arbitrarily with death for being imperfect. That doesn't sound much like a loving (or rational) God to me.
"I will agree that stoning is a particularly harsh punishment, but while you don't think the punishment fits the crime, that is because you don't understand how bad sin really is. Consider for a moment that what I said earlier is true, that one sin led to all of the madness that we see in the world today. If you can comprehend that, maybe you'll start to get the idea why God would use such a punishment as a deterrent."
Except that "deterrent" didn't work, did it? After Numbers 32-36 there are countless more examples of the people sinning in the Bible. So you're basically saying the poor guy in this passage died for nothing and that the supposedly omnipotent God who commanded the death was unable to see that this deterrence would fail. Nevermind that picking up sticks is treated as a far worse form of "rebellion" than the other various sins recounted both before and after this story in the Bible in which many of the characters are given less severe punishments or the chance to repent. So much for the Christian god being a god of mercy...
These kinds of contradictions and irrationalities are apparent to anyone who takes even a brief moment to consider them... and you wonder why the Sift isn't flocking to your evangelical banner?

>> ^shinyblurry:

The proof that you're not is that you give no regard to the sin itself. You are using a relative standard to judge his crime, whereas God uses an absolute standard. There is no such thing as a minor sin in Gods eyes. God is holy and His standard is moral perfection. Moral perfection is what God calls good, and everything short of that is evil. He has also ordained the death penalty for all sin.
Neither was the crime itself picking up sticks. The actual crime was rebellion. It is not a minor thing to break Gods law, which the man knew full well he was doing. God punished Him not only for rebellion, but also as a public example to the rest of Israel that His laws were to be taken seriously. You have to remember that the Jews were His chosen people, and that they had entered into a covenant with God willingly. They agreed to follow His laws and adhere to His standards, and His standard was that they would be holy as He is holy. This meant that they would obey His law unceasingly with no exceptions. They also agreed with God that if they did not obey His law, they would incur the penalties He laid out.
I will agree that stoning is a particularly harsh punishment, but while you don't think the punishment fits the crime, that is because you don't understand how bad sin really is. Consider for a moment that what I said earlier is true, that one sin led to all of the madness that we see in the world today. If you can comprehend that, maybe you'll start to get the idea why God would use such a punishment as a deterrent.
You say there is no way a loving God would ever do that, to which I reply, that a loving God would do everything possible, including invoking extremely harsh punishments, to prevent as much sin as possible and protect His creation from the greatest amount of harm. To not take extreme measures against sin would actually be a point against Him, and not for Him.
>> ^Asmo:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll address it. I think stoning was used as a deterrent. He ordained an admittedly harsh punishment to keep His people from sin. While you don't see sin as a big deal, it is what caused the corruption of this entire world and all of the suffering therein. Every negative thing that has ever happened here stemmed from just one sin, and each of us have committed hundreds, if not thousands of sins. Sin is a big deal and I feel that punishment was a reflection of the seriousness of sin.
Look up stoning videos on Liveleak sometime and tell me how a supposed god of infinite love would prescribe it for collecting firewood on the sabbath... I condemn people who use stoning as monsters. By any standard, it appears that I am morally superior to your god... = P



Hi, shinyblurry.

I haven't responded to any of your posts in a while, but this time your answer made me throw up in my mouth a little so I thought I'd chime in. Let me read back to you what you just said:

"Moral perfection is what God calls good, and everything short of that is evil. He has also ordained the death penalty for all sin."

But in the Christian tradition, the ONLY being capable of moral perfection is God himself. Humans can strive for it, but never achieve it. So what you have essentially said is that God created imperfect creatures and now punishes them repeatedly, mercilessly, and arbitrarily with death for being imperfect. That doesn't sound much like a loving (or rational) God to me.

"I will agree that stoning is a particularly harsh punishment, but while you don't think the punishment fits the crime, that is because you don't understand how bad sin really is. Consider for a moment that what I said earlier is true, that one sin led to all of the madness that we see in the world today. If you can comprehend that, maybe you'll start to get the idea why God would use such a punishment as a deterrent."

Except that "deterrent" didn't work, did it? After Numbers 32-36 there are countless more examples of the people sinning in the Bible. So you're basically saying the poor guy in this passage died for nothing and that the supposedly omnipotent God who commanded the death was unable to see that this deterrence would fail. Nevermind that picking up sticks is treated as a far worse form of "rebellion" than the other various sins recounted both before and after this story in the Bible in which many of the characters are given less severe punishments or the chance to repent. So much for the Christian god being a god of mercy...

These kinds of contradictions and irrationalities are apparent to anyone who takes even a brief moment to consider them... and you wonder why the Sift isn't flocking to your evangelical banner?

>> ^JiggaJonson:

The fact that they can render CGI this beautiful in real time makes me want to throw up when I think about all of the generic/cartoony CGI movies out there.
I know we've come a long way, but even shudder Star Wars has fallen victim to horrid CGI. Give me a puppet any day over something that looks like a cartoon.


TPM was released in 1999, a LONG time ago in CGI development. Less-advanced CGI doesn't bother me as much as its overuse (think Michael Bay) and using it for its own sake on crap like a Jar Jar Binks.

EDIT: And btw, this is a real-time video game engine. There isn't a single scene in this video that wouldn't like like absolute crap edited into a movie with real actors/locations in it.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

The fact that they can render CGI this beautiful in real time makes me want to throw up when I think about all of the generic/cartoony CGI movies out there.
I know we've come a long way, but even shudder Star Wars has fallen victim to horrid CGI. Give me a puppet any day over something that looks like a cartoon.


I couldn't disagree more. By that logic, Beowulf is a better looking film than The Incredibles, which I think we both know is absurd.

The fact that they can render CGI this beautiful in real time makes me want to throw up when I think about all of the generic/cartoony CGI movies out there.

I know we've come a long way, but even *shudder* Star Wars has fallen victim to horrid CGI. Give me a puppet any day over something that looks like a cartoon.

Rock on!!! x
In reply to this comment by eric3579:
She's got stickers on her locker
And the boy's number's there in magic marker
I'm hungry and the hunger will linger
I eat sixteen saltine crackers then I lick my fingers

Well every morning I deliver the news
Black hat white shoes and I'm red allover
She's got a big mailbox, that she puts up front
Garbage in garbage out, she's getting what she wants

Who's jealous who's jealous who's jealous who's jealous of who?
If I get busy then I couldn't care less what you do
But when I'm by myself I think of nothing else
Than if a boy just might be getting through and touching you

Spike heels make a hole in a lifeboat
Jumpin' and waving, I'm talking and laughing as we float
I hear a whistle, that's how I know she's home
Lipstick, eyelash, broke mirror, broken home

Force fed, force mixed 'till I drop dead
You can't defeat her, when you meet her you'll be what I said
And Lord knows there's a method to her madness
Bustin' those jokes as I float in a sea of sadness

She doesn't know but when she's gonna sit and drink up a few
I'm sure she's drinkin two, but wondering what for and who
And I'm solo rollin'. I'm one side off the boat.
Looking out, throwing up, a lifesaver down my throat

Who's jealous who's jealous who's jealous who's jealous of who? (x3)

She's got stickers on her locker
And the boy's number's there in magic marker
I'm hungry and the hunger will linger
I eat sixteen saltine crackers then I lick my fingers

Well every morning I deliver the news
Black hat white shoes and I'm red allover
She's got a big mailbox, that she puts up front
Garbage in garbage out, she's getting what she wants

Who's jealous who's jealous who's jealous who's jealous of who?
If I get busy then I couldn't care less what you do
But when I'm by myself I think of nothing else
Than if a boy just might be getting through and touching you

Spike heels make a hole in a lifeboat
Jumpin' and waving, I'm talking and laughing as we float
I hear a whistle, that's how I know she's home
Lipstick, eyelash, broke mirror, broken home

Force fed, force mixed 'till I drop dead
You can't defeat her, when you meet her you'll be what I said
And Lord knows there's a method to her madness
Bustin' those jokes as I float in a sea of sadness

She doesn't know but when she's gonna sit and drink up a few
I'm sure she's drinkin two, but wondering what for and who
And I'm solo rollin'. I'm one side off the boat.
Looking out, throwing up, a lifesaver down my throat

Who's jealous who's jealous who's jealous who's jealous of who? (x3)

The visual basic UI somebody built to control that monster made me throw up a little.

What the fuck, military?

>> ^curiousity:

@bcglorf
You seem angry and disoriented. And unwilling to actually read what I am posting. I think you have decided that you are right and refusing to read to anything contrary. You are trying to undermine an argument to authority multiple times... an argument that I never made (which is funny because I strongly doubt you are a referee at the collegiate level, but of course you can dismiss the referee's call because you disagree with him. Classic.) In addition, you are making an argument about a situation that didn't exist in the video to prove what happened in the video fits your mindset or perhaps you missed a key point that I made before. I will attempt to explain what I meant in more detail.
POSSESSION:
You seem utterly focused on an offensive player with physical possession of the ball. A quick reminder: there are 10 players on the court at a time (normal situations) and one basketball. I'll double-check my math, but that does leave 9 players (4 offensive and 5 defensive) which don't have physical possession of the basketball. There are also cases where the basketball is "free" or not currently in the physical possession of any one player; albeit this is typically a very short time. (e.g. when a shot is rejected and the ball is bouncing before another player picks it up. This also includes passing because during the flight of the basketball, no one is in physical possession of the basketball.) Lastly there is the case where two or more players from opposite teams grab the ball at a very similar time and try to wrestle away possession from the opposing player; if this goes on too long, the referee will call a jump ball where the teams will have a tip off for possession. So we have three states for possession: (1) physically possessed by one player (either holding, dribbling, or releasing a shot/pass); (2) "free"; and (3) short time of struggle before a jump ball is called.
PHYSICAL CONTACT:
Physical contact is actually extremely common in basketball. Posts and forwards are often pushing on each other vying for position. It is also extremely common (in man-to-man defenses) for a defender on the opposite of the basketball to have one hand on a player because he is trying to watch the ball in case he need to offer support and that one hand will let him know if the person they are guarding tries to cut down a lane, etc, etc.
Physical contact with the player who has physical possession of the ball is also very common, but more restricted. Any post or forward that every played competitive basketball outside of grade school will know what I'm talking about. That player posts up, gets the ball, and then tries to maneuver for a shot or pass - during this time there is often physical contact at the post seeks to test if the defensive player is overplaying one side or the other. Obviously hand slapping or elbow strike would be a foul, but make no mistake that there is plenty of physical contact during that exchange. Physical contact with a player with physical possession whom is dribbling happens in a similar fashion. As long as the defensive player is quick enough to get in front of the offensive player, it isn't a foul even if the defensive player is moving a little. The key to this is to be essentially in the spot just before the offensive player tries to go in that direction. If the offensive player is too quick and the defensive player ends up almost "hip-to-hip" then it would be a blocking foul; although typically, the defensive player usually gets called for a hand slap as they realize they are beat and try to smack the ball out from behind.
In a free ball situation, players from both teams have an equal chance to seek possession of the ball. Obviously tripping, striking, holding, and over-aggressive pushing would be called a foul. However, in a point that you adamantly resist acknowledging, during a free ball situation, players from both sides have equal chance to seek possession.
VIDEO:
When the point guard throws up the alley-oop, both the defender and the offensive player jump to grab the ball. Watch the defensive player. He is looking at the ball and going for it, not trying to block or create physical contact with the offensive player. They both jump towards the ball and create incidental contact while going after a free ball. Free ball. Free ball. I think the concept that it was in a "free" state might be important here... Incidental contact is not a foul (especially when going after a free ball which all players have an equal opportunity to seek). Hell, there is a lot of intention contact within basketball that isn't a foul. Obviously the offensive player was able to get it because of the skill of the point guard and because he was expecting it.
....
On a sidenote, I think it is hilarious that you keep trying to turn the argument into one of me not "actually played in a competitive game with actual referees" while not knowing anything about me and while your basic concept ignorance about competitive basketball shines brightly.


Actually it is my fault for watching the video too few times. After watching it the first couple times I'd stupidly comeback and forgotten that he hadn't driven the lane with ball but was in fact going for the pass. I was wrong.

I'm still against calling a foul over a look, but the contact never needed a call.

@bcglorf

You seem angry and disoriented. And unwilling to actually read what I am posting. I think you have decided that you are right and refusing to read to anything contrary. You are trying to undermine an argument to authority multiple times... an argument that I never made (which is funny because I strongly doubt you are a referee at the collegiate level, but of course you can dismiss the referee's call because you disagree with him. Classic.) In addition, you are making an argument about a situation that didn't exist in the video to prove what happened in the video fits your mindset or perhaps you missed a key point that I made before. I will attempt to explain what I meant in more detail.

POSSESSION:
You seem utterly focused on an offensive player with physical possession of the ball. A quick reminder: there are 10 players on the court at a time (normal situations) and one basketball. I'll double-check my math, but that does leave 9 players (4 offensive and 5 defensive) which don't have physical possession of the basketball. There are also cases where the basketball is "free" or not currently in the physical possession of any one player; albeit this is typically a very short time. (e.g. when a shot is rejected and the ball is bouncing before another player picks it up. This also includes passing because during the flight of the basketball, no one is in physical possession of the basketball.) Lastly there is the case where two or more players from opposite teams grab the ball at a very similar time and try to wrestle away possession from the opposing player; if this goes on too long, the referee will call a jump ball where the teams will have a tip off for possession. So we have three states for possession: (1) physically possessed by one player (either holding, dribbling, or releasing a shot/pass); (2) "free"; and (3) short time of struggle before a jump ball is called.

PHYSICAL CONTACT:
Physical contact is actually extremely common in basketball. Posts and forwards are often pushing on each other vying for position. It is also extremely common (in man-to-man defenses) for a defender on the opposite of the basketball to have one hand on a player because he is trying to watch the ball in case he need to offer support and that one hand will let him know if the person they are guarding tries to cut down a lane, etc, etc.

Physical contact with the player who has physical possession of the ball is also very common, but more restricted. Any post or forward that every played competitive basketball outside of grade school will know what I'm talking about. That player posts up, gets the ball, and then tries to maneuver for a shot or pass - during this time there is often physical contact at the post seeks to test if the defensive player is overplaying one side or the other. Obviously hand slapping or elbow strike would be a foul, but make no mistake that there is plenty of physical contact during that exchange. Physical contact with a player with physical possession whom is dribbling happens in a similar fashion. As long as the defensive player is quick enough to get in front of the offensive player, it isn't a foul even if the defensive player is moving a little. The key to this is to be essentially in the spot just before the offensive player tries to go in that direction. If the offensive player is too quick and the defensive player ends up almost "hip-to-hip" then it would be a blocking foul; although typically, the defensive player usually gets called for a hand slap as they realize they are beat and try to smack the ball out from behind.

In a free ball situation, players from both teams have an equal chance to seek possession of the ball. Obviously tripping, striking, holding, and over-aggressive pushing would be called a foul. However, in a point that you adamantly resist acknowledging, during a free ball situation, players from both sides have equal chance to seek possession.

VIDEO:

When the point guard throws up the alley-oop, both the defender and the offensive player jump to grab the ball. Watch the defensive player. He is looking at the ball and going for it, not trying to block or create physical contact with the offensive player. They both jump towards the ball and create incidental contact while going after a free ball. Free ball. Free ball. I think the concept that it was in a "free" state might be important here... Incidental contact is not a foul (especially when going after a free ball which all players have an equal opportunity to seek). Hell, there is a lot of intention contact within basketball that isn't a foul. Obviously the offensive player was able to get it because of the skill of the point guard and because he was expecting it.

....

On a sidenote, I think it is hilarious that you keep trying to turn the argument into one of me not "actually played in a competitive game with actual referees" while not knowing anything about me and while your basic concept ignorance about competitive basketball shines brightly.

and the academy award for best throw up performance goes to...

Outreach to the unsaved community by hosting popular secular events.
The arrogance of their supposed good works in the hopes of brain washing more to their side.
I don't know whether to laugh or throw up.

Oh, and Pat Robertson can lick sloth taints.

>> ^VoodooV:

that's not really a proof though, you're just throwing up your hands and saying..."close enough"
if .9999... was 1. Then it wouldn't be .9999, it would be 1
.999... and 1.000... are as close as you can get to 1 without being 1
you're just exploiting the weakness of converting fractions to decimal notation. Notation is the key word there. 1/3 is not .333... It's an approximation and by the same notion 3 (1/3) is not .99999...
<deal with it.jpg>


You are mistaken. No, it's not the most rigid proof. But I provided a rigid proof above using geometric series that should be enough to convince everyone who knows a modicum of math.

But you are right that notation is the key word here. Namely that in the decimal representation, there is no unique way to write out each number. We have been conditioned from ground school to believe that each number can only be written in one way, but that is false. If 0.9999... is not equal to 1, what then is the value of 1 - 0.9999..., pray tell?

Also, 0.3333.... is exactly equal to 1/3. In this case, there is no other way of writing that number in decimal notation. It would have been an approximation if we had only written out a finite number of 3s after the decimal point. But we don't.

that's not really a proof though, you're just throwing up your hands and saying..."close enough"

if .9999... was 1. Then it wouldn't be .9999, it would be 1

.999... and 1.000... are as close as you can get to 1 without being 1

you're just exploiting the weakness of converting fractions to decimal notation. Notation is the key word there. 1/3 is not .333... It's an approximation and by the same notion 3 * (1/3) is not .99999...

<deal with it.jpg>