AlexCrowley

Should I draw a picture? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I'll generally ground myself as a courtesy to everyone else on the plane. ..........Ohhhh that wind. My mistake.. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I don't believe any of your quotes mention that God is infinitely "forgiving." They do describe the infinite "goodness" of God, however. Also, I never said what is in the reply above. I’ve said that the books of the Bible are divinely inspired. I’ve also said that all else, if it’s worth the paper that it’s written on no matter who wrote it, must be checked against it. That's certainly the impression given when you say "where is that listed in scripture?". If God is infinite, which the above passages from your scripture clearly state then by definition he is infinitely everything. If you really want to talk about infinite we could also draw the logical conclusion that an infinite God, by virtue of his infinite state must be everything that is both holy and profane. But we can boil him down to a white haired old man who judges us like we're kids and he's the kind of loving but stern grandfather who's there to make sure we grow up right but dont get into too much trouble, if you'd like because that seems to be exactly the level at which you are thinking with this current conversation. Kinda like a cross between the James Earl Jones and Burt Lancaster characters in Field of Dreams. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Would an "infinitely" good God not also, by definition, have to be just? Could you have an infinitely good God who is also unjust at times? If you're charged with and proven guilty of a crime, wouldn't the “infinitely good” judge be obligated to pass sentence on you? Even if you were sincerely apologetic, would that absolve you of the crime you committed? The judge might personally forgive you but, in order for justice to be done, the penalty for the crime must be observed. Does that not make sense? That's not a "limit" on his love. It's an expression of it. A way out has been freely given. You're the one arguing that he's not infinte, not me. Since Jesus died for our sins. Dont recall there being a footnote on that "Except the ones that God couldnt handle" Anthropomorphizing God has been Christianitys greatest failing. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Parajito, please - lets not pretend that Christian tradition is only from divinely inspired writings. But lets go: " Psalm 145:3 Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable. II Chronicles 2:5 & 6 And the house that I build is great: for great is our God above all Gods. But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him? I Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded. Jeremiah 23:24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord. Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite. A stupid question also, considering there are famous hymns such as 'Great God, How infinite thou art', and centuries of Christian philosophers, priests and preachers talking about the unending nature of The Lord. Do you celebrate the Sabbath on a saturday? There's no scriptural justification for changing the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday - in fact it's not until 135AD that the religious record explicitly states that such a change occurs. In fact, Paul - the founder of your church states explicitly 1 Cor 11:26 You proclaim the Lord's death till he comes. So why not a Friday sabbath rather than a Sunday? The Day of Resurrection has it's earliest mention around 400AD, so that wouldnt be the historical justification for it. Jesus himself gave explicit instructions for Baptism, prayer and communion - you'd think that something as ground breaking (for a jew) as changing the Sabbath day might have been mentioned at some point. I dont really mind when the Christian Sabbath is, I just think that for anyone to try and make an argument that something engrained into any religion requires explicit scriptural evidence when it's existence is taken for granted by centuries of it's proponents is a little weak. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Where does it state that God is “infinitely” forgiving? God is “infinitely” good but God is also just. The only “unforgivable” sin is (for those with knowledge and who have heard) is to not accept God’s forgiveness through Jesus and to repent of sin. Your rationalization above has no basis other than your own. You’re making up characteristics of a God which does not exist. You may want to mention that to centuries of philosophers. The argument itself goes back to the early Christian philosophers, through Descartes (the father of modern philosophy, the bastard) up to the present day. I dont have my phil 101 stuff lying around but you could take a look at St Anselm's Ontological argument, generally the philosophy crew boil it down to the 'omnis'. BTW one cannot be infinitely one thing BUT then have a conditional attached - once you limit an infinite it becomes finite. Unless you're an ancient greek. I would also argue that a great deal of Christians consider their God to be infinite, without end, forever and ever amen. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

While I'd love to jog them I don't remember either and I didnt feel like wading through the 600 responses on the other thread. Probably something to do with saints/pagan pantheons, idolatry or paul destroying Christianity before it got anywhere (see the Gnostic stuff). TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

gnosis = knowledge. Gnostic's believed in hidden knowledge. Thomas Huxley coined the term 'agnostic': " When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. [...] So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. [Quoted in "Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics", 1908, edited by James Hastings MA DD] " TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Gnostics were one of the early sects that gained some popularity C200 AD, the movement was pretty much wiped out for heresy Gnostics (from gnosis: knowledge) were mystic Christians who believed that they had hidden knowledge of the divine. Basically: Gnostics believed that the God Yehwah of the old testament was an evil God. This evil God created the Earth and was trapping our souls in physical form and binding us onto the material plane. Jesus came to save us by preaching of an all powerful God (above Yehwah) who could free us from this evil bound state. Jesus' God was more abstract than the Jewish . Before the compilation of the NT as we know it today there were many gospels, including the gnostic texts - these had a different focus than the ones currently accepted - these can be reviewed in a number of printed books or here. What commentaries written about gnostics remain are written mostly by the orthodox Christian victors - so they are largely very unflattering. Having read several of the Gnostic Gospels I found them to present a far more accessible religion than the dogmatic version that gained popularity. I think the concept of the two Gods makes a great deal of sense if you compare the OT and NT Gods. In an unbiased reading of the OT, YWHW's evolution from tribal god among many other god's to 'THE ONLY GOD' in the pages of the OT is a very immature, vain and capricious deity even in comparison to the traditional NT we read today. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

When you get accused of being in league with anyone more than a few times, you start researching it. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Not the same being! This is a traditional misconception that is not backed up by scripture, but simply is 'known' - it's a tradition. It's also wrong. In Isiah 14:12-22, the only mention of the name 'lucifer' is considered to have been added atop the original circa 300ad by St Jerome, the original reference was to a King of Babylon Nebuchadnezzar. Lucifer was a reference to the original hebrew word 'heylal' or 'morning star': venus. In fact, within the passage (v16) this person is refered to as a man Revelation does not refer to lucifer, it refers to Devil, Satan, the great dragon, or old serpent. The Amplified Bible discusses this fact: "Some students feel that the application of the name Lucifer to Satan is erroneous, even though it is commonly taught to that effect. Lucifer, THE LIGHT BRINGER, is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word phosphoros, which is used as a title of Christ in II Peter 1:19 (...until the DAY STAR arise in your hearts.) and corresponds to the name `BRIGHT MORNING STAR' in Rev. 22:16, which Jesus called Himself. The application of the name Lucifer has only existed since the third century A.D., and is based on the supposition that Luke 10:18 (I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven) is an explanation of Isaiah 14:12, which authorities feel is not true." The more modern Christian's error is more due to misunderstanding that in 300 AD the word for Venus the morning star was 'lucifer'. Also, heylal is not a propor noun, but a description. Additionally, it's important to remember that the early church did not recognize Satan as an external being, but an obstacle - over time this evolved into an adversary - a term to refer to any person or group of enemies. This has remained so within Judaism, whereas Christians have externalized Satan into it's own independent personality around the time of that the NT was being written and has evolved since then. There's a great deal of information available on lucifer and satan. Elaine Pagels The Origin of Satan is pretty good. There's a paperback or you can find a condensed version from the 1997 Tanner Lectures series (pdf is available online if you search for it). TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Yikes, for a second I thought you were one of my ex-boyfriends... but his name wasn't Matthew. And AlexCrowley: I meant "Satan" as in "the Devil, the evil adversary of humanity," or something like that... Although in Anne Rice's "Memnoch The Devil," she has an interesting concept that Satan is really the good guy and God is the evil one, and that humanity has long been tricked... but that's a different topic. The Gnostics got there a little before Ann Rice. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Yes, every word if it interests me, first two sentences to find out if it will. Then again, I read at 900 wpm. Yes, severe ADD (official diagnosis). TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Hmmm. Satan is Satan. Lucifer is Lucifer. Beelzebub is Beelzebub. Or did you mean adversary to the Christian god? Satan is judeochristian, and he is currently percieved differently from his role within their sacred texts. Dualistic belief systems require balance, if your system has a good god then you must have something to balance him out. In a faith model that posits an infinitely good god it is impossible for there to be an equally bad adversary. God is everything. God is infinitely loving and forgiving. An infinitely forgiving God must, by definition, forgive anything. Therefor everyone goes to heaven, no adversary is necessary and even if he should exist he could simply play piano and watch sunsets. If God refuses to forgive those that do not adhere to a particular rule then he is no longer infinitely forgiving or loving and therefor no longer infinite, since we have found a limit. The Bible says that there is a war between heaven and hell, but bases the victory of God on the fact that he is infinite and all powerful, which he isnt. So, Bible - religious history or Pro-YVWH propoganda? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

*Oblig Disclaimer*I have 31 jumps*Oblig Disclaimer* In answer to the direct question asked (Does the length of your arms make you do a better/complete flare? Since the length of my arms is quite short, do you guys think that could be the reason of I not doing flare enough and making me land harder?): I am the same height as you, I spoke to both the master rigger at my DZ and Scott Miller about this exact subject, and both felt that it had no impact once you consider that a single arm is only going to be shorter or longer by 1 or 2 inches. And that the speed of toggle input is also important in controlling the canopy. (Scott explains toggle speed/range control in his course. The first jump task list is to flare at least 5 times using varying speeds and to take note of how your canopy reacts - the course was excellent and covered a great deal of stuff that I wouldnt have run into on my A requirements and cleared up a bunch of stuff that may have caused me some retraining pains later). My brief personal experience bears this out: I've stood up the majority of my landings, and since the Miller course 9 of my last 10 landings (a plf on my first jump on my new Spectre after inducing a mild popup and being too lazy to risk running it out) Using newer equipment instantly illustrated the control difference between a worn out older canopy - a soon to be retired f111 Raider 220 that dumped me on my butt the first few landings til I realized that it had far less responsiveness than the DZs other student Raider 220, and then popping up my Spectre when using roughly 50% of the speed (and 25% of the toggle range initially) than required to start the Raider's flare. Which is a really long way of saying: I'm your height and have not had issues with flaring and standing up my landings on the motley assortment of student gear available at 2 DZs, and my own canopy - which is totally stock. Friday was my first day with it and I spent the day pulling at 6k and drilling all the Miller course stuff on it. Can't wait to do more next week. ** This post is informational, does not contain any advice and I only have 31 jumps. ** TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

It's the smell of 'interesting'. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

All praise to FSM. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

1. What sort of planes? who else saw them? Why is this not mentioned *anywhere?* - both mainstream and conspiracy sites have never mentioned that detail - or at least had not as of 1/2005, which is the last time I did any followup. It might just be me, but I'd think that a full dress rehearsal of the biggest terrorist attack on US soil might have gained a little press. Of course, your friend could just be fucking with you. WTC had both FBI and Secret Service as tenants - given the security dispatches of the previous months a more visible presence wouldnt be surprising (it's known that security within WTC was stepped up, but the method of attack was not known), So the FBI were 'swarming' for a period of about an hour? Since the first plane hit at approx 8.48 I'm not sure I could consider anyone actually swarming THAT DAY. FBI workers, depending department work either an 8 or 10 hour shift. Perhaps your friend happened to show up at the time the FBI drones all showed up 12 minutes early for their shift? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

oh hell yes. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Ironically most people who can view his background without bias feel the same way about Bush's downhome everyman cowboy image. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

One could argue that Eaglenrider, for all his apparent insanity performs the same service by stimulating discussion about issues that are contrary to the mainstream status quo. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

Thank you Bill and NWFlyer, your advice is much appreciated. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

I saw something in the sky once. Since it wasnt identifiable I assumed it was a UFO - it certainly wasnt marsh gas or venus:) TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

of course, why work on a skill that would be useful in the long term? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.