Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
nfq wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
Hell was created as a punishment for fallen angels, before the creation of humans. (It's somewhere in the book of Isaiah, too tired to look up where.)
but why do they (or anyone) need or deserve eternal punishment? i know punishment can be useful to make people change their ways, but in hell they can't change anything anymore, so eternal punishment seems pointless. i think it would be better to just make them 'not exist'. but maybe that's what you think hell is, because you once said that hell might be non-existence. i've met people who say that they would rather go to hell than to stop existing.
Spiritual beings are permanent and unchanging in nature. They don't age. Their hair, nails won't grow. Their memories will not fade. They do not emit grease and do not become in need of a shower. They do not require a cycle of sleep and awakeness. In general, things that remind you of the passage of time, are non-existent. "Time" becomes meaningless. How long should such a punishment be, when time is meaningless? A week is like a hour. 100000 years is like 3 months.
And as for making something not exist -- I don't know if/why God does never uncreates a spirit. Some could imagine that being permanently separated from God is practically the same as not existing at all; in the same manner as one could think that a life that exists in a parallel universe / alternate reality does not really exist at all. But that's really a subjective question after all.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
I'll reply to FerretWarlord's comment once the Sabbath is over.
stickyman05 wrote:
1) What aspects of humans do you find the most amazing*? What surprises you about the human race?
2)**Out of curiosity, is Finland (or any other country in Europe) as centered on Education/College? In order to have a good job, good income ect. in the US, overall, you needed to go to college. I was wondering if that was the same in other countries.
*Used amazing for lack of a better word.
**Yes, I am an American who probably came off as inept and closed minded about the world around me. However, I don't live in Europe, so I don't know what the job market is like, and what said job market looks for in employees.
1) The mind-defying amalgam of material instincts and of the thinking that surpasses the scope of one's life.
2) It depends on the job you are looking for. At our company, we don't generally look at the education background at all; we emphasize significantly more on the person's work experience and enthusiasism towards the practicing and honing the skills required for the job.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
LagDotCom wrote:
Is this not also the case for 'hard line' christians who are against things like homosexuality? There's a lot of stuff in the old testament particularly about god destroying entire cities, etc. It seems hypocritical to me that a christian would follow only one half of the bible, or whatever.
Many christians seem to only live the new testament and discard the old testament entirely. It is true that the new union in the Messiah obsoletes _some_ practices in the old testament, but not nearly all.
However, what comes to destroying and killing, God's followers should leave that stuff to God, and only act if he tells us to.
Sin-doers will drown in their sins, and they will draw the doom upon themselves.[Isaiah 1:28]
Christians do not really need to exact punishments, and they should not, without God's explicit instruction.
And what comes to homosexuality -- it is okay to be attached to people and love them, but there are certain activities that God explicitly forbids. Sex among the humans of the same gender is one of those. Same goes for homosexual marriages. The marriage is an union and pact meant to provide safe and balanced grounds for the children's growth, as well as towards the husband and wife themselves. A church should never bless relationships that contradict with that goal -- relationships that are in opposition to God's law.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Swedishmartin wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
Because Christianity lends itself open for criticism, much like science does. (Though the means of validation are quite different.)
I don't really think this works. It's not as if Christianity was based on a scientific method.
It depends on who you discuss it with. A fundamentalist may be opposed against any critical discussion of his or hers religion, whereas a more "open" person can share opinions with another. I don't see why this shouldn't be the case with all religions.
Still, Christianity is based on the principle of open information; you can ask anything, and there are christians who can give an answer. In many other religions, questioning the core beliefs (islam), or even revealing them to the outsiders (especially the initiates) (mormonism, scientology), is a taboo.
Christianity invites people to talk about it, and that fuels the wider spreading of the most difficult questions.
Swedishmartin wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
Criticise Islam publicly, and you will receive death threats.
It means that their opinions don't reflect the opinions of an average Islamic. Don't judge the book by its cover.
Nevertheless, as far as I know, those extremists are following the book's teachings by doing what they do. The calmer "average" is ignoring those parts.
(But this is hear-say; I haven't read Quran and cannot vouch for this opinion.)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Twelvepack wrote:
Bisqwit: Did you intend for a "ask me questions" thread to be nothing but tiresome religious discussion?
Not particularly, but I don't mind.
I like answering any questions that aren't loaded with aggression towards any party when I can.
(But computer helpdesking questions are still excluded.)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
alden wrote:
Thank you Bisqwit for that thoughtful reply. I'll stick with my original complaint that it seems many Christians by me do in fact put money ahead of God. I understand you can be wealthy (it could be useful to them to try to spread the message even), but the opulent and unnecessary shows of riches I see make it seem like these people are not putting faith first...
That is well possible. It is a considerably small portion of people calling themselves "Christians" that actually do listen to God and for whom "Christianity" is not just as a hobby that gains them some imagined upper ground against non-believers.
But then again, the Bible does also show us a few examples of extravagant use of money -- the temple of Salomo being the most striking example. It is considered acceptable to spent significant money into exalting God. In Jewish especially, there are many artifacts where it is considered that the amount of material cost put into it is a tantamount of one's appreciation of God himself. In the case of the car you observed, the owners must have considered that the money spent for those custom license plates is practically a sacrifice to God, since it aims to spread His word rather than to glorify the owner of those plates; and that for that purpose, no cost is too high.
It can be difficult to find the middle ground that does not offend anyone in a way that brings shame to God.
God-fearing people should always strive to follow God's will and act out of his instructions rather than what we humanly think that is good; we tend to have troubles seeing the big picture, and if we pump all our possessions and/or effort into some task in particular, it just might not be how God intended us to use the resources he gave to us -- and we might not achieve a very good result either. This mirrors the "being a good person" talk of my previous post, too.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
mmbossman wrote:
There's also the issue of all movies receiving a "0" for technical, although the actual ratings seem to still be accounted for in the average rating.
Ex: http://tasvideos.org/rating.exe/946/details
Fixed. Apparently ratings.exe has the rating names hardcoded in some locations of the code.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Bezman wrote:
I would have thought that folk without published movies should have less influence.
And that's how it works, too.
Bezman wrote:
I'd like to ask though - what's a publisher and what's a half-publisher?
See:
― http://tasvideos.org/Users.html#Publishers
― http://tasvideos.org/PublisherGuidelines.html
― http://tasvideos.org/Users/Edit.html (Click the Access maps tab)
In words, publishers are judges who also create AVIs and "publish" the submissions, i.e. making them into official movies on this site.
Half-publishers are publishers that are not judges. That access level was created to allow established encoding contributors to start publishing the submissions that have been accepted by a judge, instead of having to bother a publisher to do it.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Raiscan wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
This rating system shares the feature from the published movie rating system, in that users who have few posts (i.e. are lurkers) have considerably less influence with their vote than users who have a number of them. (Their vote is always counted, though, at has at least some non-marginal influence.) Also players and judges are considered more influential compared to regular viewers. Anyone's existing votes will still gain more ground as their status changes on the forums.
With this in mind, the voting restriction from logged-in lurkers was removed.
Would you be willing to make a list of what ranks have what influence available?
Very well.
Depending on the user's role at tasvideos:
Admin: influence=2, end
Halfadmin: influence=1.8, end
Judge: influence=1.5, end
Publisher: influence=1.5, end
Halfpublisher: influence=1.1, end
Otherwise:
Let minimum post count be <secret>
Let scale = 1.0
If the user has movies published, then let minimum post count be <another secret but smaller than the other>, and scale = 1.1
If the user is on a blacklist, then scale = 0.02
If the user has at least <minimum> posts, then influence=scale, end.
Otherwise, the influence is calculated as (postcount+1)*scale/<minimum>, end.
This influence value is used to weight the user's vote in the calculation of averages.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
LagDotCom wrote:
The Bomberman AI contest thing appeals highly to me.
It sounds very interesting to me, too.
EDIT: And not to become a "me too" post, I'll elaborate: a Bomberman bot needs to exercise many algorithmic challenges, most notably involving pathfinding.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
stickyman05 wrote:
My biggest thing is that when a video gets 27 votes, and only one of those votes is under 5, it is hard to see that one vote.
Yeah, but also, that helps avoid the witchhunts, does it not? :P
This rating system shares the feature from the published movie rating system, in that users who have few posts (i.e. are lurkers) have considerably less influence with their vote than users who have a number of them. (Their vote is always counted, though, at has at least some non-marginal influence.) Also players and judges are considered more influential compared to regular viewers. Anyone's existing votes will still gain more ground as their status changes on the forums.
With this in mind, the voting restriction from logged-in lurkers was removed.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
alden wrote:
What really gets me is not that good works won't compensate for sin in general, but that someone
who performs only good works by Christian standards with the exception of "taking Jesus into his or her heart" is
still sent to Hell. Seems kind of mean to me. I'm all for the message except for this detail.
Speaking of the message:
<...> Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25 and Luke 18:24-25
This seems to be one of the most overlooked passages in practice, at least where I am...
As Jesus left that place, a man came running after him, and kneeled before him, and asked: Rabbi, what should I do that I may inherit eternal life?
Jesus answered: You know the commandments. Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour your father and mother.
And the man answered and said unto him: Rabbi, all these have I observed from my youth.
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him: There's still one thing that you lack: go and sell everything you have, and distribute to the poor, and you will have a treasure in the Heaven. And come, take up the cross, and follow me.
The man became sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he was quite rich.
And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples: How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answered again, and saith unto them: Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
And Jesus said, looking upon them: With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
I talked about this passage briefly in an earlier post of mine, but I shall elaborate.
The matter of salvation is not about doing good things or about believing in some deity.
For when you do good things, you do them under your own judgement. There's a saying, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and another, saying: no good deed goes unpunished. Our understanding of things is limited. Where we have the best intentions, we may sometimes do more harm than we do good. And often, our motives for doing good things are tainted: we do favors to get people do good things to us in return, or we want people to see us a as a good person, something to look up to.
And what good does believing in some deity do to you?
God requires us not to just believe in him, but to live in close communion. God is a living persona, that has a will and words that do not stay in the Bible. To keep out of sin, we must be willing to follow God's will – no matter what we may have to sacrifice.
In this passage, Jesus saw the old man was quite serious about following God's will, but he also knew that there was one thing that went even ahead of God. That was his priced possessions. To make that point painstakingly clear, he told that man that he should sell everything that he has, and give the money to the poor. The man was not ready to do that.
It is very easy for people to become attached to their possessions. The more you have, the more attached you are. Sure, if you're a college student whose possessions fit in a single shopping bag, you may have no problem with that particular request of Jesus, but when you're a 60 years old, with a long history as a respected businessman, who has collected treasures such as valuable motorcycles for decades, and taken pride in showing them to your guests, and Jesus asks you to forget all that and follow him, how are you going to respond?
That, is what Jesus means with that it is really hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
One of the laws set by God is "thou shalt have no other gods before me". Anything that goes before the Creator, is a god for you.
Matt 7:21-23 wrote:
"Not every person that says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them: I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
Make no mistake, God does not categorically deny us possessions. It is well possible to "enter the kingdom of God" and yet be wealthy. But the thing is, following God's will should be absolutely the first priority.
God has different plans for each person – I'm still discovering mine – and he is not malicious. He wants to utilize us in a way that best gives us satisfaction yet fulfills his will.
Following God's will is best compared to an urge to scratch the itching skin. Once God puts something on your mind, it will start popping up and does not leave you alone, until you go and do it. It is not a command in a boombox human voice, but it is like an obsession. One can choose to quiet it though, and eventually it will subside. This is called hardening. Once you stop listening to God's voice, you may eventually begin to wonder whether you heard it in the first place at all, because the world's wisdom does not acknowledge God. On the other hand, people who are prone to God's voice, will do it eagerly, and without hesitation. These people usually often end up as pastors, or missionaries, or in some other service role in a congregation. God's voice carries not only commands; it also carries feelings. You will feel love unlike anything in the world, and all that which comes with the love: From joy and compassion to sadness and hate. When something happens that is God's will, you will feel joy, and when someone has pain or is defying God's will, you will feel compassion and sadness. When you do something that is not God's will, you will feel guilt and sadness. All of these you can choose to ignore, and it will subside, and God's spirit will leave you, and you may start wondering if it ever existed. Prayer life, on the other hand, will do the take you closer to God's spirit, even so far as to "fill" you with it.
God's voice is so subtle, that you may sometimes start wondering whether it is just your own idea or if it's really from God (which is actually a good thing to do). At those points, it helps to go to a congregation where God's gifts are active (or lacking that option, just read the Bible from an arbitrary location). If the thing really was from God, it usually happens that the message is confirmed to you with crystal clarity, but still without disclosing it to anyone else.
But before any of that can happen, sin must be solved, and that is where Jesus comes in. The penalty for sin is death. In the old testament, animals were sacrificed to God for people's sins. When Jesus died on the cross, he fulfilled the role of the sacrificial "lamb". One must acknowledge that in order to receive acquittal of their sins. Failure to do that means that you still carry the burder of sin with you, and that you do not carry the "mark" of the Messiah with you.
(Someone will probably ask about the baptism here, so I'll say shortly, that the baptism is the first point of choice in your life where you choose whether you profess following Jesus. Deciding not to take the baptism is akin to denying the name of Jesus, and Matt. 10:32-33 tells more about that.)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Twelvepack wrote:
I suppose this could be answered by anyone outside of north America, but I was wondering how much people (on an individual scale) from outside this continent know(or care) about American politics. I would think very little, but my Aussie pals have made me wonder.
I think most people in Finland could tell the name of the current USA president, and maybe 20% of voting age people could name one of the currently racing candidates.
But as for leaders of other countries...
If you asked people who is the president of England, they would probably say Tony Blair and only later recall that England has a monarchy.
I don't even know the name of the king of Sweden. Oh, wait, does Sweden have a president today? Well, Norway then. Olaf something? Or Harald?
I had to verify from Wikipedia that Sweden really is still a kingdom (and the king is Carl XVI Gustaf).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
blahmoomoo wrote:
Heh, I like the message after you rate a movie.
It was actually supposed to be an easter egg for those who voted "no vote" on both categories.
But due to error, it was always displayed...
"No vote" simply erases your vote, as if you never voted in the first place.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
The white vertical bar denotes the weighted average value in that particular rating category -- the same way as the rating average is calculated on movies to this day.
Black is the background colour of the rating bar, and anything deviating from black means that someone has voted a value denoted by that horizontal location. The numbers are shown as a guide to the horizontal locations' numerical meaning. The brighter that colour appears, the more significant ratio of users have voted that particular option.
If people are unanimous enough, that colour can overshine and become whitish or completely white.
Low ratings are shown in blue tint, and high ratings are shown in red tint. Ratings from the middle are shown in green and yellow tints.
And yeah, "#=5" means that 5 users have contributed to the rating of that particular aspect.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Warp wrote:
Question: Will these submission rating statistics be preserved when the submission is accepted/rejected? In other words, will they be visible in the "Published movies" and "Gruefood" groups? It could be interesting to see the final stats after the publication/rejection.
They will be, but one cannot change the ratings anymore.
There seems to be error in the HTML that Opera particularly doesn't like. I'll try fixing it.
It's hard to find it though because the phpBB template HTML is broken in many other places, so finding that particular error...
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Kyrsimys wrote:
So uh, I haven't followed this thread and have a question: are the ratings transferred to the publication if the submission is published?
I made the liberty of choosing that they are indeed transferred to the publication if the submission is published.
The ratings can be changed after that, of course, but it is done through the old means of rating, not through forums.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Bisqwit wrote:
I think it's time to close this poll. It's clear that mmbossman's suggestion came out as the favourite.
The rest of the debate concerns how things should be rated, and that is parallel discussed also at http://tasvideos.org/forum/t/3859.
For the time being, before a consensus appears at that thread, I think we'll implement the rating mechanism the same way it's currently in the movie system (possibly without the user priority system though); it can be changed later.
I'll implement it as soon as possible, which is hopefully before the next Sabbath :)
This has now been implemented.
Feel free to point out bugs and suggestions.
It is not exactly as mmbossman suggested -- I tool the liberty of reusing some of my old code to make it look cooler and provide slightly more information...
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Silent_Slayers wrote:
So why would God create hell if he knew it would burn [sinning] humans for all eternity. If he is all-knowing, all-powerful, he should've forseen that to happen.
He could've created one for the fallen angels and one for the humans.
Possible reasons I can think of (since I don't recall an explicit answer for that question being written in the Bible):
― God is not really in the torturing business, and he doesn't want to create any more hells than is necessary.
― The sin originates from those fallen angels, and their legacy goes with them.
― That alone should be enough deterrent that nobody would willingly go there.
