Does this trip anyone else up?

[JonathanLB]

I was doing some of my own research into metaphysics last night, and physics actually, just in relation to what we are talking about in my PHL 201 class (we discuss this on such a basic level that it literally bores me).

Anyway so I read an article on The Big Bang, saying it was 13.7 billion years ago (that's a lot of years, lol), give or take 200 million (now this is funny because it's like, eh, 200 million years, drop in the bucket of time, haha).

So I do some searches out of curiosity on Google, typing "Before The Big Bang" and "What happened before the Big Bang" and things like that. I found some really trippy articles, and given I am not much into science, I could understand some of them partially.

One guy had this theory that time really did begin with the big bang because time as we know it didn't exist beforehand, it was confusing and I wasn't inclinded to agree with him. I think it was him who said that NOTHING happened before the big bang. Anyway, then I read some stuff on quantum physics saying how matter can be created from nothing, it does appear randomly on the quantum level, and that it can also disappear just as randomly, or move from one place to another without explanation. He said it was not our lack of understanding that causes this, but literally chaos in nature at a quantum level that makes predicting any of those things impossible as they are random. I think this led to something like basically matter appearing at the start of the big bang or something like that.

Another guy said that there is a parallel universe (the splat theory I think they called this) and some sort of rift opened between that universe and ours, causing a giant fireball like thing, the big bang, to begin and like a splat on the concrete, our universe expanded mostly in a horizontal direction (really, entirely flatly...).

This other guy said there are 11 dimensions, 6 of them mostly impossible to perceive and not useful in our normal calculations, but that left me wondering what the 5th is (fourth is time, like the space-time continuum is a four-dimensional reality). Maybe I should know that, but anyways.

Anyway I can't even try to explain all this (I also read about the string theory), but basically I read a lot of trippy articles that were interesting, yes, but ultimately confusing and somewhat depressing, haha.

To me, religion is equally inept at answering the majors questions as science is. I have the exact same problem with science AND religion (how is that for similarity?).

With science, I say, "Ok, what created the big bang?" There are a lot of theories and answers. With ALL of those theories, I have more questions, "Oh ok, so matter just appeared... so why was there a universe for it to appear in at all? Why did this matter appear?" No answer. I could go on and on. With religion, my question is the same, "Who or what created God?" The answer exists, but is so incredibly irrational that I can't accept it either, just like science: "God always was and always will be. He just always existed." Umm, no I'm sorry that's not a rational explanation. It does not satisfy me, anyway, but if it does others, so be it. I WISH in some ways that it did satisfy me! How nice that would be. So that leaves me with the same confusion of either science or religion.

This is not a knock on religion any more than it is a knock on science, because I think it's rather hilarious how much research we put into metaphysical science, basically, when it's pretty clear to me that we'll never have a solution there, either. We may delve deeper and deeper, but who is to say that we are not representing a graph where x approaches 0 until infinity without ever reaching it?

I also was thinking about the idea of infinite time, in conjunction with that one guy's theory. It would be fair to say, I think anyone can agree, that in 10 days, Tim is going to get a package from Amazon. It would be unreasonable to say, however, that in infinite time, Tim will receive a package from Amazon. That means he never will get the package. That's the definition of infinite. So then, you could not say that infinite time passes, THEN you were born, and now time continues. No that's just not correct.

So it seems to me that you could only argue that everyone always existed, but they just came into being at a specific point in time in the human form, and then return to the previous form, or something. That still is just as confusing because if there is no "start" to time, well... that is very odd. But it would be stranger still if there was.

Anyway all of this stuff could drive a philosopher or scientist mad, I'm not sure why people even bother. It's an impossible problem, lol. Damnit.

[CMJ]

The short answer is yes. I try not to think about it. ;)

[JonathanLB]

Well that is interesting you say that...

I honestly think in some sense it is better not to think about it, but yet it seems like such an important matter, how can we ignore it? Yet I still think that perhaps, maybe, it is best to ignore it. Ugg I don't know. I wish the answers were all there, easily laid out, but they are not, so do you look for them or just realize that the quest is unending and if it is unending, is it not worth embarking on then? I'm not sure.

It seems that I wouldn't want to dismiss people's honest attempts to find the "truth," but then again, if it's an unending quest, I'm not sure if it's even worth thinking about. Perhaps people are not meant to do any more than focus on their own realities and stick their heads in the sand, haha.

[CMJ]

The deal is the universe is so infinite, and so complex it can't be adequately explained. As a younger lad it frustrated and depressed me. I've since given up on it.

I admit some of the theories are fascinating. I took 2 astronomy classes in college, at times it was impossible for me to wrap my head around some of this kind of stuff.

[JonathanLB]

I do not believe the human mind can comprehend infinity in its true sense...

Maybe you are right, I should give up on it, ugg. It is depressing, that's true. "Better not to think about it" may be a good philosophy, haha. :\

I am most happy when thinking only about the best part of what I am doing or something, like if I am thinking only about all of the great movies I am going to get to watch over the next, say, two weeks, or two months, or year, then I'm like, "Ahh yeah, that's tight, I can't wait to have them all reviewed." But when I think about something depressing like metaphysics or Valentine's Day (lol), then it's another matter ;)

[Figrin D'an]

http://www.mkaku.org/


If you are really interesting in this stuff, this is a great website. Kaku's books are wonderful reads as well. There are some other good reads out there as well... Hawking's books are probably the most well known by the masses, but stuff by Murray Gell-Mann (The Quark and the Jaguar is great) and John Gribbin (writes a lot of stuff related to Schrodinger's Cat) are excellent choices as well.

[Sanis Prent]

I'm of the "religious" type that does believe that God is, and always shall be, and all of "this" is from his doing. I've gone 22 years with that theory, and its served me well.

[JonathanLB]

Eh, nothing at all wrong with that. If I believed it in my heart, well, that would be one thing. I just can't force myself to believe. :\

[Admiral Lebron]

I like the K-Pax theory, the universe just keeps expanding then collapsing, each time everything occurs the same. So I will be saying this billions of times over.

[CMJ]

Even with the 'Accordian theory' but you still have to wonder how it started though. We might already be in the billionth accordian cycle. ;)

[Figrin D'an]

The problem is that we think of time in a rigid, linear sense... the very concept of it being anything else is something that humanity has always struggled with. Needless to say, until we can complete a unified field theory, the answers will remain very much beyond our grasp.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Umm, no I'm sorry that's not a rational explanation.

Sure it is. When you eliminate all impossibilities, whatever is left, no matter how bizarre you think it is, must be true.

Reason and rational thought is derived from truths.

;) Of course with the beginning of time, or God, or the Big Bang, truth has yet to be proven. Thats why you either have to not think about it, or have faith in something, whether it is God or science.

:lol Just try wrapping your mind around the concept of infinity. It simply doesn't work. There are things, like Figrin said, that we as finite beings cannot grasp. The more we learn, the more we find that we don't know.

[CMJ]

Best not to get into a religion vs science debate. Both sides will end up irriated. :p

[Senator Maren]

Was I debating? I merely said we don't know. :)

[CMJ]

I know, but we were headed that way I have a feeling.

[Figrin D'an]

Whether you believe in a supreme entity or random convergence, the "Accordian Theory" or "The Force", the limited knowledge base of our current reality requires that a person make a leap of faith to accept any such concepts as "fact." One can cite evidence for or against the myrad of origin theories that have been developed, but to bridge the gaps, one must simply have faith that the school of thought one chooses to follow can explain, or potentially discover, what we do not yet know.


The methods of arriving at such conclusions very, but they do share that single commonality.

[Senator Maren]

pshaww... :p

:lol I totally suck, this is LD....stupid new accounts... *kicks it* :verymad

[Darth Viscera]

You know what's trippy? Isaac Asimov's "Nightfall". Speaking of Nightfall, what would happen if suddenly one night, Andromeda was crystal clear in the sky? The world would freak out!

[Darth Viscera]

or rather, freak out MORE.

[JonathanLB]

Ok I agree in not getting into the science vs. religion debate, but...

I think that you are kidding yourself if you believe that God is the traditional "old man with a beard who has only a head floating around in space observing all." That is very silly, only something a 5-year-old MIGHT believe (but even then, I'm not convinced that some smart 5-year-olds wouldn't say B.S. to that). The "God" idea should be more like, or exactly like, what Lucas has said (and what he said is itself simply a compilation of way older theories), which is to say the idea of a greater force, i.e. The Force. That makes more sense by far than a chopped off head of an old man floating around in space and looking exactly like a human being.

Just wait until we make first contact with an alien species, and it will happen sometime, and they look different from us, then laugh at our version of "God" because they believe it so silly to believe that the divine would look like one race in potentially hundreds of alien races out there that could be equally sentient. It's like the idiocy of 1,000 years ago with the "the world is flat" idea and the "everything revolves around the Earth" theory. No, that was not just stupid but egotistical. Clearly everything doesn't revolve around us, and the world doesn't revolve around me, or you, or anyone else. The world exists independently of any person, the universe exists independently of our planet -- it doesn't revolve around one tiny (and the Earth IS TINY compared to most other planets) planet, lol. So to think that God is some human like form is just stupid.

However, I can accept the belief (more reasonable) that God is simply a presence of greater power that humans cannot comprehend. That makes sense and fills gaps, I mean to say that we cannot fully comprehend him actually solves a lot of problems (because it goes beyond the realm of science), but to suggest he is simply like an all-powerful human, well, that's just idiotic. I think it's pretty clear people have, as a whole, gotten smarter over the last 2,000 years, and while they may have believed rubbish like that in a less enlightened time, it no longer passes as logical or acceptable in today's world. The same goes with feeding people to tiger's for entertainment, once acceptable in ancient Rome, is just not ok anymore in industrialized societies.

The simple idea (and yet complicated, too) of some sort of "divine presence" or "greater power" is reasonable and obviously quite possible (why wouldn't it be possible? Nobody on Earth knows enough to disprove such a theory).

Though LD, your argument actually disproves religion, so you might not want to use that when on an atheist/agnostic forum (I have visited some), LOL. I will explain, just to save you embarrassment later.

The argument is simple -- the simplest explanation is always correct. Therefore, because the existence of God does not help explain reality, God does not exist because there is no reason or need for such a being. It is a theory that basically says anything extraneous simply is not needed. Things exist for a reason. God has no reason for being, therefore does not exist (this is not my argument, it is *AN* argument). If you say, "The Earth was created 13.7 billion years ago from the big bang," this is explanation does not require there to be a God. Someone else may say, "God created The Big Bang." Then what created God? It has raised yet another question that does not need to be raised. It adds another variable.

A created B created C (A = God, B = Big Bang, C = Earth).

We had it at A created B, which was the simplest explanation.

The simplest explanation, therefore, must be the most likely and most correct explanation. Therefore, you can reject the idea of God as it does not serve to advance our understanding of anything and furthermore does not answer any questions at all (it doesn't answer how the world came to be because it only raises a question in its place -- how did God come to be?).

The argument above is why I am not religious -- no reason for God, no proof of God, therefore I see no reason why I would believe a human-created myth.

I could be led to believe, perhaps, that a greater Force or power exists in our universe, that is reasonable, but then I wouldn't be going to Church to worship or praying to it, either. I could even accept the Christian idea of God, to some degree, but Jesus, a Virgin Mary, corrupt churches, and all that nonsense? No. It's like taco -- I like the lettuce, but no thanks to the rest, and if I have to eat the whole thing, then I'd just as soon not bother with the lettuce, either.

I personally do not think anyone rational would argue AGAINST religion, though, so I am not doing that. Nobody knows the ultimate reality, how could anyone be so arrogant as to assume that religion/God does not exist? It would take someone very closed-minded and unreasonable, in my opinion. I am open to any ideas that are reasonable (I might laugh if you told me that the Earth is a beach ball floating in the sea of a greater reality, but I wouldn't say you were wrong, lol, I just would laugh). What was that quote... I am a fan of ideas, but not of beliefs, because people die over beliefs. Ideas can be changed.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

I have five words for this particular subject matter.


The sincere arrogance of man.

[JonathanLB]

Arrogance of man?

I'm not sure what that means, but I might agree with it if I take it one way anyway.

I simply believe, along with David Hume (the British philosopher) and probably Nietzche (I have not read any of his stuff just heard it mentioned and rephrased by others), that reality is simply not understandable -- nobody can know it. Not humans, anyway. It is beyond the capacity we have.

I like what Hume (an atheist) said. He says if something cannot be proven through experience or abstract fact (like mathematics), dismiss it entirely because it isn't worth considering (i.e. God, supernatural, etc.). I pretty much agree with that. Why bother considering what doesn't make sense to consider?

[CMJ]

Nice post Jonathan...I agree almost 100%.

Your previous post while not intended to be inflammatory will no doubt offend many religious people however.

[JonathanLB]

Well.

If you think it is like that, then that was not my intent, so I am shortening it. I was only pondering aloud, I don't want to start any wars.

For those curious, I just simply wrote on the curious nature of religious beliefs and how sometimes people who believe in God assert with 100% authority that they are right, whether or not you believe what they do. That was my main point...

[CMJ]

Hey Jonathan, I thought it was a great post. Don't be mad, very eloquently written. Actually I meant your PREVIOUS post...not the last post you wrote. ;)

I just know how these wars can start, I've seen it before on this board and others. I believe the response you recieved about the 'Arrogance of man' was potentially the start of a spiral. Redo your last post Jonathan. It wasn't bad at all.

[JonathanLB]

Ok let me just make a disclaimer then: I do not mean offense with regard to religious beliefs, because if anything, I am jealous of religious people, not resentful of them, lol.

If I "knew" for certain that my religion were right, or if I really believed in some religion, that'd be pretty awesome. I can't make myself do that, though, thus lies my frustration.

So no flames, please! Haha, this was meant as a discussion not supposed to be a war, so I hope I didn't fire the first shot or anything.

[Cirrsseeto Quez]

No hard feelings, I'm sure. When you get on a point, its usually so long-winded and prone to rambling that I simply decide not to read.

[Jedieb]

I've subscribed to Dirjj Mordrai's "arrogance" theory for years. That is, if his theory means what I think it does. In my view, Man, through orgainzed religion, has made himself out to be more important that he really is. First, the big guy went out of his way to create the universe just for us. Then he put us right dab smack in the middle and made us in his own image. That to me is the arrogance of Man. (And how come God is never a chick? Giving birth to the whole universe seems to be more in line with a skirt doesn't it?) The whole universe has to revolve around us. Plus, the supreme entity controlling EVERYTHING keeps tabs on us every minute of every day. Wow, aren't we SPECIAL!

I find that hard to believe so that pretty much rules out orgainized religion for me. I don't think less of anyone who believes in an organized religion and derives comfort and strength from their faith. Good for you. But I simply see no difference between passages from the Koran or the Bible. They're both attempts to make sense of that which we will probably never fully understand. The universe was here for billions of years BEFORE we tried to make sense of it and it will be here for billions of years AFTER we're gone. If we blew ourselves up tomorrow in a nuclear fireball it would be a minor inconvience to the planet and a blip in the universe. Check back in on old mother earth in a few hundred million and she'd probably have started over with a bunch of sentient beings that look like roaches. Or the French, since they'd survive any big conflict by avoiding it like the plague.

Cheap shots at the French, why do I resort to something so silly....

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Or the French, since they'd survive any big conflict by avoiding it like the plague.


:lol

:D

[Admiral Lebron]

I'm drifting further and further away from organized religion as I get older... but I like being Jewish...

[Sanis Prent]

Eh. The Creationist view makes as much sense (if not more) to me as any of these other "Big Bang, 11 dimensions, Red shift/blue shift" theories out there. As for arrogance of man, how about being pretentious enough to think he can sum up existence in a mathematic equation? I think that's far more arrogant than the submission that is apparent in religion.

[JonathanLB]

"how about being pretentious enough to think he can sum up existence in a mathematic equation? I think that's far more arrogant than the submission that is apparent in religion."

Yeah, sure... I would agree with that.

I think my new argument on the subject is that the only reality that matters, the only REALITY at all, indeed, is your own reality or what you can comprehend of others' realities. If you can't understand it rationally, it's not reality -- it's just something else.

So to ask, "What is reality?" Well what is MY reality? My reality does not concern what I cannot know, because it's simply impossible to know, therefore it's not reality in the definition of the word that seems most appropriate for use.

"Or the French, since they'd survive any big conflict by avoiding it like the plague."

LOL, god that was funny.

Well I think you are right, EB, I mean what you said makes sense to me -- whether or not it's a depressing world view isn't the point, if it's the truth. I mean some people would say, "Jeez EB, that makes us sound so insignificant," well that may very well be the fact of it all.

Then again, I wouldn't put my chips on anything. For all I know we are all in something like The Matrix, and in the actual reality, we may have many of the same questions as we do in THIS reality, only with one difference -- we live forever and are entirely indestructible. Someone made this reality for us to "enter" for a short period of time, 100 years or so max, and that is, in the actual reality, no big deal, much like watching an NFL game. The point of the experiment was to see how beings would live given a finite amount of time, and part of the fun of the game, the creators reasoned, was that anyone who enters becomes temporarily unaware of their existence outside of the game reality. Therefore, when you leave the game, you just exit back into actual reality, with a score achieved as though playing Pac Man, and everyone congratulates you or makes fun of you back in the actual reality depending on how well you did. Then you go about living in that reality, with a lot of tough questions still, but less so than here and with no "ridiculous idea of the finiteness of conciousness," perhaps, haha.

That's just my ridiculous "what if" of the day. :)

[Bette Davis]

Though LD, your argument actually disproves religion, so you might not want to use that when on an atheist/agnostic forum (I have visited some), LOL. I will explain, just to save you embarrassment later.

I'm so glad you're around to save me from embarrassment Jon. :rolleyes <sarcasm>Yes, please explain, but use small words because I can't remember all the meanings to the big ones.</sarcasm>

[Dirjj Mordrai]

My post was bashing the rhetorical arguments of both views. These "truths" proposed by both sides is relative. Man is not a god. Say God did exist and He/She confronted our scientists and religious leaders, beyond a reasonable doubt He/She would tell us a thing or two about what real truth is and shed some real light on the matters we debate. (I am not attacking one or the either and tried to be as neutral and respectful as possible with this post.)

Okay, so I responded with some rhetoric of my own but it undeniably makes sense. Give me input, people?

[JonathanLB]

I see what you are saying.

Wait, LD, should I use smaller words in the rest of my post? lol.

I am sorry, but literally I was just trying to point out the logical falsehood in your argument, and that I have seen the opposite point argued so you wouldn't want to use that argument of yours unless you can somehow support it better. I wasn't trying to be condescending, but you always think I am that way, so I cannot win with you. It is not my intent. I don't think any less of you or anything, and if you do believe I am like that, then I'm sorry because it definitely is not my hope to make you think that.

[Sanis Prent]

Say God did exist and He/She confronted our scientists and religious leaders, beyond a reasonable doubt He/She would tell us a thing or two about what real truth is and shed some real light on the matters we debate.

If we're hypothesizing omnipotent deities, also consider that in addition to bestowing this "Real Ultimate Knowledge" to us, that God could just as easily make us do what He wants. That definitely falls under the wide umbrella of omniscience. Why doesn't He do that? Because He loves us. He wants us to love Him too. Free will's a bitch. That double edged sword that could allow us to just as easily love God or hate Him (or deny his existence ;)). For God to draw the curtain back and explain all this so that we can understand (which I doubt is possible) would be to cheapen His gift to us. He has given us the free will to decide, and to think. And that even includes the ability to reject Him.

Don't mind me. Just the ramblings of a believer :)

[JonathanLB]

Contrary to some religious beliefs, I do not think that most non-religious people are "rejecting" anything.

I certainly don't "reject" God. First, if there is no God, there is nothing to reject, which seems likely to me. Second, I don't have any reason, whatsoever, to believe there is a God, so I reject nothing. I accept the possibility of there being a God openly, so I haven't "rejected" anything. I just haven't found that to be the case.

I reject the idea that the Niners are better off with Erickson than Mariucci. THAT is a rejection. I reject the notion that humans will never have a cure for cancer, for instance. I don't reject God because I have found no proof for his exitence anyway, therefore there is nothing to reject or accept either way.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Jon, if I react to everything you say to me as if its condescending, that's because it is. You are closeminded and ignorant, and satisfy yourself by spouting what "others" believe, while taking a stand on nothing yourself.

You seem to be assuming my argument disproves religion because you assume also that God is an impossibility. He is just as possible as one random particle traveling through....nothing.... suddenly exploding and causing the formation of solar systems.


Therefore, because the existence of God does not help explain reality, God does not exist because there is no reason or need for such a being. It is a theory that basically says anything extraneous simply is not needed. Things exist for a reason. God has no reason for being, therefore does not exist (this is not my argument, it is *AN* argument).

No reason for God? God doesn't exist because there is no reason for Him?

If things didn't exist because they were pointless, then what about Me? Or you? Are movie critics really needed in the universe? Maybe you are extraneous and simply not needed.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

*head spins*


Guess I'm privilaged. Bye! :lol

That comment was just an inside joke to myself and intended for no one else. Take no offense to such a bizarre statement.

[Sanis Prent]

I challenge those who rave about Star Wars, rave about LotR, etc...I challenge you guys to read the Bible. New International Version, don't get into that crazy King James mess unless you're masochistic, or just like big words for the heck of it. Now, don't worry about reading it with the consideration of becoming a believer. For now, just forget about that. Read it like you'd read a novel you picked up from Barnes & Noble. Read a book a week, if you can. Think of it like subscribing to a magazine, and you can cancel anytime. But, just read for entertainment's sake. Get into it, and enjoy it. There's some myth that the Bible is full of boring details and lots of "Thou shalt not's" etc. But really, its got some amazing stories in them. If you can suspend your disbelief at Luke Skywalker or Aragorn, then try doing the same when you read about Jesus. Its like he's part William Wallace, part Kain from Kung Fu, and part something even more awesome. But, its just really a great story to read about his life and all the different things he went through and all the battles he fought, etc. It'll change your paradigms if you read it like its entertaining. And you just might pick up something you didn't intend on getting.

[Marcus Telcontar]

i say there has to be a god. otherwise, the whole universe has no point and.... it's utterly mind boggling it's all an accident. cause basically, that what science says it all is. a purposeless accident that just happened to produce us. you and me today, discussing whether any deity actually exists.

albert einstein said basically science and religion go hand in hand. he could see no way the universe just came into being. he would have said hume was quite wrong - because there are questions science just can not answer and will never be able to answer. i also note hume was defending his pov, which is again outside of the einstein view.

einstein was one of the greatest scientist / philosophers because he stated his theories then dared all to test, even wrote out tests. he said his theories and sayign were to be examined, the evidence gathered, and then stand or fall. so far, his theories are beign proved true.

i do believe god challenges us to do the same. "see, here is evidence. here is how you can prove or disprove. now, go do it"

faith, without proof is blind and probably false. it is a fallacy to say god can not be proven. he, i believe has laid the proof out and is willign to guide us, if we are willing to oepn our ears and eyes and go looking. so many people just dismiss god and things we cant as yet know, go placing their faith in what is perishable, what can be destroyed. what is knowingly false. we humans seem to need to believe in something. evolution initself has become a religion! we seem to have a deep rooted ned to believe in somethign, some truth to hold onto.

i am not advocating here what i know god is. i do know there is a god. i have witnessed two things that simply can not be explained, that are accordign to science flat out impossible. one of them happened to me. broken ribs do not heal in the turn of a second. i will stand here and say that there has to be a god, because this whole creation is one truly spectaclar miricle and unexplainable in the end by natural means.

believe me, a god creating all this is truly spectacular and i am blessed to be part of it and see just a tiny bit with my own eyes. look at it! is it not so wonderfully put together, so incredible, so mind boggling? so well put together? i could sit on the roof and watch the splendor of theheavens all night and just think... what type of a mind could have put it all together. i'd like to meet that mind one day, i really would. wouldnt you?

[Dirjj Mordrai]

I recommend choosing the New King James version of the Bible and working your way up to the King James Version. I used to be a devout christian and please compare the passage of 1 Timothy 3:16 or 2 Timothy 3:16 from these two Versions and the NIV. I want you to see something. This message is for the devout christians participating in the thread. There are many other passages too.

[Marcus Telcontar]

i see god gives the scriptres and is good for several purposes in all four versions i have access to. your point is?

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Well the translation comittee of the NIV version was made up of liberals and I want you to look closely at one of these passages and find the distinction.

[JonathanLB]

LD, I don't launch personal attacks at you, I try to be as reasonable as I can here, and when I apologize for your seeming belief that I have tried to offend you, you simply use the opportunity to call me "ignorant" and "closed-minded"? At what point will a moderator or admin ever say that your comments to me are unacceptable in the same way that I have been criticized in the past? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, so I'm not going to insult you back.

I hardly think I need to defend myself either. *I* am ignorant? I am studying philosophy in college, I spend all of my waking hours in pursuit of knowledge, and I couldn't BE any more open-minded about the nature of reality! I could barely, barely be more open-minded about movies (if I really loved the sex romps like Y Tu Mama Tambien, I would be more open-minded, but I simply do not appreciate soft-core porn in my films, personal preference). To say that I am ignorant is indicating some sort of knowledge here that you apparently have about this topic that I do not, and I'm not sure what that would be -- I studied four years at a religious high school and took numerous interesting classes on religion. I was always VERY open-minded, and for you to call that into question seems quite unfair because I don't think you would know how it is to attend a religious high school where you are one of the few people who doesn't believe what everyone else does. It instantly makes you feel like an outsider, a tough position to overcome, but I have always said that it's best to be emersed in different environments with contrary viewpoints. I went to a very liberal grade school and I found it a great experience in testing my opinions, at least, because I was forced not just to accept the beliefs of my parents, but also to defend them myself if I thought they were right, or discard them if I thought they were wrong.

I really do not understand why you hold such animosity towards me. Especially now I am working as hard as I can NOT to piss people off, while still maintaining my individuality and right to express my opinions, but that's all I can do. I cannot be more diplomatic than I am trying to be lately and if I occassionally say something that you take the wrong way, you have every right to call me on it, but you could do it with a little bit of respect, too, and treat me like a person who deserves your respect as much as anyone else here. I give you that dignity, and I expect it in return.

I presented an argument of a famous philosopher, and you become irate about it because you disagree, which is not my problem. I was simply presenting it. I don't take a stance on anything? That would make it IMPOSSIBLE for me to be closed-minded, then, because by definition a person who is closed-minded has already taken a stance on an issue and refuses to change his/her mind, so aside from insulting me you have made a logical contradition in terms that proves what you say is wrong (or one of the two statements must be wrong, because I cannot be both at the same time). Either I am closed-minded, or I am spineless in not choosing a side or a view, since you want to suggest that.

I would say, however, that you and I are far too young to have decided for all of time what is true and be unwilling to question it. So you cite my reluctance to choose a side in the matter, well that is true. I don't think I have studied enough, I don't think I have learned enough, and I don't think I am knowledgeable enough to say for certain what I believe yet. I can tell you what other people believe, I can even tell you what I think of these famous philosophies so far, but I am not going to commit myself to a stance when I am only 20 years old. There is too much left to learn to dig a hole and jump in it, never moving again.

This is just the same if someone asked me who I think is the best director. I would tell them that in all honesty I am not qualified to answer that question, but I could name perhaps 25 directors who I think are excellent and that could help them choose some great films, for instance. Only after detailed, careful, long study will I finally return to the question and say, "I believe, after truly studying film, that (so and so) is the best director, and here is why:" and I will be able to write a detailed analysis and argument in support of my position. Until that time, any opinion I form, whether it be that Spielberg is the best, Hitchock the best, John Ford the best, Orson Welles the best, will be based on only partial knowledge and that seems insufficient to answer such an important question.

Now going back to religion, I don't yet know all the theories of existence, I haven't had enough time to ponder them all and weigh them against each other, discuss them with others, and decide for myself what I most value, so why would you want me answering such a profound question with a definite stance given that being true?

I do not believe in God right now, but you take that to mean that I somehow have rejected the possibility, which I agree seems just as likely as the idea of random matter appearing and creating the Big Bang. Neither one is any more or less likely, actually, from what I know anyway. It is not a question I believe we can answer, anyway, and although I still feel it is interesting to discuss, why would you want to use this discussion as a way to create a problem or whatever?

I really do not understand the tendency of some people, online, to carry a grudge for whatever may have happened in the past or what was said in the past. I know people here have said things to me I found somewhat hurtful, but ultimately I think I probably did something to deserve such statements, too, and I don't want to carry any of that forward in my continued discussions. I don't go into a thread and see your name and think, "Oh, LD, I just can't wait to pick on her," heck no. If I agree with what you say, then I readily say so, and if I disagree, then I might say that, too. But you obviously *very much disike me* and you let it show, which I guess I cannot change because I cannot force you to act differently, but it seems you could at least be polite and civil.

[CMJ]

*sigh*

I knew this would happen. And I didn't even enter in the debate. ;)

Please, let's try to keep religion vs non-religion stuff to a miniumum.

[Jedieb]

Well I think you are right, EB, I mean what you said makes sense to me -- whether or not it's a depressing world view isn't the point, if it's the truth. I mean some people would say, "Jeez EB, that makes us sound so insignificant," well that may very well be the fact of it all.

I don't really look at it as depressing. There's nothing depressing about the way my daughter looks in pigtails or the way my son looks when he covers up his Jango Fett with his bedsheet so neither one of them gets chilly that night. I'm significant to the people around me. To some odd looking lifeform (from my perspective of course) 3 million light years away I'm not too significant. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm 1 out of 6 billion on my own planet. I'm not very significant to human #1,174,847,498 living in China, but that doesn't mean I'm insignificant or worthless. It just means that's not all about ME. The universe isn't all about US. That's what I believe.

I don't see ANY difference from a Native American creation belief or a Christian one. Often, one belief system has no problem discrediting another. Believe in this, because this is the ONE true God. This individual died for your sins. What, you're Jewish? Man, sorry but you're gonna burn unless you accept the big J. What's that, Allah isn't your cup of tea? My 72 virgins and I will laugh at you and your infidel friends when we cavort in the great beyond!

Yes, some of my example are generic and extreme, but you get my point. These religions can't ALL be right can they? I take the view that they've ALL missed the point. So if they can believe what they want, so can I! My God looks a lot like Cicely Tyson. She's a black female with a great singing voice. She loves the look on certain people's faces when they step up to the big gate and see God doesn't look anything like them and lacks the ability to write "his" name in the snow. That's a beautiful sight in my mind's eye. I'm sticking with it. :angel

[Sanis Prent]

That is certainly the popular train of thought these days, that's for sure.


I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one gets to the Father, except through Me.

I'd love it if it were all relative, and that if you had a different idea, but were still a "good person" that you'd be alright. I mean, that would mean a lot more people would be doing fine. But that is something I can never accept. There is only one way to Heaven. Not that I can get you to it by arguing or somesuch. I've always believed that you've got to make decisions like these yourself, from the heart. I can only just talk about things from my perspective, and hope that it clicks on some level.

CMJ, the discussion isn't heated. It's fine...leave it be.

[Jedieb]

But that is something I can never accept. There is only one way to Heaven.

And therein lies one of my MAJOR problems with many orgainized religions. Death row inmate waiting to get gassed for chopping up a dozen people is headed to heaven. Why? He spent the last 10 years on death row where he found religous diety #3. He's off the hook! But the Jew who helped put him behind bars, has dedicated his life to serving others, was a faithful husband, paid his taxes, rooted for the Yankees, and never stepped on a bug unless it threatened him, he's going to BURN because he picked the WRONG God. Man, that sucks!
:angel

[Sanis Prent]

Yes, it does. It truly does. I wish all good people got the chance that the death row murderer got at the 11th hour. But yeah, if he truly believes, truly repents, and opens his heart right there, on the spot...then yes, he'll be saved. That's the plan. The Ten Commandments are a pretty simple list. They aren't graded on a curve. They aren't weighted. 12 instances of taking God's name in vain don't compress to equal 1 case of adultery. Sin is sin. But, if you open your heart (not just saying the words, its actually got to be heart-felt) then all these things will be washed clean. But as for being unrepentant for all these things until zero-hour, and then just saying a prayer aloud that says "God, I'm sorry, please forgive me, amen." That isn't going to cut it. I'm not one to judge this kind of change on another person. Its between him/her, and God. Only those two truly know if the deal's legit.

That's why I refuse to preach at people when I witness. The real watermark of progress is between you and God. I'm just the messenger. I can try to answer questions and be as helpful as I can be, but that's about it. No amount of "REPENT, UNBELIEVER!" is going to make a difference, so I'd rather save my voice for something else :)

[Evil Hobgoblin]

"Yes, but we must tend our garden."

And that is all I will say.

[Jedi Master Carr]

NIV version is the correct version, IMO because it was done by bibical scholars who have studied the book in its original language Greek and translated it from that. Other versions like the King James version translated it from Latin, and that is a big difference, its like translating something from French into English and then into Spanish that would lose a lot in the translation. That is really why the NIV is considered the best version by scholars.
As far as Jesus, I agree with you Sanis in that he was a very heroic type figure, personally I see him more like Gandhi or maybe Abrham Lincoln in some ways, I don't see him as a fighter, the only time he got physcial at all was against the Tax collectors, the rest of the time he used his wit.

[Sanis Prent]

Well, what I mean is that he wasn't a pacifist. He used nonviolent means, but for the most part, he was constantly looking to confront the Pharisees, or maybe just the lay paradigm that dominated the Roman-Judeic culture of that time. Think how easy it would have been for Jesus to align with one of those sides. This is around the time of MASSIVE strife in the Jewish kingdoms. The Zealots and Rome were having all kinds of issues with each other, which would later break out in war. So, Jesus is basically born between a rock and a hard place. He's trying to save people's souls, trying to open their minds, etc. The pressure from both sides to conform is quite amazing. Quickly, he rejects Rome's polytheistics. Jerusalem praises him. They parade him from Bethany to Jerusalem, waving palm fronds, which is essentially the "You're #1" sign of the day. Jesus could've rode into Jerusalem like a King, and taken power quite easily. He could've been exactly what they wanted him to be. He rode, not on a stallion, but on a baby donkey, in humility. He was not their political leader. He was not going to grant the Jews prosperity and the Gentiles damnation with the same hand. What he offered was for everyone. That's serious pressure. And he had the guts to explain it. Within a week of being adored by the people of Jerusalem, they demanded that he die on the cross.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I understand your point, and I pretty much agree with it, I don't see him as a complete pacifist but he was no where near the Zealots. Some historians have said that he was closest to the Essenes, who were a sect who mostly stayed in the mountains and around the Dead Sea, the also wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their are some similarities in their belief structure and that of Jesus, buts its hard to say what that means, I think they are basis most of this off the Dead Sea Scrolls so that is difficult to probably prove anything.

[Sanis Prent]

Eh....to a point.

The Essenes were kinda like the Amish of the Hebrew world. They went out into the wilderness and became hermits, and did alot of praying and writing. Jesus did this, to an extent, but for the most part, he was in his element when he was surrounded by people, friends, enemies, and strangers alike. But yeah, every once in a while, he'd split...and get some alone time. His wilderness fast, and Satan's temptation are an example

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah that is pretty much what they were, I don't see Jesus as an Essene really, he could have influenced them perhaps, but he was really different like you said then them.

[JonathanLB]

LOL @ every post from EB.

"And therein lies one of my MAJOR problems with many orgainized religions. Death row inmate waiting to get gassed for chopping up a dozen people is headed to heaven. Why? He spent the last 10 years on death row where he found religous diety #3. He's off the hook! But the Jew who helped put him behind bars, has dedicated his life to serving others, was a faithful husband, paid his taxes, rooted for the Yankees, and never stepped on a bug unless it threatened him, he's going to BURN because he picked the WRONG God. Man, that sucks!"

Haha, yeah damnit, if you root for the Yankees that should already score you big points, I mean come on!!! What kind of God is this?! :)

I don't think most Christians, thankfully, believe in the hard-line stance that a few individuals hold, and wrongfully, I believe.

Not one, literally not one of my religion teachers at Jesuit believed that people go to hell if they didn't believe in Jesus. How come is that when one of my teachers studied in college for about 15 years? He majored in theology, got a masters in it, he speaks seven languages (I think this was Latin, Spanish, French, English, German, and I can't remember the other two), and he is probably the smartest person I have personally known. He was quite a nice guy, really cool. He certainly didn't believe that God sends everyone to hell unless they believe in Jesus.

Most people don't hold that radical view because, frankly, it's far beyond absurd to the point of ridiculousness. I mean, come on, the Hindu baby who dies at age 4 weeks goes to hell for not accepting Jesus? Are you KIDDING me? If that's your God, I am going to be eternally grateful for burning in the fires of hell because God has no reign over justice -- justice exists with or without a deity. In other words, in a corrupt society, the only place for a just man is in jail. If God sends innocent people to hell, then I want to be in hell right along with them because that will simply prove that I am even more just, even more good than God, and if that is the case, then I'd rather burn in hell than enjoy his false luxuries in heaven.

However, that is not the Christian God. The Christian God is infinitely GOOD and infinitely JUST, so to say that a moral person is going to hell for being a Buddhist is confused. You'd find that most religious scholars or educated religious people would reject such a belief and in fact say the same thing I am. I had teachers who spent many class periods explaining that such a view is simply "confused" and does not convey at all what Christianity says. It's just wrong, it's a misinterpretation of the religion.

If you can't be bothered to interpret your own religion correctly, I can't be bothered to take it seriously, either. 'Nuff said.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That is my problem, Jon I can't believe that a person like Gandhi could go to hell because he was a hindu and then a monster like Ted Bundy could go to heaven if he all of the sudden ask God forgiveness. That is my main problem with christianity. Heck I am Catholic and I do believe in God but I have a lot of questions and am don't believe half of what my church says I kind of interpret things different than they do.

[Sanis Prent]

If Ted Bundy asked for forgiveness and paid it more than lip service (AKA actually believed in Jesus and asked him into his heart) then yes, he should be saved and in heaven. Good works != salvation. It sucks, but there's gotta be the proper motivation. If Gandhi did all he did for the wrong reasons, that's a tragedy.

[imported_Akrabbim]

There is a simple reason why Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven. It's because NO ONE is good enough. We all agree, Ted Bundy deserves to go to Hell for killing a bunch of people. But the guy who helps out the neighborhood? Not good enough either. The guy who feeds the poor at the soup kitchen? Not enough. Mother Teresa, who dedicated her life to serving others? Not enough. Billy Graham, who has probably led more people to Christ than any other single human being on the face of the earth? Nope.

And it's for one reason: sin is a debt that we can't pay. Look at it this way. Let's say that you owe Bob money. If you don't pay every cent, you go to jail. That's the law, that's all there is to it. The guy down the street borrows 28 billion dollars from Bob, and has absolutely nothing to even begin paying it back with. So, off to jail for him. You end up going in debt to Bob for a sum total of four dollars and 38 cents. Well, you're flat broke, you've got no money, so it's off to jail you go, as well. And that's the whole problem. No one is good enough. Sin, ANY sin, is enough to separate us from God. No matter how the size of the sin, or the amount, a single sin separates us. And we can't get there ourselves. But there's hope. Though we can't pay for sin, another can. That man is Jesus. He went through life without sin, and died to pay for it for us. And that's all there is to it. He's the only one who can pay.

And, on a side note, all religions are mutually exclusive. That's why, no matter what, only one CAN be right under basic rules of logic.

[Sanis Prent]

Ladies & Gentlemen, my friend, Akrabbim...one of the coolest guys I know :)

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
NIV version is the correct version, IMO because it was done by bibical scholars who have studied the book in its original language Greek and translated it from that. Other versions like the King James version translated it from Latin, and that is a big difference, its like translating something from French into English and then into Spanish that would lose a lot in the translation. That is really why the NIV is considered the best version by scholars.
As far as Jesus, I agree with you Sanis in that he was a very heroic type figure, personally I see him more like Gandhi or maybe Abrham Lincoln in some ways, I don't see him as a fighter, the only time he got physcial at all was against the Tax collectors, the rest of the time he used his wit.

What are you talking about Carr???

NIV was translated by a number of scholars representing a group evangelica denominations. It was the first ecumenical effort, which would first establish a critical text. They used the second edition of Kittel's Biblia Hebraica for the old testament and the Greek Text of the New Testament originated from numerous modern sources. It is a dynamic translation meaning it derived from the principle of using a word or phrase that best translates the impact it had on it's first readers. Rather than a simple grammatical or lexical equivalent.

The King James appointed 54 scholars to the task of making the KJV. For the old testament they relied mostly on the ben Hayyim's edition of the Asher text; For the New Testament, they relied upon the Greek Text of Erasmus and the bilingual Greek-and-Latin text of the sixth century, founded by Theodore Beza.

For the christians that are participating in this thread, read the passage of 1/2 Timothy 2:16/3:16 very carefully. Sentence by sentence. Using the NIV, KJV, and NKJV comparitively. There is a passage missing in this verse in the NIV but remains in the KJV/NKJV.

[JonathanLB]

That is not so, all religions could be right, so I disagree. Not "EVERY ONE," but most of them could be right (it would be absurd to say every one could be right since I don't know them all, and if there is one saying there are no gods, then another saying there is a god, then these two theories cannot both be true).

However, I think the Jewish people are worshipping exactly the same God as the Christians. Jesus was a Jew, this whole nonsense about Jesus being the only way into heaven is a bunch of crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. People thousands of years before Jesus all went to hell then? Yeah, that's real logical. Debating with a reasonable Christian, i.e. one who is open-minded, is somewhat possible, but otherwise, forget about it.

"But there's hope. Though we can't pay for sin, another can. That man is Jesus. He went through life without sin, and died to pay for it for us. And that's all there is to it. He's the only one who can pay."

hahahahahahahahahahaha.

Whatever.

I am without sin. Jesus sinned more than I have -- I am God on Earth and you can't prove me wrong. You better pray to me, too, and you better hope that I tell God you are a good person or you WILL be burning in hell for all of eternity. If you choose not to believe me, fine, but it's your eternity, not mine. Choose wisely. :D :angel

[Figrin D'an]

I won't get involved in the primary topic of discussion in this thread... I have my reasons... but I will comment that Dirjj's post about the origins of the King James translation of the Bible is absolutely correct.

I've read the Bible. It's a good book. Some of can be dry (the long expositions in the Old Testament are painful at times), but it's a great collection of stories. For purely entertainment purposes, like Charley said, it's not a bad read. Whether or not you take anything else away from it or not is solely up to the individual.




Originally posted by Akrabbim
And, on a side note, all religions are mutually exclusive. That's why, no matter what, only one CAN be right under basic rules of logic.


Perhaps, better put, one MAY be right. There is the possibility that none are correct, or the possibility that many may have some things right, but that none of them has figured it out completely yet.

And no one may ever figure it out, be it through science or philosophy, simply because we are limited to the constraints of our own minds, and some things may simply be unfathomable to us.

Hence... the concept of faith.

[JonathanLB]

Look Figrin, I've been from one end of this universe to the other, and I haven't seen ANYTHING to make me believe in one all powerful Force controlling MY destiny, just a few simple tricks and some luck. :D

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
That is not so, all religions could be right, so I disagree. Not "EVERY ONE," but most of them could be right (it would be absurd to say every one could be right since I don't know them all, and if there is one saying there are no gods, then another saying there is a god, then these two theories cannot both be true).

However, I think the Jewish people are worshipping exactly the same God as the Christians. Jesus was a Jew, this whole nonsense about Jesus being the only way into heaven is a bunch of crap. Crap. Crap. Crap. People thousands of years before Jesus all went to hell then? Yeah, that's real logical. Debating with a reasonable Christian, i.e. one who is open-minded, is somewhat possible, but otherwise, forget about it.

"But there's hope. Though we can't pay for sin, another can. That man is Jesus. He went through life without sin, and died to pay for it for us. And that's all there is to it. He's the only one who can pay."

hahahahahahahahahahaha.

Whatever.

I am without sin. Jesus sinned more than I have -- I am God on Earth and you can't prove me wrong. You better pray to me, too, and you better hope that I tell God you are a good person or you WILL be burning in hell for all of eternity. If you choose not to believe me, fine, but it's your eternity, not mine. Choose wisely. :D :angel



You know Jon... you just justified LD's criticisms of you with that post.

Good luck on not pissing people off with statements like that.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

The King James version was made during the rule of King James and it took 70 scholars 70 days to do it. Amazing, huh. At least, that's what they say. Somewhere. The Septuagint was translated from the Latin Vulgate (the translation the Roman Catholics used, and the common people didn't know how to read in the Dark Ages [no the Dark Ages were awful I agree]). The King James Version was awesome, because it was a legal copy of the Bible in "the Kings English." Literally. At least that's what I recall from my years as a Christian Studies Minor (all my books are in storage I can't look anything up :() Anyway, I don't like bickering about translations, because its mostly pointless.

However the Living Bible is not a translation. It's a paraphrase. :)


However, that is not the Christian God. The Christian God is infinitely GOOD and infinitely JUST, so to say that a moral person is going to hell for being a Buddhist is confused.

The Christian God, as you put it, is indeed infinitely good. He is also infinitely just.

Because of His Goodness, there is no one else good enough to be near Him. Because of His Justice, there is no one who will escape the punishment for ignoring His laws. Because of His GRACE, there is a way into the goodness of His presence. Because of His MERCY, there is a way past the judgement.

And that, THAT is God. God is Great. God is Good. And God is Love. But God is also Judge, and He is also full of righteous anger. He gave us a way to Him, past the judgement, but if it is refused, by people who say "Lets just be tolerant of all the religions, no one can be arrogant enough to believe there is only ONE way to heaven!" then He has the right to be righteously angry.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Ah Figrin and Drijj you are both probably right about the KJV.


However, I think the Jewish people are worshipping exactly the same God as the Christians.

Well, duh. :rolleyes Of course its the same God.

[Keerrourri Feessaarro]

You know Jon... you just justified LD's criticisms of you with that post.

Good luck on not pissing people off with statements like that.

What...is there an echo in here?

[Jae Pylache]

Well, Jonathan, there is something you seem to be unfamiliar with. It is called the rules of logic. For example, if two systems of thought make contradicting statements, they simply exclude one another. Islam says Jesus was but a prophet, and salvation is through prayer and a pilgrimage. Christianity says salvation is through a relationship with Christ, who is the Son of God. Buddhism says there is no God, and there is no goal but nothingness. And so on and so forth. They exclude one another, and, unless you happen to be using the upside down dislogic from the antimatter universe of Kwaad, cannot both be true at the same time.

As well, you final statements are illogical. To disbelieve simply on the basis of being unable to categorically prove is pointless. You cannot prove athiesm either, therefore, it is false. Therefore, there is a God. That argument is circular and defeats itself. Again, that's classical logic.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Keerrourri Sarrtarroa
What...is there an echo in here?


Yes, there is... and I rather enjoy the ring it has.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

There are passages in the New Testament that suggest Jewish believers who followed the scriptures before Christ were also saved. Having received atonement according to the Law and Faith, were held in a 'paradise' separated from those who were held in hell... to await destruction in a lake of fire on the great day of Judgement. Once Jesus was in the grave three days and wrested the keys of death from Satan, in essence freeing all who believed through-out all time and taking them with him. And on those days of his Resurrection and Visitation, the graves opened and prophets long dead were seen. And thus the consummation of the second covenant which is grace, the first being the covenant of the Law.

Now that is according to christian beliefs but the point of this message is to counter Jonathan's post about the Jew's, who lived before Jesus' time, perishing.

[Jae Pylache]

There is something that fins the description of what you're referring to, called "sheol". It was for those who had believed by faith, but since Christ had not paid for sin yet, they could not be in the presence of God. However, it was not based on the law, but on faith, as Paul pointed out. So, yeah, I agree. :)

[JonathanLB]

Oh, right, ok I'm unfamiliar with the rules of logic, but I took a course in just that subject, so of course, yeah.

Some of you people are so idiotic, I refuse to comment further upon this thread.

Here is a parting thought for the stupider posters here:

If I say Star Wars is the greatest film ever made, you can disagree, but you are wrong. Why? Because of the same reasons Christianity is, as you put it, correct. There simply is only ONE right answer, and if you choose to disagree with Lucas's vision, that is your right, but you are still incorrect, in just the same way that a Muslim is wrong because he doesn't accept Jesus as his personal savior (what a STUPID idea -- Jesus was just a man people, get over it).

Nobody is right but my view. That is what you are saying. Christianity is right, nothing else is right, and everyone else is going to hell for disagreeing. Yet I AM THE INTOLERANT one for saying I think Star Wars is the greatest film ever made? Oh yeah, ok, wow talk about hypocrites! Don't give me that "there is a difference between religion and movies" argument either, because this isn't about that, it's about saying YOUR opinions (and religion IS AN OPINION) are right, but others' are wrong. That makes you FOOLISH and STUPID.

Frankly, you have to be a lemming to believe that Christianity is the right religion and everything else is wrong. I pity your stupidity. One day, maybe you'll wake up and smell the coffee. Until then, I hope ignorance really is bliss -- only you would know.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Yep, there are many such titles which have slightly different meanings such as Sheol and Paradise contrary to places of destruction or perdition such as Gehenna, Abaddon, Hell, and Lake of Fire.

It is interesting to note on the death of Christ the veil was rent that seperated all believers from the Holiest of Holies.

[Jae Pylache]

There is such a thing as an absolute. For example: 2 + 2 = 4. If only one person on earth says that, it still means that they're right, and no matter what anyone else thinks, they're still right.

Christianity is the same way. Either Jesus is the Son of God, and God DID make everything, or He didn't. Religion is not an opinion. Your thoughts have absolutely no effect on whether or not God exists. It's like saying that Mt. Everest doesn't exist because you don't think it does. It's not subjective. And, as I've stated, every religion claims absolute correctness. Islam states that they're the only ones going to heaven. Judism does the same.

You can think or believe whatever you want, but it doesn't change reality.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Hey, I didn't say I was a christian or anything else but I am very familiar with the Bible and their beliefs. I felt I should correct that misperception of your's Jonathan. Tell you the truth, the Bible is truly a fascinating book to read. Claiming to be compiled over a span of a thousand or more of years, sheer epicness contained with some true historical figures and events confirmed by archealogical findings and studies. No other holy book can lay claim to that. In some instances, Archealogists have even used it as a guide.

[Sanis Prent]

There's also the Liar/Lunatic/Lord conundrum, which I find most interesting :)

[Bette Davis]

I love that one, Sanis. :) C.S. Lewis was amazing.

I reccomend you, Jon, read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, written about a logical breakdown of Christianity's main beliefs, or "A Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel (probably got his name wrong) who was a non believing reporter trying to dig up facts about the most debated human in history, Jesus of Nazareth.

Both are very logical, and I think you might find them interesting.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Jae Pylache
There is such a thing as an absolute. For example: 2 + 2 = 4.




I swear I'm not trying to sound pretentious... it's just something that I happened to think about when I saw this.

2 + 2 = 4 technically isn't an absolute. It is possible for 2 + 2 to equal a number other than 4. It actually depends upon in what mathematical base one is operating.

For example, in Base 10, 2 + 2 is indeed 4, but in say, Base 3, it's not.



It's after 4 AM... I'm a little wacked out right now. Sorry if this sounds like I'm being a jerk. I swear I'm not.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Alright, maybe I got carried away with posting from a christian's POV but heck the world is a conflicting mess. Scientific theories are doing no better. Scholarly appearance with big words and complex mathmatical equations. They do too much thinking with no concrete absolutes to show for it.


*heads spins*

Later people and goodnight! Oh yeah, sorry Jonathan! Will be more openminded and listen.

[Bette Davis]

Figrin: All your base are belong to us.

;) Base 3? No, don't explain. :)

[JonathanLB]

I argued against that myself, but it's what you call a "necessary truth." You cannot imagine a situation, normally speaking, where 2 + 2, taken purely literally, is not 4.

However I did argue with my teacher that 1 + 1 is not necessarily 2. What if you had one drop of ink plus another drop of ink? I'm sorry but that is NOT two, that's one, that is to say, one LARGER drop of ink.

Also, if you add ANH and ESB to ESB and ROTJ, you got 3 movies, not 4, so again it's wrong.

But speaking just purely mathematically without such representations, the answer to 2 + 2 is indeed 4.

Still, your point is well taken.

Also, lol, whether or not there is a God is just as much of an opinion as whether or not Minority Report is a great film. Both are infinitely debateable, absolutely, but neither one has a true, definite answer that you can know in this lifetime. If you say, "YES, there IS a God, that's a fact," well it really isn't because you cannot prove it. If you could prove it, I'd accept it (readily, because I wouldn't want to oppose a divine being!), so would any other agnostic or atheist, but no, it cannot be proven. That's just the thing, you are just as much of a closed-minded, opinionated fool to suggest that EVERYONE who disagrees with your religion is wrong as you are to suggest that everyone who thinks Citizen Kane is bad is wrong. Neither one is more justified, and THAT is a fact!

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Originally posted by Dirjj Mordrai
Will be more openminded and listen.

Correction, I never was closeminded or overly-opinionated since this thread began. ;)

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
However I did argue with my teacher that 1 + 1 is not necessarily 2. What if you had one drop of ink plus another drop of ink? I'm sorry but that is NOT two, that's one, that is to say, one LARGER drop of ink.

Also, if you add ANH and ESB to ESB and ROTJ, you got 3 movies, not 4, so again it's wrong.


The problem in these instances is defined units.

Ink drop #1 is defined by certain physical parameters. Volume... surface area... etc. So is Ink Drop #2, which for the sake of argument, let's say shares the same physical parameters as Ink Drop #1.. If the two ink drops coalesce, the appear as one ink drop. But the volume and mass of the "drop" has effectively changed. It can no longer be defined as "Ink Drop #1" or "Ink Drop #2". If it is to be assigned unitless name, it must be unique within the parameters of the situation (such as "Ink Drop #3).


With the movie scenario, you again have a units issue. Three films are being named. ANH, ESB and ROTJ. But, the operation being conducted:

(ANH + ESB) + (ESB + ROTJ)

distinguishes between the two instances of ESB. They are treated as seperate entities in this situation. While there are three "names", there are four instances:

ANH
ESB(1)
ESB(2)
ROTJ

with ESB(1) = ESB(2)

Three unique items, one item with 2 iterations.



Units, units, units.

2 Apples + 3 Oranges = 6 Grapes is pretty meaningless, unless I define a point of comparison (a standard) between the items.

[JonathanLB]

I agree, that's why you have to be specific about it. I know what you mean, though.

[CMJ]

What the hell despite my better attempts I can't help but join the fray. To answer Sanis's challenge for Non-Belivers to read the Bible. I have...or at least much of it(Religious philosophy class). Though some of the stories and philosophy were great it is not a very well written book IMHO.

I'd say it's a bit how some people on this board feel about AOTC. Great story, but really poorly written. ;) Also don't tell me I need to read a different version, I read more than one. That class wanted us to do different translations. Hell as best he could he(professor) even tried to explain what differences there were in the Greek and Latin translations.

I won't go into specific examples how I find the book is contradictory, or how different sectors of Christians read different passages differently(which really change the meaning of SO much IMHO), but nothing hardened my beliefs AGAINST Christianity more than actually reading the "Good Book".

[Dirjj Mordrai]

No, I wasn't telling anyone to read any particular version just suggesting there are key passages amongst some verses deleted in the NIV. Some of the pure religiously minded are of the opinion it is adulterated version because it failed to preserve these passages though some volumes will contain the deleted portion in the footnotes. Note to the christians, you might find it excited to do some research on the ben Hayyim version of the Asher text. it has truly fascinating background story and most antiquated. The Asher text in-particular.

[Admiral Lebron]

The Torah is still better.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

The Torah is the first five books or Mosiac Law, right? Well, this is the whole of the Jewish writings including the Torah (also consider history books), history books, wisdom and prayer books, and finally the books of the prophets. The Jewish writings can be divided as thus into five or four sections.

[imported_Akrabbim]

It's still not an opinion. Whether you can prove it or not, there either is a God or there is not. Let's say there's a box we can never open, and we're debating over whether or not there's a red rubber ball inside. Well, either there is or there's not. We may never be able to prove either of them, but the truth is still there. Either there's a ball in the box or there's not a ball. Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it doesn't have an answer.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Okay about the NIV, I was wrong about the KJV it has been a long time since I had bible studies, I must have been thinking of the one LD mentioned. And I might be wrong which was the most accurate their are two that I remember there is the Revised Standard Version which was finished in the early 50's that was considered the best translation by acadmeics then their is the NIV which was by Protestant Evanglists. Now the one I had to read in college was the Revised Stanard, I think, I am not sure which one is considered more accurate today by scholars, I really can't remember, but I would imagine they might be a lot of changes the better they understand the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[imported_Akrabbim]

I think you may be thinking of the NASB. But both NIV and NASB are VERY accurate, and I don't think either are very far off.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I might be its been a several years since I studied about it. Is the NASB a newest translation? Just curious.

[Admiral Lebron]

The ball is blue. . . idiot. :p

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I might be its been a several years since I studied about it. Is the NASB a newest translation? Just curious.

No, the New American Standard Bible (NASB) was published in 1971. There have been several bibles versions and paraphrases published since then. Even the Living Bible (paraphrased) was revised and renamed.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Of course the Living Bible isn't a very accurate translation. NASB probably is the closet, I am thinking of course, I haven't looked into that well to be certain of that.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Yeah, paraphrases take too much liberty and are inaccurate. Indeed, NASB and NIV are accurate enough. But I place the NKJV and KJV above both of them. NKJV has no deletions while NASB contains the veru same ones as the NIV. NKJV is the only version (beside the KJV) like that.

NIV can be one of the dullest versions to read, it's written rather like a flat monologue. However, NASB and NKJV have eliminated the archaic expressions found in the KJV but attempted retain much of that dramatic and invigorating style/prose. Both are completely designed and fit for the today's contemporary reader.

[imported_Akrabbim]

I've never seen anything taken from the KJV that wasn't included in a footnote in NIV with a message about it being from a less accurate source.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Okay, Akkrabim, but here is some articles that may interest all concerning the scriptures and version debate. I give up and don't know why I started this thing.

York News-Times: New gender-neutral NIV Bible to be released, despite much criticism 01/28/02
http://www.yorknewstimes.com/stories/012802/nat_0128020030.shtml

Bible Study Resource - The KJV-NIV Debate
http://www.lifefebc.com/febc/Lecture/KJV/KJV5.htm

The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation
http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/mct/3.php

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Gender neutral Bible = the worst idea since the crusades.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

A bunch of politically correct shmuch!

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think that idea is stupid too, their is no point in going nuts about stuff like that.

[Gabran Darkysa]

Precisely Carr, the original thought or wording in the passages are far too important and these changes would be detrimental to religious study and preservation of the text. It's senseless.

[Jedieb]

Frankly, you have to be a lemming to believe that Christianity is the right religion and everything else is wrong. I pity your stupidity. One day, maybe you'll wake up and smell the coffee. Until then, I hope ignorance really is bliss -- only you would know.

Time for word play!

Frankly, you have to be a lemming to believe that Christianity is the WRONG religion and anything else is RIGHT . I pity your stupidity. One day, maybe you'll wake up and smell the coffee. Until then, I hope ignorance really is bliss -- only you would know.
;)