Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Listen, I don't give a fuck if it is against your religion, I don't give a fuck if it insults you, and I don't give a fuck if you protest peacefully. BUT, when you start burning flags, walking on flags, shooting and burning effages of my leaders I get PISSED. Arabs have shown themselves nothing better than animals. Then you start this "Holocaust cartoon contest." These Arab countries make me sick. France has recently announced that they will use nuclear weapons against any terrorist organization that threatens there country and I say "GOOD FOR THEM." Let those fuckers burn if they attack you. I feel that we should have blown all of them the fuck up. Now I realize what kind of backlash this post is going to produce and I am ready to say I don't appoligize for any of this. Hear me out, I am Catholic and how many times of day to I and others break the rules of my religion. I say God and here God said all the time, am I throwing a fit about it no. Am I out burning down embassies and beating people, NO. So grow the fuck up you stupid little Arab (Muslim) pussies. *Note: Please exscuse any grammatical errors I typed this very fast.
Surprisingly, I must say that I completely agree with you.
I agree with you 200% as well. AMEN, BROTHA!
Well, speaking of the cartoon in question: The LAST way to say that Mohommad is not a terrorist is to take up arms and threaten an entire country for the act of one newspaper.
warranto wrote on Tue, 07 February 2006 19:46 Well, speaking of the cartoon in question: The LAST way to say that Mohommad is not a terrorist is to take up arms and threaten an entire country for the act of one newspaper. The great irony of this situation.
Do we not have more inportant things to worry about.
Burning flags and effigies is an acceptable form of expression (OH NO NOT SYMBOLISM), but burning down embassies? That sure isn't.
Alright, I heard something light on this on that other news show on Comedy Central or something... Someone wanna gimme a link to the news article or somethin'?
the retard in London dressing himself as a suicide bomber to "avenge the slur on his religion" was a convicted drug dealer... which is, of course, strictly forbidden by the Koran, but who cares because cartoons are a much more damaging issue than crack could ever be.
gbull wrote on Tue, 07 February 2006 20:51 warranto wrote on Tue, 07 February 2006 19:46 Well, speaking of the cartoon in question: The LAST way to say that Mohommad is not a terrorist is to take up arms and threaten an entire country for the act of one newspaper. The great irony of this situation.
Isn't this being perpetuated by mostly Iran's new president to draw attention away from nuclear ambitions and a struggling economy?
Saudi Arabia is actually buying protestors for this.
A French newspaper "did it" today too.
I was reading the paper a couple of days ago and the Muslim writer of the article pretty much said that it's ok the take the piss out of the Pope and Christianity but not ok to take the piss out of Mohammed. Found the quote: "Over the years, we have become de-sensitised to issues our forefathers would have been tried for as heretics. No one thinks twice about lampooning the Pope, or Christianity and for most non-Muslims this is just another bit of fun within our rights to freedom of speech. But with freedom of speech comes responsibility and the cartoon was plain irresponsible."
Ok, we're sittin in Civis class (grade 10) our tecaher, whos very apathetic to the worlds needs and what not tells us about this. Shes telling about his mohammus blah blah blah. Then its funny, its mostly boys, so all I had to say was, "who cares" The whole class agreed. She sat down, and cryed. And shes a white christian. lol funny shit. Who cares, its a fucking picture. OT: I heard this in an old thread, and its funny shit. Link to Topic: http://www.renegadeforums.com/index.php?t=msg&th=252&amp ;start=0&rid=19649 Link to funny shit AFTER you read the topic http://www.beaconpedestal.com/ack-reply.mp3
cheekay77 wrote on Fri, 10 February 2006 06:47 OT: I heard this in an old thread, and its funny shit. Link to Topic: http://www.renegadeforums.com/index.php?t=msg&th=252&amp ;amp ;start=0&rid=19649 Link to funny shit AFTER you read the topic http://www.beaconpedestal.com/ack-reply.mp3 Have you been living under a rock?
DJM wrote on Fri, 10 February 2006 07:43 cheekay77 wrote on Fri, 10 February 2006 06:47 OT: I heard this in an old thread, and its funny shit. Link to Topic: http://www.renegadeforums.com/index.php?t=msg&th=252&amp ;amp ;amp ;start=0&rid=19649 Link to funny shit AFTER you read the topic http://www.beaconpedestal.com/ack-reply.mp3 Have you been living under a rock? lol i usually dont go to those forums. this was the first time ive wondered what they were about. I literally shit my pants when i heard that. And besides, i didnt join until mid 05
DarkDemin wrote on Tue, 07 February 2006 19:07 Listen, I don't give a fuck if it is against your religion, I don't give a fuck if it insults you, and I don't give a fuck if you protest peacefully. BUT, when you start burning flags, walking on flags, shooting and burning effages of my leaders I get PISSED. Arabs have shown themselves nothing better than animals. Then you start this "Holocaust cartoon contest." These Arab countries make me sick. France has recently announced that they will use nuclear weapons against any terrorist organization that threatens there country and I say "GOOD FOR THEM." Let those fuckers burn if they attack you. I feel that we should have blown all of them the fuck up. Now I realize what kind of backlash this post is going to produce and I am ready to say I don't appoligize for any of this. Hear me out, I am Catholic and how many times of day to I and others break the rules of my religion. I say God and here God said all the time, am I throwing a fit about it no. Am I out burning down embassies and beating people, NO. So grow the fuck up you stupid little Arab (Muslim) pussies. *Note: Please exscuse any grammatical errors I typed this very fast. QFT!
DarkDemin wrote on Tue, 07 February 2006 18:07 Listen, I don't give a fuck if it is against your religion, I don't give a fuck if it insults you, and I don't give a fuck if you protest peacefully. BUT, when you start burning flags, walking on flags, shooting and burning effages of my leaders I get PISSED. Arabs have shown themselves nothing better than animals. Then you start this "Holocaust cartoon contest." These Arab countries make me sick. France has recently announced that they will use nuclear weapons against any terrorist organization that threatens there country and I say "GOOD FOR THEM." Let those fuckers burn if they attack you. I feel that we should have blown all of them the fuck up. Now I realize what kind of backlash this post is going to produce and I am ready to say I don't appoligize for any of this. Hear me out, I am Catholic and how many times of day to I and others break the rules of my religion. I say God and here God said all the time, am I throwing a fit about it no. Am I out burning down embassies and beating people, NO. So grow the fuck up you stupid little Arab (Muslim) pussies. *Note: Please exscuse any grammatical errors I typed this very fast. I have to agree. I do believe that this was an offenisve thing to do torwards muslims, but the pure unintellectual rage these people went into when this cartoon hit they're streets is just beyond ridiculous. It's more an excuse to create anarchy in the streets than it is anything else, IMO. And then they do this "Holocaust" contest thing...dropping to the same low levels as the folks who made the bomb on the head cartoon. It's simply deplorable...
Argh what is this "QFT" I keep reading on forums around the place?
Buckery wrote on Sat, 11 February 2006 00:57 Quantitative Feedback Theory? This is all I found.
Hmm, is it French for WTF? Quoi = What and the letters are usually backwards relative to english. ie KFC = PFK [Edit] Then again I might have taken this a bit seriously
Quote: Quoted For Truth (Internet jargon) - Used on internet forums following a quote to make sure that the first 'poster' cannot go back and change what they've already posted. Source: http://opera.answers.com/QFT
it was funny though they had a arab school girl with a i love al qiada hat on!!! ROFL!!
I'm all for freedom of the press, and I'm not condoning the riots, which are just using this as an excuse, but that was poor judgement on the news paper's part. What makes it even worse, are the stupid papers feeding the fire by re-printing it.
Nightma12 wrote on Sat, 11 February 2006 23:36 Quote: Quoted For Truth (Internet jargon) - Used on internet forums following a quote to make sure that the first 'poster' cannot go back and change what they've already posted. Source: http://opera.answers.com/QFT I though it stood for "Quite F*cking True" never mind. What's really annoying about all this is that if Christian's had been offended by something a took to the streets we'd be condemned by everyone and the police would arrest as many as they could but because they're Muslims in a Christian country nothing happens.
Ok, these events have made me sad. I know what Im about to say may be wrong but for me its true. I have lost all my respect for the Muslim world. I use to think, sure some extremists but mostly normal down to earth types. Then this happened. Now I don't see them a civilized people. It just sickens me. To think that a people, in the civilized world, could do this...Im sorry for anyone who is Muslim but what the hell is wrong with you people? Someone draws on paper and you start killing each other and burning down buildings? You can't do shit like that. Sure you can have your rallies and such but when you kill innocent people and your own people then something is wrong. Islam needs to take a good long look at itself and wonder if it can survive in the world as it is.
God Bless You! You see what is going on and all the bullshit that goes with it. But a little thing you should know is that Alquada is said to start these things. But they should be smart, but when you hear only one voice you get determined, and think that it is the act of God. You see, they don't have CNN, or ABC, they don't have the truth, so these Alquada bastards take advantage of that. Some Arabs knew the truth and did not protest, and told others not to as well.
Thanks alot for Nodbuggering my post. Oh and suggesting that CNN and ABC are truthful is a joke. See entry 1 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nodbugger
Yea, your kind of right they just talk talk talk, I mean seriously yap, yap, yap, like it, going to fix anything. Have you watched it? They get off topic sometimes!
Ow, and IM NOT A NODBUGGER I only follow when its for the right!!!!!!!!!!!! Im a free person I can follow then leave!!!!
Heh, Nodbugger. That just ruined the Nod Buggy for me... Dover wrote on Tue, 25 April 2006 14:46 thrash300:
Muslims=pricks who are making a 65 decibal speaker mosque in my town and guess how much they paid for the land 1 fucking pound
SCOTT9 wrote on Sat, 13 May 2006 22:03 Muslims=pricks who are making a 65 decibal speaker mosque in my town and guess how much they paid for the land 1 fucking pound Not you again.
thrash300 wrote on Fri, 28 April 2006 17:10 Yea, your kind of right they just talk talk talk, I mean seriously yap, yap, yap, like it, going to fix anything. Have you watched it? They get off topic sometimes!
SCOTT9 wrote on Sat, 13 May 2006 16:03 Muslims=pricks who are making a 65 decibal speaker mosque in my town and guess how much they paid for the land 1 fucking pound And you're a racist. Prejudiced/Religionist/whatever the hell you call him these days.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm..... I heard that almost the same thing is happening with Christians and the DaVinci code. Although I don't think they did anything destructive, I find this rather ironic that they taunted the Muslims for being mad over a cartoon while they get mad over a book/movie.
You couldn't be more wrong. Muslims ATTACKED AND KILLED PEOPLE AND DESTROYED PROPERTY over these cartoons. The most any Christian has done over The Da Vinci Code is boycott them both or publish rebuttals. Don't even try comparing the two. Besides, even if they WERE comparable, the most your ridiculous attack on Christians can be considered is, at most, off topic for this thread. This thread is about how muslims RIOTED AND KILLED over the publishing of these cartoons. Take your attacks on Christianity somewhere else.
It's not an attack.... I'm just saying that I find both Muslims and Christian do different things, but have a somewhat similar anger.
It most certainly was an attack. You try to excuse the actions of muslims because Christians, you claim, respond to criticism in a way similar to muslims. You're equating peaceful protests with violent riots, which is just plain ludicrous.
No he didn't. He said exactly what he reiterated to you in his second post. The irony is not really all that intriguing, but it's still there. I spoke to many Christians about the cartoons, and none of them responded to "well, it's what they believe, they have a right to be mad", whereas most of them responded with "wow, it's just a cartoon". I think you need to reevaluate why it is you got so angry in the first place. Because it certainly wasn't over anything that was inferred.
Question: Hydra, are attacks on Christianity any worse than attacks on Islam? If so, why?
Javaxcx wrote on Fri, 19 May 2006 11:52 No he didn't. He said exactly what he reiterated to you in his second post. The irony is not really all that intriguing, but it's still there. I spoke to many Christians about the cartoons, and none of them responded to "well, it's what they believe, they have a right to be mad", whereas most of them responded with "wow, it's just a cartoon". I think you need to reevaluate why it is you got so angry in the first place. Because it certainly wasn't over anything that was inferred. A right to be mad yes, but not throw molatov cocktails at embassies.
But then again, what rights do European knights have for pillaging the holy land? Quote: As long as there has been one true god, there has been killing in his name.
Javaxcx wrote on Fri, 19 May 2006 11:52 No he didn't. He said exactly what he reiterated to you in his second post. The irony is not really all that intriguing, but it's still there. It may not be as vehement as I suggested in my earlier post, but it was still an attack in that he tried to downplay the actions of those muslims by saying "well Christians complain about stupid stuff like this too." Quote: I spoke to many Christians about the cartoons, and none of them responded to "well, it's what they believe, they have a right to be mad", whereas most of them responded with "wow, it's just a cartoon". They probably said "wow, it's just a cartoon" because of the way the muslims responded to them; no sane person is going to say, "They have a right to be mad, which justifies their rioting." Quote: I think you need to reevaluate why it is you got so angry in the first place. Because it certainly wasn't over anything that was inferred. Where did I get angry? The all-caps? Those are there simply for emphasis. Dover Question: Hydra, are attacks on Christianity any worse than attacks on Islam? If so, why? No, though you want me to say yes. Both religions have been attacked in similar ways--Islam with the cartoons, Christianity with The DaVinci Code book and movie. Both have responded in starkly different ways--Islam with violent riots, Christianity with peaceful protests (and banning of the movie in some countries at the worst; nothing violent (to my knowledge)) Is it an attack to say Islam responded in a much more violent way to criticism than Christianity? How about if I said that it is illegal and punishable by death to be a Christian in every country governed by Islamic law while it is perfectly legal to be a muslim in most countries founded on Christian principles? Of course not; it's a simple observation of reality. The modern-day media leads us to believe that these are attacks because it has become politically incorrect to confront the brutal facts. Quote: But then again, what rights do European knights have for pillaging the holy land? If you want to bring the Crusades into this (wars started IN REACTION TO muslim aggression), you can throw all relevancy of your argument to today's world (that's the year 2006, not the year 1306) right out the window. Quote: As long as there has been one true god, there has been killing in his name. As long as there have been multiple true gods, there has been killing in their name. As long as there has been no god, there has been killing in our name. As long as there has been a human race, there has been killing in man's name. For as long as I don't have what you have, I have always been killing you to get it. You can't blame on religion what has been caused by our nature. If anything, religion serves to assist us in controlling our nature and NOT killing each other just to get the other guy's stuff. That whole "love your neighbor" and "serve others" thing wouldn't even exist had it not been for religion. Mankind would have never left the caves and advanced to where we are now had we never had any religion. Sure there's been killing in His name, but moreso than killing, there has been innovation. Amen. P.S. Word to the wise: don't take anything in The DaVinci Code for fact without doing your own independent research. There's more evidence for a secret treasure hidden by Freemasons that our Founding Fathers left clues to find in our founding documents than there is for Jesus's supposed daughter. Disney ends up making a more compelling case than Ron Howard.
Funny. I saw The DaVinci Code this past weekend, and I didn't see it as an attack at all. Quite the opposite, I saw it as a call for free-thinking. It simply presents a case and allows the viewer to form his or her own conclusions. Christianity on the other hand, basically says "This is what the bible says, therefore it's right. Any deviance from this is wrong. If you don't believe you're going to hell." What's an attack on what, exactly?
It's fiction...I don't know why religious loonies are getting all worked up over it.
Say someone calls your mother a slut. Even if it clearly isn't true, are you going to respond to that or just let it happen?
Just let it happen. Duh. What kind of insecure nut would get worked up over WORDS?
SpyGuy246 wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 13:02 Say someone calls your mother a slut. Even if it clearly isn't true, are you going to respond to that or just let it happen? That must be the most retarded thing I've ever read...
Hydra wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 02:09 It may not be as vehement as I suggested in my earlier post, but it was still an attack in that he tried to downplay the actions of those muslims by saying "well Christians complain about stupid stuff like this too." After rereading his posts a few times, I really don't know how this conclusion could be reached. He didn't downplay anything, especially since he didn't suggest such a matter was even in contention. As stated before, the irony he mentioned isn't very spectacular in the first place, but it still exists regardless of the specifics of the situation. Religious people tend to take this process of non-thinking epistemology to such an extreme that belligerence is a repercussion of whatever the situation is. It is highly unfortunate that the poor and stupid Muslims of the world take to violence to express such anger, don't get me wrong. But the fact that Christians also get so angry over similar stimulus does not dismiss the fact that they take extreme action in turn. In this case, it's obviously not violence, it's smear campaigns against a fiction being purported as fact by none other than the conservative wing in the first place! Mr. Brown may have stated that his work contains factual information regarding certain categories, but he also made quite clear (and reiterated in that trial) that the work is nothing but a fiction to be taken with a grain of sand as a whole. The point the person who started this was trying to make was that both sides do stupid things for immensely stupid reasons. To such a thing I say "fucking duh" and move on. Quote: They probably said "wow, it's just a cartoon" because of the way the muslims responded to them; no sane person is going to say, "They have a right to be mad, which justifies their rioting." On the contrary, I don't believe that anyone in the western world with a shred of sense ever pretended that the action they took was justified. I have the utmost reason to believe it was over the fact that the belief of the muslims states that Muhammed must not be drawn-- or whatever the still retarded dogma is.
Dan Brown should consider putting a huge disclaimer at the front of his book. STOP FUCKING CALLING THIS THE TRUTH YOU FUCKING RELIGIOUS NUTS! He already publicly denounced the fact that people think it is the truth.
Aircraftkiller wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 17:14 So your mother is a slut, I take it.
You know, what my mother does extramaritally is none of my business, so for all I know, she could be.
I think there would be some warning signs...
I love how everyone expects me to shit bricks like a bible-thumper watching The DaVinci Code because my mother was dragged into this conversation.
Dover wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 13:35 Funny. I saw The DaVinci Code this past weekend, and I didn't see it as an attack at all. Quite the opposite, I saw it as a call for free-thinking. Free-thinking as long as it's a humanist form of thinking, right? Quote: It simply presents a case and allows the viewer to form his or her own conclusions. It presents a case against the Catholic church and steers the viewer to form an anti-Catholic/Christianity conclusion. It tells us that Christ was simply another figure in history rather than the Son of God and even had a wife of His own. It goes on to expose some of the atrocities committed by the Catholic church. I don't see how any viewer who may have been on the fence about religion can draw any other conclusion other than "Christianity is bad" from this movie. Quote: Christianity on the other hand, basically says "This is what the bible says, therefore it's right. Any deviance from this is wrong. If you don't believe you're going to hell." I don't know what Christians you've been talking to, but if THAT'S what you think the basic message of Christianity is, you've missed the point completely. Want to know what the basic message of Christianity is? "Love God, and love people." Love God (in all three forms) with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. What you've said is the basic message of Christianity is a misinterpretation of what SOME judgmental Christian fundamentalists have said over the years. Sadly, many Christians do not know how to tactfully share the gospel with non-believers without being too abrasive or judgmental. It's really not your fault you think the way you do about Christianity; rather, it's the fault of those abrasive and judgmental Christians who failed to explain their beliefs in a tactful way without being too offensive. Quote: What's an attack on what, exactly? The DaVinci Code is an attack on a message of love. Quote: Just let it happen. Duh. What kind of insecure nut would get worked up over WORDS? When those words have the power to destroy your reputation and add to the slander that's already out there against you, thus giving people on the fence one more reason to turn away from you. Quote: I love how everyone expects me to shit bricks like a bible-thumper watching The DaVinci Code because my mother was dragged into this conversation. Quote: What's an attack on what, exactly?
Hydra wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 00:12 Quote: Just let it happen. Duh. What kind of insecure nut would get worked up over WORDS? When those words have the power to destroy your reputation and add to the slander that's already out there against you, thus giving people on the fence one more reason to turn away from you. Which was my point in bringing it up in the first place. Thank you for seeing it when a couple people missed it.
I didn't read through this whole thread, but something here is very, very wrong. Quote: It presents a case against the Catholic church and steers the viewer to form an anti-Catholic/Christianity conclusion. It tells us that Christ was simply another figure in history rather than the Son of God and even had a wife of His own. It goes on to expose some of the atrocities committed by the Catholic church. I don't see how any viewer who may have been on the fence about religion can draw any other conclusion other than "Christianity is bad" from this movie. You do know that it's just a fictional story, right? That's like secret service agents getting mad because some thriller portraits them as evil...if people take that stuff for real, then it should really be their fault instead of the author's, don't you think?
Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 Free-thinking as long as it's a humanist form of thinking, right? No, just thinking outside what's normally accepted. Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 It presents a case against the Catholic church and steers the viewer to form an anti-Catholic/Christianity conclusion. But a viewer is to free to, as you have I'm sure, form a differant opinion. Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 It tells us that Christ was simply another figure in history rather than the Son of God and even had a wife of His own. There's no actual proof to say otherwise, other than a book. Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 It goes on to expose some of the atrocities committed by the Catholic church. Which should be kept secret...why? If I'm going to cast my vote for the Catholic church, I expect to know all thecrap they've done in their history, similar to the press having a field day with George Bush and the choking on the pretzel, or the fact that he's snorted cocaine in his college years. In the same way the Americans have a right to know the information before electing him to any position, people have a right to know about these atrocities commited by the Catholic church before dedicating part of their lives and wallets to it. Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 I don't see how any viewer who may have been on the fence about religion can draw any other conclusion other than "Christianity is bad" from this movie. Maybe, but there are more than enough "Pro-Christian" influences in the world. Too many, in fact. One movie on the other side isn't going Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 I don't know what Christians you've been talking to, but if THAT'S what you think the basic message of Christianity is, you've missed the point completely. Want to know what the basic message of Christianity is? "Love God, and love people." Love God (in all three forms) with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. ...And if you don't want to love god, because you don't believe, you're going to hell, right? Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 What you've said is the basic message of Christianity is a misinterpretation of what SOME judgmental Christian fundamentalists have said over the years. Sadly, many Christians do not know how to tactfully share the gospel with non-believers without being too abrasive or judgmental. It's really not your fault you think the way you do about Christianity; rather, it's the fault of those abrasive and judgmental Christians who failed to explain their beliefs in a tactful way without being too offensive. Amongst the most "fundamentalist" of Christian groups are the Catholics. They're literally the foundation for all the churches that came thereafter. Last I checked the Catholic church numbered about 1,000.000,000 people. Hardly SOME. Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 The DaVinci Code is an attack on a message of love. Christianity does not hold a monopoly on them messege of love. To continue the metaphor, they own very little shares of the messege of love. Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 When those words have the power to destroy your reputation and add to the slander that's already out there against you, thus giving people on the fence one more reason to turn away from you. That's implying I give a shit about what people I've never met and never will meet care about me. Who cares if they turn away from me. Similarly, why should you care if The DaVinci Code results in less recruitment for the church? Hydra wrote on Wed, 24 May 2006 22:12 Quote: I love how everyone expects me to shit bricks like a bible-thumper watching The DaVinci Code because my mother was dragged into this conversation. Quote: What's an attack on what, exactly? You're implying that I attacked Christianity, I'm assuming?
You've stated a mouthful there, Hydra. Hydra wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 01:12 Free-thinking as long as it's a humanist form of thinking, right? This is an interesting point to make. As someone who pertains but doesn't subscribe to Christianity, and having been immersed in Christian schools since the age of four, I feel I have at least an informed opinion on this matter. The DaVinci Code does not, at least to me, come off as a humanist dogma. It lends itself to a thoroughly agnostic position. That IS free-thinking. It's the mean between the extremes of deism and atheism, which as far as I'm concerned is the sweet spot. Just because something squelches what you believe does not mean it is wrong, evil, or even slander. That's a harsh point to make, seeing how DVC is also a fiction-- something to reiterate thoroughly because it doesn't seem to be sinking in with those who believe it has ever been purported as anything but. On a side note, Christianity is supposed to be a free-thinking institution. And while I think that is an oxymoron to boundless extremes given the criteria that come standard with the [Christian] tag, I ask why it is considered such a pox on the institution to facilitate alternatives to what is commonly accepted? Is Christianity only free-thinking when it's in line with the accepted dogma? Or am I missing something here that wasn't revealed to me over nearly 15 years of Christian schooling and 5 years of independent study? Quote: It presents a case against the Catholic church and steers the viewer to form an anti-Catholic/Christianity conclusion. JohnDoe made a very ample comparison to this. Quote: That's like secret service agents getting mad because some thriller portraits them as evil Similarity, should you subscribe to Christianity, wouldn't this fiction allow you to ask questions to strengthen your faith? Mind you, I've never bought into that standard response to discernment from the Christian front either, but some people find logic in it so I'll toss it out there. Quote: It tells us that Christ was simply another figure in history rather than the Son of God and even had a wife of His own. So? Metal Gear Solid uses factual coincidences to establish a hidden sub-government within the US government dating back to the birth of America that runs the world secretly. But that was a fiction too, right? I certainly don't believe that if Jesus lived, He lived any other way then what the Bible purported Him as (seeing how the Biblical texts and similar books are our only "reliable" source on His life). I certainly don't think that, nor ever did, Da Vinci would be privvy to such information contrary in the first place. Quote: It goes on to expose some of the atrocities committed by the Catholic church. I don't see how any viewer who may have been on the fence about religion can draw any other conclusion other than "Christianity is bad" from this movie. The Catholic Church is guilty of atrocities. They are one of the most corrupt institutions in history. Mind you, they're also one of the most long-standing, so they've had a long time to rack in the distrust and reputation they have. They are guilty of doing vastly good things, but thats shadow in comparison when they commit an evil thing. That goes a great deal farther when you hear what Catholic dogma says about the the nature of the papacy. Quote: I don't know what Christians you've been talking to, but if THAT'S what you think the basic message of Christianity is, you've missed the point completely. Want to know what the basic message of Christianity is? "Love God, and love people." Love God (in all three forms) with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. I think that you'll find that most people who don't subscribe to the Bible or Christianity will fit the description of the Christian version of "love thy neighbour". You'll also find that they may also have contention with your description of the Divine. Personally, I'd like to know how it is you know that God is the way you claim He is and not like the way I say He is. It certainly isn't as simple as just saying "love God and love your neighbour", because loving God is a pretty big freaking commitment to make. Let me elaborate: In order to love God, you need to know what God is. You can throw that idea that God is in people, but the Old Testiment and New Testiment seem to suggest that God is Himself a seperate entity from all of us and should be loved in such a respect. Further, that claim is dismissed when the second piece of message says "love thy neighbour" which further suggests God is something other than people. I say this because in previous discussions, this point has been raised and I want to nip it in the bud. In order to love God, you need to know what He is-- or in fact, that He IS a He. In order to do this, we refer to the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, whatever. All books say that God is. You read through them and you come to the conclusion that God exists simply because He does. So, now you are told to love someone whom you have no reason to believe actually exists in the manner described. So the problem is clear, and the problem with Christianity is clear. Those people who love their neighbours without subscribing to Christianity tend not to have a problem with loving each other, they have a problem with loving a logical being extrapolated into an immensely illogical fallacy***. Quote: The DaVinci Code is an attack on a message of love. Why? Please define love, because I think we're referring to different things. Quote: When those words have the power to destroy your reputation and add to the slander that's already out there against you, thus giving people on the fence one more reason to turn away from you. Turn away from you, or turn away from your beliefs? Is being offered material to study and confirm or dispute constitute this? Or should the information claimed to be truth by Mr. Brown be left secret for those only privvy to a theology degree or an impulse to study church history? I'm not saying everything he claims as truthful is truthful, because there are several debatable points. However, there are many others that raise important questions that have every right to see the light of day. If they cause your belief system to suffer, that is not the truth's fault. It is your instituation. It is most definately not slander. ***I say that God is a logical conclusion based on the works of Thomas Aquinas. I say that the Bible however is an illogical extrapolation because there is no proof outside conjecture suggesting that anything supernatural in the Bible has ever happened or could happen. I can say that God probably exists, but He certainly isn't the God that turned a woman to salt and flooded the world. That God has evidence stacked against him, while mine has nothing but evidence FOR Him.
I agree with most you've said, but what evidence is there for your form of god? There's no evidence for either. Thomas Aquinas just assumes that there is a first cause to everything and that it is god...but why should it be that way? I mean, if god can exist without a reason, then why can't the universe? And maybe there isn't a first cause at all...how could we possibly know? Suck my nuts, Tom!
Some of Thomas Aquinas' proof for a god was, being frank, just plain silly.
What I should have said is there is MORE evidence for my concept of God then the Biblical one. I'm thoroughly agnostic, so I tend to pertain to ideas that have a probability attached to them. Aquinas (it was the reader's digest version for complexity's sake) and Kant combined generally make up my theory. I'm not gonna go into too much depth lest I throw this thread off topic, but in a nutshell it seems to be far more probable to me that all things are caused by a causee then an infinite regression of causality. Aquinas (again, reader's digest) says that an infinite regression of causality is very possible, but it doesn't account for the existence of the regression. That's where the first cause comes in. There are no stipulations on the nature of the first cause, merely that it has happened. Which is also why we have no reason to believe anything other than God probably exists. You can call him Zummpledumple for all I care. It's not the same God as the Bible, but I call Him that nonetheless because His existence is akin to that God.
No, that's exactly the flaw in Aquinas' logic...he assumes that there is a god in the first place (call him zumpledumble if you wish), but why couldn't there just be the universe? It's much more probable since we have proof that the universe exists.
Not quite. Aquinas himself might have assumed God existed and went on to prove it, but the theory does not. The theory suggests that because all things are caused, there must be a causer. This is why I say it is probable and not definate that God exists. Aquinas himself thought it absolutely certain, whereas everything we know about this universe today suggests things are only probable. To me personally, all things I have experienced suggest to me that all things are almost certainly caused by something else. As this regression proceeds to a single first cause (to which I also don't know existed, I can only speculate), I can call it God, Java, Xcx, whatever. It's the first cause that exists only in such a form that is transcendental. That's why there can be the appearence of a universe that has always been here but it has also been caused into being. Similarily, it can simpler and the universe could have started at a single point. I didn't want to touch too much on Kant here because his theories are just as far out there. But it's like string theory. The conclusions are pretty intense, but it is challenging to prove them wrong. Make note though, this God doesn't even need to be all that special. It's merely the cause that allowed all things today to happen. It doesn't necessarily mean that such a God isn't capable of anything else, but it doesn't negate that possibility.
JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 14:16 It's much more probable since we have proof that the universe exists. This is another thing to consider. When you say that you have proof that the universe exists, what is it? I'm not trying to be a broad spectrum here, but when you start mixing theories of proof it's necessary to bring it up. If you can say that we can prove that the universe exists, I'm assuming you're basing this on the experience that you exist IN the universe. Then suddenly you're comparing apples and apples because the universe you claim exists under mostly probable objective circumstances must also probably follow some kind of logic. If it's causality, then Aquinas' theory is still applicable because of Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic theory. Long story short, read a few exerpts on the TA and see what you can come up with. I'd be interested in discussing it with you.
Just based on the last few comments regarding the universe and God, in short form: Either everything had a beginning, or some things simply just existed, and always have. Taking this premise, you have three choises (for all three, assume "the Universe" includes it's pre-big bang form): 1) The Universe has always existed. Therefore God did not create the universe. However, this can not be used to disprove the overall idea of God's existance, as if the universe has always existed, then the possiblilty of God always existing is still there. 2) The Universe did not exist at one point in time. It simply created itself. This can also not be used to disprove the existance of God. Afterall, if an unitelligent thing such as the universe can create itself, why can an intelligent being not do the same? 3) The Universe did not exist at one point in time. Something must have created it. Self-explanitory. Something created it. That would be the being we call God. Who created God then? Well, something somewhere had to create itself in order to begin creating new things. Whether or not it is true "God" came from nothing, or was simply always there, there had to be a beginning at some point.
Quote: Not quite. Aquinas himself might have assumed God existed and went on to prove it, but the theory does not. The theory suggests that because all things are caused, there must be a causer. This is why I say it is probable and not definate that God exists. Aquinas himself thought it absolutely certain, whereas everything we know about this universe today suggests things are only probable. It's not even probable...there is no evidence whatsoever that he exists. Quote: To me personally, all things I have experienced suggest to me that all things are almost certainly caused by something else. As this regression proceeds to a single first cause (to which I also don't know existed, I can only speculate), I can call it God, Java, Xcx, whatever. It's the first cause that exists only in such a form that is transcendental. That's why there can be the appearence of a universe that has always been here but it has also been caused into being. Similarily, it can simpler and the universe could have started at a single point. I didn't want to touch too much on Kant here because his theories are just as far out there. Like you've said, it's nothing more than speculations. What if after your god there is another god and then another,...? The theory just has too many flaws and assumptions. Why does there have to be a first cause? The universe could just exist forever for what I care... Quote: This is another thing to consider. When you say that you have proof that the universe exists, what is it? I'm not trying to be a broad spectrum here, but when you start mixing theories of proof it's necessary to bring it up. If you can say that we can prove that the universe exists, I'm assuming you're basing this on the experience that you exist IN the universe. Then suddenly you're comparing apples and apples because the universe you claim exists under mostly probable objective circumstances must also probably follow some kind of logic. If it's causality, then Aquinas' theory is still applicable because of Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic theory. It doesn't need to be causality, tho. I personally think the universe exists forever and is always expanding and decreasing.
Warranto is right. God's existance can neither be disproven not proven. But, from a logical point of view, assuming that there is something you have no proof of whatsoever makes no sense at all.
JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 15:03 It's not even probable...there is no evidence whatsoever that he exists. That's not exactly true. Probability is the assumption that things will act a certain way in the future, or similarily, things in the past acted in a predictable manner similar to the immediate present. Based solely on the present, most if not all things I've experienced suggest a universal law of causality. For every action, there is a reaction, and every reaction requires an action. Of course, it's a theory and it is valid because the future has not yet proven it to be truth or not. However, based on this, we have a model by which we can say that the past MAY have been like it is right now. The sample data is as big as I can remember and has remained consistent throughout. Which means by extrapolation I have probability on my side when I say all things are probably caused. That invariably includes the universe, as the universe is comprised by definition of energy. Thus, all energy originated at a single point as a result of some kind of stimulation. I choose to call it God. The proof is based on the same scientific method used to prove simple things like inertia or force. The beauty is that it isn't definiate and is still fallable. Which means while I might be right, there is just a good, if not greater chance that I'm wrong. Which means there is still mystery in the universe for my mind to experience and apply to my understanding. However, as it stands now I can merely say THAT God exists based on my experience, I simply can't tell you how He does, why He does, or what He might be capable of. Quote: Like you've said, it's nothing more than speculations. What if after your god there is another god and then another,...? The theory just has too many flaws and assumptions. Why does there have to be a first cause? The universe could just exist forever for what I care... Then there is one god, then another, then another. I don't know, or have any recourse to suggest such a thing even is probable. So my position that is that it is merely possible, but infinitely unprovable. I don't try and figure out the nature of what the first cause is like. I only need to be convinced as much as I am sure the sun will rise tomorrow THAT such a cause existed. As for the universe existing forever, I'm assuming you're talking about the universe having existed forever as opposed to existing forever in the future. To which Aquinas' argument still works because of the TA of Kant. Our concepts of past, present, and future are the means by which our consciousness makes sense of the universe around it. There is no doctrine to suggest that the universe itself must revolve around these concepts. Like warranto said, should the universe have existed forever, then it lends there must be some kind of means to an ends. It must mean that infinity is a tangable construct and not an abstract attributed ONLY to the transcendental. There is so little evidence for this that I can't help but be inclined to think it isn't true. Now, that doesn't mean that it ISN'T true, it's merely saying that the chances of it being true are significantly less then the universe having begun at some point. If you can provide enough evidence for a claim, I'd be forced to reevaluate the situation. Quote: It doesn't need to be causality, tho. I personally think the universe exists forever and is always expanding and decreasing. Why? What makes you think this is more likely then the universe starting at some point?
Quote: That's not exactly true. Probability is the assumption that things will act a certain way in the future, or similarily, things in the past acted in a predictable manner similar to the immediate present. Based solely on the present, most if not all things I've experienced suggest a universal law of causality. For every action, there is a reaction, and every reaction requires an action. Of course, it's a theory and it is valid because the future has not yet proven it to be truth or not. However, based on this, we have a model by which we can say that the past MAY have been like it is right now. The sample data is as big as I can remember and has remained consistent throughout. Which means by extrapolation I have probability on my side when I say all things are probably caused. That invariably includes the universe, as the universe is comprised by definition of energy. Thus, all energy originated at a single point as a result of some kind of stimulation. I choose to call it God. The proof is based on the same scientific method used to prove simple things like inertia or force. The beauty is that it isn't definiate and is still fallable. Which means while I might be right, there is just a good, if not greater chance that I'm wrong. Which means there is still mystery in the universe for my mind to experience and apply to my understanding. However, as it stands now I can merely say THAT God exists based on my experience, I simply can't tell you how He does, why He does, or what He might be capable of. The whole idea of "god" is based on something resembling an intelligent life form, right? What can possibly make you think that something like that should exist? It's about as probable as the pink unicorns in my front yard that only become visible once the moon explodes. I can understand why people would think that there is a starting poing to the universe, but isn't a Big Bang that we can't fully understand with our current knowledge of physics a lot more likely than some kind of creature? After all, god is just something people invented in order to explain things that they couldn't themselves. Quote: Then there is one god, then another, then another. I don't know, or have any recourse to suggest such a thing even is probable. So my position that is that it is merely possible, but infinitely unprovable. I don't try and figure out the nature of what the first cause is like. I only need to be convinced as much as I am sure the sun will rise tomorrow THAT such a cause existed. Well, that's just your feeling. I just don't see why a chain of actions and reactions should even come to sudden halt. It kind of defeats the purpose of it, don't you think? Quote: As for the universe existing forever, I'm assuming you're talking about the universe having existed forever as opposed to existing forever in the future. To which Aquinas' argument still works because of the TA of Kant. Our concepts of past, present, and future are the means by which our consciousness makes sense of the universe around it. There is no doctrine to suggest that the universe itself must revolve around these concepts. Like warranto said, should the universe have existed forever, then it lends there must be some kind of means to an ends. It must mean that infinity is a tangable construct and not an abstract attributed ONLY to the transcendental. There is so little evidence for this that I can't help but be inclined to think it isn't true. Now, that doesn't mean that it ISN'T true, it's merely saying that the chances of it being true are significantly less then the universe having begun at some point. If you can provide enough evidence for a claim, I'd be forced to reevaluate the situation. No, I said "exists" on purpose, because that means past, present and future. If for every action there is a reaction, then why should that chain stop at some point? Why should there be something that didn't come from a previous action? There is no proof for either of the theories and since it's beyond the current level of human knowledge, both are equally probable. Quote: Why? What makes you think this is more likely then the universe starting at some point? My feeling, just like your feeling tells you that there is a starting point. None of them is more likely than the other, tho. What however is extremely unlikely is that there is a god in any shape or form.
JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 17:03 The whole idea of "god" is based on something resembling an intelligent life form, right? What can possibly make you think that something like that should exist? It doesn't have to be intelligent. I have no recourse to suggest that the God that probably caused the universe into being is intelligent or not. So I don't pretend to speculate. Quote: Well, that's just your feeling. I just don't see why a chain of actions and reactions should even come to sudden halt. It kind of defeats the purpose of it, don't you think? Because for every movement, evidence suggests a mover. Nothing can simply come into motion on its own. To suggest that it can is doing exactly what you're accusing me of: assumption of something you have no proof of. It's interesting that you mention purpose. Aristotle did some very interesting work on "purpose". Have a read. Quote: No, I said "exists" on purpose, because that means past, present and future. If for every action there is a reaction, then why should that chain stop at some point? Why should there be something that didn't come from a previous action? There is no proof for either of the theories and since it's beyond the current level of human knowledge, both are equally probable. The question isn't why can't there be an action prior to every reaction, it's how such an action can occur. Science, physics, and everything euclidian about our universe suggests it is impossible. That doesn't mean it actually IS impossible, but it suggests that it is not probable that such a thing defined our universe. You're purporting a theory based on science and evidence, but the long term past doesn't seem to coincide. Quote: My feeling, just like your feeling tells you that there is a starting point. None of them is more likely than the other, tho. What however is extremely unlikely is that there is a god in any shape or form. Have a read of this. It's a bit complicated and pretty long, but it establishs a firm foundation that one certainly IS more likely then the other based on the definite existence of a priori abstracts that do not necessarily follow the laws of physics, but defininately do play crucial roles in experience.
I'll read and reply 2morrow...I'm tired and spent too much time at the PC today anyway.
JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 13:11 Warranto is right. God's existance can neither be disproven not proven. But, from a logical point of view, assuming that there is something you have no proof of whatsoever makes no sense at all. Oh! Oh! The "You have no proof, therefore it does not exist" arguement. I LOVE completely obliterating this arguement! At one point in time, no had any proof of the following: 1 Billion dollars Anything at the molecular level The shape of North America (or any landmass) The "fact" that the earth orbits the sun electricity motor vehicles the wheel etc. A bit of trivia. At one point around the end of the 19th century (or 1900's, I forget), the Scientific authority in Britian actually declared (or was about to declare) science to be obsolete as everything there was to discover, had been discovered.
warranto wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 16:37 A bit of trivia. At one point around the end of the 19th century (or 1900's, I forget), the Scientific authority in Britian actually declared (or was about to declare) science to be obsolete as everything there was to discover, had been discovered. Similar to when around that same time the head of the U.S. Patent Office resigned for the same reason.
warranto wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 16:37 JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 13:11 Warranto is right. God's existance can neither be disproven not proven. But, from a logical point of view, assuming that there is something you have no proof of whatsoever makes no sense at all. Oh! Oh! The "You have no proof, therefore it does not exist" arguement. I LOVE completely obliterating this arguement! At one point in time, no had any proof of the following: 1 Billion dollars Anything at the molecular level The shape of North America (or any landmass) The "fact" that the earth orbits the sun electricity motor vehicles the wheel etc. A bit of trivia. At one point around the end of the 19th century (or 1900's, I forget), the Scientific authority in Britian actually declared (or was about to declare) science to be obsolete as everything there was to discover, had been discovered. Ouch. I thought you were a bit more clever after your first post. I said that it doesn't make sense to assume something exists than you have no proof whatsoever for. I didn't say it doesn't exist, because that's impossible to find out. Get the difference? So yea gj obliterating something I haven't said, genius. I'm saying that assuming that there is a planet with pink unicorns which are high on glue is nuts, because there is no proof whatsoever. I can't however say that it doesn't exist for sure. Exchange the unis with god and you get the picture.
Quote: It doesn't have to be intelligent. I have no recourse to suggest that the God that probably caused the universe into being is intelligent or not. So I don't pretend to speculate. Take the intelligent away then and leave some kind of life form and answer my question. Quote: Because for every movement, evidence suggests a mover. Nothing can simply come into motion on its own. To suggest that it can is doing exactly what you're accusing me of: assumption of something you have no proof of. It's interesting that you mention purpose. Aristotle did some very interesting work on "purpose". Have a read. On the contrary. Nothing suggests a mover. Do you know a single thing that isn't moved by something else? So what does evidence suggest? Quote: The question isn't why can't there be an action prior to every reaction, it's how such an action can occur. Science, physics, and everything euclidian about our universe suggests it is impossible. That doesn't mean it actually IS impossible, but it suggests that it is not probable that such a thing defined our universe. You're purporting a theory based on science and evidence, but the long term past doesn't seem to coincide. That's not right...the Big Bang - Big Crush theory is pretty popular among scientists. The long term past seems to coincide...tell me one thing that hasn't been affected by another. Quote: Have a read of this. It's a bit complicated and pretty long, but it establishs a firm foundation that one certainly IS more likely then the other based on the definite existence of a priori abstracts that do not necessarily follow the laws of physics, but defininately do play crucial roles in experience. That's definitly too long for me to read without getting good grades for it . Is there some wikipedia thing that sums it up or something?
Quote: That's not right...the Big Bang - Big Crush theory is pretty popular among scientists. The long term past seems to coincide...tell me one thing that hasn't been affected by another. Spontaneous generation was popular among scientists, too.
I thought it was obvious, but I guess I have to waste my time making a longer post. Spontaneous generation was the thought that life originated from non-living objects. For example, flies being created by a slab of rotting meat. This was a widely held scientific belief during its heyday. My point is that scientific theory is simply nothing more than theory. It may take extensive testing to come to its acceptance as a theory, but it remains nothing but a theory - there is nothing proven in science, because facts in science continually change on a daily basis.
Over the past year I've been adjusting my views on the Creation. I'm still a Creationist in the sense that I believe that God DID, in fact, create the heavens and earth and all of which it contains and is surrounded by. However, who says that how God created the universe wasn't by this oh-so-famous Big Bang Theory? The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. It didn't say how. It also doesn't state how long each "day" was. Each day had a different state of the world, who says it was 24 hours? These "days" could have been thousands or millions of years. To God, time is nothing. Also, we were made in God's image, but was it physical form, as well? God has no form, so that can't be. We must then be modeled after him spiritually. This would make sense as to think that man wasn't necessarily man as we know it today. Evolution does happen in the world as species continue to change. Who says this wasn't the case? I'm not really sure what I believe in terms of Creation or the existance of the universe, but I do know for sure about one thing. God exists and He created the heavens and the earth. He is real, and to deny it makes me chuckle. Take a look at the beauty of untouched land. Land that hasn't been torn apart and replaced with concrete and steel. It's too beautiful and perfect to just have happened by chance.
Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 09:23 I thought it was obvious, but I guess I have to waste my time making a longer post. Spontaneous generation was the thought that life originated from non-living objects. For example, flies being created by a slab of rotting meat. This was a widely held scientific belief during its heyday. My point is that scientific theory is simply nothing more than theory. It may take extensive testing to come to its acceptance as a theory, but it remains nothing but a theory - there is nothing proven in science, because facts in science continually change on a daily basis. I know what spontaneous generation is and I know what you were trying to say...I just don't see how that affects my arguement in the slightest. You might as well have told us that you like zebras..
j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:53 Over the past year I've been adjusting my views on the Creation. I'm still a Creationist in the sense that I believe that God DID, in fact, create the heavens and earth and all of which it contains and is surrounded by. However, who says that how God created the universe wasn't by this oh-so-famous Big Bang Theory? The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. It didn't say how. It also doesn't state how long each "day" was. Each day had a different state of the world, who says it was 24 hours? These "days" could have been thousands or millions of years. To God, time is nothing. Also, we were made in God's image, but was it physical form, as well? God has no form, so that can't be. We must then be modeled after him spiritually. This would make sense as to think that man wasn't necessarily man as we know it today. Evolution does happen in the world as species continue to change. Who says this wasn't the case? I'm not really sure what I believe in terms of Creation or the existance of the universe, but I do know for sure about one thing. God exists and He created the heavens and the earth. He is real, and to deny it makes me chuckle. Take a look at the beauty of untouched land. Land that hasn't been torn apart and replaced with concrete and steel. It's too beautiful and perfect to just have happened by chance. Why would you assume that God did it? What makes you think that something exist of which you have no proof whatsoever? You might as well believe in the pink unicorn planet in the anus star system...it's as likely as God.
You completely missed (or ignored) the whole point of his post. Check the last paragraph to hist post... you quoted it.
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 11:37 j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:53 Over the past year I've been adjusting my views on the Creation. I'm still a Creationist in the sense that I believe that God DID, in fact, create the heavens and earth and all of which it contains and is surrounded by. However, who says that how God created the universe wasn't by this oh-so-famous Big Bang Theory? The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. It didn't say how. It also doesn't state how long each "day" was. Each day had a different state of the world, who says it was 24 hours? These "days" could have been thousands or millions of years. To God, time is nothing. Also, we were made in God's image, but was it physical form, as well? God has no form, so that can't be. We must then be modeled after him spiritually. This would make sense as to think that man wasn't necessarily man as we know it today. Evolution does happen in the world as species continue to change. Who says this wasn't the case? I'm not really sure what I believe in terms of Creation or the existance of the universe, but I do know for sure about one thing. God exists and He created the heavens and the earth. He is real, and to deny it makes me chuckle. Take a look at the beauty of untouched land. Land that hasn't been torn apart and replaced with concrete and steel. It's too beautiful and perfect to just have happened by chance. Why would you assume that God did it? What makes you think that something exist of which you have no proof whatsoever? You might as well believe in the pink unicorn planet in the anus star system...it's as likely as God. Why do you have to have proof of something to believe in it? That's absolute nonsense. That completely defeats the purpose of faith. How do you figure it's unlikely? Because science can't prove it? Wake up. There aren't always going to be answers. You can't just go by living on what you do know and refuse to try and stretch your knowledge into the unknown. Get out of your little safety net and try thinking outside the box for once. Also, why would I assume God did it? Because I... believe in it, maybe? Shocking, I know. Having faith in something is obviously beyond your comprehension.
You do realize that science was invented to prove faith. It just proved somethings in faith untrue. Now, it can be used to build on faith and make people realize the true wonders of the Deity that most likely created us all. That or space just decided to randomly explode.
I just find it funny how people who stand by what science has proven to base their opinions on, yet completely disregard the idea of believing in something that hasn't been proven. What do you think science has done for the past milleniums? It proved or disproved the unknown. People had an idea as to how they thought things worked, and then they experimented and researched. They didn't know if atoms existed. They didn't know that the world was round. It was all an idea, a thought, a question. Then what happened? They experimented and proved the "impossible" to be true. Those who once disregarded any slight probability that the world was a sphere was proven wrong. Why only agree with something after it's been proven. Isn't that a little closed-minded? Oh, and the same can go for some Christians. The ones who blasphem science. Science only tries to prove or disprove the unknown. It's not going to prove God to be non-existing unless he DOESN'T exist. If God does exist, then he won't be disproven. It's that simple.
j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:39 You completely missed (or ignored) the whole point of his post. Check the last paragraph to hist post... you quoted it. No...you say that you don't need proof, because you are sure that God exists. I'm asking you, how can you be sure about something without having any proof at all? Don't you think believing in pink unicorns is ridiculous?
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 12:54 j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:39 You completely missed (or ignored) the whole point of his post. Check the last paragraph to hist post... you quoted it. No...you say that you don't need proof, because you are sure that God exists. I'm asking you, how can you be sure about something without having any proof at all? Don't you think believing in pink unicorns is ridiculous? That post of mine has nothing to do with what I said or in response to your post. I'm not 100% sure that God exists. I have faith that He does exist, but there's no way to be 100% sure. However, that doesn't shake that I do believe God exists. It's all faith. I had faith that my plane was going to land safely in Greensboro, NC on Friday. If I didn't, I wouldn't have flown, but I had no proof. A number of things could have happened, and the plane could have crashed.
j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:42 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 11:37 j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:53 Over the past year I've been adjusting my views on the Creation. I'm still a Creationist in the sense that I believe that God DID, in fact, create the heavens and earth and all of which it contains and is surrounded by. However, who says that how God created the universe wasn't by this oh-so-famous Big Bang Theory? The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. It didn't say how. It also doesn't state how long each "day" was. Each day had a different state of the world, who says it was 24 hours? These "days" could have been thousands or millions of years. To God, time is nothing. Also, we were made in God's image, but was it physical form, as well? God has no form, so that can't be. We must then be modeled after him spiritually. This would make sense as to think that man wasn't necessarily man as we know it today. Evolution does happen in the world as species continue to change. Who says this wasn't the case? I'm not really sure what I believe in terms of Creation or the existance of the universe, but I do know for sure about one thing. God exists and He created the heavens and the earth. He is real, and to deny it makes me chuckle. Take a look at the beauty of untouched land. Land that hasn't been torn apart and replaced with concrete and steel. It's too beautiful and perfect to just have happened by chance. Why would you assume that God did it? What makes you think that something exist of which you have no proof whatsoever? You might as well believe in the pink unicorn planet in the anus star system...it's as likely as God. Why do you have to have proof of something to believe in it? That's absolute nonsense. That completely defeats the purpose of faith. How do you figure it's unlikely? Because science can't prove it? Wake up. There aren't always going to be answers. You can't just go by living on what you do know and refuse to try and stretch your knowledge into the unknown. Get out of your little safety net and try thinking outside the box for once. Also, why would I assume God did it? Because I... believe in it, maybe? Shocking, I know. Having faith in something is obviously beyond your comprehension. You can believe in it all you want, just like kids believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny, but don't go around telling people that it's the truth, because that is a straight up lie since you don't know that. How do I figure it's unlikely? Hmm let's see...not a single thing indicates that there is or was a god, your only sources are a couple of books about magictricks that all disagree with each other, written by men just like yourself. You can have as much faith all you want, but don't tell me that it's a logical or obvious thing, because in fact it is exactly the opposite.
j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 11:59 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 12:54 j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:39 You completely missed (or ignored) the whole point of his post. Check the last paragraph to hist post... you quoted it. No...you say that you don't need proof, because you are sure that God exists. I'm asking you, how can you be sure about something without having any proof at all? Don't you think believing in pink unicorns is ridiculous? That post of mine has nothing to do with what I said or in response to your post. I'm not 100% sure that God exists. I have faith that He does exist, but there's no way to be 100% sure. However, that doesn't shake that I do believe God exists. It's all faith. I had faith that my plane was going to land safely in Greensboro, NC on Friday. If I didn't, I wouldn't have flown, but I had no proof. A number of things could have happened, and the plane could have crashed. You can't even be 1% sure for what I'm concerned...all you can have is faith.
j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 10:57 I just find it funny how people who stand by what science has proven to base their opinions on, yet completely disregard the idea of believing in something that hasn't been proven. What do you think science has done for the past milleniums? It proved or disproved the unknown. People had an idea as to how they thought things worked, and then they experimented and researched. They didn't know if atoms existed. They didn't know that the world was round. It was all an idea, a thought, a question. Then what happened? They experimented and proved the "impossible" to be true. Those who once disregarded any slight probability that the world was a sphere was proven wrong. Why only agree with something after it's been proven. Isn't that a little closed-minded? Oh, and the same can go for some Christians. The ones who blasphem science. Science only tries to prove or disprove the unknown. It's not going to prove God to be non-existing unless he DOESN'T exist. If God does exist, then he won't be disproven. It's that simple. What makes you think that God exists? Just answer me that...and tell me how it's more likely than pink unicorns in the anus star system.