|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 18, 2005 13:42:51 GMT -8
It's not "pretty sickening", Jon. I'm afraid Carlton has either been sniffing too many fumes, or he's simply unaware that the whole thing with the Easter Bunny and the eggs comes from Celtic traditions. And "only in an American Market"? What's he smoking? I was not aware of this. I never pictured the Easter Bunny walking around with bagpipes. Why do they even call him the "Easter Bunny"?... As for the grammatical mistakes, Let he has not made a writting error, Throw the first stone. (I do recall you making two spelling mistakes recently, but DAMN IT, I can't find them.) -CG
|
|
Emily
Ghostwriter
Posts: 239
|
Post by Emily on Mar 18, 2005 14:49:44 GMT -8
Those Jehovah's Witnesses are funny? What if I said, I was a Jehovah's Witness... What? I'm still confused.....is there supposed to be a question mark after your first sentence? I'm not getting how your response relates to my question.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Mar 18, 2005 18:29:18 GMT -8
As for the grammatical mistakes, Let he has not made a writting error, Throw the first stone. Oh, I'm famous for my typos. However, I'm still going to throw stones at you, if only for misspelling "writting error".
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 18, 2005 19:55:44 GMT -8
What? I'm still confused.....is there supposed to be a question mark after your first sentence? I'm not getting how your response relates to my question. Well, you were wondering if anyone was a Jehovah (I love that word) Witness, and I just wanted to know why. I have had several conversation's, with the Witnesses, and I have read some issues of thier Watchtower Magazine, so I thought I could possibly be considered as a Witness myself... And there can be a question mark after that first sentence. The ... ate up the question mark ;D -Carlton
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Mar 19, 2005 0:18:17 GMT -8
But without this life on earth you can't have an after-life. So that makes this Life on Earth the MOST important for believers and non-believers... Life on this earth is important, yes....I mean, we're all here so we might as well do something. But again (and I'm not sure why you wouldn't understand the emphasis that needs to be conveyed here) a person's eternal life in heaven is certainly the MOST important thing for one's life....whether it be this life or the next! For instance, what would you take the time to plan for more carefully: where you go to college, or what you're going to order during an afternoon trip to McDonald's? The same kind of preparation then applies to this life on earth vs. eternal life in heaven. Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." We've all got to function in the society we live....but again, it's the focus of our lives that Jesus is concerned with. I'm still not buying. Scripture reference please. No, context doesn't change the content...but without knowing any context, how can you claim to fully understand the content? ;D From John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." There's nothing to read into there...it's pretty simple. Now, Christopher may indeed have a different opinion since the Mormons believe (as I understand it) that Jesus put a few more provisos on everything during his tour of the Americas.....but personally I'm not at all convinced of anything having to do with the events described in the Book of Mormon so I will leave that little can of worms alone..... Forgot? All kidding aside though, go back through this thread and read about people's experiences with meeting Christ on a personal level and coming to know him (Jon Lord's is especially well-told) - all of these experiences came to be through prayer...the act of talking with God, one on one. I don't think there is any conceivable you can truly know Christ without prayer. You're losing me...what are you talking about? Let me break it down a bit: John 1:1 starts like this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." The gospel of John begins here in a very clever way...John is right from the start explaining to the reader just who Jesus is: Jesus is God in physical form -> Jesus is "The Word" of God. How do we know is? How does it work? Read on: "In Him (Jesus, i.e. 'The Word') was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." Life = Jesus' teachings for man Darkness = Man before knowing Jesus and God's message Light = "The Word" or Jesus -> God "illuminating" mankind with the message of salvation and forgiveness Jesus (The Word) came to earth as God incarnate (The Word is God) to bring light (The message) into darkness (mankind). Simple! This is why the book of John is awesome and leads to the most musical compositions of its text. ;D Well, not according to Jesus anyway...the message of Jesus (who is God incarnate) is that Jesus (God) gave himself to die for your sins and because of that, you are forgiven. Saying you believe in God but not Jesus is kind of like saying you believe in Arnold Schwartzenegger but you don't believe in the current Governor of California. Again, the absurdity of your example is rampant, but yes. You're right. If you happend to accept Christ as your savior but for some reason you just couldn't seem to help yourself from killing and torturing innocent people because you were insane or something, the message of Christ says that you would have eternal life. And why is that? What is it that keeps you from reaching out to God for that kind of personal relationship? Fair enough...but let's also not forget that the idea of "The Church" was started by Jesus himself. Yes, because it is operated by man, it is flawed (heck, look at the trouble Paul had with his church start-ups!), but the message and story of Jesus is more widespread than ever would have been possible without the church. -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Christian K on Mar 19, 2005 2:48:21 GMT -8
I don't believe in Eternal Life, neither in the Christian, nor in the Buddhistic form. As for the Christian way, I resent this "Either You Are With Me, or You Are Against Me". I cannot express myself in a better way, but I'd like to have another option or two. As for Buddhist way of living eternally...ARGH! One life on this Globe will be enough to finish me off! (Pun intended!) However, Brendan...please take care of my CDs once I'm gone, okay? Again my apologies if I offended anybody in their belief with my thoughts above. Christian
|
|
Tex
Scoring Assistant
"Why so serious?"
Posts: 183
|
Post by Tex on Mar 19, 2005 6:58:48 GMT -8
BINGO!
YAHTZEE!!!
Well, Brendan, it took you @#$%ing long enough -- and I had to wade through a LOT of extraneous Bible quotes -- but you finally hit the crux of the matter. In that one sentence, you and Carlton pretty much touched upon the cause of, problem with, and solution to all of religion. Nailed it right on the head, even.
Now, what will you do with it?
Remember, Ray, the door swings both ways . . .
Can you ask YOURSELF similar questions?
CROSS THE STREAMS.
You may be endangering us, the city, and the nice lady who paid us in advance before she became a dog . . . but trust me, it'll be worth it.
[glow=red,2,300]PLJ[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 19, 2005 9:29:14 GMT -8
Broxton's subsequent words of encouragement don't make me feel any better. The ScoreGod does not manufacture Medicine (or copies of rare scores that he's never heard). Hmmm, this God isn't all-powerful ;D Why Not? Can't a person who abides by the law 90% of the time be considered a lawful or law-abiding person.? Just because they don't meet ALL of the requirements or just because they don't agree with some interpretations of their constitution, it doesn't mean they aren't religious... I didn't agree with the Supreme Court's main interpetations in the recent case where they overturned juvenile executions, but I still consider myself to be a lawful person... If you want to be an Advocate for religious orthodoxy go ahead, and while your at, you can try to become an Orthodox Jew or a Muslim. Actually it has everything to do with their Faith- that's how today's brand of Christianity first started! Jewish laws like Circumcision (God's original covenant) were interpeted by divinely-inspired men like Paul, and then their thoughts became the Cornerstone of Christian faith (see Trinity, etc). The point of their religion is that they are striving for an ideal- one they can never reach because as humans they automatically have a "sinning" existence. As you pointed out, these lifestyles of sin are different for each Christian, but they have everything to do with their faith ;D People do this all of the time. Look at politicians, most of them are not economist, scientist, doctors, etc, but they still form opinions on things that they have no expertise on, like the economy, science, and medicine. Come on Hook, there's nothing wrong with a little random speculation... Go ahead, Speculate, and let your words speak for themselves. Now your faithful speculations may turn out to be wrong, but the funny thing about faith is that there is this perceived notion that if you believe something it becomes true. I believe Jesus can cure my blindness, so I will See. Oh, faithful world that has such dangers in it... There is such a thing as probability or "circumstantial evidence." A lot of scientific laws (theorems) can never be proven, yet they still can be considered to be "right" based on theoretical predictions, experimental data, probability considerations, and leaps of faith. Look at Quantum Theory, or the models for Light, or the structural models for Atoms. All these theories and models involve leaps of faith, but that' doesn't mean that these theories are not right or shouldn't be used. Hey, sometimes your gonna have uncertainty principles... What's wrong with having some Empathy? As you mentioned, a problem with a lot of Christians is that they lack empathy at times. They can't imagine a life without Jesus so they try to force their views upon you. Darn Missionaries. Now Captain, don't go shooting their planes down because you don't want to feel the missionary vibe... ;D Ok, I googled it (Jesus), and this is the number one result. www.jesusdressup.com/ Either the google search engine is afraid of human skin, or a lot of people must like playing dress-up. "Queer Eye for the Straight Jesus" ;D Well, you sit therefore it is... So what do you believe in and what do you care about? "Death makes a coward of us all" Isn't it interesting that some Christians will hold onto thier feeding tubes forever, but others like Hunter Thompson will blow heir brains out in a second...And where can I find the devil. I want to hear about his ways. Science can be wrong, it has been before, but the beautiful thing about science is that people are willing to accept it, when it's proven wrong. -Carlton
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Mar 19, 2005 11:32:59 GMT -8
Woof. Sounds more like MY version of hell, to me. For some inexplicable reason to me this sentence inevitably conjurs up mental images of the Hell Labs: Ironic Punishments Division from "The Devil and Homer Simpson". "So, you like David Arnold, eh?" "Uh huh." "Well, have all the David Arnold scores in the world!" "I don't understand it. James Southall went mad in fifteen minutes!" Incidentially, what's with all the WOOFS? Who are you, Lord Flashheart?
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Mar 19, 2005 13:04:50 GMT -8
Carlton: Faith might have inspired Paul to screw up about 1500 years of human history, but his faith-inspired dogma isn't a requisite for faith. People do choose what "laws" to follow from their beliefs system. In a legal system, ideally, if you follow 90% of the law, guess what happens if that 10% of you is caught? You go to jail. In religion, you're just not following through, but within that religion you're also not being a good [insert denomination here]. Which is ridiculous and has little to do with your faith. Ex: Not eating meat on whatever it is that you're supposed not to. That has absolutely nothing to do with the central message of your faith: meat. I mean... Love. And, by the way, this is wrong: No. I find it curious that you say this. In your Filmtracks profile, you're seen standing in front of a chart titled "Abiotic Degradation of PCE by Synthetic Manganese Oxide". Theorems can be proven. It's conjectures and some axioms that still can't be (and, of course, hypothesis wait to be proven or disproven). However, science is about interpretation of observable states and changes in our environment (use of environment in a careful and extremely generalized way). Its interpretations are made by either deductive or inductive reasoning. Evolution theory is deductive. Relativity is inductive. Einstein solved and proposed his theories by mathematical means. That still counts as an observation. Quantum theory is not a very complete theory yet. It has too much loose ends and, most probably, needs the relation to Relativity that Einstein always looked for. Probably not, as well. It could be a whole different animal. --To those who think I'm violating the A=notA principle, we're talking physics here. That can happen. ;D Believing in the models you mentioned does not require a great leap of faith. Those are what the data gathered (observed) point to. The great thing about science is that it's willing to be proven wrong and can and will change in the future. Unlike Anaximander, Thales, Aristotle, and even Democritus, there is no faith or brain swinging involved in the scientific method. It can all be seen, wether or not the conclusions hold the test of time. But I want to know one thing: Why is Marcus Cheney's name followed by an asterisk?
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Mar 19, 2005 13:13:00 GMT -8
To answer another question (and piss off Jens): I believe in truh, justice and the American way. Actually, I believe in respect, honesty, and doing the best you can as a human being to serve your world and, of course, yourself without taking advantage of or harming others. I believe in most of what is attributed to Jesus, really. To sum up, what I believe in and care about is present in this line: I'll do my best (because of that "do or do not" thing, you see...).
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 19, 2005 13:46:31 GMT -8
A person's eternal life in heaven is certainly the MOST important thing for one's life....whether it be this life or the next! What is more important Life on Earth or Life in Heaven? Since your life in heaven is dependent on your life on Earth, your life on Earth must be the MOST important, especially since your eternal life in heaven can't affect your life on Earth (unless you believe in reincarnation on Earth). I would try to make a "plan" that extends my days on Earth, but sometimes death traps like Mc Donald's are hard for a hedonist to avoid. ;D And if I'm in heaven, I can't prepare for life in heaven, since I'm already there. This is another reason why life on Earth is the most important... This life is the only one that can be proven without faith, so this life is of the utmost importance. Jesus also said that the law was made for Man, and not Man for the law (Mark 2:27)... And we all have got to function in the society because we want to live NOW. Mark 4:10-12 That is the problem. We can't fully claim to understand the content. Look at Shakespeare. His words are only 300 or so years old, but since his context was different, it can be hard for us to understand him, without contextual footnotes. Was Shakespeare cracking a joke... Ah, there's' the rub... It's been along time (8th grade?), since I had to make sentence tree diagrams and label all of the words, but lets try it... I see a potential problem, what does the Pronoun "Him" refer to? The case can be made that in this sentence, the pronoun Him refers to the God who so loved the World. So John 3:16 reads as: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in (the God who so loved the world) should not perish but have everlasting life." Once I called out and he never answered--Not a scream, a yell, or even a whisper. What can I say, I'm Carlton the Barbarian: "I've never prayed to Crom before, I have no tongue for it." All kidding aside, Prayer and Meditation are important for a lot of people's spirituality. Catholics say Hail Mary's, Muslims pray five times a day, and so forth. I just forget about prayer because I'm not that familiar with it, though I have experienced it before. I also would promote the experience of prayer (and meditation), but ONLY in religious or personal settings. As I said before, I'm not really familiar with prayer, but from what I've seen prayer is just another form of meditation (except it seems like the contemplative struggle is absent). I've joked that music is my God (for me, In the beginning there was Music ;D), and several times I've gone down by the river and meditated, while listening to the Moonlight (aka Adagio Sostenuto). Meditation is something that we all should do. What are you people doing when your listening to film music?... Your going too fast. Slow down, and break it down a little bit more. Only consider the first six words. John 1:1 starts like this: "In the beginning was the Word..." How can the word exist before the action? It can't. The Act must come before the word... Go back to Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" In the beginning was the Act. (Though in the "beginning" you might find basis for your argument) Again for me there is a pronoun problem. I read "Him" to be God "In Him (God) was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." In this parable, I see: Life = The word (?) Darkness = the Earth (before Man/ humankind) Light = Goodness The Act created the Earth, 'the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep" And then "there was light and He saw that the light was good" I'll return to John 1:3 "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that was made" A better translation that I've come across is: "All came to be through this, and without this nothing came that ever came to be (John Dunne)" According to the Gospel of John, Jesus, in addition to everyone else, "came to earth as God incarnate." This blasphemous notion that we are God can again be traced back to the Beginning. "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Gen 1:26). Those who shake and tremble in fear of the Lord, the Quakers, would say we have an "Inner-Light"... www2.gol.com/users/quakers/inner_light.htmIt is possible to be a fan of Arnold the man, and not a fan of Arnold the Governor of Cal-e-forna ;D I can believe in the man, but not in the governor. After all, he's Republican ;D And it is written that: "He (Jesus) said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, `This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'" Again, it seems like Jesus was interested in the intentions of one's heart, not the beliefs (confessions) from their lips... The absurdity is a byproduct of the concept that belief in Jesus forgives sins... I really don't know. Maybe it's my limited mind, or my inability to perceive things, or my inability to have a perfect memory, or my unwillingness to have soliliquoy's with the Air, or maybe it's just my inability to comprehend the existence of a God. "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani" If anyone has the Passion DVD, can they please write out their pronunciation of Sabachthani. I want to make that quote my Rallying cry. The Church (and many people) have done things in the Name of Jesus.... Hey the Jury is still out on the Church. I think Hook is going to give the Church a guilty verdict and a Death Penalty Recommendation. All can say is "Eph'phatha," -Carlton
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 19, 2005 15:06:03 GMT -8
Carlton: Faith might have inspired Paul to screw up about 1500 years of human history, but his faith-inspired dogma isn't a requisite for faith. His dogma is what Christians believe; it's thier Faith... It depends on what laws where in that 10%. If it was sodomy or a copyright infringement or something like that, the situation changes... Yes a lot of religious laws are antiquated and are probably no longer needed... But in the ancient world bad meat could kill you. That's why some religions have reformed themselves, while others have tried to proliferate an orthodox religious position. Some Jews and Muslims still don't eat meat, and they try to abide by the "old" laws... What's so wrong with? A lot of theories aren't 100% proveable and they break down in certain instances. Is light a partile or a wave? Is electronic struture of a molecule always consintent with bonding or structural models of the Atom?.... That's why they are called theories not laws. Maybe I mixed up the terminology here. Damn, I should have paid more attention in Geometry class instead of... But some things can't be observed, especially a lot of things on the microscopic level. (Entropy?) ... And the theories were validated by experimental results... Even so, there can be problems or loose ends with certain theories. Does Einstien's theory of relativity hold if your not talking about an inertial reference frame. Are light photons as Einstiens PE effect would suggest or are they waves, like diffraction experiiments would suggest.... But believing in these models does require one to accept some assumptions... At present, Somethings just aren't observable (see Hiesenberg's Uncertainity principle- and not talking about Nazism here). Some things can't be seen or measured accurately, but we know they are there... Just to indicate that he's the professor, and the principal author. Originally, I typed in Dr. Marcos Cheney, but he removed the title and put in the asterick. He's an extremly humble person, (probably derived from his Native American spirituality). Don't worry he's not related to the VP. He usually introduces himself, by saying that. ;D -CG
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Mar 19, 2005 16:55:17 GMT -8
Again, Carlton (you nut! Hi-oh!): If people follow Paul's assertions and misdirections, I label them misguided Christians. Christianity is about following Jesus, not about following what another person says about him and what you should do to please him. That's why reading is important. That's why the teachings of Jesus are important. Indirectly, Jon and Brendan have agreed with me on this point. Jon because he has explained his is a personal relationship with his faith and he follows his way, and Brendan because he has said churches vary and he prefers the ones that help you get close to Jesus instead of instructing you on what to do. MikeP also agrees with me here. Where our paths usually diverge is when I say Paul is a sack of s*** and all who base their faith on him or other people (see 'beings, human') are not followers of Christianity as a matter of faith but are followers of institutions and dogma. And they're usually very stupid. Another thing that I need to clear up is my usage of faith as a concept. What I believe to be faith in Christianity, what it should be, anyway, is to believe in Jesus as our savior and to follow his words and teachings. What, apparently, others believe faith to be is to blindly follow others' laws and writings without as much as questioning the whys and hows of said publications. I cannot, under any circumstance, respect the actions people take based on this false teaching. You're still breaking it. My point is, belief or faith in an entity is individual and not inderdependent of belief or faith in an institution or dogma/religion. You can have Chist without the Pope's funny hats. You can have God without the foreskin mutilation. People get pissed because I gleefully ignore thousands of years of tradition. Yeah, so? I can understand why this happened, why it happens, and why it will happen again. That has nothing to do with my believing it's a lot of crap. (Sorry, world). I think we can all agree reform is not one of religion's primary concerns. My God! (pun hilariously ill-conceived). Carlton, this is the argument creationists side with. A scientist that says this is not a scientist at all (not a self-respecting one). See this link. Theory comes from the Greeks. It means to look at. In math (from Wikipedia), a theory is a "statement of mathematical fact which logically follows from a set of axioms". In physics, it's a model of reality, whereas a law is a "statement of what has been observed". If we reason our way into this: laws are dependent of models, and if models can be changed we know the rules change, then so can laws. This also happens to be true. The precious "law of gravity" could very well be proven to be wrong, as it is now, some time in the future. It could work in a different way. The spacetime curvature might be inexistent. See, there we have a law (gravity) that could change if we twitch our model (curved universe). Even then we have two models: Newton's and Einstein's. Different rules apply on both. Both are correct in that they sufficiently explain observable phenomena and can predict a future outcome. That's what theories do. Here's a Stephen Hawking quote: "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". In physics, theories are very fragile. Because we know so little, any observation that contradicts the outcome stated by a theory can disprove that theory. This has nothing to do with it being called a "theory" or a "law". In other fields, theories are pretty much solid. Evolution is based on facts, facts that happen and can be observed again and again. It correctly predicts an outcome (see the famous 70-day-old flies). It explains how nature and species work together. Time has only backed this theory with even more evidence (Darwin could have never validly hypothesized DNA based on his observations). Have you been in outer space? Particularly, the Sun? How do you know that's hydrogen in there? Simple. You don't. But you agree that scientific evidence suggests, based on strict methodology, that the sun is an incredibly incandescent mass of heated gas. We accept this because there are facts, theories and laws, that tell us that's what it is, most likely. Science is about explaining things. Science is so "hyped" because it gives more reasonable and more believable explanations that can be used to create other models. Explaining the properties of energy and spacetime is not going to lead to the microchip by saying "God did it". Science is about what works and what doesn't. By the way, entropy can be proven. Hell, it already has been! ;D The probablity of anything shouldn't be used as the hard, cold fact of an outcome at any time. It is not logical to assume that because x has a probabilty of happening y times in p, it will happen y times in p. The functions and algorithms used are a means to explain something that, in reality, could happen in an ecological system or in the randomness of information theory. In thermodynamics, it is proven and works in the world (universe) we know. Creationists use entropy to discredit evolution and science (arguing it works against itself) by stating that, working with thermodynamics, a closed system such as Earth couldn't hold itself had entropy at any time been truthful. It's a shame Earth is not a closed system but an open one where it can happen and I have to stand people like them saying things like that. Waves and particles. Answer: both. ;D We see here even more examples of exactly what I'm saying. These theories explain what they ought to explain. Relativity and special relativity won't work, because we don't really know, inside of, say, a black hole. Does that mean the theory is wrong? No. There are problems with theories when they can't explain new evidence or new possibilities. Most likely, the apparent effect of a working theory can be explained by an even more complex theory we haven't arrived at yet. I like Copenhagen's example: "the pattern (probability distribution) produced by millions of photons passing through a diffraction slit can be calculated using quantum mechanics, but the exact path of each photon cannot be predicted by any known method". (again, from Wikipedia). That's chaos, for you. There are too many variables, much more than we can handle. Perhaps it's not in our reach, and it's this aspect that God handles for himself. Perhaps it's just complicated because of the (seemingly) random universe and that's why it seems random to us. But you know what? I think it's going to rain tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Mar 19, 2005 22:15:21 GMT -8
It's truly sickening. Despite my doubts that any nation can be regarded as "Christian" in any regard, (in my view, how can a religion based on "personal" spirituality be imposed as an adjective describing a political entity made up of millions?) the continued persistence of this idea that the U.S. was once a Christian nation or is a Christian nation or should be a Christian nation strikes me as highly ridiculous. If there is one "god" our nation as a whole has, it's Money. And Money's disciples are Security, Pleasure and Power. All temporary elements in light of the omnipotent, eternal Christian God, and yet that's where our society's focus is. The hypocrisy is stinging. I believe this issue is best addressed in an Oscar Wilde quotation: 'nuff said, really. To answer another question (and piss off Jens): I believe in truh, justice and the American way. Why exactly do you think this would piss me off? All this proves to me -- just like much of our previous discourse -- is that you're a platonist and aspiring utopian. I'm a realist.
|
|