Occam's Razor proves the existance of God. [Archive] - Unofficial World of Warcraft Forums

WiglyWorm

03-07-2004, 07:48 AM

Ockham's Razor. Used in science for generation after generation, states that the simplist answer is usually the correct one.
For example, in the days of early astronomy the earth-centric astronomers realized that some of the known planets wich were revolving around the planet earth seemed to stop, reverse directions for a short time, then continue. How could this have happened if everything revolved around the earth? They invented an effect.. who's name i currently forget.. in wich orbits were circular but occasionally it would make a smaller loop within its orbit. The calculations still didn't match. So that added loops inside loops untill it matched what they saw. Then someone came along and created a sun-centric solar system in wich all the planets circled the sun. This matched what was observed without the need to add things to the theory. Of course we now know that all the planets revolve around the sun. The simpler theory was correct.

Now, what does all this have to do with the existance/non-existance of God you ask? Well, take occam's razor to these two theories.

A) Out of absolutely nothing, all the matter and energy in the universe erupted and began flying apart and tremendous speeds (in fact current models state that the ealier universe would have had to have expanded at far greater than the speed of light for a hundreth of a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second, impossible according to relativity, just a pointless fun fact), and that the laws of physics were just right to allow this matter to slow down and begin to coaless, and that the energy woulld coaless into matter (E=mc squared means mass is just a super concentrated form of energy), the the matter would become muons and gluons, the muons and gluons would become up and down quarks, the up and down quarks would become electrons, protons, and neutrons, those would become atoms, the atoms would become molecules, and the molecules would become stars, planets, and amino acids, and the amino acids would somehow become life, and life would somehow spring you and me.

B) God made it all.

Go ahead. Apply ockham's razor. Wich one comes out on top?

Even works VS. superstring theory!

AgeOfAbnegation

03-07-2004, 07:57 AM

The name is "Ockham", as in William of Ockham. He was a medieval philosopher. He proves nothing, but his assent to simplicity is accurate. Still, if one cannot articulate a position, one does not know it. Thus, topic "B" may be modified if need be to make provision for proper metaphysics.

WiglyWorm

03-07-2004, 07:58 AM

sorry i never was one for spelling or names. :P i'll edit it.

Xaf

03-07-2004, 11:21 AM

I think ockhams razor sort of breaks down to the fact that science explains everything and since science follows rules then if you use those rules the answer is relatively simple. Im pretty sure if you were to take ockhams razor to religion it would fall apart rather nicely. I mean whats more likely; that we created religions to explain the uncomprehensible(at the time), or that there are these infinitely powerful deitys out there that want something from us but wont influence us directly except sometimes when they feel like it.

PlagueBearer

03-07-2004, 12:11 PM

Ockham's Razor really doesn't make that much sense. It really lends itself to incorrect theories. Ockham's Razor upholds, amongst other things, spontaneous generation. Which is simpler?

A) Meat turns into flies.

B) Flies, landing on the meat to feed, lay small eggs in the meat which then turn into maggots, which soon turn into flies.

There's a lot less turning in the first one. We know it's wrong, but Ockham's Razor upholds it. Ockham's Razor also supports things like witch trials and racism... is this drought due to

A) a low pressure system moving in from the north interacting with the sheer sides of the nearby mountain range, or

B) is it simply that witch down the lane?

Is my inability to find employment due to

A) a system of inflation and deflation which is being carefully balanced by the government, or

B) EDITED FOR INFLAMMATORY COMMENT. ELLY

Ockham's Razor isn't the foundation of modern thought by any means. In specific cases it can help clarify a theory, as in your Copernicus example, but it isn't any sort of measure against which all thought can be weighed.

Graav Wolfsong

03-07-2004, 04:13 PM

Essex

03-07-2004, 04:15 PM

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

03-07-2004, 04:56 PM

Mixed logic. But let's go with the original example with my twist on it if this method was to be trusted.

A) God made it all. He created the universe. He created the planets and the stars. He then created life. He then oversees and watches over every aspect of our lives.

B) Everything just magically appeared one day.

Go ahead. Apply Ockham's razor. Which one comes out on top?

Also try this one Essex...

A) *** people exist. A *** man is a man, but he is a man who loves other men. Instead of following the "natural" order and coupling themselves with members of the opposite sex for the sake of procreation, these people instead couple together with no benifit for procreation.

B) *** people don't exist.

Sorry Essex, but you don't even exist. :lol:

Essex

03-07-2004, 05:28 PM

A) *** people exist. A *** man is a man, but he is a man who loves other men. Instead of following the "natural" order and coupling themselves with members of the opposite sex for the sake of procreation, these people instead couple together with no benifit for procreation.

B) *** people don't exist.

Sorry Essex, but you don't even exist. :lol:
I knew I was feeling sick this morning... that would explain it.

Etra

03-07-2004, 06:50 PM

<___<;;

Sorry to say, but this "God" doesn't and will never exist. If you believe in "him" (too bad he's not real...and he's really a girl. Just to smite those damn sexist bastards) soooo much, then why do you keep trying to prove his existence to others? Trying to save them, or are you trying to get them to believe so you don't feel so stupid? Not to mention the bible contradicts itself right in the first area-part-thingy of Genesis. I mean really...Also "God" says it's bad to kill animals then later on "he" goes "BRING ME A SACRIFICE!11!!!111!1111111!!111111!11"

GOD LOVES ALL HIS CHILDREN! YET BEING GAY IS BADDDD!! -.-;

Your told not to believe everything you read when you were growing up. The bible is one you shouldn't believe.

Anyways, yeah. That "theory" (which really isn't a theory at all, to be totaly honest--) really doesn't explain anything. o_o;
It's like saying a pedophile abducted a little girl and took her to his home 'cause it was the simplest place to find him at. (Which, by history of these people, we know they always run far far away somewhere. <___<)

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

03-07-2004, 07:17 PM

I try desperately to stay away from actually discussing religion. But once in awhile a comment so filled with self serving bs I can't help myself. I respect all peoples opinions, regardless of their stance, but I can't sit back and let some uniformed person insult an entire group simply because their feeble mind can't comprehend that someone else could have possibly come to a different conclusion than them.

I would highly suggest, since you seemingly haven't posted around here much recently, that you get your point across being a little less rude and with a little less arrogance.

Sorry to say, but this "God" doesn't and will never exist.

No you are not sorry, you can say it all day long but everyone can pick up on the sense of glee and distain you have as you typed this post. Now then, God doesn't exist? I would venture to guess there are billions of people walking this world who would disagree with you.

If you believe in "him" (too bad he's not real...and he's really a girl. Just to smite those damn sexist bastards) soooo much,

Let me ask you a question, would the creator of all existance, a being who does not need to procreate, actually NEED the sexual organs of any gender?

then why do you keep trying to prove his existence to others? Trying to save them, or are you trying to get them to believe so you don't feel so stupid?

For someone who claims to know enough about the bible to pass it off as false, you mean to tell me you haven't even picked up one of the most simple of answers? Odd. Who is stupid?

Not to mention the bible contradicts itself right in the first area-part-thingy of Genesis. I mean really...Also "God" says it's bad to kill animals then later on "he" goes "BRING ME A SACRIFICE!11!!!111!1111111!!111111!11"

Well since you obviously read that "first area-part-thingy" of Genisis, you should also understand the reason he asked for a sacrifice, and you should also know what happened afterwards. You don't so I'll simply dismiss your comment as uniformed rhetoric.

GOD LOVES ALL HIS CHILDREN! YET BEING GAY IS BADDDD!! -.-;

Do me a big favor for the sake of arguement, quote the passage. My guess is you don't actually know that is in the bible and are simply going off something someone else told you right?

Your told not to believe everything you read when you were growing up. The bible is one you shouldn't believe.

Yes, because you say so. I'm so glad that in this one statement you have finally enlightened us to the idiocy of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years of religious idealist expanding the knowledge of their respective religious views.

Anyways, yeah. That "theory" (which really isn't a theory at all, to be totaly honest--) really doesn't explain anything. o_o;

This to me is the only good point you made in the post. It is a very good point. Notice how the undertone of rude arrogance was not in this sentence hence I did not feel the need to detract it.

Regardless of our differences of opinions here and are heated discussions, everyone here in the OTF is a member of one small community. You would do well to remember that.

Edit: I do sincerely appologize if this offends you, but you seriously struck a nerve with that. While I disagree with alot of people on alot of different subjects, I have respect for each and every person who is currently(I say currently because those I don't like tend to wind up banned) a member of the OTF.

Graav Wolfsong

03-07-2004, 07:31 PM

Let me ask you a question, would the creator of all existance, a being who does not need to procreate, actually NEED the sexual organs of any gender?

I dunno about that. I find myself hoping God is a chick because God keeps screwing me all the time. :lol:

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

03-07-2004, 07:36 PM

I dunno about that. I find myself hoping God is a chick because God keeps screwing me all the time. :lol:

:lol:

I'm with you, but think about it, maybe it is a man. Normally everytime I get screwed by God, it hurts. :scratch:

Etra

03-07-2004, 07:40 PM

Nah, don't worry about offending me. Hard to do. :p
Also, I am rude and arrogant. ;D

As for the "God hates gay people" came from many many priests/priestesses and other sunday-church-goers that i've met. As I was told growing up, I should always listen to my elders. ;0

Oh, and I did read a lot of the bible (I have my own personal bible with my full name printed on it 2 feet away from me...heheh ;)). I just don't know what those sub-sections are called--actually I just can't remember. XP
As for sacrificing, the only reason I can remember is for the really hairy guy and the blind father. (I'm not good with names...you should see me at work trying to get a co-worker's attention XD!) But that wasn't really a sacrifice--lol. Untill you give me proof for this one, i'm standing by my opinion for this area.

Let me ask you a question, would the creator of all existance, a being who does not need to procreate, actually NEED the sexual organs of any gender?
Why is God always said to be a "he" by all catholic (and all the other types of religions)? Just easier than saying "the person that is neither guy nor girl"? ;o

For someone who claims to know enough about the bible to pass it off as false, you mean to tell me you haven't even picked up one of the most simple of answers? Odd. Who is stupid?
Err...what? XD

[If ya wanna talk futher with me about this stuff, just PM me. I made sure I didn't post anything that should offend you to post about this again to defend yourself. Atleast I tried. o.o;]

AgeOfAbnegation

03-07-2004, 07:42 PM

heh..Hurts getting screwed by something that big.. Then again, I'd rather be screwed, than be alone ^^.

Essex

03-07-2004, 07:55 PM

reminds me of something i saw on Bad Santa last night, Santa is leaving the mall and the security guy asks him to stop and asks if he has anything in those baggy pants of his he was trying to steal, billy bob just looks at him and says "only something that would cripple your sister" that was funny.

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

03-07-2004, 08:01 PM

Nah, don't worry about offending me. Hard to do. :p
Also, I am rude and arrogant. ;D

Heh, that's good then. I will never deny the fact that I enjoy being prick.

As for the "God hates *** people" came from many many priests/priestesses and other sunday-church-goers that i've met. As I was told growing up, I should always listen to my elders. ;0

Then I take the previous statement back. To me I don't see God stating homosexuals are evil, however I do see the word of God stating that God loves ALL of his children.

In the time period of the bible, homosexuality was frowned upon. The bible was written by men and homosexuality seemingly defies Gods purpose of humans joining together for the purpose of procreation. Homosexuals cannot procreate through intercourse and were(and still are in some places) viewed as an abomination to God by those who followed God.

I believe that the hate of homosexuality comes from man, not God.

Oh, and I did read a lot of the bible. I just don't know what those sub-sections are called--actually I just can't remember. XP
As for sacrificing, the only reason I can remember is for the really hairy guy and the blind father. But that wasn't really a sacrifice--lol. Untill you give me proof for this one, i'm standing by my opinion for this area.

Understood. I would love to go into it, but I am keeping my word in not discussing religion... for the most part. :lol:

Why is God always said to be a "he" by all catholic (and all the other types of religions)? Just easier than saying "the person that is neither guy nor girl"? ;o

I don't follow traditional organised church, in fact I despise the church in general.

My closest estimation is that during the time period the bible was written and Jesus was said to have walked the earth, men were the superior gender. Women had little rights and for the most part were viewed as objects that were merely possessions of the man. The church leaders were men, the politicians were men, the leaders were men, the very people who wrote the bible were men, I believe the sexism led to an assumption that God was a man. Honestly, what reason would God himself have to be a man? He wouldn't need a penis.

I think of God as a non-sexual being, one who has no need of sexual organs.

Err...what? XD

[If ya wanna talk futher with me about this stuff, just PM me. I made sure I didn't post anything that should offend you to post about this again to defend yourself. Atleast I tried. o.o;]

Nah, we can discuss this here. If it were an arguement I would do the PM thing, but this has pretty much turned into a friendly discussion.

Those who follow God are "expected" to spread the word of God. Not simply because it is asked of them in the bible and by the church, but simply if such a thing as hell existed and was as horrible as you would expect, wouldn't you try to keep others out of there?

So it isn't a matter of trying to gather more people to them so they don't feel stupid, it simply is their duty. Their desire from saving someone from a lifetime of eternal torment.

While you will never see me desperately trying to get someone to convert to God, I really can't fault others for trying, it is understandable when you consider what is at stake.

Daedric

03-07-2004, 08:06 PM

Why is God always said to be a "he" by all catholic (and all the other types of religions)? Just easier than saying "the person that is neither guy nor girl"? ;o

Quite obviously this is because God refers to himself as "He" in the Bible. God wrote it after all. Moreover, it says in the Bible that God created man in His image. Again, quite obviously this implies that God must look like a man. Another reason for refering to Himself as a He may be that it is not to our understanding exactly what He is. No one knows for sure.

For instance, here on Earth, we are limited to two unique genders. No, trans-sexuals do not count, as naturally there are only two. Agreed, people are sometimes born with both sexual organs, but this is not the norm. We can't comprehend another sex.

The same goes for colors. No one can think of a color that doesn't involve any of the known colors. We can see only a very small part of the color spectrum with our eyes, from violet to red(correct me if I am wrong), meaning there may be other's we cannot see; yet we cannot comprehend them.

This goes to show that just because we(or Science) don't understand something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Ockam's Razor doesn't necessarily prove anything. Do babies come from:

A) the stork
B) sex -> conception -> embryo -> fetus -> baby

Etra

03-07-2004, 08:14 PM

Ockam's Razor doesn't necessarily prove anything. Do babies come from:

A) the stork
B) sex -> conception -> embryo -> fetus -> baby
My mommy said I came from the pizza shop's dumpster across the street. o.o
Just kidding XP

That's a much better example than mine. :lol:
Much easier to understand too...o_o; Can I borrow your brain Daedric? :x

On-Topic Reply:
Razor's theory sometimes works--but usually not. In the case of proving if god exists, nothing can prove that--yet.

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

03-07-2004, 08:18 PM

Do babies come from:

A) the stork
B) sex -> conception -> embryo -> fetus -> baby

My mom apparently like option C). She said I was hatched from a pile of dog crap that set out in the sun too long.

Essex

03-07-2004, 08:29 PM

well my mom liked Option D. A drunk favor to your father that never happened again until after our divorce.

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

03-07-2004, 08:34 PM

well my mom liked Option D. A drunk favor to your father that never happened again until after our divorce.

:lol:

Continuing off-topic and borderline offensive, I have a favorite insult for my older brother Mike. I just tell him he was the load mom should have swallowed.

Graav Wolfsong

03-07-2004, 09:23 PM

Continuing off-topic and borderline offensive, I have a favorite insult for my older brother Mike. I just tell him he was the load mom should have swallowed.

Geez, you brother must be a very tolerant man, that is the kind of thing that gives you lots of black eyes, split lips and broken noses.
If someone told me that to my face they would be eating a knee to the face in no time no matter how lighthearted the tone was. :thumbsup:

On another note, option D is pretty much the closest description of my conception as well. :)

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

03-07-2004, 09:30 PM

Geez, you brother must be a very tolerant man, that is the kind of thing that gives you lots of black eyes, split lips and broken noses.
If someone told me that to my face they would be eating a knee to the face in no time no matter how lighthearted the tone was. :thumbsup:

Nah, you just have to understand our relationship. He was giving me black eyes, split lips, and broken noses(1) way before I was old enough to even think of good insults.

Why do you think I picked up learning to fight in the first place? :lol:

niteshade6

04-07-2004, 03:09 AM

Regarding refering to god as a he, it's good to remember that in many uses he is a gender neutral word. Anytime you are talking about somebody and the gender is unclear, then he is traditionaly the right word to use.

Personaly I agree it's silly to think that god has any sexual organs at all. If he does, then that would mean there would have to be others like him for him to reproduce with. Not completely impossible of course (and it would explain the age old question of if god exists, who created him), but it would certainly be a theological bombshell that most people would be unable to deal with.

As for Occam's razor, you can word anything to sound alot simpler then it actualy is. It's probably most useful when there is an indisbutable difference in complexity between two things. Most of the cases people have given as examples simply involve one thing being explained in much more detail then another, thus making it look more complicated.

SaroDarksbane

04-07-2004, 04:08 AM

GOD LOVES ALL HIS CHILDREN! YET BEING *** IS BADDDD!! -.-;
1. Faulty logic. I could change it if you like:

GOD LOVES ALL HIS CHILDREN! YET BEING A MURDERER IS BADDDD!!

As you can see, morality has not much to do with unconditional love. That's why it's unconditional, after all.

2. I'm not entirely convinced that the Bible condemns homosexuality. At this point, I'd rather just let him be the final judge, as it's not my place to do so.

Moreover, it says in the Bible that God created man in His image. Again, quite obviously this implies that God must look like a man.

Incorrect. "In his image" refers to a spiritual nature that God shares. Which is why none of the other animals were "created in his image"; They have no eternal soul.

AgeOfAbnegation

04-07-2004, 04:57 AM

Scripture doesn't condemn "being of homosexual orientation", but rather the act of sodomy. *** people are thus called to chastity.

SaroDarksbane

04-07-2004, 05:19 AM

Scripture doesn't condemn "being of homosexual orientation", but rather the act of sodomy. *** people are thus called to chastity.
Which was a method of keeping Israel differentiated from the cultures around them. Same as the "don't round your beards" rule. It wasn't that rounding their beards was wrong; The egyptians rounded their beards and Israel was to keep seperate from them. The whole "no sodomy" was to prevent copying of the fertility rituals of the surrounding cultures which often involved sodomy.

That's why that whole section is known as the Holiness Doctrine. Holy meaning "set apart".

(And as the traditional parting shot: You aren't wearing clothes made from two different fibers are you? Ever eaten crab or lobster? Heathen! :lol:)

Echod16

04-07-2004, 08:32 AM

You know, in all honesty i think..

God is not he
God is not her
God is not human

AgeOfAbnegation

04-07-2004, 03:22 PM

Which was a method of keeping Israel differentiated from the cultures around them. Same as the "don't round your beards" rule. It wasn't that rounding their beards was wrong; The egyptians rounded their beards and Israel was to keep seperate from them. The whole "no sodomy" was to prevent copying of the fertility rituals of the surrounding cultures which often involved sodomy.

That's why that whole section is known as the Holiness Doctrine. Holy meaning "set apart".

(And as the traditional parting shot: You aren't wearing clothes made from two different fibers are you? Ever eaten crab or lobster? Heathen! :lol:)

Furthermore, this practical kind of separation, like many themes in the old testament, was a foreshadowing of the new testament. We wer set apart in terms of our object of love - mainly, the revealed Godhead in Jesus Christ. For us to avoid sin, scripture affirms the necessity to refrain from any sort of impurity, lewdness, drukenness, etc (gal 5), so thatwe will receive our love from God, not mere creature comforts. THis includes acts of sodomy. This is not the first time you've brought this up, and each time I went away thinking that you see nothing inherently sinful about an act of sodomy, or something akin to it. I hope I'm wrong.

Essex

04-07-2004, 05:10 PM

Scripture doesn't condemn "being of homosexual orientation", but rather the act of sodomy. *** people are thus called to chastity.
oh that's funny....

i won't get into this because well i know this is probably a theological debate and really i have little to contribute.

Graav Wolfsong

04-07-2004, 05:19 PM

Usually God seems to hate whatever the guys in charge in the church wants him to hate.
In other words, its not God or religion that really hates homosexuals, its the religious people using the "because God doesnt like them" excuse to be as prejudiced as they want.
So when it comes to that I usually just dump on the dumb guys in church instead of on the religion itself.

publius

04-07-2004, 08:29 PM

Two things:

1) Ockham's razor is a heuristic, explaining only a tendency for the simpler explanation to be correct. You'd be the laughing stock of the scientific community if you tried to use it for a rigorous proof. It after all doesn't hold weight against actual observed phenomenom such as the red shift, etc., that suggest the expansion of the universe and the

2) You're horribly misusing it to spin the existence of god. I can easily do so the other way:

Did the universe
a) come into existence from the Big Bang or
b) be created by an all-powerful, omnipotent sentient deity in six days of hard labor in which he created everything there is in the world for some mysterious purpose which only he knows but refuses to tell us, and then ran around creating false evidence which suggests that the universe began with a big bang, and then expects human beings to believe in his existance just because?

Sardoth

04-07-2004, 09:23 PM

Must.........stop......................from...............posting

*smacks self*

Hit............reply................leave............topic........

GAH!

SaroDarksbane

04-07-2004, 10:54 PM

This is not the first time you've brought this up, and each time I went away thinking that you see nothing inherently sinful about an act of sodomy, or something akin to it. I hope I'm wrong.
I don't believe oral sex is inherently sinful, so I don't see why sodomy should be any different (Well, if we ignore the obvious health issues regarding sodomy).

WiglyWorm

04-07-2004, 11:17 PM

OK, i know my use of okham's razor was flawed the momment i thought about it, but it gave me a little titter and i wanted to see where the conversation would go.

PErsonally, I believe in God. I'm very devout. I'm Christian. I don't believe in organized religion. Organized religion has does wonders to distance people from God. They see the hypocracy of some of the churches out there and think it is GOD's hypocracy. But then at the same time some people really do need to be told what to believe. Poor them.

Did the universe
a) come into existence from the Big Bang or
b) be created by an all-powerful, omnipotent sentient deity in six days of hard labor in which he created everything there is in the world for some mysterious purpose which only he knows but refuses to tell us, and then ran around creating false evidence which suggests that the universe began with a big bang, and then expects human beings to believe in his existance just because?

Who's to say what a day is to a diety? it could be billions of years. Basically at theat point in the bible, to me, saying "day" should actually be translated to "In the first period of time he said "lt there be light". In the second period of time he said... not actually on the first day.

I know there are some religions out there who regard the bible as the absolute truth handed by God to men. I tend to think it's a bit more like this. The bible was handed by God to men through his divine inspiration, unfortunatley they got some things slightly off. And it was in San Scrit. The bible was later translated to latin, these people missed some translations and got some more wrong. The bible was later translated by King James for use as a political tool and intentionall got some things wrong. As well as into seperate english versions that got stuff wrong inadvertently.

When it comes to matters of faith, everyone must find their own. Some people find their way to a church and are happy there. Some people find their way directly to God and have no need for a church. Some people lose faith and think there is no God. I feel sorry for those ones. There is a happiness in knowing God that i've not ever had before i knew him (i saw him because it's easier than "non-sexual divine being") you'll notice the bible capitalizes Him when speaking of God, leaving me to believe they use it in the same manner. But hey, at the very least.. even if you don't believe in him he still loves you.

Oh, i'm actually a reverend.
www.ulc.org

AgeOfAbnegation

05-07-2004, 01:50 AM

I don't believe oral sex is inherently sinful, so I don't see why sodomy should be any different (Well, if we ignore the obvious health issues regarding sodomy).

With all do respect, God doest give a **** what "you" believe is inherently sinful or not. That was the nature of Adam and Eve's sin in Eden. The next question for you to consider deals with a willingness to set aside your own understanding for what is presented in scripture.

AgeOfAbnegation

05-07-2004, 01:51 AM

AgeOfAbnegation

05-07-2004, 02:14 AM

All this time I've been arguing with atheists and agnostics. Now I must pick apart a reverend. In truth, I'd rather deal with an atheist or agnostic (my usual detractors), than a religious person who thinks they know their shyt. I've got a friend who is moving to singapore tommorow - so I hung out with her for brekfast today. We usually discuss matters of religion, etc. You'd be amazed as to how many christians (evangelicals etc) say that religion is the stumbling block of a relationship with God. A sign on a fundamentalist church even read "the greatest enemy to faith is reason". I nearly keeled over :p. That's called "cult". Anyway, enough tirade, onto the subject matter!!

OK, i know my use of okham's razor was flawed the momment i thought about it, but it gave me a little titter and i wanted to see where the conversation would go.

THis is why "organized religion" helps you. In Catholicism for instance, those preparing to be priests must study 3 full years of philosophy (in canada anyway), before even touching theology. This avoids messups, like the one you precipitated with ockham's razor. The key to keep in mind is that we're all within the framework of the world, and if we are to teach others, we must have a thorough understanding of it first.

PErsonally, I believe in God. I'm very devout. I'm Christian. I don't believe in organized religion. Organized religion has does wonders to distance people from God.

I'd never be seen within 5 miles of your church I'm afraid.. Certainly not with an outlook like that. Even your lack of structure is still a structure. Everyone is within a framework - including those blessed souls you preach to. Essex will love me for this, but churches like that, with their "rev. phelps", are a big reason why alot of people are so pissed off with christianity. All churches have organization, and what matters is the degree to which the people, and their pastor, are filled with the spirit.

They see the hypocracy of some of the churches out there and think it is GOD's hypocracy. But then at the same time some people really do need to be told what to believe. Poor them.

And so do you require to be told what to believe - it is your station as a instructor of the Gospel. If this is not so, you will preach your own gospel. One cannot teach truth if one cannot accept it, so "poor you". :uhhuh:

I know there are some religions out there who regard the bible as the absolute truth handed by God to men. I tend to think it's a bit more like this. The bible was handed by God to men through his divine inspiration, unfortunatley they got some things slightly off. And it was in San Scrit. The bible was later translated to latin, these people missed some translations and got some more wrong. The bible was later translated by King James for use as a political tool and intentionall got some things wrong. As well as into seperate english versions that got stuff wrong inadvertently.

Makes me wonder what you preach, and why you bother to preach anything at all, with that degree of uncertainty. Any preacher worth his salt holds the notion that the Holy Spirit would preserve what people need to hear. Whats the matter, you "doubt that"? If that's the case, you should get your shyt together on the matter before having the gaul to stand before an audience.

When it comes to matters of faith, everyone must find their own. Some people find their way to a church and are happy there. Some people find their way directly to God and have no need for a church. Some people lose faith and think there is no God. I feel sorry for those ones. There is a happiness in knowing God that i've not ever had before i knew him (i saw him because it's easier than "non-sexual divine being") you'll notice the bible capitalizes Him when speaking of God, leaving me to believe they use it in the same manner. But hey, at the very least.. even if you don't believe in him he still loves you.

Oh, i'm actually a reverend.
www.ulc.org

You disgust me. I'd rather deal with a million atheists, agnostics who are honest about their position (Essex for example), than teachers of the Word who would dare to mouth the tripe you just posted. I dont know who you are or where you've come from, but you're one arrogant S.O.B. to go preach the Word of God to faithful listeners while giving it a subjective twist like you have. For you, and anyone else who may be offended by this post, I'd ask that you read revelation chapters 2 and 3 to understand that God has STRICT GUIDELINES for the organization of his church. Your halfassed approach to christianity is why the church is dead in america.

AgeOfAbnegation

05-07-2004, 02:24 AM

wtf...Just checked out your website wiggly worm.. Doesn't suprise me in the least - anyone here can be a minister - they have over "20 million" ministers lol.. What is the criteria for signing up? Gosh, perhaps I could.. or any of you others. Preach what you want, in Christ's name! :cheesy:

Andarcel

05-07-2004, 02:37 AM

I'm not convinced that Occam's Razor even qualifies as a hueristic. Simplest explanations turn out to be practically always wrong. It's more the logical equivalent of a tie-breaker rule, to keep us from spinning endless explanations into infinity. On the other hand...

It is the foundation of all science.

Andarcel

05-07-2004, 02:59 AM

The notion of an online form that makes you an InstaMinister is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. First, of course, there's the notion that it takes no special talent or dedication to be a minister. Most ministers must earn actual degrees in theology, but at ulc.com, knowing what you're talking about is not a significant criterion for ministry. Nor is demonstrating that you have the sincerity of purpose to go through an education aimed at being a minister.

But perhaps the worst of this site:

We offer the acclaimed Ministry In A Box, which contains all the books, materials, ceremonies and training that you need to start your [b]business[b] off right. [emphasis mine]

Wow. You want to talk about moneychangers in the temple? My Lord, how debased and tawdry can you make the vocation of teaching the Word?

This site is like the fake universities that offer instant diplomas - except so much worse for profaning something far more sacred.

SaroDarksbane

05-07-2004, 03:39 AM

With all do respect, God doest give a **** what "you" believe is inherently sinful or not. That was the nature of Adam and Eve's sin in Eden. The next question for you to consider deals with a willingness to set aside your own understanding for what is presented in scripture.
Now you're playing word games.

Are you saying you have no beliefs? Oh wait, you are saying you have beliefs but they are founded in the scripture, and since my beliefs disagree with yours, I must have just conjured them up out of thin air. If you had stopped to ask why I believe what I believe, I would have told you it was founded in the scripture.

So I could say the same to you:

With all do respect, God doest give a **** what "you" believe is inherently sinful or not. That was the nature of Adam and Eve's sin in Eden. The next question for you to consider deals with a willingness to set aside your own understanding for what is presented in scripture, which is that oral sex is not inherently sinful.

See how easy that is? No need for debate here folks. Just tell people that your beliefs are founded in scripture and theirs aren't. Insta-win, woo!

But I know you better than that AoA, so if you want to have a real conversation on the issue, all you have to do is present the first piece of evidence. =)

EDIT:

And while we're on the subject of quick-fix religions: Plug-N-Pray! (http://www.plug-pray.org/ENG/Home.html) :lol:

Essex

05-07-2004, 03:49 AM

i think he added that part about being a revrend in as a bit of a joke... that's how I took it.

AgeOfAbnegation

05-07-2004, 04:09 AM

Now you're playing word games.
If you had stopped to ask why I believe what I believe, I would have told you it was founded in the scripture.

If you know me so well, you would have understood that it was implied that I disagree that your position was wrought from scripture. If you can read the text I offered you and still disagree, you are dishonest. Scripture makes it exceedingly clear that any sexual activity outside marriage - including oral, masturbation, and even sodomy, is inherently sinful. Now, this is simply what the text says. If you disagree, than feel free, but do not disagree, and say scripture supports you.

So I could say the same to you:

With all do respect, God doest give a **** what "you" believe is inherently sinful or not.

Yes, I am subject to the same laws of reason and judgement that you are. In this case however, I offered you scripture to back it up. I hope in humility you can recieve those well. This isn't a contest, it's about being intellectually, and personally honest and accountable.

That was the nature of Adam and Eve's sin in Eden. The next question for you to consider deals with a willingness to set aside your own understanding for what is presented in scripture, which is that oral sex is not inherently sinful.

erm.. I think it is you who play word games, not I.

See how easy that is? No need for debate here folks. Just tell people that your beliefs are founded in scripture and theirs aren't. Insta-win, woo!

That would work only if we didn't actually consult the texts. I'm hoping that you haven't. Please do so.

But I know you better than that AoA, so if you want to have a real conversation on the issue, all you have to do is present the first piece of evidence. =)

I thought I already had. Do you want me to provide additional scriptures? I suppose you'll read through those, stating you want some kind of "verbatim explanation" saying its wrong. What you should also do is read the text in its entirety, and you will understand that our bodies are to be used to serve God always, not simply vehicles of our own pleasure.
Now before this paragraph gets quoted a hundred million times, pleasure is a good thing per se, and sex is a natural wholesome thing - within the realm of an ordered, married relationship. God wants everything ordered, and wholesome to avoid people getting hurt, and also to ensure people SERVE HIM with no loopholes.

Bhs Crew

05-07-2004, 09:01 AM

Makes me wonder what you preach, and why you bother to preach anything at all, with that degree of uncertainty. Any preacher worth his salt holds the notion that the Holy Spirit would preserve what people need to hear. Whats the matter, you "doubt that"? If that's the case, you should get your shyt together on the matter before having the gaul to stand before an audience.

So with all that translation NOTHING important was lost or mistranslated? The people writing and translating have their own agendas and they translation inherently leaves itself open to interpretation.

Different versions and translations of the Bible say different things. They can't all be right so one assumes that what is written is not absolute fact but rather a framework.

You disgust me. I'd rather deal with a million atheists, agnostics who are honest about their position (Essex for example), than teachers of the Word who would dare to mouth the tripe you just posted. I dont know who you are or where you've come from, but you're one arrogant S.O.B. to go preach the Word of God to faithful listeners while giving it a subjective twist like you have. For you, and anyone else who may be offended by this post, I'd ask that you read revelation chapters 2 and 3 to understand that God has STRICT GUIDELINES for the organization of his church. Your halfassed approach to christianity is why the church is dead in america.
If God has such strict guidelines he can do it himself. The reason the church is having problems is not due to priests giving things subjective twists. The reason the church is having problems is due to its inability to adapt and fix problems within its structure. Church people (all the way up to popes) are only human and so it is necessary for the church to be able to adapt as various human problems come along.

Just one example is how Priests were originally allowed to marry. Then the rules were changed for entirely political reasons. Now the church is having problems that would be vastly improved by fixing the mistake made many years ago and allowing priests to marry again.

AgeOfAbnegation

05-07-2004, 09:26 AM

So with all that translation NOTHING important was lost or mistranslated? The people writing and translating have their own agendas and they translation inherently leaves itself open to interpretation.

A good scholar will make dilligent use of the original texts and authorities, and will follow the paths through different translation mediums (greek, latin, aramaic, hebrew, vernacular etc). With our resources, both human and textual, poor scholarship is simply not feasible.
From a more practical perspective, God's word is truly alive when it's put into practise. As James said - show me your god without works, and I will show you my God with works.. (there is a difference between authentic and contrived experience).

Different versions and translations of the Bible say different things. They can't all be right so one assumes that what is written is not absolute fact but rather a framework.

If anything, the array of translations in its different forms and languages is a happy thing. A small section of my library contains most of the translations in print, with some being of the ancient sources. Multilingual friends of mine also have many texts. I've found that the major differences were in the literal and figurative expressions of the text, with the most recent - NRSV, containing some inclusive language. Most however, give the same message. If one cannot understand that, it's likely because they wish to see substantial differences, not because they are inherently present. In some texts, there have been alterations, but faithful scholarship has provided us with a plethora of translations that say the same thing.

If God has such strict guidelines he can do it himself.

See, this comes from someone who would separate the activity of God from the movements and will of man. The theatre of life is integrated, and God does nothing without us. "God can't save us, without us". God cannot create a framework, and grow it, without our "down to earth" human experience. As such, he entrusted the Church to his followers (most notably Peter "keys of the kingdom"), and promised to imbue the church with his Spirit. If God "did it himself", there would be no earth. Now some take the other extreme, stating that "its up to us". This two is to be avoided. We must thus do our best to live in prayer, and live our our normal lives.

The reason the church is having problems is not due to priests giving things subjective twists. The reason the church is having problems is due to its inability to adapt and fix problems within its structure. Church people (all the way up to popes) are only human and so it is necessary for the church to be able to adapt as various human problems come along.

That's simply not accurate. Structure can appear to have problems when life is drained from its symbolic meaning. Any given structre is created for a reason - to guide people to a certain understanding or position, and a certain organic unity amongst the masses. What can happen however is when the individual impetus is lacking from the individuals composing it, or, simply put - you "lose it". An easy example would be a loveless marriage. Structure exists, but no fire. The same goes for the church. THe easy, and futile way, is to just "change the system". What needs to change is the people within it.

Just one example is how Priests were originally allowed to marry. Then the rules were changed for entirely political reasons. Now the church is having problems that would be vastly improved by fixing the mistake made many years ago and allowing priests to marry again.

If I were to be a priest, I would choose not to marry. Don't get me wrong, I love women, but a priest must be hardcore dedicated to God, and spreading the gospel - especially for the witness in this age. Also, a busy priest wouldn't be doing his wife any good by his strenuous lifestyle. Celibate priesthood can change - its not a fixed rule but a guideline. Priests must be 100% focused (St. Paul says "I wish everyone would be as I am"), for the sake of the ministry, and not to detract from normal life. Trust me, a married priest just wouldn't work.
Furthermore, priests do not carry out the same kind of task as ministers, just to snag that argument before you post it. Priests, by and large, are engrossed in much more duties, and the sacramental nature of their ministry demands 100% focus, as that's what will sustain him in the absense of a loving wife.

SaroDarksbane

05-07-2004, 09:59 AM

Scripture makes it exceedingly clear that any sexual activity outside marriage - including oral, masturbation, and even sodomy, is inherently sinful.
Ahh, so now we add outside marriage. That's a big change, from "Oral sex is inherently wrong" to "Oral sex outside marriage is inherently wrong".

One I agree with, the other I don't.

EDIT:

Btw, I see where you're going with his now. Perhaps the focus should change to a discussion of *** marriage?

On second thought, let's not go there again, hehe.

publius

05-07-2004, 10:10 AM

On the other hand...

It is the foundation of all science.

....

It is?

niteshade6

05-07-2004, 12:59 PM

Age, I do think you are a bit out of line with Wiggly there. I understand that part of it was because you didn't realize he was joking about the reverend thing and you were offended that a reverend (who you imagined to be leading a church) would be against organized religion. You have to remember though that your branch of Christianity has quite a few idealogical differences from alot of others. We can't really have a mature discussion if you are going to just bash the religions of people who don't share your view points. Discussing it is fine, and saying why you disagree, but calling their beliefs tripe and saying they disgust you is not. I've certainly seen you protest and call it immature when people were behaving in a similar fashion about your beliefs.

Anyway just thought it had to be said. I'm not asking you not to feel the way you do, or believe what you do, that would be silly. But just try to be a little more mature about it or there will pretty be much no hope for serious discussion.

AgeOfAbnegation

05-07-2004, 03:01 PM

Ahh, so now we add outside marriage. That's a big change, from "Oral sex is inherently wrong" to "Oral sex outside marriage is inherently wrong".

One I agree with, the other I don't.

EDIT:

Btw, I see where you're going with his now. Perhaps the focus should change to a discussion of *** marriage?

On second thought, let's not go there again, hehe.

LOL.. *runs for cover*

AgeOfAbnegation

05-07-2004, 03:25 PM

Age, I do think you are a bit out of line with Wiggly there.

I'm not sure how, as I've hilighted the reasons for my replies to the contents of his post. Ask yourself where your post came from however. Perhaps it comes from the typical post modern notion that "everything has the same value"? Make no mistake - wether he was joking or not about the minister thing (I believed him because I know several other "ministers" who present the issue like he does. After reading the texts correctly, there are no two ways to go about the interpretation of scripture. If I am out of line here, it would perhaps be in terms of tone, but I'll strongly insist that a person should get their shyt together before teaching others. This guy doesn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground. I make zero apologies. In truth, I'd be out of line if I DIDN'T make that rebuttal.

I understand that part of it was because you didn't realize he was joking about the reverend thing

No, you understood noting It would seem. The main body of my rebuke was centered around the text before that, not that tiny blurb after. (That I addressed further in a separate post)

and you were offended that a reverend (who you imagined to be leading a church) would be against organized religion.

Wrong again. What offends me is that he knows not why he's truly against it. If a person would be against organization, it's more that I'd feel sorry for that person, who lacks critical use of the faculties. What I'm much more concerned with however is that he claims there is a better way, yet snuffs out that claim with a subjective twist.

You have to remember though that your branch of Christianity has quite a few idealogical differences from alot of others.

Sure, we'll just sweep those under the rug... :uhhuh:

We can't really have a mature discussion if you are going to just bash the religions of people who don't share your view points.

Rather, we can't really have a mature discussion if we just go along with what anyone else believes for the sake of harmony. Dont be so naive to assert that my posts simply bash other participants on this forum. Learn to read.

Discussing it is fine, and saying why you disagree, but calling their beliefs tripe and saying they disgust you is not.

THat so? Tell you what. If there are no "rights and wrongs" to an issue, than there is no debate to begin with. What happens when a wrong is discovered? Must we simply pass that by? Most times, that's exactly what happens. We become our beliefs, and I have zero trouble with voicing the way I feel about a situation. I'm thoroughly disguisted that this person has the gaul to teach an audience "tripe", with the correct answers in the texts available to him. That's laziness, pride, and deceit. I did add "if anyone is offended by this post, read Rev. 2-3" at the bottom. The text clearly indicates how ministry is to be conducted. This was directed at you, and those of like temperment. I don't waste time on posts - you shouldn't either.

I've certainly seen you protest and call it immature when people were behaving in a similar fashion about your beliefs.

Like I'm doing so now? :uhhuh: Upon closer inspection of my many posts in the off topics, I stick right to the content of another's post, and I defend my own positions if need be. Let me tell you something - if you were an auto mechanic, and your buddy was working on the car beside you, would you not reprimand him if he was using the wrong tools, or if he was doing a poor job? That's not a boastful claim - it's to ensure the customer's car doesn't fall apart! If this guy claims to be of my beliefs - and not just mine, but claims to live and teach the Word of God, then he better get his shyt strait about it, especially if he would teach others - even only in this forum.

Anyway just thought it had to be said. I'm not asking you not to feel the way you do, or believe what you do, that would be silly. But just try to be a little more mature about it or there will pretty be much no hope for serious discussion.

Well thanks nonetheless niteshade, I know you were honest and sincere, I appreciate that. I hope however I've been clear enough in my reply.

Essex

05-07-2004, 04:03 PM

did anyone see the documentry about celebacy on HBO a few weeks ago? Pretty entertaining... don't know when they'll play it again though

niteshade6

06-07-2004, 01:44 AM

Age,

If you go back and read what I said, I never you shouldn’t have a strong opinon or say that you thought he was wrong. I simply said you shouldn’t make your opinion sound like a personal attack full of insults. You made some mention of his points, but most of it came off as much more of an emotional attack. It’s one thing for a mechanic to say oh you made a mistake fixing this car, it won’t work. It’s another for the mechanic to call the person a moron with no skill whatsoever who isn’t fit to ever be near a car. You should remember that many people have just as strong opinions about your religion and religious beliefs as you do about Wiggy’s. Things would fall apart quickly if everyone expressed them the way you do, and I’m sure you’d be quite offended.

With most people I wouldn’t even bother pointing all this out, mature religious discussion is a tricky thing that many can’t do because beliefs tend to run very strongly and emotionally. But I brought it up with you because you’ve certainly been quite capable of it in the past. Also you should realize I never said you were only disagreeing with him because you thought he was a reverend, I said that your opinions were much more strongly expressed because of this (or at least that's what I meant to say if it didn't come out like that).

You are off course correct in saying there are many reverends, ministers and the like, including many who have practicing and studying since before you were born (well I’m assuming your not older then say 50), who would not completely disagree with Wiggy’s views. The only part which might be somewhat alien is the part about organized religion, since usualy to be a church official you have to be part of organized religion. Generaly speaking, Christianity is often much like politics with the Catholic Church and certain other churches on the far right, Wiggy’s beliefs and those of a few churches on the far left, and most of the rest of Christianity more in the middle. Many of the ideological differences are related to what they believe of the bible, weither they think it is the unabridged word of god or something different. This is simply a matter of faith and hard to really discuss well. As I’m sure you know there are even fundamentalist groups more “to the right” then the Catholic Church who would call them unchristian for not following the bible closely enough, and for having beliefs and customs not specifically outlined there.

Mad_Mat

06-07-2004, 02:20 AM

No you are not sorry, you can say it all day long but everyone can pick up on the sense of glee and distain you have as you typed this post. Now then, God doesn't exist? I would venture to guess there are billions of people walking this world who would disagree with you.
Because many people believe something it makes it real? You present no arguement here.
Let me ask you a question, would the creator of all existance, a being who does not need to procreate, actually NEED the sexual organs of any gender?
No arguement here either. Pickin on small stuff to try and make the poster look stupid.
For someone who claims to know enough about the bible to pass it off as false, you mean to tell me you haven't even picked up one of the most simple of answers? Odd. Who is stupid?
You would do well to bring proof before dismissing one's arguement by saying "You're wrong, it says so in the Bible", but not stating where.
Well since you obviously read that "first area-part-thingy" of Genisis, you should also understand the reason he asked for a sacrifice, and you should also know what happened afterwards. You don't so I'll simply dismiss your comment as uniformed rhetoric.
You attack the poster and not the arguement. You present no arguement.
Do me a big favor for the sake of arguement, quote the passage. My guess is you don't actually know that is in the bible and are simply going off something someone else told you right?
Valid point the he didn't back his arguement with proof.

You present no proof as to why anyone should believe God exists other than people's lack of ability to explain things, and their need for a sense of purpose.

P.S: sorry for skipping the rest of the thread I'll continue reading the rest after I post this but I just had to comment here because you come off as all knowing but you're saying absolutley nothing.

EDIT: In response to this:
In other words, its not God or religion that really hates homosexuals, its the religious people using the "because God doesnt like them" excuse to be as prejudiced as they want.
Religion doesn't exist without people who uphold and believe in it. If people who believe in a certain religion all hate homosexuals as a part of their religion, even if hating gays wasn't a part of the religion originally, it becomes a part of it. You can't seperate religion in theory from religion in practice. Note, I do mean if there's a concensus about a matter. Otherwise we're talking about different sects.

AgeOfAbnegation

06-07-2004, 02:33 AM

Age,

If you go back and read what I said, I never you shouldn’t have a strong opinon or say that you thought he was wrong. I simply said you shouldn’t make your opinion sound like a personal attack full of insults.

Dude, don't backpedal. That's not what you said at all, and if there is anyone that can be accused of not reading posts correctly, it sure as hell is not I. Your text began by reference to the multitude of expressions of christianty. I emphasized that there be only one universal understanding, which is clearly demonstrated by scripture. Furthermore, an "insult" would be a direct deprication of character, not a mentioning that he disguists me. That is my outlook on him, which does not objectively detract from his inherent dignity as a human being. Don't impune my honor.

You made some mention of his points, but most of it came off as much more of an emotional attack.

An emotional attack would be just spamming the thread with garble. I laid out my position clearly. Tone however is useful in emphasizing points where time constraints impose themselves. While I'm here often, I don't have time to write a frikin' novel as to how he is wrong, so tone helps. Furthermore, the nature of the content demands a strong front. It is disguisting, for the reasons I've highlighted.

It’s one thing for a mechanic to say oh you made a mistake fixing this car, it won’t work. It’s another for the mechanic to call the person a moron with no skill whatsoever who isn’t fit to ever be near a car. You should remember that many people have just as strong opinions about your religion and religious beliefs as you do about Wiggy’s. Things would fall apart quickly if everyone expressed them the way you do, and I’m sure you’d be quite offended.

Personally, as I've mentioned time and again on these forums, it's about content. There are those who have delivered strong hits to me, and often-times its in anger for AoA being so "arrogant" or whatever. I'll take the hits, and keep on going. I know who I am, and what a poster says to me here can never detract from my dignity, and the same goes for anyone else. I find it strange that you failed to mention the argument I presented, and simply zero in on the tone. One thing for sure, I doubt you'd appreciate being educated by charlatans.

With most people I wouldn’t even bother pointing all this out, mature religious discussion is a tricky thing that many can’t do because beliefs tend to run very strongly and emotionally. But I brought it up with you because you’ve certainly been quite capable of it in the past. Also you should realize I never said you were only disagreeing with him because you thought he was a reverend, I said that your opinions were much more strongly expressed because of this (or at least that's what I meant to say if it didn't come out like that).

As a rule, I will always suffer rebukes for my theme of universality. Not only does it have to do with religion (I usually don't discuss religion per se), but mostly matters of philosophy and epistempology. I say there is one truth, they say there are many. It's nothing new. There will always be this going on while I'm around.

You are off course correct in saying there are many reverends, ministers and the like, including many who have practicing and studying since before you were born (well I’m assuming your not older then say 50), who would not completely disagree with Wiggy’s views. The only part which might be somewhat alien is the part about organized religion, since usualy to be a church official you have to be part of organized religion. Generaly speaking, Christianity is often much like politics with the Catholic Church and certain other churches on the far right, Wiggy’s beliefs and those of a few churches on the far left, and most of the rest of Christianity more in the middle.

You may see it like that, but I'll assert that there is no right and left, or even center - there is only the correct path, and the incorrect. THis can be discovered in the sacred texts. THis is what raised my ire. That upset you?

Many of the ideological differences are related to what they believe of the bible, weither they think it is the unabridged word of god or something different. This is simply a matter of faith and hard to really discuss well.

No, it is not simply a "matter of faith", and it can be duscussed clearly. If one cannot articulate something properly, one does not know it. These charlatans should be reading those texts. Instead, they waste their time. Know why there are scandals in ministry and the priesthood? It's because they do not read the texts, and wish to live a mediocre life.

As I’m sure you know there are even fundamentalist groups more “to the right” then the Catholic Church who would call them unchristian for not following the bible closely enough, and for having beliefs and customs not specifically outlined there.

There are literally thousands of groups, all over the map in terms of practise. THe goal is to have humanity mould itself to the truth, not vice versa.

Booms

06-07-2004, 03:12 AM

Personally, as I've mentioned time and again on these forums, it's about content.

If it's about the content, then attack the post, not the poster.

Andarcel

06-07-2004, 03:48 AM

....

It is?
Yes. We can invent as many elaborate theories as we want, but the only scientifically acceptable solution is the least complicated model that fits the data. That's the major criticism of string theory: many feel that the data do not demand anything nearly so elaborate, however elegant the math may be (and from what I hear, it's not all that elegant.) Classical mechanics could have been explained relativistically or through quantum mechanics, but no one had any reason to during the 19th century. You introduce additional complexity into a theory only as it becomes absolutely necessary.

niteshade6

06-07-2004, 07:49 AM

publius

06-07-2004, 08:09 AM

Thas funny, I always thought the scientific method consisted of forming a hypothesis and testing it, not the other way around. Calling Ockham's razor the "basis of all science" is just far too much of a stretch. Let's see...

Yes. We can invent as many elaborate theories as we want, but the only scientifically acceptable solution is the least complicated model that fits the data.
You introduce additional complexity into a theory only as it becomes absolutely necessary.
So which one is it? Is it acceptable to introduce additional complexity into a theory or not?

That's the major criticism of string theory: many feel that the data do not demand anything nearly so elaborate, however elegant the math may be (and from what I hear, it's not all that elegant.)
Of all the things I've heard about String Theory, I have yet to hear this criticism. I've heard plenty along the lines of "String Theory has yet to been verified experimentally", but I've never yet heard an argument levelled against String Theory on the grounds that it is too complicated.

There are some longstanding conflicts that String Theory has presented solutions to (ever hear of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy or the whole general relativity vs. quantum mechanics debate?).

AgeOfAbnegation

06-07-2004, 09:14 AM

If it's about the content, then attack the post, not the poster.

Ideology is manifested in action by means of the person who believes and acts upon it. It is indeed about content, but in this case (as I did mention), it was imbibed by one who wished to be an active agent of change. His dignity was not detracted - rather, his actions. That's the last I'll say of this.

AgeOfAbnegation

06-07-2004, 09:22 AM

Age, I very cleary said in my first post that it was fine to disagree with him (go back and read the fifth and eigth line of my original post), I was just taking issue with the way you were doing so. If you don't think saying somebody disgusts you and their ideas are tripe is an insult, then all I can say is that I disagree.

We can revolve around this all day. The ideas are tripe. If you simply want to disagree and leave it at that, so be it.

As for the rest, well it may be true that there is only one correct path, but the problem is that most every branch of Christianity feels that they are the ones who are on it.

It is only a problem if we let it. I'm not about to.

Your branch believes the sacred texts are the absolute word of god, and not surprsingly the sacred texts support your opinon. However this does not mean much to a branch that does not believe they are the absolute word of god.

That's cool, if they were of another faith. Be 100% what you are, not 50% of something else.

Anyway I guess everyone has their limitations. You handle yourself with a remarkable degree of maturity when talking to people who are not Christian, you just get offended that there are many people who would claim to share your religion who have different opinions on things you consider so obvious and fundamental. I can see where your coming from, I often feel the same way even if my opinions are very different then yours.

In truth, as I ironically mentioned before first replying to him, I usually dont get the chance. I am not the only one here who believes that Christ was more than just a cool guy with a message. I could name a few, but that's their call. To date, I've gotten along with them fine. The only minor scuffle you could have perceived was with Saro, and that just amounted to a misunderstanding. Really, wigglyworm was the only person I've went off on before like that - and it's got nothing to do with him as a person - it's to do with his actions. If you recall in the scriptures - Jesus driving out the money changers. He not only yelled at them, he whipped them out. This is often forgotten. Sometimes.. we must drop the gauntlet.

Xaf

06-07-2004, 09:59 AM

i was gonna read start reading the bible again tonight but my copy seems to have disapeared. Can we blame this on satan?

niteshade6

06-07-2004, 10:10 AM

Well actualy for all practical purposes, the many different branches of Christianity are different faiths. Certainly many of them believe each other are going to hell. When they believe what they believe they do so 100%, there is no 50% involved. It's just that many of their beliefs happen to be different then yours. Now I know your going to say that your beliefs are backed up by both the scripture and the texts of the Catholic Church, while there's are not. But realize that all of this is meaningless unless you believe that those things are the absolute unabridged word of god. Now obviously somebody has to be right and somebody has to be wrong. And this is the point where I was saying it mostly comes down to a matter of faith.

Regarding your opinion that it's your duty to throw down the gauntlet against people with beliefs different then yours, well let me ask you this....if a Jewish or Muslim person had come on these boards and expressed his beliefs, would you have attacked his beliefs just as ruthlessly as you attacked Wiggy? Certainly doing that would be just as justifiable by that logic....if not more so.

AgeOfAbnegation

06-07-2004, 10:15 AM

i was gonna read start reading the bible again tonight but my copy seems to have disapeared. Can we blame this on satan?

hehe.. perhaps. Find, buy, or borrow another copy. Keep trying, you'll beat him eventually lol :winner:

AgeOfAbnegation

06-07-2004, 10:26 AM

Well actualy for all practical purposes, the many different branches of Christianity are different faiths. Certainly many of them believe each other are going to hell. When they believe what they believe they do so 100%, there is no 50% involved.

That must be qualified. They may have 100% fervor, but they have 50% enlighenment. Anyone can die for a cause.. but why do they die? This is why I insisted on reading the texts earlier - it's all there - all one needs is a little time and effort.

It's just that many of their beliefs happen to be different then yours. Now I know your going to say that your beliefs are backed up by both the scripture and the texts of the Catholic Church, while there's are not. But realize that all of this is meaningless unless you believe that those things are the absolute unabridged word of god. Now obviously somebody has to be right and somebody has to be wrong. And this is the point where I was saying it mostly comes down to a matter of faith.

I'm impressed with your tone and honesty, but I will insist that you don't give objectivity enough credit. You mentioned a few times that if another party does not share the beliefs that another has, "it's meaningless". This is where I draw a line of demarcation. It's inherent value remains, regardless of our proximity to that belief and/or ethic. Faith, without enlighenment (or works), is "dead", as st. James wrote. Everyone has some kind of faith - be they one creed or another, atheist, agnostic, etc. It's the contents that are absolutely essential.

Regarding your opinion that it's your duty to throw down the gauntlet against people with beliefs different then yours, well let me ask you this....if a Jewish or Muslim person had come on these boards and expressed his beliefs, would you have attacked his beliefs just as ruthlessly as you attacked Wiggy?

Stay in the context plz. It is up to me to bring the issue to those who would claim to uphold that doctrine, and conversely, their duty to bring that issue to me. It will be resolved by reference to the texts at stake. I've no right to discuss doctrine with those outside my credo - rather, only philosophy, as reason is inherent in all.
Now, let me make it clear, in that the thousands of "expressions" of christianity, there are not "thousands of faiths". Scripture affirms in John "1 lord, 1 faith, 1 baptism". There really is only one faith, so even if he were to belong to "another church" than I, I would still, by virture of my baptism and adherence to the sacred deposit of revelation, to reprimand his expression of faith in this manner. In truth, Paul did this often, and encouraged us to do likewise.

Certainly doing that would be just as justifiable by that logic....if not more so.

I hope my logic as relayed above has been clear.

Xaf

06-07-2004, 11:52 AM

hehe.. perhaps. Find, buy, or borrow another copy. Keep trying, you'll beat him eventually lol :winner:
You know what? I bet it was one of those gidians(sp?). All those bibles in the hotels have to come from somewhere...

SaroDarksbane

06-07-2004, 04:08 PM

Anyone can die for a cause.. but why do they die?
Yeah, we have enough people in the world who die for their religions.

I just wish more people would start living for them . . .

Eiger

06-07-2004, 06:43 PM

Well we can certainly blame most of the worlds woes on the Jews but personally, I think we can blame the lack of jobs on all those damn Mexicans who come and steal them from nice upstanding Americans. :thumbsup:Not funny. Even if you're trying to be funny and didn't mean for anyone to take this comment negatively - it's impolite, ignorant, and shows a basic lack of knowledge about a variety of subjects at best and is blatantly racist at worst. Don't do it. To help ensure that you behave appropriately, this post has been reported as a racist post.

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

06-07-2004, 07:21 PM

I will say before I even start replying to this, if you are going to go through the trouble of quoting me, you had better get my points straight and not argue points that I did not make. This would not have happened if you scrolled down just a few posts through mine and Etras conversation where everything you did attacked me for was explained and discussed.

Because many people believe something it makes it real? You present no arguement here.

No I did not say that. If you had read correctly he said it God did not exist. I said billions of people would disagree. That WAS the arguement. In fact the exact arguement you just tried to use with me only in reverse, "just because you believe it, doesn't make it true".

No arguement here either. Pickin on small stuff to try and make the poster look stupid.

You must be reading another thread then. What I did was present MY belief on the gender of God in reference to his, if you read his and mine entire discussion you would know that. I in no way made him look stupid.

You would do well to bring proof before dismissing one's arguement by saying "You're wrong, it says so in the Bible", but not stating where.

You REALLY need to read the rest of the thread, you are jumping to conclusions that are not there, this was explained and in great length. Read the thread not just one post.

You attack the poster and not the arguement. You present no arguement.

Where's yours? Rest assured a poster can be attacked if they make the mistake of calling me stupid for a belief I hold. I'm a vengeful bastard I guess. :lol:

Valid point the he didn't back his arguement with proof.

It is actually pretty common knowledge to those who tend to defend the "God hates *** people" arguement. Sodomy, not homosexuality, is simply a sin, sodomy is considered unnatural sexual acts. Guess what? Anal sex and oral sex are also grouped in with sodomy. That means by rights of sodomy I am a sinner. You will never find anything in the bible that says God hates sinners will you? No human is without sin, if God hates all sinners then heaven must be a lonely place.

You present no proof as to why anyone should believe God exists other than people's lack of ability to explain things, and their need for a sense of purpose.

Do I need to? Was I ever asked to prove Gods existance? Again, you argue points that are not there to begin with. As to the sense of purpose and lack of ability to explain things, can you explain how we got where we are? Did you need to turn to religion? Apparently not so your own beliefs make your own arguement invalid. Likewise no one NEEDS God for a sense of purpose. Family, love, etc. are all enough reason for someone to live their lives.

P.S: sorry for skipping the rest of the thread I'll continue reading the rest after I post this but I just had to comment here because you come off as all knowing but you're saying absolutley nothing.

Then read it before replying. You believe I came off as all knowing, that's fine. But I wonder how you came to this conclusion without even reading the entire discussion as you just admitted to. As for the "saying absolutely nothing", you are free to your opinon. But if you dare insult me like that, then you REALLY had better make damn sure you took the time to read everything I spent my time typing out before making such an accusation. In this first post of mine which is the one you replied to, I actually said quite a bit, I just did not feel the need to qualify most of it until after Etras second post.

Etra

06-07-2004, 07:25 PM

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

06-07-2004, 08:04 PM

Misunderstand this--bastards. Now I know your all gonna say "But its the church people saying it. Not God!" Yeah well, this is why church is horrible to me.

Well it is true that it is simply the misguided(and quite rude in this case)religious people, not the underlying religion itself. However since churches are made of humans prone to such poor errors of judgement, people who bind the bible to suit their interests, I tend not to want to be bothered by them. I don't go to church, however I don't fault God or religion, I fault those responsible. Likewise, I'm sure you will find many people who are not religious who would feel the same way that church did.

This is bad, but it isn't uncommon, I've actually seen much worse. I will never fault anyone for having disagreements with churches.

AgeOfAbnegation

06-07-2004, 08:35 PM

Indeed, that's an example of being "100% focused, but 50% enlightened"... Don't let thiose boobs bother you Etra (I'm sure you don't regardless, but you know what im saying :)).

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

06-07-2004, 09:13 PM

Indeed, that's an example of being "100% focused, but 50% enlightened"... Don't let thiose boobs bother you Etra (I'm sure you don't regardless, but you know what im saying :)).

I would just like to go on record right now as saying that there is not one single thing wrong with boobs. Boobs are Gods greatest, most versitile, and most usefull creations. So, a line must be drawn between humans idiots and boobs, such a great thing should never have a bad alternate meaning.

:lol:

AgeOfAbnegation

06-07-2004, 09:25 PM

lol, there's an intelligent topic now :p. Happily, one may discuss that without being good at english :lol:.

Etra

06-07-2004, 09:27 PM

I would just like to go on record right now as saying that there is not one single thing wrong with boobs. Boobs are Gods greatest, most versitile, and most usefull creations. So, a line must be drawn between humans idiots and boobs, such a great thing should never have a bad alternate meaning.

:lol:
boob
n. Slang
A stupid or foolish person; a dolt

I think he meant that for boob. :p (I'm just being a smart-***, don't mind me. ;o)

On-Topic Post:

I wish she would have taken a bat to the kid's funeral...I would like to see her beat up on those ebil God-mongers. ;o

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

06-07-2004, 09:57 PM

Happily, one may discuss that without being good at english :lol:.

Me Luvs TeH BubieZ!!111!1!111!!!!

A stupid or foolish person; a dolt

Bah! I'm going to start a petition to strike that definition from every dictionary! From now on every definition of in every dictionary will read:

Boob(s, ies)

n.
The great thing that every woman has and every man wants.

Erm... most men(sorry Essex). :lol:

AgeOfAbnegation

06-07-2004, 10:15 PM

:lol:

football... chocolate....boobies....
-Homer Simpson

WiglyWorm

06-07-2004, 10:29 PM

oi, sorry, heartbreak does a number on your motivation to get out of bed, let alone remember to check threads... I'll try to go back and read all these pages that sprung up on me and reply right after this...

MR. AgeOfAbnegation, yes the Universal Life Church allows anyone to be a reverend, they even have become a monk by mail corespondence class. That doesn't mean i take it as a joke, though. I wouldn't have signed up if i didn't like what they had to say. Number one is that people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. Surely this is true, wouldn't you agree? Though there are a great number of people who are lost, and they won't ever set foot in a church, they won't ever take the time to find themselves, let alone God, without some outside influence. Someone to help out when they're feeling weak, and lend them strength, someone to help start them on the road of soul-searching. I was there once, lost and alone, without God, someone came into my life via God's hand, the circumstances of my life led them to touch me in a way they never could have otherwise. Long story short, i found God, and I was so happy that i gave my life to work for him. Unfortunately not everyone can be reached, but i try as hard as i can on every one...

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

06-07-2004, 10:49 PM

Number one is that people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. Surely this is true, wouldn't you agree?

Not if it leads someone down the wrong path. David Koresh was free to believe what he wanted, however he managed to convert over thirty people at Waco to his beliefs. These, extremely gullible, individuals believed David to be Jesus, after all, that is what his religion taught them. Alot of people died for him in the hopes of getting into heaven, somehow I doubt they actually made it there. Following a false messiah doesn't seem to scream "salvation".

There have also been many other examples throughout history of people naively being sucked into false religions.

This has nothing to do with your personal teachings, as I don't know what they are. It's the idea of the site and anyone being able to become a reverend that I have a problem with. I can't picture even myself preaching Gods word, let alone some of the disturbed individuals who could easily end up doing it.

AgeOfAbnegation

06-07-2004, 10:51 PM

MR. AgeOfAbnegation, yes the Universal Life Church allows anyone to be a reverend, they even have become a monk by mail corespondence class. That doesn't mean i take it as a joke, though.

Indeed, I'm sure you take your position in that station seriously enough. Let's investigate the rest of the post.

I wouldn't have signed up if i didn't like what they had to say. Number one is that people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. Surely this is true, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I agree. My beef with your position however is that when teaching the word of God, we have not the right to interpret as we wish, but have only the right, and duty, to present the text as it is.

Though there are a great number of people who are lost, and they won't ever set foot in a church, they won't ever take the time to find themselves, let alone God, without some outside influence.

THat may be, but that is not for you to decide. God has his timing and purpose. THe only thing you MUST DO is simply concentrate on your own relationship with God. Infulence thus comes from God's spirit emanating from you, not stemming from a humanistic altruism that is common in humanity's nature. Everyone believes they're doing the "right thing". We are not called to do the right thing - we are called to simpy be with Jesus. Evangelization comes as a natural side effect of this - it is not forced or of human artifice.

Someone to help out when they're feeling weak, and lend them strength, someone to help start them on the road of soul-searching. I was there once, lost and alone, without God, someone came into my life via God's hand, the circumstances of my life led them to touch me in a way they never could have otherwise. Long story short, i found God, and I was so happy that i gave my life to work for him. Unfortunately not everyone can be reached, but i try as hard as i can on every one...

It's a natural tendency for a person to prescribe to others the same cure that helped them. Everyone is, however, different. You must realize that you play one small part - one small instrument in the band, not a single subwoofer blaring out baritones that shake the earth. This is why any zeal you have must be tested by fire, as scripture attests to. My reccomendation is to dive into the text, and hammer yourself with it. Also, force yourself to relinquish ministry for a time to discover your true intentions for it. Is it of God, or a mere reaction of your inner spirit? Let this weigh heavily on your conscience.

Daedric

06-07-2004, 10:56 PM

Misunderstand this--bastards. Now I know your all gonna say "But its the church people saying it. Not God!" Yeah well, this is why church is horrible to me.

Clow: a friend of mine died friday night
Clow: heroin overdose
Clow: and he was gay
Mon0chromic: ;/
Clow: there's a church near where he lives saying:
Clow: "HE deserved to die because he was gay"
Mon0chromic: ...
Clow: 2 of the guys best friend's both are girls, and the one wanted to take a bat to his funeral today to attack the people from the church

Wheeee! GO RELIGION GO!
(He's not lying, the church really does have a sign saying that -_-x)

Note that this church does not represent churches on thew whole. Something is messed up there. It does say in the Bible that "The wages of sin are death, " but God never says these people deserve to die. This simply means that the end result is death. This church takes a spin on it that because someone sinned, they deserved to die. If that was true, the leader of the church wouldn't be preaching there, for no person can go without sin.

Eiger

07-07-2004, 07:51 PM

Yes, I agree. My beef with your position however is that when teaching the word of God, we have not the right to interpret as we wish, but have only the right, and duty, to present the text as it is.

THat may be, but that is not for you to decide. God has his timing and purpose. THe only thing you MUST DO is simply concentrate on your own relationship with God. Infulence thus comes from God's spirit emanating from you, not stemming from a humanistic altruism that is common in humanity's nature. Everyone believes they're doing the "right thing". We are not called to do the right thing - we are called to simpy be with Jesus. Evangelization comes as a natural side effect of this - it is not forced or of human artifice.

It's a natural tendency for a person to prescribe to others the same cure that helped them. Everyone is, however, different. You must realize that you play one small part - one small instrument in the band, not a single subwoofer blaring out baritones that shake the earth. This is why any zeal you have must be tested by fire, as scripture attests to. My reccomendation is to dive into the text, and hammer yourself with it. Also, force yourself to relinquish ministry for a time to discover your true intentions for it. Is it of God, or a mere reaction of your inner spirit? Let this weigh heavily on your conscience.
Good comments AoA!

Eiger

07-07-2004, 07:57 PM

for no person can go without sin.
This is a concept I've never quite understood. While I'd generally agree that it's true in that it's very unlikely for a given person to go an entire lifetime without sinning - and I've certainly never known a sin free person. I'm just thinking that with a current population of 6+ billion people and all the people who've lived throughout eternity that there has to be a few hardy souls who've managed the task. Just call me optimistic, hehe.

On another hand, this concept of everyone sinning just seems so pessimistic. Why push the guilt so hard when there are many people who really do live good lives largely free of sin, and whose sins are relatively minor ones at that?

I'm not trying to make any statements really, just a general comment.

AgeOfAbnegation

07-07-2004, 08:36 PM

The key is in the nature of man - even the most devout can't help but have some light sins, since we are of the earth, but our proximity to the Godhead and our reception of the Holy Spirit will free us as we stay in him. I don't see it as a matter of guilt, but of natural tendency of human nature. I'm not hard on myself for who I am, and the sins I've committed, but I do my best to "repent", which simply means to pick myself up after I fall, and do my best to allow God to be my main object of love.

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

07-07-2004, 08:45 PM

This is a concept I've never quite understood. While I'd generally agree that it's true in that it's very unlikely for a given person to go an entire lifetime without sinning - and I've certainly never known a sin free person. I'm just thinking that with a current population of 6+ billion people and all the people who've lived throughout eternity that there has to be a few hardy souls who've managed the task. Just call me optimistic, hehe.

On another hand, this concept of everyone sinning just seems so pessimistic. Why push the guilt so hard when there are many people who really do live good lives largely free of sin, and whose sins are relatively minor ones at that?

I'm not trying to make any statements really, just a general comment.

I honestly don't think there has ever been a single person who lived without sin. It is near impossible. Take pride for example, pride is sinful. On this internet forum you can feel actually "feel" a sense of pride behind someones post as they back their point. They know more about that subject than the person they are debating with and they relish in that fact.

I'm no exception. I take pride in many discussions I've had.

AoA, I hope you don't take this insulting but it makes for a good example, but AoA speaks with a degree of pride when discussing religion. I have heard him refer to others as a "mental midget"(which I find hilarious by the way, mental midgets, good stuff), that is pride. He takes pride in the amount of information he knows.

The goal isn't necessarily to live without sin, but to repent for those you commit, to not relish and purposely live in sin, to not regret your sins.

Some sins are simply very easy to fall victim to.

Essex

07-07-2004, 08:50 PM

I thought you had to die without having any sins on you... if we all sin a little bit then how in bloody hell are you suppose to do that? (note I don't care I'm just saying)

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

07-07-2004, 08:54 PM

I thought you had to die without having any sins on you... if we all sin a little bit then how in bloody hell are you suppose to do that? (note I don't care I'm just saying)

Repenting and asking forgiveness for those sins you have committed. Also there is Purgatory for all the catholics out there. I'm still on the fence about that one.

Eiger

07-07-2004, 09:00 PM

I honestly don't think there has ever been a single person who lived without sin. It is near impossible. Take pride for example, pride is sinful. On this internet forum you can feel actually "feel" a sense of pride behind someones post as they back their point. They know more about that subject than the person they are debating with and they relish in that fact.

That's a good point (and AoA's as well). While I tend to agree, I'm just thinking of the billions of people and can't there have been one who somehow managed to be sin free? Some angelic creature? Ya, I know, it's just the statistics background talking...

Btw - I wish that there was a couple words for pride - one of which meaning too much pride which is the sinful one. I just think everyone should have a reasonable amount of pride (pride in your work, etc.) and that that shouldn't be sinful. Now lording that pride over others, etc is bad, but having a "quiet" pride is a good thing. IMHO anyway.

AgeOfAbnegation

07-07-2004, 09:11 PM

AoA, I hope you don't take this insulting but it makes for a good example, but AoA speaks with a degree of pride when discussing religion. I have heard him refer to others as a "mental midget"(which I find hilarious by the way, mental midgets, good stuff), that is pride. He takes pride in the amount of information he knows.

Not offended, no. But your last sentance puts you dangerously close to being on the recieving end of a typical "AoA insult" :lol:. I'll offer you an example of how that statement is inaccurate. Knowledge of philosophy is gleaned by discovery of what's there, not assertion of the self. So, If I merely discover truths that exist, how can that be objectively pridefull? True intellectual pride is found in those who believe that their knowledge, even if extensive, is owned by them. I believe that the pride you refer to is one that may appear to come through in my tone. I do get upset sometimes when posters make claims, and prove to be inconsistent.

The goal isn't necessarily to live without sin, but to repent for those you commit, to not relish and purposely live in sin, to not regret your sins.

Some sins are simply very easy to fall victim to.

I'd offer that one's goal "should" be to live without sin. THat way, one's focus is 100% on God, and in doing so, we apprehend our true limitations. If we make excuses about sins that are just plain tough, and be "realistic" about it, than we're not striving in the truest sense.

AgeOfAbnegation

07-07-2004, 09:17 PM

I'm just thinking of the billions of people and can't there have been one who somehow managed to be sin free? Some angelic creature? Ya, I know, it's just the statistics background talking...

Yes, Jesus lived free of sin. Now, sin means a separation from God. To sin is to separate yourself from God, and trust in another source for what we need. Now, there can be people free from sin, who have made the 100% choice to walk in the spirit. THe "residual sin" is more like the aftereffects of a previous lifestyle lived in sin, and as such its a struggle. But, in time, if a log is thrown into a fire, it will cease to become the log - it will be fire. THis is the essence of purgatory.

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

07-07-2004, 09:34 PM

I believe that the pride you refer to is one that may appear to come through in my tone. I do get upset sometimes when posters make claims, and prove to be inconsistent.

That is it there, just difficult to put into words a separation between the two when discussing pride. Which you just did, so I hate you now. :lol:

I'd offer that one's goal "should" be to live without sin. THat way, one's focus is 100% on God, and in doing so, we apprehend our true limitations. If we make excuses about sins that are just plain tough, and be "realistic" about it, than we're not striving in the truest sense.

Heh that's why I said necessarily. If we strive to be 100% without sin we are already doomed to failure. I'd say that we can accept the fact that in certain continueing circumstances we will continue sinning again and again. Pride, again with the pride, being one. No matter what, I will always take great pride in my daughter. Every tiny little thing she does convinces me that she is "smarter than most babies her age". I can not, and will not, be without pride in this case. In all honesty, I stubbornly refuse to not allow myself a small amount of pride in her, I'm doomed through my humanity. I instead accept that I will sin and repent for them and my weakness, bear in mind this is all to a certain extent, because you can only strive so far.

To put it another way, a man decides to run twenty miles. Everytime he gets close to his goal, he adds another 5 miles. Innevitably he will pass out from exhaustion because his goal can never be reached. The man appologizes for his failure. He appology is accepted.

Another man runs twenty miles, and stops knowing his physical limit will not allow him to make it another 5 miles. He appologizes for his failure. His appology is equally accepted.

Neither man really fails, both reach their destination. I hope that makes sense.

A man who strives daily to eliminate sin from his life to it's most minute point is worthy of respect, no doubt, but I just don't believe it is necessary. God created us and knows our capabilities more than any other, he knows we will sin.

I strive to reduce sin, but I don't try to eliminate it. A reduction is possible where an elimination is not.

Feoh

07-07-2004, 10:34 PM

A) Out of absolutely nothing, all the matter and energy in the universe erupted and began flying apart and tremendous speeds (in fact current models state that the ealier universe would have had to have expanded at far greater than the speed of light for a hundreth of a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second, impossible according to relativity, just a pointless fun fact), and that the laws of physics were just right to allow this matter to slow down and begin to coaless, and that the energy woulld coaless into matter (E=mc squared means mass is just a super concentrated form of energy), the the matter would become muons and gluons, the muons and gluons would become up and down quarks, the up and down quarks would become electrons, protons, and neutrons, those would become atoms, the atoms would become molecules, and the molecules would become stars, planets, and amino acids, and the amino acids would somehow become life, and life would somehow spring you and me.

B) Oden did it

or A) all those things happened with the light and the atoms and the strings and earth and all

B) it just happened...

this Ockhams theory seems likely to act with every religion on the planet, so to say that its god? thats just abit well oki utterly stupid.

and Daedric God did NOT wright the bible, mankind did, old men who might have been inspired by a deity, but not the said deity in him self. who gave you that ridiculus idea? no offense dude

— Silence is the voice of God —
Ours is a world of words : quiet we call
"Silence" — which is the merest word of all.
Here Nature speaks — and ev'n ideal things
Flap shadowy sounds from visionary wings ;
But ah! not so, when in the realms on high,
The eternal voice of God is moving by,
And the red winds are withering in the sky ! :flip:

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

07-07-2004, 10:40 PM

Bah! I need another edit! :lol:

In the last post you will see your first quote is odd AoA, I have my reply in the middle of those sentences but I forgot the /end quotes. I have no idea how I managed that.

Anyway, I have broken my "no religious discussion" rule for two days now like an idiot, so while it isn't entirely fair to end in mid discussion, I am hopping out and reinstating that rule. My appologies.

AgeOfAbnegation

07-07-2004, 10:48 PM

Yea, the only thing I'll add is "what is impossible with man, is possible with God". Tell you one thing, there was a time in my life when I was totally free of habitual sin for about a year, when I totally surrendered to God. It hasn't always been that way, but I can easy attest that the degree of freedom from sin relates directly to the degree to which we choose Christ.

SaroDarksbane

08-07-2004, 01:58 AM

I thought you had to die without having any sins on you... if we all sin a little bit then how in bloody hell are you suppose to do that? (note I don't care I'm just saying)
Catholics treat it like a number line. Every good deed you do is +1, and every bad deed you do is -1. As long as you're in the positive when you die, you're in.

Protestants treat it like a glass of water. Every good thing you do is a drop of pure water, and every bad thing you do is a drop of tainted water, the object being to keep it 100% pure.

With this in mind, you can see that without something to take out the taint, it can never be 100% no matter how many good things you do. This is where Jesus comes in . . .

AgeOfAbnegation

08-07-2004, 02:25 AM

Catholics treat it like a number line. Every good deed you do is +1, and every bad deed you do is -1. As long as you're in the positive when you die, you're in.

Woah - not even close. Romans chapters 5 thru 8, please read. Also, "those who believe in their heart, and confess with their lips that Christ is lord will be saved", and "those who do not believe are condemned already". This isn't a karma or points system, I have no clue where you got that. You may also consider picking up a copy of the "catechism of the catholic church", where the doctrine is clearly laid out.

Protestants treat it like a glass of water. Every good thing you do is a drop of pure water, and every bad thing you do is a drop of tainted water, the object being to keep it 100% pure.

Even this is wrong. Sounds like some kind of puritan sect. For salvation, contrary to popular opinion, the doctrines are the same - scriputre is clear on the issue. THe only argument that arose was concerning "faith and works", but that's resolved - your works will merely demonstrate faith, or lack thereof.

With this in mind, you can see that without something to take out the taint, it can never be 100% no matter how many good things you do. This is where Jesus comes in . . .

In christ we are "new creations". You really need to read scripture..

Xaf

08-07-2004, 03:33 AM

Woah - not even close. Romans chapters 5 thru 8, please read. Also, "those who believe in their heart, and confess with their lips that Christ is lord will be saved", and "those who do not believe are condemned already".
Wow how stupid is that. No wonder catholics were so corrupt, they thought all they had to do was repent on their deathbed and they'd be going to heaven.

Essex

08-07-2004, 03:34 AM

so what's the answer AoA? Do you have to be absolved of all sins before you die, and if you die in a freak accident (suddenly) and can't absolve yourself what then? I've said it before though I'm not sure if it was on here... but I really think there's probably about five people in heaven the rest are in purgatory or hell.... and what's the cut off point? At what point do you get pugatory instead of hell?

AgeOfAbnegation

08-07-2004, 04:11 AM

Wow how stupid is that. No wonder catholics were so corrupt, they thought all they had to do was repent on their deathbed and they'd be going to heaven.

Regardless of how you lived your life, God loves you - it's a static reality. So, if a person does repent on their deathbed, it's still a turning to the Lord that he accepts.
However, I understand and agree with your sentiments. The fact is, if you cannot choose God "now", it may be (and in most cases is) more difficult to choose him "then". This is because a life thats lived in rejection of God only hardens the heart, if anything, so deathbed conversions are quite rare. Though, sometimes it does happen because of suffering (for those who arent shaking their fists at God).
In truth, this isn't just about "heaven". God wants you to have eternal live "right now". The process begins in the now moment, and people put it off to their peril. THose who say "ill just repent in the end" have never met Christ and experienced who he truly is.

AgeOfAbnegation

08-07-2004, 04:22 AM

so what's the answer AoA? Do you have to be absolved of all sins before you die, and if you die in a freak accident (suddenly) and can't absolve yourself what then?

WHat most christians - and almost all catholics have forgotten, is the fact that we're saved alread. Jesus said "it is finished". He already did his part by entering into time/space, becoming part of the human entity, and returning to himself in God the father. Church fathers call this the "age of grace", as it is a different existential reality than before - we have an additional option open to us in this age.
THat being said, our part is to "walk in" that state, or agree with it by our lives. A thing is recieved according to the mode of the reciever, as Aquinas says. As such, if we cut ourselves off from the reality of the Holy Spirt, we simply will not be saved.
There is however a process of "conversion" that takes time - in most cases - the rest of your life. Thats what this life is in its finitude - a plane of change for our beings. So, as we stop relying on creature aspects to replace God, and recieve from the source we are made for, we will slowly be converted, and made in CHrist's image. Some people claim "i'm saved!!", yet live the same way as before. One can say "I am saved (by virtue of Christs's time on earth), I am being saved (by repentance and conversion), and I will be saved (in the transfiguration and our leaving this plane of existence).

I've said it before though I'm not sure if it was on here... but I really think there's probably about five people in heaven the rest are in purgatory or hell.... and what's the cut off point? At what point do you get pugatory instead of hell?

Some saints have attested to revelation that revelaed that most people go to purgatory at death, very few go strait to heaven, and the rest are lost. The "cut off point" regarding purgatory is simply saying yes to Christ's offer to be absorbed into him - so you leave this fading world, and exist in the state you were originally created for. Purgatory simply is an extension of the formation of being, that goes on in this life. The good thing is that purgatory is not an eternal state. One only goes to hell if one remains in defiant of his grace and mercy, and persists in that till death. THose who go strait to heaven are those who have lived out their purgatory on earth, in total hardcore devotion to Christ, and have been pruned into his image (its our natural tendency to trust in things other than God, and it hurts to let go, and let God).

Essex

08-07-2004, 04:38 AM

WHat most christians - and almost all catholics have forgotten, is the fact that we're saved alread. Jesus said "it is finished". He already did his part by entering into time/space, becoming part of the human entity, and returning to himself in God the father. Church fathers call this the "age of grace", as it is a different existential reality than before - we have an additional option open to us in this age.
THat being said, our part is to "walk in" that state, or agree with it by our lives. A thing is recieved according to the mode of the reciever, as Aquinas says. As such, if we cut ourselves off from the reality of the Holy Spirt, we simply will not be saved.
There is however a process of "conversion" that takes time - in most cases - the rest of your life. Thats what this life is in its finitude - a plane of change for our beings. So, as we stop relying on creature aspects to replace God, and recieve from the source we are made for, we will slowly be converted, and made in CHrist's image. Some people claim "i'm saved!!", yet live the same way as before. One can say "I am saved (by virtue of Christs's time on earth), I am being saved (by repentance and conversion), and I will be saved (in the transfiguration and our leaving this plane of existence).

Some saints have attested to revelation that revelaed that most people go to purgatory at death, very few go strait to heaven, and the rest are lost. The "cut off point" regarding purgatory is simply saying yes to Christ's offer to be absorbed into him - so you leave this fading world, and exist in the state you were originally created for. Purgatory simply is an extension of the formation of being, that goes on in this life. The good thing is that purgatory is not an eternal state. One only goes to hell if one remains in defiant of his grace and mercy, and persists in that till death. THose who go strait to heaven are those who have lived out their purgatory on earth, in total hardcore devotion to Christ, and have been pruned into his image (its our natural tendency to trust in things other than God, and it hurts to let go, and let God).
one of these days i'm going to learn to just not ask... *takes an advil*

Xaf

08-07-2004, 04:47 AM

What exactly is the point of hell? Is it like the trash bin of souls?

AgeOfAbnegation

08-07-2004, 05:28 AM

What exactly is the point of hell? Is it like the trash bin of souls?

Ironically, there is no point to hell - that's why its hell. To have a purpose, is to be in accord with a universal movement of the will of the Godhead, as life has a purpose for instance. Hell is simply a void. What makes it so unbearable is just the sheer nothingness of it, outside time. No hope, completely severed from our purpose of existence - to love. The suffering is unthinkable..

Xaf

08-07-2004, 06:01 AM

Ironically, there is no point to hell - that's why its hell. To have a purpose, is to be in accord with a universal movement of the will of the Godhead, as life has a purpose for instance. Hell is simply a void. What makes it so unbearable is just the sheer nothingness of it, outside time. No hope, completely severed from our purpose of existence - to love. The suffering is unthinkable..
So its there as punishment for those who went against gods will?

AgeOfAbnegation

08-07-2004, 06:13 AM

So its there as punishment for those who went against gods will?

There really is no punishment involved whatsoever. Rather, it can only be described in terms of what is, and what is not. The absense of God is its own punishment.

Essex

08-07-2004, 06:16 AM

and the searing hot pokers are just for fun?

joke joke

Xaf

08-07-2004, 06:34 AM

There really is no punishment involved whatsoever. Rather, it can only be described in terms of what is, and what is not. The absense of God is its own punishment.

So you've defied god, and since you've given up on him he sends you to some void where nothing exists except yourself and a bunch of other people who also renounced god? And there you stay for all eternity wishing you had sucked up more.

AgeOfAbnegation

08-07-2004, 08:53 AM

So you've defied god,

God can't be defiled. You see God like a god in DnD, or some other deity. We're born into the state of separation of God. This life is one of discovery and change, not a D2 rerun.

and since you've given up on him he sends you to some void where nothing exists except yourself and a bunch of other people who also renounced god?

Once again, you assent to God putting the shyt to you. The correct way of seeing this is an exiled world or dimension, that God enters to retrieve you. We are of the earth and elements, and because of the incarnation of Christ, we are absorbed into something greater.
(I hate jumping from philosophy to theology so quickly...!)

And there you stay for all eternity wishing you had sucked up more.

As above. THis is why metaphysics is very important. We'd be justified in believing that if God wanted things this way. Yet, he did not. One may ask then as to how it could be any other way - how can God not be the cause of evil, etc? God cannot will evil of any sort, as to posess a character with the ability of doing Good and Evil represents an unstable entity, and we've established before that God must be fixed and eternal, and that Evil is simply a lack of a positive element, which underpins creation.
Your next question will be that if he is good, why are humans evil, why did he allow this to be? Essentially, any finite being like a human or angel must by necessity have a finite, composite nature. It follows from this that as such, a being with this quality can be defined, as any definition is made in reference to its opposite. It follows that any creature outside of God (all creatures must by necessity be outside God), must exist in a state of flux, and subject to influence and choice. Thus, it could not have been any other way in terms of creation.
To solve this problem of being, God did not offer a "buffed humanity", but allowed us to partake in his own eternal essence, by virtue of the incarnation of Christ, the God/Man. As such, our two aspects are intertwined. Anyway dude, I hope you do find a copy of scripture somewhere.

Xaf

08-07-2004, 09:13 AM

God can't be defiled. You see God like a god in DnD, or some other deity. We're born into the state of separation of God. This life is one of discovery and change, not a D2 rerun.

Once again, you assent to God putting the shyt to you. The correct way of seeing this is an exiled world or dimension, that God enters to retrieve you. We are of the earth and elements, and because of the incarnation of Christ, we are absorbed into something greater.
(I hate jumping from philosophy to theology so quickly...!)

As above. THis is why metaphysics is very important. We'd be justified in believing that if God wanted things this way. Yet, he did not. One may ask then as to how it could be any other way - how can God not be the cause of evil, etc? God cannot will evil of any sort, as to posess a character with the ability of doing Good and Evil represents an unstable entity, and we've established before that God must be fixed and eternal, and that Evil is simply a lack of a positive element, which underpins creation.
Your next question will be that if he is good, why are humans evil, why did he allow this to be? Essentially, any finite being like a human or angel must by necessity have a finite, composite nature. It follows from this that as such, a being with this quality can be defined, as any definition is made in reference to its opposite. It follows that any creature outside of God (all creatures must by necessity be outside God), must exist in a state of flux, and subject to influence and choice. Thus, it could not have been any other way in terms of creation.
To solve this problem of being, God did not offer a "buffed humanity", but allowed us to partake in his own eternal essence, by virtue of the incarnation of Christ, the God/Man. As such, our two aspects are intertwined. Anyway dude, I hope you do find a copy of scripture somewhere.
I still dont get how this flux they are subjected too isnt controlled by god and how anything could be oustide god.

Btw i shouldnt be asking questions when i havent even read some of the bible and what i did read was a long time ago and i wasnt paying close attention.

SaroDarksbane

08-07-2004, 12:19 PM

Woah - not even close. Romans chapters 5 thru 8, please read. Also, "those who believe in their heart, and confess with their lips that Christ is lord will be saved", and "those who do not believe are condemned already". This isn't a karma or points system, I have no clue where you got that. You may also consider picking up a copy of the "catechism of the catholic church", where the doctrine is clearly laid out.

1. I didn't say I believed it, so you don't need to "set me straight to the truth" =P

2. Apparently I'm incorrect, so I'll take your word for it. I had always thought the Catholicism was based on getting into heaven based on some combination of works and salvation (which is one reason I was never into Catholicism). Show me the light, AoA! :D

Even this is wrong. Sounds like some kind of puritan sect.
How is that? We try to do good, but we aren't perfect and we screw up. We need outside help (or "inside" help if you wanna play word games) to set things right. Hence the example.

If we could be perfect and never sin, we wouldn't need Jesus, would we?
In christ we are "new creations". You really need to read scripture..
You have no idea how much scripture I know.

I like you AoA, but this is one of the must frustrating things about you. You tear people down by splitting hairs and playing word games. If I claim the glass is half empty, you claim the Bible states the glass is half full and I'm somehow lax on my scriptural reading.

AgeOfAbnegation

08-07-2004, 04:37 PM

I still dont get how this flux they are subjected too isnt controlled by god and how anything could be oustide god.

I think I outlined that in my post. Anyway, it's true that God contains all within him, and that he sustains anything in existence. Now we must be clear when we speak of God controlling things. This control is not a fatalistic kind, where our lives are pre-determined. Rather, our mutability comes from the fact that we arent God. God is infinite and eternal, humans are finite and composite - which are subject to definition. So, if humans were "perfect", they would necessarily have to be God. What we call heaven is a plane of existence where this inherent perfection dwells. I can clarify more, I haven't had my coffee yet this morning :p.

Btw i shouldnt be asking questions when i havent even read some of the bible and what i did read was a long time ago and i wasnt paying close attention.

No worries, I'm happy to chat. Indeed, if you didn't have anyone to talk to about it, you may not see the reason in reading the stuff anyway.

Graav Wolfsong

08-07-2004, 04:45 PM

Not funny. Even if you're trying to be funny and didn't mean for anyone to take this comment negatively - it's impolite, ignorant, and shows a basic lack of knowledge about a variety of subjects at best and is blatantly racist at worst. Don't do it. To help ensure that you behave appropriately, this post has been reported as a racist post.

Ok, thats it. Youre going on my list.

You really need a lesson in sarcastic humour.
Or at least in intuitive understanding of statements. Maybe Essex could school you on that since his follow up comment showed he has that down better than you obviously do.

Additionally, I will offer that uptight attitudes like that is why racism is such an overblown problem in the world.
If you want to get huffy over nothing thats you prerogative, I'll just note that it is somewhat dimwitted.

AgeOfAbnegation

08-07-2004, 04:53 PM

1. I didn't say I believed it, so you don't need to "set me straight to the truth" =P

lol.. You're a firebrand, no doubt. I'll point out that one's beliefs need not be directly articulated in formal staements.

2. Apparently I'm incorrect, so I'll take your word for it. I had always thought the Catholicism was based on getting into heaven based on some combination of works and salvation (which is one reason I was never into Catholicism). Show me the light, AoA! :D

Indeed, works and faith are combined - as is the case with any church that follows scripture. I mentioned a few posts back that ones works will simply reveal faith in someone, or a lack thereof. (ref. James).

How is that? We try to do good, but we aren't perfect and we screw up. We need outside help (or "inside" help if you wanna play word games) to set things right. Hence the example.

If we could be perfect and never sin, we wouldn't need Jesus, would we?

I agree with all of the above, and am confused as to how you pulled an argument from my text that is contrary to my position.

You have no idea how much scripture I know.

I know only what I read. When I come across someone identifying themselves as a follower of Christ, and then posts doctrine other than what scripture affirms, it gives me pause.

I like you AoA, but this is one of the must frustrating things about you. You tear people down by splitting hairs and playing word games. If I claim the glass is half empty, you claim the Bible states the glass is half full and I'm somehow lax on my scriptural reading.

Thanks for that, but until now, I didn't think our posting habits (at least mine anyhow) had anything to do with the degree I like, or dislike someone. I can honestly say I "like" everyone in the off-topics community, but I've got no problem with correcting inconsistencies.
As for the splitting hairs and the word games, I'm curious as to where that comes from. If you'd care to substantiate that with reference to my texts, feel free.

Essex

08-07-2004, 04:59 PM

well I don't think racisism is overblown I think it is a serious problem, but I also knew you were joking.

I just think this may have been a mistake on big E's part I know for a fact that Graav you aren't racisist and that you didn't believe a single thing you said in that paticular post.

EDIT: dang it I meant to quote the post by graav up there... so yeah just pretend I did.

Graav Wolfsong

08-07-2004, 05:50 PM

well I don't think racisism is overblown I think it is a serious problem, but I also knew you were joking.

Racism is indeed a very serious problem. But it is much bigger than it should have been. Mainly because of attitudes like Eigers.

People burning crosses, persecuting others and killing eachother over color, nationality, creed or whatever is a serious problem. People denying others their rights is a serious problem.

But people blowing up over an oh so obvious sarcastic joke stating that I am "impolite, ignorant, and show a basic lack of knowledge about a variety of subjects at best and is blatantly racist at worst" is downright ridiculous.
And unfortunately, shows a touchyness shared by many.
This attitude is the reason why the race card is constantly played by everyone and why people are so hung up in racism and never see anything but color when they look at another race.
This is the attitude that makes people walk on eggshells around anyone that can be considered 'different' for fear of being subjected to the "richeous wrath" of the "anti racists".
What these people need to realize is that in their zeal to stop racism they become racist themselves by focusing so on the differences between races and creating boundaries that must not be crossed.

This is actually a prime example of my statements in the Affirmative Action thread that culture needs to be changed.

Edit: And thanks for the vote of confidence Essex :)

Essex

08-07-2004, 06:01 PM

Edit: And thanks for the vote of confidence Essex :)

anytime :)

Blackmoon

08-07-2004, 06:19 PM

I normally prefer to stay away from conversations relating religions, as they rarely lead to anything. But since I've read this thread, I might aswell comment it.

I myself don't like christian religion nor church. Yet, I have nothing really against the beliefs of people I've seen here, as I believe anyone is truly free to believe whatever he wants, no matter where that belief will lead him. Only comment that really picked me off was Wigly's comment on how people who do not believe in god should be enlightened by someone's help or something. That's what really picks me in some christians. I hate it when others go around telling people what to believe in. On me, it truly hasn't worked, when someone figuratively (is that a word?) hitted me in the head with bible and repeatedly yelled "Read! Believe! Read! BELIEVE!!!". If crusades had never happened, then perhaps I'd feel different.

But as it is now, I couldn't care less if some son of a carpenter went and got himself crucified in some far off foreign land.

"I'll rather be in hell with my ancestors, than in heaven with you"

Eiger

08-07-2004, 08:26 PM

Racism is indeed a very serious problem. But it is much bigger than it should have been. Mainly because of attitudes like Eigers.

People burning crosses, persecuting others and killing eachother over color, nationality, creed or whatever is a serious problem. People denying others their rights is a serious problem.

But people blowing up over an oh so obvious sarcastic joke stating that I am "impolite, ignorant, and show a basic lack of knowledge about a variety of subjects at best and is blatantly racist at worst" is downright ridiculous.
And unfortunately, shows a touchyness shared by many.
This attitude is the reason why the race card is constantly played by everyone and why people are so hung up in racism and never see anything but color when they look at another race.
This is the attitude that makes people walk on eggshells around anyone that can be considered 'different' for fear of being subjected to the "richeous wrath" of the "anti racists".
What these people need to realize is that in their zeal to stop racism they become racist themselves by focusing so on the differences between races and creating boundaries that must not be crossed.

This is actually a prime example of my statements in the Affirmative Action thread that culture needs to be changed.

Edit: And thanks for the vote of confidence Essex :)
Oh, I knew you were joking. That's why I said it wasn't funny. And it wasn't and still isn't.

But I don't pull punches when I see stupid comments like that made on a public forum. Jokes such as that perpetuate racist attitudes and stereotypes just as a serious comment does and they are not appropriate. I have called people on these in the past and will continue to do so in the future. If you don't want the label, don't push the envelope. You don't need to walk on eggshells, you just need to show a little common sense.

AgeOfAbnegation

08-07-2004, 08:29 PM

Eiger's right Graav, let's show some respect! ^^ :lol:

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

08-07-2004, 08:42 PM

Oh, I knew you were joking. That's why I said it wasn't funny. And it wasn't and still isn't.

Cracker.

*runs and hides*

Seriously though I vote an exception be made. We are henceforth allowed to call other people racist remarks and/or stereotypes that do not apply to them.

Examples.

Eiger is a porch monkey. Eiger puts too much Jerrycurl in his hair.

AgeofAbnegation has a collection of stolen hubcaps.

I will yell out to male cops, "Hey honey! Show me your boobs!"

I will yell at mexicans, "GO EAT A DONUT PIG! OINK OINK!"

I will yell at skinny people, "Hey tubby, go on a diet!"

All white people will now be known rice eaters.

All asians will now be known as spics.

All americans will be known as ...(german gustapo)

When people see me they can say, that Travis is a slut. He's always got his legs spread for some guy.

That is all.

Essex

08-07-2004, 08:48 PM

.... would I be known as a breeder then?

xXxDraGoNxXx1123

08-07-2004, 08:55 PM

.... would I be known as a breeder then?

No, all homosexuals will henceforth be known as sheep molesters. Essex you stupid Swede. :lol:

Oh yes, and Jewish people shall now be noobs. :drool:

Edit: Damn, I still like breeder though. How about if all homosexuals become known for being sexist chauvinistic pigs?

Graav Wolfsong

08-07-2004, 09:09 PM

Oh, I knew you were joking. That's why I said it wasn't funny. And it wasn't and still isn't.

But I don't pull punches when I see stupid comments like that made on a public forum. Jokes such as that perpetuate racist attitudes and stereotypes just as a serious comment does and they are not appropriate. I have called people on these in the past and will continue to do so in the future. If you don't want the label, don't push the envelope. You don't need to walk on eggshells, you just need to show a little common sense.

You realized it was a joke but you obviously didnt get it.

That joke was a ridiculous blanket statement that did nothing but poke fun at racists. The point was made even more obvious with Essex's follow up: "and don't forget the fags corrupting the youth!"

If people lack the intelligence to see that it was a knock on racism and prejudice in general, thats their problem, not mine. And it seems most people got it until your uptightness (is that a word? Edit: I looked it up, it is a word) got the better of you.

Like I said, getting huffy over an obvious satirical joke like that shows that you either missed the point completely or have a misguided attitude towards racism.
You can call me on that all you like, doesnt change the fact that you completely missed the point.

Really Eiger, you always come off as a very intelligent man, I would have expected a witty response not a "You R teh deviLL!" overreaction.

That attitude is why racism continues to be such an issue in everyday life.

Essex

08-07-2004, 09:12 PM

No, all homosexuals will henceforth be known as sheep molesters. Essex you stupid Swede. :lol:

Oh yes, and Jewish people shall now be noobs. :drool:

Edit: Damn, I still like breeder though. How about if all homosexuals become known for being sexist chauvinistic pigs?
deal *shakes Dragon's hand*

Eiger

09-07-2004, 12:55 AM

You realized it was a joke but you obviously didnt get it.

That joke was a ridiculous blanket statement that did nothing but poke fun at racists. The point was made even more obvious with Essex's follow up: "and don't forget the fags corrupting the youth!"

If people lack the intelligence to see that it was a knock on racism and prejudice in general, thats their problem, not mine. And it seems most people got it until your uptightness (is that a word? Edit: I looked it up, it is a word) got the better of you.

Like I said, getting huffy over an obvious satirical joke like that shows that you either missed the point completely or have a misguided attitude towards racism.
You can call me on that all you like, doesnt change the fact that you completely missed the point.

Really Eiger, you always come off as a very intelligent man, I would have expected a witty response not a "You R teh deviLL!" overreaction.

That attitude is why racism continues to be such an issue in everyday life.If you go back and look at it - in my first post as it appears your original has been deleted - you'll find that it's not at all obvious that it was either satirical or poking fun at racism. It's a pretty clear statement and not even clear that it's a joke. Maybe I didn't get it, but then I didn't really care to try either as getting it or not is irrelevant. You say something and people can take it half a million ways - and that becomes your problem. Sure some pc stuff is bs. I'll be the first to admit it. But your statement didn't fall in that category.

Just say the same words in person, in any crowded public place in America. I dare you.

Xaf

09-07-2004, 01:34 AM

I think I outlined that in my post. Anyway, it's true that God contains all within him, and that he sustains anything in existence. Now we must be clear when we speak of God controlling things. This control is not a fatalistic kind, where our lives are pre-determined. Rather, our mutability comes from the fact that we arent God. God is infinite and eternal, humans are finite and composite - which are subject to definition. So, if humans were "perfect", they would necessarily have to be God. What we call heaven is a plane of existence where this inherent perfection dwells. I can clarify more, I haven't had my coffee yet this morning :p.

No worries, I'm happy to chat. Indeed, if you didn't have anyone to talk to about it, you may not see the reason in reading the stuff anyway.
I dont understand how it could not be a fatalistic kind of control. God would know the future as time is meaningless to Him because he is infinite and eternal. So He knows the future, created the people and the world they live in, therefore everything they do He controls. As i've stated before its a closed system. So unless there is an something outside of God influencing us(which youve stated there isnt), God must be controlling everything that happens in this universe.

God coudnt just cut a piece off himself and let it roam free of its own will, because He already would know what would happen depending on just how he cut that slice and where he put it. He would know how it would develope and what choices it would make, therefore He made all the choices that that piece of himself made. Im asuming that he made us from pieces of himself as there would be nothing besides God so he would have to make it from Himself.

Sage the Mage

09-07-2004, 06:22 AM

....sounds like someone likes Calvanism!

Eiger is a porch monkey. Eiger puts too much Jerrycurl in his hair.

AgeofAbnegation has a collection of stolen hubcaps.

I will yell out to male cops, "Hey honey! Show me your boobs!"

I will yell at mexicans, "GO EAT A DONUT PIG! OINK OINK!"

I will yell at skinny people, "Hey tubby, go on a diet!"

All white people will now be known rice eaters.

All asians will now be known as spics.

All americans will be known as ...(german gustapo)

When people see me they can say, that Travis is a slut. He's always got his legs spread for some guy.

That is all.

I've seen that comedian, but I cannot remember his name. Feels like I've been driving with a mattress behind me my entire life.

AgeOfAbnegation

09-07-2004, 06:54 AM

I dont understand how it could not be a fatalistic kind of control. God would know the future as time is meaningless to Him because he is infinite and eternal. So He knows the future, created the people and the world they live in, therefore everything they do He controls. As i've stated before its a closed system. So unless there is an something outside of God influencing us(which youve stated there isnt), God must be controlling everything that happens in this universe.

Not bad, but there are a few things that require further clarification. You are correct to insist that the temporal continuum is a "closed system". As you've heard me talk about finitude and movement, it's necessary that the laws of cause and effect would permeate all things that are corporeal. As such, without an "outside influence" of God's intervention, I am of the mind to believe in what you'd call a deterministic system. This is rejected by many thinkers, even in my own school, but I'm convinced it's the case.
Now, I've mentioned earlier that with any paradox, such as free will and determinism, a 3rd thing must enter the picture to resolve it. This thing is the notion of love. As such, love is the sole moving factor for everything we do in life - no matter how small. We seek it by our own understanding. Now for there to be an element of choice in our lives, there must be an influencing factor outside of the elements that would "release us from their grip" (ref. eph. 6). We are enslaved to something, as you hinted at. Yet, bypassing the elements in an encounter with God will take our focus off of the creature powers, and onto God, allowing us to manipulate nature, not vice versa.

God coudnt just cut a piece off himself and let it roam free of its own will, because He already would know what would happen depending on just how he cut that slice and where he put it. He would know how it would develope and what choices it would make, therefore He made all the choices that that piece of himself made. Im asuming that he made us from pieces of himself as there would be nothing besides God so he would have to make it from Himself.

That's called "emanation". It's something the neo-platonists came up with. Ironically, this group was composed mainly of early christian heretics. Plotinus, though he was not christian, was an excellent example of this sort of thinking, demonstrated in his "enneads". Essentially, they posited, like you just did, that people are made from "pieces of God", so that the natural hierarchy would be apart of God. That also translated to pantheism in some circles.
This is impossible. God cannot "do anything" with his being, such as emanationa or duplication. THis is because God is completely formless, simple, complete, undefinable. As such, his essence cannot be strewn out into lesser modes of being, or duplicated (one cannot duplicate the indivisible). Now, another neo'platonist thinker, Augustine, recognized this error, and only extended this principle to "all things being contained in God". Any mode of creation, must, by necessity, be something other than God.

Xaf

09-07-2004, 07:11 AM

Not bad, but there are a few things that require further clarification. You are correct to insist that the temporal continuum is a "closed system". As you've heard me talk about finitude and movement, it's necessary that the laws of cause and effect would permeate all things that are corporeal. As such, without an "outside influence" of God's intervention, I am of the mind to believe in what you'd call a deterministic system. This is rejected by many thinkers, even in my own school, but I'm convinced it's the case.
Now, I've mentioned earlier that with any paradox, such as free will and determinism, a 3rd thing must enter the picture to resolve it. This thing is the notion of love. As such, love is the sole moving factor for everything we do in life - no matter how small. We seek it by our own understanding. Now for there to be an element of choice in our lives, there must be an influencing factor outside of the elements that would "release us from their grip" (ref. eph. 6). We are enslaved to something, as you hinted at. Yet, bypassing the elements in an encounter with God will take our focus off of the creature powers, and onto God, allowing us to manipulate nature, not vice versa.

That's called "emanation". It's something the neo-platonists came up with. Ironically, this group was composed mainly of early christian heretics. Plotinus, though he was not christian, was an excellent example of this sort of thinking, demonstrated in his "enneads". Essentially, they posited, like you just did, that people are made from "pieces of God", so that the natural hierarchy would be apart of God. That also translated to pantheism in some circles.
This is impossible. God cannot "do anything" with his being, such as emanationa or duplication. THis is because God is completely formless, simple, complete, undefinable. As such, his essence cannot be strewn out into lesser modes of being, or duplicated (one cannot duplicate the indivisible). Now, another neo'platonist thinker, Augustine, recognized this error, and only extended this principle to "all things being contained in God". Any mode of creation, must, by necessity, be something other than God.
So he created us outside Himself, from something outside Himself. Or did He create the universe from nothing? And are you saying that when He created the earth and humanity He didn't know what would happen every second of every day from now until the end? Time should have no meaning, so the beggining and the end of the universe would be the same and everything that happened would be knowable all at the same time.