Christians vs. nonChristians on issues
-
Just curious, where do you think the extra entropy went to? Is there another universe "catching" our universe's entropy? Stating that the universe is closed implies there is a system larger than it. But I thought the universe was a term used to describe everything that exists. I'm sure I'm probably confused on this, and will welcome elightenment.
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Just curious, where do you think the extra entropy went to? Is there another universe "catching" our universe's entropy? Stating that the universe is closed implies there is a system larger than it. But I thought the universe was a term used to describe everything that exists. I'm sure I'm probably confused on this, and will welcome elightenment. Entropy doesn't "go" anywhere. AFAIK It's a measurement of the useable (ordered) energy in a system. There doesn't need to be a system larger than it. I'll reverse your proposal. If the universe is an open system, doesn't that mean we can gain usable energy from outside it from the "parent" system? In that case, doesn't that also stuff up your point that there is an increase of entropy [edited] consistently across the universe?
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Ian Darling wrote: I try to live by Bill and Ted's version of The Golden Rule: Who do you think inspired them? ;) Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: Who do you think inspired them? So-crates? :-D
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
I've been reading the message boards for a good while now without getting too involved. Certain subject seem to come up over and over and we have conservative "Bible-thumpers" arguing with liberal "go-what-feels-gooders" over morality issues. It seems that everyone is missing the point. :sigh: Noone will ever win the argument if we focus on just the issues. It's worldviews that have to be discussed and fought. I'm a conservative Christian. I hear a lot about how "close-minded" Christians are. Well, yeah, in a sense they are. But in the same way non-Christians are. You're convinced you're right and Christians are convinced they are right. What we have here is a failure to communicate.... Here's how the Christian's worldview affects his view on, say, homosexuality:
if ( DoesGodExist() )
{
if ( GodWroteTheBible() )
{
if ( TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() )
{
bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;
}
}
}Once the Christian gets inside he can't get a different answer. You can make all types of statements about "love knows no bounds", blah, blah, blah, but to the Christian this function still returns true To change a Christian's mind you have to get the the first three conditionals to fail, before you can ever convince him that homosexuality is OK. So the Christin's "close-mindedness" is only inside the inner if loop. I'm not afraid of studying the if statements to see if they return true or not. So far, I've put a lot of study into it and I'm conviced that they do. You will have to do a lot of convincing to get my answers to change, but as an honest truth seeker, I'm willing to study and even admit weaknesses in my own arguments, and ultimately change my mind if the truth demands it. And Christians are hard-pressed to convince anybody that anything is wrong without first proving that the 1st three conditional return true. Once they accept those, they'll be no more argument. This is why I avoid arguments about these types of issues. All you do is get frustrated and go nowhere. We're missing the point. Sorry for such a long post. :-O Had to get this of my chest. :) There.. I feel better now...
I was concerned for a moment that this was about everyone against me.... J. Eric Vaughan wrote: What we have here is a failure to communicate.... Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. ( sorry, couldn't resist ) J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Here's how the Christian's worldview affects his view on, say, homosexuality: You're probably right, but your pseudo code is in error. It should look like this: if (bThereIsAGod && bGodWroteTheBible && bTheBibleSaysHomosexualityIsUnacceptable && nNumberOfPracticingHomosexualsInTheChurch) // This is C++, so the number at the end is true if it's not zero { ASSERT("We've made a mess of things"); } J. Eric Vaughan wrote: To change a Christian's mind you have to get the the first three conditionals to fail, before you can ever convince him that homosexuality is OK. Probably, and what really needs to happen is for Christians to learn from Jesus' example. Heterosexual immorality is also wrong in the church, but Jesus did not shun or attack the woman caught in adultery. He *did* tell her to 'go and sin no more', but he didn't treat her with revulsion or horror. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Once the Christian gets inside he can't get a different answer. Bingo! And it a shame supposedly intelligent parents still brainwash their poor children into believing love is wrong just because some medieval buggering priest scribbled it into some dodgy book that was later made a part of the bible.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
It's interesting to me that your reply is at least as closed minded and bigotted as those given by the people you're attacking. And everyone brainwashes their children, we can only raise our kids according to our own values. An intelligent parent will teach their child how those values are reached, and accept their children even if they come up with a different answer, but the only alternative is to raise kids with no values. I doubt that is ever a good idea. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Not a physics major are we Wrong. :) I have a bachelor's in Physics and minor in Math. ;P:) I just got bored with Physics, and fell in love with computers. I appreciate the links and I will read them.
Don't you see, though, that there are at least reasons for our beliefs, even if the reasoning is wrong (of course, I don't think they are, but anyway...). I just get tired of people calling Christians names and saying they just accept whatever they're told without using their brains. We've studied the evidence and have come to different conclusions. (Of course, we're right and always will be...;)) :sigh: I guess it's partially our fault for not being clear about what we believe and not "teaching the truth in love" as we're told in the NT. To many "Christians" who don't even know what they believe going out and beating people over the head with it.
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ Hebrews Chapter 11 Verse 1 Unfortunately, that is King James' rendering of that verse, and does not not capture the meaning as well as it could. This verse says nothing about evidence (if you look in the original Greek). When it says it is the "substance" of thing hoped for, it means it is the basis of our hope. Because we believe things to be true, we have hope of a better future. "Evidence" (elegchos) is better rendered "conviction". Faith is the conviction of things not seen. I am convinced of something that I've not seen. I've never seen Paris, but I am convinced or convicted that it exists. Richard Stringer wrote: anything that can be proven falls outside of the pervue of "faith". That's not what faith means. Faith is AWLAYS based on fact. If it's not, it's what we Christians call "blind-faith", not true faith
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Unfortunately, that is King James' rendering of that verse, and does not not capture the meaning as well as it could. This verse says nothing about evidence (if you look in the original Greek). When it says it is the "substance" of thing hoped for, it means it is the basis of our hope. Because we believe things to be true, we have hope of a better future. "Evidence" (elegchos) is better rendered "conviction". Faith is the conviction of things not seen. I am convinced of something that I've not seen. I've never seen Paris, but I am convinced or convicted that it exists. Logical mumbo jumbo. Jesus did not speak in Greek in his teachings so by the same logic maybe all our translations of the New Testament are flawed. I CAN show you Paris - you CANNOT show me God. The Bible is a hodge podge of religious writings with no real basis of Devine creation ( research Constantine ) . It is a book of stories and tales handed down orally thru the years and can be used - even by one as unskilled as myself - to "prove" almost anything if I want to strech the "interpertation" or ignore those parts that don't agree with my theory. J. Eric Vaughan wrote: That's not what faith means. Faith is AWLAYS based on fact. If it's not, it's what we Christians call "blind-faith", not true faith UH Huh. You have "faith" that the train will be on time because it always has been on time before. But if its not on time just once does that destroy your "faith" that it will be tomorrow ? If you understand the scheduling of trains then is your belief that the train will be on time still based on "faith" or based on knowledge. One with knowledge can predict what will happen if such and such happens or the weather is bad 500 miles away. The one with "faith" will just be standing at the train station waiting for the train full of faith that it will be there. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
I was always taught that you had to produce , at minimum, some proof for any hypothis. Take that little function DoesGodExist() for example and flesh it out - a Nobel awaits. Can you do this without resorting to the nonproveable therefore ambiguious state called "faith" ? . The function GodWroteTheBible() can be disproven historically but you do your own homework. That homosexuality is an anomaly is easily proven by simply appling what is called "the laws of nature". It does not lead to survival of the species therefore it is an evolutionary dead end. Does that make it "wrong". Probably not. But it does make it useless and therefore not something we should take a lot of time and effort on. However the same logic can be used in regards to religion. What will happen to the "current" state of religious beliefs when (A) Man creates life in the lab and/or (B) Discovers life on another planet and/or (C) Can become practically immortal and/or (D) Can raise the dead. These are all functions that have been relagated to "God".These seem like really way out things but we are getting closer and closer on a daily basis. (A) could probably be done now if not for restraints based on religion. (B) is gonna happen its just a matter of when and who discovers whom. (C) is getting a lot of research thrown at it - may not happen but who knows. (D) Happens every day in emergency rooms all over the world. Botha (A) and )B) will blow the socks off the basis of most mainstream religions. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
Richard Stringer wrote: Take that little function DoesGodExist() for example and flesh it out - a Nobel awaits. Can you do this without resorting to the nonproveable therefore ambiguious state called "faith" ? Hell, yes. Richard Stringer wrote: The function GodWroteTheBible() can be disproven historically but you do your own homework. God plainly inspired the writing of the Bible, no-one is claiming that He dropped the manuscript on someones head already written. Richard Stringer wrote: What will happen to the "current" state of religious beliefs when (A) Man creates life in the lab and/or (B) Discovers life on another planet and/or (C) Can become practically immortal and/or (D) Can raise the dead. None of those things will change my experience or how I respond to it one iota. I guarentee that D will never happen in any case, not in any meaningful way beyond jump starting someone whose body has ceased to 'live' but still contains all it needs for life minus the actual heartbeat. I doubt B will ever happen, but if it did, I could care less. Our body is just a machine, it would not surprise me at all if we found a way to make it persist almost indefinately. Certainly in the old testament people lived for hundreds of years, so why not ? We're just playing catch up with God, as we always seem to do. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Just curious, where do you think the extra entropy went to? Is there another universe "catching" our universe's entropy? Stating that the universe is closed implies there is a system larger than it. But I thought the universe was a term used to describe everything that exists. I'm sure I'm probably confused on this, and will welcome elightenment. Entropy doesn't "go" anywhere. AFAIK It's a measurement of the useable (ordered) energy in a system. There doesn't need to be a system larger than it. I'll reverse your proposal. If the universe is an open system, doesn't that mean we can gain usable energy from outside it from the "parent" system? In that case, doesn't that also stuff up your point that there is an increase of entropy [edited] consistently across the universe?
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
I just realize that I said that wrong. sorry... have to get... more... sleep...
-
the bible also says adultery is a capital crime. do we get to pick and choose the crimes and the punishments we like? Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
No one said anything about crime or punishment. The Bible says a lot of things are wrong, specifically it calls them sin. The Bible contains Laws that God commanded us to live by, however, God didn't create the Law so that Christians can run around punishing sinners. God uses the Law today to cause unbelievers to realize that they are sinners in need of a Savior. God created the Law because He knew that humanity was incapable of keeping them. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Law. When a person receives Christ as his Savior, the Law of God is written in his heart and the Law no longer binds him, he now lives under God's Grace. Jesus provided Christians with two commandments while He was here; highly condensed they are: Love God and Love Others. All of this doesn't mean that sin is OK now; God has and always will hate sin. We as Christians should also hate sin even while we love the sinner. The fact is, some people use the Bible as a justification for hating someone that commits a particular sin they find particularly abhorrent. This in itself is sin. Just because someone uses a message (the Bible) in a way that is unintended by the message does not invalidate the message. A Christian can, and should, speak out against sin, but just the simple act of speaking out against sin is interpreted by some to be hate. It is not! Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Not a physics major are we Wrong. :) I have a bachelor's in Physics and minor in Math. ;P:) I just got bored with Physics, and fell in love with computers. I appreciate the links and I will read them.
Me also (UCLA). Same same with computers. Small world is it not. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
J. Eric Vaughan wrote:
if ( TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() )
You are doing a typical beginners error here: You are forcing the rather lengthy string returned by
TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong()into abool. At least you would get a compiler warning. And that brings us to the point: Fundamental Christians are narrowing the world down to bool decisions of 'Bible' or 'evil'. They do not care for the complexity of the world. Funny, this way they overlook how great gods creation is.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation." -- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
jhwurmbach wrote: Fundamental Christians are narrowing the world down to bool decisions of 'Bible' or 'evil'. I'd be more inclined to say that modern religionists worry about trying to fit the Bible into what society accepts and is politically correct, instead of taking God at what He said. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
the bible also says adultery is a capital crime. do we get to pick and choose the crimes and the punishments we like? Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
In the Old Testament, yes. Those laws were for Israel, not for the church. However, in the NT adultery is still wrong, and you're right, most of the people who want to attack gays outside the church as 'ungodly' ( didn't they admit that by not going to church, equal with every other non Christian ), seem to wink at adultery, which makes them hypocrites. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Richard Stringer wrote: It would prove that you don't need God to create life No it doesn't. You've shown that intelligence can create life. That's far from proving that life can be created by unintelligent material randomly bumping against each other. Richard Stringer wrote: B is almost a mathamatical certainity Cool! I honestly look forward to finding life elsewhere. It fascinates me completely. It doesn't scare my faith. I would be excited to know there are other being out there. There are so many technical diffculties in contacting/visiting them, but I think it would be great to see how God has dealt with them through time. Richard Stringer wrote: God , if he/she does exist , is rapidly losing his/her power to amaze. I'm truly sorry... :((
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: There are so many technical diffculties in contacting/visiting them, but I think it would be great to see how God has dealt with them through time. Well, finding other intelligences does raise a number of interesting questions from a Christian perspective. a) Did that intelligent species fall? If not, does that mean the notion of "fallenness" is a local phenomenon? b) If said intelligent species did fall, has God yet done a form of sacrifice similar to that of Christ? c) If said speciies has not had an atonement sacrifice, are they due one or are they dependent on the same salvation as that of humans? d) Alternatively, are they not to receive an atonement sacrifice at all? This also leads onto another question. If humanity can construct an artificial intelligence, is that intelligence "fallen" due it's origins in humanity, or not? Question c above applies again - would an artificial intelligence need to have a Robot Jesus to secure it's own salvation? :-D (I, being an atheist, am not actually that bothered about the answers, but it's interesting to speculate)
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
I just realize that I said that wrong. sorry... have to get... more... sleep...
Apology (not that it was necessary) accepted - I understand the higher importance of sleep :-D
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
I've been reading the message boards for a good while now without getting too involved. Certain subject seem to come up over and over and we have conservative "Bible-thumpers" arguing with liberal "go-what-feels-gooders" over morality issues. It seems that everyone is missing the point. :sigh: Noone will ever win the argument if we focus on just the issues. It's worldviews that have to be discussed and fought. I'm a conservative Christian. I hear a lot about how "close-minded" Christians are. Well, yeah, in a sense they are. But in the same way non-Christians are. You're convinced you're right and Christians are convinced they are right. What we have here is a failure to communicate.... Here's how the Christian's worldview affects his view on, say, homosexuality:
if ( DoesGodExist() )
{
if ( GodWroteTheBible() )
{
if ( TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() )
{
bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;
}
}
}Once the Christian gets inside he can't get a different answer. You can make all types of statements about "love knows no bounds", blah, blah, blah, but to the Christian this function still returns true To change a Christian's mind you have to get the the first three conditionals to fail, before you can ever convince him that homosexuality is OK. So the Christin's "close-mindedness" is only inside the inner if loop. I'm not afraid of studying the if statements to see if they return true or not. So far, I've put a lot of study into it and I'm conviced that they do. You will have to do a lot of convincing to get my answers to change, but as an honest truth seeker, I'm willing to study and even admit weaknesses in my own arguments, and ultimately change my mind if the truth demands it. And Christians are hard-pressed to convince anybody that anything is wrong without first proving that the 1st three conditional return true. Once they accept those, they'll be no more argument. This is why I avoid arguments about these types of issues. All you do is get frustrated and go nowhere. We're missing the point. Sorry for such a long post. :-O Had to get this of my chest. :) There.. I feel better now...
I think it's interesting that you are applying predicate logic (I think that's the name for it :~) to a non-logic based system. I hate to break it to you, but you won't get far doing that. -- Ich bin der böse Mann von Schweden.
-
I've been reading the message boards for a good while now without getting too involved. Certain subject seem to come up over and over and we have conservative "Bible-thumpers" arguing with liberal "go-what-feels-gooders" over morality issues. It seems that everyone is missing the point. :sigh: Noone will ever win the argument if we focus on just the issues. It's worldviews that have to be discussed and fought. I'm a conservative Christian. I hear a lot about how "close-minded" Christians are. Well, yeah, in a sense they are. But in the same way non-Christians are. You're convinced you're right and Christians are convinced they are right. What we have here is a failure to communicate.... Here's how the Christian's worldview affects his view on, say, homosexuality:
if ( DoesGodExist() )
{
if ( GodWroteTheBible() )
{
if ( TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() )
{
bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;
}
}
}Once the Christian gets inside he can't get a different answer. You can make all types of statements about "love knows no bounds", blah, blah, blah, but to the Christian this function still returns true To change a Christian's mind you have to get the the first three conditionals to fail, before you can ever convince him that homosexuality is OK. So the Christin's "close-mindedness" is only inside the inner if loop. I'm not afraid of studying the if statements to see if they return true or not. So far, I've put a lot of study into it and I'm conviced that they do. You will have to do a lot of convincing to get my answers to change, but as an honest truth seeker, I'm willing to study and even admit weaknesses in my own arguments, and ultimately change my mind if the truth demands it. And Christians are hard-pressed to convince anybody that anything is wrong without first proving that the 1st three conditional return true. Once they accept those, they'll be no more argument. This is why I avoid arguments about these types of issues. All you do is get frustrated and go nowhere. We're missing the point. Sorry for such a long post. :-O Had to get this of my chest. :) There.. I feel better now...
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Certain subject seem to come up over and over and we have conservative "Bible-thumpers" arguing No arguments. If you claim to be a Christian, then - according to leviticus - you should stone to death anyone who is gay or commits adultery. If you don't agree with this then don't call yourself a christian. Call yourself a hypocrite or else do the manly thing and get a new religion. I am not a christian. Even if I believed god existed I would never bow my knee to any entity that would torture people forever just because they didn't kiss his ass.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
I started to make a response, but then deleted it because you obviously completely missed the whole point of my post, which is that everyone is missing the point... BTW, I don't remember anyone saying love was wrong. If you would like to quote someone, go ahead. Otherwise, please quit representing others' views.
Heh... this has been a very interesting thread. I am not a developer, but I take it that the first 3 lines in your code are conditional statements. How does one arrive at the second one? The one that says that God wrote the Bible. I think it is relatively easy from logic to prove that a superior being being (that some call God) exists, but how do you manage the second conditional that God wrote or inspired the Bible?
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: brainwash their poor children into believing love is wrong Where does the Bible say love is wrong? Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
Gary Kirkham wrote: Where does the Bible say love is wrong? Leviticus says that a man who lays with another man should be put to death. Ditto for adultery. Now, you can either believe that is a good thing (making you a non-hypocritical Christian) or you can lie to yourself and say "Oh, the bible really tells us to love your neighbor and just live a good life". That would make you typical of the majority of hypocritical christians.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Take that little function DoesGodExist() for example and flesh it out - a Nobel awaits. Can you do this without resorting to the nonproveable therefore ambiguious state called "faith" ? Hell, yes. Richard Stringer wrote: The function GodWroteTheBible() can be disproven historically but you do your own homework. God plainly inspired the writing of the Bible, no-one is claiming that He dropped the manuscript on someones head already written. Richard Stringer wrote: What will happen to the "current" state of religious beliefs when (A) Man creates life in the lab and/or (B) Discovers life on another planet and/or (C) Can become practically immortal and/or (D) Can raise the dead. None of those things will change my experience or how I respond to it one iota. I guarentee that D will never happen in any case, not in any meaningful way beyond jump starting someone whose body has ceased to 'live' but still contains all it needs for life minus the actual heartbeat. I doubt B will ever happen, but if it did, I could care less. Our body is just a machine, it would not surprise me at all if we found a way to make it persist almost indefinately. Certainly in the old testament people lived for hundreds of years, so why not ? We're just playing catch up with God, as we always seem to do. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Hell, yes. Then please do so and save a soul from eternal damnation :) Christian Graus wrote: God plainly inspired the writing of the Bible, no-one is claiming that He dropped the manuscript on someones head already written. "Plainly". Surely you are joking. Its a history book and a collection of myths and tales ( the Old Testament). And as ambigious as heck to boot. If taken literally the age of the universe is what - some 6000 years old. There were no proto humans - we jumped into the evolutionary tree at the top. The earth is the same age as the Sun. And the Dinos never existed since they are not mentioned. Oh well I guess this is where the "faith" part starts. Christian Graus wrote: Our body is just a machine, it would not surprise me at all if we found a way to make it persist almost indefinately. Created in Gods imiage ( but its funny how the anatomy worked out ) according to the Bible. And yes we will. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Certain subject seem to come up over and over and we have conservative "Bible-thumpers" arguing No arguments. If you claim to be a Christian, then - according to leviticus - you should stone to death anyone who is gay or commits adultery. If you don't agree with this then don't call yourself a christian. Call yourself a hypocrite or else do the manly thing and get a new religion. I am not a christian. Even if I believed god existed I would never bow my knee to any entity that would torture people forever just because they didn't kiss his ass.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
Terry, I don't see the necessity of assuming under the new covenant that the harsh punishments under the Law of Moses should still be in effect. JM