Christians vs. nonChristians on issues
-
Christian Graus wrote: Ask me if we pray for the sick and see them recover Do you also pray for the sick and see them die ? Christian Graus wrote: You need to use the Bible to interpret the Bible. And to understand recursion you must first understand recursion. That won't fly. Christian Graus wrote: There is no evidence from the fossil record that big E evolution is true. Little e evolution ( change in what features present in a species dominate due to circumstances changing ) is a different issue. Surely you jest !!! Without getting involved in an area not in the pervue of my expertise I would suggest that the fact that almost 60% of the genes in a fruitfly has corresponding genes in Homo Sapiens gives eloquent proof of evolution of species - not some devine creation. Christian Graus wrote: Yes, broadly and in the sense that it comes under the brief of the book. Different to an itemised list, is my only point. Right !! Please explain then thos elements beyond the end of the "natural" periodic table like plutonium, einstienium etc that do not exist in the universe until man created them. Christian Graus wrote: No, it just means that God knows what choices we will make Recursion again. Then does God not do evil by allowing someone to be born that he knows is going to hell. He knows the choice in advance and so the individual has NO OTHER CHOICE unless God is wrong - but Hes NEVER wrong - so the poor sucker is fried no matter WHAT HE DOES. No need for prayer - no need to ask God for anything as it is PREORDAINED. Circular logic will bite you every time. 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
Christian Graus wrote: No, it just means that God knows what choices we will make Then Richard Stringer wrote: Recursion again. Then does God not do evil by allowing someone to be born that he knows is going to hell. He knows the choice in advance and so the individual has NO OTHER CHOICE unless God is wrong - but Hes NEVER wrong - so the poor sucker is fried no matter WHAT HE DOES. No need for prayer - no need to ask God for anything as it is PREORDAINED. The good old theodicee (sp?): God has either no power or is utterly merciless. In the first case he about as meaningless as ay otherguy I have never met before. In the second case he is best not bothered with anything.
"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.
-
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 agree with you that Christians are reasonable when they don't accept homosexuality. Even in the New Testament, the Bible attacks homosexuality. (Many people try to argue that rules against homosexuality are like the Old Testament laws about entering the temple, but that argument doesn't hold weight since homosexuality is talked about in the New Testament.) In any case, there is one other missing piece in your argument that you should clear up to make your argument solid. Some people will say that most of the Bible is written by God, but there are some cultural aspects which are really the opinion of the writer (by "writer", I mean Paul and other people who physically wrote the Bible). For example, the New Testament says that wives should submit to their husbands. I'm not a Christian (anymore), and this doesn't sit very well with me. Christians I've talked to have said the same reaction. It's not uncommon for a Christian to pull out the argument that these were the opinions of Paul, not God. Thus, women don't need to be in a subservient role to men. Well, that sounds fine, but now we've allowed for the possibilty that the Biblical writings aren't all divine. Thus, teachings against homosexuality may also be a reflection of the writer's bias, rather than divine law. My point in mentioning this is simply to point out that in order to arrive at the conclusion that "bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;", you need to either believe that the Bible is entirely divine (with no trace of writer's bias or culture), or you could believe that certain parts of the Bible have a personal or cultural bias, but that the teachings on homosexuality are an accurate reflection of God's opinion. ------------------------------------------ Well, let that be a lesson to you about going around throwing out bathwater without checking its contents first.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote: It is simply a statement of God's truth, not a judgement. Indeed he didn't explicitly judge anyone else, but since he's not homosexual and he's not talking about his own life, the obvious point is that he's talking about how "god's truth" applies to other people. In a larger context: sure, there's probably a small group of religious folk who believe strongly and live their lives that way without trying to force their beliefs on everyone around them, but there's enough other religious zealots out there to make up for that and it's hypocritical because Jesus said "love thy neighbour as thyself" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
I am a Christian, I have to admit that some of us Christians (myself included) are bigoted, hypocrits, and short-sighted. For that, I am ashamed and I apologise to everyone. We Christians are human and we ourselves are not perfect and limited in our understanding of God. I just want to say that one of the major points in the OT (Old Testament) is to let everyone realise that EVERYONE, I repeat EVERYONE, is a sinner, and it is impossible for any human being to adhere to all the OT rules (which means you are sinless). The whole point of the New Testament is that God loves ALL, and He sent His Son to save EVERYONE. As Christians, which means we believe that Jesus is the Son of God and has saved us, we should not sin not because of the threat of hell (as we believe Jesus has saved us and He only needs to save us ONCE), but we should not sin as we begin to love back the Jesus that loves us and saves us. So trying not to sin is a result of love as we know that God hates sin and the only way we can be closer to him is not to do sin. Unfortunately, most of us are more content in bickering about not-so-important things, trying to see who is best (see example on when the disciples are arguing who is the greatest among them), and condemning other people to hell just so we feel more righteous than others. The message of Christ is love, God loves us and He wants us back. The bible says that God is love and I am glad to say that I have seen Christians that let us get a glimpse of what and who God is. I can only pray that the rest of us Christians can also be a clear window for everyone to see who God is instead of distorting His image. Thanks, Edbert P. Sydney, Australia. God is love, spread the word!
-
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: (A) Man creates life... OK, so that proves that intelligent beings can create life. How does that prove that an intelligent being did NOT create life. It would prove that you don't need God to create life and all religions basically say that God created the universe and all things in it. If man can obtain God like powers then perhaps WE are Gods. J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Note: Neither (A) nor (B) has happened. If (A) or (B) NEVER happen, will that convince you that God exists? How long will you wait? I never said that God does not exist ( although I do think that it cannot be demonstrated ) and A and B WILL happen. Its not even farfetched or waiting for some scientific breakthrough - A can happen anytime a research lab with some cajones wants it to happen ( and bring the wrath of the world down on thier heads ) and B is almost a mathamatical certainity given the size and relative smoothness of the universe. J. Eric Vaughan wrote: Sorry, but you'll have to come up with something better that hypotheticals about what evidence we MAYBE, MIGHT find in the future. Humand knowledge is increasing exponitionaly - not lineraly. We are close to another paradigm shift similar to what the invention of the IC was except that this time the area of interest is genetics and its ancillary effects on biology and medicine. We are tinkering with the very source of life itself. Be a Luddite if you must but it is coming like a freight train. Combine this with the new science of nano technology and our ever increasing knowledge base of how proteins work and interact and let your mind run free with what we will be able to accomplish in the next 100 years. Its gonna make the 20'th century look small in comparision. In 1900 the average life expectancy was 49 years - in 2000 it was 77 - an increase of 28 years. Wonder what it will be in a century that WILL see the invention of a real working artifical heart ( or maybe a clone heart grown in the lab), the probable end of cancer and most autoimmune diseases, vastly improved antibiotics and antivirals due to increased understanding of how they work on a genetic level, nano surgery, etc.. man I was born too early. God , if he/she does exist , is rapidly losing his/her power to amaze. 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."
Richard Stringer wrote: God , if he/she does exist , is rapidly losing his/her power to amaze. I'm sorry to hear that.. one of the best ways, at least that i've found, is through people and experience. Instead of going to church on sunday (assuming you do) don't go, go serve breakfast/lunch to the homeless. Go on missions trips, they aren't ways to get free/cheap labor its pretty amazing about the people you meet and get to know, don't go into it with expectations go with an open mind and heart. -Steven Hicks
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.
More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)
-
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: I don't remember anyone saying love was wrong Your bible says it. Read Leviticus. Gay men should be put to deatha long with adulterers. Or are you one of the 99% of Xstians who conveniently decide whichever parts of the bible that don't mesh their own lifestyles and worldviews can be safely ignored? Hey - don't get angry at me! Thats a mortal sin! Pray for me. Pray my honesty in refusing to worship a god so cruel as to torture you forever if you fail to cross all of your T's before walking in front of that train won't cause me to lose my immortal soul. (scary music playing)
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
There was also the part with leaving unholy Sodom and the pillar of salt one... the city was full of sin mostly sodomny... I don't know the exact verses. Also, the one without sin throws teh first stone, where Jesus forgave the prositute .... he said for forth and sin no more, she screwed up and was forgiven. Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with God... unfortunitly it gets confused with church unfortunitly -Steven Hicks
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.
More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)
-
John Fisher wrote: If the goal isn't to find out what really happened (the truth), then why research it in the first place? Is it just fun to come up with fanciful explanations of stuff we find lying around? No, it's to try and work out what most likely happened. If we can work out what most likely happened to say, [edit - fixed spelling] Troy, then we can build up a fairly reliable picture of our history in that region based on that information and other things we have worked out. If new historical evidence crops up, then either the existing historical theory can accomodate it without problems, or the historical theory is modified. I seem to recall this has been happening with the history of Egypt in the last few years - one historian had devised a new chronology of Egypt that he thinks better fits the evidence. I can't recall the outcome of that research though. There was a documentary on it on BBC2 a few years ago.
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: No, it's to try and work out what most likely happened. If we can work out what most likely happened to say, [edit - fixed spelling] Troy, then we can build up a fairly reliable picture of our history in that region based on that information and other things we have worked out. If new historical evidence crops up, then either the existing historical theory can accomodate it without problems, or the historical theory is modified. Exactly. While aiming for the truth, you select the most likely choice given the current information. If the goal wasn't the truth of the situation, why change the theory if it sounds nice already? Maybe the current explanation has implications that we like. If someone comes up with evidence that the current explanation no longer is the best choice, why switch? The only way to figure the "best" theory is to have a goal -- the truth. Just because they aren't guaranteed to reach it doesn't mean they stop trying. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
John Fisher wrote: If the goal isn't to find out what really happened (the truth), then why research it in the first place? Is it just fun to come up with fanciful explanations of stuff we find lying around? The way social science works is not trying to come up with the one true reason for the result you got. This is futile in a discipline like Laws, as the dscipline is not distinct from its subject: The very same peaople who make (or clarify) the laws are those who do the reasearch. It is impossible in a discipline like history, where we only ever get a subjective, incomplete picture of the events. From Julius Cesars "De bello gallico" we would never be able to read the 'truth' about that war. That is lost forever. Bur we can get quite a lot about the political context it was written in, and how it is power politics, fantasy story and travel account in one.
"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.
Just because you can't be certain of the truth of a historical event doesn't mean that the goal has changed. Note my reply to Ian above. Also, some historical events have a much higher level of certainty than others (like the one you mentioned). Most people wouldn't give up on digging for the truth of one event just because they are unlikely to find enough information about a completely different event. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
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
Quite right. It's too bad that such a large number of religious groups labelling themselves as Christian do not see it this way. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
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!
Terry O`Nolley wrote: That would make you typical of the majority of hypocritical christians. Terry, you've made a fool of yourself again. Telling a Christian to live by Leviticus is like telling you that you live by the laws of the United Kingdom. The USA has it's origins in the UK, but it is a seperate entity with seperate laws. Try quoting the New Testament if you want to attack Christianity, then you'll at least have half a leg to stand on. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
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!
Leviticus is in the Old Testament and therefore part of the old law. The new law, as put forth by Christ in the New Testament does not differentiate between sins, and asks us to love one another regardless of our sins. No one is asked to judge or condemn others for any of their sins. We are however ask us to love one another. In that love, by its very nature, we are compelled to educate others on Gods will, which includes pointing out sins commited. I'm not sure I'd call myself Christian, but I am beginning to understand the path to God provided for through Christ. It has nothing to do with ass kissing, but rather a desire to be part of the Energy/Source/God/Tao which many sense exists in this universe. BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
I agree with you that Christians are reasonable when they don't accept homosexuality. Even in the New Testament, the Bible attacks homosexuality. (Many people try to argue that rules against homosexuality are like the Old Testament laws about entering the temple, but that argument doesn't hold weight since homosexuality is talked about in the New Testament.) In any case, there is one other missing piece in your argument that you should clear up to make your argument solid. Some people will say that most of the Bible is written by God, but there are some cultural aspects which are really the opinion of the writer (by "writer", I mean Paul and other people who physically wrote the Bible). For example, the New Testament says that wives should submit to their husbands. I'm not a Christian (anymore), and this doesn't sit very well with me. Christians I've talked to have said the same reaction. It's not uncommon for a Christian to pull out the argument that these were the opinions of Paul, not God. Thus, women don't need to be in a subservient role to men. Well, that sounds fine, but now we've allowed for the possibilty that the Biblical writings aren't all divine. Thus, teachings against homosexuality may also be a reflection of the writer's bias, rather than divine law. My point in mentioning this is simply to point out that in order to arrive at the conclusion that "bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;", you need to either believe that the Bible is entirely divine (with no trace of writer's bias or culture), or you could believe that certain parts of the Bible have a personal or cultural bias, but that the teachings on homosexuality are an accurate reflection of God's opinion. ------------------------------------------ Well, let that be a lesson to you about going around throwing out bathwater without checking its contents first.
I'm not sure what the originator of this thread would say, but here's an explanation. As with most ideas that have been around a while, there are plenty of people that pick and choose what they like and dislike. People are prone to ignoring the parts they don't like, and Christians are people. (Like you hadn't figured that out...;P) There is little* reason internal to the Bible for people to decide that wives submitting to husbands is something to ignore. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. Of all the Christian women that I've heard discussing this topic, very few of them believed that submitting to a husband with that kind of love would ever bother them. In fact, most of them actually enjoyed the idea. (A common desire of everyone to be loved, accepted, and well-cared for could easily explain that.) Anyway, my point is that when the full family relationship system is in place, that idea is actually rather comfortable and not nearly as difficult as it is when taken as separate pieces and joined with common marital attitudes in our cultures today. So, that would be my answer to your question. I'm hoping that the others' answers would have been similar. * I only say little, because when people find something they don't want to believe, they generally look for rationalizations to back it up. ** ** You know, I like this footnote system that Paul Watson tends to use! John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Richard Stringer wrote: God , if he/she does exist , is rapidly losing his/her power to amaze. I'm sorry to hear that.. one of the best ways, at least that i've found, is through people and experience. Instead of going to church on sunday (assuming you do) don't go, go serve breakfast/lunch to the homeless. Go on missions trips, they aren't ways to get free/cheap labor its pretty amazing about the people you meet and get to know, don't go into it with expectations go with an open mind and heart. -Steven Hicks
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.
More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)
(Steven Hicks)n+1 wrote: Instead of going to church on sunday (assuming you do) don't go, Actually I do go. I play guitar in a church music group. Perhaps you misunderstood the thought process behind the quote. In other times simple things like lightning, thunder, earthquakes, floods were thought to be Gods effort to straighten out an errant populace. Any would be preacher could claim to call down the wrath of God on he poor sinners head. Today there is very little left unexplained vis a vis natural phenomon and the so called priests and preachers are having to go farther and farther afield to find scare tsctics that work. And in most cases thats what makes converts to religion - fear of something. (Steven Hicks)n+1 wrote: Go on missions trips, they aren't ways to get free/cheap labor its pretty amazing about the people you meet and get to know, don't go into it with expectations go with an open mind and heart. My wife does Meals On Wheels on Thursday and we both do the gig on Saturdays. No ulterior motive - we can afford it and it just helps out the oldsters and when and if I get old and infirm maybe it will be payback time. Only takes about two hours to deliver hot homecooked meals to 10 people and have a little conversation with them. Sometimes it takes longer because the people generally don't need the meals as much as they do the conversation. Sad that we abandon our old folks so much. 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: 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
Being a sucker for sci-fi and having an even stronger interest in Bible topics, this was just too entertaining a post to leave alone. :D Ian Darling wrote: Well, finding other intelligences does raise a number of interesting questions from a Christian perspective. According to Revelation and 2 Peter, the entire universe will be replaced by a sin-free, better-than-we-can-imagine heaven and earth. Because of this, it is normal for Christians to assume that there is no life on other planets, and if there is life on other planets, that it would be like animal life here (without a living-forever soul). Otherwise, it is assumed that God would be punishing them for something they were not responsible for. Alternately, we could (somewhat baselessly) imagine scenarios where God created other physical* life with souls. This idea requires some mental gymnastics to support one of two concepts -- either they are isolated enough that the influence of people on earth can't reach them, or that they have fallen in a similar fashion to men. In either case, we would assume that God provides them with a set of information that clearly establishes their responsibility for the consequences they face, or that there is some other easily accepted reason for the destruction and replacing of the universe. (Something like is done with the angels, since they will live through that enormous event and accept it as part of God's dealing with humanity.) Anyway, this is all just some fun speculation, so don't go assuming that I've got some funky beliefs or that these ideas are in any way typical of most Christians... ;) * This excludes the Bible-revealed creation of angels and other spirit beings which are not "located" on the earth, but have purposes associated with heavenly or earthly activities. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
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 assume that you're basing this statement on a misunderstanding of "faith". (If not, the just ignore my ramblings, or explain what you were trying to really say.) All Faith != "blind faith". Blind faith certainly is that "stand on nothing, and launch myself into the void, expecting to be OK afterward". However, that is not the type of faith that intelligent Christians deal with. Real faith is much more like climbing to the top of the available evidence, seeing the conclusion, and casually stepping across the gap. Scientists (that you probably admire) use real faith all the time. The see certain behavior and they expect a certain result. On the basis of that faith, they then proceed to test their hypothesis. Every time you sit on a chair, expecting it to hold you, real faith is active. In essence, real faith is trust that you place in something that has given evidence that it is worth your trust. That is not a "non-logic based system" at all. Thus ends my treatise. ;) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Ian Darling wrote: No, it's to try and work out what most likely happened. If we can work out what most likely happened to say, [edit - fixed spelling] Troy, then we can build up a fairly reliable picture of our history in that region based on that information and other things we have worked out. If new historical evidence crops up, then either the existing historical theory can accomodate it without problems, or the historical theory is modified. Exactly. While aiming for the truth, you select the most likely choice given the current information. If the goal wasn't the truth of the situation, why change the theory if it sounds nice already? Maybe the current explanation has implications that we like. If someone comes up with evidence that the current explanation no longer is the best choice, why switch? The only way to figure the "best" theory is to have a goal -- the truth. Just because they aren't guaranteed to reach it doesn't mean they stop trying. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: Exactly. While aiming for the truth, you select the most likely choice given the current information. If the goal wasn't the truth of the situation, why change the theory if it sounds nice already? Maybe the current explanation has implications that we like. If someone comes up with evidence that the current explanation no longer is the best choice, why switch? The only way to figure the "best" theory is to have a goal -- the truth. Just because they aren't guaranteed to reach it doesn't mean they stop trying. Yes, but given the lack of perfect and complete information, you can't get to The Truth - all you can get is more and more accurate - at least in a historical context. And choosing a theory is nothing to do with aesthetics or how much we "like" it (which is what you've implied, even if you don't mean it). A theory is the explaination that best describes what the evidence it, regardless of what the consequences of that theory are. Scientists would quite like to get Truth, but they'll settle for (and only get to) Accurate. I suspect we'll never get to Truth (because there are an infinite number of facts, and you never know if we'll find something to contradict a theory without testing an infinite number of facts, which as we know, is very hard :-D)
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
jhwurmbach wrote: force a int value (that's what TRUE is) into a bool Habit I guess...I don't think that bool is supported in serialization :) jhwurmbach wrote: But just last week some intern had to change the prototype? Intern? I am a one man show. :( jhwurmbach wrote: then he did also made the homosexuals Nope...At the risk of opening another can of worms, homosexuality is a choice. It is not something you are born with no matter what a few activist Doctors and Judges might have to say. 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: homosexuality is a choice. It is not something you are born with no matter what a few activist Doctors and Judges might have to say. And it is that way just because you want it that way? Despite reality? Sounds about right. All fundamental christians here and everywhere seem to think of an acive God that is constantly interfering with the world. There is no way why this God should not stop those poor, hellbound sinners from being homosexuals. Just that he may simply be unbelievable cruel. It must be very easy for this active omnipotent God do stop all sin. But he seems to actually like seeing people go to hell, he is not omnipotent - or he is not there at all. Pick your choice.
"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.
-
I don't deny what the Bible says, in fact the Bible says that ALL sin is punishable by death...Eternal Death. However, you need to read the rest of the Bible not just the bits and peices that support your point. If you read the new testament, then you find out that Jesus came to set us free from the Laws you quoted and all the rest you didn't quote. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
How convenient! Just because an immortal being who knew he couldn't be killed hung around on a cross for a couple of days means that all of the laws set down by god himself are null and void! What a relief! I guess that means that is now OK for good god-fearing men to fornicate, commit adultery and murder since Jesus (an immortal who knew he would be only temporarily inconvenienced) hung out on a cross. What a break for you Christians! You can slaughter as many old ladies as you want! You can rape as many nuns as you want! Jesus (an immortal who knew he was the son of god and thus could not be hurt by whatever silly little trials the romans had in store for him) "died" on the cross for you! What a pathetic cop-out. Did Jesus say that all of the prior laws passed down by his father - the Lord God- were now null and void? Or does the new testament (which was written over a period of several hundred years by pathetic mortals) say this?
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: That would make you typical of the majority of hypocritical christians. Terry, you've made a fool of yourself again. Telling a Christian to live by Leviticus is like telling you that you live by the laws of the United Kingdom. The USA has it's origins in the UK, but it is a seperate entity with seperate laws. Try quoting the New Testament if you want to attack Christianity, then you'll at least have half a leg to stand on. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Terry, you've made a fool of yourself again. Telling a Christian to live by Leviticus is like telling you that you live by the laws of the United Kingdom. Yes my Christian brother. You are right - you have called your fellow man an idiot. You have called him a fool. And all because he believes different things than you do. I'm just kidding :) I know you are a typical hypocrite and I don't hold it against you - you loving saver of souls. Kisses.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
There was also the part with leaving unholy Sodom and the pillar of salt one... the city was full of sin mostly sodomny... I don't know the exact verses. Also, the one without sin throws teh first stone, where Jesus forgave the prositute .... he said for forth and sin no more, she screwed up and was forgiven. Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with God... unfortunitly it gets confused with church unfortunitly -Steven Hicks
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.
More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)
(Steven Hicks)n+1 wrote: Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with God... unfortunitly it gets confused with church unfortunitly A great point and one I can respect wholeheartedly. I just wish people had the balls to call themselves "spiritual Jesusists" instead of going through the life-long charade of pretending to be "Christians". Christians are members of established religious orders with rules, regulations and codes of conduct. I, myself, do my best to live by the teachings of Jesus since I consider his philosophy to be the one that, should all mankind adopt, leads to peace on earth. My problem is with those pathetic bastards that, instead of calling themselvfes Spiritual Jesusists, call themselves "Presbyterians" or "Baptists" or "Lutheran", etc., etc., etc. when anyone with half a brain can tell you that they do not live their lives according to the teachings of the documentation that ships with their "religion". They are hypocrites. They are not worthy of respect. They will wake up every day knowing that they plan on flirting with their secretary in hopes of fucking her. They instead use the cop-out "All mankind are sinners". Those pathetic bastards are going to hell according to their own religion. So why do they pretend to follow it? Because they were brainwashed as children and are silly little peons as adults.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
I am a Christian, I have to admit that some of us Christians (myself included) are bigoted, hypocrits, and short-sighted. For that, I am ashamed and I apologise to everyone. We Christians are human and we ourselves are not perfect and limited in our understanding of God. I just want to say that one of the major points in the OT (Old Testament) is to let everyone realise that EVERYONE, I repeat EVERYONE, is a sinner, and it is impossible for any human being to adhere to all the OT rules (which means you are sinless). The whole point of the New Testament is that God loves ALL, and He sent His Son to save EVERYONE. As Christians, which means we believe that Jesus is the Son of God and has saved us, we should not sin not because of the threat of hell (as we believe Jesus has saved us and He only needs to save us ONCE), but we should not sin as we begin to love back the Jesus that loves us and saves us. So trying not to sin is a result of love as we know that God hates sin and the only way we can be closer to him is not to do sin. Unfortunately, most of us are more content in bickering about not-so-important things, trying to see who is best (see example on when the disciples are arguing who is the greatest among them), and condemning other people to hell just so we feel more righteous than others. The message of Christ is love, God loves us and He wants us back. The bible says that God is love and I am glad to say that I have seen Christians that let us get a glimpse of what and who God is. I can only pray that the rest of us Christians can also be a clear window for everyone to see who God is instead of distorting His image. Thanks, Edbert P. Sydney, Australia. God is love, spread the word!
I don't agree with everything you've said there, but I have to give you a five for that. :rose:
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter