Fix one thing
-
You're a very naughty boy....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Well I'm not the messiah!!
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! Booger Mobile (n) - A bright green 1964 Ford Falcon - our entry into the Camp Quality esCarpade!! Do something wonderful - make a donation to Camp Quality today!!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes. Falling moral standards, as one would expect from any system left to atrophy with no external source to maintain it, and, obviously, death. That's just off the top
:laugh: Of course, you couldn't see it as a result of your religion failing to provide what it advertises in the face of everything reasonable that people now have access to. Morals are relative. I suspect yours don't meet the muster of a lot of (so called) Christians.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
Of course, you couldn't see it as a result of your religion failing to provide what it advertises in the face of everything reasonable that people now have access to.
Of course not. Because it provides everything as advertised.
Tim Craig wrote:
Morals are relative.
I suppose they are, in the absence of any external force, they have to be.
Tim Craig wrote:
I suspect yours don't meet the muster of a lot of (so called) Christians.
Perhaps, although it would surprise me if that were so, or, at least if they could defend why they felt I didn't 'meet muster' from the Bible, and not from their own ideas.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
If all I had to go on was the harm that false religion does to the world, I'd probably agree.
And, of course, you're the arbiter of what is a false religion. As I recall, you don't believe Catholics are Christians even though they had a monopoly on it for 1500 years and you couldn't even begin to call yourself a Christian if not for them.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
And, of course, you're the arbiter of what is a false religion
No. God is.
Tim Craig wrote:
As I recall, you don't believe Catholics are Christians even though they had a monopoly on it for 1500 years and you couldn't even begin to call yourself a Christian if not for them.
Well, Catholics don't believe what the Bible says, they believe what the Pope has invented. Yes, in the mainstream, they were the only game in town for a long time. I am not sure if I believe that there were actually no Christians in that time frame, but the core issue is simply that you don't care what the bible says, or who is a Christian. So, there's really no frame of reference I could hope to use to discuss it with you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I remember years ago when I was moving to Texas, a friend advised me no matter what or how rational someone seemed, to never, never discuss religion with them. :rolleyes:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Probably good advice, in Texas.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
And, of course, you're the arbiter of what is a false religion
No. God is.
Tim Craig wrote:
As I recall, you don't believe Catholics are Christians even though they had a monopoly on it for 1500 years and you couldn't even begin to call yourself a Christian if not for them.
Well, Catholics don't believe what the Bible says, they believe what the Pope has invented. Yes, in the mainstream, they were the only game in town for a long time. I am not sure if I believe that there were actually no Christians in that time frame, but the core issue is simply that you don't care what the bible says, or who is a Christian. So, there's really no frame of reference I could hope to use to discuss it with you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
While we are talking about religion... I am still undecided on whether there is a god or not. I have not read all of the bible, but do get lost right at the start. From someone who does believe, can you tell me, am I right in saying that we are here with a lot of suffering in the world because a lady ate an apple when she wasn't supposed to, or am I missing something? I might be really stupid, but isn't that what the bible say's? Maybe I need to read more :)
-
While we are talking about religion... I am still undecided on whether there is a god or not. I have not read all of the bible, but do get lost right at the start. From someone who does believe, can you tell me, am I right in saying that we are here with a lot of suffering in the world because a lady ate an apple when she wasn't supposed to, or am I missing something? I might be really stupid, but isn't that what the bible say's? Maybe I need to read more :)
rickyjos wrote:
I have not read all of the bible, but do get lost right at the start.
Yeah, I had the same problem as a kid. The issue is, the New Testament tells the story of who Jesus was, and what the church is about. The Old Testament ( so, starting with Genesis ), starts as the story of Israel and soon starts listing lots of arcane laws that don't apply to God's people today. If you want to read the Bible, a better place to start is Matthew. The four gospels tell four versions of the story of Jesus life, so there's some overlap, but some stories unique to each book. Acts explains how the church was started. The books after that, are written to the church, so it's a common mistake to read Romans, which is written to Christians, and not understand what made those words apply to the people reading them ( they had done what the people in Acts 2 did, with the same result, they had external evidence of God in their life ).
rickyjos wrote:
From someone who does believe, can you tell me, am I right in saying that we are here with a lot of suffering in the world because a lady ate an apple when she wasn't supposed to, or am I missing something?
Adam and Eve were not the first humans, but they were the start of God dealing with people. No, it's not true that there would be no suffering in the world if not for Eve. It's more true to say that Adam and Eve proved that man could not follow God, at that time. That's what all of the Old Testament is about, and what Jesus came to rectify.
rickyjos wrote:
I might be really stupid, but isn't that what the bible say's? Maybe I need to read more Smile
No, it's a fair question. The things to get about Adam and Eve are 1 - they were not the first humans 2 - they lived at a time where it was not possible to be 'saved'
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
rickyjos wrote:
I have not read all of the bible, but do get lost right at the start.
Yeah, I had the same problem as a kid. The issue is, the New Testament tells the story of who Jesus was, and what the church is about. The Old Testament ( so, starting with Genesis ), starts as the story of Israel and soon starts listing lots of arcane laws that don't apply to God's people today. If you want to read the Bible, a better place to start is Matthew. The four gospels tell four versions of the story of Jesus life, so there's some overlap, but some stories unique to each book. Acts explains how the church was started. The books after that, are written to the church, so it's a common mistake to read Romans, which is written to Christians, and not understand what made those words apply to the people reading them ( they had done what the people in Acts 2 did, with the same result, they had external evidence of God in their life ).
rickyjos wrote:
From someone who does believe, can you tell me, am I right in saying that we are here with a lot of suffering in the world because a lady ate an apple when she wasn't supposed to, or am I missing something?
Adam and Eve were not the first humans, but they were the start of God dealing with people. No, it's not true that there would be no suffering in the world if not for Eve. It's more true to say that Adam and Eve proved that man could not follow God, at that time. That's what all of the Old Testament is about, and what Jesus came to rectify.
rickyjos wrote:
I might be really stupid, but isn't that what the bible say's? Maybe I need to read more Smile
No, it's a fair question. The things to get about Adam and Eve are 1 - they were not the first humans 2 - they lived at a time where it was not possible to be 'saved'
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
1 - they were not the first humans
And the bible backs this how?
Christian Graus wrote:
2 - they lived at a time where it was not possible to be 'saved'
Fair point... Although prior to the snake and forbidden fruit incident, they didn't need to be either!!
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! Booger Mobile (n) - A bright green 1964 Ford Falcon - our entry into the Camp Quality esCarpade!! Do something wonderful - make a donation to Camp Quality today!!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
1 - they were not the first humans
And the bible backs this how?
Christian Graus wrote:
2 - they lived at a time where it was not possible to be 'saved'
Fair point... Although prior to the snake and forbidden fruit incident, they didn't need to be either!!
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! Booger Mobile (n) - A bright green 1964 Ford Falcon - our entry into the Camp Quality esCarpade!! Do something wonderful - make a donation to Camp Quality today!!
_Damian S_ wrote:
And the bible backs this how?
Gen 1 tells the story of men being created. Gen 2 tells the story of two specific people being formed. There is no indication of how long was between the two events, but only assumption can tie them to be the same. When Cain slew Abel, he was sent out and married amongst the 'daughters of men'. Who were these other people, if his family were the only humans ?
_Damian S_ wrote:
Fair point... Although prior to the snake and forbidden fruit incident, they didn't need to be either!!
Yes they did, they just didn't know it. The bible says all of the Old Testament happened for the instruction of the church. God didn't put them in the garden to see how it turned out, nor did He send Jesus because He suddenly decided He had no choice.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
rickyjos wrote:
I have not read all of the bible, but do get lost right at the start.
Yeah, I had the same problem as a kid. The issue is, the New Testament tells the story of who Jesus was, and what the church is about. The Old Testament ( so, starting with Genesis ), starts as the story of Israel and soon starts listing lots of arcane laws that don't apply to God's people today. If you want to read the Bible, a better place to start is Matthew. The four gospels tell four versions of the story of Jesus life, so there's some overlap, but some stories unique to each book. Acts explains how the church was started. The books after that, are written to the church, so it's a common mistake to read Romans, which is written to Christians, and not understand what made those words apply to the people reading them ( they had done what the people in Acts 2 did, with the same result, they had external evidence of God in their life ).
rickyjos wrote:
From someone who does believe, can you tell me, am I right in saying that we are here with a lot of suffering in the world because a lady ate an apple when she wasn't supposed to, or am I missing something?
Adam and Eve were not the first humans, but they were the start of God dealing with people. No, it's not true that there would be no suffering in the world if not for Eve. It's more true to say that Adam and Eve proved that man could not follow God, at that time. That's what all of the Old Testament is about, and what Jesus came to rectify.
rickyjos wrote:
I might be really stupid, but isn't that what the bible say's? Maybe I need to read more Smile
No, it's a fair question. The things to get about Adam and Eve are 1 - they were not the first humans 2 - they lived at a time where it was not possible to be 'saved'
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
NP - we're about to go and get some tea as well. My CP email is unchecked, do you want me to send you an email with my address, or do you prefer we keep talking within the forum ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Of course, you couldn't see it as a result of your religion failing to provide what it advertises in the face of everything reasonable that people now have access to.
Of course not. Because it provides everything as advertised.
Tim Craig wrote:
Morals are relative.
I suppose they are, in the absence of any external force, they have to be.
Tim Craig wrote:
I suspect yours don't meet the muster of a lot of (so called) Christians.
Perhaps, although it would surprise me if that were so, or, at least if they could defend why they felt I didn't 'meet muster' from the Bible, and not from their own ideas.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Of course not. Because it provides everything as advertised.
You give me your money and I'll tell you a nice story that may make you feel good? :doh:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
And, of course, you're the arbiter of what is a false religion
No. God is.
Tim Craig wrote:
As I recall, you don't believe Catholics are Christians even though they had a monopoly on it for 1500 years and you couldn't even begin to call yourself a Christian if not for them.
Well, Catholics don't believe what the Bible says, they believe what the Pope has invented. Yes, in the mainstream, they were the only game in town for a long time. I am not sure if I believe that there were actually no Christians in that time frame, but the core issue is simply that you don't care what the bible says, or who is a Christian. So, there's really no frame of reference I could hope to use to discuss it with you.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
No. God is.
Ah, so when you tell us that so and so isn't a Christian, you're speaking infalibilitas for god?
Christian Graus wrote:
but the core issue is simply that you don't care what the bible says, or who is a Christian. So, there's really no frame of reference I could hope to use to discuss it with you.
No, it's just all a ridiculous squabble to me but I'll still call anyone who says they represent the "only" true religion. Or, like you, even the only true sect of a religion. Get over it, it's all hogwash and arguing about who's right won't ever make it so.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
While we are talking about religion... I am still undecided on whether there is a god or not. I have not read all of the bible, but do get lost right at the start. From someone who does believe, can you tell me, am I right in saying that we are here with a lot of suffering in the world because a lady ate an apple when she wasn't supposed to, or am I missing something? I might be really stupid, but isn't that what the bible say's? Maybe I need to read more :)
Yeah, that whole original sin thing is a tough nut to swallow. Eve gets nasty with a snake and you have to pay for it. Maybe you need to think more and read fairy tales less?
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Probably good advice, in Texas.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Probably good advice, in Texas.
But it seems to be the area of the US you're most familiar with and the standard by which you judge us all. Most of Texas is an intellectual backwater.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I remember years ago when I was moving to Texas, a friend advised me no matter what or how rational someone seemed, to never, never discuss religion with them. Roll eyes
My dad gave me some good advice. He said there are only three reasons you can loose a mate, a girl, money or religion. But then again he also told me not to trust people with a first name for a last name :)
I wish I was as fortunate as fortunate as me
Josh Gray wrote:
But then again he also told me not to trust people with a first name for a last name
Well, I can't help if people usurped the family name and made it a first name. I guess it has a nice ring and they just couldn't resist borrowing it. :) What about people who can't do better than a color for a last name? :suss:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Yeah, that whole original sin thing is a tough nut to swallow. Eve gets nasty with a snake and you have to pay for it. Maybe you need to think more and read fairy tales less?
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
But then again he also told me not to trust people with a first name for a last name
Well, I can't help if people usurped the family name and made it a first name. I guess it has a nice ring and they just couldn't resist borrowing it. :) What about people who can't do better than a color for a last name? :suss:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
I went to school with a guy called Mackintosh McKenzie, sounds very Scottish, but he was born in St Lucia!
------------------------------------ To eat well in England, you should have a breakfast three times a day. W. Somerset Maugham 1925
-
rickyjos wrote:
I have not read all of the bible, but do get lost right at the start.
Yeah, I had the same problem as a kid. The issue is, the New Testament tells the story of who Jesus was, and what the church is about. The Old Testament ( so, starting with Genesis ), starts as the story of Israel and soon starts listing lots of arcane laws that don't apply to God's people today. If you want to read the Bible, a better place to start is Matthew. The four gospels tell four versions of the story of Jesus life, so there's some overlap, but some stories unique to each book. Acts explains how the church was started. The books after that, are written to the church, so it's a common mistake to read Romans, which is written to Christians, and not understand what made those words apply to the people reading them ( they had done what the people in Acts 2 did, with the same result, they had external evidence of God in their life ).
rickyjos wrote:
From someone who does believe, can you tell me, am I right in saying that we are here with a lot of suffering in the world because a lady ate an apple when she wasn't supposed to, or am I missing something?
Adam and Eve were not the first humans, but they were the start of God dealing with people. No, it's not true that there would be no suffering in the world if not for Eve. It's more true to say that Adam and Eve proved that man could not follow God, at that time. That's what all of the Old Testament is about, and what Jesus came to rectify.
rickyjos wrote:
I might be really stupid, but isn't that what the bible say's? Maybe I need to read more Smile
No, it's a fair question. The things to get about Adam and Eve are 1 - they were not the first humans 2 - they lived at a time where it was not possible to be 'saved'
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I will do some reading as you suggest.
Christian Graus wrote:
listing lots of arcane laws that don't apply to God's people today
Why don't they apply? (not knowing exactly what they are)
Christian Graus wrote:
but they were the start of God dealing with people.
But he created us right? Didn't he know what he had created? Are we some sort of experiment? Why doesn't he just show himself? mmmm.. So many questions. I am at an interesting point with my kids, they are starting to ask the how did we get here questions, hard to answer if you are not sure yourself.
-
OK, obviously not a bible believer. What are your thoughts on how we got here and where we are going to end up?
We arose from the primordial chemical soup that was the early oceans through natural chemical processes. Where we end up is where ever that may be. If you mean when an individual dies, we go nowhere. The lights go out, the audience goes home, and we're returned to the soup so to speak. The bible is just one of a string of ancient religious writings that has no particular significance other than it came to prominence at a time and place where human civilization was in a position to push it forward. There's nothing original in it, it's all cribbed from earlier writings. Adam and Eve aren't original christian, or even hebrew, ideas.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
No. God is.
Ah, so when you tell us that so and so isn't a Christian, you're speaking infalibilitas for god?
Christian Graus wrote:
but the core issue is simply that you don't care what the bible says, or who is a Christian. So, there's really no frame of reference I could hope to use to discuss it with you.
No, it's just all a ridiculous squabble to me but I'll still call anyone who says they represent the "only" true religion. Or, like you, even the only true sect of a religion. Get over it, it's all hogwash and arguing about who's right won't ever make it so.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Tim Craig wrote:
Ah, so when you tell us that so and so isn't a Christian, you're speaking infalibilitas for god?
If I were not backing what I say from the Bible, then I guess what you're saying could be true. As it stands, I'm not deciding anything, I'm just applying the Bible.
Tim Craig wrote:
Or, like you, even the only true sect of a religion. Get over it, it's all hogwash and arguing about who's right won't ever make it so.
I'm not interested in a worthless argument either, but I'd like you to at least know that if you want to start one, I know I can defend my views, I'm not afraid of the discussion, I'd just concur that if you're going to start from the place you seem to be, it's probably pointless.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.