Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wilhelm on 2005-06-01 at 22:48:31
You know how Peteranity, I mean, Christianity, got started? Well, after Christ died, all of the apostles split up. Essentially all of them had their own idea of what Jesus' teachings were, a good deal of which also contradicted. Well, after a good deal of fighting, murder, and book burning, the Catholic Church, Peter's followers, came out on top. Of course, biblical books were ignored, burned, and otherwise excluded because they contradicted the church's teachings. The flaw in calling yourself a Christian and striking at the Catholics for their religion having a large deal of ideas that have nothing to do with Jesus, is that your Christianity is just an edit, with a few things spliced around here and there. Essentially, God hates all of you, be quiet.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-06-01 at 22:49:17
Too bad god didn't come down and save us all from the corrupted sin of people who lived hundreds of years before us.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FallenDreamer on 2005-06-01 at 23:03:28
QUOTE(Alpha(MC) @ Jun 1 2005, 08:49 PM)
Too bad god didn't come down and save us all from the corrupted sin of people who lived hundreds of years before us.
[right][snapback]223425[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]223425[/snapback][/right]
Yeah, that woulda been fun. You know, I've always wanted to be in a holy crusade, just for the hell of it...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-06-01 at 23:52:10
QUOTE(TheoreticalHuman @ Jun 1 2005, 10:48 PM)
Essentially, God hates all of you, be quiet.
[right][snapback]223423[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]223423[/snapback][/right]
ROFL that was great. Nice conclusion
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-06-02 at 09:26:11
QUOTE(Alpha(MC))
What's bad with using the definitions of today? Shouldn't it be bad to use the definitions of thousands of years ago? I think ours is a little bit more updated if you ask me.
To me, it's like sayin' that I'm measuring lemons with an apple scale. It just doesn't exactly fit nicely.
It may be more updated but the questions really is, 'Is it more adequate (to the situation)?'.
----
Imo, TheoricalHuman's post only states more clearer the more time that the Catholic Church had to missinterpret things and that was mostly due to their "Middle Age" scholars (read hermeneutics) personal PoV's clashing with what their religion's stances should be. And between a ol' writtings that can defend themselves and a personal opinion boasted at the nick of time, who do ya think it's really get on top?
QUOTE(Alpha(MC))
Too bad god didn't come down and save us all from the corrupted sin of people who lived hundreds of years before us.
Enter queue for the "our freedom of choice" excuse.
QUOTE(FallenDreamer)
Yeah, that woulda been fun. You know, I've always wanted to be in a holy crusade, just for the hell of it...
I just (seriously) hope that you're using the good, ol' sarcasm tool... if not, consider the current muslim Jihads (aka 'holy war') the nowadays equivalent of the C.Crusades (about 500 years ago).
Edit reason: Darn Typoes! Must learn not to post at office...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-06-02 at 11:46:36
No, it's different. You're using different scales all together. I'm trying to use a scale invented way after the time jesus was born. It'll be like us using the lemon scale for lemons that once existed thousands of years ago. (Considering they didn't have a scale for lemons, and considering they some how magically stayed preserved) It would STILL be accurate. Get the point now? Time is the difference, not the scales.
My proof that we are using the conservative/liberal scale: I'm calling jesus a liberal.
Now I can see you saying, "Well, they didn't consider him a liberal. They used a different scale." I'm not talking about THEIR scale. I'm talking about OUR scale. the one we got TODAY.
My proof that we are using the conservative/liberal scale: I'm calling jesus a liberal.
Now I can see you saying, "Well, they didn't consider him a liberal. They used a different scale." I'm not talking about THEIR scale. I'm talking about OUR scale. the one we got TODAY.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Arctic(F) on 2005-06-02 at 13:20:48
The funny thing is i wrote this when i was bored out of my mind and all this has come from it... 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FallenDreamer on 2005-06-02 at 19:45:37
QUOTE(Basan @ Jun 2 2005, 07:26 AM)
QUOTE(FallenDreamer)
Yeah, that woulda been fun. You know, I've always wanted to be in a holy crusade, just for the hell of it...
I just (seriously) hope that you're using the good, ol' sarcasm tool... if not, consider the current muslim Jihads (aka 'holy war') the nowadays equivalent of the C.Crusades (about 500 years ago).
[right][snapback]223729[/snapback][/right]
Nah, it was just sarcasm....besides, the Jihad would surely have my ass on a platter before accepting me as one of their holy warriors....Still, I COULD start my own holy war.....for the hell of it =P(Once again, just a joke)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-06-03 at 09:44:15
QUOTE(Alpha(MC))
No, it's different. You're using different scales all together. I'm trying to use a scale invented way after the time jesus was born. It'll be like us using the lemon scale for lemons that once existed thousands of years ago. (Considering they didn't have a scale for lemons, and considering they some how magically stayed preserved) It would STILL be accurate. Get the point now? Time is the difference, not the scales.
I'm using? That's a new one...
And how can you say that those 'lemons' were kept preserved after all this time? They would've be decayed somehow (read corrupted for the possible misschevious interpretations of the Christian doctrine). You're assuming a great deal and infering afterwards upon it.
QUOTE(Alpha(MC))
My proof that we are using the conservative/liberal scale: I'm calling jesus a liberal.
*Meh* Not all togheter relevant for the issue. And here we go again... ;P
QUOTE(Alpha(MC))
Now I can see you saying, "Well, they didn't consider him a liberal. They used a different scale." I'm not talking about THEIR scale. I'm talking about OUR scale. the one we got TODAY.
(Just for the kicks of it.) By todays scale, I could profess the same Christian principles he (Jesus) did and still be at mind conservative driven.
Do ya want examples? Look at the current occupier fo the White House (aka George W. Bush). (As if it wasn't obvious enough already...)
See? I can get out of your diminuishing scale (black n' white one if might add), since it isn't accurate or even appliable to this issue at hands.
QUOTE(FallenDreamer)
Nah, it was just sarcasm...
Just was making sure. Some folks around don't really know to tell the difference (and alas, I recall a couple).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-06-09 at 19:30:54
Basan, do you really need me to show you why he's a liberal? Like, seriously? I mean, have you been LOOKING at the definitions of conservative and liberal? let me break it down for you real quick:
Liberal:
A. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
B. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
That's liberal. Now what's conservative?
Conservative:
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
That's conservative.
Do you need me to seriously point out why he's a liberal? Cause I'll do it if I have to. To end this stupid arguement.
Liberal:
A. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
B. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
That's liberal. Now what's conservative?
Conservative:
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
That's conservative.
Do you need me to seriously point out why he's a liberal? Cause I'll do it if I have to. To end this stupid arguement.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2005-06-10 at 03:09:10
jeeze, you ppl talk about thinks that you don't even know alot of...
I demand this topic closed cause its just plainly stupid.
I demand this topic closed cause its just plainly stupid.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-06-10 at 03:38:21
"you ppl talk about thinks that you don't even know alot of..."
Nice way to learn right there. (Note the sarcasm)
Nice way to learn right there. (Note the sarcasm)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Revelade on 2005-06-10 at 03:51:21
QUOTE(Alpha(MC) @ Jun 9 2005, 06:30 PM)
Basan, do you really need me to show you why he's a liberal? Like, seriously? I mean, have you been LOOKING at the definitions of conservative and liberal? let me break it down for you real quick:
Liberal:
A. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
B. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
That's liberal. Now what's conservative?
Conservative:
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
That's conservative.
Do you need me to seriously point out why he's a liberal? Cause I'll do it if I have to. To end this stupid arguement.
[right][snapback]230974[/snapback][/right]
Liberal:
A. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
B. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
That's liberal. Now what's conservative?
Conservative:
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
That's conservative.
Do you need me to seriously point out why he's a liberal? Cause I'll do it if I have to. To end this stupid arguement.
[right][snapback]230974[/snapback][/right]
And what does this have to do with anything?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-06-10 at 03:53:35
Good point, not a damn thing. Basan, if u want to continue this arguement, PM me. If not, oh well.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by dust_core on 2005-06-10 at 19:33:29
Think of some christians who give their life on preaching like Jehovah' Witnesses, they're Christians and had spent most of their time voluntarily preaching to the people. They are about 6 million plus around the globe.
Although Christianity belief is beginning to dwindle because of the modern beliefs and traditions, some people are still loyal to their god.
Although Christianity belief is beginning to dwindle because of the modern beliefs and traditions, some people are still loyal to their god.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Neiji on 2005-06-11 at 12:23:13
No, evolutionism is more and more rejected by science. I have a whole book on how evolutionism is wrong and how life can't just come from nothingness...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2005-06-11 at 13:56:43
Who was it by?
Evolution is still the scientifically accepted theory for how life became what it is today.
Evolution is still the scientifically accepted theory for how life became what it is today.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-06-11 at 14:17:40
QUOTE(Neiji @ Jun 11 2005, 11:23 AM)
No, evolutionism is more and more rejected by science. I have a whole book on how evolutionism is wrong and how life can't just come from nothingness...
[right][snapback]232534[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]232534[/snapback][/right]
We're not going to discuss this, but I have to show you the error in your thinking.
First, evolution is widely accepted everywhere due to scientific evidence and reasoning. Both of which religion (christianity) lack.
Second, your book is most likely full of misunderstanding or even purposely edited text to make it seem like evolution is wrong.
Third, evolution is not how life came to existance; instead, it explains the diversity of life we have today and how it can originate from a simple organism.
Get straight facts. Use wikipedia!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Neiji on 2005-06-13 at 09:17:02
This is in quotes because it 1. it was from a book and 2. it's too long...
QUOTE
1st, my book was written by an atheist turned into a christian. He just interviewed many christian philosophers. He wrote this book because he was doubtful of christianity, not because he was trying to prove atheism wrong (which he kinda did...)
2nd, how can you call the first cells "simple"? In Darwin's day, they had no idea how complex a cell really was. A one-cell organism is more complicated than anything we've been able to recreate through supercomputers...
Somebody once described a single-cell organism as a high-tech factory, complete with artificial languages and decoding systems; central memory banks that store and retrieve impressive amounts of information; precision control systems that regulate the automatic assembly of components; proof-reading and quality control mechanisms that safeguard against errors; assembly systems that use principles of prefabrication and modular construction; and a complete replication system that allows the organism to duplicate itself at bewildering speeds.
You can't create this out of nothing...
How about DNAs and RNAs?
The making of DNA and RNA would be an even greater problem than creating protein. These are much more complex, and there are a host of practical problems. For instance, the synthesis of key building blocks for DNA and RNA has never been successfully done except under highly implausible conditions without any resemblance to those of the early earth. Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany, admitted that the difficulties in synthesizing DNA and RNA
are at present beyond our imagination"
Frankly, the origin of such a sophisticated system that is both rich in information and capable of reproducing itself has absolutely stymied origin-of-life scientists. As the Noble Prize-winner Sir Francis Crick said, "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
Even so, scientists have tried to come up with creative theories to try to explain how biopolymers (such as proteins) became assembled with only the right building blocks (amino acids) and only the correct isomers (left-handed amino acids) joined with only the correct peptide bonds in only the correct sequence. There are the most common hypotheses that scientists have probosed in recent years:
1.Random Chance
2.Chemical Affinity
3.Self-Ordering Tendencies
4.Seeding from Space
5.Vents in the Ocean
6.Life from Clay
I know what you are going through rite now when you read these topics. I'd be goin crazy if like people were believing in Greek Mythology and trying to convert everbody in the Earth to the religion. But, you can't really prove how life came and even if you think that the universe was infinite and we had a random chance, wouldn't there be an infinite amount of time for humans to evolve, so shouldn't we be perfect already? But we're still imperfect in an imperfect world... So, the universe couldn't have been infinite.
Finally, how come you can't give God the benefit of the doubt? If a scientist comes upon an anomaly in nature, does he give up science? When our space probe found braided rings around Jupiter, this was contrary to all scientific explanations. So, do you remember when all the NASA scientists resigned because they couldn't expain it? No. You should approach the Bible the same way.
2nd, how can you call the first cells "simple"? In Darwin's day, they had no idea how complex a cell really was. A one-cell organism is more complicated than anything we've been able to recreate through supercomputers...
Somebody once described a single-cell organism as a high-tech factory, complete with artificial languages and decoding systems; central memory banks that store and retrieve impressive amounts of information; precision control systems that regulate the automatic assembly of components; proof-reading and quality control mechanisms that safeguard against errors; assembly systems that use principles of prefabrication and modular construction; and a complete replication system that allows the organism to duplicate itself at bewildering speeds.
You can't create this out of nothing...
How about DNAs and RNAs?
The making of DNA and RNA would be an even greater problem than creating protein. These are much more complex, and there are a host of practical problems. For instance, the synthesis of key building blocks for DNA and RNA has never been successfully done except under highly implausible conditions without any resemblance to those of the early earth. Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany, admitted that the difficulties in synthesizing DNA and RNA
are at present beyond our imagination"
Frankly, the origin of such a sophisticated system that is both rich in information and capable of reproducing itself has absolutely stymied origin-of-life scientists. As the Noble Prize-winner Sir Francis Crick said, "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
Even so, scientists have tried to come up with creative theories to try to explain how biopolymers (such as proteins) became assembled with only the right building blocks (amino acids) and only the correct isomers (left-handed amino acids) joined with only the correct peptide bonds in only the correct sequence. There are the most common hypotheses that scientists have probosed in recent years:
1.Random Chance
2.Chemical Affinity
3.Self-Ordering Tendencies
4.Seeding from Space
5.Vents in the Ocean
6.Life from Clay
I know what you are going through rite now when you read these topics. I'd be goin crazy if like people were believing in Greek Mythology and trying to convert everbody in the Earth to the religion. But, you can't really prove how life came and even if you think that the universe was infinite and we had a random chance, wouldn't there be an infinite amount of time for humans to evolve, so shouldn't we be perfect already? But we're still imperfect in an imperfect world... So, the universe couldn't have been infinite.
Finally, how come you can't give God the benefit of the doubt? If a scientist comes upon an anomaly in nature, does he give up science? When our space probe found braided rings around Jupiter, this was contrary to all scientific explanations. So, do you remember when all the NASA scientists resigned because they couldn't expain it? No. You should approach the Bible the same way.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2005-06-13 at 11:09:07
Who wrote that book?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2005-06-13 at 13:29:15
Well, his history of scientific evolution hasn't been updated recently.
And the theory now is that many of the parts of cells developed seperately. This is supported by the fact that Mitochondria and Chloroplasts both have membranes on the inside of the cell. Basically the parts of a cell are simple machines that convert one thing into another. The only difference between the living and non-living is that the living have control over the rates at which reactions take place.
I'd just like to point out that that quote contains many spelling mistakes, judging by this I take it that the document didn't have much thought when written.
QUOTE
how can you call the first cells "simple"?
Be cause they were! Scientists have made soap bubbles that coelesce and form new bubbles. (For the uneducated, soap is almost exactly what the membranes of cells is)And the theory now is that many of the parts of cells developed seperately. This is supported by the fact that Mitochondria and Chloroplasts both have membranes on the inside of the cell. Basically the parts of a cell are simple machines that convert one thing into another. The only difference between the living and non-living is that the living have control over the rates at which reactions take place.
I'd just like to point out that that quote contains many spelling mistakes, judging by this I take it that the document didn't have much thought when written.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2005-06-13 at 17:50:05
QUOTE
I'd just like to point out that that quote contains many spelling mistakes, judging by this I take it that the document didn't have much thought when written.
I think it's because Neiji had to type out all of those words up from the book.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2005-06-13 at 17:59:26
Ahh, ok nevermind then.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Neiji on 2005-06-13 at 18:30:02
The book is called The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel (I think that's how you spell it) and it says that no way can the cells and DNA be "randomly" created by the Earth's atmoshpere because when scientists conducted the tests, they assumed that the atmosphere would be made out of ... some stuff (I'll get the book, some stuff like methane gas and other stuff) and assembling a cell in about 1 billion years would still be unimaginable. Even if you're doubtful and are an atheist, I suggest reading this book because it was written by an atheist, and he interviewed about 8 REAL people. You can even meet them in real life, cuz their names are on this book.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-06-13 at 19:29:25
I've read (one of) the "case for..." books. They're (It is a) really bad and provide terrible evidence. Which is typical of misinformed people who try to argue a point that they really shouldn't.