|
|
Post by mattis on Mar 31, 2006 21:48:50 GMT -5
recent research says the universe is insanely huge, but not infinite. it has the shape of a four-dimensional egg. we live on the three-dimensional "surface". it's really the volume, but if it were a 3D egg we would be 2D, on the surface. if you went in a straight line for long enough you come back to where you left from.
|
|
|
|
Post by tractakid on Apr 12, 2006 2:07:29 GMT -5
Prayer is not just about asking. It can be about saying sorry, or it could be thanking. It is just a chat with god. It is like talking to a friend.
In this study, this room that Im in, has a couple of thousand (guess) books in. 99 percent of them christian. Why did these people bother. Because they know how amaing god is.
We don't get that much solid income. Thats fine. Im happy as can be. But that solid income is just enough to run this place. How do we have the carpet replaced? How do we have the luxuries? Unexpected gifts, by people, who dont know we need to replace the carpet. They must have had some inspiration. Would you send £200 to a friend, just like that. If youve any sence, no. Then why did they do that.
I doubt any of you have felt the amazing feeling of pureness, of stimulation, when you are worshipping. You don't want to miss it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hatson on Apr 12, 2006 17:55:24 GMT -5
I don't think we have any way of knowing yet if the universe is infanite or just insanely huge.
I have enough trouble going through Toronto a lot of times.
Earth itself is big enough for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by im_an_alien on Apr 13, 2006 15:48:38 GMT -5
if the universe is just insanely huge, then what happens when you get out of it? just black all around?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sizzlepop on Apr 13, 2006 19:17:30 GMT -5
Prayer is not just about asking. It can be about saying sorry, or it could be thanking. It is just a chat with god. It is like talking to a friend. That's true. Though a large part of most prayers I hear is asking, there are other aspects to prayer. In this study, this room that Im in, has a couple of thousand (guess) books in. 99 percent of them christian. Why did these people bother. Because they know how amaing god is. I didn't quite understand the whole point of that paragraph. I'm assuming you were mentioning the vast amount of information written about the Christian God. In terms of pure written material, there's much information supporting all known moral views on just about any subject. It's important not just to look at how much information is written about a certain opinion when evaluating the opinion's probability of being "right," but also to consider the overall quality of the writing on that opinion. In terms of the amount of written material, I'd guess there is more pro-Christian writing than there is anti-Christian (not non-Christian) writing. However, generally, an anti-Christian viewpoint is better communicated because it is less likely to be inspired by feelings and more likely to be influenced by reasoning. Remember, this in in general terms. We don't get that much solid income. Thats fine. Im happy as can be. But that solid income is just enough to run this place. How do we have the carpet replaced? How do we have the luxuries? Unexpected gifts, by people, who dont know we need to replace the carpet. They must have had some inspiration. Would you send £200 to a friend, just like that. If youve any sence, no. Then why did they do that. I'm glad that you're happy, assuming you should be (in other words, assuming your good life is not a result of God's actions, assuming God exists). Why would people help other people, sometimes spontaneously? Perhaps there are just good people out there who help others in need. It's important to remember that Christianity teaches the message "there are no good people." Everyone is labeled as a sinner (missing the mark of God), and therefore in need of God's mercy. It doesn't matter how many good deeds you do; if you've sinned once, you have no chance of ever being a "good" person. You can only hope to be a "forgiven" person. Obviously, I think this philosphy is repugnant. It wrongly labels people, and misses out on so much wonderful truth. I often see moral greatness attributed to God, when really it was the doing of good people. The simple fact is, some people are better than others. Now that I think about it, tributes to God for good on Earth disgust me. This is because, from a Christian viewpoint, God disgusts me. -Killing innocent children under the circumstances that God did is evil. -Separating people who love each other and allowing people to be tormented for eternity because of honest opinions formed through research and open-mindedness is evil. -Making reality so one good person can "die for" the "sinful burden" of the rest of the world, therefore creating a massive labeling and grouping system based solely on theological belief, is evil. I doubt any of you have felt the amazing feeling of pureness, of stimulation, when you are worshipping. You don't want to miss it. Trust me, I do. |
|
|
|
Post by tractakid on Apr 14, 2006 1:54:26 GMT -5
There are good people in this world. Good doesn't mean purfect. God doesn't expect us to be purfect. In which part of the bible does it say that?
What do you mean by that? Which children were killed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sizzlepop on Apr 14, 2006 2:26:18 GMT -5
There are good people in this world. Good doesn't mean purfect. God doesn't expect us to be purfect. In which part of the bible does it say that? "Why do you call me good? No one is good- except God alone." -Jesus (loosely translated from Mark 10:18) While this quote does support my assertion in my previous post (Christianity teaches that there are no "good" people), I must admit that that assertion isn't completely true. Christians have differing beliefs regarding some controversial issues, but they all share a belief/support in Jesus. You see, I recently read The Case for Faith, and one of the Christian religious experts interviewed in the book clearly stated that he thought there were no "good" people. Though his opinion would logically hold much credibility, you reminded me that I can't take one thing one person says as representative of the beliefs of many. This doesn't mean that my assertion is right or wrong; we just have to look at the evidence, and right now, the evidence seems to point toward Christianity teaching that there are no "good" people. You might be able to change that, though.  Which children were killed? "They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." -Joshua 6:21 In this case, God didn't directly slaughter children, but he did tell his people to. There are other examples in the Old Testament of God (wrongly, in my opinion) killing large amounts of people at once. Joshua 6:21 just came to me off the top of my head. The book I read did deal with this issue. It offered some explanations, though not explanations that completely answer my objections. It's late and I'm tired, so maybe I'll post them later. I know that some of my statements might seem offensive to you, but thanks for not taking offense in your last post. That always makes things easier. |
|
|
|
Post by tractakid on Apr 14, 2006 6:24:41 GMT -5
Why would I be offended about someone's opinion? I may not like it, but I will never be offended, unless it is an insult aimed at offending. No examples needed  *gets bible* *gets street bible* It says part of it is to do with prooving that he is the only God, aboloshing evil as he went. The bible said that Jericho was put into Joshuas hands, and that is what he did. I am quoting this from a commentary on Joshua. (please, for this, assume God exists.) The reason given there is so that the inhabitants of the land will not teach Isreal their 'detestable practices', those associated with the worship of their gods. Joshua placed all of Jericho under the ban: for the living creatures, this meant their death.; for the valuable it meant their dedication to the house of God; for the rest, it meant destruction through fire. Nothing escaped that had been so dedicated. Although the 'ban' meant total destruction for Jericho, this does not mean there could not have been mercy. The 'ban' is only one aspect of Gods plans for nations.EElsewhere it is clear that nations do have a choice. Even a people whose wickedness is reaching the point of no return (Gn. 15:16) can repent forgiveness and mercy from God (2 Ch. 7:14; Je. 18:5-10; Jon. 4:11). Another book says that they were not innocent, as they would turn the invaders away from the Lord. it also says that people mistake god for not allowing mercy, but this is not true. It is a mistaken understanding. I think you were taking this 'there are no good people in this world' very literally. Jesus was talking about people who were socially and spiritually good. You can be a socially good person in this world. About the open minded people, you can be open minded and christian. You can open your mind that there are other 'possibilities' on how humans came to how they are, etc. But you have to choose which one is true, and which one is false. In my life, I believe that God has shown me that this way is true, and the people that ignore God and go the wrong route. Everyone has a chance to follow God. |
|
|
|
Post by Sizzlepop on Apr 14, 2006 15:19:31 GMT -5
[Relating to God's ordered destruction of Jericho] It says part of it is to do with prooving that he is the only God, aboloshing evil as he went. So God openly abolished evil and prooved his existence. The concept itself sounds fair enough. That really destroys the concept of faith, though. People today have to have faith in God because they don't know he exists, and they don't know that he will make the right decision. If God acted today as he did in the Old Testament, no one would have faith; they would have knowledge. On that note, it is a bit strange that nothing like what is recorded as fact in the Old Testament ever happens today. The quotation about the book of Joshua was somewhat hard to follow. I didn't quite catch how all of that related to our discussion. There was one interesting statement, though. Another book says that they were not innocent, as they would turn the invaders away from the Lord. Challenging someone's faith to the point where they change their theological beliefs is not in itself wrong. There are wrong ways of doing that. Using force, for example, is wrong. But I don't see how a certain culture being exposed to and accepted by God's people is a cause for anger, destruction, or death. It's important to remember that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. He has ultimate power, complete presence, and all knowledge. This gives God infinite ways to act on and solve a problem. If any possible way to better do anything God did in the Bible is thought of, the excuse of inability cannot be used in God's defense. Mass destruction and death is an easy way to solve a problem, but I can't imagine, for a Godly being, it is the best way to solve any problem, especially the problems in the Old Testament. I think you were taking this 'there are no good people in this world' very literally. Jesus was talking about people who were socially and spiritually good. You can be a socially good person in this world. In Christianity, the only moral standard is God. If any Christian bases their view of their personal moral goodness off other people, they are not doing as they should do, according to their beliefs. God is labeled as morally "good." Anyone less than God (anyone who has sinned) has missed God's standard, and therefore cannot be labeled "good." I don't think Jesus was talking about "spiritual goodness." That implies that some theological beliefs are "better" than others. It doesn't sound logical that Jesus would talk about who "believed the best." "Socially good" is a possibility. While every Christian is labeled as a forgiven sinner, no one can deny that everyone has done at least some good for the world, no matter how small the act. If Jesus was talking about "social goodness," though, it seems that he would be saying "only God has done anything good for this world." To me, the most logical probability is that Jesus was talking about moral goodness. I think he was saying "Only God is morally good." This doesn't sound contradictory of other Christian ideas, given the context we've discussed (God being the perfect standard), but when taking into account other standards, I disagree with Jesus, assuming he stated the idea I think he stated. I think there are morally good people in this world. Moral goodness shouldn't be judged by a perfect example, nor should it be judged by the lowest example. Instead, moral goodness should be judged by the overall moral state of the person's past actions (were they mostly right or wrong?), the person's present character, and how the person would respond to moral dilemmas. Forgive me if this sounds circular, but for such an abstract issue as moral judgment, I don't know how to construct controversial ideas based on a commonly accepted belief. About the open minded people, you can be open minded and christian. I agree. The same is true for Atheism, Agnosticism, and every other religious classification I can think of. Everyone has a chance to follow God. I also agree with this, assuming you mean God in general, not just the Christian God. Remember, though, those who excersize their God-given free will to form their own theological beliefs that God doesn't like will be forever separated from him and those they love who love God because of their past honest opinion. God refuses to associate himself with people who didn't believe the "right" ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by tractakid on Apr 15, 2006 1:26:14 GMT -5
I don't have time at the minute, so expect a reply, but not immeadiatly.
It is hard debating with someone like you, as you are more patient, more clever, and better with words. Take that as a compliment, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sizzlepop on Apr 15, 2006 14:25:33 GMT -5
Thanks for the compliment about how I communicate ideas. Though good communication is important for any discussion or debate, I've found that being right is always the most significant advantage. Take your time replying. |
|
|
|
Post by sasukeandnarutorock on Apr 16, 2006 8:46:02 GMT -5
It is hard debating with someone like you, as you are more patient, more clever, and better with words. pwnt |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Awesome on Apr 16, 2006 13:36:50 GMT -5
That was retarded. You know better. |
|
|
|
Post by Blastgirl on Apr 16, 2006 20:12:41 GMT -5
Not to change the subject but for the discussion's sake, I wouldn't call it a debate merely because there's members of the discussion with different opinions.
There is some truth to what Guest190 said about higher vocabularies and longer more articulate posts tend to be more thought of as correct. That happens in Political debates too. Often the more well spoken candidate will win the debate and even the election when the less well spoken person actually had the better message. Actually it happens a lot.
In a discussion about Religion I know everyone who posts would present their views, and directly or indirectly would aim toward changing the minds of other discussers but most people have a strong enough conclusion about the topic of Religion that there's little chance of anyone changing their mind or anyone else's either.
I still think it's a good discussable topic, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by tractakid on Apr 17, 2006 1:47:21 GMT -5
so sizzle, you're saying that I have a major advantage? Cool!  - dylan is the middle one, btw. Pwnt. (the things hitting him are the ban hammers) You say that they have faith because they don't know he exists? Every christian who is a practicing christian know that he exists. Will edit with more later. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Apr 17, 2006 13:33:28 GMT -5
That's why they call it 'Faith' Faith is believing in something without necessarily having meterial or tangible evidence. Faith is to believe. And I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by sasukeandnarutorock on Apr 17, 2006 16:51:04 GMT -5
- dylan is the middle one, btw. Pwnt. (the things hitting him are the ban hammers) roflgagpwnt.... gg omfg no re. EDIT:: TMTD wants to know why you don't return his calls As much as I've enjoyed this discussion, I've tried to stay out of it. I, tmtd, am agnostic. I do not believe in god, yet I acknowledge that there is a chance I'll be staring into brimstone in 100 years. I'm borderline atheist. I've never really believed in god. There was a time when I was a small child, and I believed in what I was told. My family stopped going to church, I don't know why. I didn't really give religion a lot of thought until I was around 9 or 10. I'd never been told about not believing in God, but I started thinking. So few years ago I had my perception of reality shook by scary thoughts that brought me to tears. They went along the lines of, "what if there is no god?" The universe really holds no purpose, or cause for it's existance. What is the difference between the undisplayable amount of trillions of tons presented in scientific notation that not all of the hard drive space created by us and . . . nothing. How do we know reality isn't changing rapidly, one where there is Earth, another where perhaps there isn't. This reality wasn't displayed for the smallest fraction of time. I don't mean that everything happened in that instant. I mean what if this instant was freeze-framed them displayed in an infinite of random where all of it's past that lead up to now was merely possibility of a backwards chain never with the chance to unroll. Why is there anything . . . just the unfolding blackness of the incomprehencable amounts of space and nothing seems more reasonable. Those were just some, the era of my life that lasted a rough month led to someone who was able to handle the thoughts. But occasionaly unfounding thoughts stir. Great news! God exists, that means that purpose to life is a certainty, that there is a good and t . . .Questionable theories. Peopel find comfort in religion. If God made us then that gives life a meaning, a purpose . . . but I've questioned a few things. I wish that life had a meaning, but a few months ago one last revelation that is not easy to explain has come to me. The existance of God probably doesn't prove the meaning of didly-dumps. God can physically and chemically do anything he pleases, but he cannot make meaning out of material. God is not meaning, God does not make you 'feeling happy' any more or less important. Just imagine a world without meaning and god . . . if you add God, I don't think it's much different. Spending eternity worshipping God, burning in Hell, or in the Garden of Eden is just as meaning full as a stillborne child. Or a rock. I've firmly come to a point in my psychological existance in where I don't think there is a point to anything whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by memphetic on Apr 17, 2006 17:22:27 GMT -5
Hola, everyone, I'm here only because Dylan is a dumbass and showed this to me and my only point is to input my own belief. I would have to say that I'm more of a deist in that I believe that there most likely HAD to be a God at one point in time (You cannot deny the perfection of life. If you do, you're incredibly naive.) HOWEVER there is no supporting proof that He still exists at this time. We never see, as whatshisface say, the Old Testament fire-and-brimstone, floods, or ANY divine interaction of any kind "anymore" (assuming there ever was).
Another thing is that I don't precisely follow the Bible. I believe the Bible was just made to give people a reference as to how they "should" live their lives, sort of like a primitive governmental document except with stories instead of actual laws/rules. Let's take, for example, my favorite theory that I have created. Jesus. Who, exactly, is to say that Mary didn't get knocked up by Joseph and in order to not be severely punished by the community, said it was divine intervention by God, and that it had to have been God's child because oh no, she was a virgin! They had no way of proving her wrong. They also had no way of proving her right. It's ENTIRELY possible that she pulled off the ultimate scam of the entire human race that we've yet to see, and it was all complete bullcrap that people fed into. Don't forget, my readers, that people of this time period were highly into drugs such as opium (Moses' burning bush, anyone?). Jesus could have been brought up in the surrounding of everyone telling him he was God's child, and so he completely believed them, which, yes, would have made him a hell of a good guy (Who the hell's gonna take a chance when your daddy sees everything you do and knows everything you think?). But, as I said... it's entirely, and MOST LIKELY possible that it was all a lie. I had some more but I just recently forgot because Dylan's being an idiot and destroying my brain cells. In a nutshell... religion was created by scholars to keep people from going mentally insane over questions like "Why?". Debate me, I dare you.
|
|
