God

This is a discussion on God within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; >blatent facts.............. or....... not. Yes you simply considering something to be a joke makes it false. I never claimed they ...

  1. #601
    Christian
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    618
    >blatent facts.............. or....... not.
    Yes you simply considering something to be a joke makes it false.


    I never claimed they did show off the body, what i'm asking you is to provide EVIDENCE that they did not, and likewise for the guards, i'm not claiming there weren't any, but i have yet to see any evidence supporting your claim that there were.
    Why would a histrorian write about Guards at the tomb? Jesus was carpender for most of his life and then taught far diffent then what the Messiah was suppost to be, after his death I don't think many historians wanted to be killed and well your trying to destroy a faith It seems pretty logical that you would attempt to destroy any evidence of the founder existing. Flavius Josephus is able to get away with writing about Jesus simply because he considered Nero to be the Messiah.

    How do you know they were tortured? How do you know anything about them?
    Flavius Josephus I know writes about the Deaths of Jesus Brother James, and Paul. I really can't find any other proof probly because well I don't it's disputed.

    When, where, and how do you know.
    1 Corinthians 15:6
    "Then he appeared to more then five hundred of his followers at once, most of whom are still alive, although some have died"

    In other words this says:
    Don't belive me, don't belive the other apposles, don't belive James, well how about 500 who will claim that Jesus has appeared to them.

    I don't think if Paul who had prosucted christians before could fine 500 people claiming that they saw the Resuraction that neither would a skeptic of the times.

    ROFL, because people sure aren't gullible now!
    There is a bit of diffence between convincing people that someone rose from the dead that he proformed miricles and that this stuff only happen a couple of weeks ago, and convince some person that x product is that of there Dreams.

    >> I have never seen any evidence that anything in the bible is incorrect,

    Have you actually read this thread? ... I didnt think so. All your questions have already been asked and answered.

    >>but "Faith is the evidence of things not seen."

    Go. Read. This. Thread.
    Then you can post.

    Um, you have yet to find a controdicton, disprove the bible historicly, that contest seemingly has not been won.

    Sigh, more work to do... respond to other points latter
    I shall call egypt the harmless dragon

    -Isaiah 30.7

  2. #602
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "lol, prove it.
    go ahead. try and prove it.
    you can't."

    .........read the thread, or failing that read a biology text book.

    There is no such thing as definitive "proof", what there is, is mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence.

    "Oh, and by the way, if you can, you might be interested in following this link, since the man is offering $250,000(US$, I believe) to anyone who can prove evolution (formerly it was only $10,000, which offer has stood since 1990):"

    Hovind is a moron, he is viewed as a moron by every memeber of the scientific community, he rejects all evidence submitted by scientists and is fundamentally ignorant of evolutionary theory, i can offer a 10 million dollar reward for anyone proving the world is spherical then reject all evidence, what exactly would it prove?

    Heres a link to some of Hovinds antics:
    http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/k..._challenge.htm
    and heres a quote from that link:

    Kevin was told by Mr. Hovind that the $250,000 award could be collected by recreating the Big Bang in a laboratory. A model or computer simulation of the Big Bang would not do, the applicant must generate an actual new universe
    That's so stupid it hurts.

    "yes, actually.. it's about 6-10 thousand years old. maximum.
    Source:
    http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=2
    lol try it I dare you
    If you really want to talk to one of the "one group" that "knows VASTLY more about the subject than the other group", here's your chance. Of course, I am assuming that you don't have 12 years of science teaching in public school under your belt.. I may be wrong "

    In all likelyhood I already know more about science than most public school teachers. I certainly know more science than an idiot who claims the world is 6000 years old, and is fundamentally ignorant of evolution. REAL SCIENTISTS do not believe the Earth is 6000 years old, they believe its 4.5 BILLION years old, many different methods of dating from many different fields all arrive at the same answer.

    That link shows just how spectacularly ignorant the author is:

    EVERY SINGLE argument he lays out has been answered a gazillion times by REAL scientists, i cannot be arsed to find you a refutation for every single one, i'll show you a few though

    The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter
    Bogus

    "Shrinking Sun [OAB 94] This claim was made in 1979 by J.A. Eddy and A.A. Boornazian (Science News, v.32, no.9, pp.17-19 (Sept 1979)), who analyzed 120 years of Sun measurements from the Greenwich Observatory in London. Eddy and Boornazian claimed that these measurements indicated that the Sun is shrinking at a rate of about 2 arcseconds per century (an arcsecond is a measure of angles, equal to 1/3600 of a degree). At such a rate, the Sun would shrink down to nothing in only 200,000 years, so this shrinking obviously could not be going on steadily for several billion years. However, even if these measurements were accurate, it would not be much of a problem for scientists because it could easily be explained by a shift in the Sun's fusion process which would cause a temporary change in size. In fact, Eddy and Boornazian's research was motivated by a desire to investigate the possibility of such a shift, which is an important point, because it shows that the shrinking Sun claim was not discredited in order to "preserve evolutionary timescales." However, these measurements were in fact shown to be incorrect only a year after they were first published. I.I. Shapiro (Science, v.208, pp.51-53 (4 April 1980)) analyzed measurements of transits of the planet Mercury across the solar disk from 1736 to 1973, and showed that the size of the Sun has remained constant during that time within 0.3 arcseconds. Parkinson, Morrison, and Stephenson (Nature, v.288, pp.548-551 (11 Dec 1980)) re-analyzed the Greenwich data from 1715 onward, taking into account the changes in instrumentation over that period, changes in the transparency of the atmosphere, and differences in the person making the measurements. They showed that the uncertainty in Eddy and Boornazian's data is much too large to support their claim. Even J.A. Eddy himself was so convinced by these refutations that he never again referred in print to his research on this subject. In summary, the claim of a shrinking Sun was refuted less than a year after it was published, and should not be used as evidence for the age of the Solar System. "

    From http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tisco/ye...html#shrinking

    The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. (2, p. 26; 3, p. 22; 4, p. 15; 6, p. 35; 7; 9, p. 25) *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)

    "I get a picture therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice, level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first, and sinking majestically out of sight." -- Isaac Asimov, Science Digest, January, 1959, p 36

    Lyttleton felt that the X-rays and UV light striking exposed moon rocks "could, during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep." -- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, vol. 115, pp. 585-604
    Bogus again

    "Accumulation of Dust on the Moon [DB 1507 (38); OAB pp.17-18] This was formerly a widely-used young-Earth claim, but it has now been discredited. Nonetheless, it is still sometimes repeated in young-Earth circles. One of the first estimates of dust expected on the Moon was made in 1960 by Hans Pettersson. Pettersson estimated the influx of space dust by standing on top of a mountain with a device used to measure smog levels. By assuming (incorrectly) that all of the nickel dust he detected came directly from outer space, Pettersson arrived at a very large estimate of the amount of space dust falling on the Earth (and the Moon). When the Apollo landers found that the amount of dust on the Moon was much less than suggested by Pettersson's measurements, some young-Earth advocates claimed this proved that the Moon was young. Not long after Pettersson, however, the influx of space dust was measured by satellites. It has been measured several different ways now, and is known to be almost 1,000 times smaller than Pettersson thought. In fact, there is no discrepency whatsoever between the influx of space dust and the amount of dust found on the Moon's surface. Nowadays, most of the more responsible young-Earth advocates have ceased to use this claim. For example, Snelling and Rush (Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, v.7, pp.2-42 (1993)) not only explain why the moon-dust argument is untenable, they also refute the commonly-repeated myth that Apollo scientists were afraid that their landers would sink into a deep dust layer. "

    From http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tisco/ye....html#moondust

    The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions
    Bogus once again

    "Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field [DB 1506 (1); OAB 50] Since devices for measuring the Earth's magnetic field were invented a few hundred years ago, measurements have shown that the Earth's magnetic field has been steadily decreasing over those few hundred years. It is claimed that these measurements indicate that the Earth's magnetic field has been steadily losing energy ever since it formed. By extrapolating the decay backwards in time, it is then claimed that an age greater than 10,000 years is impossible. However, it is easily shown that such a simple extrapolation is not justified. Scientific instruments are not the only mechanisms that have ever existed for measuring the Earth's magnetic field. Ovens used by ancient civilizations and the igneous rocks making up the ocean floor are two of the more obvious examples. Both record the direction and strength of the magnetic field as it was at the time they were last heated, and both prove conclusively that the hypothetical exponential decay of Earth's magnetic field has not occurred (according to the young-Earth theories, the magnetic field was many times greater only a few thousand years ago, a hypothesis that is clearly at odds with the above-mentioned evidence). Instead, the evidence shows that the magnetic field has fluctuated back and forth in strength as well as direction. These fluctuations are clearly observed in places where the stratigraphy (i.e. which rocks are older than which rocks) is obvious due to either layering or distance from a sea-floor spreading ridge. The decrease measured in the past few hundred years, therefore, is nothing more than a downward trend as part of an overall fluctuation, and has no implication for the age of the Earth (for a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Thompson (1997), http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html). "
    "

    From http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tisco/ye....html#magfield

    There are many more refutations at that site

    Go here (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tisco/yeclaimsbeta.html)and read them if you want to educate yourself.

    Moving on.......

    "If God is God and God is all he says, he can put a man to death for whatever he wants."

    Right..... and that makes him benevolent........ how?

    "He gave you your life.. who are you to say he can't take it back?"

    Fantastic, glad to hear i can murder my children and still be seen as 'benveloent'

    Are you seriously incapable of seeing that the God presented in the old testament is NOT A NICE GUY.

    "You ought to be thankfull (again, if God is who he says he is) that he even gave you life to begin with."

    Yea i should make my children worship me 5 times a day because i made them........... or...... not.

    "In the fourth century, Emporor Constantine had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his. That is more than the number of Christians who died at the hands of the Romans during the well known 1st century "Christians to the lions" persecutions"

    The 4th century being 400 years after Yeshu, hence completely irrelevent.

    "Because I am so absolutely blessed as to have been saved"

    ....... do not pass go, do not collect $200.

    "I have never seen any evidence that anything in the bible is incorrect"

    ROFL, anything? ANYTHING!? Oh wait wait you're a Young Earth creationist and hence know absolutely nothing about science, never mind.

    "Faith is the evidence of things not seen.""

    What like say........ sound? touch? deduction? No? Didn't think so.

    "And why do you have to bar all religious texts?"

    Because they do not represent accurate representations of the truth. Besides it no so much that I "bar them", i merely consider them to be far too biased (plus thoe whole host of historical innacuracies that have been shown to exist in them) to warrant taking literally without other substantiating evidence. The claims we are talking about here are fantastic, contrary to all known workings of the universe and to common sense, IF we are to consider them they need to have a decent amount of evidence in support, but, they don't.

    "How do *you* know that those non-religious texts are more correct than the religious ones?"

    Because non-religious texts as a group have no obvious bias towards history. Religious texts are by nature involved in FORMING people's beliefs, it is very easy to see that because that is their primary aim they may deviate a small amount or very far from the truth to do it.

    Non-religious history's sole point is to document history, and yes many are biased to a degree but thats why we take multiple different sources from different environments see how they correlate with other forms of evidence to try and deduce what actually happened.

    "I don't remember a time when I didn't believe this; but I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that makes me think my belief is wrong."

    You have been brought to believe and now you believe, indocrination is so strong you can't see whats all around you.

    In this thread alone i have provided many many arguments against God. But the fact that he is a BASTARD in the old testament should be enough to get you questioning things.

    "Did you believe or not believe in Christ's resurrection before you read up on the subject? "

    Well, i was taught about it in primary school, and yes i believed it was true.

    "Do you interpret things fairly, or like all the rest of humanity, do you interpret things based on prior experience, things you learned while growing up, things you decided to be true for no good reason except you wanted it to be true, etc?"

    I am VERY VERY carefull not to do that, i don't know when it was exactly that i realised that most people don't know how to think, and believe whatever they are told. But i did so quite a while ago, and i watch out for it in myself.

    Whenever i read things that i immediately react against, I ALWAYS question whether i am doubting something because i dislike it, or because it goes against how i view the world OR if there is actual reason to doubt something. That goes for ALL my views on everything from politics to science, to religion, to ethics. Many of my views do change a lot depending on what seems the most rational position to take given the knowledge i have at the time.

    I know the human brain has natural tendancies that are not usefull, so I do my best to overide them.

    "Just a matter of interest.. are yours any different, or do your parents believe the same as you?"

    Fascinatingly both my Father and my grandfather went through very similar processes to me, we all started off believeing for whatever reasons, (in fact my grandfather was in a VERY strict christian cult) and then when we looked into the subject rejected it.

    So my father is an atheist, my mother is agnostic, but i was told from an early age to make up my own mind, i did believe for a while and they offered to send me to Sunday school etc. if i wanted to, but by that time i was already having doubts.

    "And if they don't, do those who taught you in school believe the same things as you?"

    School? At secondary school i wasn't taught that there was or wasn't a God, in religious studies we were taught about all religions, however my school was a catholic school and i did have to sing hymms in assembly.

    "And how do you know they are unbiased?"

    There is an obvious reason to consider religious texts biased, many historical sources DO display a certain degree of bias which is why we got taught about how to evaluate sources in history (don't you people get any education at all?) at school. Generally speaking the victor writes history so many accounts of battles are skewed in favour of the winner, historians take account of this when trying to deduce actual occurances.

    "To sum it up: everything everyone writes is biased, unless it is an exact, word for word, deed for deed, account, nothing more, nothing less"

    You havent got a clue do you? Are you suggesting we should accept everything ever written as fact, because thats what it sounds like to me.

    Bias in itself does not mean the source is rendered historically "useless" merely that it should be treated with some trepidation, and not be taken as a completely literal account of events.
    Last edited by Clyde; 12-13-2002 at 09:18 AM.

  3. #603
    Christian
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    618
    Clyde have you read the new testement the disipiles are portrayed not as people who belived and where willing to risk there lives from the begining but instead as cowardly, unbeliving people through most of the New Testement. They ran away when Jesus was crucified, Peter denied that he knew him. James did not belive that Jesus had resuracted despite that fact the other 10 had scene him.

    Something changed them, from cowards to martyers.
    I shall call egypt the harmless dragon

    -Isaiah 30.7

  4. #604
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "Clyde have you read the new testement the disipiles are portrayed not as people who belived and where willing to risk there lives from the begining but instead as cowardly, unbeliving people through most of the New Testement. They ran away when Jesus was crucified, Peter denied that he knew him. James did not belive that Jesus had resuracted despite that fact the other 10 had scene him.

    Something changed them, from cowards to martyers."

    Sentaku how many times must i point out that the bible is not historically accurate, HOW DO YOU KNOW ANY OF THAT IS TRUE?

  5. #605
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "Why would a histrorian write about Guards at the tomb?"

    Oh i see, you admit there is no evidence then?

    "Flavius Josephus I know writes about the Deaths of Jesus Brother James, and Paul. I really can't find any other proof probly because well I don't it's disputed."

    How do you know they weren't early Christians who weren't rounded up and killed in the spirit of religious persecution that has been going on for thousands and thousands of years?

    I think you're missing the point here, i do not doubt that there was a historical Jesus or that he had followers, what i want is evidence supporting the fantastic claim that he was the son of God and that he was resurected, you examples of evidence are straight from the bible and not supported by anything but themselves, that is not objective evidence.

    Why is it you take them as the truth but not other religious texts like Toldoth Yeshu as false? The answer is because you are not evaluating the situation rationally and determining what is most likely to be true, you are bending what you see to fit the beliefs that you have been indocrinated into!

    "In other words this says:
    Don't belive me, don't belive the other apposles, don't belive James, well how about 500 who will claim that Jesus has appeared to them."

    Once again straight from the bible. Why do you believe THIS religious text but none of the others that disagree with your religion?

    "There is a bit of diffence between convincing people that someone rose from the dead that he proformed miricles and that this stuff only happen a couple of weeks ago, and convince some person that x product is that of there Dreams"

    What?

    "Um, you have yet to find a controdicton, disprove the bible historicly, that contest seemingly has not been won"

    Historically?

    Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark and the great flood, the age of the Earth, the fact that the bible contradicts itslef is differing accounts of genesis..

    heres a link for some archeological evidence:

    http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywo...henticity.html

    and some contradictions in Joshua

    http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html

  6. #606
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    21
    The way I see it (not being much of the examplary Christian I suppose), the bible consists of alot of stories to live your life by, though I do believe in all the existance of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit... I dont believe in evolution with the main assumption of that, if they cant get the weather right.. why should I trust them with what happened millions of years ago?

    I see flaws in both possibilities (creation and evolution), though Im more forgiving towards Creation since those stories were all retold and so on for generations before they were written down.. and I suppose you already know how good people are at exaggerating things.

    Im not gonna argue in the topic though, because in the last 40 some pages of this you can clearly see that the debate just keeps going and quite frankly, I think its gonna take until the end of either theory, evolution, practice (call it whatever you want) until the bickering about how it ends, and no matter what Im sure a whole lot of people are gonna be pretty disappointed at how it all ends... (not to mention dead!)

    FYI. I havent read the past 40 pages, so maybe you were discussing something completely different... but what do I care?
    -=Pshycics Predict=-
    -WORLD DID NOT END YESTERDAY-

  7. #607
    Blank
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,034
    Hopefully this thread will end by christmas...

    I think you're missing the point here, i do not doubt that there was a historical Jesus or that he had followers, what i want is evidence supporting the fantastic claim that he was the son of God and that he was resurected, you examples of evidence are straight from the bible and not supported by anything but themselves, that is not objective evidence.
    Faith is built upon not physical evidence but spiriture
    evidence.

    You have been brought to believe and now you believe, indocrination is so strong you can't see whats all around you.
    In romans, Paul basically says to the effect that
    indoctrination is not faith.

    Sentaku's beliefs are irrational, irrational beliefs damage society in a myriad of ways.
    Your rational explanation of why there wasn't a god based
    on probability was based on the premise that
    "The universe is random". Circular
    because certainly if there was a god
    the universe would not be entirely random.


    In this thread alone i have provided many many arguments against God. But the fact that he is a BASTARD in the old testament should be enough to get you questioning things.
    I doubt the jewish faith would have survived so many
    years if they did not have strict laws. I don't think the
    laws were ever a sufficient condition for rightousness. In the new testament Joseph could have by law presented his wife to be stoned and yet he does not because he is rightous.

  8. #608
    Senior Member joshdick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Phildelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,146

    Here are my feelings on God

    I sincerely doubt there is a God. I refuse to have faith in the Christian sense. It would go against all logic to believe in something that you have no reason to believe in. I realize that Christians are running on faith, I'm just not sure why.

    My favorite example of a biblical inaccuracy is this. Somewhere in the Old Testament (don't ask me where, the Pentatauch I think) a circle is described as having a diameter of 1 and a circumference of 3. That would mean Pi = 3. Now, I'm not saying that the Bible has to be a math book, but I think that the supreme creator of the universe should know what Pi is. It'd be nice if the bible went on to describe an approximation of Pi to an accuracy that would've been far more advanced than the Hebrews were capable. Now, that would be a reason to believe.
    FAQ

    "The computer programmer is a creator of universes for which he alone is responsible. Universes of virtually unlimited complexity can be created in the form of computer programs." -- Joseph Weizenbaum.

    "If you cannot grok the overall structure of a program while taking a shower, you are not ready to code it." -- Richard Pattis.

  9. #609
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    " I dont believe in evolution with the main assumption of that, if they cant get the weather why should I trust them with what happened millions of years ago?"

    Because its fundamentally impossible to predict the weather long term; its a chaotic system.

    Its enough to drive you insane! Evolution is true, how can it be that none of you have had an education???

    *sighs* I know, it will come in time, but its mighty frustrating that reasonable portions of the public remain so ignorant, its so unnessesary.

    Why is it you "trust them" on everything BUT evolution?

    "I see flaws in both possibilities (creation and evolution"

    There are no "flaws" in evolutionary theory (that doesn't mean that we know the exact pathway for every phenotype it means there are no flaws), there are many in creationism.

    "Faith is built upon not physical evidence but spiriture
    evidence."

    Meaning what, exactly? Meaning that if something feels right it must be true........... great, but errr totally wrong.

    "In romans, Paul basically says to the effect that
    indoctrination is not faith"

    It might not be faith, but its the reason people actually buy into the term "faith" being anything but totally absurd:

    Me: I believe the moon is made of cheese
    You: Why?
    Me: Faith.
    You: Oh, ok then, thats reasonable.

    "Your rational explanation of why there wasn't a god based
    on probability was based on the premise that
    "The universe is random""

    No, it wasn't. Don't you understand anything i say?

    "I doubt the jewish faith would have survived so many
    years if they did not have strict laws"

    And this solves the fact that God was a bastard........ how?

    "Joseph could have by law presented his wife to be stoned and yet he does not because he is rightous"

    It is a sad day indeed when we judge "benevolence" by NOT having your wife stoned to death....

    Anyhow God is still a bastard in the old testament.

    "I sincerely doubt there is a God. I refuse to have faith in the Christian sense. It would go against all logic to believe in something that you have no reason to believe in"

    Thank you so much, my belief in humanity was begin to wane.

    "I realize that Christians are running on faith, I'm just not sure why"

    Because since they were very young they have been taught that faith=good, faith=good, faith = good. All around them in mainstream society we hear the same message, faith = good is everywhere.

    Its completely irrational, and absurd, BUT that is the power of indocrination, and indeed the power of social acceptability.

  10. #610
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    21
    Meanwhile.. Ive never heard a high status scientist claim Evolution to be 'FACT' (in big letters, as you seem to enjoy it)

    Most say its Theory, others just plain hypothesis...

    Now Im not the churchly kind of person, I dont go to church and I get called idiot by people who attain the faith I atleast claim to belong to... (I suppose I still do, but under different circumstances than the main idea seems to be)

    It may just be that Im not appealed to the idea of coming from monkeys, that my life has no meaning what so ever and that Im just going to die and completely disappear and thats put a blockade in my mind so that I believe in that there is a God out there willing to let me live past my mortal death and in a sense stay alive...

    Either way,
    Id rather die to find out I was wrong and that there is no afterlife (funny way of thinking about since I wouldnt exist) then dying and finding out that Im gonna spend the next amount of thousands of years in torture until I finally get cast into the burning lake and destroyed... :/

  11. #611
    Geek. Cobras2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    near Westlock, and hour north of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    113
    Well, I am now thouroughly disgusted, because I spent some time writing a reply and it somehow managed to get itself deleted. I am not going to go back through and write it all over again, I simply haven't the time; but I will say the following:

    >however my school was a catholic school and i did have to sing
    >hymms in assembly.

    I had formerly begun to think you were some kind of mean old guy with no reason to be that way, who had probably been fed lies about evolution all his growing up years, and had never even noticed that there was a possibility of thinking for one's self (like alot of people who I have talked to seem to think)

    However, you now have my sympathy.. whether you want it or not. The catholic religion is basically all of what you have said against religion in general. I agree wholehartedly on pretty much all your statements against religion, as long as they are directed towards catholicism.

    But you must see; just because some idiots (namely alot of people whomade up the catholic church) twisted things, doesn't mean that the original was twisted.

    I had written more on the subject, but as I said, it got wiped out.. so..
    Am signing out for now. Unfortunately, I don't know how much time I'll have to write any more.. i've been pretty busy lately.
    BTW, It actually has been a pleasure talking to you , although you can be a bit hostile, at least you really do seem to be attempting to think things through for yourself

    Sentaku... hey man, don't let 'em get you down.. our job isn't to make people believe; it's just to show them the truth.

    Joshdic.. if you are still reading this post, here is an answer directly for the question you brought up, which I think should answer it beyond the shadow of a doubt;
    http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=9
    James G. Flewelling
    Rgistered Linux User #327359
    Athabasca University Student (BSc. CIS)

    http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
    http://catb.org/jargon/

    http://www.ebb.org/ungeek
    ---GEEK CODE---
    Version: 3.12
    GCS/IT/M d- s+:++ a-->->>+>++>+++>? C++++>$ UL++>++++$ P++>++++ L++>++++$
    E W++ N o? K? w++(--)>--- O? M? V? PS--(---) PE Y+ PGP? t 5? !X R(*)>++
    tv-->! b++(+++)>++++ DI? D+++(---)>++++$ G e*>++$ h++>*$ r!>+++ y?
    ----/GEEK CODE----
    upd: 2005-02-11

  12. #612
    Rambling Man
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1,050
    >Me: I believe the moon is made of cheese
    You: Why?
    Me: Faith.
    You: Oh, ok then, thats reasonable.<

    That is very funny lol...sorry for the only one short thing I have to say.

    But um, I'll repeat what I said about 30 pages ago...evolution = good....creationism = bad...well at least for me it is

  13. #613
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    272
    But um, I'll repeat what I said about 30 pages ago...evolution = good....creationism = bad...well at least for me it is
    They're not as good as Santa Claus. If anyone told me the big fella was make believe, there really would be trouble. I'm not talking about that weird twisted version called 'Father Christmas' that some folk seem to be brainwashed with. I'm talking about the real deal.

    Please be sure you are on the solid foundation of Santa's Word, saved by the blood of Rudolph.
    Joe

  14. #614
    Blank
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,034
    "Joseph could have by law presented his wife to be stoned and yet he does not because he is rightous"

    It is a sad day indeed when we judge "benevolence" by NOT having your wife stoned to death....

    Anyhow God is still a bastard in the old testament.
    They both could have been stoned to death because
    she was pregnant before marriage.

    "I doubt the jewish faith would have survived so many
    years if they did not have strict laws"

    And this solves the fact that God was a bastard........ how?
    Without the strict laws the people of israel probably would
    have lost their indentity and faith as most of the pagan religions
    around them did.

  15. #615
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    552
    >But you must see; just because some idiots (namely alot of people whomade up the catholic church) twisted things, doesn't mean that the original was twisted.

    I love how people like to think their religion is better than others'. Clyde's comments werent directed towards the catholic church in particular, but to all of religion in general. The part about God being a bastard was (i presume) mostly as a response to Senshi using the bible as proof of its contents
    C Code. C Code Run. Run Code Run... Please!

    "Love is like a blackhole, you fall into it... then you get ripped apart"

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. what race is god?
    By Leeman_s in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-22-2004, 04:38 PM
  2. God II
    By Leeman_s in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-09-2003, 12:42 AM
  3. GOD and religion
    By Unregistered in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-14-2001, 05:13 PM
  4. Foundations
    By mithrandir in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-05-2001, 02:18 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21