Dear Mom, I put a couple of people in Hell today.

[AbdoRinbo]

Some folks say that even those who get sent to Hell are better off than those who are simply passed over--and I'm talking about those noble savages who never fit into the scheme to begin with. Being lifted out of an endless sea is better than being pulled under, but being pulled under is better than being passed over, because at least those unfortunate little souls have the benefit of being taken into account. The others are forgotten--left adrift. Would the Great Flood have served its purpose had it not sent countless numbers of people straight to hell?

[Shea]

Um..., I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about. If your talking about something like tribal people who live in remote places like in Africa or South America, scince the beginning of the NT, the Word still somehow gets to them (that is why we have missionaries). It is just up to them whether or not they want to beleive and obey.

Acts 17:30
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

[AbdoRinbo]

There are still plenty of vast regions in S. America that have yet to be charted by civilized society. Westerners refer to it simply as the 'Green Inferno', and for obvious reasons seein' as how it's the most savage and insufferable place you could possibly imagine on the face of the earth. It is truly one of the few enviroments where cannibalism still exists in its pre-ice-age form. We can only speculate, though.

As far as Missionaries go, I did a little research on the internet and I don't think anyone has yet led an expedition through that particular region--one could only imagine what their casualty rates would be. Anyway, I don't mean to sound 'matter-of-fact', but the notion that missionaries are numerous and effective enough to get their message through to every culture, let alone every member of that culture, veers on the side of absurdity. Believe it or not, there is a lot that religion will never be able to explain . . . but Blaise Pascal might have been on to something when he proved by statistical mathematics that it is infinitely better to submit to religion (that being Christianity, of course) than run the risk of being sent to Hell. He did manage to pull everyone's leg with his ridiculous logic (not many people truly understand how he came to this conclusion and how little sense it actually makes, but you can investigate that for yourself unless you really need me to explain it to you).

If you study the history of the Catholic Church, I reckon' you'll find a lot of interesting parallels between the rise of Western Imperialism and the rise of Rome, which would eventually harbor the ever-important Roman Catholic Church. My advice--for whatever it's worth--is to try reading America's Shadow by William V. Spanos (I emphasize the word 'try', because it's excrutiatingly verbose). The first half of the book is a history of Western Imperialism, with its origins in the Roman Empire and its traces in Catholicism. What you learn you will find interesting, regardless of what you think the Truth may be.

[Shea]

Well, I don't mean to dissagree with your skepticism, but if God says that he commands all people to obey then I beleive that the Word gets to everyone at some point in their life.

I have studied the history of the Catholic Church, even more so after I left it (my grandmother was a director of religious education and my grandfather was a decon in the Catholic Church). And though I don't agree with it as it conflicts with the Bible, I do like to study the history simply for the sake of history. I've been recently studying the 16th century Reformation, so when I get the chance I "try"-as you put it- America's Shadow. :)

[AbdoRinbo]

I'll start by saying that I, myself, was educated by Catholics for the better part of my youth. I think that no matter what it stays with you (once a Catholic always a Catholic, as the saying goes), so don't assume I am just out there trying to heckle you and undermine your personal beliefs. Maybe now you will listen to what I am saying instead of passing it off as radical 'skepticism'.

Yeah, as far as God's Word goes . . . heh . . . I think people have exploited that 'justification' for long enough. Perhaps you are familiar with the Crusades? What an utter waste of human beings, all lost in the name of 'God's Word'. What else is there . . . hmm. . . . Divine Kingship! That's a nasty one; millions upon millions of lives lost as a result, and for what?

Now, you'll probably point out that these are all atrocities committed by the Catholic Church, which you apparently are no longer a member of. But you said you are studying the history of the Reformation? Listen: look closely at the synchronized rise of Protestantism and Capitalism. Did you know that one of the first things the Protestants set out to do was abolish nearly all religious holidays? That went hand-in-hand with doctrine of Laissez-Faire Capitalism, which sought to increase the length and number of working days. Next thing you'll want to do is look at the Industrial Revolution (the first major Capitalist revelation). Though it goes without saying, the Catholics were seldom as brutal than the Industry owners were. Children working 48-hour bouts at a time in below freezing temperatures is just one particularly sad example (their average life expectancy rate was lower than what it had been in the Dark Ages--about 31 years old).

This was ok with the Church becuz Thomas Malthus--a religious thinker--had already published a series of essays about how balancing the population level would require a reduction in the rate of birth. In other words, some people were destined to die (becuz the economy would not be able to sustain them). No big deal, the plantation owners were killing off slaves like they were going out of style (on account of the negroes being 'less human' than you or me and, therefore, 'doomed' to begin with).

One Protestant that comes to mind when I think of raw brutality is Henry Ford. You might know of him if you drive a Taurus LX or a GT Mustang convertible, but what you might not know is that Ford was a Nazi patron. And I don't just mean patron as in 'supporter'--no, Ford gave millions and millions in money and resources to Hitler himself to rid the world of that inferior race of people: the Jews. But take my advice and keep that on the DL, becuz anyone who sez **** about Henry Ford (especially here in Detroit) gets an *** beating by Ford Motor Company thugs.

Let this be a lesson in history.

[Shea]

I don't mean to pass off your statements as radical skepticism, but I do think that you are using historical religious attrocities as an excuse not to fully believe in the Bible. Which you have every right to, if that's what you want to believe. One thing that I have learned, through history and personal experience, is that if someone forces their religious beliefs on someone else, it's really not that second person's convictions it's the first's and that really is no good.

For example, my little sister (who dosen't really belong to any church) announced this week that she is engaged. The family is very happy because he is a nice guy. When she told our Catholic grandmother, the first thing she said was NOT "Congradulations! I'm so happy for you!" but, "Will it be a Catholic wedding?" and "Will you raise your children in the Catholic Church?" My grandparents pushed Catholicism so much, that their children are weak Catholics and most of their grandchildren rebelled against it all together.

I know that's an extremely minor scale example, but isn't that how most of those atrocities get started, by one group forcing their beliefs on another? That is not what the Bible teaches Christians to do. We are commanded to evangelize:

Matthew 28:19-20
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[1] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

But we are in no way to force people to beleive:

Matthew 10:14
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

Um.., I did want to point out about the abolition of religious holidays by the Protestants. I was wondering if that was just coincidence that it happened during the Capitalist movement, or it enhanced it, or something like that. The reason I say this is because Protestants abolished them because of this scripture:

Galatians 4:9-10
But now that you know God--or rather are known by God--how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Another case in point, before the Reformation, it was beneficial to be a beggar because the Catholic Church would take care of you in order to look good. But Martin Luther brought out this scripture:

1 Thessalonians 4:11-12
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, 12so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.

[AbdoRinbo]

Another case in point, before the Reformation, it was beneficial to be a beggar because the Catholic Church would take care of you in order to look good.

I just wanted to quickly address this one statement (I'll cover the rest of what you said later when I have more time, as this conversation has my curiosity piqued). The true beggars were the Catholic priests and bishops themselves, who taxed the people least able to pay more than anyone. It was actually quite unbeneficial to be a beggar, because, in most cases, it was a result of the Church's sale of indulgences to ease the pain of Purgatory (see my discussion 'Science and Literature' in the the Literary Forum). The whole thing was a kind of a paradox, but that's how the Catholic Church managed to escape criticism: they were helping to sustain the poorest segment of society (with lax efficiency), but it was because of the Church that those people had such an unfortunate plight. The

[Shea]

Try reading Martin Luther's biography Here I Stand by Bainton (his first name escapes me just now). He was one of the leading authorities on the Reformation.

[AbdoRinbo]

What a handy technique it is to assemble Bible scripture to form arguments in any way you see fit. Let me ask you a question. Do those passages actually mean what you say they do, or are you forcing your own interpretation on them? (Who can say for sure, right?) You're caught in a bind either way. Let me show you:

You quoted 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, which said that everyone has a responsibility to take care of themselves that way no one can hang a debt over anyone else's head--Individualism at its best. Just before that you quoted a vague passage from Galatians 4:9-10 which pointed out that we were wasting too much time 'observing special days and months and seasons and years' (though it is not exactly clear as to why). What are the 'weak and miserable principles' we are guilty of turning back on? My bet is they are the refusal to obey the High Command to 'win the respect of outsiders' by our daily lives' work (an essential Capitalist doctrine).

But there is still a margin of indecision; after all, it could simply be a coincidence, right?. Actually, you just got done quoting two passages that reeked of Capitalism, so if anything is a coincidence it is the support of your arguments by Biblical scripture. But if it neither is a coincidence, then we can both agree that the Protestants are Capitalists and are, therefore, responsible for at least some of the atrocities committed in their own name. We may learn to forgive, but we must not forget. (It's a viscious circle, I know, but it helps us learn.)

[imthefoolonthehill]

*Realizes that FOOL is way to lazy to read all this*
*switches to different voice within head*
*realizes that he doesn't have anything better to*

Abdo Rhino: concerning post#1 "Some folks say that even those who get sent to Hell are better off than those who are simply passed over--and I'm talking about those noble savages who never fit into the scheme to begin with. Being lifted out of an endless sea is better than being pulled under, but being pulled under is better than being passed over, because at least those unfortunate little souls have the benefit of being taken into account. The others are forgotten--left adrift. Would the Great Flood have served its purpose had it not sent countless numbers of people straight to hell?"

If you hold the Bible to be completely true, then you believe that there is no worse fate than to suffer in hell.

The Flood of Noah would only have served its purpose if it fulfilled every duty that God wanted it to. One of those duties was to wipe the sinfull people off the face of the earth. They had angered God, and he wished to punish them...

So... if it was part of God's plan (and biblically everything is, I think) for the flood to send those people to hell, then it couldn't have fulfilled its purpose if it didn't.... or am I missing something?


anywho.... on to Shea's #1 post.... lol I have no real right to barge in like this... but we are the proud, the many, the bored.


I am not going to quote it....

Wasn't it Paul who said that nature was evidence enough? and that even those who hadn't heard the gospel were responsible for not responding to that evidence?

I can't remember if that is accurate, perhaps Shea has a refference.

AbdoRinbo post #2: What does your name mean? Why did you pick it?

anyway... I agree... missionaries have not reached all regions.

*wonders if anyone cares what I think*
*decides that no, probably no one does*

Shea's 2nd post: Are you sure it is THE WORD that gets to people? What if someone has divine revalation without the word.... and that is his way to 'truth'.

AbdoRinbo post #3 : yeah... the stuff we learn in our youth is hard to discard. I skipped over most of what you said... but I wonder what it is like to play the conversation game like a chess game.... AbdoRinbo does it well... with anticipating moves and such....

Not an insult or critisism, mind you, but rather a note of admiration.

Shea's post #3: at this point my old foolish voice within my head begs me not to read the entire post.... *wonders if Shea's words apply to AbdoRinbo's post.... since I didn't read all of the last one*

What? the "abolition of religious holidays by the Protestants"

Please elaborate... I think it is mostly athiests who are pushing for that... not protestants.


AbdoRinbo's post#4: Um... are you sure most beggers were poor because of indulgenses? I mean... isn't that kind of far-fetched?

The..................................?

Shea's post #4: short&sweet... I can't even comment on it.

AbdoRinbo post #5: I am confused by this post... everything seemed so calm and nice and almost resolved....

oh wait... I get it... he was going to respond later... and now is later... mmmm now&laters... mmmmmm sticky goodness....

anyways...

Capitalist doctrine??? WTH???

"win the respoect of outsiders by our daily lives' work" first of all... that doesn't really make sense... and secondly, how the hell is that an essential capitalist doctrine? thirdly... are you one of those um... for lack of a better word... whackos that think that everything is a capitalist conspiracy?


You seemed intelligent... before all that crap about capitalism.............. Protestants are capitalists....what does it have to do with ANYTHING? I have met Protestant commies and Catholic capitalist.... I do not see the connection between religion and capitalism.

*smiles* *with a Southern accent,"* you saound like a Red, boay, we better bahrn you at da stake mmmhm. Gahd Dayam commies anywhay, simplay cayan't abhide deez foaks anymohr.



Seriously, though... "Protestants are capitalists and are, therefore, responsible for at least some of the atrocities commited in their own name."

Honestly, I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or be disgusted.... I think I will be disgusted...

There is a gap in your post where common sense or reason should be.

[AbdoRinbo]

. . . Sigh . . . Let's look at this line-by-line . . . (Fool, you ****er ;) ).


If you hold the Bible to be completely true, then you believe that there is no worse fate than to suffer in hell.

The Flood of Noah would only have served its purpose if it fulfilled every duty that God wanted it to. One of those duties was to wipe the sinfull people off the face of the earth. They had angered God, and he wished to punish them...

So... if it was part of God's plan (and biblically everything is, I think) for the flood to send those people to hell, then it couldn't have fulfilled its purpose if it didn't.... or am I missing something?

Just re-read what it says carefully. Everyone who goes to Hell suffers the worst fate imaginable, but some souls never had a chance at salvation(e.g., a person born into an indigenous tribe in Abyssinia in the late 19th century, before it was surveyed)--they were doomed to begin with. Likewise, for the Bible to make any sense at all some people have to go to Hell. That's what I was driving at, though it wasn't really an important point. The real debate sprang from that simple idea.


anyway... I agree... missionaries have not reached all regions.

Which underscores my point entirely.


yeah... the stuff we learn in our youth is hard to discard. I skipped over most of what you said...

You should read it all, otherwise I'll just repeat things I've already said when I try and form a response, and we'll get bored.


What? the "abolition of religious holidays by the Protestants"

Please elaborate... I think it is mostly athiests who are pushing for that... not protestants.

I'm proud of you, Fool. Anyway, you've (unknowingly?) raised an interesting point. Were the Protestants who pushed for the abolition of unnecessary religious celebrations actually atheists working under a facade? It depends on who you ask, but whichever way you look at it the self-proclaimed 'Protestants' (whatever their motives were) wanted to oust excessive religious holidays from the calendar.


Um... are you sure most beggers were poor because of indulgenses? I mean... isn't that kind of far-fetched?

My apologies, I was kind of vague when I tried to explain to Shea the connection between Purgatory and the infestation of people's lives by the Catholic Church. 'They were helping to sustain the poorest segment of society (with lax efficiency), but it was because of the Church that those people had such an unfortunate plight' was about the extent of my explanation. You are familiar with the connection between Purgatory and Indulgences, right? Indulgences were prayers for people suffering in Purgatory that could be bought for oneself in this life or bought by one's family for one who was already deceased. No matter, because the aristocracy stood such a slim chance of making it into Heaven at all, they invested vast amounts of money into these prayers. Now, if you know anything about economics, when enough people with such large quantities of money give it all away, it puts a huge strain on the market (otherwise there might be more jobs available). The Church was sucking the continent dry and there were huge masses of people who were forced to beg just to get by. A lot of the money the Church received whent into Cathedrals and other monuments to further their 'cause', which really only caused the devastation to increase and become more widespread.


Capitalist doctrine??? WTH???

This is a very sensitive topic for you, I can tell. Perhaps you should stop and think for a while (just as I did) before posting a quick response. Hours--and sometimes days--went by before Shea and I had a chance to respond to each other. You've got to give yourself time to swallow and inwardly digest it all.

OK . . . Let's start. "Win the respect of outsiders by our daily lives' work" was the quote you chose to attack. Fair enough. Take a look at the original quote:

1 Thessalonians 4:11-12
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, 12so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.

How on earth could the Protestants be Individualists? (It was Luther who utilized that quote, after all.) Three things stand out when I read that passage: 1) the second-person perspective 2) the distintion between personal 'business' and that of 'outsiders' 3) the concern for individual work. It's as though this passage was a warning to 'outsiders': laissez faire! (Fr. 'hands off').


what does it have to do with ANYTHING? I have met Protestant commies and Catholic capitalist.... I do not see the connection between religion and capitalism.

A Protestant Communist is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. A Catholic Capitalist is understandable, the Vatican is a much more liberal power now than the Catholic Church was during the Renaissance--or the Dark Ages, for that matter. I was merely trying to point out that the Reformation coincided with the rise of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. That's it. There is a link between the two, and the 'work ethic' of Protestants during the 19th and early 20th century was shockingly exploitative. That sort of religion teaches us to be passive, to overlook our suffering now in the hope of being freed to go play in Paradise for all eternity.

My assumption is that you learned everything there is to know about Marxism on Fox News. Do yourself a favor, throw your TV out the window and burn the Communist Manifesto, both are garbage. You'll learn nothing about Marxism from either of those. One popular misconception about Marx is that his theory predicted the standard of living would gradually decrease. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Marx's theory (from Das Kapital) said the very opposite--that the standard of living would increase, which is what has happened. However, (and I tend to agree with this) Marx believed that the standard of living and the value of human life are inversely proportional. In other words, as the standard of living increases, the value placed on human life--for it's own sake--is reduced as we become part and parcel of the Capitalist machinery at work (literally, tools). Think on that for a while.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Ok... Wait... I am still unfamiliar as to which protestants and which religious holidays....

No need to apologize about the beggar issue....

Yes, I am pretty sure I know what indulgences and Purgatory are.....

I know nothing of medeivil economics... so I will have to take your word for it when you talk about the strain on the market etc etc...

"1 Thessalonians 4:11-12
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, 12so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody."

If that were a capitalist doctrine... it wouldn't say, "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life" It would say, "Make it your ambition to become incredibly wealthy by being a cutthroat businessman."

It is in no way a threat to outsiders... anyone with eyes can see that. It is in no way bearing ill will towards outsiders, because it obviously must be worthwhile for Christians to attempt to gain their respect....


"A Protestant Communist is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of."

I agree... any Christian who is communist is absolutely ridiculous... in fact communism in general is absolutely ridiculous... and my spelling is heinious... did I even spell ridiculous right? is it rediculous??? agh...

Your assumption makes an *** out of you... and me... probably... "My assupmption is that you learned everything there is to know about Marxism on Fox News"....

Your assumption is wrong... I learned most of what I know about Marxism and Communism from the Communist Manifesto, and several Communist party web sites (the British Communist party, mostly)....

I agree that the COmmunist Manifesto is garbage...

you said, "one popular misconception about Marx is that his theory predicted the standard of living would gradually decrease. NOthing could be further from the truth. In fact, Marx's theory (from Das Kapital) said the very opposite-- that the standard of living would increase, which is what has happened"

WHAT? Yes, I know what Marx predicted... but it didn't happen, it fell through the roof like a flaming meteor. The standard of living in Russia may have increased from the age of the Czars, but they still couldn't feed their own people. It was pitifully low in Russia. It was also pitifully low in all the European countries that
'converted' to communism. Show me a communist country with a good standard of living, and I will show you a country that is only communist in name. ex. China.... Threw out all the communist economics and is now more of a tyrannical Oligarchy than anything else.

Oh by the way, Fox News and CNN are on the same par, both hideously biased... only on different ends of the yardstick.

PS...

I am impressed with your ability to keep your cool... even after my deliberate attempt to piss you off.... gj!

;)

[AbdoRinbo]

I'll respond to the rest of it later, but for now I just wanted to point out a misunderstanding on one side of this debate. 'Yes, I know what Marx predicted... but it didn't happen, it fell through the roof like a flaming meteor. The standard of living in Russia may have increased from the age of the Czars, but they still couldn't feed their own people. It was pitifully low in Russia.' I said the standard of living would increase in a Capitalist nation. I think you misunderstood me and thought I was referring to a Communist state. (Marx was a student of Capitalism, and he supported Communism only by implication since all Das Kapital is is a study of Capitalism.) Anyway, would you agree with me that the standard of living for nearly all Capitalist countries has risen over the past 400 years? I know you like to object to everything I say.


Your assumption makes an *** out of you... and me... probably... "My assupmption is that you learned everything there is to know about Marxism on Fox News"....

Sometimes it's ok to be an ***. :D

[imthefoolonthehill]

I OBJECT! (but only as a matter of principle)

Lol... I think every country in the world has rissen in living standards in the past 400 years...... I can't think of one that hasn't.... so therefore, yes, all capitalist countries have rased their standard of living over the past 400 years.

[Shea]

Ok, well, since I'm not really interested in politics or economics (and since it usually winds up locking a thread anyway), I would just like to say that I agree with you imthefoolonthehill (it is so hard to type your name without hitting the spacebar) when you said:

Wasn't it Paul who said that nature was evidence enough? and that even those who hadn't heard the gospel were responsible for not responding to that evidence?

Actually it comes from the first chapter in Romans. In the letter, Paul has been talking to the Jews and the Gentiles and during the verses in chapter 1:18-32, he rebukes those Gentiles who worships the creatures rather than the creator. Because they didn't have the law, God gave them the laws of nature.

Romans 1:20-27
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

(Hmm... I wonder if the Episcopal leaders have ever seen those last two verses.)

There was so much talk of politics that I got confused, I think that you guys might have resolved the issue about the verse from 1 Thessalonians. If not please restate your stance on it.

As far as the scripture in Galatians 4 about religious holidays, the point that I was trying to make was that no where in the Bible are we commanded to observe holidays as part of a religious doctrine. Now, if you want to celebrate your birthday, the 4th of July, whatever, that's perfectly fine because they are not religious holidays. You can even exchange gifts or do an egg hunt during the usual times of the year. But I'll never wish anyone a Merry Christmas (I say "Happy Holidays"), or Happy Easter. Neither will I dress up as a goblin. Whenever I celebrate these holidays, I take out all religious connotations to it because God didn't tell us to have any, period.

I think I got everything.

[imthefoolonthehill]

thanks for the reference, shea... I knew it was in there somewhere... but the trouble is, I can't ever remember where it is...

[Shea]

I am absolutely horrible at book, chapter, and verse. But a concordance and a topical Bible always help. (Though I've been recently studying Romans at a Bible study group anyway.) ;)

[AbdoRinbo]

Hey, Shea, prove that God doesn't hate you. Prove that the Bible wasn't just a big joke on all of us.

[Shea]

Ok, perhaps I'm not quick-witted enough to understand what the point of your question was, but no one can prove anything. Like I said before, I'll never be able to force you to agree with me. All I try to do is make people aware. It's up to you how you want to take it. Kind of like the Bible. It's freely there for you, but it's up to you what you want to do with the knowledge found in it.

As far as God hating me, I know you expect me to give you a thousand verses about how much God loves us. If you want me to I will, but I have a feeling that you already know them anyway, and quoting them won't really do much. But why would God hate something that he created? We're not talking about Victor Frankenstien here who passionatly completed an experiment not thinking of the consequences. We're talking about God, who has a plan. He gave us free will for a reason and though a sinner is condemned because they choose to sin, it doesn't mean that God did not love them. God is the first example of "Tough Love."

[imthefoolonthehill]

Abdo Rinbo.

I want you to prove that Napolean existed.

[AbdoRinbo]

He didn't.

[Lothwen]

AbdoRinbo
You are quiet close to my theory, that our world, reality, past and future don't exist. We are part of time-dust, and we only think that we are real. We have power to change relity like in "Matrix", but we should believe in it and have enough power ;)

[AbdoRinbo]

Interesting, Lothwen. Could you go into more detail about your theory? It has me piqued.

imthefoolonthehill: Asking me to prove whether Napolean 'existed' or not is essentially the same as asking me to prove whether or not he was 'human'. What does it really mean to be human, and--likewise--to exist? Did Pluto exist to the ancient Chinese?! (I just wanted to throw that in there, becuz I like saying 'ancient Chinese!'--especially in a high-pitched squeal.) Of course, now Pluto exists and always has, but I think the question concerning the essence of existence is a dead-end.

l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
V

A dead-end, my friend.

[Lothwen]

AbdoRinbo --> I'm glad, that someoen want to hear my theory :D

Since I've thought it up, I've changed it severat times, but main idea was, that nothing exists except vacuum and somthing that I've named time-dust, little molecules which may create inside them little worlds. They are usually conected, and that's why we may meet other people. This worlds break up, and come into past in every second of human life. We think, that we have past, that yesterday something happend, because "the memory" about it, is delivered from one molecule to another. We are like imaginations of this time-dust.
But, it is possible to have active influence of our worlds. We should hardly belive, that it's not real. What's more, when we will feel, that our reality does not exist, and that we are only part of dream, we may interfere in tissue of it, and introduce exchanges.

I think, that is all about my theory, I know that it is inaccurate, has many mistakes, and distorions. If you like it you may finish up :).

[AbdoRinbo]

'I think I'm in Hell, therefore I am.' -- Arthur Rimbaud

[Munro]

The universe as we know it was created 10 minutes ago. Prove me otherwise.

Time just froze for our equivalent of a million years, but we don't know because we weren't concious of the halt, and so we continue with our lives as if nothing happened.

There, it happened again, just when you finished that sentence. And now this sentence.

In fact, no one else is real. I am the Messiah, or the world was created for me, and things only happen in my view and my peripheral view. People only move when I am in a ten kilometre radius of them. You are all robots here to entertain me, giving me things to think about. How am I supposed to know otherwise? How do I know the answer isn't programmed into you, and right now the planner of this life hoax are ****ting themselves now I'm getting wise on their plan?

Life, for me, is some giant, horrible conspiracy - am I right? Nihilism is scary but interesting to consider (this is nihilism,right?).

*watches another few thousand years go by*

[AbdoRinbo]

Munro raised an interesting point that I would like to touch on.

You've all heard of Zeno of Elea's paradox, 'Achilles and the Tortoise', right? Well, just to be certain, I'll demonstrate it for you:

Achilles and the Tortoise decide to race each other and, the Tortoise being much slower, is given a head start of one foot. When the race begins, Achilles sets off and catches up to the point where the Tortoise was--that is, one foot ahead of him--in exactly one second. Achilles has already caught up to the Tortoise. But wait, in the one second period the Tortoise managed to move half a foot (half the speed Achilles is moving at: one foot per second) ahead of him. No big deal, Achilles can catch up to the Tortoise in half a second, but in that half a second the Tortoise has moved a quarter foot ahead of where he was half a second ago. Achilles tries to catch up to where the Tortoise was, he gets there in a quarter of a second, but the Tortoise will always be one tiny step ahead of him.

If you break the race down, it looks like a stream of fractions that dissect themselves into halves forever: 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, &c. Even if Achilles is the faster runner, he will never catch up. Will the race go on forever? Not if you are willing to add an infinite number of fractions together. Look at it this way: 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 . . . is like adding 1 + 1, because 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 . . . has a limit, and that limit is the number one. It can't get any higher than that. We know the direction where it is headed. Achilles will beat the Tortoise in two seconds, it just takes him an infinite number of mathematical steps to do it.

Now, that same holds true for calculating time. How much time goes into a second? Well, we could say that two halves of a second go into a second. But, likewise, how much time goes into a half of a second? Two quarters. And into a quarter? Two eighths. . . . and off into infinity and beyond. Just as we know that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 . . . has a limit of one, 1/2 - 1/4 - 1/8 - 1/16 - 1/32 . . . has a limit of zero. Therefore, a second is composed of an infinite number of zeros (which defies all logic). This makes perfect sense, though, because 0/0 (a fraction that has been branded mathematical heresy) can equal whatever number we choose. The difference between 0/0 and 0/1 is that 0/1 = 0, but 0/0 equals any and every number all at once. So, it follows that one second, which is composed of an infinitely large number of zero moments in time, is equal to an hour, a day, a week, a year, the birth and death of star, eternity, whatever . . . if you refuse to accept 0/0, then you concede to Zeno's paradox and reject the idea that motion and time are possible.

Thank you, Munro. I had forgotten all about that until you brought it up.

[Chardata]

ok...well, for most of this i'm confused but what i gathered for the most part...this is my OPINION!!!! and responce....ie: more OPINION!!!!

lost civilization:
God/Jesus gave us a choice. He gives each human upon this earth the same choice. Whether a missionary gets to that 'lost' civilization doesn't matter b/c we all have the same chance. If God really wants to reach someone with his truth...don't you think He will do it? He is God anyway! He has the power to do whatever he wants...if he wants to reach out to the lost amizon warrior he can...how...we may never know. Think about it before you chew me out.

holidays:
CHRISTmas...think about it. Now don't start sputtering yet. It was created to worship the birth of Christ but our society has painted a fat guy in an overly red jumpsuit who loves flying with animals who grow bones out of thier heads. That is not what Christmas was created for. Is worshiping Christ in celebration of a savior's birth so bad...I don't think i'm loosing a dimond in my heavenly crown over it. Easter: it is the same with Christmas...easter isn't a bunny jumping around 'pretending' to lay colored eggs...it it a celebration of a risen Lord. That is when He proved He was Savior. Our society agian perversed that aspect of a wonderful holiday. I don't think firy bolts from the sky will land on my head b/c of me worshiping/celebrating these holidays. Haloween: now that is a different thing. Origonally, All Hallow's Eve...is a celebration of the dead. Supposedly harmless...but cults have perversed this holiday too. Now this holiday is not safe and i think it is not a holiday a Christian should take part in.

These are my opinions...don't butcher me b/c of them. Take them or leave them...you will probally leave them...i'm cool with that! TTYL!

[Shea]

I'll reply with Chardata because I got rather lost with the rest of the posts.

I wanted to add something about the lost civilizations. Just because the written facts are given to us by those organizations, dosen't neccessarily mean that they are accurate. For example; when the missionaries go out, they convert some people. They then report to the organization that sent them out. But those converted people, taking the example from those that taught them go out on their own missionary journey. But they don't have an organization to report to. Therefore the Bible is spread whether we know of it or not.

About religious holidays, my point didn't lie in the jolly elf or the bunny, my point was whether or not it is scripturally accurate to celebrate these holidays as religious doctrine. The elf and bunny are perfectly harmless and fine on their own, but to incorporate them into religious doctrine is not scriptural. We should be meditating on Christ continually, not just on certain days of the year.

I have more to say on this, but now I have to go.

[Shea]

Sorry, look for the remainder of my reply tommorrow because what I wanted to say will take time to cite and I don't have time today.

[Chardata]

i agree that the secular symbols of the Christian holidays are not theological and i believe they shouldn't necessarily be observed. They are and that's part of our culture and society. There really isn't a way around it. Observing a bunny rather than the resurection of the Lord Jesus Christ is, in my opinion, wrong. I do agree with you on that aspect...BUT...well...wait...uuummmmmm...maybe I don't get everything you mean about "religious doctrine." Are you saying that observing Christian holidays are not morally right b/c they aren't mentioned in the Bible? If that is what you're saying...I don't believe that. The angels, wise men, and shepherds all oberved and celebrated the birth of Jesus. Why can't we carry on that aspect of it? In my family we observe Jesus' birth not the happy jolly man. I think there is a difference. Most Christians do not observe the Passover. B/c it doesn't apply to us as Christians. We weren't the chosen ppl passed over!

Listen I would love to talk more but I have to get up early tomorrow morning for a pep rally at my school. I'm in the band so I have to go. Also I have a late football game friday night...Saterday is my birthday party and Sunday is my birthday...so I won't be getting on this weekend! Sorry! I'll check Monday afternoon...if possible! TTYL!

[Shea]

Listen I would love to talk more but I have to get up early tomorrow morning for a pep rally at my school. I'm in the band so I have to go. Also I have a late football game friday night...Saterday is my birthday party and Sunday is my birthday...so I won't be getting on this weekend! Sorry! I'll check Monday afternoon...if possible! TTYL!

Good, that gives me a chance too. I'm taking 4 literature courses and have quite a bit of reading to do. But I'll try to get it in before Monday. ;) Dosen't it sound like we're all making excuses? :rolleyes:

[Chardata]

yeah it does but it's the truth...right!? 8) I'm at school right now getting ready for the game. So much work. I have three books i'm reading right now for english so i totally understand! TTYL!

[AbdoRinbo]

Geez, with the big game coming up, you must be exhausted . . .

[electric_kool_aid]

About the whole who wants which holidays abolished matter, I would think a smart Atheist would NOT want the holidays abolished for the simple reason that it's a holiday! Everyone like holidays! Especially ones with presents.

[Shea]

I'm so sorry! I forgot to bring the verses with me! (I know, I know, more excuses :rolleyes: ) My husband keeps hogging our computer, so I was going to wait to use the University library this morning, but I'm not great at remembering book, chapter and verse, so sorry, I'll have to get it to you tommorrow. (hopefully tonight if Leo lets me steal the computer for a few minutes!)

[Chardata]

nice, very nice. Yeah, i was tired...still am...but school has started so i have to put my sleepiness aside. It's all good. We lost the football game...our team is so bad. They always loose. The band bets against them on how badly we are going to loose. I got some candy b/c i was right...they lost. :D It's all good! The band is good though! We are rated top 30 in the state of Texas (marching) and top 100 in the nation (concert)! Cool hu?

[Shea]

Ok, for my first passage, (don't worry I only have 3)

Colossians 2:13-17
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.


This along with my previous passage shows that it is not agreeable with the Bible to celebrate religious holidays. Christ and his teachings are all we need.


Romans 4:5
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.


This is a verse that should explain to you why it is wrong to bind special days into religious doctrine. If you want to make a day more special than another, don't try to enfore it on someone else.


2 John 1:9
Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.


There is a greek word (I don't have my translation with me) for 'runs ahead.' From what I can remember, it can be likened to a target with a bullseye. If you shoot above that target, you just missed it (obviously). In other words, if you run ahead and try to do and add all kinds of things to please God, but haven't just kept to His teaching, it's to no avail.

Here is a site that will help explain a little about Christmas, http://www.padfield.com/1993/christms.html and I can e-mail you some info on Easter as well if you'd like. Did you know that the reason we have the Bunny is because of the goddess Eastre of fertility? She was worshipped in the springtime by the pagans and rabbits were sacred to her, why? Because of their famous ability to make more rabbits! :D

[AbdoRinbo]

Alright, Shea, got it. I'll quote a passage from the book of 'Seinfeld':

'I'm convinced that God is out to get me.'

'I thought you said you said you didn't believe in God.'

'Well, I do for the bad stuff.'

-- George and his psychologist

Heh . . . I love that; George is the best.

[Shea]

lol, Seinfeld was the only sitcom I ever could sit down to watch. :D

[Kinch]

I wonder if people do only truly believe in God 'for the bad stuff'. . . .

[Shea]

As a mass of people, it can seem like that, look at what happened right after 9-11. But I guarantee you that there are many, many chistians who pray and thank God simply for the lovely day! ;)

[Chardata]

i agree with shea. You also have to remember...alot of ppl get caught in the trap of relying on God just for thier own selfish needs. That is part of human nature...i'm guilty of it...and i'm sure many others are too. That's why i work hard to rely on God for every aspect of my life...not just the bad or the good. :P

[Kinch]

Like Rinbo, I don't believe that Christianity is latent in nature. And for those who've never come to experience it, what then when they die?

[AbdoRinbo]

Shea, did you ever see the episode of 'Seinfeld' in which Elaine's boyfriend (I think his name was 'Puddy') got all dressed up in New Jersey Devil's fan makeup and dress and beat on that old Catholic priest's car, screamin': 'Yeah, man! we're the Devils!', sending him into a coma?

[Chardata]

if i read your reply correctly, Kinch...umm...that is something that we take by faith. No one is perfect...not even your strongest Christian...and this may be a shocker to alot of catholics...but the Pope is not perfect either!!! ^-^ Christianity is something you have to explore on your own. God gives us signs all around us so we don't have to take everything by faith.

[AbdoRinbo]

If he was agreeing with what I said, then you are mistaken. I had pointed out earlier that tribal members in the uncharted regions of the world who have never heard of Christ or Christianity are only vaguely accounted for by the Bible (I think there is more evidence that Purgatory exists in the Bible than evidence for indigenous humans finding God without the aid of missionaries or colonialism). Is nature a model of the Bible? If so, why aren't things like black holes, general relativity, or even dinosaurs (et cetera) mentioned in it? Would you say that those things do not exist? Because the sciences that prove their existence are the sames ones that prove yours; if you reject them, you become prey to nihilism.

[Chardata]

dinos are mentioned in the Bible...so is the pangea thingy. SHEA!!! I need Bible refrences!!! PLEASE! ^_* You know we only do this to you b/c your so good at it and we love you lol!

[AbdoRinbo]

As evidence that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible, my grandma doesn't even believe they ever existed, and she's a Lutheren. Heh, in fact she wouldn't take me to see 'Jurassic Park' when I was a kid . . . and I never forgave her.

[Chardata]

is that a fact...that is sad...I do think dinos existed...but i don't think your grandmother's beliefs are the basis of the Bible. Yeah, she may know alot but i can vouch for this...there are some crazy ppl out there that believe in crazy things. Trash the denomination crap. If you are a Christian...that's that. What your grandmother believes is wrong...but it doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't mention creatures like dinos etc. Even the laviathen is mentioned. Like i said before...ppl have some wacked-up ideas/views.

[Shea]

Believe it or not, I've been searching for that reference to dinosaurs for a while now. I saw it months ago, it was pre-flood (or speaking of it), and it talked of great beasts roaming the earth. But I can't remember! I'll keep looking. :o

When Paul was rebuking the gentiles in Romans 1 for disobeying the laws of nature, that had nothing to do with black holes, etc. Frankly, those things have nothing to do with salvation. Nature, though simple, has too much complexity for things just to 'happen'. The gentiles should have known that there was God just because of this complexity. Instead they chose to worship the creatures rather than the creator, and turn away from the laws of nature, for example, by practicing homosexuality (yes it's a sin) which is not evident anywhere else than by human choice.

[Chardata]

WOW you hit that right on the head!!! ::applause applause::

[AbdoRinbo]

First of all, when archaeologists discover fossils, they aren't discovering the actual bones or fragments of bones, rather, they are discovering rocks that were once pieces of an animal's skeleton that were saturated with a very rare mixture of silt and water which trickled down into the pores of the bones at a very precise moment and hardened into their shape so that when the bones decomposed, the form remained preserved. That process takes thousands of years. Don't believe me? Listen: no one discovers dinosaurs preserved in ice like they do pre-historic humans or mammoths; of course this is very reasonable when you consider hold old some of these fossils are. Some of them are over 100 million years old. Carbon dating may be arguably flawed, but common sense tells us that a dinosaur fossil cannot harden like that in less than something along the figure of 50,000 years (or more). Besides, the Bible doesn't explain how they all died so suddenly. (You'll say the Great Flood wiped them out, of course, but why is there no record of the Flood in the Orient, where genealogical records show their civilization to be older than that of the West? You're putting your faith in mere wishful thinking if you believe that the Bible is entirely literal.)

I don't know what homosexuality has to do with Relativity exactly, but on the topic, no one knows for sure if God considers being gay a sin or not. The Bible is too ambiguous on that issue and flat out overlooks a ton of other facts about our Universe making the whole thing seem suspect. Consider this, according to Relativity time might be so slow in some regions of space that Christ might not have even existed there yet. Gravity curves space and slows down time. For example, if you saw me enter a black hole I would appear frozen in space forever at the edge that separates space and time from the mouth of darkness, so who could say for sure if I was truly dead or not? For that matter, who can say for sure that anyone is truly dead? Does seeing it justify it when time is full of curves and bends? Accordingly, who could say for sure that I would appear frozen at the edge of a black hole before falling off the edge of the Universe forever? After all, no one has actually entered a black hole or attempted to. But the same boundaries bind religion too. Who knows what happens when we die? Hoping that there is some paradise waiting for us sure is a nice security blanket to have when the equally plausible prospect of non-existence looms over us in the distance.

[Shea]

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 1:24-27
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

These passages don't sound very amibuous to me.

For most of everthing else that you said, which I'm not very interested in because it's not important, it has nothing to do with salvation, (which I beleive is what we were discussing). I found that most of that is an exuse for people who do not want to obey God.

But, to humor you, here is an idea:(and I think I've posted this before, forgive me.) Suppose you were able to go back in time to see Adam five minutes after he was created. Adam is only five minutes old but his not an infant. Wouldn't it stand to reason, that God could also have created an 'old earth' as well? But like I said, it's not really important. ;) I would rather have my security blanket, than to cast it away and find out too late that the Bible was all true.

[AbdoRinbo]

These passages don't sound very amibuous to me.

You're quoting a translated text. (The argument for Christian homosexuality is that the Hebrew Bible says nothing bad about it, and that the Theologians just inserted it for their own 'agenda'.)

As for the nature stuff, it really isn't very important--you're right--, but it's 'logical' and it does undermine theology no matter how you look at it (you never really answered any of it, either). I was trying to make it clear that you are hiding under a security blanket (which is something I'm guilty of too), and that quoting the Bible to skeptics to prove you're right is just a big waste of time.

[AbdoRinbo]

Oh and by the way, you've said that you renounced Catholicism because of the 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic' mentality, which you disagree with. I've told you earlier that the reason I don't consider myself an agnostic is because I believe in that mentality (a Catholic education is a permanant memory). Honestly though, I don't see how someone could give it up like that so easily, and for such a vague reason. Because, based on what you've said, you abdicated it because you felt that your church and/or family would force you to stay (in the same way that teenage-angst makes rebellion seem appealing because we know our parents don't want us to rebel). I don't want to impose, but if you would like to tell me about it I would be interested.

[Chardata]

can i have a say in this too? I resent that teenage comment ^_^ lol. Ummm...the homosexuality thingy...can you read hebrew? I'm assuming not...so you can't say for sure that, that is what the texts say or don't say. Secondly, this is turning into presumption etc. Shea remember this? I really don't want to get into this again. BUT how can thousands of different translations be that far off...NIV, King James, Catholic, New American, Morman...etc. Most of them all say the same thing it's just the way a person prefers to understand it. The Catholic and Morman bibles have more books than the Prodistent Bibles but that's beside the point. I would have to agree with Shea on this one.

Catholoism...well, i believe they have more enphasis on tradition and ritual than Jesus and God. I also think they mess with verses until they do not have the meaning that they once held. Now don't chew me out. I believe that there are many Catholics that are spiritually lost and don't understand that Jesus died so that we don't have to preform all the rituals etc and that the Pope does not have the final word. He is no more closer to God than the average Christian. He is human too. There is so much i would like to talk to you about but i'm at school so i don't have time right now. Now, i'm not saying that they other denominations are the 'true' way...which they aren't. Only Jesus is the true way and our society is too focused on how you worship than if you worship at all. It's sad...very sad.

[AbdoRinbo]

Most of them all say the same thing it's just the way a person prefers to understand it.

Exactly. Some people prefer to interpret the Bible one way and others in another. That was my point: it's not a Grand Theory.

[Chardata]

you can rationalize but the bible is clear. One can choose to interpitate it one way and twist the words another inorder to have it fit thier pupose. Again, I feel like the Bible is straight forward about this topic.

[AbdoRinbo]

If you say so.

[Eloise]

I'm going to be working from the more recent posts back to the beginning of the thread, and apologies in advance for the length and lateness of this post:

I agree that the Bible is ambiguous about a lot of things, homosexuality included.


(The argument for Christian homosexuality is that the Hebrew Bible says nothing bad about it, and that the Theologians just inserted it for their own 'agenda'.)

Which Theologians?


The Bible . . . flat out overlooks a ton of other facts about our Universe making the whole thing seem suspect. Consider this, according to Relativity time might be so slow in some regions of space that Christ might not have even existed there yet. Gravity curves space and slows down time. For example, if you saw me enter a black hole I would appear frozen in space forever at the edge that separates space and time from the mouth of darkness, so who could say for sure if I was truly dead or not? For that matter, who can say for sure that anyone is truly dead? Does seeing it justify it when time is full of curves and bends? Accordingly, who could say for sure that I would appear frozen at the edge of a black hole before falling off the edge of the Universe forever? After all, no one has actually entered a black hole or attempted to.

I find it interesting that the very things which throw the whole religion thing into question for you don't do that at all for me. I think it highlights mystery of God, someone who could create (however he did it) such bizarre (to me) things . . . :o . Besides which, I figure that he's probably got the time inconsistancies etc organised - I don't think that he himself is bound by a linear time as we are (and even that is cultural - more a western than an eastern way of thinking - I expect the biblical writers themselves wouldn't have thought about it the way we do, though I'm not sure). On who is really dead, I think that's a tricky question even if you leave black holes etc out of it. Is it when the brain stops working or when the heart stops working? Is someone on life-support who is otherwise a vegetable alive or not? I don't know, but I'm assuming God does. I don't think the fact that it's not dealt with in the Bible necessarily knocks the whole thing for six, especially if you take into account the human part of the writing of the Bible.


But the same boundaries bind religion too. Who knows what happens when we die? Hoping that there is some paradise waiting for us sure is a nice security blanket to have when the equally plausible prospect of non-existence looms over us in the distance.

Religion, yes; God, no. I don't think they are the same thing. The who knows what happens when we die question, hasn't (of course) just come up with the newer questions arising from us finding out more about the universe, it's been around for ages. I tend to think that even if I do just non-exist when I die, I won't know about it so it doesn't really matter. Seeing as we can't know for certain (excluding religious revelation) either way, then I guess you could say that believing in a (happy) after-life is a security blanket, in the sense that it presumably makes life more hopeful? bearable? whatever, while you're still alive.


(I think there is more evidence that Purgatory exists in the Bible than evidence for indigenous humans finding God without the aid of missionaries or colonialism).

I would be interested to hear it. (Seriously)


Is nature a model of the Bible?

I don't think anyone's arguing that. I would say that nature and the Bible are separate revelations of God's character, both being based on a third entity, God, rather than one on the other. Note revelation is different from model - to me, a model implies completeness, ie. all characteristics of the original are reflected in the model, whereas a revelation doesn't.


I don't believe that Christianity is latent in nature.

Taking the Romans verses again:


. . . since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made . . .

So it's not Christianity as a whole (incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection etc) which is apparent from nature - that'd be ridiculous. What it says is that God's 'eternal power' and 'divine nature' can be seen from the world. Both seem fairly general terms to me, I don't think anyone could say definitively exactly what they mean, but I think it's fairly obvious that what it's talking about are of the order of 'invisible qualities' or characteristics, rather than everything God's done (which the Bible doesn't tell you either for that matter, but anyway . . . ), as distinct from Christianity or the Bible.


And for those who've never come to experience it, what then when they die?

Which is the same question as the OP which messes up my nice logical order but oh well . . . : my basic take on this is that I don't know, which is a bit of a cop-out. I tend to think along the lines that I know God, and I know that his character is both a) merciful and b) just and so I can trust him to figure it out satisfactorally. I like to think that this passage might have some relevance:


That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving of punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Luke 12:47-48 NIV

but I could be misapplying it. It also brings up the purgatory thing again, and the reverse question to the original one - 'wouldn't it then be better not to have heard?' - to which I have no answer. Hmm.

I also have to go home (at risk of being locked out), so I'll probably continue tomorrow.

[AbdoRinbo]

Which Theologians?

St. Thomas Aquinas, King James, &c. But there are better examples earlier on in history that I couldn't name off the top of my head, those two are just examples. Additionally, I'm not claiming to know what their intentions were. Perhaps it was a mistake. But if it is a mistake, we shouldn't pay it any credence.


I find it interesting that the very things which throw the whole religion thing into question for you don't do that at all for me. I think it highlights mystery of God, someone who could create (however he did it) such bizarre (to me) things . . . :o . Besides which, I figure that he's probably got the time inconsistancies etc organised - I don't think that he himself is bound by a linear time as we are

It's not a mystery really, it's a paradox (a paradox can be explained, a mystery can't), and if it's a paradox it is a contradiction. How do you feel about contradictions? After all, nihilism is a contradiction, but people still accept it. Why is the belief in metaphysics any better than the rejection of it? They both rest on unstable foundations.

In case you didn't know, Relativity was the theory that proved Time isn't linear. But even Einstein struggled with a problematic phenomenon: the existence (or, rather, the nonexistence) of zero. So I don't have to type it out again, just go back two pages and look at my post about Achilles and the Tortoise. Obviously, the conclusions are wrong (Time and Space--or, more precisely, Motion--exist), but there isn't a single flaw in the reasoning behind them; they're logical contradictions. But not only that, every statement can be reduced to a similar logical contradiction. You might ask me to define logic, however we'd first have to define definition (but we'd only be chasing our tails). Think about it: a truth is supposed to be objective (eternal), right? Those sorts of truths can never be revealed to us. Signs (e.g. thoughts, words, sounds, colors, sensations, &c.) are not little doorways to some everlasting meaning; instead they act like mirrors distinguishing themselves from other signs that are different. Only with these prior differences do they generate anything that resembles a truth or meaning.


Religion, yes; God, no. I don't think they are the same thing. The who knows what happens when we die question, hasn't (of course) just come up with the newer questions arising from us finding out more about the universe, it's been around for ages. I tend to think that even if I do just non-exist when I die, I won't know about it so it doesn't really matter. Seeing as we can't know for certain (excluding religious revelation) either way, then I guess you could say that believing in a (happy) after-life is a security blanket, in the sense that it presumably makes life more hopeful? bearable? whatever, while you're still alive.

I never said it was new, I was just comparing two similar ideas that are older than I am (much older). As far as religion and God making life more hopeful, I don't know if that's true at all. I always thought spirituality promoted sacrifice and modesty, acts that are excruciatingly difficult to many people. Some want instant gratification, others are willing to wait it out for the hope of gaining more than the hedonists. There will always be those who are marginalized. In fact, to some, non-existence after death allows people peace of mind from having to worry--not only about this life--but the next life as well.


I would be interested to hear it. (Seriously)

Here's what I have for Purgatory right now. Corinthians [3:11], Matthew [12:32], 2 Maccabees, [12: 39-45]. I don't have a Bible handy to quote them (I'm citing the bibliography of a book I own which is titled Hamlet in Purgatory by the Harvard Shakespeare scholar, Stephen Greenblatt, who touches rather heavily on this subject.


I don't think anyone's arguing that. I would say that nature and the Bible are separate revelations of God's character, both being based on a third entity, God, rather than one on the other. Note revelation is different from model - to me, a model implies completeness, ie. all characteristics of the original are reflected in the model, whereas a revelation doesn't.

You can say that, but it will come back to haunt you. There aren't multiple 'natures', the Bible has one and, according to its own reasoning, it agrees with the Nature of the Universe and, therefore, agrees with itself. Simple enough, but very tautological (or, in other words, redundant). The essence of God should be present the same in the Bible as He is in Nature. Using Aristotle's logic, the Bible and Nature ought to have the same essence, too. Unfortunately, Man wrote the Bible, not God. So everything you've said falls flat on its face. We don't know what their intentions were nor do we know what God's intentions were, if he does exist.

[Chardata]

ok...i'm going to be a little prig right now...i appoligize ahead of time.
8)

I blieve that if you use Catholic Bible refrences...they can't be under the catagory of 'true references' Think about it. Not all bibles have the Catholic books...I would rather we just keep that out of the conversations and focus on the books that everybody has access to. I believe the Catholics have some mixed up ideas...one of them including their extra books in their Bible.

GTG the bell's about to ring! TTYL

[AbdoRinbo]

Really? Tell me, why were those books 'added' to the Bible then? I bet you don't even know.

[Shea]

Those books were added because the men of the Catholic church felt they needed to be added in order to justify their religious beleifs. Same with the Mormons.

Abdo, I didn't leave the Catholic church simply because of the mindset of "once a Catholic always a Catholic." I left because most of thier teachings are completely opposite of the Bible (religious titles, rituals, statues, transubstantion, religious holidays, forbidden to eats certain foods, forbidden to marry,... just to name a few :rolleyes: ). They have no foundation, their beleifs change when they hold a "meeting". I can't just let someone tell me what to beleive, I have to know for myself.

To give you the background on what my Catholic family did to me: My parent divorced when I was 6. My Dad re-married when I was 9 and my Mom moved to Ohio and met my step-dad, who showed her the truth in the Bible and so she was baptized to become a Christian then they were married. The first summer that my sister and I went up there (I was 12), they showed us the Bible (because the Catholics never read it), and we saw the truth. But we were still young and didn't have full understanding enough to be baptized. When we got back to Florida, my Catholic family threw a fit, and "converted us back". They got so upset, and because of their history (that's another story), we knew that if we didn't let them beleive that we were Catholic, we would never see our parents in Ohio again (at least not untill we were 18). So I went to Mass regularly, joined a (very liberal) Catholic youth group, even went to Paris to see the Pope at a Catholic function. The whole time knowing that everything was wrong. It wasn't untill I was 18 that I was able to break away from all that, and the only benefit that I have is that I know a lot about the Catholic church, and now even more so. I've studied how they got started and why they believe what they believe. They pretty much throw the Truth out the window, and mostly for the sake of pride and prestige.

Whew! I hope I'll never have to type that all up again!

I want to respond to many other comments here but I'll have to do it later. ;)

[Shea]

Actually, now that I think about it, scince Abdo dosen't beleive that the Bible is divinely inspired, and just comes up with a bunch of excuses as to why he shouldn't beleive it despite what we say, I wonder if continuing this is a waste of our time. We said what he needs to know, but he has rejected it, how sad :( . All his conclusions lead to the hope of absolutely nothing after we die. As for me, suppose that I have beleived in something in vain, but I would rather live the life of a quiet christian ( which I find much easier than trying to live life as a perpetual party), than to find out that God does exist and I was not obedient to Him. Do you know how long eternity is?

[AbdoRinbo]

Eternity is two hours spent in a church.

[AbdoRinbo]

About the Catholic Bible: Shea, I thought you of all people would know this. I was directing that question at Chardata, but now the answer I'm directing at you. Why does the Catholic Bible have seven more books in its Old Testament than the Protestant Bible? It's because the Jewish Testament was written in Hebrew, but the Israelites also possessed the Septuagint, which was written in Greek. The Apostles and the New Testament writers quoted from this book hundreds of times, so it's pointless to try and say that it was irrelevent. Besides, the Catholic Bible as we know it today contains all of the books of the oldest existing biblical texts, the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and the Codex Ephraemi. This means that the Protestant Bible is further distanced from the original texts than is the Catholic Bible, and that the Mormons seem to be more along the lines of your beliefs than those of the Catholics.

By the way, look at a Catholic priest. He's given his entire life away for the sake of his religion, whereas a Protestant preacher is allowed to live a normal life, have a wife and a few kids. Not a lot of sacrifice there, so we can at least say that the Catholics are more respectable in that regard.

[Jay]

By the way, look at a Catholic priest. He's given his entire life away for the sake of his religion, whereas a Protestant preacher is allowed to live a normal life, have a wife and a few kids. Not a lot of sacrifice there, so we can at least say that the Catholics are more respectable in that regard.

Well, why living a normal life is so terrible? Look at the Pope (sorry to anyone who happens so like him). He's Catholic priest and HAS children. Why is it so important for Catholic priests not to lead a normal life? Protestant priests do and so they are not proper Christian priests? I'm not good at quoting the Bible, so Shea feel free to correct me, but doesn't it say (how to say it in English...) something along the lines love and multiply yourselves. Sorry, never held an English written Bible in my hands.

[Shea]

I have to prepare for a test tomorrow, so I don't have much time. But to support Jay's statement:

1 Timothy 4:1-3
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

[Jay]

Thanks Shea, but if I got all the formal English (lol) right, that's not entirely what I had in mind. But yeah, it does make a point I think.

[AbdoRinbo]

Jay, the Pope wasn't always part of the Church.

[Shea]

Umm, excuse me, very quickly, the Catholics claim that the apostle Peter was the first pope because they twisted a passage in Matthew. Peter was also married. But right now I have to go. ;)

[Chardata]

ok...i think what i said was twisted out of proportion.
There is nothing wrong with the Catholic blief...just it's miss-guided. There is enough truth in the C. church that they can find the Truth...but they are going to want to think for themselves and not have the priests think for them. Shea, your a thinker :D you've found the truth and 'left' the catholic church...I have other friends who have done the same. Then i have friends who believe that if you're not a catholic you are going to hell...and they have the priests think for them. That, i believe, is wrong.

Does that make more sense?

[AbdoRinbo]

Umm, excuse me, very quickly, the Catholics claim that the apostle Peter was the first pope because they twisted a passage in Matthew. Peter was also married. But right now I have to go. ;)

George Washington wasn't our first president, but who cares?

[Shea]

George Washington wasn't our first president, but who cares?

I don't understand what your arguement is anymore.

Chardata, the trouble with the Catholic Church, is that there is so little truth and so much man made rules, that it has become dangerous. This is a very strong arguement from Paul:

Galatians 1:6-10
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

The Catholics are doing what Paul himself wouldn't dare or he would allow himself to be 'eternally condemned'. This dosen't just go for the Catholic church, but for anyone. That's why you always find me quoting scripture because I want to stay as close to it as I possibly can. ;)

[AbdoRinbo]

Shea, I think you're just saying you don't understand, that way everything I say will seem irrelevent. But if you really want me to be direct and up front with you, and--therefore--come off as insulting, then so be it.

I'll rephrase it: who cares who the first pope was?

[Shea]

The Catholics care. I thought that's what we were talking about. Anyway, it never occurs to them that their religion was started 350 years after Christ's death. If Peter was the first pope, he must have been pretty old by that time.

[AbdoRinbo]

Let me ask you an entirely unrelated question, Shea. What does the Bible mean to you? What is God saying to us? Let me hear your opinion.

[Shea]

My husband just gave his first mini sermon last Sunday. When I get an opportunity, I'll post it here. The info is really good, and it will answer your question. But he's been working on getting a website started, so I don't have much access to our computer. If he's still working on it by Tuesday, I print it out and type it on the computers at school. ;)

[AbdoRinbo]

[I originally heard this on a Sly Stone album. I thought it was very clever and decided to post it here. I don't know why, this strikes me as extremely captivating. Perhaps it is my fascination with war.]

During the North African campaign, a bunch of soldier boys had
been on a long hike and they arrived in a little town called Casino. The next morning being Sunday, several of the boys went to Church. A sergeant commanded the boys in Church and after the Chaplain had
read the prayer, the text was taken up next. Those of the boys who had a prayer book took them out, but this one boy had only a deck of cards, and so he spread them out.

The Sergeant saw the cards and said, "Soldier, put away those cards."

After the services was over, the soldier was taken prisoner and brought before the Provost Marshall. The Marshall said, "Sergeant, why have you brought this man here?"

"For playing cards in church, Sir."

"And what have you to say for yourself, son?"

"Much, Sir," replied the soldier.

The Marshall said, "I hope so, for if not I shall punish you more
than any man was ever punished."

The soldier said, "Sir, I have been on the march for about six days. I have neither a Bible nor a prayer book, but I hope to satisfy you, Sir, with the sincerety of my intentions." And with that, the boy started his story: "You see Sir, when I look at the Ace, it reminds me that there is but one God. And the Deuce reminds me that the Bible is divided into two parts, the Old and the New Testaments. When I see the Trey, I think of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And when I see the Four, I think of the four Evangelists who preached the Gospel; there was Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

And when I see the Five, it reminds me of the five wise virgins who trimmed their lamps; there were ten of them: five were wise and were saved, five were foolish and were shut out. When I see the Six, it reminds me that in six days, God made this great heaven and earth. When I see the Seven, it reminds me that on the seventh day, God rested from His great work. And when I see the Eight, I think of the eight righteous persons God saved when He destroyed this earth; there was Noah, his wife, their sons and their wives. And when I see the Nine, I think of the lepers our Savior cleansed, and nine out of the ten didn't even thank Him.
When I see the Ten, I think of the Ten Commandments God handed down to Moses on a table of stone. When I see the King, it reminds me that there is but one King of Heaven, God Almighty. And when I see the Queen, I think of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is Queen of Heaven. And the Jack or Knave is the Devil.

When I count the number of spots on a deck of cards, I find 365, the number of days in a year. There are 52 cards, the number of weeks in a year. There are 4 suits, the number of weeks in a month. There are 12 picture cards, the number of months in a year. There are 13 tricks, the number of weeks in a quarter.

So you see, Sir, my pack of cards serves me as a Bible, an Almanac and a Prayer Book." And friends, the story is true. I know, I was that soldier.

[Chardata]

Shea, i agree with you when you said that the Catholic church is full of man-made rules that aren't relevent to the Christian beliefs. Anyway, i really don't have time to talk so I'll come back later.

[Eloise]

St. Thomas Aquinas, King James, &c. But there are better examples earlier on in history that I couldn't name off the top of my head, those two are just examples.

Surely the copies that translators use these days are a lot older than either of those men? What are the other examples?


It's not a mystery really, it's a paradox (a paradox can be explained, a mystery can't), and if it's a paradox it is a contradiction.

It might just be me not being used to looking for paradoxes, but I can't quite see how some of the statements I was referring to (taken from your previous post and quoted below) fall into the category of logical contradictions? Could you elaborate?


1. Consider this, according to Relativity time might be so slow in some regions of space that Christ might not have even existed there yet. 2. If you saw me enter a black hole I would appear frozen in space forever at the edge that separates space and time from the mouth of darkness, so who could say for sure if I was truly dead or not? 3. Who can say for sure that anyone is truly dead? 4. Does seeing it justify it when time is full of curves and bends? 5. Accordingly, who could say for sure that I would appear frozen at the edge of a black hole before falling off the edge of the Universe forever? After all, no one has actually entered a black hole or attempted to. (numbering mine)

I put forward my understanding of the who is really dead thing (nos 2 and 3) in my previous post:


On who is really dead, I think that's a tricky question even if you leave black holes etc out of it. Is it when the brain stops working or when the heart stops working? Is someone on life-support who is otherwise a vegetable alive or not? I don't know, but I'm assuming God does.

Your conclusion on black holes seems to me (based on 5. above) to be something that we are really not certain about and cannot explain at this point in time, which I suppose would be neither a mystery nor a paradox, but something else. In any case, your current conclusion seems to be, 'we don't know for sure' which is fine by me.


How do you feel about contradictions?

Not entirely comfortable, of course, I don't think anyone is. But then I'm not entirely comfortable with the free will - predestination thing, or exactly how Jesus' human and divine natures worked together while he was on earth, or with the problem of suffering in the world, or with any number of other things. For me, not feeling entirely comfortable with some things is not a reason to reject them utterly.


But even Einstein struggled with a problematic phenomenon: the existence (or, rather, the nonexistence) of zero. So I don't have to type it out again, just go back two pages and look at my post about Achilles and the Tortoise. Obviously, the conclusions are wrong (Time and Space--or, more precisely, Motion--exist), but there isn't a single flaw in the reasoning behind them; they're logical contradictions. But not only that, every statement can be reduced to a similar logical contradiction. You might ask me to define logic, however we'd first have to define definition (but we'd only be chasing our tails).

Your point being? Flawless logical reasoning does not always produce a right conclusion? I can deal with that.


Why is the belief in metaphysics any better than the rejection of it? They both rest on unstable foundations.

In a purely logical sense, of course, it isn't any better. It does, however, have the benefit of a supernatural element to knowledge (ie revelation) which can help explain some things. If you mean to imply, 'why then do I hold it?', it's because of the personal attribute of Christianity. I know Christ. Which is an entirely subjective proof and isn't much use for anyone other than me, but then I'm not claiming it's universal.


Think about it: a truth is supposed to be objective (eternal), right?

Well, actually . . .


Those sorts of truths can never be revealed to us. Signs (e.g. thoughts, words, sounds, colours, sensations, &c.) are not little doorways to some everlasting meaning; instead they act like mirrors distinguishing themselves from other signs that are different. Only with these prior differences do they generate anything that resembles a truth or meaning.

Have you been reading The Name of the Rose recently? :) More seriously, I don't quite see why this is relevant?


As far as religion and God making life more hopeful, I don't know if that's true at all. I always thought spirituality promoted sacrifice and modesty, acts that are excruciatingly difficult to many people. Some want instant gratification, others are willing to wait it out for the hope of gaining more than the hedonists. There will always be those who are marginalized. In fact, to some, non-existence after death allows people peace of mind from having to worry--not only about this life--but the next life as well.

I suspect it's different for each person, depending on their understanding and experiences of religion in different forms and so on. Which means (going back to the original question) that belief in paradise isn't necessarily a security blanket; and, as you point out, belief in non-existence after death can have the same effect. It seems to be a very complex, very personal issue which makes it more difficult than usual to generalise.


There aren't multiple 'natures', the Bible has one and, according to its own reasoning, it agrees with the Nature of the Universe and, therefore, agrees with itself. Simple enough, but very tautological (or, in other words, redundant). The essence of God should be present the same in the Bible as He is in Nature. Using Aristotle's logic, the Bible and Nature ought to have the same essence, too.

When you say that there aren't multiple 'natures', I take it you mean nature in the sense of character rather than nature in the sense of the universe? And you mean God doesn't have multiple natures? As in, God doesn't have more than one essence, although he has more than one characteristic? Just checking. :)

So: we seem to be getting into some confusion through different understandings of the word 'model'. My understanding of a model is that it replicates both internal and external characteristics of the thing on which it is modeled. Based on the original quote (reproduced below), I assumed that this was your understanding as well:


Is nature a model of the Bible? If so, why aren't things like black holes, general relativity, or even dinosaurs (et cetera) mentioned in it? Would you say that those things do not exist?

However, your last post indicates that by 'model', you mean internals only. Which, funnily enough, was almost exactly my point - that these internals, 'the essence of God' as you say, are revealed both through nature and through the Bible. (And if we';re talking internals, you wouldn't expect black holes, relativity, dinosaurs etc to be there, which was what I was trying to argue). The difference is that you say that the essence of God is present in the Bible and nature, whereas I would say revealed through. I'm no theologian, but I suspect that saying that the essence of God is present in the Bible and nature is dangerously close to heresy (via idolatry). The only places that I think you could say that the essence of God is anywhere near present are: in Christians, via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (and even this is probably theologically dodgy); and, in some traditions, in the Eucharist (which is strongly disputed, as I'm sure you know). So I would say that although the Bible and nature do not have the same essence, they do reveal the same essence. Clear as mud?


Unfortunately, Man wrote the Bible, not God.

This raises a very interesting point, which I should have mentioned in my first post, about the purity (or otherwise) of said revelations. As you point out, the filtering of divine inspiration* through human experience, ie. that of the biblical writers, who were of course writing out of their particular situation (eg. Psalm 51 David repenting of adultery and murder, Paul's letters written to specific churches touching on their individual situations and the people he had met when he had visited there), creates some corruption? confusion? distortion? can't find the right word. I happen to believe that not only were they divinely inspired in their particular situations, but that their writings also contain stuff useful for me today, only you often have to study it carefully to try and find it, trying to sort out which bits are what, which is extremely problematic. It's a good thing I don't think God is expecting us to get it all right all the time!

Likewise, through the entry of sin, the fall and so on, nature has been corrupted and so its revelation of the divine essence isn't 100% pure either. The impurities in nature's revelation are unlikely to be the same as the impurities of the Bible's revelation.

So we've got one God with one essence, who is revealed through two different media, namely the Bible and nature. These media use different external means to reveal this essence hence they are not models of it, or each other. Complicating matters, we have the imperfection of these media due to sin, and hence the impurity of their respective revelations of God. I don't think any of that is outrageously heretical!

*This is of course only my particular view of the mechanics of divine inspiration, and I'm not even terribly clear and certain of it all. I would also suggest that they vary with the different genres of writing in the Bible - prophecy would be far more directly inspired than a pastoral epistle etc.





By the way, look at a Catholic priest. He's given his entire life away for the sake of his religion, whereas a Protestant preacher is allowed to live a normal life, have a wife and a few kids. Not a lot of sacrifice there, so we can at least say that the Catholics are more respectable in that regard.

Well, why living a normal life is so terrible? Look at the Pope (sorry to anyone who happens so like him). He's Catholic priest and HAS children. Why is it so important for Catholic priests not to lead a normal life? Protestant priests do and so they are not proper Christian priests? I'm not good at quoting the Bible, so Shea feel free to correct me, but doesn't it say (how to say it in English...) something along the lines love and multiply yourselves. Sorry, never held an English written Bible in my hands.

FWIW, I agree with Jay. You seem to be implying that the more sacrifice one does, the more religiously 'respectable' one is? I don't quite understand where you are getting that from. Whether or not the Pope was or wasn't part of the Church at any particular time is completely irrelevant, as you say, 'who cares who the first pope was?'.

ATTENTION: for anyone wanting to post a Bible verse but not having a Bible or concordance handy, we do have a copy of the KJV at this address:

http://www.online-literature.com/bible/bible.php

which is searchable by verse or by keyword (like a concordance. It is linked under the header on the main page of www.online-literature.com. If you want to use a different version, most of the more popular ones are available at www.biblegateway.com.

[Jay]

Hey thanks Eloise, it didn't even occur to me there could be the Bible avaible on this site :oops: .

[AbdoRinbo]

You're a terribly cunning analyst, Eloise. You know how to piece together logic quite well; break it down, measure the stability of its foundations. I see in you an almost supernatural ability to dig through words and meanings, get to the heart of an argument. I see many rich conversations ahead of us. Let's start fresh: forget whatever 'facts' I've given you, they could be wrong. We'll just get right down to the nitty-gritty.


Those sorts of truths can never be revealed to us. Signs (e.g. thoughts, words, sounds, colours, sensations, &c.) are not little doorways to some everlasting meaning; instead they act like mirrors distinguishing themselves from other signs that are different. Only with these prior differences do they generate anything that resembles a truth or meaning.

You'd said you didn't quite understand what I meant there. I don't blame you, it's too metaphorical and symbolic, yadda-yadda, phony too. I really just wanted to talk about the signs. But looking back on it now, I do see a strong argument which perhaps I wasn't even aware of when I wrote it. This brings us back to the Big Question: what is the meaning of the Bible (what Truth is it communicating)? It is a collection of words which represent ideas. You have your own opinion about what those ideas are, but there are ideas there, nevertheless. It is believed there is a logic behind it, an essence that speaks to us (yourself included). But tell me, Eloise, when you hear God talking to you, what language does He speak in (English, Chinese, French)? Words are important tools in communicating, as are colors, sensations, and symbols. We'll touch on the latter two in a moment, but for now let's focus on the Word, its importance in the search for Truth.

Funny thing, languages, they aren't universal. For example, the French word 'oui', the idea of affirmation, is pronounced 'we', but in English the word is 'yes'. The idea is the same, they're just two different sounds used to represent one idea. You might not have thought about this before, but the English language is just a sound structure, an organization of verbal tones and rhythms. 'Yes' has a very distinct sound to it. It is not the same as the word 'dress', nor the word 'mess', accordingly it is neither one of those ideas; it is a different word altogether, it represents a unique idea. Odd, you could say that the words 'dress' and 'mess' are contained within the word 'yes' because only by their absence could the meaning of 'yes' be present. Understand that a language would be totally meaningless if all words represented just one idea (for instance, if every word meant 'yes'). It would not be very practical. And, likewise, a language made up of only one word representing all the ideas that are humanly possible would annihilate the whole concept of 'communication'. So, yes, a language must be made up of words that correspond to certain ideas based solely on their position within the system of language(remember, 'yes' is only 'yes' because it is not any other word). Certain exceptions are made--on one hand, there are sometimes many words for just one idea and, on the other, a single word can communicate multiple ideas depending on the context it is used in,--but there are about as many words as there are ideas that are necessary to a certain culture (I only bring the issue of culture up because in some aboriginal tribes, for example, there is only one word for money--it being a fairly unimportant element in society,--whereas in America we have a hundred words to signify it).

What I am describing to you is a linguistic theory known as Structuralism. It tells us that for words to communicate meaning, they must each be generally different in sound and content: the ideas are out there, we just have to assign words to them. But wait, notice anything strange about that sentence? The 'ideas are out there' . . . hm, what is an idea? It must be an idea too, right? But that says nothing about what an idea is, it is self-referential, redundant; all we know about 'idea' is that it is a word. Truths are not justified by this kind of logic. It turns out Structuralism was flawed internally. This realization would lead to a countermovement known as Poststructuralism (a very logical form of Nihilism). The Poststructuralists looked at words and how they revealed their meanings; in other words, how they communicated ideas. Strange events began to unfold. They began questioning ideas, particularly dichtomoties (Being/Nothingness, male/female, original/derivative) by interrogating them. For instance, the questions 'what is a derivative?' and 'what is an original?'. They began by defining 'derivative' as (literally) anything that derives from something else. That something else then (unless the derivative derived from another derivative) must be the 'original'. They noted that an original has to have, or has to have the potential for, a derivitive. In other words, it is only original because the concept of a derivative exists somewhere. Take the example of the father/child dichotomy (a fundamental Biblical archetype). What is it that makes someone a father? How does one attain that identity? In the loosest sense of the word, it is a man who possesses a child (biologically, socially, religiously, &c); it is an orientation between two conflicting identities. The trace of the child is present within the father's identity (and the mother's, too). This is the most basic concept of Poststructuralism: difference precedes identity.

Postructuralism and Postmodernism are almost interchangeable terms. The most critically acclaimed form of Poststructuralism is Jacques Derrida's Deconstruction. Deconstruction deals with signs (everything: sounds, tastes, smells, colors, textures, sensations). Anything that has an identity is a sign, and signs are identified based on their differences (remember that). Take colors, for instance. What makes something red? We know the three primary colors are red, blue, and yellow, but what is it to be red? Nothing, other than that it is to be different from blue and yellow. They are primary colors, they can't be broken down any further. Blue is only blue inasmuch as red is red and yellow is yellow (this is a good example of common sense logic being reduced to a redundancy). The point is, if everything were red, the idea of color would not exist.

So what on Earth has this got to do with Christianity? Surprisingly, everything. At the most fundamental level, there exist two forces moving against each other: Being and Nothingness--either something exists or it does not. That is the Absolute. God is the personification of Being (this should be distinguished from beings, which are merely entities that exist; Being is the force that permits existence). Everything sprang from God, everything, that is, except for Sin. Look at it this way, if God is crystallized Being, then Sin must be its polar opposite, Nothingness. That makes sense, right? St. Thomas Aquinas (regardless of what you think about the Catholics) was right to say that goodness is a measurement of Being, and that, accordingly, Sin is the lack of goodness, the inadequacy of Being. To think otherwise would place all responsibility for Sin on God's shoulders, tainting his reputation. No, Sin is the lack of Being in the Soul, the measurement of its movement towards Nothingness. Deconstruction can't even touch that, it appears logically complete. There is only one force in the Universe that threatens God's sovereignty, but--hey--it's nothing.

But, then again, the question arises as to what the word Nothingness signifies. Deconstruction is useless against God, right? Difference does not precede identity, identity is something that existed prior to the realization of any differences. But then what is Nothingness? What idea does the word Nothingness open up to? This is where we run into trouble, and it doesn't stop here. Forget about Nothingness for a moment, what is Being? It's the force that allows for everything to exist, right? But how can words possibly reveal the nature of Being to us, that's the same as trying to understand the nature of Light by observing the characteristics of the objects we see. We learn nothing of Being by observing beings. To think of Being is to fall short because thoughts are beings too--they exist in the world,--as well as words and gestures. Being is an idea beyond our Human comprehension. This comes as a slap in the face to Christianity: if we don't know what Being is, then what do we know about our own existence? More questions arise. What is existence? What is 'is'? Do we exist? This is where Deconstruction takes the stage, once again. Signs are the limit of our knowledge, they do not take us to a realm where the Truth of Being is revealed (the most fundamental Truth, from which all other truths spring). We are caught in a system of half-truths. There are no viable means of escape.

Wait one moment, there is one. Yes. You see, this whole theory is just an assault on Truth (with a capital 'T'). It reveals the unstable foundations of meaning in words and other signs, the tools we use to uncover meaning in the Universe. But, in case you haven't noticed, the theory works on everything--including itself! Self applied Deconstruction is the quickest and easiest way to get back to the real world of Metaphysics and Science. Remember that fundamental principle, 'difference precedes identity'? Well, difference and identity are a dichotomy too. Both have to exist for there to be either one, and that's where the whole theory falls flat on its face. But, like the One Ring, to use the Master's Tools is to deceive one's self, even if one is using them for the benefit of others. In other words, the only way to undermine Deconstruction is to deconstruct it, which is admitting that it works.

My conclusion is that we're both wrong. It's impossible to argue anything, every objective truth requires a subjective leap of faith. To me it's just a game for wandering minds, to you it might be something more. I don't know, some leap further than others I suppose.

[DumbLikeAPoet]

A scripture to keep in mind when dealing with the RCC and in general.


Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Jonus

[AbdoRinbo]

Christianity is a philosophy, Existentialism is a philosophy, &c. Everyday someone has a new Grand Theory of the Universe. Pick whichever one suits you best, I don't see how you can ask for anything more. Philosophies will always clash.

[DumbLikeAPoet]

As I pointed out before.....

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Jonus

[AbdoRinbo]

Right now the Muslims are saying the exact same thing about you!

[Chardata]

DumbLikeAPoet...wow...that's a great bible verse! I so support you on this one! I'm standing beside you on this one.

AbdoRinbo...there is philosophy in the Bible ie: the book of Job, but that is not what it is based off of. AND yes, the muslims may be saying the same about us as Christians but the muslims blelieve that you have to work your way into heaven and to God rather than just ASK for forgiveness. Personally, Christanity is much easier than Islam. I don't have to work for my salvation and i know i'm guarenteed life in heaven when the Islamic views are more work and be good and hope that you are good enough to be in heaven. I don't think that is based in philosophy. And for me that is proof enough.

Secondly, i'm ignoring all that mubo jumbo you typed earlier...i just don't have the time and patience to read it.

Thirdly, i would love to go deeper into this but I just came back from marching band practice so i'm really tired and muscle sore. I also need to get to homework and i'm hungry! So......TTYL! For now! 8)

[AbdoRinbo]

I'm not a Muslim, so I don't really care. But, yes, to them you 'work' your way into Paradise. That's part of their philosophy and, to them, nature is living proof of it (the lazy die off while the strong inherit). You stand as good a chance of proving them wrong as they do disproving you.

[fayefaye]

ok, so u all made good, long points that lost me somewhere along the way, so even though this thing is 7 pages long, i'm gonna be responding to the first one and a half pages.


firstly,i really resent ppl using religious wars as a justification not to believe in the religions. PPL KILL PPL. religions are just what's blamed. most of the religions involved actually in no way condone killing others. (apart from those weird cults, which still usually suggest u kill urself, not others) i am a christian, but i hardly go to church and have not read, nor would i prolly agree with everything that the bible says. religion, with all things is something that has to be considered in context. maybe i'm just someone who's been brainwashed into believing christianity, because, indeed, how do i know it's true? but how do believe anything's true?

how can u justify ur own existance? this is a question that's been around for centuries (BEFORE THE MATRIX). desmond cartes summed it up in his terms 'i think therefore i am' ie, the mind can think and therefore we ourselves must exist. our thoughts verify our own existance. so if this is true, anything that we ourselves believe to be true is real for us ourselves. a lie, if i believe it is true, is true for me; real for me. (remember, it's not a lie if u believe it's true-george-seinfeld) regardless of whether or not it actually is. this is the paradox of life-i could be wrong, but HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY PROVE IT? our lives are defined by our own existance, an existance we can only verify within our own minds.

i saw someone with the username 'lain'. in the anime lain, (which i didn't really like, but am introducing for intertextuality purposes) she discovers that she is not a person, but a program (sounds matrix-y, but i think the matrix ripped it off, since lain was made beforehand anyway). how do u know i'm real? u can read what i've written, but maybe i'm not a person. maybe a computer glitched and what ur reading is a side effect of some of the weird *** binary. u either believe i'm who i say i am, or believe that i'm a sixty yr old, fat, sweaty californean guy, and if u please to believe that, it's true for you.
therefore the whole world is completely arbitrary-me, u, and religion too.
i'll be posting other replies to the next five pages!

[fayefaye]

by the way, with abdo's time theory. i really like the idea, but something i'd like to ask- why did u use 1/2-1/4-1/8...? the solution to 1/2-1/4-1/8.. is zero, but since it is not a geometric progression - there can be no common ratio unless u separate it into 1/2 subtract the sum to infinity of -1/4 with the common ratio 1/2, otherwise i don't know of how u would calculate it. it results in zero, alright, but i can't see how this proves that time is made of infinate zeros, because u have to split up the two terms to calculate it in the first place. so how does that prove it? in the end, the calculation is 1/2-1/2=0. so what? (am i just dumb?)

[fayefaye]

i don't know if u've already covered this-sorry if u have- i just want to add my opinion, so here's another thing; i don't think that God is gonna condemn someone living in the african desert to eternal hell just because they'd never heard of him. i think if there is a heaven or hell, it'll be how u've lived that determines whether or not u get in. i mean, i've met a lot of ppl who r like ' i go to church everyday and everything'- they outwardly lead the really religious life, but they're really not such nice ppl. God isn't an idiot. i'm sure he'd choose the innocent person over the guilty. (yes, i'm assigning the pronoun 'he'. so shoot me. i'm only doing it out of convenienc-God is God, so in reality probably doesn't really have a sex.)
i'm really sorry i keep adding posts, but if i read the whole thing through i'll get my ideas confused (i guss i am just dum-dumb) and also forget what i had to write. i'd edit these all into one post if one of u can tell me how? ( or maybe i'll just write an essay on all this and post it up. ))

[fayefaye]

i don't know if u've already covered this-sorry if u have- i just want to add my opinion, so here's another thing; i don't think that God is gonna condemn someone living in the african desert to eternal hell just because they'd never heard of him. i think if there is a heaven or hell, it'll be how u've lived that determines whether or not u get in. i mean, i've met a lot of ppl who r like ' i go to church everyday and everything'- they outwardly lead the really religious life, but they're really not such nice ppl. God isn't an idiot. i'm sure he'd choose the innocent person over the guilty. (yes, i'm assigning the pronoun 'he'. so shoot me. i'm only doing it out of convenienc-God is God, so in reality probably doesn't really have a sex.)
i'm really sorry i keep adding posts, but if i read the whole thing through i'll get my ideas confused (i guss i am just dum-dumb) and also forget what i had to write. i'd edit these all into one post if one of u can tell me how? ( or maybe i'll just write an essay on all this and post it up. ))

[fayefaye]

about the nature-black hole thing, have u ever actually seen a black hole? been sucked into one and had ur being spagghettified (can u believe the scientific term is actually spaghettification?! )). i think the bible was supposed to be about relevent stuff to our lives, to help us live better and be a guide for us to be better ppl. some ppl take it really literal, but i think it's just a guide for our lives. why would u expect it to mention scientific phenomena? it's not like God wanted a book that explained everything about the universe on anything but a spiritual sense.

secondly, abdo, ur the second person i've come across other than me that that quotes seinfeld! ) lets fill this forum with seinfeld quotes!!! ). ohhhh yeah... (ok that was duff man, but he's funny 2 ))

[fayefaye]

i can't believe i have more crap to add. i'm so sorry if someone has to read this. i just want to share my opinion, but feel free to skip over everything i wrote. in response to the pages i've read since my last post

i don't think that the religion matters so much. it's how u live that really matters and determines the sort of person u are. ppl have used religion to justify a lot of crap that is really just their own personal wish, and i suppose that's the problem-that the bible can be so easily interpreted in so many different forms. but isn't it like that in every book u've ever read ever? besides, when is everything black and white? and if it were, wouldn't it take some of the spirituality out of religion? the meaning is simple if u don't go and convolute it. in the end, maybe u should just take the gist of it. the gist of the bible to me is that u should be a good person and try to do good things and God'll be there lookin out for u. he's always been there for me, even when i stopped being religious.

also, i'd like to say SHEA U ROCK! SERIOUSLY. and abdo, fellow seinfeld fan, i must say that i really feel like kicking ur *** for coming up with so many good arguments to undermine the bible, and even religion. let me have my ignorant faith damn u!

i think that religion stays around because PPL NEED SOMETHING TO BELIEVE IN. u can't believe that this is all there is. i just don't see how u can. u can't just think the world started with a big bang, and this is all there is. u need to believe in something else out there. some bigger purpose.

can i ask u abdo? what do u believe in? nothing?
i'd rather be an idiot who believes in something and is wrong than someone who bleakly believes in nothing and is right.

i don't know how relevant my posts have been.. but i guess the bible will always be something open to interpretation, and therefore relatively controversial given different ways of looking at it.

by the way, can we have more debate things like this? )

[AbdoRinbo]

Fayefaye, I like to keep my beliefs to myself; easiest way in the world to avoid conflict.

[Chardata]

AbdoRinbo
that last statement just made you sound like a hypocrite. What have you been posting for the last seven pages?

FayeFaye-
I love anime! Lain is good. Alittle axsty but good. I'm trying to follow wolfs rane right now. Anyway...TTYL!

[AbdoRinbo]

AbdoRinbo
that last statement just made you sound like a hypocrite. What have you been posting for the last seven pages?

My first statement made me sound like a hypocrite. Where were you?

Anyway, to answer your question-----what have I been posting?-----I'll be frank.

Nothing.

[Shea]

chardata, I've stopped letting Abdo get to me, mostly because I realized that he reminds me a lot of my birth Dad, who can be quite humorous at times yet exaspirating, because he likes to argue a point whether or not he knows he's wrong. Lately, I've been seeing more humor (and of course good insight) in Abdo's posts even if I don't agree.

Did I read you right Abdo? I seriously meant what I said to be a compliment, so please don't take any offence. :D

[AbdoRinbo]

:D :D :D

[Chardata]

nice nice...ok...i'll back down over this one. But readers beware...i don't let many ppl win. 8)

[AbdoRinbo]

Flog me to death with your marching-band baton . . . :D

[DumbLikeAPoet]

i think if there is a heaven or hell, it'll be how u've lived that determines whether or not u get in. i mean, i've met a lot of ppl who r like ' i go to church everyday and everything'- they outwardly lead the really religious life, but they're really not such nice ppl. God isn't an idiot. i'm sure he'd choose the innocent person over the guilty. (yes, i'm assigning the pronoun 'he'. so shoot me. i'm only doing it out of convenienc-God is God, so in reality probably doesn't really have a sex.)



Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Matthew 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Matthew 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Matthew 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.



Luke 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.


Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

These three quotes from the scripture deal with the inaccuracy of the first statement you made. I am only doing what 2 Timothy 4:2 says...

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Although God does not have sex. God is always refered to using masculine pronouns.


Jonus

[AbdoRinbo]

It's not a masculine pronoun. Look at how grammar functions in some sentences: 'if anyone needs a copy, he can get one here'. Obviously 'anyone' is not masculine, but it is singular so you can't say 'they', you have to say 'he' (or 'she', if it was something like a Women's Rights convention). So in this case 'he' is gender-neutral.

As for God, it would seem that He is literally the 'Father', but the truth is, He is gender-neutral as well.

[DumbLikeAPoet]

Although 'he' can be gender-neutral it is not when used in context with the bible. Other words used to indicate God in the bible are also masculine. They include LORD, Father, Bridegroom. Also Jesus.

But we are far off topic now.

Jonus

[AbdoRinbo]

It's my topic, I don't care if we digress.

Tell me, Jonus, is the Sea actually a 'she'?

[DumbLikeAPoet]

No. and Neither is God a 'he'. I was just making the point that God is referred to in scripture in a masculine way.

Jonus

[fayefaye]

i think the masculine thing is entirely for convenience-like i'll say policeman even if it's a woman, stewardess even if it's a man. but also maybe convention takes a part, like policemen were traditionally men. do you think it has something to do with the fact that (correct me if i'm wrong) but pretty much all the books -if not all- were written by men?

[AbdoRinbo]

In many ways the Bible is misogynistic. After all, it was Woman who brought Sin into the world.

[Shea]

In many ways the Bible is misogynistic. After all, it was Woman who brought Sin into the world.

No she didn't!! :P It was the serpent that tempted her. Adam was just as guilty as Eve.

[AbdoRinbo]

Of course, but a lot of Catholics and Protestants will tell you exactly that. I think it's stupid.

[AbdoRinbo]

Christian morality in Protestant American, it's always been mysoginistic.

[AbdoRinbo]

In fact, a lot of religions seem to undermine women.

[den]

You can worship me anytime you want Ab... :P I know you need to cleanse yourself... :D

[AbdoRinbo]

Hail Mary!

[AbdoRinbo]

Den is a pagan princess. ;)

Of course, that's a classic euphemism for 'dirty hippy'. :D

[AbdoRinbo]

OK, I had to post this as a matter of principle. . . .

"Cooperation among men leads to dangerous things - like progress, and the Tower of Babel, where men come ever too close to God. He complains, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them." This complaint is essentially the same as he had with Adam. God wants badly to keep Man in his subservient place. Otherwise who would worship him? So he scatters the people and confuses their language. The moral of this story is: two heads are more dangerous than one, and a group of active minds is the devil's workshop. God must hate the computer age, and especially the Information Superhighway.

If late one night you're tapping at the keyboard, and get jolted by ten thousand volts sending you flying across the room, don't say you were never warned."

Heh, intimidating. :rolleyes:

[fayefaye]

I've only read the part of the bible saying that woman should be considered as inferior to men in churches-so they're not supposed to preach. Sometimes it refers to things that could be interpreted as sexist, but it's not as bad as ppl make it out to be.

As for that thing abdo posted up.

God wants people to know their place and stay there. But only someone completely ignorant of the power of God would compare the internet to stuff that God's done, say.. the creation of the universe.
Nothing that any person's done remotely compares, so I don't think much of the 'power of man'
Tower of Babel. *shrug*

[Jay]

But only someone completely ignorant of the power of God would compare the internet to stuff that God's done, say.. the creation of the universe.

Well, but what if God didn't create the universe? How can someone believe that the world is 6000years old?
And Abdo really has a point here, why is it a bad thing coming close to God? Isn't it what all the Christians want all the time? To be close to him? So why should he kinda punish them for wanting it? He's considered Father, but excuse my bluntness, if I had such a father being pissed at me for wanting to be close to him... not that my father's great, he's an *** most of the times.

[Shea]

God does want us to be close to him, but in a humble way. We don't have to do grand and glorious things in order to be closer to God, just obey him. Try studing the Beatitudes at the beginning of Matthew chapter 5.

As for the wives thing, I just wanted to add, (because a lot of men seem to forget this verse),

Ephesians 5:28-29

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church--

[Jay]

Well, but what if I wanted to be close to God through some glorious things? It might sound terrible to you, but where's any certanity that there IS God? I know Shea how you see things and respect that, but try to see it through my eyes for a while, okay? (not just to Shea, to whomever might disagree with me - okay everybody, I'm listening...)
If I'd like to see God, why is it bad to do some great thing to do so? What if I don't want to wait until I'm dead to see him? What if I'm dead and STILL can't see him? Well, I think when I'm already dead it doesn't mater... So then we kinda hit the after-life topic. And Heaven and Hell topic. If there IS an afterlife, then some guys who could be considered "good" might as well end in Hell because they wanted to be close to their God that much, that he thinks it's a bad thing. What if not everybody likes being submissive? And has mind of his/her own? (okay, not saying you don't, but it's kinda difficult to express myself and not to ofend anyone) So it's that a bad thing as well? I know I might piss off some of you right now (well, not Shea I think ;) ), but don't you have your own mind to do things your way? Sure, there is good things in some things we're supposed to do according to the Bible, but as it was written some well, excuse my lack of knoledge, maybe 3000 years ago, isn't it kinda out of date by now? Just an example - homosexuals. Not going to talk more about the topic as it's not exactly to the topic (sorry if my grammar's confusing, I'm doing this stream-of-consciousness thingy), just trying to make a point... And yes, I'm also aware of the chaos I've made of this post, sorry for that, too. I suppose 10 years of studying English's not enough sometimes... Okay, enough for this time or I'll get everyone pissed at me.

[DumbLikeAPoet]

Jay,
There is no need to build a "tower of Babel" in this dispensation. You can have the Holy Ghost(God) inside of you, can't get much closer than that. Nor can you see God if you build a tower, its not like he is hiding on the dark side of the moon or something. He does not part of the universe, he is much bigger than the universe.

Also getting into heaven is not a simple good guy/bad guy thing it is a Repntance/Obedience thing.

As far as it being out of date, no it is not. Since we are no longer under the law(OT) the punishments represented in it are no longer required. But other than that it is still very relevant.

Jonus

[Jay]

Okay (so not going to call you by your username, as I like poetry and poets are not dumb - not all of them at least ;), neither are you) Jonus, I know that he's not on the dark side of the Moon :D, but you see, if God left the guys to built the Babel's tower, they would find nothing and no-one. Wasn't it just a trick to be safe and sure he remains all mysterious? Well, I know now you might say that he's a spirit and therefore can't be seen, but then why don't let them to have their tower? If they find nothing, that could be kinda dangerous to God, right? A lot of questions rising... Some might question the existence of God, some might do other "crazy" things to be closer to God... You see what I'm trying to say?
Sure, I also know that some people need something/someone to believe in, to help them through the life or whatever, but I still can't see why they can't accept that maybe God doesn't exist, that he's just a wish. Damn, even I'd like to have something/someone to believe in (no, sorry Den, as tempting as it is, not going to worship you ;) :D), but it/him/her whatever isn't real. As I said it's just a wish. Maybe I'm dumb or on the other side not (in no way hinting that the... how do you call in in English, the guys who believe? are dumb, the ones on this forums are so not), but some people are kinda blind/oblivious... leaving the end open for further issues.

[Shea]

Just to give you a few helpful scriptures. ;) These are all quotes from Jesus. I know they're a lot, but I'm afraid that the only way to answer your questions about God is to quote from his word, no matter what anyone else says. People claim to have "revelations" and to "know" what God wants of them, but they don't know the scriptures. If they did, they would know that what they claim is not possible. Anyway, here they are ;)

Matthew 7:21

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.


Matthew 12:50

For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."


Matthew 26:39

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

Matthew 26:42

He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."


Luke 22:42

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."


John 6:40

For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."


John 14:21, 23-24

Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." 23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.


John 15:10

If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.

I may be opening up a can of worms that I don't feel completely prepared for, but I agree with everything you said Jonus, except for the part about the Holy Spirit being inside you. Divinity only dwelt inside flesh when Jesus walked the earth. The purpose of the Holy Spirit is for revelation. That is why the Apostles were able to write as they did. That is also why when Jesus said,
Matthew 12:32

Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.


People who don't beleive that the Bible is the devine revelation of the Holy Spirit, have harded their hearts and will not believe. It is not saying that the Spirit is that much greater than Christ that blaspheming it is an "unforgivable sin", the context is of the Pharasees not believing that Jesus miracles come from being devine. Therefore they have no hope because they do not believe.

[Jay]

Well Shea, it looks as if I'm doomed, so I might as well go a little further...

First of all, define "divine".


Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.
Okay, anyone here who loves Jesus (if I got the quote right, sorry) and actually saw him? Or are we supposed to be dead (and therefore it doesn't matter) to see him?


Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Well, talking about doom... but hey, what if I change my mind? You know, as in something happens and I suddenly believe, so then I'm in a big trouble and don't even need to try, 'cause I'm the bad guy and am hopeless... "to err is human, to forgive is divine" or something like that is it? Okay, then I should be forgiven anything, right? Well, I don't know where the quote comes from, so if it's not in Bible, then ignore my last comment, okay? And yes, I know, someone has already pointed out that there is a Bible with quote searching on this site, might check later...

Hey, if Jonus feels that holy spirit is in him/her (sorry, don't know, I'd guess him) what's wrong with that? So that's a sin as well? Maybe "sin" is kinda strong word, my "bad thing" might be more acceptable.

[DumbLikeAPoet]

Shea,

I may be opening up a can of worms that I don't feel completely prepared for, but I agree with everything you said Jonus, except for the part about the Holy Spirit being inside you. Divinity only dwelt inside flesh when Jesus walked the earth. The purpose of the Holy Spirit is for revelation. That is why the Apostles were able to write as they did. That is also why when Jesus said,


1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Revelation is not the only purpose of the Holy Ghost. There are many other purposes for it. I can go into some of them if you wish.

Jay,

Well, talking about doom... but hey, what if I change my mind? You know, as in something happens and I suddenly believe, so then I'm in a big trouble and don't even need to try, 'cause I'm the bad guy and am hopeless... "to err is human, to forgive is divine" or something like that is it? Okay, then I should be forgiven anything, right? Well, I don't know where the quote comes from, so if it's not in Bible, then ignore my last comment, okay? And yes, I know, someone has already pointed out that

A lot of theologians and christians in general beleive the verse in question is speaking about people who come to know God(and his truth) and then turn around and say the Holy Ghost does not exist and such and such.

Jonus

[Jay]

Jonus, I so don't understand what you meant, sorry :oops:, come again? Usually I'm good with long sentences, but you kinda got me lost :oops:. You can use PM, not to bore the guys with the same thing once again. Thanks.

[AbdoRinbo]

Feel free to post whatever you want, Jonus. I'm kind of confused about what you had said . . . I mean, it was just a little vague or awkward, I'm not sure, maybe both. :(

[fayefaye]

Well, but what if God didn't create the universe? How can someone believe that the world is 6000years old?
And Abdo really has a point here, why is it a bad thing coming close to God? Isn't it what all the Christians want all the time? To be close to him? So why should he kinda punish them for wanting it? He's considered Father, but excuse my bluntness, if I had such a father being pissed at me for wanting to be close to him... not that my father's great, he's an *** most of the times.

Wanting to be close to God is a spiritual thing- not a power trip. What makes you think that believing God created the universe means it's only 6000yrs old (I believe he did create it, though it is definately over 6000yrs old). Besides, if you believe in the existance of God, which from your post I'm assuming you concede to admit, then how can you not believe he created the universe? Who else you got? The other thing is that God does not die, nor was he born, he has just always been. So how does that translate to the age of the universe?

[DumbLikeAPoet]

This is what I sent to Jay in PM hopefully it clears up what I was trying to say. I'm not very eloquent so sometimes my sentences get confusing.



Matthew 12:32
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.


There are many interpretations of this verse one is what Shae gave to me.



People who don't beleive that the Bible is the devine revelation of the Holy Spirit, have harded their hearts and will not believe. It is not saying that the Spirit is that much greater than Christ that blaspheming it is an "unforgivable sin", the context is of the Pharasees not believing that Jesus miracles come from being devine. Therefore they have no hope because they do not believe.


And another one is that Matt 12:32 is speaking of people who at one time beleive what the Bible says(ie God, salvation, Jesus). Then turn their backs on God and try to convince others that the Holy Ghost does not exist and does not work in poeples lives. For example if a Pastor were to turn his congregation against the Holy Ghost.

Hopefully this is more clear

Also regarding the Earth only being 6,000 years old. I beleive God created the earth with age. For example, God did not create Adam as a baby, instead he created him already a grown man.

Jonus

[Jay]

Jonus, quite a good idea...

Also regarding the Earth only being 6,000 years old. I beleive God created the earth with age. For example, God did not create Adam as a baby, instead he created him already a grown man.
But what about dinosaurs? Or other creatures that apperead on the Earth BEFORE men? And I don't mean before as in few days... Surely you don't wanna say God created the stones with the bones etc. already in them...

[AbdoRinbo]

Jonus, is it a sin then to believe in the age that God interlaced into the Earth?

That's something interesting that I had never thought about.

[Chardata]

AbdoRinbo:
You made a very good point! That is something i'll have to think about too! Personally, i think it is possible...but there is some nagging feeling that is telling me that's not quite it. hhhhhmmmmmm.....

Jonus:
I love your posts! I totally agree with you with many of the subjects and ideas. Keep it up!

Everything else:
The Tower of Bable thingie...(does any1 else find that name ironic)...anyway, man (meaning the HUMAN RACE not the gender! I think that is one thing that is confusing many ppl. When the Bible sais man it usually refures to the human race) wanted to be closer to God and be as powerful as God. They took matters into thier own hands instead of relying on His power. God realized this and switched thier languages. He did that so that they would be humbled and realize their mistakes. The last few chapters of the book of James talks about worshiping and drawing close to God in a discreate way and not make a big show over it. The ppl of the Tower of Bable were going about things the wrong way. When a person makes a big show about praying, worshiping etc. they start focusing on themselves instead of God...like what they are supposed to be doing. The ppl of Bable were the same way.

Everything else...well, I think Jonus and Shea have it covered! 8)

[Shea]

ok, I'll try this again, I keep forgetting to copy my post and every time I go to submit it (twice now) it asks me to log in and I lose it. :x

First, sorry I haven't been around, I went camping this weekend.

Pretty much I can't see anything wrong with what's been said, with one exception (I know, typical me), but I think it's because I wasn't clear enough with what I said before. Your quote, Jonus:

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?


The context was being addressed to those people who were supposed to be christians, but were defiling their bodies. Because they were setting a bad example, they would not be able to spread the truth. What I was trying to address about the Holy Spirit being inside someone,... Well, let me use for example the Pentecostals, (though there are many denominations who share this beleif). The idea of speaking in (what they mistakenly call) tongues, healing miraculously, religious commands without a scripture base, etc... All of the account of these things in the Bible ended when the last apostle died. It's not suppose to happen now, if it's from God. When the Bible was written, we had everything we needed for salvation. Look at this prophetic passage from the OT:

Zechariah 13:1-2

"On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.
2 "On that day, I will banish the names of the idols from the land, and they will be remembered no more," declares the LORD Almighty. "I will remove both the prophets and the spirit of impurity from the land.


Jay, please don't think that I'm trying to make you feel "doomed". That was not my intention. (That's what I don't like about this form of communication) A lot of the scriptures that I gave you had to do with obedience and love (love especially is not difficult). And it's the obedience that is important to answering your question. What Chardata said about James was dead on. Especially read the Fourth chapter, I think that will help a lot. Don't ever feel doomed, there is always something you can do! ;) And don't be afraid to ask LOTS of questions!

The definition of divine... That's pretty much the Godhead, the creator, son, and holy spirit. For example, you can read in John chapter 1 how Jesus was both God(divinity) and man. I like one of the definitions the dictionary gave me, "Heavenly; perfect."

And Jay, can you refrase your question about seeing Jesus? I didn't quite understand what you were asking.

[DumbLikeAPoet]

Shea,
The idea that God is no longer supposed to move in the word is laughable. Seriously, Shea do you beleive that? You did not address the point I made that the Holy Ghost is inside Christians. You are right when you said


The context was being addressed to those people who were supposed to be christians, but were defiling their bodies. Because they were setting a bad example, they would not be able to spread the truth.

You failed however to realize that the scripture says that their "body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you". Also look at scripture talking about people recieving the Holy Ghost. In almost all cases the bible says the were "Filled with the Holy Ghost" the word Filled implies that it is inside of something(namely a person). Lets use Acts 2 as an example.


Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

I think people in our age would fall under the "all that are afar off," category.

AbdoRinbo and Jay,
No it is not a sin to think that God created the earth with age. As far as thinking that he created the earth with fossils already in it. I would not rule that out.

Also some Jews beleive that each day in Creation was a period of 7,000 year and that we still currently in the 7th day. I personnaly don't beleive that but some do.....I just think they are crazy. :)


Jonus

[AbdoRinbo]

Very interesting, Jonus. I've missed out on a lot of Bible theory over the past few years, but I feel the older I get the more I am drawn back to it, my first and everlasting Truth.

I'm not quite there yet, though. I've got a lot of unbelief to supplement.

[fayefaye]

Why?

[AbdoRinbo]

Because I'm baaaaaaaaaad Catholic. ;)

[AbdoRinbo]

The fact is, no matter how hard I try, I'm still probably gonna go to Hell.

[Jay]

Save me a place there, will ya? ;)

[fayefaye]

The fact is, no matter how hard I try, I'm still probably gonna go to Hell.

awww... abdo, I'M SURE THAT'S NOT TRUE. That's so very not true.. I hope you realise. You don't have to be Catholic. wink You don't have to belong to one of those little groups, you can just be plain Christian. wink Or at least, i am.

[AbdoRinbo]

I'll reserve two spots, Jay. ;)

[fayefaye]

sorry if i sounded preach-y b4. I'm usually not like that... I spose I am a pretty bad Christian. cry cry cry cry cry

[Munro]

Screw heaven, I wanna go to the first layer of hell - it's slightly warm, not too sunny, and it's where all the thinkers go. I'd wander the hills all day and talk to fellow sceptics about how wrong we got it.

Heretics go to the seventh layer, which sounds torturous, but I don't think I care about religion enough to wind up there. But I'll send you some food in the mail, Abdo and Jay.

[Jay]

Thanks guys. One will save me a place, keep it warm for me, the other will feed me... what else could a girl possibly need??? :D :D :D ;) 8)

[Jay]

sorry if i sounded preach-y b4. I'm usually not like that... I spose I am a pretty bad Christian. :( :( :( :( :(

Not, you're not. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, not even yourself.
But if somebody by any chance thinks so, I'm sure Ab won't mind, you can join our little party in Hell, Munro's providing the food... who could resist??? ;) :D :D :D

[AbdoRinbo]

Everyone's invited. :D

[Jay]

See? Told you so ;)

[AbdoRinbo]

I never understood why people desire power (even of the religious kind), when it is the very same force that can enslave us. We are simultaneously masochistic and fascist.

[fayefaye]

i think if i had no conscience i'd be a criminal mastermind. world domination. by now you'd all be my slaves, toiling in my underground sugar caves.. D

[Jay]

Wait, aren't we your slaves already? :o :o :D :D :D

[DumbLikeAPoet]

I never understood why people desire power (even of the religious kind), when it is the very same force that can enslave us. We are simultaneously masochistic and fascist.

Where did this comment come from???

Jonus

[AbdoRinbo]

Jonus,


You don't have to belong to one of those little groups, you can just be plain Christian. ;) Or at least, i am.

[fayefaye]

I never understood why people desire power (even of the religious kind), when it is the very same force that can enslave us. We are simultaneously masochistic and fascist.

that's not true for all ppl. i'm not masochistic at all. D some ppl are one or the other, some a bit of both.

jay, you're already my slaves?!! and i wasn't informed?! why haven't i exploited this already?

btw, i don' t really see what my other quote had to do with power.

[fayefaye]

Late response religion isn't supposed to be acquiring power at all.

[Jay]

Conspiracy Faye :D ;). If someone told you, we'd be in danger :D :D :D

[imthefoolonthehill]

*marvels that this post as gone on for eleven pages*

*wonders how many drugs some of the people had to take before they could come up with some of their obsurd Weed-deep philosophies*

*marvels at the fact that people believe that, because they can't be proven wrong means ...that they must be right (goes for both sides of argument...)*

*wonders again how doped-up some of the people were when they posted*

*marvels at the fact that foolonthehill is using little stars to show what he is thinking*

*wonders why people take less offense when you are typing your thoughts rather than stating your opinion*

*marvels at how crazy this world is*

[Jay]

*marvels at how crazy this world is*

agreed ;)



*marvels at the fact that people believe that, because they can't be proven wrong means ...that they must be right (goes for both sides of argument...)*

if you believe (in) something, you should be able to explain why do you believe (in) such a thing, and it sometimes might look like you won't accept anyone's ideas/thoughts/POVs



*wonders how many drugs some of the people had to take before they could come up with some of their obsurd Weed-deep philosophies*

you don't have to be under a drug influence (sorry, can't remember the exact English word...) to HAVE an opinion...

[Sindhu]

you don't have to be under a drug influence (sorry, can't remember the exact English word...) to HAVE an opinion...
Couldn't agree more!

[Jay]

8) thanks, it's nice to know someone sometimes agrees with something I say

[fayefaye]

*marvels at the fact that people believe that, because they can't be proven wrong means ...that they must be right (goes for both sides of argument...)*

*wonders again how doped-up some of the people were when they posted*

*wonders why people take less offense when you are typing your thoughts rather than stating your opinion*

*marvels at how crazy this world is*
lol. good points, fool. esp about ppl thinking they're right about things that are impossible to prove them wrong on. but must say i wasn't at all doped up when posting (never have been) i was just short on time. that's why the stuff i put up so rarely makes sense.

we usually do agree, jay. )

[crisaor]

I never understood why people desire power (even of the religious kind), when it is the very same force that can enslave us. We are simultaneously masochistic and fascist.

Bingo!
Note that both groups need each other to exist.

[Sindhu]

I never understood why people desire power (even of the religious kind), when it is the very same force that can enslave us. We are simultaneously masochistic and fascist.

Bingo!
Note that both groups need each other to exist.
Repeat Bingo! Pathetic how the masochist needs the sadist and vice versa! Though ironically the fascistswouldn't be at all pleased if they thought the enslaved group were intellectually evolved enough to want domination- they'd be too frightened that would be the prelude to resistance!

[Ickmeister]

You know.... Religion is man made.
I just thought I'd put my two cents worth in. 8)

[fayefaye]

this has gone on so long that now i've forgotten what this thread was originally about.....

[Jay]

Well Faye, does it really matter?

[AbdoRinbo]

It's about love.

[AbdoRinbo]

<Sigh>

It's really about nothing.

[Jay]

It might be about anything you want it to be...

[fayefaye]

love. i spose a lot boils down to that...

[AbdoRinbo]

Everything boils down to nothing.

[Jay]

Or to everything... or at least to one thing, that it leads to nothing, it still is a result... okay, talk about confusing :oops:

[AbdoRinbo]

I don't believe in existence.

[Jay]

In existence of what? In general? How can you then explain yourself? As in, you DO exist... even if it's sometime more and sometime less.

[AbdoRinbo]

No, I don't exist. Neither do you, for that matter.

[Jay]

Gee thanks Ab, that helped a lot ;). Okay, if you don't exist (and me for that matter as well), how can all this around happen? You DO realise you don't exist, doesn't it say anything about your existence? You have to exist to be able to realise things... if I came there and well, touched you, you'd felt that...

[surf boy]

Hey Jay, you know what Abdo's gonna ask you? God, he's so predictable, he's gonna ask you to define Existence.

[AbdoRinbo]

Not you again!

[Jay]

Hey Surf boy, missed me ;)?
I'm not a good dictationary though... and neither do have any nearby. If you do, grab Ab and go see...

[fayefaye]

D it's nice to have those two back. existance is to be. and sometimes it feels like u can stop being. i wonder if u stopped 'being' u could just disappear. they did that once on south park, i think. sometimes it's like nothing is real. like life is a dream. 'i think therefore i am'. what if u stop thinking? feeling? then for all practical purposes ur dead. ur existance is gone. for me, existance is being able to think and feel. then i know i'm real. i know i'm alive. do u ever feel like ur life actually is a dream? (don't mean to sound all matrix-y on u. i'm not even a fan. it's something taken from phliosophy, and anime ) ) like in dream u can't smell things or touch things, feel pain physically. but sometimes in life u can smell and touch and feel physically but not emotionally. sometimes i feel like that. and i sit around and wonder when i'll wake up and start feeling again.

[Jay]

Well, then I really have weird dreams...

[fayefaye]

why does my thingy say bibliophile? what?

[AbdoRinbo]

It should say 'senior member'. You have over 200 posts.

[fayefaye]

'senior' makes me sound old. how did u get to be a kitchen knife divider? that sounds cool.

[Jay]

I've no idea what a kitchen knife divider is... oh, an idea pooped in my head... might be that wooden thingy???

[AbdoRinbo]

It's whatever you want it to be.

[Jay]

Nice idea Ab :), so from now on YOU are kitchen knife divider ;) for me.

[AbdoRinbo]

Maybe it's a way of thinking about the world? To me the kitchen knife is just a metaphor.

I'll be for you whatever you want, Jay.

[den]

Ok, sure you use the word knife, but divider? Do you mean one of those wooden blocks that hold about 19 knives? So you're a complex guy, you like to pick and choose, you don't just settle for 5" paring... makes sense to me.


Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
Maybe it's a way of thinking about the world? To me the kitchen knife is just a metaphor.

I'll be for you whatever you want, Jay.

[AbdoRinbo]

Division is just another word for reduction. Like I said, it's a way of thinking about the world.

[fayefaye]

is it one of those plastic things that holds knives? and as u throw them into the draw, they get all scratched and battered?

[Jay]

Gee Ab, not a wise idea... ;), I might actually take it literary :). But thanks, it's the idea that counts XXX.

[fayefaye]

this thread has lost a lot of direction since i rocked up here so i think i should guide it back to it's roots in hell.. so to speak. (gotta post something constructive before everyone realises i only post junk and they kick me out.. or is it too late?)

hell. what do u think it is exactly? most of u seem to take it pretty lightly. is that because u don't believe in God or because u don't think that it's anything to be afraid of.. or try to avoid? is it like- 'ha! in your face religion! i don't care about the afterlife so i'll just keep living however i want and who cares?' i'm not saying i won't end up there. just that i don't at all want to. it's not my intention, at least, not for all the food munro could bring down there... maybe we can get back down to the nitty gritty of religion for our discussion? abdo can give his reasons why it's 'illiget' and i can give my reasons why it's not, perhaps.

[AbdoRinbo]

Dear Mom, I put fayefaye in Hell today.

[fayefaye]

LOL. that's horrible!! i hope not! i'm gonna start going to church. counteract ur bad influence.

[imthefoolonthehill]

FayeFaye. I believe in hell. I believe it has to be the most unbearable thing in existence (except maybe for John Denver)....

At any rate...I joke about hell because it is fun to do so. I enjoy telling people why they are going to hell (because they tipped the waiter 13% rather than 13.5%). I enjoy the common steroetype of "You stay out of hell by your good works"... which... accoording to Christianity (most people who seem to be joking about hell come from a Christian background) is totally false

[AbdoRinbo]

I enjoy selling children into homoerotic slavery on the black market, which seems to be a hit with the priests these days.

[sloegin]

Really? I've got a couple of friends that are looking to add to their colletions.(They keep dying from sigmoid flexure hemorrhages.)

[fayefaye]

that's disgusting abdo.

-john denver-lol.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Im glad to see my little attempt at humor was not in vain.

[Stanislaw]

Don't quit your day job Abdo.

[AbdoRinbo]

Did you stay up all night thinking of more generic one-liners?

[fayefaye]

lol.

[Stanislaw]

Nope, Istayed up all day and night to think up that one

[fayefaye]

Uh... I thought that WAS a generic one-liner. :)

[Stanislaw]

I don't sleap much.:D

[fayefaye]

;)
this thread's floating to the bottom, and if abs isn't here, there's no way I'm going to let it die now.

[Stanislaw]

I'll post to that.

[fayefaye]

I'd hate to see this thing die. I really would. I wonder where abs is anyway?

[Stanislaw]

I hope he is okay. I kinda miss his antics.;)

[AbdoRinbo]

Some of us have to work.

[fayefaye]

what do you do? [work I mean]

[AbdoRinbo]

I work at a post office. I control the flow of information.

[AbdoRinbo]

I am known as the Postmaster. I am pure light and energy.

[fayefaye]

of course. how could I miss that?

[AbdoRinbo]

You were not informed.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
I work at a post office. I control the flow of information.
You know, nobody really needs mail... ;)

[Stanislaw]

Welcome back Abdo.

Do you guys ever get bombs in mail?

Or is that just a huge exageration?

[AbdoRinbo]

Hey Stan.

Bombs? Nah, we've got a sign up that says 'it is illegal to ship explosives', which encompasses everything from firecrackers and zippo lighters to weapons-grade plutonium. What more do you people want from us?

[fayefaye]

well, whenever I mail weapons grade plutonium it always reaches it's destination. Albeit not promptly. :(

hey abs, do you work when it rains? :)

[Koa]

Originally posted by crisaor
You know, nobody really needs mail... ;)

I NEED mail as much as the air I breathe. I'm addicted to the good old letter writing. Sometimes I think that the whole Italian postal service lives on me...

Btw, what (the hell :D) was this thread about??? :confused:

[Stanislaw]

I can't remember.

Anyway it seems that only christmass, terrorists(;) ), and big buisnesses like banks use mail.
Everybody else uses the computer.

With the exception of fayefaye and her weapon grade plutonium.

ps.

In chem class we learned how to make chlorine gas and incidernay explosives. I think our teacher works for osama.

[AbdoRinbo]

Faye, I work inside of a post office. I weigh packages and stamp them, that's all. I don't plan on staying there for long, I'm just saving some money so I can go to Dublin this summer.

[Jay]

I delievered mail during summer holidays, and yes, even when it rained ;)

And as Koa, I still use the old fashioned way a lot.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by Koa
I NEED mail as much as the air I breathe. I'm addicted to the good old letter writing. Sometimes I think that the whole Italian postal service lives on me...
I know people need mail, Koa. I was just remembering my Newman :D .

[fayefaye]

:D you know, SEINFELD'S BACK ON!! :D

abs:wait, you were serious? I thought that whole post office, 'I control infomation' thing was a joke. So are you really 'pure light and energy'? Dublin supposed to be great, btw.

stan, but that's the problem: not enough people use mail nowadays. Don't you get tired of communication by computer? I know I do. (aware of irony of my typing this) I'd like to use mail more often, not less.

[Stanislaw]

I agree, there is something more mysteriouse and satisifying, opening a later on paper written by a human, than a bunch of pixels on the screen. I don't get much mail except for junk.:(

[fayefaye]

same here.

[sloegin]

Black ink on amalfi paper is sexy.

[fayefaye]

ooookay then......

[azmuse]

it would then have to be a very sexy particular kind of ink as well, wouldn't it? ;)

[AbdoRinbo]

If God wrote me a letter, he'd write it on amalfi paper.

[azmuse]

are you saying God is sexy?

[azmuse]

(j.k.)

[AbdoRinbo]

I'm not sure what I was saying, but I'll tell you this: if believing in God because you know He's gotta be the most stonecold fox around is a crime, then I'm guilty.

[azmuse]

loyalty is such a beautiful thing; i think that was your nicest post ever.

[AbdoRinbo]

Nicest post ever! Sweet.

[Jay]

Yeah, you do have sweet moments Ab ;)

[subterranean]

Originally posted by azmuse
are you saying God is sexy?


Could be, that is, if you believe that God is everything and anything

[azmuse]

Exactly what i meant, subT

[fayefaye]

And if God's not anything and everything?

[crisaor]

Then it wouldn't exist, at least in the way most occidentals picture him.

[fayefaye]

See, I know as soon as we start to actually discuss religion in the religion forum I should leave before I say something that comes off as preachy, or condescending, or hypocritical... since I'm the sort of person who would fight for the ideals they don't really live up to.... Tell me when the conversation turns to favourite snack or something.

Oh, but you know what? Yesterday I was out Christmas shopping and this guy hands me this pamphlet which I actually took ('Tis the season to be less rude then I ordinarily am. Those things are a waste of trees) Anyway, it's all about how Christmas is too materialistic (well DUH) which is all well and good, but it was written from the first person point of view of Jesus Christ... I mean... come on. I can see how Christians end up with a crappy image. *sigh*

[crisaor]

Well, the whole thing about christmas is symbolic, and I do mean the whole thing: the tree, the fat man with gifts, the date. I wouldn't be too harsh on the "this is not what christmas is supposed to be" thing. It's just a (good) excuse for getting together and be nice to each other, that's all.
Fayefaye, don't be reluctant to post your opinion(s). That's why we're here, to exchange concepts. Ideals are that, ideals (duh :) ), the're just a guide, not a block of stone, if you know what I mean.

[fayefaye]

Originally posted by AbdoRinbo
I'm not sure what I was saying, but I'll tell you this: if believing in God because you know He's gotta be the most stonecold fox around is a crime, then I'm guilty.

*rolling eyes and biting tongue to the point of drawing blood*

Oh, *changing the subject* has anyone ever heard that in the tongue, there aren't any platelets in the bloodstream. Something along those lines? that must be such total b.s. I mean, otherwise everytime you bit your tongue you'd risk death through blood loss, wouldn't you? How else is it going to coagulate? Where do people get these statistics/ideas from?? Goldfish three second memory, etc? How would any scientist knows what a goldfish remembers? you can't ask one. I owned a whole bunch of goldfish as a kid. And I'm pretty sure they recognised me when I came up to the tank. Well, since I was the person to feed them... until I over fed them, and they all started dying..... I read the banana's been around for over a million years, but how much of what we hear can we justify as true? Practically nothin'

[AbdoRinbo]

Questions, questions, questions . . .

Modern Man is capable of asking three questions.

[crisaor]

You mean, like, are you the king of the kwik-e-marts?

[azmuse]

faye, thrombocytes (a.k.a. platelets) are found in the bloodstream. plus they're another part of the reason blood donors are needed.
but they don't release any secretions to call Other platelets over, make blood vessels constrict, initiate inflammation, or release thromboplastin (molecule to help clotting) until there is a tear in the wall of the blood vessel.
they look very cute and irresistible under a microscope, sort of like polka dots on a poodle-skirt from the 1950's