First of all, if you believe in absolute Truth rather than relative truth, then yes there can be One Way to Heaven. Hell to the Christian is separation from God. He gives everyone the opportunity to know him, whether thru hearing the Word or seeing His majesty and glory in nature, it is His Grace that will save. You mentioned you were Jewish,, so was Christ, he came to fulfill all the laws of His religion and He did just that. If you don't want to spend Eternity with Christ and God, then that is your Hell, a prison which is locked from the inside.
I can't worry about the millions of others being led astray at this moment, that is God's job. All I can do is what He asks me to do, profess my faith in him and "always be prepared to defend what I beleive." It's in a book written by Peter in the Bible, not the exact quote but I can get it if you like.
JackTheCat
You sound like a good person, so I don't want to extend this into too much of an argument. I just don't understand why Christians, more than any other religion, act as if they are correct and everyone else is living their life the wrong way. That's just the impression I have gotten.
Full Version: christian
QUOTE (BetItAll33)
QUOTE (Filesharer)
QUOTE (BetItAll33)
QUOTE (Filesharer)
As an agnostic, here is why Christianity makes me angry. Say you know someone who says that they have an orange on their head, even though they don't. It's plainly not there. It is blatantly obvious to everybody that there is no orange on your friend's head.
He insists there is though, and no matter how much logical reasoning you use to try and convince him that there is no orange on his head, he will reply "there's an orange on my head, ok, there just is".
He isn't hurting anyone by believing that there is an orange on his head, but nevertheless, if you have to constantly listen to him tell you that there is, indeed, an orange on his head, eventually you will get a bit angry. You won't be able to help it. His complete and utter disregard for logic will get on your nerves, eventually. Because it's just so, so, stupid.
He insists there is though, and no matter how much logical reasoning you use to try and convince him that there is no orange on his head, he will reply "there's an orange on my head, ok, there just is".
He isn't hurting anyone by believing that there is an orange on his head, but nevertheless, if you have to constantly listen to him tell you that there is, indeed, an orange on his head, eventually you will get a bit angry. You won't be able to help it. His complete and utter disregard for logic will get on your nerves, eventually. Because it's just so, so, stupid.
Humans have limited perception, but through faith your friend believes in things that he can't necessarily see. Similarly, you probably believe in the existence of atoms, even though you've never seen one first hand - only read about them in books.
This is a completely ridiculous comparison. I've never seen a lion either.
Have black holes been scientifically proved to exist? I have no idea, but if they have been proved to exist, then I believe in them. At least all the evidence isn't pointing to them not existing. Atoms, as far as I know, have been scientifically observed.
How is it ridiculous? Is it because everyone KNOWS that atoms exist? What if I had used 'quarks' instead? (I didn't because some people wouldn't be familiar with the term) What if I had used 'black holes'? Do you believe in them? Is it through faith?
Have black holes been scientifically proved to exist? I have no idea, but if they have been proved to exist, then I believe in them. At least all the evidence isn't pointing to them not existing. Atoms, as far as I know, have been scientifically observed.
QUOTE (Filesharer)
QUOTE (Nimbletoe)
QUOTE (Filesharer)
QUOTE (BetItAll33)
QUOTE (Red)
What is the difference between cult and religion?
cult - A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
There is, of course, no difference
Do you have a hard time understanding words, or are you just trying to cause trouble? Define how someone who goes to church once a week lives in an "unconventional manner", or is under the guidance of an authoritarian.
Jesus led a group of disciples, as far as I can recollect. They all followed his word.
He walked about the place with a group of ordinary people that he converted along the way, living as a closely knit group (i think). It was no different to a modern-day cult. How can you not see that?
What an absurd argument. Comparing how people lived back then to how cults operate now, or recently... how can you keep a straight face? Do I even have to go into the fact that there are no disciples now? Families don't live in close quarters? His disicples served a different purpose for God.
Come on man, think about it. Comparing anything modern day to something 2000 years ago should have been your first clue that maybe you have the wrong viewpoint on religion.
yousuckedoutonme wrote
ok if you still don't get it, i mentioned dinosaurs and cavemen because jack the cat seems to take the bible as historical truth. i don't know if you realize, but a lot of christians seem to believe that god created the earth and man no more than a couple thousand years ago, and people have termed this "creationism" or "ex nihilo" if you will. now in jack's little post, he affirms this with what he thinks is scientific evidence. so, this seems to point out that dinosaurs didn't exist, and ancient homosapiens didn't exist. and yes, i know that they existed in separate times, did i really have to answer that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I do believe dinosaurs existed, they just co-existed with man and there is scientific proof of this too. They have found a man's footprint inside a dinosaur footprint. The Bible also describes creatures like Leviathan which is moslt likely a dinosaur.
Also there is proof that the earth is only a few thousand years old. there is more proof that creationism is true than there is that evolution is true. Darwin himself didn't think his theory would hold...
JackTheCat
ok if you still don't get it, i mentioned dinosaurs and cavemen because jack the cat seems to take the bible as historical truth. i don't know if you realize, but a lot of christians seem to believe that god created the earth and man no more than a couple thousand years ago, and people have termed this "creationism" or "ex nihilo" if you will. now in jack's little post, he affirms this with what he thinks is scientific evidence. so, this seems to point out that dinosaurs didn't exist, and ancient homosapiens didn't exist. and yes, i know that they existed in separate times, did i really have to answer that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I do believe dinosaurs existed, they just co-existed with man and there is scientific proof of this too. They have found a man's footprint inside a dinosaur footprint. The Bible also describes creatures like Leviathan which is moslt likely a dinosaur.
Also there is proof that the earth is only a few thousand years old. there is more proof that creationism is true than there is that evolution is true. Darwin himself didn't think his theory would hold...
JackTheCat
Atoms, as far as I know, have been scientifically observed.
Try again. You are putting blind faith into the fact that electrons exist, because they most certainly haven't been seen by any scientist.
Try again. You are putting blind faith into the fact that electrons exist, because they most certainly haven't been seen by any scientist.
QUOTE (speedz99)
First of all, if you believe in absolute Truth rather than relative truth, then yes there can be One Way to Heaven. Hell to the Christian is separation from God. He gives everyone the opportunity to know him, whether thru hearing the Word or seeing His majesty and glory in nature, it is His Grace that will save. You mentioned you were Jewish,, so was Christ, he came to fulfill all the laws of His religion and He did just that. If you don't want to spend Eternity with Christ and God, then that is your Hell, a prison which is locked from the inside.
I can't worry about the millions of others being led astray at this moment, that is God's job. All I can do is what He asks me to do, profess my faith in him and "always be prepared to defend what I beleive." It's in a book written by Peter in the Bible, not the exact quote but I can get it if you like.
JackTheCat
You sound like a good person, so I don't want to extend this into too much of an argument. I just don't understand why Christians, more than any other religion, act as if they are correct and everyone else is living their life the wrong way. That's just the impression I have gotten.
I can't worry about the millions of others being led astray at this moment, that is God's job. All I can do is what He asks me to do, profess my faith in him and "always be prepared to defend what I beleive." It's in a book written by Peter in the Bible, not the exact quote but I can get it if you like.
JackTheCat
You sound like a good person, so I don't want to extend this into too much of an argument. I just don't understand why Christians, more than any other religion, act as if they are correct and everyone else is living their life the wrong way. That's just the impression I have gotten.
Ok without sounding arrogant, the only reason Christians act as if they are correct is because we believe in One God, One Truth.. Believe me as a good person, I wanted to beleive that all roads lead to God, but after studying the Bible, I just can't believe that or I wouldn't believe in the guy who said "I am the Way the Truth and The Life, no one gets to the Father but through me." So If you want to be a Christian you have no choice to believe that Jesus is the only way.. Otherwise I would be a hypocrite.
Thanks for the back and forth.
JackTheCat
what about the obvious mass extinction?
humans managed to survive that?
what about the fact that dinosaur fossils have been found below 65 million years of sediment? Modern mammalian fossils are found usually much higher in the ground than dinos and other prehistoric animals.
The leviathan is most likely describing a whale.
the footprint is a hoax
humans managed to survive that?
what about the fact that dinosaur fossils have been found below 65 million years of sediment? Modern mammalian fossils are found usually much higher in the ground than dinos and other prehistoric animals.
The leviathan is most likely describing a whale.
the footprint is a hoax
QUOTE (JackTheCat)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I do believe dinosaurs existed, they just co-existed with man and there is scientific proof of this too. They have found a man's footprint inside a dinosaur footprint. The Bible also describes creatures like Leviathan which is moslt likely a dinosaur.
Also there is proof that the earth is only a few thousand years old. there is more proof that creationism is true than there is that evolution is true. Darwin himself didn't think his theory would hold...
JackTheCat
Actually I do believe dinosaurs existed, they just co-existed with man and there is scientific proof of this too. They have found a man's footprint inside a dinosaur footprint. The Bible also describes creatures like Leviathan which is moslt likely a dinosaur.
Also there is proof that the earth is only a few thousand years old. there is more proof that creationism is true than there is that evolution is true. Darwin himself didn't think his theory would hold...
JackTheCat
oh yeah, i forgot about jurassic park.
were dinosaurs satanic?
QUOTE (MDXS)
QUOTE
Jesus led a group of disciples, as far as I can recollect. They all followed his word.
He walked about the place with a group of ordinary people that he converted along the way, living as a closely knit group (i think). It was no different to a modern-day cult. How can you not see that?
He walked about the place with a group of ordinary people that he converted along the way, living as a closely knit group (i think). It was no different to a modern-day cult. How can you not see that?
Thanks Filesharer, want to take over for me in that debate?
Have you ever tried telling a maniac on party that he can't play poker? There's no point. It can be fun though. I'll be monitoring this thread...
QUOTE (JackTheCat)
Actually I do believe dinosaurs existed, they just co-existed with man and there is scientific proof of this too. They have found a man's footprint inside a dinosaur footprint. The Bible also describes creatures like Leviathan which is moslt likely a dinosaur.
Also there is proof that the earth is only a few thousand years old. there is more proof that creationism is true than there is that evolution is true. Darwin himself didn't think his theory would hold...
JackTheCat
Also there is proof that the earth is only a few thousand years old. there is more proof that creationism is true than there is that evolution is true. Darwin himself didn't think his theory would hold...
JackTheCat
Link to this proof.
I am of the persuasion that the bible is not a literal document, and is a figurative document (just as many things in the bible are parables as well). 7 days could mean 7 days, or 7 years or 100 million years. Who would know what time is to God? Evolution, in my mind, is the actual outcome of creation. That does not mean that creation wasn't the spark...only that evolution was a natural course of the creation of life.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive; you do not have to discredit one to support the other. I look at science, and determine how it fits into my belief in God, and whether I would need to rethink something.
Like I said, I'd love to see this proof of creationism over evolution. I'd also like to see this human footprint in a dinosaur footprint. Links please.
I think that you are all right. There. Now lets delete this thread, and get back to poker! Too much drama for me.. :roll:
QUOTE (Nimbletoe)
Atoms, as far as I know, have been scientifically observed.
Try again. You are putting blind faith into the fact that electrons exist, because they most certainly haven't been seen by any scientist.
Try again. You are putting blind faith into the fact that electrons exist, because they most certainly haven't been seen by any scientist.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/atom9.htm
They have been observed.
QUOTE (xMarshallx)
I think that you are all right. There. Now lets delete this thread, and get back to poker! Too much drama for me.. :roll:
well... i forgot we were accommodating you here.
dont browse the thread if you dont want to read it
Christianity in itelf is different then most religions. First off it doesnt claim that by doing good works you will be able to reach God...You see that with most cults which is a major difference between cults and Christianity. Just for examples. Buddism has u living a specific way and I am not well read on Islam but I have heard it is the same way. Another major difference is in the claims of the "leader." Budda never claimed to be God, Mohommad (sorry if i butchered the man) never claimed to be God. Jesus on the other hand said he was God and then proceeded to do things to prove that. (such as forgiven sins against God) Now I know there will be those who said big whoop I can do that too. But back in that day it was grounds for death if somebody found u blaspheming like that. Yet He did that knowing what was to happen. Now for the most part there are quite a few religions in the world but most follower 2 main concepts.
1. (Man is God) Some such as Mormonism, Christian Scientology and many others claim that you urself are God. Now Im sure some of yall are thinkin well whats wrong with that. And in itself nothing. But think about it. How did man come to be? i know somebody is goign to say o well we evolved. Well where is the proof? Darwin (who actually did believe in a creator) based his evidence of evolution on the yet to be discovered "transition" fossils. Well unfortunately for Darwin those havent been found yet. Most big name scientest that do not agree with a creator also tend to concede that they cannot explain how matter came from nothing without a little help.
2. (God is God) Yes there are quite a few religions out there that talk about a creator. It is actually a lot more challenging to explain christianity to somebody of this nature then to somebody who believes in man as God. Why? B/c they do believe in a God so it cuts down on the differences. The only thing that I can really claim now is that Jesus said he was the only way to God. he said, "I am the truth the light and the way" and "No one can know the Father except through me" So thats what seperates christianity from other religions.
1. (Man is God) Some such as Mormonism, Christian Scientology and many others claim that you urself are God. Now Im sure some of yall are thinkin well whats wrong with that. And in itself nothing. But think about it. How did man come to be? i know somebody is goign to say o well we evolved. Well where is the proof? Darwin (who actually did believe in a creator) based his evidence of evolution on the yet to be discovered "transition" fossils. Well unfortunately for Darwin those havent been found yet. Most big name scientest that do not agree with a creator also tend to concede that they cannot explain how matter came from nothing without a little help.
2. (God is God) Yes there are quite a few religions out there that talk about a creator. It is actually a lot more challenging to explain christianity to somebody of this nature then to somebody who believes in man as God. Why? B/c they do believe in a God so it cuts down on the differences. The only thing that I can really claim now is that Jesus said he was the only way to God. he said, "I am the truth the light and the way" and "No one can know the Father except through me" So thats what seperates christianity from other religions.
QUOTE (JackTheCat)
There was a very interesting study done regarding the population of the planet.
The scientist took the information from the Bible, regarding Noah, his three sons and their wives, and then put in the known growth rate of the population as historically recorded for years, and when he did the calculation, the number of people on the earth today would be about 6 bilion. Guess what, that's how many people there are today.
Nothwithstanding the people who actually believe that man walked the earth hundreds of thousands of years ago, if you believed that man lived a mere 40,000 years ago, using the known poplulation rate of growth this planet would have more people than there are atoms in the universe.
Just another proof that the Bible is accurate and historical.
The scientist took the information from the Bible, regarding Noah, his three sons and their wives, and then put in the known growth rate of the population as historically recorded for years, and when he did the calculation, the number of people on the earth today would be about 6 bilion. Guess what, that's how many people there are today.
Nothwithstanding the people who actually believe that man walked the earth hundreds of thousands of years ago, if you believed that man lived a mere 40,000 years ago, using the known poplulation rate of growth this planet would have more people than there are atoms in the universe.
Just another proof that the Bible is accurate and historical.
When those of any faith try to justify that faith through scientific means, they usually get into trouble. The unnamed "scientist" in your anecdote has created a severely flawed model on several counts. Michael Schermer wrote the following:
QUOTE
Applying their (New Earth Creationist) model, we find that in 2600 B.C.E. the total population on Earth would have been around 600 people. We know with a high degree of certainty that in 2600 B.C.E. there were flourishing civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus River Valley, and China. If we give Egypt an extremely generous one-sixth of the world's population, then 100 people built the pyramids, not to mention all the other architectural monuments - they most certainly needed a miracle or two...or perhaps the assistance of ancient astronauts!"
And that's if you accept his population growth model as a given. As another poster mentioned, the problem is that popluation grown has only had a steady acceleration since the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that there were swings where the population had large declines as well as increases, like the bubonic plague.
The scientist you quoted hasn't proven the historical accuracy of the bible - at least not by any scientific definition of the word "proof".
QUOTE (Nimbletoe)
Do you see a cult overtaking the entire world now? I sure don't. Also, if it were unconventional, how did it spread so quickly? You say that the Romans took a long time to understand... which Romans are you talking about, all Romans? Surely you musn't believe that. Something that took a long time to accept surely couldn't have spread as fast as Christianity did. Amish people still don't accept electricity, so are we unconventional? There were more people alive in the world than just the Romans you are talking about.
Documents could have easily been lost. But they did let a known serial murderer go in place of him. That at least suggests that a lot of people really wanted him dead.
Documents could have easily been lost. But they did let a known serial murderer go in place of him. That at least suggests that a lot of people really wanted him dead.
How did it spread so quickly? Ever heard of the Crusades and/or christian missionaries? Basically, if you didn't believe in jesus and accept him as your personal savior, they killed you and your family. Its quite easy to gather converts when you threaten them with death.
QUOTE (jayistheman)
QUOTE (xMarshallx)
I think that you are all right. There. Now lets delete this thread, and get back to poker! Too much drama for me.. :roll:
well... i forgot we were accommodating you here.
dont browse the thread if you dont want to read it
You know what!
Thats a good idea. lol. Sorry, just bored and was lookin for some reading.
BTW, hot pockets are deffinatly bomb.
QUOTE (MDXS)
QUOTE
Do you see a cult overtaking the entire world now? I sure don't. Also, if it were unconventional, how did it spread so quickly? You say that the Romans took a long time to understand... which Romans are you talking about, all Romans? Surely you musn't believe that. Something that took a long time to accept surely couldn't have spread as fast as Christianity did. Amish people still don't accept electricity, so are we unconventional? There were more people alive in the world than just the Romans you are talking about.
Documents could have easily been lost. But they did let a known serial murderer go in place of him. That at least suggests that a lot of people really wanted him dead.
Documents could have easily been lost. But they did let a known serial murderer go in place of him. That at least suggests that a lot of people really wanted him dead.
Do I see a cult overtaking the world now? No. But that wasn't what we were talking about. Society was different back then, like you say, so it would be easier. Christianity, like Isis, was a mystery cult. You get initiated and you get sacred literature and learn all the secrets of the cult. Like Isis, it promised life after death. If the story if Isis were as intriguing we may be debating about her right now.
It was unconventional, and it spread fairly quickly, but quickness is relative. It was 300 years before it became the offical religion of the empire. Is that fast or not?
I'm speaking about your average Roman, who grew up with the gods and has no concept of a life after death in the Christian sense. These ideas are bizarre and would not make sense to your average Roman.
Right, there are more people than the Romans, but they are all I was talking about, and really all I care about. At this time though, they were in control of an awful lot, and pretty much everywhere relevant to our discussion.
Documents could have been lost, sure, but that doesn't mean they existed. I would argue that they are less likely to exist because had any made it a couple of centuries, Christian writers and scholars would be very interested in proliferating the writings. Unless of course, they were contradictory.
I need to retire from this conversation for a while, so responses may be a while in coming, if at all...
Personally, I don't choose my faith based on which story is the most interesting. I'd assume that most people go with what feels right. Therefore, I struggle to see how that is relevant.
There are a ton of writings that proved Jesus existed. I'm not too sure on the specifics, but it's outlined in the books that were mentioned by myself and others in this thread.
Comparing the definition of a cult then to a cult now is tricky. I don't think that something so cultish would be able to take over any form of society, especially one of the calibur of Rome. 300 years is definitley not a long time, given that it was obviously becoming stronger and stronger. But cults generally have you do extremist things, and there isn't much extremist about believing that Jesus died for your sins. That's really all you have to believe to be accepted by God. When most people think of cults, they think of people living their lives strictly to a certain format set by someone that claims divine powers. Jesus didn't seek to control, he seeked to help.
You know, the ironic part about this is that i'm defending Christianity, but I don't consider myself Christian. Bizzare.
QUOTE (Mattnxtc)
.How did man come to be? i know somebody is goign to say o well we evolved. Well where is the proof? Darwin (who actually did believe in a creator) based his evidence of evolution on the yet to be discovered "transition" fossils. Well unfortunately for Darwin those havent been found yet.
That would be news to palentologists, who have found the fossil archeopteryx- part reptile, part bird - or ambulocetus natus, an example of the transition from land mammal to whale.
Claiming there are no transitional fossils is an old creationist debating trick. Pretend that evolution is a line that starts with A and ends with Z:
A_______________________________________________Z
A creationist looks at the line and sees a "gap" between A and Z, and demands to know where the transitional fossils are. When a fossil is presented - let's call it "M":
A_________________________M_____________________Z
The evolutionist believes that he has shown a transitional fossil, but the creationist now points out that there are TWO gaps, one between A-M, and another between M-Z. In other words, the more transitional fossils that are provided as proof, the more gaps are "created" in the eyes of the creationists.
no prob... im just interested in this thread, and dont want ppl complaining so the mods move it to off topic.... where threads go to die.
and yes... everyone must agree with me, for hotpockets are the one true savior
and yes... everyone must agree with me, for hotpockets are the one true savior
QUOTE (jayistheman)
no prob... im just interested in this thread, and dont want ppl complaining so the mods move it to off topic.... where threads go to die.
and yes... everyone must agree with me, for hotpockets are the one true savior
and yes... everyone must agree with me, for hotpockets are the one true savior
It is a very good thread....
QUOTE (faketree)
How did it spread so quickly? Ever heard of the Crusades and/or christian missionaries? Basically, if you didn't believe in jesus and accept him as your personal savior, they killed you and your family. Its quite easy to gather converts when you threaten them with death.
Crusades were not done in the name of God, although people may have claimed that. Merely an excuse. Besides, people coverted to Christianity long before and long after the Crusades. They are regrettable, yes, and unfortunate. But just because some people decided to use God for their own desires doesn't mean that Christianity is bad. Those people were corrupt, and those that were acting of their own free will surely got what they deserved.
no one ever told me the flinstones really happened...
I'd just like to thank everyone in this thread for making the tail end of my day fly by =) I'd take up DN's offer on those free books if you're interested, even if you arent looking to become Christian, they are really good reads. You can probably find them cheap 0n Amazon, but they are worth owning if nothing more than being able to argue better about the topic.
Anyway, spanish midterm incoming... gotta jet.
Anyway, spanish midterm incoming... gotta jet.
QUOTE (Filesharer)
QUOTE (BetItAll33)
QUOTE (Filesharer)
QUOTE (BetItAll33)
QUOTE (Filesharer)
As an agnostic, here is why Christianity makes me angry. Say you know someone who says that they have an orange on their head, even though they don't. It's plainly not there. It is blatantly obvious to everybody that there is no orange on your friend's head.
He insists there is though, and no matter how much logical reasoning you use to try and convince him that there is no orange on his head, he will reply "there's an orange on my head, ok, there just is".
He isn't hurting anyone by believing that there is an orange on his head, but nevertheless, if you have to constantly listen to him tell you that there is, indeed, an orange on his head, eventually you will get a bit angry. You won't be able to help it. His complete and utter disregard for logic will get on your nerves, eventually. Because it's just so, so, stupid.
He insists there is though, and no matter how much logical reasoning you use to try and convince him that there is no orange on his head, he will reply "there's an orange on my head, ok, there just is".
He isn't hurting anyone by believing that there is an orange on his head, but nevertheless, if you have to constantly listen to him tell you that there is, indeed, an orange on his head, eventually you will get a bit angry. You won't be able to help it. His complete and utter disregard for logic will get on your nerves, eventually. Because it's just so, so, stupid.
Humans have limited perception, but through faith your friend believes in things that he can't necessarily see. Similarly, you probably believe in the existence of atoms, even though you've never seen one first hand - only read about them in books.
This is a completely ridiculous comparison. I've never seen a lion either.
Have black holes been scientifically proved to exist? I have no idea, but if they have been proved to exist, then I believe in them. At least all the evidence isn't pointing to them not existing. Atoms, as far as I know, have been scientifically observed.
How is it ridiculous? Is it because everyone KNOWS that atoms exist? What if I had used 'quarks' instead? (I didn't because some people wouldn't be familiar with the term) What if I had used 'black holes'? Do you believe in them? Is it through faith?
Have black holes been scientifically proved to exist? I have no idea, but if they have been proved to exist, then I believe in them. At least all the evidence isn't pointing to them not existing. Atoms, as far as I know, have been scientifically observed.
black holes have not been scientifically proven to exist. However, many things that have been scientifically "proven", have later been found to be false. My point is that you are essentially putting your "faith" in a chosen member(s) of the scientific community.
Atoms have been observed.
QUOTE (Nimbletoe)
As for the number thing, just be wary that 99% is a lot more than, say, using the words "a lot". Some people truly believe the percentage is 99, some people just throw out a high number. It's hard to tell.
Very true, i apologize
I am Jewish. Can anyone tell me what the New Testament says about playing pocket Jacks in late position with a caller and a raise?
QUOTE (jayistheman)
QUOTE (BetItAll33)
QUOTE (jayistheman)
if that's how you view things, then how do you manage to go about your daily life?
sometimes someone's word is all we have... and when its a reputable scientist observing and recording mathematically explained phenomena, im willing to accept his observations.
sometimes someone's word is all we have... and when its a reputable scientist observing and recording mathematically explained phenomena, im willing to accept his observations.
These things don't have an impact on my daily life. I'm not sure I understand that question.
The point I made as that you claim to not understand faith, yet you enlist your trust in things that you've never seen or don't understand. Do you believe in Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Remember, Einstein was proven wrong on many counts after his death. I would definitely think he qualifies as a " reputable scientist observing and recording mathematically explained phenomena".
QUOTE (jayistheman)
sometimes someone's word is all we have
I think you're beginning to understand faith.
These things don't have an impact on my daily life. I'm not sure I understand that question.
the attitude
it appears you were trying to trap me into the whole faith issue.
i never said i didnt understand faith.
im not discounting the christian faith.. i am still undecided. i dislike organized religion. i feel like there is a higher power at the time, but i find my scientific side laughing at that.... as a 19 year old i realize i will find my true beliefs eventually
that's my exact quote on my stance on religion... it can be seen above in this thread.
i am not doubting the existence of your god, and i am curious as to what you are trying to prove... this whole conversation simply started as i was pointing out scientific fact behind your comments.
but hey.. im 20 in a few days. maybe i'll "wake up" as a christian soon.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to trap you on the faith issue. I thought you were agreeing with Filesharer's view of human perception... the whole orange on the head thing. I'm trying to keep up with this in-depth discussion while I'm at work... :roll:
QUOTE (Shooter_McGavin)
I am Jewish. Can anyone tell me what the New Testament says about playing pocket Jacks in late position with a caller and a raise?
I think it says something like, it depends on the type of player that raised. If it's a super tight player, depending on the size of the raise i'd probably call. Otherwise, reraise. But I could be wrong!
QUOTE (Shooter_McGavin)
I am Jewish. Can anyone tell me what the New Testament says about playing pocket Jacks in late position with a caller and a raise?
im pretty sure it says to smooth call in NL and use position to your advantage post flop... (i know the old testament doesnt cover NL)
im pretty sure that the old testament has the limit play.... raise it up and try to isolate the initial raiser i guess.... not the best limit hold em player
QUOTE (BetItAll33)
QUOTE (jayistheman)
QUOTE (BetItAll33)
QUOTE (jayistheman)
if that's how you view things, then how do you manage to go about your daily life?
sometimes someone's word is all we have... and when its a reputable scientist observing and recording mathematically explained phenomena, im willing to accept his observations.
sometimes someone's word is all we have... and when its a reputable scientist observing and recording mathematically explained phenomena, im willing to accept his observations.
These things don't have an impact on my daily life. I'm not sure I understand that question.
The point I made as that you claim to not understand faith, yet you enlist your trust in things that you've never seen or don't understand. Do you believe in Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Remember, Einstein was proven wrong on many counts after his death. I would definitely think he qualifies as a " reputable scientist observing and recording mathematically explained phenomena".
QUOTE (jayistheman)
sometimes someone's word is all we have
I think you're beginning to understand faith.
These things don't have an impact on my daily life. I'm not sure I understand that question.
the attitude
it appears you were trying to trap me into the whole faith issue.
i never said i didnt understand faith.
im not discounting the christian faith.. i am still undecided. i dislike organized religion. i feel like there is a higher power at the time, but i find my scientific side laughing at that.... as a 19 year old i realize i will find my true beliefs eventually
that's my exact quote on my stance on religion... it can be seen above in this thread.
i am not doubting the existence of your god, and i am curious as to what you are trying to prove... this whole conversation simply started as i was pointing out scientific fact behind your comments.
but hey.. im 20 in a few days. maybe i'll "wake up" as a christian soon.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to trap you on the faith issue. I thought you were agreeing with Filesharer's view of human perception... the whole orange on the head thing. I'm trying to keep up with this in-depth discussion while I'm at work... :roll:
its ok... i made a "good point" comment to the reply to his orange analogy..... the one that explained how an agnostic would feel..
did everyone suddenly get off this thread and go to church?
Excellent link to the atoms thing. I was certain that I had seen atoms arranged to form "IBM," but had no source to back it up...
And speaking of having no source to back anything up, it was my understanding that three black holes have been observed. All three are in binary star systems where one star is, well, a star, and the other a black hole. It has been observed that matter from the star is constantly being sucked into what looks like nothingness. Since the stars orbit each other, the direction of the matter is constantly changing.
Again, I have no source on this, so consider it critically.
Oh, and Shermer is an excellent author. I encourage everyone to read what he writes.
And speaking of having no source to back anything up, it was my understanding that three black holes have been observed. All three are in binary star systems where one star is, well, a star, and the other a black hole. It has been observed that matter from the star is constantly being sucked into what looks like nothingness. Since the stars orbit each other, the direction of the matter is constantly changing.
Again, I have no source on this, so consider it critically.
Oh, and Shermer is an excellent author. I encourage everyone to read what he writes.
I should add to my last post that the black holes were observed indirectly. You can't observe a black hole for many reasons, which definitely don't need to be examined here.
QUOTE (yousuckedoutonme)
did everyone suddenly get off this thread and go to church?
Your contribution to this thread has been wonderful. I only hope that you contribute like this in other areas of your life.
:roll:
To MDXS, I just have to say that Opeth rules!
How do you guys play ace king suited before the flop?
sorry i just thought it was common sense that dinosaurs and homosapiens didn't co-exist together in a historical setting. my apologies also for bringing up the issues of homosexuality and physical discipline.
it must have been the preaching. yeah it was the preaching.
it must have been the preaching. yeah it was the preaching.
QUOTE (Nimbletoe)
QUOTE (Filesharer)
QUOTE (Nimbletoe)
QUOTE (Filesharer)
QUOTE (BetItAll33)
QUOTE (Red)
What is the difference between cult and religion?
cult - A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
There is, of course, no difference
Do you have a hard time understanding words, or are you just trying to cause trouble? Define how someone who goes to church once a week lives in an "unconventional manner", or is under the guidance of an authoritarian.
Jesus led a group of disciples, as far as I can recollect. They all followed his word.
He walked about the place with a group of ordinary people that he converted along the way, living as a closely knit group (i think). It was no different to a modern-day cult. How can you not see that?
What an absurd argument. Comparing how people lived back then to how cults operate now, or recently... how can you keep a straight face? Do I even have to go into the fact that there are no disciples now? Families don't live in close quarters? His disicples served a different purpose for God.
Come on man, think about it. Comparing anything modern day to something 2000 years ago should have been your first clue that maybe you have the wrong viewpoint on religion.
Whoa! There are no disciples now? David Koresh had a load of them. The Jones guy in Guyana had them.
What is wrong with comparing now and 2000 years ago? I don't get it. What makes you think that cults operated differently 2000 years ago?
This is the best thing since a couple of potentially retarded children discussed the implications of abortion laws on a videogame message board.
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
the diffrence between cult and religion is the cult's membership dues are cheaper,and theres no singing...
QUOTE (BetItAll33)
QUOTE (Filesharer)
QUOTE (BetItAll33)
QUOTE (Filesharer)
QUOTE (BetItAll33)
QUOTE (Filesharer)
As an agnostic, here is why Christianity makes me angry. Say you know someone who says that they have an orange on their head, even though they don't. It's plainly not there. It is blatantly obvious to everybody that there is no orange on your friend's head.
He insists there is though, and no matter how much logical reasoning you use to try and convince him that there is no orange on his head, he will reply "there's an orange on my head, ok, there just is".
He isn't hurting anyone by believing that there is an orange on his head, but nevertheless, if you have to constantly listen to him tell you that there is, indeed, an orange on his head, eventually you will get a bit angry. You won't be able to help it. His complete and utter disregard for logic will get on your nerves, eventually. Because it's just so, so, stupid.
He insists there is though, and no matter how much logical reasoning you use to try and convince him that there is no orange on his head, he will reply "there's an orange on my head, ok, there just is".
He isn't hurting anyone by believing that there is an orange on his head, but nevertheless, if you have to constantly listen to him tell you that there is, indeed, an orange on his head, eventually you will get a bit angry. You won't be able to help it. His complete and utter disregard for logic will get on your nerves, eventually. Because it's just so, so, stupid.
Humans have limited perception, but through faith your friend believes in things that he can't necessarily see. Similarly, you probably believe in the existence of atoms, even though you've never seen one first hand - only read about them in books.
This is a completely ridiculous comparison. I've never seen a lion either.
Have black holes been scientifically proved to exist? I have no idea, but if they have been proved to exist, then I believe in them. At least all the evidence isn't pointing to them not existing. Atoms, as far as I know, have been scientifically observed.
How is it ridiculous? Is it because everyone KNOWS that atoms exist? What if I had used 'quarks' instead? (I didn't because some people wouldn't be familiar with the term) What if I had used 'black holes'? Do you believe in them? Is it through faith?
Have black holes been scientifically proved to exist? I have no idea, but if they have been proved to exist, then I believe in them. At least all the evidence isn't pointing to them not existing. Atoms, as far as I know, have been scientifically observed.
black holes have not been scientifically proven to exist. However, many things that have been scientifically "proven", have later been found to be false. My point is that you are essentially putting your "faith" in a chosen member(s) of the scientific community.
Atoms have been observed.
Well yeah, if I haven't observed the phenomenon myself, I would be taking someone's word for it. But I probably wouldn't take someone's word for it in the first place if I found it to be illogical.
For example, atoms. I can see no reason why things might not be made up of atoms. I would never have thought about them if I was never told they existed, but now that I've heard about them, I can imagine that they might exist.
Jesus being the son of some almighty being, and then rising from the dead? This runs contrary to everything that I have observed during my short time on earth.
Furthermore, supposing that it is, as I am certain, complete nonsense, I can see clearly the reasons why people choose to believe it despite the illogicality of it. This is circumstantial(or whatever the term is), but it's just the final confirmation.
QUOTE
To MDXS, I just have to say that Opeth rules!
Damn straight. They go back into the studio on the ides of March with a US tour to follow.
Wow, this is really amazing… I'd like to make two points.
The fact alone that this topic creates such an incredible hype/debate to me speaks of the importance and reality of the issue. It's something that is a crucial part of our human nature the whole religious debate. I think just from the sheer volume of responses I think it can be concluded that this is an important topic and it's really important to look into the debate for yourself. I urge you all just to make the effort to actively look into your beliefs, a very big danger is apathy, not caring what goes on.
I'd once again you to read DN's recommended reading… he even says he'll buy it for you and send it to you…
I encourage you to remain openminded when weighing the evidence. It's obvious as you read these threads that people are getting so stuck in their opinions that they are willing to defend them to the point where they look ridiculous.
From Smash's bitterness to JacktheCat's misguided random factual "evidence" everyone's really passionate about it. This has been a great thread, a lot to read but very passionate and real, I've appreciated JayisTheMan's honesty especially. Personally I am a Christian and consider it a very strong personal belief, I have somewhat of a distaste for the Church in a similar sense that most do I think… I'd also like to say that while JacktheCat has her own beliefs and a strong faith, I think she is misguided in many of her factual supports and her debating skills are not the best, Jack I think a better approach for you would be to just be honest with your own personal life experience rather than quoting scripture at everyone and giving support like they found a humans footprint in a dinosaurs once…
And finally, in response to Christianity being the one true religion, I think this a topic for a whole new thread… (Or forum lol) but here's my thoughts…
I believe God is seeking a personal relationship with each of us, I believe that's why he created the world and us in it. God created us with the choice to love Him, this is why you'd have hear so much about free will in your searches it is the choice of turning towards or away from God that is the foundational difference setting it apart from other religions… I believe that a knowledge of who Jesus was and an acceptance of his forgiveness is important, but I would never debate that someone as pure as Ghandi would not be in heaven. An active life serving God is a personal relationship. So in my mind anyone can be a Christian if they are genuinely seeking a life of relationship with God, but it's not for me to judge. Many of these religions you list do not have this as their goal. There are many people within these religioins who may have a personal relationship with God, just as there are many who claim the name of Christ (TV evangelists etc.) who are completely off base with their beliefs… I believe that this is all out of our hands, so there's little point in arguing who and how you are actually saved, but God is very real and He wants to be in personal relationship with us.
I'd appreciate any response to be PM'ed to me too because this thread is getting pretty huge, I'll discuss or debate any of the above or related stuff with any of you though.
The fact alone that this topic creates such an incredible hype/debate to me speaks of the importance and reality of the issue. It's something that is a crucial part of our human nature the whole religious debate. I think just from the sheer volume of responses I think it can be concluded that this is an important topic and it's really important to look into the debate for yourself. I urge you all just to make the effort to actively look into your beliefs, a very big danger is apathy, not caring what goes on.
I'd once again you to read DN's recommended reading… he even says he'll buy it for you and send it to you…
I encourage you to remain openminded when weighing the evidence. It's obvious as you read these threads that people are getting so stuck in their opinions that they are willing to defend them to the point where they look ridiculous.
From Smash's bitterness to JacktheCat's misguided random factual "evidence" everyone's really passionate about it. This has been a great thread, a lot to read but very passionate and real, I've appreciated JayisTheMan's honesty especially. Personally I am a Christian and consider it a very strong personal belief, I have somewhat of a distaste for the Church in a similar sense that most do I think… I'd also like to say that while JacktheCat has her own beliefs and a strong faith, I think she is misguided in many of her factual supports and her debating skills are not the best, Jack I think a better approach for you would be to just be honest with your own personal life experience rather than quoting scripture at everyone and giving support like they found a humans footprint in a dinosaurs once…
And finally, in response to Christianity being the one true religion, I think this a topic for a whole new thread… (Or forum lol) but here's my thoughts…
I believe God is seeking a personal relationship with each of us, I believe that's why he created the world and us in it. God created us with the choice to love Him, this is why you'd have hear so much about free will in your searches it is the choice of turning towards or away from God that is the foundational difference setting it apart from other religions… I believe that a knowledge of who Jesus was and an acceptance of his forgiveness is important, but I would never debate that someone as pure as Ghandi would not be in heaven. An active life serving God is a personal relationship. So in my mind anyone can be a Christian if they are genuinely seeking a life of relationship with God, but it's not for me to judge. Many of these religions you list do not have this as their goal. There are many people within these religioins who may have a personal relationship with God, just as there are many who claim the name of Christ (TV evangelists etc.) who are completely off base with their beliefs… I believe that this is all out of our hands, so there's little point in arguing who and how you are actually saved, but God is very real and He wants to be in personal relationship with us.
I'd appreciate any response to be PM'ed to me too because this thread is getting pretty huge, I'll discuss or debate any of the above or related stuff with any of you though.
I can see evidence both for and against the existance of a god. Either way though, it wouldn't affect my actions. However, I really see no need to go on bashing someone else for what they believe. The only thing I dislike is people who try to convert me or tell me what is right or wrong. Something some of you feel the need to do to the OP here.
That being said, this is one of my favorite religious quotes:
That being said, this is one of my favorite religious quotes:
QUOTE
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen Roberts
-Stephen Roberts
QUOTE (ChuckSty)
i think i definitely have to go with Smash and the others on this one. Not that I have any problems with Christians, but i find many major issues with Christianity, the Bible, and the hyprocracy of the Church in general. I really have no bad blood towards Christians themselves, i just don't buy into that argument.
Christianity is a mythology. One day like all others before it(in my opinion) it will be a thing of the past. The Bible was written as a tool to spread propaganda and unite an empire (fact). i'm not saying the stories are not based in truth (based mind you) but they are certainly only a small and very misleading picture of that time period. I mean the bible was edited by Constantinople I believe who was a pagan himself but wanted to unite his people and new he had to appease the Christains so he made Jesus the son of God so that the Bible would carry some mystical power.
One of my majors was in literature, i studied the bible one semester as a historical text in context with that society and I really believe that is was just a tool to bring together a kingdom and create a unified religion throughout an empire.
Regardless i am an atheist.
I believe in the collective unconscious.
just my two cents.
although i would be interested in checking out the book that Daniel talked about it sounds kind of interesting.
Christianity is a mythology. One day like all others before it(in my opinion) it will be a thing of the past. The Bible was written as a tool to spread propaganda and unite an empire (fact). i'm not saying the stories are not based in truth (based mind you) but they are certainly only a small and very misleading picture of that time period. I mean the bible was edited by Constantinople I believe who was a pagan himself but wanted to unite his people and new he had to appease the Christains so he made Jesus the son of God so that the Bible would carry some mystical power.
One of my majors was in literature, i studied the bible one semester as a historical text in context with that society and I really believe that is was just a tool to bring together a kingdom and create a unified religion throughout an empire.
Regardless i am an atheist.
I believe in the collective unconscious.
just my two cents.
although i would be interested in checking out the book that Daniel talked about it sounds kind of interesting.
Well said sir
This was already touched on briefly, but I fell strongly enough about the issue to emerge from the conference shadows.
A). This conversation has little or nothing to do with poker and should be reserved to private conversations and church. You didn't want to preach but you have damn near incited a riot with a post four pages long.
. The people that have posted about the historical inncuracy of Jesus are mostly correct. Jesus of Nazareth is a common mistake made by people. It is actually Jesus the Nazarean, which would mean Jesus was a Jewish radical seeking his secular throne from Rome, as he was a descendant of David. He was put to death after 300 Roman soldiers captured him. He was put to death according to Roman law, just like a political revolutionary would be.
I could go on but I'll try to keep it brief.
The Christian Church was created by Paul, St. Augustine, The emperor Constantine, and St. Thomas Aquinas actually wrote what was approved as the Christian morality in 1879 by the Pope. St. Thomas Aquinas based his writings on the teaching of Plato and Aristotle.
The Christian Church has been the most powerful non-government entity for two thousand years. They have based their religion on mythology that was accepted before Jesus and in order to unify people the Church used these ideas to unify the Pagans. The Nazarean political party actively tried to stop Paul from spreading what they considered to be blasphemous, they were lead by Jesus' brother James.
Something to think about.
Nate
A). This conversation has little or nothing to do with poker and should be reserved to private conversations and church. You didn't want to preach but you have damn near incited a riot with a post four pages long.
. The people that have posted about the historical inncuracy of Jesus are mostly correct. Jesus of Nazareth is a common mistake made by people. It is actually Jesus the Nazarean, which would mean Jesus was a Jewish radical seeking his secular throne from Rome, as he was a descendant of David. He was put to death after 300 Roman soldiers captured him. He was put to death according to Roman law, just like a political revolutionary would be.
I could go on but I'll try to keep it brief.
The Christian Church was created by Paul, St. Augustine, The emperor Constantine, and St. Thomas Aquinas actually wrote what was approved as the Christian morality in 1879 by the Pope. St. Thomas Aquinas based his writings on the teaching of Plato and Aristotle.
The Christian Church has been the most powerful non-government entity for two thousand years. They have based their religion on mythology that was accepted before Jesus and in order to unify people the Church used these ideas to unify the Pagans. The Nazarean political party actively tried to stop Paul from spreading what they considered to be blasphemous, they were lead by Jesus' brother James.
Something to think about.
Nate
Oops, I meant to put in the reason they are so powerful is not because they are divine, but because they rule through corruption and fear. They discourage the pursuit of knowledge, and they conveniently left out the Gospels that contradict or endanger what they put in the Bible. They have the wealth to supress the truth and the power to deny its truth, even if it is true.
Great example, The Pope got a tracheotomy because of the flu, right, the flu lasts for 7 to 10 days. More disinformation courtesy of the Vatican.
Take Care.
Nate
Great example, The Pope got a tracheotomy because of the flu, right, the flu lasts for 7 to 10 days. More disinformation courtesy of the Vatican.
Take Care.
Nate
I always seem to loose with pocket aces
After reading natedoggs comments all i could say was wow. He seems to choose to ignore or not know quite a bit of history surrounding the Bible. There were actually several other Apostles besides Paul and all their books were written about the same time. As for Constantine. The only reason people make a big deal of it now is b/c of the Davinci code. Had that book not been written people wouldnt be using this argument. There is great historical evidence that the Christian community was thriving well before he laid down any edict. Several of the Books of the Bible were recognized well before that time. Paul recognized Luke's Gospel, and by AD 95 8 books were already being recognized as being from God. At the very latest of about AD 235 the majority of the New Testament was already being recognized as from God. with majority being recognized by AD 185. So about a hundred years later was when these specific books were being recognized. Now that might say o well thats a lot of time. But these letters were all over Europe and Asia and they defiantly didnt have very good modes of transportation. So things didnt travel as fast as they did here.
As for Paul being a Church builder? yeah he defiantly was a key missionary. But he like all Jews went to Temple to worship God. So why wouldnt that be a part of worshipping God?
Just as you have, people tend to associate Catholicism of today with the original Catholicism and with Christianity in general. Well there are quite a few differences. It was over time that the Catholic Church began to change thier ways to what the are now. What must be understood though is that what was the original intent was pure. Most back then couldnt read so there wasnt a point for a written Bible therefore images were made to to help people with thier faith. Well over time this got off base and led to worshipping the images and what not. It was these changes that led to Reformation which was when people restarted getting back to what the original beliefs were.
As for your claims about Jesus. Well I really dont have a clue where you got those from. Lets just say ill go ahead and believe the most document ancient writing of all over the one you have. An interesting side note...Not to long ago a guy was off searching for gold and he ran across some old text. Turns out it was what are now called teh Dead sea Scrolls. These came several hundred years before Christ. Well besides a few misplaced comas and what not. There was no difference between it and text written about a 1000 years later. So to say that the Bible has been changed over time seems to go against proof but I guess you can believe what you want
As for Paul being a Church builder? yeah he defiantly was a key missionary. But he like all Jews went to Temple to worship God. So why wouldnt that be a part of worshipping God?
Just as you have, people tend to associate Catholicism of today with the original Catholicism and with Christianity in general. Well there are quite a few differences. It was over time that the Catholic Church began to change thier ways to what the are now. What must be understood though is that what was the original intent was pure. Most back then couldnt read so there wasnt a point for a written Bible therefore images were made to to help people with thier faith. Well over time this got off base and led to worshipping the images and what not. It was these changes that led to Reformation which was when people restarted getting back to what the original beliefs were.
As for your claims about Jesus. Well I really dont have a clue where you got those from. Lets just say ill go ahead and believe the most document ancient writing of all over the one you have. An interesting side note...Not to long ago a guy was off searching for gold and he ran across some old text. Turns out it was what are now called teh Dead sea Scrolls. These came several hundred years before Christ. Well besides a few misplaced comas and what not. There was no difference between it and text written about a 1000 years later. So to say that the Bible has been changed over time seems to go against proof but I guess you can believe what you want
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.