Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Public Commander Keen Forum > Miscellaneous Polls > Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?
	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author

Comment

Shikadi

Vortininja
Posts: 106
(6/16/01 2:53 am)
148.233.159.247
| Del All

Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Results (total votes = 210):


Yes!Very!	50 / 23.8%

No!Never!	108 / 51.4%

All Harry Potter fans die!	26 / 12.4%

Harry Who?	4 / 1.9%

I don't care...	22 / 10.5%

Forge315
Vortininja
Posts: 55
(6/18/01 3:37 pm)
150.176.82.150
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I find this pole funny, I was thinking about posting one just like it two weeks ago. I have not voted because I have never read any of the books so I have no opinion, but I think I would say they were not good books.

Shikadi

Vortininja
Posts: 107
(6/18/01 9:33 pm)
148.233.159.247
| Del

While

While people keep using that option I dont see where's the problem

LaserBeams

Grunt
Posts: 31
(6/19/01 2:51 pm)
207.73.127.104
| Del

Re: While

I have read the first Harry Potter book, and I found it very interesting, *and* very well written. It was, in fact, one of the most well written books I've ever read, even though its target audience was the younger crowd.

I don't think Harry Potter is bad or satanic at all. First of all, it's just a book, and second, it's just a story written from a different point of view. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a lot like what happened at the Salem witch trials - just a different point of view.

Forge315
Vortininja
Posts: 68
(6/22/01 5:59 am)
24.4.252.247
| Del

Harry The Satanist

Quote:
I don't think Harry Potter is bad or satanic at all.

I believe they had official satanic rituals in the books. It’s all fiction, it seems like fiction but it’s done in real life too.

I can get proof of this. Well I think I can. Give me half an hour, maybe a couple hours.

LaserBeams

Vortininja
Posts: 39
(6/22/01 5:09 pm)
207.73.127.60
| Del

Maybe

Forge, how would you know? =P

Anyway, it's an opinion...
If I'm wrong, I hope nobody cares.

AzathothSpawn
Vortininja
Posts: 46
(6/23/01 12:57 am)
216.126.204.22
| Del

Re: Harry The Satanist

I find it a little amusing how everything non-christian is satanic...

Now I've only read the first of these books, and I'm sure a puritan would have all kinds of problems with it, but I don't see anything evil going on there...

And to say that a work of fiction about a fictional school of magic, keep in mind, entirely fictional, is evil or satanic is a little overboard if you ask me.

VolteFace

Vortininja
Posts: 260
(6/24/01 3:50 am)
216.94.26.131
| Del

Re: Harry The Satanist

I read all four books, and I don't find them offensive... I mean, they're targeted at normal, non-psychotic 13-15 year olds. If some 27-year-old cultist freak reads them and goes and slaughters goats or something, that's not caused by the books...

RoboRed
Vortininja
Posts: 123
(8/5/01 8:25 pm)
4.54.224.74
| Del

Re: Harry The Satanist

Anyone know when the fifth book is coming out?

Forge315

Vortininja
Posts: 256
(8/21/01 2:40 pm)
150.176.82.150
| Del

Re: Harry The Satanist

No.

Can someone recommend to me whether I should wait for the movie or read the books? I want to read it for what it is, so is the movie going to be good; or would it spoil the book? I don’t have much spare time; but reading the first book, so long as it’s good, would be nice.

Flaose
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 430
(8/22/01 1:25 pm)
24.71.223.141
| Del

Re: Harry The Satanist

I think it would be a good idea to read the first book before going to see the movie...

As for the fifth book, I wouldn't be surprised if it came out on the same day as The Philosopher's Stone (November 16th isn't it?)

Forge315

Vortininja
Posts: 259
(8/22/01 11:25 pm)
24.4.252.247
| Del

Thanks

Thanks!

Quote:
(November 16th isn't it?)

I don't know. I checked imdb.com, but they didn't say.

ThE gRiNcH FwR

Vortininja
Posts: 33
(9/15/01 3:27 pm)
24.24.65.235
| Del

Re: Thanks

Harry Potter was actually a very good book. I all ways used to hesitate to read it because of it's popularity with little kids... but I read some of it, and realized it was awesome!

-ThE*gRiNcH

MATT
Vortininja
Posts: 173
(9/22/01 9:03 pm)
24.109.7.51
| Del

Re:

Harry Potter deals with witchcraft. I don't know the entire storyline or characters but from what I have heard, Harry is some kind of warlock and he uses his powers to defeat his foes. That is satanic, witchcraft is satanic. This is fiction, but still, the witchcraft inside it is very true and real in the real world.

Edited by: MATT at: 11/17/01 10:21:09 pm

KeenEmpire
Vortininja
Posts: 87
(9/23/01 12:37 pm)
202.133.137.38
| Del

Re: Re:

I actually visited the Harry Potter message boards to try and find out when the 5th was coming...strange how they could devote all their internet time onto a book...but then its not so different from Keen, is it

They said:

earliest time: July 2001 (passed)
latest: July 2002 (comin)

Either way I don't think it'll be in my school library until I'm in 10th grade, even thou that's en egocentric point of view.

Shikadi

Vortininja
Posts: 118
(9/26/01 1:35 am)
200.64.58.41
| Del

Re: Re:

J.K says late Dicember

I've got an idea everything that's to small to post is going in my, Sig. My new board!Music, Tv, Games etc.Now acepting moderators here it is! Cool Things

chogall
Vorticon Elder
Posts: 838
(11/7/01 11:57 am)
217.70.229.167
| Del
ezSupporter

Re: Re:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3625/harry_potter.html

theflyingfish

Grunt
Posts: 3
(11/15/01 3:30 pm)
208.61.50.71
| Del

Re: Re:

I think it is, but more than likely kids aren't going to become Satanists from reading it.

The Aqua Ants Oasis
http://www.aqua-ants-oasis.com/
Visit the Forums while you're there!
Check out the DopefishZone Forums too!

Flaose
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 506
(11/17/01 4:30 pm)
24.71.223.141
| Del

..........

Bible Beaters...

I read the books, they're great! I do recommend them to you even if they're "kids books".
I even plan on going to the movie :blush

Flaose
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 509
(11/21/01 6:30 pm)
24.71.223.141
| Del

Re: ..........

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forge315:
I have never read any of the books...but I think I would say they were not good books.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forge315:
I believe they had official satanic rituals in the books. It’s all fiction, it seems like fiction but it’s done in real life too.
I can get proof of this. Well I think I can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MATT:
Harry Potter deals with witchcraft. I don't know the entire storyline or characters but from what I have heard, Harry is some kind of warlock and he uses his powers to defeat his foes. That is satanic, witchcraft is satanic. This is fiction, but still, the witchcraft inside it is very true and real in the real world.
{ italics added }

Anyone see what I'm getting at here?
Anyway, my entire family went and saw the movie, you should see it to. It was great!

Edited by: Flaose at: 11/21/01 1:31:21 pm

MATT
Vortininja
Posts: 189
(12/2/01 7:41 pm)
24.109.7.51
| Del

Re:

I went to see the movie last night, and to be honest, it was a good movie. But still, there was that aspect of the movie that deals with the dark side, with magic and the taking of souls for "immortal powers". Its all fiction, yes, but it still deals with the dark side of wizardry. And also, I do not like the term "Bible Beaters", Flaose. I think you should respect Forge and my religion.

Edited by: MATT at: 12/2/01 2:42:38 pm

Mii
Grunt
Posts: 8
(12/2/01 9:43 pm)
142.165.70.20
| Del

Woi.

Yeah, really Flaose. The term is "Bible Thumpers"

MATT
Vortininja
Posts: 193
(12/2/01 10:54 pm)
24.109.7.51
| Del

Re:

And smart ass remarks get you nowhere.

Shikadi

Vortininja
Posts: 164
(12/4/01 3:40 pm)
200.64.58.81
| Del

Re: Re:

Calm down,all of you

Step in to my lair said the Dreth to the Chorkant Cool Things

Flaose
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 518
(12/7/01 4:42 pm)
24.71.223.141
| Del

Re: Re:

I suppose some of you think The Lord of the Rings movie is bad too. Seeing as how it has wizardry and "evil powers".

MATT
Vortininja
Posts: 195
(12/9/01 5:15 pm)
24.109.7.51
| Del

Re:

OK, Flaose, I'd just shut up if I were you, this is how flame wars start.

Forge315

Vortininja
Posts: 428
(12/10/01 3:45 am)
24.4.252.247
| Del

Tolkien

Yes some of us do believe all that stuff is .

But I would like to say that I personally hate to see people accept something that may be . So I am a skeptic as to what these books are. That’s all my point was from the beginning.

chogall
Vorticon Elder
Posts: 867
(12/10/01 11:16 am)
217.70.229.167
| Del
ezSupporter

Re: Re:

But if you get offended by the so-called "evil powers", doesn't that mean that you accept them? Since you can't be offended by something that you believe doesn't exist.

And Forge, you say that you don't like people who "accept something that may be", and that you're a skeptic. But you said earlier that you haven't read the books, yet you have quite specific opinions about them. It sounds to me like you are just accepting some opinions about those books that you have picked up. In that case, you're not being skeptical at all.

MATT
Vortininja
Posts: 196
(12/10/01 4:51 pm)
24.109.7.51
| Del

Re:

Why should I accept them? These "evil powers" are demons or evil spirits. Demons and evil spirits are real, they are not imaginary. You don't really have an argument because these things exist, the evil spirits control witchcraft.

Forge315

Vortininja
Posts: 429
(12/10/01 10:42 pm)
24.4.252.247
| Del

I am being skeptical about specific things, not in a general overall basis. But I am done posting in this topic for now.

MATT
Vortininja
Posts: 198
(12/11/01 4:01 am)
24.109.7.51
| Del

Re:

I'm done as well.

Flaose
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 524
(12/15/01 2:07 pm)
24.71.223.141
| Del

Re: Re:

Alright, I've got a question for any American's who saw the movie. Up here in Canada and just about everywhere else in the world, the book and movie are called Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Not the Sorcerer's Stone, the Philosopher's Stong.

Anyways, I was wondering: Did they re-shoot the scenes where they said the word Philosopher? Or did they re-dub them (cutting out any scene that you saw their lips when the word was said)?

Shikadi

Vortininja
Posts: 188
(3/17/02 1:43 am)
200.64.58.41
| Del

Re: Re:

The didn't re-shoot the scenes, if you look closly at there lips you can see that they say Sorcerer

Step in to my lair said the Dreth to the Chorkant Cool Things
I'm like you ... I have no name.- Grey Fox"
You want eternal rest?I´ve got it right here.-Solid Snake
Who Dares,Wins-Solid Snake
Unfortunatly, Hell had no vacancies-Vamp

KeenEmpire
Vortininja
Posts: 161
(3/18/02 1:57 pm)
203.150.14.77
| Del

Re: Re:

Just reread Harry Potter

Well, like their magic is just rediculous. They have to wave their wand and say some totally long spell to start doing anything. If Voldemort at the height of his powers went up against a guy with a gun, he would lose.

It might be considered satanic by people who've read descriptions of what is satanic and what is not, but the fact is that they don't do anything satanic with it. They don't turn everyone into mice or whatever, or try to kill everyone. They're just peaceful little people with some skills. And in fact I feel bad for them...they have to write all their reports without using a computer hahahhaha. Anyway, I don't get what's up with this satanic. For all i care you can perform rituals worshipping satan if those rituals benefit the world, rather than "un-benefit" in some way.

The exception to this is "Dark Magic," of course. The books don't make it clear wtf it is, however. I hardly get it. Plus, in the movie Hagrid talks about the "dark side." Hmm...I hope they don't have something like "If you turn to the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny!" Voldie and his death eaters use their powers to kill, and that's who Harry and the "satanic" witches and wizards are fighting against. Isn't that a good example to set? And no, this argument does not even make it to the point of "The ends justify the means." There's no means to justify, sure magic is different, but is it really bad? Many things in the "Muggle" world can be bad if used badly and good otherwise.

Quote:
Satanic rituals

Can ya plz give examples?

***

The next step (my predictions)

Aliens. To come to our world they will have to have radically superior technology. To fight them we will have to fight differently. Nevermind, this is probably another topic.

ManderKeen
Grunt
Posts: 31
(4/14/02 2:32 pm)
194.100.2.65
| Del

Re: Re:

Quote:

The next step (my predictions)

Aliens. To come to our world they will have to have radically superior technology. To fight them we will have to fight differently. Nevermind, this is probably another topic.

Although I'm an ultimate sceptic, don't believe in god, aliens or anything supernatural, I think that it's stupid to assume so surely that even if there were aliens and they came to earth, they would be hostile. Why?
You should think about that more before saying anything.

------------------------------------------------------------
But Althalus raised his hand, saying, "Leoht!" And a wall of purest light barred Ghend from his goal.
Ghend howled, and all the flaming hosts of Nahgharash howled with him.

-The Redemption of Althalus

chogall
Vorticon Elder
Posts: 915
(4/15/02 4:06 pm)
130.67.1.3
| Del
ezSupporter

Re: Re:

If aliens came to Earth, I guess we would be the ones to be hostile to them.

Flaose
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 625
(4/25/02 12:38 am)
24.71.223.141
| Del

Re: Re:

Just like in all the movies! :lol

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 51
(4/25/02 1:49 pm)
194.100.2.66
| Del

Re: Re:

Quote:

Why should I accept them? These "evil powers" are demons or evil spirits. Demons and evil spirits are real, they are not imaginary. You don't really have an argument because these things exist, the evil spirits control witchcraft.
Italics added.

How old is MATT?
I mean, that's just plain stupidity!
How could anyone seriously think that way?

Or maybe he just wasn't serious, although I doubt it.

And FYI, everyone, I'm not a satanist. I'm just an atheist and an ultimate sceptic all along.

Forge315
Vortininja
Posts: 703
(4/25/02 8:49 pm)
68.1.74.50
| Del

I think he’s 15 although maybe he’s 14.

Quote:
I mean, that's just plain stupidity!
How could anyone seriously think that way?

How could anyone not believe in anything? Look to yourself before you look to others.

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 53
(4/27/02 12:43 pm)
194.100.2.66
| Del

Re: NA

And so I did, but..
I know it might sound a bit wierd, but I actually don't believe in anything, that cannot be proven. And that counts off a LOT of stuff like god, UFO´s, witchcraft, any kind of magical predictions(crystal balls etc.) and that kind of stuff.
I guess someone could call me a nihilist.

Forge315
Vortininja
Posts: 718
(4/29/02 1:55 am)
68.1.74.50
| Del

Human Life

So are you open to other lines of thought? Like the whole world is just made a made up figment of ones imagination, and maybe the dream world is the real world. Things like that aren’t religious, that I know of. Your in my opinion the exact opposite of my bro, who believes in just about everything.

Can I ask you how you find stability in life, to be a normal person? Do you do it with philosophy/logic/perception? Because I’d probably find it kind of hard to live without Christianity; I do have a changing philosophy that I live by, but without a belief in God -- I think I’d be lost.

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 57
(4/30/02 6:36 pm)
194.100.2.66
| Del

Re: Human Life

With a single word, no. But it's not that simple, for example, I think that the universe is created in a big bang etc..

As for the stability part, I think I'm more to logic/science. I find my stability in life by either learning how things work, or if science hasn't found an explanation to for example a natural phenomenon, I ponder it myself.

And why do I think this way? It's because of my logic, I try to ponder everything to live as bias-free as I can, and as belief is bias, I don't believe in anything.

Finito!

Forge315
Vortininja
Posts: 724
(5/1/02 8:56 pm)
68.1.74.50
| Del

Re: Human Life

Okay, thanks!

KeenEmpire
Vortininja
Posts: 238
(6/12/02 9:38 am)
203.151.8.41
| Del

Re: Human Life

Well, if aliens came to Earth and they weren't evil, you wouldn't need magic to fight them off, would you?

Then my prediction would be pointless.

Well well, it's quite possible to believe in nothing, but in the end it doesn't get you too far in life, I must say.

Edited by: Keen Second Universal Empire at: 8/14/21 6:32:58 am

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 91
(6/13/02 7:54 pm)
194.100.2.65
| Del

Re: Human Life

Explain yourself, I didn't quite get your point.

KeenEmpire
Vortininja
Posts: 244
(6/14/02 3:40 pm)
203.151.8.41
| Del

Re: Human Life

Well, if aliens came to earth and were not evil (did not try to kill of earthies) you would not need magic to stop them...in fact, you would not need anything to stop them at all, and no one would make a movie/book of Harry Potter out of that.

If they were evil, on the other hand, you would need magic to stop them (assuming their technology is too powerful) and you could write a book out of it.

Edited by: Keen Second Universal Empire at: 8/14/21 6:32:58 am

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 96
(6/14/02 10:46 pm)
194.100.2.65
| Del

Re: Human Life

No no, the other thing:

Quote:

Well well, it's quite possible to believe in nothing, but in the end it doesn't get you too far in life, I must say.

adurdin
Vortininja
Posts: 331
(6/24/02 12:57 am)
144.137.30.233
| Del

Re: Human Life

Quote:

I'm just an atheist and an ultimate sceptic all along.
...
And why do I think this way? It's because of my logic, I try to ponder everything to live as bias-free as I can, and as belief is bias, I don't believe in anything.

That's a specious line of reasoning.
Scepticism is just as much a belief and subsequent source of bias as belief in the supernatural (in whatever form). In either case you have an a priori opinion (or belief, if you prefer the term) that affects your evaluation of other things.

Quote:

I know it might sound a bit wierd, but I actually don't believe in anything, that cannot be proven.

This is another fallacy: logic and reasoning cannot prove anything except subject to some assumptions, i.e. it cannot provide absolute proof for anything.
This is even true, for example, for mathematics: there is a set of definitions (assumptions) that underlies the whole mathematical system.

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 133
(6/24/02 10:13 pm)
194.100.2.65
| Del

Re: Human Life

Okay, maybe my speaks were a bit conflicted. And for the other thing, I do sort of believe in something, as if something is proven (in my opinion) watertightly(whatever the word is) enough, I swallow it, as I just simply can't try to invent an explanation to everything that ever crosses my mind.
eG. it's generally proven, that flying saucers haven't come to earth(if they even exist), so it makes me a sceptic, as I don't believe in them.

And for the mathematics part, I agree with you.
For example: it's a rule, that any number divided by itself is one. If I obey that rule blindly, I can prove you that 1 = 2.

x = y
(x - y) = 2(x - y) | :( x - y)
1 = 2
or:
x = y
(x - y) = 534(x - y) | :( x - y)
1 = 534

Can you figure out what's wrong? :D

Edited by: ManderKeen at: 6/25/02 12:36:33 pm

adurdin
Vortininja
Posts: 335
(6/24/02 11:29 pm)
144.137.30.233
| Del

Re: Human Life

The crying faces make it a little confusing...

But the fallacy here is very obvious: you are multiplying two numbers by zero to make them equal to each other, then attempting to divide them both by zero to get back the original value, which (needless to say) doesn't work.

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 134
(6/25/02 12:48 pm)
194.100.2.65
| Del

Re: Human Life

Our mathsteacher gave us that problem and asked, what's wrong with it.
Here's another one I like:

(a-x)*(b-x)*(c-x)*..*(y-x)*(z-x) = ???

Flaose
Vorticon Elder
Posts: 683
(6/25/02 1:39 pm)
24.71.223.141
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

It equals 0. Somewhere along the line you'll have ...*(x-x)*... and x-x has to equal 0, and anything multiplied by 0 equals 0.

adurdin
Vortininja
Posts: 338
(6/25/02 2:00 pm)
144.137.30.233
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

This second one's better: it hides the real issue in an amusing way. I like it!

The Upravlenie
Grunt
Posts: 10
(7/19/02 5:03 am)
63.237.230.69
| Del

Re: Human Life

Quote from ManderKeen (4/30/02 6:36:09 pm):

Quote:
"...But it’s not that simple, for example, I think that the universe is created in a big bang etc...

As for the stability part, I think I’m more to logic/science. I find my stability in life by either learning how things work, or if science hasn’t found an explanation to for example a natural phenomenon, I ponder it myself.

And why do I think this way? It’s because of my logic, I try to ponder everything to live a bias-free as I can, and as belief is bias, I don’t believe in anything.

Finito!"

Lets start with the Big Bang theory. It’s just that: a theory. One cannot prove that the Big Bang ever happened. The Webster’s New International Dictionary (1934) defines science as:
“A branch of study which is concerned with observation and classification of facts, esp. with the establishment (and, strictly, the quantitative formulation) of verifiable general laws, chiefly by induction and hypotheses; as, the biological, historical, and mathematical sciences.”
Evolution cannot be proven. No one was there to observe evolution. There is no proof that evolution ever happened. In fact, there are many flaws in the evolution theory. For example:

#1. The Lack of Transitional Forms.

If organisms have gradually changed into other organisms over time, there would be many intermediate fossils, but this is not the case; the are actually gaps between each kind of organism. No transitional forms have ever been found. Darwin himself recognized this problem:
“ The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” -Charles Darwin

#2. The Geologic Column.

The geologic column is an imaginary arrangement. It occurs nowhere in the world. There is not a place on this earth where you can see the complete geologic column at one time. The geologic column is based on the very assumption it attempts to prove. There is no objective way to look at a sample of sedimentary rock and classify it into an era. Rather, a geologist looks at the rock, determines what types of fossils it contains, and dates the rock according to the presumed age the fossils (based on the estimation of when the organism evolved). That is called circular reasoning.

Evolution is not science: it is a religion. Evolution is illogical as it is contradicted by the evidence; it is based on faulty theories and circular reasoning; and it is inconsistent with scientific reality.

->The Upravlenie

Sources: Webster’s New International Dictionary, Charles Darwin, Science of the Physical Creation in a Christian Perspective, The Lie: Evolution.

Edited by: The Upravlenie at: 7/24/02 4:33:54 am

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 146
(7/19/02 4:32 pm)
62.78.170.161
| Del

Re: Human Life

So, if evolution is not, then what? What's your opinion?

The Upravlenie
Grunt
Posts: 12
(7/19/02 5:14 pm)
63.237.230.118
| Del

Re: Human Life

My opinion on what?

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 151
(7/19/02 10:00 pm)
62.78.170.161
| Del

Re: Human Life

Of the thing evolutionary theory explains in it's own way. Why humans exist, for example. Where did we, not to mention all other animals or even plants, come from, if not evolution?

The Upravlenie
Grunt
Posts: 16
(7/20/02 9:01 pm)
63.237.230.8
| Del

Re: Human Life

I believe God created the universe and all that is in it.

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 158
(7/23/02 9:44 am)
62.78.170.161
| Del

Re: Human Life

Oh, I didn't think you'd be religious. Well, that explains it.

The Upravlenie
Grunt
Posts: 19
(7/23/02 2:15 pm)
63.237.230.67
| Del

Re: Human Life

Despite appearances to the contrary, evolution is still a belief, not a proven scientific fact. Neither creation nor evolution can be proven scientifically because science deals only with events that are presently observable and experimentally reapeatable. The creation vs. evolution debate is not about what science says, but about what man believes; they are both presuppositions accepted by faith. Science can, however, demonstrate which one is the reasonable belief. Belief in special creation is a reasonable belief supported by the fossil record. In light of the evidence, special creation is the only reasonable explanation for the origin of life.

"We do not know how life began"
-Ann H. Morgan, evolutionist

"The best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is the imagination"
-Homer W. Smith, evolutionist

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
-Charles Darwin, evolutionist

Edited by: The Upravlenie at: 7/23/02 4:37:57 pm

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 159
(7/23/02 8:43 pm)
62.78.170.161
| Del

Re: Human Life

..which leads to the next question(going to theology): If god created everything, what/who created him? The most common answer(at least what I've heard): "He created himself" is obviously very illogical. And I cannot answer the question "Well if god didn't create everything, then where did everything come from?" That, I leave to the more advanced scientists/scholars to answer.

Although I believe in the "Big Bang" -theory, that doesn't mean I can provide an explanation to it. So what I wan't to know, is your theory of where everything begun. Simple how and why

Combined Two Threads to One - Flaose

Edited by: Flaose at: 7/24/02 12:02:33 am

The Upravlenie
Grunt
Posts: 21
(7/24/02 4:22 am)
63.237.230.115
| Del

Re: Human Life

No. God did not create himself. He has always been and always will be.

Quote:
"Well if god didn't create everything, then where did everything come from?"

Why are you automatically asuming that God didn't create everything? Do you know everything? No. Do you know most of everything? No. Could it be that there is a God that you do not know about?

Quote:
"So what I wan't to know, is your theory of where everything begun. Simple how and why"

I believe God created the heavens and the earth about six thousand years ago.

What exactally do you believe about the big bang theory?

Edited by: The Upravlenie at: 7/24/02 4:23:58 am

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 161
(7/24/02 9:56 am)
62.78.170.161
| Del

Re: Human Life

I see this conversation is being followed with great interest

Quote:
Why are you automatically asuming that God didn't create everything?

I believe that should have become very obvious during this conversation, as I do not believe in anything supernatural, including a god of any kind. And this is, sort of, a belief, or actually a non-belief.

Quote:
What exactally do you believe about the big bang theory?

I believe that the "big bang" created the universe. Why did this happen? This, with the question "If nothing was, then how did everything become" goes beyond my comprehension.
There are other possibilities, eg. this universe was accidentally created from another universe from a wormhole.

The next question: Why are you automatically assuming that god did create everything. Do you know everything. No. Could it be that the god you believe in is not? If you think not, prove it!

Quote:
He has always been and always will be.

Doesn't it bother you, that you think something has always been, which is, needless to say, rather illogical.

The bible says: "One is always born with original sin. So one must go to a confession regularily."(sorry if not the exact phrase, but the idea is same)
When children hear this from their parents, their view of life isn't mature enough to ponder things like this. So they buy it. As they live this through their whole childhood, go to confessions etc., their attitude about this is forced to grow into believing. This is just one of the many, many flaws in christianity, and with a little more examining, all religions.

PS. If anyone who agrees even the least bit with me, say something!

Edited by: ManderKeen at: 7/24/02 9:59:10 am

The Upravlenie
Grunt
Posts: 22
(7/24/02 3:29 pm)
63.237.230.145
| Del

Re: Human Life

Quote:
"Why are you automatically assuming that god did create everything. Do you know everything. No. Could it be that the god you believe in is not? If you think not, prove it!

Quote:
"Doesn't it bother you, that you think something has always been, which is, needless to say, rather illogical."

If there is a creation, it's only logical to assume there is a creator. God cannot create himself. Something else did not create God because where did that come from? The only logical explaination of God is that he has always been. And there is only room for one Almighty God.

Quote:
"I believe that the "big bang" created the universe. Why did this happen? This, with the question "If nothing was, then how did everything become" goes beyond my comprehension.
There are other possibilities, eg. this universe was accidentally created from another universe from a wormhole.

Tell me: Is it more logical to assume that God created the universe or that the universe was created from dirt created from nothing(i.e. the "big bang")?

Quote:
"The bible says: "One is always born with original sin. So one must go to a confession regularily."(sorry if not the exact phrase, but the idea is same)
When children hear this from their parents, their view of life isn't mature enough to ponder things like this. So they buy it. As they live this through their whole childhood, go to confessions etc., their attitude about this is forced to grow into believing. This is just one of the many, many flaws in christianity, and with a little more examining, all religions."

I think you are confusing Christianinty with Roman Catholicism. As a Christian, I believe we are all born with a sin nature(Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.)and the wages of sin is death(Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.). Christ died on the cross and covered out sin whith his blood.
Roman Catholics go to mass, confessions, and worship statues of Mary.
I do not believe this because my parents do. I have studied and pondered the issues myself.

Edited by: The Upravlenie at: 7/28/02 12:54:02 am

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 162
(7/24/02 7:10 pm)
62.78.170.161
| Del

Re: Human Life

Quote:
Tell me: Is it more logical to assume that God created the universe or that the universe was created from dirt created from nothing(i.e. the "big bang" ?

Both are propably equally logical, from a certain point of view, but as I already(twice) told everyone, I do not believe in anything supernatural. Therefore I "believe" in the big bang instead of a god.

Quote:
I think you are confusing Christianinty with Roman Catholicism.

I wonder what this means. Catholicism, lutheranism and orthodoxy all are christianity, not to mention millions of different sects.

The Upravlenie
Grunt
Posts: 24
(7/24/02 8:47 pm)
63.237.230.139
| Del

Re: Human Life

Quote:
"I do not believe in anything supernatural. Therefore I "believe" in the big bang instead of a god."

Since when is the "big bang" natural? Since when does dirt explode?You are contradicting yourself (again). Newton's First Law of Motion states that:
The velocity of an object does not change unless the object is acted upon by an external force.

Quote:
"Catholicism, lutheranism and orthodoxy all are christianity, not to mention millions of different sects. "

No. There is a major difference between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity.

Edited by: The Upravlenie at: 7/25/02 12:39:00 am

Flaose
Vorticon Elder
Posts: 79
(7/24/02 8:53 pm)
24.71.223.143
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
As a Christian, I believe we are all born with sin(Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.)

Just a question Upravlenie, why do you think that we are all born with sin? What have we done to be considered sinners?

Quote:
I do not believe in anything supernatural. Therefore I "believe" in the big bang instead of a god.

The "big bang" theory sounds pretty supernatural to me...

supernatural

\Su`per*nat"u*ral\, a. [Pref. super- + natural: cf. OF. supernaturel, F. surnaturel.] Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature; miraculous.

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

The Upravlenie
Grunt
Posts: 25
(7/25/02 2:39 am)
63.237.230.65
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
"Just a question Upravlenie, why do you think that we are all born with sin? What have we done to be considered sinners?"

By that I mean that we are all born with a sin nature. One doesn't need to teach a child how to do wrong: You tell him not to do something and he does it. Everyone has sinned. No one is perfect. (Romans 3:23) Even if you sin only once you cannot enter heaven. (Ephesians 5:5: For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, or covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God).

Quote from ManderKeen (4/27/02 12:43:15 pm)

Quote:
"I know it might sound a bit wierd, but I actually don't believe in anything, that cannot be proven.

You believe in evolution and the "big bang" which have not been proven and cannot be proven.
Quote from Manderkeen (4/14/02 2:32:13 pm)

Quote:
"Although I'm an ultimate sceptic, don't believe in god, aliens or anything supernatural,..."

The "big bang" is supernatural and you believe in that.
Quote from ManderKeen

Quote:
"...I guess someone could call me a nihilist."

You believe there is no God, you believe in the "big bang", and you believe in evolution. That's an awful lot of believing for someone who doesn't believe anything.

Edited by: The Upravlenie at: 7/25/02 4:29:52 am

Flaose
Vorticon Elder
Posts: 83
(7/25/02 5:14 am)
24.71.223.143
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
By that I mean that we are all born with a sin nature. One doesn't need to teach a child how to do wrong: You tell him not to do something and he does it. Everyone has sinned. No one is perfect. (Romans 3:23) Even if you sin only once you cannot enter heaven. (Ephesians 5:5: For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, or covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God).

Aha...I thought you meant we were literally born with sin.

Now it makes more sense to me.

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

adurdin
Vortininja
Posts: 389
(7/25/02 6:19 am)
144.137.30.112
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

The question of whether one is born in a sinful state or not is debated, but is (I believe) of little practical importance, because everyone does things they know to be wrong within a few years, when they know that it is wrong (i.e. their parents told them not to do it)...

Quote:

There are other possibilities, eg. this universe was accidentally created from another universe from a wormhole.

This of course begs the question: If this universe was created from another universe, where did the other universe come from?

Quote:

Doesn't it bother you, that you think something has always been, which is, needless to say, rather illogical.

How is it illogical? It is in fact more logical to believe that *something* has always existed and that everything we see either (a) came from that, or (b) is part of that, than that everything we see somehow came from *nothing*.
It is because of this illogicity that some theorists have proposed alternate theories, e.g. the universe has always existed in an endless cycle of big bang-expansion-contraction-singularity-big bang again, or that the big bang started from a singularity which had always existed. One issue that has been raised concerning these theories is that according to what we have observed of the universe, that the total potential energy in the universe is always decreasing (2nd law of thermodynamics). So many stick with the "nothing before big bang" idea, despite the problems with it.

Quote:

When children hear this from their parents, their view of life isn't mature enough to ponder things like this. So they buy it. As they live this through their whole childhood, go to confessions etc., their attitude about this is forced to grow into believing. This is just one of the many, many flaws in christianity, and with a little more examining, all religions.

Actually, what you describe applies to everyone: we have a tendency to believe what we're taught -- for this reason various countries have at varying times instituted indoctrination policies at schools. And if we don't question it as we mature, we'll still believe it, if not very firmly.
As a matter of fact, the Bible exhorts Christians to question their beliefs: by testing a belief and finding it to be true (leaving aside for now the question of how you find something to be true) your belief grows stronger.

Quote:

Both are propably equally logical, from a certain point of view, but as I already(twice) told everyone, I do not believe in anything supernatural. Therefore I "believe" in the big bang instead of a god.

I was going to say something about this but Flaose already said it.

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 163
(7/25/02 10:46 am)
62.78.170.161
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
Since when does dirt explode?

Who said it was dirt? According to the theory, it wasn't matter at all, it consisted totally of pure energy.
The Big Bang theory explains why the universe is constantly expanding, stars and galaxies travel away from eachother. It also explains cosmic background radiation.
See for yourself: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html

Quote:
"I know it might sound a bit wierd, but I actually don't believe in anything, that cannot be proven.

Well, almost. If something doesn't have a provable answer, I accept the one I find most logical.

Quote:
The "big bang" theory sounds pretty supernatural to me...

I don't find it supernatural in any way. Why do you?

Edited by: ManderKeen at: 7/25/02 3:27:24 pm

The Upravlenie
Grunt
Posts: 26
(7/25/02 5:10 pm)
63.237.230.47
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

First Law of Thermodynamics (1847). Heinrich von Helmholtz stated the law of conservation of energy: The sum total of all matter will always remain the same. This law refutes several aspects of evolutionary theory. Isaac Asimov calls it "the most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make" (quoted in Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even," Journal of Smithsonian Institute, June 1970, p. 6).

Second Law of Thermodynamics (1850). R.J.E. Clausius stated the law of entropy:: All systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized (Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 1968, p. 201). In other words, everything runs down, wears out, and goes to pieces (R.R. Kindsay, "Physics: to What Extent is it Deterministic," American Scientist 56, 1968, p. 100). This law totally eliminates the basic evolutionary theory that simple evolves into complex. Einstein said the two laws were the most enduring laws he knew of (Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, 1980, p. 6).

Quote:
"I don't find it supernatural in any way. Why do you?"

Quote:
"Who said it was dirt? According to the theory, it wasn't matter at all, it consisted totally of pure energy."

Where did the energy come from? Why would energy explode? How did energy create matter? Is this scientifically repeatable?

1 - This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe:

Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

2 - This is the evolutionary formula for making life:

Dirt + water + time = living creatures.

Edited by: The Upravlenie at: 7/25/02 5:13:42 pm

The Upravlenie
Grunt
Posts: 28
(7/30/02 5:09 am)
63.237.230.27
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Hello? Is anybody there?

Snortimer

Vortininja
Posts: 840
(8/14/02 2:59 am)
64.229.134.28
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
I believe God created the heavens and the earth about six thousand years ago.

This simply begs the question of why we can see stars whose light has travelled to us more than 6,000 years.

Ooh, and also plate tectonics. 6,000 years is not enough time for the Atlantic ocean to have been created. After all, the exact same bedrock and extinct species exist in both Europe and North America if you dig deep enough.

I would say that all of Earth's dated fossils contradict with your belief, but I know that you'll probably say that the dating process is inaccurate, and I don't know enough about archeology to counterattack that.

P.S. sorry if this discussion had been moved to another forum or officially forbidden and I don't know about it.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
"Don't do something you might regret"........................................................................................"A true friend never gets in your way unless you happen to be going down"........................................................................................"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools can be right"........................................................................................"None of us is as smart as all of us"........................................................................................"The harder you work the luckier you get"........................................................................................"The true test of a person's character is how they behave when no one is watching them"........................................................................................"Things turn out best for people who make the best of the way things turn out"........................................................................................"It takes a wise person to know what not to say- and then not to say it"........................................................................................"A winner never quits and a quitter never wins"......................................................................................."Know something in detail before you make an opinion"........................................................................................"It's not where you are that's important; it's how you got there"........................................................................................"Wisdom is knowing what to do next- virtue is doing it"
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

RoboRed

Vortininja
Posts: 292
(8/14/02 4:01 am)
63.224.169.233
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

No, really, where did God come from?

Flaose
Vorticon Elder
Posts: 185
(8/14/02 1:48 pm)
24.71.223.143
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
P.S. sorry if this discussion had been moved to another forum or officially forbidden and I don't know about it.

No problems, it just sort of blew itself out. If it was forbidden or moved it would have been closed

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

The Upravlenie
Vortininja
Posts: 70
(8/14/02 3:47 pm)
63.237.230.44
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
"Ooh, and also plate tectonics. 6,000 years is not enough time for the Atlantic ocean to have been created. After all, the exact same bedrock and extinct species exist in both Europe and North America if you dig deep enough."

One must remember that the continents are not islands floating about in the sea. I believe in a world-wide flood that happened about 4400 years ago. In the Swiss Alps, strata containing "Permian" fossils (supposedly 500 million years old), is found lying on top of strata containing "Jurassic" fossils (supposedly 300 million years old), which lies atop "Tertiary" fossil strata(supposedly 100 million years old. The geologic column occurs nowhere in the world!

Quote:
"I would say that all of Earth's dated fossils contradict with your belief, but I know that you'll probably say that the dating process is inaccurate, and I don't know enough about archeology to counterattack that."

The dating process is inaccurate. Radiometric dating measures the amount (or lack thereof)of carbon-14 in a fossil. Radioactive dates are larglely determined by the assumptions of the person doing the dating(i.e. the amount of carbon-14 to begin with).

"If it weren't for electricity we'd all be watching television by candlelight." -George Gobol.

The Upravlenie
Vortininja
Posts: 71
(8/14/02 3:53 pm)
63.237.230.44
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Where did God come from? God has always been. Something else could not have created God because we would end up with the same question of where that came from. God could not create himself because He wouldn't have been around to do so. Therefore, the ONLY logical explaination of God is that He has always been.

"If it weren't for electricity we'd all be watching television by candlelight." -George Gobol.

Snortimer

Vortininja
Posts: 845
(8/15/02 3:39 am)
64.229.137.4
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
One must remember that the continents are not islands floating about in the sea.

I never said they were. What you're talking about is the old theory of continental drift, now replaced by the Theory of Plate Tectonics.
In case you didn't know, there are places where more crust is being added to the earth through volcanic processes, and places where the other end of the "plate" is being pushed under another plate. This slowly causes continents to move. Key word here is slowly. The Appalachian mountain range in North America is a continuation of the mountain range in Scottland. The geological layers match up perfectly after several layers of differences. The "different" layers are the ones in which the two continents were already separate.

Quote:
I believe in a world-wide flood that happened about 4400 years ago.

Well, good for you, but what does that have to do with the topic?

Quote:
In the Swiss Alps, strata containing "Permian" fossils (supposedly 500 million years old), is found lying on top of strata containing "Jurassic" fossils (supposedly 300 million years old), which lies atop "Tertiary" fossil strata(supposedly 100 million years old.

Could you please direct me to a link or something? Where did you hear that?

Quote:
The geologic column occurs nowhere in the world!

What do you mean by that? Excluding your peculiar case from the Swiss alps (which I don't know anything about; Switzerland is quite far from where I live), the rest of the world's geological layers sit in the right order, as far as I know from what I learned in Geography and various books that I own.

Quote:
The dating process is inaccurate. Radiometric dating measures the amount (or lack thereof)of carbon-14 in a fossil. Radioactive dates are larglely determined by the assumptions of the person doing the dating(i.e. the amount of carbon-14 to begin with).

As I said, I'm not a specialist on this. All the same, if they know that it's innacurate, then why are they using it?
(Someone in the know please help me out here)

And you still haven't answered my space question from my previous message.

The Upravlenie
Vortininja
Posts: 80
(8/15/02 9:45 pm)
63.237.230.33
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
"One must remember that the continents are not islands floating about in the sea." -me

That, truly, was an ignorant statement of mine. I have since looked into the matter:
According to the theory, slow convection currents in the plastic rock of the asthenosphere generate huge forces upon the plates, causing them to slowly drift over the surface of the earth at a rate of a few centimetres a year. When two plates collide, they may buckle, producing mountains, or grind together, producing earthquakes.
Some advocates of plate tectonics have taken it a step further, stating that in the past, all continents were connected together into a huge land mass called Pangaea, sometimes described as two connected land masses called Laurasia and Gondwana.
While this is an interesting theory, it’s still a theory. The hypothetical super-continent, Pangaea, is based on two assumptions: First, that the continents have always been moving at the same rate per year and second that the earth is billions of years old.

Quote:
"I believe in a world-wide flood that happened about 4400 years ago.

Well, good for you, but what does that have to do with the topic?"

I was pressed for time and never got to finish my thought. I believe there was a world-wide flood about 4400 years ago. The flood killed everything on the earth save for the ones on Noah’s Ark and some fish and birds. According to Genesis, the Flood involved 40 days of torrential rains plus untold flooding and geological upheavals as “the fountains of the deep were broken up.” The waters of the Flood caused a tremendous amount of erosion and deposition. As the sediment-laden waters swept into coastal lowlands, lakes, and seas, the first animals to be buried were often the slowest-trilobites, sea sponges, and clams and mussels. Mor agile fish usually survived longer but eventually even these were overcome and buried. The rule of mobility also prevailed on land; smaller, slower animal such as snails and insects were probably buried first because they were unable to reach higher ground as quickly as stronger, ore mobile animals. The waters eventually buried the higher ground, burying untold numbers of animals in mass graves of sediment.
These were ideal for fossil formation. The vast majority of fossils and geological formations were undoubtedly formed during the flood.

Regarding fossil anomalies:

Try the “Heart Mountain Thrust” in Wyoming, the “Lewis Overthrust” in Montana, the Jura Mountains in the Swiss Alps, and the Alps’ Mythen Peak.
Have you ever heard of living fossils? The coelacanth(the “ancestor of the first amphibians”), which, according to the evolutionary theory, became extinct about 60 million years ago is still alive today and matches the fossil version in every detail! Evolutionists were suprised to find that the coelacanth is a deep-sea fish, and as a result are unlikely to ever crawl out on land. Their internal organs are completely fishlike and bear no resemblance to those of amphibians.
Other “living fossils” that disappear from the evolutionary fossil record but are still alive today include the tuatara, which supposedly became extinct 135 million years ago; the Neopilina galatheae, said to have become extinct 280 million years ago; and a “primitive” Paleozoic crustacean (Hutchinsoniella macrocantha) thought to have become extinct 300 million years ago.
On April 25, 1977, a Japanese commercial fishing vessel snagged the rotting carcass of a large, unidentified sea creature off the coast of New Zealand; scientists estimated that the creature had been dead close to a month. Check it out on the internet.

In regards to your space question:
I haven’t had the time to look into that yet nor do I know where to do so. Could you, perhaps, direct me to your source?

"If it weren't for electricity we'd all be watching television by candlelight." -George Gobol.

Snortimer

Vortininja
Posts: 854
(8/16/02 2:50 am)
64.229.136.163
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
I believe there was a world-wide flood about 4400 years ago. The flood killed everything on the earth save for the ones on Noah’s Ark and some fish and birds. According to Genesis, the Flood involved 40 days of torrential rains plus untold flooding and geological upheavals as “the fountains of the deep were broken up.”

First of all, I don't think that even 40 days of constant rain is enough to raise water levels around the world enough to cover everything. In order to cover even a good portion of the Himalayas, they would have to rise at least 7km in height. So did all of the water just magically come out of nowhere?
But it couldn't have risen 7km anyway. If it did, then all of those creatures who live near the ocean vents 2km under the water (come on... you know the ones; in the deep sea, those tube-worms, strange luminescent fish with long fangs... they show the videos on tv all the time) would probably have been crushed by the weight of all of that new water on top of them. They can't leave the ocean floor, after all.
I think that for every 10m you dive into the water, the pressure doubles, triples, etc. from the pressure you'd feel at sea level
However, the ocean-floor creatures are still here and thriving.

Quote:
The waters of the Flood caused a tremendous amount of erosion and deposition. As the sediment-laden waters swept into coastal lowlands, lakes, and seas, the first animals to be buried were often the slowest-trilobites, sea sponges, and clams and mussels.

So why do we have clams and mussels now if they were all buried in sediment?

Quote:
Mor agile fish usually survived longer but eventually even these were overcome and buried.

Which brings us to several questions. First of all, why do we have trees? All trees (and all plantlife, for that matter) should have died. But how can you expect Noah to dig out the roots (!) and then put on his ship every single tree that ever existed? Especially giant trees- the ones that are 100m high.

Quote:
These were ideal for fossil formation. The vast majority of fossils and geological formations were undoubtedly formed during the flood.

Ah, but if the majority were formed during the flood, then why don't most of them carbon-date to the same date. Even if, as you say, the carbon dating method is wrong (I don't know enough about the matter to argue), it would be consistently wrong.

To finish this off:
You still haven't explained how giant sea reptiles and Pteradons were killed.

According to your explanations, all sea creatures died. But then Noah collected all fish on his ship too? Even two gigantic Blue Whales? A pair of White Sharks?
And if they survived, why did all the marine air-breathing mammals survive but all the marine air-breathing reptiles die out?
And why did the whole population of Pteradons, some species of which were the size of small airplanes and were able to fly for a whole day on a single flap of the wings by using air currents die out? It's not like they couldn't stay in the air.

Edited by: Snortimer at: 8/16/02 2:55:38 am

KeenEmpire
Vortininja
Posts: 300
(8/18/02 4:57 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
The "big bang" theory sounds pretty supernatural to me...

supernatural

\Su`per*nat"u*ral\, a. [Pref. super- + natural: cf. OF. supernaturel, F. surnaturel.] Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature; miraculous.

Confusing.

The big bang could have started in a singularity (which is not "dirt"), where all the laws of the universe are broken down. Why exactly it exploded I dunno. Maybe God did it. Maybe it had something that cannot be explained by the laws of nature (since the laws of nature are broken down).

Quote:
This of course begs the question: If this universe was created from another universe, where did the other universe come from?

Weird mode (not to be taken seriously, however it may be true): This universe was created from Universe X. Universe X is created from a black hole originating in this universe after this universe was created.

~nT~

Quote:
So many stick with the "nothing before big bang" idea, despite the problems with it.

Nothing is one thing.
No thing is one thing.
And what this has to do with this, is beyond me.

Quote:
This law [the 2nd thermo law] totally eliminates the basic evolutionary theory that simple evolves into complex.

It states that entropy increases if energy is not brought in from outside the system to fix it. The Earth can be considered a separate system than the universe, and nrg from sources (i.e. the sun) is coming and hitting it. Energy is being brought in from outside sources.

Quote:
Where did God come from? God has always been. Something else could not have created God because we would end up with the same question of where that came from. God could not create himself because He wouldn't have been around to do so. Therefore, the ONLY logical explaination of God is that He has always been.

That's not the only, one other is that there is no God, so he didn't create himself, and no one created him in the first place.

Quote:
First of all, I don't think that even 40 days of constant rain is enough to raise water levels around the world enough to cover everything.

Let me make a crappy equation. First assumption: Earth itself is 5000 kilometers in radius (which is veryy inaccurate and low), second, rain has to flood 7 kilometers up.

Rain has to fill 4/3*5007^3*pi - 4/3*5000^3*pi
=2202194928 kilometers cubed.

Now the surface area of the earth is 4*5000^2*pi = 314159265.4 (notice the 314 15!).

Lets assume that the rain was equally distributed throughout the earth. The sea rose 7 km, so that would mean, over a period of one day, enuf water was in for it to rise 7/40 km.

For every hour, 0.007291666km.
For every minute, 0,000121527km.
For every second, 0,000002025km.
Which means, 0.202546296cm.

Every second, the water would be rising 0.2 centimeters, every minute 1 cm.

Too fast to bail out.

Of course, Noah was probably smart enough to make open decks, if anyone has the calculation for pressure of the rain, they can continue this.

Yep, this has died out.

And to conclude taht

If Noah indeed didn't put all the trees upon his arc, the trees would have had to evolve at an alarming rate to produce all those species and subspecies, which is clearly contradicted by observed data.

Edited by: Keen Second Universal Empire at: 8/14/21 6:32:58 am

Edited by: KeenEmpire at: 8/18/02 5:04:26 am

Snortimer

Vortininja
Posts: 860
(8/18/02 7:19 pm)
64.229.128.252
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Wow!

This is the first time I've had the good fortune to win in one of these discussions!

Now that I'm content, I hope that nobody will miss me much as I'm going on a week-long camping trip.

Adidos!

Djaser
Vortininja
Posts: 57
(8/18/02 7:27 pm)
212.115.198.253
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Aaah this topic has turned in a evolution discussion :garg

.
Personally I'm a Christian and I've read one book sooooo boring :barf

but surely not satanic!
However I hate Harry Potter because people are bullying me because I look like him

Djaser
Vortininja
Posts: 61
(8/18/02 7:56 pm)
212.115.198.253
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Well Snortimer I've something to say about Noach and his arc.

Why should have come from rain God is mighty If God does something in the world wouldn't it say you can understand it or calculating how much it must have rained. God has created the whole world why couldn't he raise plants again or didn't he made sure that the salt and sweetwaterfish survived.
And dinosaurs where extinct at that time!

Djaser
Vortininja
Posts: 62
(8/18/02 7:59 pm)
212.115.198.253
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

The Ulpravelenie sorry but I must say that the word is at least 12 000 year old because there were already much civilization at that time.

Edit: indeed births need a break out and much have died at Noahs time but maybe there where a few (two from each specie maybe

)
But hey this discussion will never end I'm afraid!
I've warned you

Edited by: Djaser at: 8/18/02 8:01:35 pm

The Upravlenie
Vortininja
Posts: 93
(8/19/02 5:30 pm)
63.237.230.16
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Like I said in the dolphin debate, I've been gone for a few days and I haven't had the time to work on the computer.

Quote:
First of all, I don't think that even 40 days of constant rain is enough to raise water levels around the world enough to cover everything. In order to cover even a good portion of the Himalayas, they would have to rise at least 7km in height. So did all of the water just magically come out of nowhere?

The “fountains of the deep” were broken up probably providing most of the water. As for the Himalayas, they were probably formed during the flood.

Quote:
But it couldn't have risen 7km anyway. If it did, then all of those creatures who live near the ocean vents 2km under the water (come on... you know the ones; in the deep sea, those tube-worms, strange luminescent fish with long fangs... they show the videos on tv all the time) would probably have been crushed by the weight of all of that new water on top of them. They can't leave the ocean floor, after all.
I think that for every 10m you dive into the water, the pressure doubles, triples, etc. from the pressure you'd feel at sea level
However, the ocean-floor creatures are still here and thriving.

I’m sure a fish would be smart enough to rise or be forced to rise as the pressure increased.

Quote:
So why do we have clams and mussels now if they were all buried in sediment?

Obviously, some of them survived.

Quote:
Which brings us to several questions. First of all, why do we have trees? All trees (and all plantlife, for that matter) should have died. But how can you expect Noah to dig out the roots (!) and then put on his ship every single tree that ever existed? Especially giant trees- the ones that are 100m high.

Tree seeds would have survived the flood.

Quote:
Ah, but if the majority were formed during the flood, then why don't most of them carbon-date to the same date. Even if, as you say, the carbon dating method is wrong (I don't know enough about the matter to argue), it would be consistently wrong.

Carbon dates are based on the assumptions of the person doing the dating.

Quote:
You still haven't explained how giant sea reptiles and Pteradons were killed.

Who said all the pteradons and sea reptiles were killed? On April 26, 1890, an article appeared in the Tombstone Epitaph about two men that shot and killed a pteradon.

This report was made by German U-boat captain, Georg von Forstner:

On 30 July 1915, our U28 torpedoed the British steamer Iberian, carrying a rich cargo in the North Atlantic. The steamer sank quickly, the bow sticking almost vertically into the air. When is had been gone for about twenty-five seconds, there was a violent explosion. A little later, pieces of wreckage, and among them a gigantic sea animal, writhing and struggling wildly, was shot out of the water to a height of 60 to 100 feet. At that moment I had with me in the conning tower my officer of the watch, the chief engineer, the navigator, and the helmsman. ... We did not have the time to take a photograph, for the animal sank out of sight after ten or fifteen seconds. It was about 60 feet long, was like a crocodile in shape, and had four limbs with powerful webbed feet, and a long tail tapering to a point.

Quote:
According to your explanations, all sea creatures died. But then Noah collected all fish on his ship too? Even two gigantic Blue Whales? A pair of White Sharks?

Not at all. Some of every kind of animal survived the flood although not all could survive in the enviroment after the flood which explains the extinct species. Also, Noah didn't have to take any full grown animals on the ark with him; baby animals would take up less room and would work just fine.

"If it weren't for electricity we'd all be watching television by candlelight." -George Gobol.

Edited by: The Upravlenie at: 8/19/02 5:33:12 pm

The Upravlenie
Vortininja
Posts: 98
(8/20/02 3:09 pm)
63.237.230.44
| Del

Closing remarks.

This debate could go on forever and we would still hold to the same positions as when we started. In closing, I would like to state some of the reasons why I don't believe in evolution:

1. The "chaos to cosmos" (the big bang) is a thermodynamic impossibility.

2. The significant lack of transitional forms.

3. Evolution is based of false assumptions and no evidence.

-It's like throwing pearls to swine-

KeenEmpire
Vortininja
Posts: 301
(8/22/02 9:26 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
The “fountains of the deep” were broken up probably providing most of the water. As for the Himalayas, they were probably formed during the flood.

1) HWO2FROM MUNTEINS WITH FLUD??!?!
2) Fountains of the deep? Do you mean there is water below this earth?
3) Where did the water come from? Where did it go?

Quote:
Tree seeds would have survived the flood.

Yes, but this was approximately 4000 years ago (and Christ came around 2000 years ago); how would the trees reproduce even that quickly to form rainforests all around the world? Even if I ignore the amount of time it takes for animals to reproduce from only two members of the species, this is still pretty high, the creation of entire rainforests, all across the world. Unless plant seeds can cross oceans, there would be a problem here.

Not to mention all those bl00dy seeds...there must be thousands of species of plant life, did Noah carry all those seeds around? Did plants evolve that fast?

Quote:
Carbon dates are based on the assumptions of the person doing the dating.

Cough, no. If you push something a certain force across wood, and something with the same mass a certain force across wood, the distance the thing travelled would be about the same, regardless of the amount it really travelled. You are simply ignoring what he says, being consistantly wrong does not require the assumptions of the person doing the dating.

Quote:
Who said all the pteradons and sea reptiles were killed? On April 26, 1890, an article appeared in the Tombstone Epitaph about two men that shot and killed a pteradon.

This report was made by German U-boat captain, Georg von Forstner:

On 30 July 1915, our U28 torpedoed the British steamer Iberian, carrying a rich cargo in the North Atlantic. The steamer sank quickly, the bow sticking almost vertically into the air. When is had been gone for about twenty-five seconds, there was a violent explosion. A little later, pieces of wreckage, and among them a gigantic sea animal, writhing and struggling wildly, was shot out of the water to a height of 60 to 100 feet. At that moment I had with me in the conning tower my officer of the watch, the chief engineer, the navigator, and the helmsman. ... We did not have the time to take a photograph, for the animal sank out of sight after ten or fifteen seconds. It was about 60 feet long, was like a crocodile in shape, and had four limbs with powerful webbed feet, and a long tail tapering to a point.

Yeah...and where did most of them go? They would have to have died out, if we see only one of them.

Quote:
Not at all. Some of every kind of animal survived the flood although not all could survive in the enviroment after the flood which explains the extinct species. Also, Noah didn't have to take any full grown animals on the ark with him; baby animals would take up less room and would work just fine.

Yes, and where would those baby animals find food?

You are ignoring another big problem here; assuming plant seeds survived, there will be a large gap of time before they would mature...which means crops. Until then, the world is basically barren and at least partially salted (due to the sea rising onto the ground). There would be no food, unless Noah had enuf supplies to feed all those animals (say, wasn't that some gallons of milk per day eaten by a baby elephant...). All those animals that went in his arc, they wouldn't survive. And not to mention the carnivores...what can they eat, when there are no creatures to eat except for those who also came on the arc?

1. God is a thermodynamic impossibility.

2. The significant lack of evidence proving God to exist.

3. Creationism is based of false assumptions and no evidence.

4. You say an arrogant fact, you get an arrogant fact back.

Edited by: Keen Second Universal Empire at: 8/14/21 6:32:58 am

Djaser
Vortininja
Posts: 118
(8/22/02 11:39 am)
212.115.198.253
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

The Ulpravlenie you are mostly right this are some weak arguments. But you know I think you can not explain everything what was written in the bible but it is not bad too talk about it. One point I don't believe that the time written in the bible is wrong. And the big flood was before 10 000 BC. I do believe that there are some big creatures in this world we still don't know but I'm sure no Pteranodons....

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 327
(8/22/02 1:44 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:
Who said all the pteradons and sea reptiles were killed? On April 26, 1890, an article appeared in the Tombstone Epitaph about two men that shot and killed a pteradon.

This report was made by German U-boat captain, Georg von Forstner:

On 30 July 1915, our U28 torpedoed the British steamer Iberian, carrying a rich cargo in the North Atlantic. The steamer sank quickly, the bow sticking almost vertically into the air. When is had been gone for about twenty-five seconds, there was a violent explosion. A little later, pieces of wreckage, and among them a gigantic sea animal, writhing and struggling wildly, was shot out of the water to a height of 60 to 100 feet. At that moment I had with me in the conning tower my officer of the watch, the chief engineer, the navigator, and the helmsman. ... We did not have the time to take a photograph, for the animal sank out of sight after ten or fifteen seconds. It was about 60 feet long, was like a crocodile in shape, and had four limbs with powerful webbed feet, and a long tail tapering to a point.

Who said these are are reliable?
Anyways the "gigantic sea animal" could have been a giant squid. Those can grow up to 20m(60ft) long, and their eyes are the size of a football.

adurdin
Wormouth
Posts: 477
(8/23/02 11:04 am)
144.137.23.175
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

That sounds like a plesiosaur, not a pteranodon.

The Upravlenie
Vortininja
Posts: 147
(8/30/02 4:52 am)
63.237.230.147
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Sorry, I only recently read the last posts.

Quote:
2) Fountains of the deep? Do you mean there is water below this earth?

Yes, or at least there was.

Quote:
3) Where did the water come from? Where did it go?

I figured it was obvious

Quote:
Yes, but this was approximately 4000 years ago (and Christ came around 2000 years ago); how would the trees reproduce even that quickly to form rainforests all around the world? Even if I ignore the amount of time it takes for animals to reproduce from only two members of the species, this is still pretty high, the creation of entire rainforests, all across the world. Unless plant seeds can cross oceans, there would be a problem here.

Not to mention all those bl00dy seeds...there must be thousands of species of plant life, did Noah carry all those seeds around? Did plants evolve that fast?

Let me get this strait: You question my theory that rainforests could grow and varieties could form in kinds in about 4400 years, and you believe that all life somehow came from some minerals at the bottom of the sea billions of years ago? Where did the sea, the earth, the universe, and all the minerals come from? You don’t know...it’s like a bl00dy fairy-tale...

Quote:
Cough, no. If you push something a certain force across wood, and something with the same mass a certain force across wood, the distance the thing travelled would be about the same, regardless of the amount it really travelled. You are simply ignoring what he says, being consistantly wrong does not require the assumptions of the person doing the dating.

They are being consistently wrong. I don’t see how your example applies to carbon dating.

Quote:
Yeah...and where did most of them go? They would have to have died out, if we see only one of them.

I don’t know where they went. Maybe they couldn’t survive in the environment after the flood.

Quote:
Yes, and where would those baby animals find food?

You are ignoring another big problem here; assuming plant seeds survived, there will be a large gap of time before they would mature...which means crops. Until then, the world is basically barren and at least partially salted (due to the sea rising onto the ground). There would be no food, unless Noah had enuf supplies to feed all those animals (say, wasn't that some gallons of milk per day eaten by a baby elephant...). All those animals that went in his arc, they wouldn't survive. And not to mention the carnivores...what can they eat, when there are no creatures to eat except for those who also came on the arc?

Noah probably took enough food with him to feed his family and the animals until the waters receded and the plants matured. Tell me, is it more resonable to believe that seeds survived a flood or that seeds created themselves billions of years ago?

1. God created thermodynamics and is not subject to the laws thereof.

2. The greatest proof of God is probably that without Him, we couldn’t prove anything.

3. Creationism is based on the Bible and lots of evidence.

4. I’m not being arrogant.

Quote:
Who said these are are reliable?

They are probably not reliable, though there are too many reports to just ignore them.

"If it weren't for electricity we'd all be watching television by candlelight." -George Gobol.

Edited by: The Upravlenie at: 8/30/02 4:56:33 am

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 334
(8/30/02 12:51 pm)
203.151.8.41
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:
Yes, or at least there was.

hmmm...(neutral statement)

Quote:
I figured it was obvious

Right...so where did the water go, if it's obvious?

Quote:
Let me get this strait: You question my theory that rainforests could grow and varieties could form in kinds in about 4400 years, and you believe that all life somehow came from some minerals at the bottom of the sea billions of years ago? Where did the sea, the earth, the universe, and all the minerals come from? You don’t know...it’s like a bl00dy fairy-tale...

4 billion is only 909090 times more than that...

Where did the sea come from? Answered. (with possibility)

Where did the universe come from? Several theories.

Where did the earth come from? I assume that, once the universe was created (several theories), the natural laws would have kicked in, the nebula would have formed into the sun, and cosmic space dust would have combined into large objects to eventually become a planet. There are more theories on that as well.

Minerals...same thing.

Hell, God is like a bl00dy fairy tale, if that's how you describe it.

Quote:
They are being consistently wrong.

They are? I wonder. I'll wait on Snortimer for this one.

Quote:
I don’t see how your example applies to carbon dating.

It shows that dating has to be consistently wrong.

Quote:
Noah probably took enough food with him to feed his family and the animals until the waters receded and the plants matured.

Please, how does he feed the carnivores, who would have wanted meat (the meat of the last two remaining members of a race) when they matured? And the elephants? (Which you've so blantingly ignored) HWO2FEED???!!?.

Quote:
Tell me, is it more resonable to believe that seeds survived a flood or that seeds created themselves billions of years ago?

Seeds survived a flood? Come, I'm sure that if there was a flood, seeds would have survived somehow. That's not very unreasonable.

Seeds creating themselves is not reasonable at all, and does not describe evolution either. In fact, none of science talks about "seeds creating themselves," I wonder where you got that idea from.

Quote:
1. God created thermodynamics and is not subject to the laws thereof.

So where then did the energy that is God come from? Or he's not energy at all? Or what?

Quote:
2. The greatest proof of God is probably that without Him, we couldn’t prove anything.

Translation: Okay, I don't know why a marble goes from point A to point B, so therefore God must have done something. End of story.

Quote:
3. Creationism is based on the Bible and lots of evidence.

Roofles. Based on the Bible...gosh! Lots of evidence...didn't I hear you say that the greatest "proof" of him was a lack of proof without due assumptions?

Quote:
4. I’m not being arrogant.

No, you were making statements as absolute, unflawed truth. No proof either.

__________

"...And during the 'DemOps' event, Keen set the series of events leading to the formation of the Second Universal Empire That Ever Existed...

...That Empire, with an economy based on capitalism, and yet not quite, was..."

-The Summerizer's Guide to the Universe, Day Edition; Last updated 8/14/2021.

ManderKeen
Vortininja
Posts: 356
(8/30/02 6:16 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

eVolution

Quote:
Yes, or at least there was.

So there was water. If there was enough water to cover the earth, the layer must've been a few kilometers thick, all around the world. If that layer was emptied, the surface of earth would have collapsed due to gravity, and the weight of that water.

The Upravlenie
Vortininja
Posts: 150
(8/31/02 5:24 am)
63.237.230.80
| Del

Re: eVolution

Some point to ponder about the flood. (from: www.drdino.com). I will get to your posts later.

2 Pet. 3:3-8 tells us that people who scoff at the Bible are "willingly ignorant" of the Creation and the Flood. In order to understand science and the Bible, we must not be ignorant of those two great events in Earth’s history. See Creation Seminar tape 2 for more information.

Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis story.

Noah’s ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat" shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity. Scoffers have pointed out that the largest sailing ships were less than 300 feet because of the problem of twisting and flexing the boat. These ships had giant masts on them and sails to catch the wind. Noah's ark need neither of those and therefore had far less torsional stress.

Even using the small 18-inch cubit (my height is 6-ft. 1-in. and I have a 21-in. cubit) the ark was large enough to hold all the required animals, people, and food with room to spare.

The length-to-width ratio of 6 to 1 is what shipbuilders today often use. This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather. (God thinks of everything!)

The ark may have had a "moon-pool" in the center. The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the boat with walls extending up into the ship. There are several reasons for this feature:
It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves. This would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships.
The rising and lowering water acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and out of the ship. This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all the animals on board.
The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going outside.

The ark may have had large drogue (anchor) stones suspended over the sides to keep it more stable in rough weather. Many of these stones have been found in the region where the ark landed.

Noah lived 950 years! Many Bible scholars believe the pre-Flood people were much larger than modern man. Skeletons over 11 feet tall have been found! If Noah were taller, his cubit (elbow to fingertip) would have been much larger also. This would make the ark larger by the same ratio. See Seminar tape #2 for more info on this.

God told Noah to bring two of each kind (seven of some), not of each species or variety. Noah had only two of the dog kind which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The "kind" grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy, and would greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark. Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood. This diversification is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach. (They teach that "kelp can turn into Kent," given enough time!)

Noah did not have to get the animals. God brought them to him (Gen. 6:20, "shall come to thee").

Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen. 7:15, "in which is the breath of life," 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all the thousands of insects varieties.

Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather.

All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3.

The pre-Flood people were probably much smarter and more advanced than people today. The longer lifespans, Adam’s direct contact with God, and the fact that they could glean the wisdom of many generations that were still alive would greatly expand their knowledge base.

The Bible says that the highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water. This is half the height of the ark. The ark was safe from scraping bottom at all times.

The large mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8).

There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.

Many claim to have seen the ark in recent times in the area in which the Bible says it landed. There are two primary schools of thought about the actual site of the ark (see my Creation Seminar Part 3 video for more on this). Much energy and time has been expended to prove both views. Some believe the ark is on Mt. Ararat, covered by snow (CBS showed a one-hour special in 1993 about this site). The other group believes the ark is seventeen miles south of Mt. Ararat in a valley called "the valley of eight" (8 souls on the ark). The Bible says the ark landed in the "mountains" of Ararat, not necessarily on the mountain itself.

The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood (Gen. 10:25). The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth by then. See Seminar Part 6 for more information.

The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.

Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.

Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.

Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.

People choose to not believe in the Flood because it speaks of the judgment of God on sin (2 Pet. 3:3-8).

"If it weren't for electricity we'd all be watching television by candlelight." -George Gobol.

adurdin
Wormouth
Posts: 513
(8/31/02 6:58 am)
144.137.16.51
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:

Seeds creating themselves is not reasonable at all, and does not describe evolution either. In fact, none of science talks about "seeds creating themselves," I wonder where you got that idea from.

Here's a question for you:
Consider a single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, which breeds rapidly, because it needs only mineral resources to do so, employing asexual reproduction.
Now consider such an organism that, due to mutation or some other changes, relies on sexual reproduction. Assuming, for the sake of simplicity, that this is symmetrical sexual reproduction (i.e. two equal sexes, as opposed to male/female asymmetry), it would need another of its kind in order to reproduce. It is inevitable that these sexually reproducing organisms would take longer to reproduce than the first organism, due to the issues of finding a mate, and the interaction between the pair.

If this is the case, that the sexually reproducing pair breeds more slowly, why would it survive? Surely the sexually reproducing pair would be swamped by the faster-breeding asexually reproducing organisms?

What advantage could there be in sexual reproduction that could lead it to become so prevalent? Let alone in the complex reproductive cycles that most animals and plants have.

Edited by: adurdin at: 8/31/02 6:59:11 am

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 336
(8/31/02 7:42 am)
203.151.8.41
| Del

Short anser to andrew

Perhaps those reproducing creatures are bigger; just like we are big and don't care about how fast the microorganisms reproduce (except in several cases, of course), except of course that they would be much much smaller. The single-celled outnumber them, but the multi-celled outsize them.

Also, reproduction is probably something that will better trigger evolution. If, somehow, by a single accident, a creature reproduces and doubles in size, they'll eventually, eventually get too big for those pesky 1-celled to bother them.

Again, not saying anything.

adurdin
Wormouth
Posts: 515
(8/31/02 9:24 am)
144.137.16.51
| Del

Re: Short anser to andrew

Basically, I'm considering the rise of sexual reproduction in isolation, as I think it reasonable to assume that if it came about by evolutionary processes, it did not occur simultaneous with other significant changes in the organism. If you think that's not a reasonable assumption, please indicate why.

As for being single-celled or not, that is unimportant to my argument -- I took single-celled only for the sake of simplicity.

So to sum up my argument: Creature A reproduces asexually (on its own). Creature B is a mutation of creature A that is identical in all respects except that it reproduces sexually, and hence more slowly. Therefore, it would be expected that the population of creature B would rapidly swamp that of creature A, even if both populations were initially equal. As a result of both populations competing for the same food supplies, the slower-reproducing one (creature B) will most likely die out.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 339
(8/31/02 10:08 am)
203.151.8.41
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

I'm not sure; I don't think it's reasonable either, but perhaps, by chance, it did. if a lot of radiation was getting into the earth (and quite a bit into the water, though not enough to kill them at whatever depth the creatures are living in) then random mutations might occur very rapidly, and it might apply. Then, multi-celled creatures might actually eat the single celled =/

Then again, perhaps it is different, and sexual might cause multi-cells. As I said before, sexual speeds up evolution (by recombining random cells) and so the creature might be multi-celled (and eating those yummy single-celled :dopekeen

) because of sexuality. There is obviously a certain time period before the species gets "swamped," and combining it with serious radiation-caused evolution, and maybe..quite maybe. (I think this contradicts a lot of scientific theories, though :confused

though perhaps it is a reason they say it took 100 million years to get from single to multi (then again, that shouldn't be relied upon because that came from the movie Evolution :lol

) the really random stuff that actually works only happens once in a long time).

Then again, perhaps I'm totally wrong and, if it were like I say, then the multi-celled creatures that didn't fertilize would dominate, and it grow like that, and we'd be reproducing asexually right now... :barf

But I'm pretty sure that reproducing increases rate of evolution, for the reason that they're two different set of genes combining. And so this theory might apply.

The Upravlenie
Vortininja
Posts: 196
(9/10/02 3:32 am)
63.237.230.28
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:
Right...so where did the water go, if it's obvious?

Back underground, into the oceans, ect.

Quote:
Where did the earth come from? I assume that, once the universe was created (several theories), the natural laws would have kicked in, the nebula would have formed into the sun, and cosmic space dust would have combined into large objects to eventually become a planet. There are more theories on that as well.

Hydrogen, this odorless, tasteless gas, given enough time, will turn into people.

Quote:
Hell, God is like a bl00dy fairy tale, if that's how you describe it.

O, is He now? Where did numbers come from? Do we have minds? I there any such thing as right and wrong.

Quote:
Seeds creating themselves is not reasonable at all, and does not describe evolution either. In fact, none of science talks about "seeds creating themselves," I wonder where you got that idea from.

What created the seeds then?

Quote:
So where then did the energy that is God come from? Or he's not energy at all? Or what?

God is not a physical being.

Quote:
Translation: Okay, I don't know why a marble goes from point A to point B, so therefore God must have done something. End of story.

Okay, God created point A and B and the marble, then moved the marble up the hill from point A to point B.

"Public opinion is for the government what a topographical map is for an army command in time of war."

Edited by: The Upravlenie at: 9/10/02 3:41:20 am

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 18
(9/10/02 12:10 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: Short anser to andrew

Quote:
Quote:
--------------------
Right...so where did the water go, if it's obvious?
--------------------
Back underground, into the oceans, ect.

I already told you, if there was enough water underground to cover earth, the ground would have collapsed into the space where the water was from the weight of the water.

Quote:
Quote:
--------------------
Hell, God is like a bl00dy fairy tale, if that's how you describe it.
--------------------
O, is He now? Where did numbers come from? Do we have minds? I there any such thing as right and wrong.

What the hell do those things have to do with god being a bl00dy fairytale?

Anyways,
1) I already told you where numbers came from in the 'Dolphins topic'
2) Our minds and self-awareness are a result of our very highly developed brain.
3) Already said, morals are a sophisticated way of ensuring survival of species.

The Upravlenie
Vortininja
Posts: 201
(9/11/02 4:25 am)
63.237.230.13
| Del

Re: Short anser to andrew

Quote:
I already told you, if there was enough water underground to cover earth, the ground would have collapsed into the space where the water was from the weight of the water.

Water would have come from three places: Underground, oceans, and the sky.

Quote:
What the hell do those things have to do with god being a bl00dy fairytale?

Anyways,
1) I already told you where numbers came from in the 'Dolphins topic'
2) Our minds and self-awareness are a result of our very highly developed brain.
3) Already said, morals are a sophisticated way of ensuring survival of species.

Give me time to explain, will ya.
1) Okay.
2) But our minds are not a physical thing.
3) How do morals ensure survival of the species?

P.S. Why are we using "bl00dy" instead of "bloody?"

"Public opinion is for the government what a topographical map is for an army command in time of war."

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 375
(9/11/02 1:27 pm)
203.151.8.41
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:
Hydrogen, this odorless, tasteless gas, given enough time, will turn into people.

Hydrogen alone would not have created people. It needs, at the very least, energy.

Quote:
O, is He now? Where did numbers come from? Do we have minds? I there any such thing as right and wrong.

All answered by babbis (although I could come up with more answers)

Quote:
What created the seeds then?

Sigh, you're still thinking "created"...If you ask "What created the seeds," nobody. It depends how you define creation, though.

Quote:
God is not a physical being.

Do you have any evidence to support this?

Quote:
Okay, God created point A and B and the marble, then moved the marble up the hill from point A to point B.

Sigh, you are missing the point totally. Reread 1) My quote 2) The quote that I quoted that corresponds to that particular quote of mine.

Quote:
Water would have come from three places: Underground, oceans, and the sky.

This is besides the point of what babbis had said, and I pose another related question for you: if there is an equivilant amount of water on the earth as there was during the flood, why isn't the earth still flooded? Where did the water go to, so that the oceans are the height they are today?

Quote:
2) But our minds are not a physical thing.

So? They are energy, and possibly a combination of those physical things.

Quote:
3) How do morals ensure survival of the species?

If no one kills each other, the species has a greater chance of survival than if everyone is killing each other.

Quote:
P.S. Why are we using "bl00dy" instead of "bloody?"

Because it's a bl00dy joke, and you seem to be taking it bl00dy seriously.

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 24
(9/12/02 3:57 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: Short anser to andrew

Quote:
2) But our minds are not a physical thing.

Why not?
Oh, and, even if our minds wouldn't be physical, if we had souls(which I think is false), why would we need a god to have them?

Edited by: baabis at: 9/12/02 4:01:48 pm

UppyII
Grunt
Posts: 25
(10/2/02 3:05 am)
63.237.230.14
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:
Hell, God is like a bl00dy fairy tale, if that's how you describe it

Belief in the existence of God is not tested in any ordinary way like other factual claims and the reason for that is, metaphysically, because of the non-natural character of God. The proof of the Christian God is the impossibility of the contrary.
How in a materialistic, naturalistic outlook on life can you account for laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality? May I suggest that, without the Christian worldveiw, this debate wouldn’t even begin make sense? Why should we use logic and reason?
The transcendental proof of God’s existence is that without him, it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of science, logic, or morality and cannot allow for the uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes. God is the precondition of intelligibility and the proof of God is the impossibility of the absence of God.

Edited by: UppyII at: 10/2/02 3:13:21 am

baabis
Vortininja
Posts: 43
(10/4/02 2:05 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

First of all, what do you mean by "the atheist"?

Quote:
May I suggest that, without the Christian worldveiw, this debate wouldn’t even begin make sense?

Without the christian worldview there wouldn't be anything to debate about.

Quote:
The transcendental proof of God’s existence is that without him, it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist is irrational {Why?} and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of science, logic, or morality {Why?} and cannot allow for the uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes {Why?}. God is the precondition of intelligibility {Why?} and the proof of God is the impossibility of the absence of God {Why?}.

Why are you so sure that everything you say is true, just because you say it? These statements have nothing to back them up, they're just statements, nothing more.

<edit>Oh no! I'm a Vortininja again! This is probably caused by the system updates @ EzBoard. If it doesn't do it by itself, could someone pleaze change my custom title back to Gannalech?</edit>

Edited by: baabis at: 10/4/02 2:09:34 pm

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 319
(10/4/02 3:02 pm)
62.238.255.224
| Del

Re: Short anser to andrew

Yeah and without Christian world view wouldn't we have our societe wich we think is better than most of the other societies in the world.....

Believe it or not Potter is on the forum........

UppyII
Grunt
Posts: 28
(10/4/02 6:38 pm)
63.237.230.9
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:
First of all, what do you mean by "the atheist"?

Someone who believes there is no God or the evidence shown by theists are not sufficient.

Quote:
The atheist is irrational {Why?} and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of science, logic, or morality {Why?} and cannot allow for the uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes {Why?}.

You tell me how you can.

baabis
Vortininja
Posts: 45
(10/5/02 2:03 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:
Yeah and without Christian world view wouldn't we have our societe wich we think is better than most of the other societies in the world.....

You cannot say for sure what our society would be like without religion, although I'm sure it wouldn't be any worse.

Quote:
You tell me how you can.

You first answer my questions; tell me why I couldn't do the things you mentioned. Then I'll do my best to knock your arguments down.
And do answer the questions you left out of your quote, too.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 408
(10/5/02 3:38 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Oh yeah, I just realized something.

[GIANT QUOTE UBB THINGY="People from MT"]

Quote:
Belief in the existence of God is not tested in any ordinary way like other factual claims and the reason for that is, metaphysically, because of the non-natural character of God. The proof of the Christian God is the impossibility of the contrary.

That's not proof as it is, nor is evolution/various science the contary. Or perhaps that should be rephrased. If evolution is disproved, how do I know that the human race wasn't created by aliens from another universe, where they happened to have 100 billion years to evolve into their state (assuming that it takes a lot longer to evolve), and create a technology capable of doing so? The disproof of creationism is not the proof of God, since, while is is the contary, it is not the only contary. You will have to disprove everything else as well, in order to actually prove God.

Quote:
How in a materialistic, naturalistic outlook on life can you account for laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality?

Laws of logic/science are to, as close as possible, accurately explain the world. That is why they assume as little as they can. Laws of morality are to make the world a better place for human beings. (Though the key word is safer).

Quote:
May I suggest that, without the Christian worldveiw, this debate wouldn’t even begin make sense?

No, you may not suggest that. j/k.

The Christian worldview is simply a set of postulates, such as science has its own set of postulates. The difference is that science "assumes" less than Christianity, in the most point. It does not assume, for example, that the earth was creted 6000 years ago, but needs proof for that.

Quote:
Why should we use logic and reason?

Accuracy (see above).

Quote:
You cannot prove that the Christian God does not exist. In order to do that, you would have to search the entire universe simultaneously, and then, all you could claim is that He didn’t exist at the time you searched.

Of course. That's one of the things we take for granted in these debates. You can't prove that the Christian God does not exist, you can't prove that the Christian God does exist. You can't prove that the Islamic God does not exist, you can't prove that the Islamic God does exist. And etc.[/GIANT QUOTE UBB THINGY]

I corrected one of his/her mistakes. And I'll even attack your responses:

Quote:
The transcendental proof of God’s existence is that without him, it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of science, logic, or morality and cannot allow for the uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes. God is the precondition of intelligibility and the proof of God is the impossibility of the absence of God.

Without him, it is impossible to prove anything? Oh please. When you prove that force is equal to mass times acceleration , you are not even putting God into the equation. Why do we need God to prove that "anything" of yours?

Cannot consistently prove the preconditions? Have you even read his/her (and for that matter, my) posts? There are such things as postulates. What Christianity cannot do is justify some preconditions to those preconditions, while science actually justifies it using common sense. I believe he/she said that as well.

Quote:
God is the precondition of intelligibility and the proof of God is the impossibility of the absence of God.

Please, you have not even read his/her reply, it addresses that totally, and you only make an unsupported, repititive statement against it.

Quote:
They are not merely conventions, but are universal laws. How can you allow them?

Oh God, do you think we really need God to know that death is bad, and should be avoided? So if they are universal laws, how can we allow them? Hmm, I wonder...Because we live in the universe? That's something to consider...

(And yes, I am aware of the irony in that first sentence.)

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 323
(10/5/02 6:43 pm)
62.238.255.223
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

( Oh God, do you think we really need God to know that death is bad, and should be avoided? So if they are universal laws, how can we allow them? Hmm, I wonder...Because we live in the universe? That's something to consider... )

Well we need the bible for that. There were huiman sacrifieses in Europe and other bad thing like this. The Cristians made an end at this I can't see this as bad. Alomst the same for your country Keenempire I supose but it were the budhist and not the Cristians who changed the bad things there. (I don't know much about Thailand so forgive me if I'm, totally wrong).

Believe it or not Potter is on the forum........

baabis
Vortininja
Posts: 47
(10/5/02 9:32 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:
There were huiman sacrifieses in Europe and other bad thing like this. The Cristians made an end at this

Ever heard of the Holy Inquisition?
Yah, I know it doesn't say sacrifice anywhere, but that's what it basically is - they were burning people as heretics and witches 'so they would be purified in the name of god'.
Take Galileo Galilei for example, he almost got burned because of what he found.

UppyII
Grunt
Posts: 31
(10/6/02 4:56 am)
63.237.230.139
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:
How in a materialistic, naturalistic outlook on life can you account for laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality?

I've yet to have one person answer this.

Here's something to chew on:

As for my closing statement I need to deal, I think, first of all–perhaps in the entire time analyzing this remark that “my statements have been tonight, irrational.” Well, perhaps they have, but you see, saying so doesn’t make it so. That’s something we just heard as well. And so, if my statements have been irrational then we are going to need some standards of reasoning by which these statements have been shown to be irrational. Dr. Stein has yet to explain to us in even the broadest, simplest, Sunday-school-child manner that I told you about laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality. He hasn’t even begun to scratch the surface to tell us how, in his worldview, there can be laws of any sort. And if there can’t be laws or standards in his worldview, then he can’t be worried about my irrationality–my alledged irrationality. The transcendental argument for the existence of God has not been answered by Dr. Stein. It’s been debated, it’s been made fun of, but it hasn’t been answered. And that’s what we’re here for: rational interchange. The transcendental argument says, “The proof of the Christian God is that without Him, you can’t prove anything.” Notice the argument does not say that atheists don’t prove things. The argument doesn’t say that atheists don’t use logic, science, or laws of morality. In fact, they do. The argument is that they cannot account for what they are doing. Their worldview is not consistent with what they are doing. In their worldview, there are no laws; there are no abstract entities; there are no universal–there are no prescriptions. There’s just the material universe, naturalistically explained in the way things happen to be. That’s not law-like or universal. Therefore, their worldview doesn’t account for logic, science, or morality. But atheists, of course, use logic, science, and morality and in so doing, atheists give continual evidence that in their hard-of-harts, they aren’t atheist. In their hard-of-harts they know the God I’m talking about. This God made them, this God reveals Himself continually to them through the natural order, through their conscience, through the very use of reason. They know this God and they suppress the truth about Him. -Dr. Greg Bahnsen

baabis
Vortininja
Posts: 49
(10/6/02 9:23 am)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:
There’s just the material universe, naturalistically explained in the way things happen to be.

Why should we seek an answer that isn't the obvious, if the obvious answer is not in conflict with any other obvious answer.
If they are in conflict, then we should find another solution for either one of the conflicting answers. And the last answer to any of these questions is God. Why? Because it would knock down all other tested and obvious theories and answers, not to mention laws.

Quote:
“The proof of the Christian God is that without Him, you can’t prove anything."

This, and the rest of the quote relies on the (false)assumption that the above statement is the ultimate truth. In every debate you(religious people) seek answer from atheists for that clause.
Prove me why that particular statement is true, and I'll start believing in god. I'm confident enough that you can't.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 411
(10/8/02 1:21 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:
How in a materialistic, naturalistic outlook on life can you account for laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality?.....I've yet to have one person answer this.

How much more obvious can it get, that Uppy does not read the responses to his posts?

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 334
(10/8/02 1:47 pm)
62.238.255.223
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

( Ever heard of the Holy Inquisition?
Yah, I know it doesn't say sacrifice anywhere, but that's what it basically is - they were burning people as heretics and witches 'so they would be purified in the name of god'.
Take Galileo Galilei for example, he almost got burned because of what he found. )

Mmh yeah that is right. I don't say the Cristians did only good things. But it is a little bit naif to say that Christians have caused only bad thing. They have caused not more and not less than atheist do but because the Christians had more influence in less advanced times it just look like they were doing bad. If there were no Chrisitians in medieval times than the atheist would have burned witches. Just an example the communist have killed 50 milion people becaue they had another opinion than they had well there aren't more extreme atheists than Stalin was.... Instead of what Therearealldopefish said the Christians brought the civilazation to much parts of Europe they built wonderfull chruches this isn't primitive. Remember that Bonefatius was killed in Holland because he was a Christian. I know only one example of protestants who killed a man because his opinion.

Believe it or not Potter is on the forum........

Shikadi

Vortininja
Posts: 203
(10/10/02 12:01 am)
200.52.173.3
| Del

Bloody brilliant response, Djaser

How can you say that Christians have not done more bad things than Atheists? Have you ever heard of a Atheist killing somebody or making a whole army just for the soul purpouse of killing people because their not Atheists? Nor have Atheists killed ot threatened people just because of there religion. Maybe Atheists have done worse things than Christians but most of them were not religion-based. The chuches they built were just so (at least in America, I mean all America) that the natives (Aztec and other American civilisations) would abandon there religion, if they refused they would be killed and all this was AFTER they enslaved them and destroyed there empire murduring millions. Have Atheists done things like this on religion causes?

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 340
(10/10/02 5:29 am)
62.238.255.223
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

( Have you ever heard of a Atheist killing somebody or making a whole army just for the soul purpouse of killing people because their not Atheists? Nor have Atheists killed ot threatened people just because of there religion. )

Lol, lol, lol, ever heard of the Sovjetunie?

( that the natives (Aztec and other American civilisations) would abandon there religion, if they refused they would be killed and all this was AFTER they enslaved them and destroyed there empire murduring millions. Have Atheists done things like this on religion causes? )

Do you really believe that Europeans sailed to America just for new souls. They did it for the money and as an excuse they made non-Christians Christians. And I should have antoher look at the Sovjetunie.......

Believe it or not Potter is on the forum........

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 341
(10/10/02 12:44 pm)
62.238.255.223
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Another athiest example: The france revolution.....

The reason that you think that Christians have done more bad things than atheists is because it is always easy to say that about a group of people. Just like the Germans did....

Believe it or not Potter is on the forum........

baabis
Vortininja
Posts: 58
(10/10/02 1:40 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: Bloody brilliant response, Djaser

Quote:
If there were no Chrisitians in medieval times than the atheist would have burned witches. Just an example the communist have killed 50 milion people becaue they had another opinion than they had well there aren't more extreme atheists than Stalin was....

That's just not true. Christians have done bad things in the name of religion. Atheists have not done bad things under the name 'atheist'. End of story.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 415
(10/10/02 1:54 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Re: Bloody brilliant response, Djaser

Quote:
If there were no Chrisitians in medieval times than the atheist would have burned witches.

Well, well well. Didn't:

1) The Christians make a test if a person was a witch by tossing the person, tied, into the water. If the person sinks, they are not a witch, and if the person floats, they are being helped by Satan, and are therefore a witch. If the person sinks, they just leave them in there to die, and if the person floats, they are a witch, and so are burned.

Quote:
Do you really believe that Europeans sailed to America just for new souls. They did it for the money and as an excuse they made non-Christians Christians. And I should have antoher look at the Sovjetunie.......

So? They could have gotten the money, and then left their religion alone, but guess what, the Christians felt suddenly an urge to..er, "convert."

Quote:
Atheists have not done bad things under the name 'atheist'. End of story.

That is true. The dictatorships of the Soviet Unioin and the leaders/dictators of the French Revolution crushed the other religions because they didn't want any opposing views, not because they felt some honor in killing some Christians in the name of no-God, unlike the Christians, who do do it in the name of God.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 343
(10/10/02 6:20 pm)
62.238.255.223
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

( 1) The Christians make a test if a person was a witch by tossing the person, tied, into the water. If the person sinks, they are not a witch, and if the person floats, they are being helped by Satan, and are therefore a witch. If the person sinks, they just leave them in there to die, and if the person floats, they are a witch, and so are burned. )

I don't see your Point Keenempire :stunned

.

( So? They could have gotten the money, and then left their religion alone, but guess what, the Christians felt suddenly an urge to..er, "convert." )

If I now get your point: They didn't they just used is as an excuse for raiding America.

( That is true. The dictatorships of the Soviet Unioin and the leaders/dictators of the French Revolution crushed the other religions because they didn't want any opposing views, not because they felt some honor in killing some Christians in the name of no-God, unlike the Christians, who do do it in the name of God. )

Well that is not true. They just killed people because they were a burdin in reaching a state were everyone could be an atheist and research theories and prove them.
So in fact that is the same.

Believe it or not Potter is on the forum........

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 36
(10/10/02 11:43 pm)
63.237.230.37
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:
Without him, it is impossible to prove anything? Oh please. When you prove that force is equal to mass times acceleration , you are not even putting God into the equation. Why do we need God to prove that "anything" of yours? -KeenEmpire

God created laws of logic.

Quote:
You first answer my questions; tell me why I couldn't do the things you mentioned. Then I'll do my best to knock your arguments down.-Baabis

I asked you a simple question. Just answer it.

Quote:
Without him, it is impossible to prove anything? Oh please. When you prove that force is equal to mass times acceleration , you are not even putting God into the equation. Why do we need God to prove that "anything" of yours?-KeenEmpire

Inverse square laws use logic and reason. Where did logic and reason come from?

Quote:
Cannot consistently prove the preconditions? Have you even read his/her (and for that matter, my) posts? There are such things as postulates. What Christianity cannot do is justify some preconditions to those preconditions, while science actually justifies it using common sense. I believe he/she said that as well.-KeenEmpire

My presupposition is the authority of God’s Word (the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord). The Bible is scientifically, historically, and logically sound. Common sense? Again, how do you account for that and where did it come from?

Quote:
Please, you have not even read his/her reply, it addresses that totally, and you only make an unsupported, repititive statement against it.-KeenEmpire

If you would care to read my posts you will notice that it was the first time I said that and I do support my statement.

Quote:
Oh God, do you think we really need God to know that death is bad, and should be avoided? So if they are universal laws, how can we allow them? Hmm, I wonder...Because we live in the universe? That's something to consider...

What happened with death?

Quote:
So if they are universal laws, how can we allow them? Hmm, I wonder...Because we live in the universe? That's something to consider...
Why should we seek an answer that isn't the obvious, if the obvious answer is not in conflict with any other obvious answer. -KeenEmpire
If they are in conflict, then we should find another solution for either one of the conflicting answers. And the last answer to any of these questions is God. Why? Because it would knock down all other tested and obvious theories and answers, not to mention laws. -Baabis

“That’s just the way things are,” is not an answer.

Quote:
This, and the rest of the quote relies on the (false)assumption that the above statement is the ultimate truth. In every debate you(religious people) seek answer from atheists for that clause.
Prove me why that particular statement is true, and I'll start believing in god. I'm confident enough that you can't. -Baabis

Take God out of the picture and you end up with, not an orderly, technologically advanced universe, but with absolute chaos. No universal laws, no set of moral standards, no logic, no universe.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 417
(10/12/02 8:10 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Quote:
I don't see your Point Keenempire

You stated that "If there were no Chrisitians in medieval times than the atheist would have burned witches." so I said didn't the Christians get rid of witches using this process and in doing so destroy both the "innocent" and the "guilty?"

Quote:
If I now get your point: They didn't they just used is as an excuse for raiding America.

No, my point is that they needent had decided to try and convert the population of America. Once they had conquered them, and took their land/money, they could have just left them there, but the Christian elements caused them to try and convert those natives. They didn't just do that as an excuse.

Quote:
Well that is not true. They just killed people because they were a burdin in reaching a state were everyone could be an atheist and research theories and prove them.

No, they killed them because they were a burden in reaching a state where everyone would be the same, not everyone would be atheist. The communists and Frenchies were trying to eliminate opposition, not eliminate Christians. They did not eliminate the Christians in the name of Atheism, but in the name of gaining power, and destroying those going against them, which is not the same thing. They were stupid, yeah, but Atheism is not at fault, the ideas of a total "menevolent" dictator were.

Quote:
God created laws of logic.

No, humans created laws of logic. Logic, that one plus one equals two etc, existed long before God came up with the Old Testament. See my later posts for more references.

Quote:
I asked you a simple question. Just answer it.

You asked Babbis to disprove your claims; unfortunately that is not the way science works. In science, the person who made the claims has to prove them, and not the other way around. Otherwise I could say that the suns are actually an illusion, and you would not be able to disprove my claims.

Quote:
Inverse square laws use logic and reason. Where did logic and reason come from?

Logic and reasons come from humans asking questions about why things work. God did not say "force is equal to mass times acceleration."

Quote:
My presupposition is the authority of God’s Word (the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord). The Bible is scientifically, historically, and logically sound. Common sense? Again, how do you account for that and where did it come from?

Sigh, if only you could prove that there was a God, that authority would be sound. I and Jumper (from MT) have already disproved your so-called "proof."

Quote:
If you would care to read my posts you will notice that it was the first time I said that and I do support my statement.

No, you said that, or something very similar, already in your post in which Jumper had responded to. And no, you did not support that with anything that has not already been disproved, you simply put that statement of "fact" on your post again.

And please, actually read the posts...

Quote:
What happened with death?

Death is the cessation of living. Death is the ending of a consciousness from a state of understanding and knowing. Death is bad.

Quote:
“That’s just the way things are,” is not an answer.

Unfortunately, sometimes it is. You can ask a scientist, "why does mass have gravitational pull" and he will be unable to give you an answer, besides that.

And plus, we weren't even saying "That's just the way things are." "Why should we seek an obvious answer..." does not have any words or connontations to "That's just the way..." and et cetera.

Quote:
Take God out of the picture and you end up with, not an orderly, technologically advanced universe, but with absolute chaos. No universal laws, no set of moral standards, no logic, no universe.

For you, maybe, others can survive on their own.

1) I take away God. Does technology suddenly disappear?
2) I take away God. Does the state of the universe change to absolute chaos? God already does nothing to mess with the universe as it is.
3) I take away God. We have no biblical moral standards. I therefore check one of my many posts in the "Dolphins" thread and find the social contract thread..
4) I take away God. I recollect that postulates in math and science do not even have the word "God" in them, and are therefore unmodified. The entire science, built upon those postulates, still stand.
5) I take away God. The universe suddenly disappears. Yeah right.

Uppy, you seem to be providing some ignorant statements with no support (i.e. "God created laws of logic." "Take God out of the picture...the universe disappears.") Face it: those assumptions are only true if, and only if God really exists. In arguing, among other things, if God really exists, you can not use the argument that God exists, therefore...to support your point. That is circular logic which, for the most part, isn't logic at all.

In addition, the Bible has no laws of logic within it. God did not create those laws of logic for us.

I was at first very impressed with you (except for your case of continuous repitition) upon your posts attacking evolution, but now I see only inconsistancies, circular dodging, and twisting facts to adhere to your faiths. Very soon I will honstly (and the key word is honestly) lose my respect for you, and not because you are attacking me, support God, or anything like that. I will lose it because of your hypocracy, twisting beliefs (and science) whenever it suits you.

I know that, chances are, you will come up with an argument to attack this. I know that you will likely not believe me, and ask me to prove it. But this is a matter of opinion (Jumper's words I believe) and I am begging you not to reconsider, but to re think those ideas, taking into account circular logic.

You don't have to do this, of course. You might find a reason not to, and argue it to me. You will go downhill, but only in my eyes. No one else would think of you quite so badly. I can only ask you to do this. Well, so be it.

You stated that God created laws of logic. Please don't twist laws of logic to God's views.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 345
(10/12/02 5:55 pm)
62.238.255.224
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

( You stated that "If there were no Chrisitians in medieval times than the atheist would have burned witches." so I said didn't the Christians get rid of witches using this process and in doing so destroy both the "innocent" and the "guilty?" )

Well my point is that athiest would have done the same. Just because these people had no education didn't they know what they were doing.

( No, my point is that they needent had decided to try and convert the population of America. Once they had conquered them, and took their land/money, they could have just left them there, but the Christian elements caused them to try and convert those natives. They didn't just do that as an excuse. )

No, that's not true. They used if for spice farms. Almost al There was a lot more to do than just raiding. Indians were killed they weren't converted.

(No, they killed them because they were a burden in reaching a state where everyone would be the same, not everyone would be atheist. The communists and Frenchies were trying to eliminate opposition, not eliminate Christians. They did not eliminate the Christians in the name of Atheism, but in the name of gaining power, and destroying those going against them, which is not the same thing. They were stupid, yeah, but Atheism is not at fault, the ideas of a total "menevolent" dictator were. )

In that state everyone would be atheist and have an own opinoin. And everyone who was a burden so Christians and atheist were killed. I think you can easily call this a state of atheists because there wouldn't be Christians. So if they killed people it was in the name of the atheist state....

Believe it or not Potter is on the forum........

baabis
Vortininja
Posts: 62
(10/13/02 1:26 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Uppy's defense has crumbled and fallen. What he now stands on is the illusion of a defense based on circular logic and empty statements which have nothing backing them up.
Therefore I would be very surprised if Uppy came up with something he hadn't already said, or something which doesn't rely on circular logic, as KeenEmpire explained.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 419
(10/13/02 1:59 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Quote:
Well my point is that athiest would have done the same. Just because these people had no education didn't they know what they were doing.

So, Christians stopped the witch-burning by atheists, and then burned witches themselves? (I even explained a process that they used for burning/drowning, so say not that they didn't) I should wonder if they could be considered to have "stopped" them from burning.

Quote:
No, that's not true. They used if for spice farms. Almost al There was a lot more to do than just raiding. Indians were killed they weren't converted.

Hmm, leme read something from earlier:

"...that the natives (Aztec and other American civilisations) would abandon there religion, if they refused they would be killed"

Sure doesn't sound like Indians weren't killed in the process of conversion.

Quote:
In that state everyone would be atheist and have an own opinoin. And everyone who was a burden so Christians and atheist were killed. I think you can easily call this a state of atheists because there wouldn't be Christians. So if they killed people it was in the name of the atheist state....

First sentence: wrong. As I said, those leaders were stupid, and they killed everyone who didn't share their political opinion.

Second sentence: wrong. Technically, everyone who is "a burden" goes poor and dies anyway.

Third and fourth sentences: Yes, you could call it a state of atheists. Yes they killed people in the name of (insert the name of the country), not "an atheist state." But need I repeat myself:

Quote:
No, they killed them because they were a burden in reaching a state where everyone would be the same, not [so] everyone would be atheist[, or because they wanted, out of the blue, everyone to convert to atheism for atheist reasons]. The communists and Frenchies were trying to eliminate opposition, not eliminate Christians. They did not eliminate the Christians in the name of Atheism, but in the name of gaining power, and destroying those going against them, which is not the same thing. They were stupid, yeah, but Atheism is not at fault, the ideas of a total "menevolent" dictator were.

You are saying it as if, take a hypothetical situation:

1) Country A is a Christian country
2) Country A declares war on Country B, because Country B has policies going against that of Country A
3) Country B happens to be Atheist
4) Therefore, Christianity declared war on Atheism

Do you see what I mean when I say, even if killings are made "in the name of the atheist state" it does not mean that Atheism caused those deaths, unless it states "in the name of atheism." Policies, and capital resistance to opposition, is different than religion.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 352
(10/14/02 5:29 pm)
62.238.255.223
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

(So, Christians stopped the witch-burning by atheists, and then burned witches themselves? (I even explained a process that they used for burning/drowning, so say not that they didn't) I should wonder if they could be considered to have "stopped" them from burning.)

Ofourse I won't say they didn't. My point is that atheist would ahve done excactly the same in medieval times just because those people were stupid and didd't had an own opinion...

(Hmm, leme read something from earlier:"...that the natives (Aztec and other American civilisations) would abandon there religion, if they refused they would be killed" Sure doesn't sound like Indians weren't killed in the process of conversion.)

Well is some situations they were converted. But history is not always the same in some places like the V.S. were Indians killed.

(First sentence: wrong. As I said, those leaders were stupid, and they killed everyone who didn't share their political opinion.)

Well just because some of them wanted to reacht the atheist state and others indeed didn't want to give power away.
It's is dangerous to say those leaders were stupid because you can never be sure what they really wanted.

(Second sentence: wrong. Technically, everyone who is "a burden" goes poor and dies anyway.)

Yeah or they were deported to Siberia and died there. Or all there food was stolen by the communist. If you mean that with becoming ppor and then die...

(Third and fourth sentences: Yes, you could call it a state of atheists. Yes they killed people in the name of (insert the name of the country), not "an atheist state.")

I need to reapeat myself too: The communisst wanted to reach a state were everyone would be atheist and have OWN opinions. All right those things don't fit but communistme wasn't found by me... Lenin and Troski even wanted to convert the entire world to communistme. Perhaps the name state is wrong in the communist example: They didn't want a state. The state would be abonded when the perfect state was reached. But Perhaps I should say it this way: Ideas causes war and dead not only religion not more and not less. (Just have a look at the communist and the French).

Believe it or not Potter is on the forum........

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 39
(10/14/02 6:52 pm)
63.237.230.71
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

Quote:
Uppy's defense has crumbled and fallen. What he now stands on is the illusion of a defense based on circular logic and empty statements which have nothing backing them up.
Therefore I would be very surprised if Uppy came up with something he hadn't already said, or something which doesn't rely on circular logic, as KeenEmpire explained.

No, but I'm kinda busy so it will take me a few days.

Edited by: UppyII at: 10/14/02 6:53:50 pm

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 424
(10/15/02 10:53 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Quote:
Ofourse I won't say they didn't. My point is that atheist would ahve done excactly the same in medieval times just because those people were stupid and didd't had an own opinion...

Atheists would have done the same if the Christians didn't come and do it for them? Uhh...

Quote:
Well is some situations they were converted. But history is not always the same in some places like the V.S. were Indians killed.

Unless this has something to do with religion, this does not apply to the argument, and my argument that Christianity "conversions" caused the killing has not been deflected, and still applies.

Quote:
Well just because some of them wanted to reacht the atheist state and others indeed didn't want to give power away.
It's is dangerous to say those leaders were stupid because you can never be sure what they really wanted.

First sentence: They wanted to reach an atheist state? You mean that they came in power and did all this, just to try and get everyone in their country to become atheist. WRONG. They wanted a communist/I'm not sure what exactly for the French Revolution, lotsa stuff state, and it was in their opinion that opposition could be eliminated by eliminating other religions, not because they wanted everyone to be atheist.

Second sentence: Well, what did they want? If they wanted peace, they tried to get it in a stupid way.

Quote:
Yeah or they were deported to Siberia and died there. Or all there food was stolen by the communist. If you mean that with becoming ppor and then die...

The point: If the governments hadn't been there, the weak people would have gotten poor and died anyways (with the exception of welfare aid etc.); the commies didn't do anything extra, in real terms. What they did was crud, but nothing really, in real terms.

Quote:
I need to reapeat myself too: The communisst wanted to reach a state were everyone would be atheist and have OWN opinions. All right those things don't fit but communistme wasn't found by me... Lenin and Troski even wanted to convert the entire world to communistme. Perhaps the name state is wrong in the communist example: They didn't want a state. The state would be abonded when the perfect state was reached. But Perhaps I should say it this way: Ideas causes war and dead not only religion not more and not less. (Just have a look at the communist and the French).

First sentence: Already gone.

Second sentence: Of course. Refer back to the Two Countries example.

Third and Forth sentence: Nice, but I never said they weren't doing that.

Fifth sentence: You are absolutely right. Ideas cause war..er, as much as religion, when you look at it simpliciely.

However, that does not resolve the fact that Christianity has caused wars, and deaths, and killings in the past, which is what we are discussing now. What I was trying to say all along was precisely what you'd said in the brackets of your last sentence combined with the rest of the last sentence: The French Revolution and Communist Mass-Killings were caused not by Atheist Jihads, but by stupid ideas. Thank you for reiterating my point.

The threshold where you are start abandoning the point of the argument has been passed. At least several of your responses had nothing to do with the debate at hand. EITHER ACCEPT DEFEAT, OR COME UP WITH A RESPONSE PERTAINING TO THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT. And please, no repititions that have already been disproved, without further support to them. Thank you.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 359
(10/15/02 1:34 pm)
62.238.255.223
| Del

Re: Closing remarks.

(Fifth sentence: You are absolutely right. Ideas cause war..er, as much as religion, when you look at it simpliciely.
However, that does not resolve the fact that Christianity has caused wars, and deaths, and killings in the past, which is what we are discussing now. What I was trying to say all along was precisely what you'd said in the brackets of your last sentence combined with the rest of the last sentence: The French Revolution and Communist Mass-Killings were caused not by Atheist Jihads, but by stupid ideas.)

Well than there is no need to discuss anymore because we agree. Unless you say that we shouldn't have an own opinion.
Just one thing we can't judge if an idea is good or stupid. We can only say of it has worked......

(Thank you for reiterating my point.)

You are Welcome

!

(The threshold where you are start abandoning the point of the argument has been passed. At least several of your responses had nothing to do with the debate at hand. EITHER ACCEPT DEFEAT, OR COME UP WITH A RESPONSE PERTAINING TO THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT. And please, no repititions that have already been disproved, without further support to them. Thank you.)

:stunned

You are right if you say that the last replies has nothing to do with the discussion. You have nothing dissproven what I've said. Well I tend to say the same thing about your arguments but I won't reply on your last points about communists just to get back to the point.....

-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité, il ne l'est pas car elle n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une féodalité...-----

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 428
(10/15/02 2:35 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Hmm, I have disproven what you said about communists/frenchies as an example of atheism k-...nevermind.

So, since we agree, the resolutions for this line:

1. CHRISTIANITY HAS KILLED PEOPLE - with an example as the attempted "conversions" of some conquered Native Americans,
2. CHRISTIANITY DID NOT EFFECTIVELY STOP ANY ATHEIST BURNING OF WITCHES THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED - especially considering that they were burning witches themselves,
3. ATHEISM HAS NOT KILLED PEOPLE - and examples such as the French Revolution and Communist Mass-Murders are not valid, due to their actual reference to the enforcement of dictators' ideas, rather than their support on Atheism.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 360
(10/15/02 7:03 pm)
62.238.255.224
| Del

Re: q

(Hmm, I have disproven what you said about communists/frenchies as an example of atheism)

No I have proven what I said about communists/frenchies......Never mind....

(1. CHRISTIANITY HAS KILLED PEOPLE - with an example as the attempted "conversions" of some conquered Native Americans,)

In some situation yes. In some situatens Christianity was used as an excuse.....

(2. CHRISTIANITY DID NOT EFFECTIVELY STOP ANY ATHEIST BURNING OF WITCHES THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED - especially considering that they were burning witches themselves,)

I'm afraid you completly missed my point. My point was that atheist would have done the same with so called witches as Christians... aaaaaah never mind..... (just to make myself clear)

3. ATHEISM HAS NOT KILLED PEOPLE - and examples such as the French Revolution and Communist Mass-Murders are not valid, due to their actual reference to the enforcement of dictators' ideas, rather than their support on Atheism.

Sigh weren't they atheist or not. No matter or this were average atheist or not. Perhaps were those Christians who causes war also not average

.

With all respect Keenempire I agreed with this:
(now I even have to quoto you

)

(Fifth sentence: You are absolutely right. Ideas cause war..er, as much as religion, when you look at it simpliciely.
However, that does not resolve the fact that Christianity has caused wars, and deaths, and killings in the past, which is what we are discussing now. What I was trying to say all along was precisely what you'd said in the brackets of your last sentence combined with the rest of the last sentence: The French Revolution and Communist Mass-Killings were caused not by Atheist Jihads, but by stupid ideas.)

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 41
(10/15/02 8:36 pm)
63.237.230.28
| Del

Re: q

Quote:
Uppy, you seem to be providing some ignorant statements with no support (i.e. "God created laws of logic." "Take God out of the picture...the universe disappears.") Face it: those assumptions are only true if, and only if God really exists. In arguing, among other things, if God really exists, you can not use the argument that God exists, therefore...to support your point. That is circular logic which, for the most part, isn't logic at all.

Eventually all arguments terminate in some starting point, a view which is held as unquestionable. These starting points, or presuppositions, are held to be self-evidencing. They are the foundation for one’s entire worldview; the filter through which you process information.
A problem will eventually arise on how, if the believer(Christian) and the unbeliever(Unchristian) have conflicting presuppositions, can a apologetic debate ever be resolved? Is it a matter of personal taste? Just a blind “will to believe”? No. I’m carrying my argument beyond “the facts and nothing but the facts” to self-validating presuppositions–to the level of ultimate assumptions which select and interpret facts.
The believer and the unbeliever need to ask the question, what actually is the unquestionable and self-evidencing presupposition? Who has the most certain starting point for reasoning and intelligible experience? I am arguing the impossibility of the contrary. The perspective of the unbeliever destroys meaning, intelligence, and the very possibility of knowledge, while the Christian faith provides the only framework for intelligible experience and rational certainty.
You pointed out that I’ve been using circular logic to defend my point. I’m assuming the truth of the Scripture in order to argue for the truth of the Scripture. That is unavoidable when dealing with ultimate truths, however, it is not a flat circle in which I am reasoning. I’m not saying “the Bible is true because the Bible is true.” One cannot argue for his ultimate truth independently of the preconditions inherent to it–there is no neutral ground. Every apologist must start with something and I’m starting with the Bible as my self-validating presupposition.

Quote:
No, humans created laws of logic. Logic, that one plus one equals two etc, existed long before God came up with the Old Testament. See my later posts for more references.

Logic and reasons come from humans asking questions about why things work. God did not say "force is equal to mass times acceleration."

Again, you are saying that laws of logic and reason are conventions. This cannot be so. Humans do not have the power to create universal abstract entities. Every where in the world people follow the same laws of logic. 2+2=4 everywhere in the world. You say that logic and reason are merely conventions. I could use that and say everything you say is illogical. If they are only conventions then why aren’t there many different teaching methods? Why doesn’t every civilization have their own set of conventions?

Quote:
And please, actually read the posts...

Do NOT accuse me of not reading your posts. I read a post at least five times before I write a response. I have spent countless hours reading, studying, thinking pondering, writing, rewriting, posting, and editing and I take offense when someone accuses me of not even reading the posts.

Quote:
You asked Babbis to disprove your claims; unfortunately that is not the way science works. In science, the person who made the claims has to prove them, and not the other way around. Otherwise I could say that the suns are actually an illusion, and you would not be able to disprove my claims.

No I did not. I asked how, in a materialistic, naturalistic, outlook on life can you account for laws of science, laws of logic, and laws of morality?

Quote:
Unfortunately, sometimes it is. You can ask a scientist, "why does mass have gravitational pull" and he will be unable to give you an answer, besides that.

Unchristian scientists do, but not Christian scientists. Christians know the ultimate answer. It is up to us to figure out why God created something the way he did. Christianity does not slow down science, but rather it throws away the evolutionary weights and allows us to explore God’s awesome creation without trying to think of ways this universe can into existence.

Quote:
In addition, the Bible has no laws of logic within it. God did not create those laws of logic for us.

I was at first very impressed with you (except for your case of continuous repitition) upon your posts attacking evolution, but now I see only inconsistancies, circular dodging, and twisting facts to adhere to your faiths. Very soon I will honstly (and the key word is honestly) lose my respect for you, and not because you are attacking me, support God, or anything like that. I will lose it because of your hypocracy, twisting beliefs (and science) whenever it suits you.

Lose respect for me if you will, but don’t be under the illusion that I’ve been twisting facts and science in my defense. Logic, science, and facts undermine you position without my twisting. If you say that I have been illogical then you need a standard by which to judge me. I have yet to see one in your worldview.
I’m not here to defend myself, my pride, or my dignity. I’m here to defend the Christian worldview and I’m perfectly willing to sacrifice my pride and dignity in defense of the faith.

Quote:
I know that, chances are, you will come up with an argument to attack this. I know that you will likely not believe me, and ask me to prove it. But this is a matter of opinion (Jumper's words I believe) and I am begging you not to reconsider, but to re think those ideas, taking into account circular logic.

You don't have to do this, of course. You might find a reason not to, and argue it to me. You will go downhill, but only in my eyes. No one else would think of you quite so badly. I can only ask you to do this. Well, so be it.

Believe me, I have though about it. I’ve spent hours thinking about the issues being discussed here. I’m asking you to reconsider. Wipe away all the intellectual debris and start with God’s Holy inspired Word as the foundation of your worldview and everything will make sense. You seem very intelligent, KeenEmpire. Please don’t let that intelligence draw you away from the One who gave it to you.

"The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock" ~C.S. Lewis

Edited by: UppyII at: 10/15/02 8:39:53 pm

adurdin
Wormouth
Posts: 602
(10/15/02 10:47 pm)
144.137.31.117
| Del

Re: q

Quote:

1. CHRISTIANITY HAS KILLED PEOPLE - with an example as the attempted "conversions" of some conquered Native Americans,

...

3. ATHEISM HAS NOT KILLED PEOPLE - and examples such as the French Revolution and Communist Mass-Murders are not valid, due to their actual reference to the enforcement of dictators' ideas, rather than their support on Atheism.

So where have you shown that for case (1) it was not just the enforcement of the settlers' ideas rather than their support for Christianity? Because that's what it was.

You're taking two very similar situations, and interpreting them very differently.

Keengamer
Vortininja
Posts: 117
(10/16/02 1:45 am)
203.123.71.97
| Del

Re: evil

harry potter is evil & will always be evil. END OF STORY. J.K deliberately offended chirstians last year at chirstmas by releasing the 1st harry potter movie. harry potter must be STOPPED trust me. if he isn't stopped J.K will do the same thing again

If The World Had No Commander Keen The Keen Craze Would Have Never Begun, Keengamer Is Commander Keen Mad

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 361
(10/16/02 5:51 am)
62.238.255.224
| Del

Re: q

Why is Potter evil Keengamer :confused

?
I've read one book and although it was very boooooooooring I couldn't find much evil in it!

baabis
Vortininja
Posts: 66
(10/16/02 12:26 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: q

Quote:
Why doesn’t every civilization have their own set of conventions?

Because we are similar. For example, why do most civilizations(except from the babylonians with their base 60 system; reason for base 60 here)rely on the base 10 number system? Simple answer, we have ten fingers.

Quote:
harry potter is evil & will always be evil. END OF STORY. J.K deliberately offended chirstians last year at chirstmas by releasing the 1st harry potter movie. harry potter must be STOPPED trust me. if he isn't stopped J.K will do the same thing again

Define evil.

Quote:
So where have you shown that for case (1) it was not just the enforcement of the settlers' ideas rather than their support for Christianity? Because that's what it was.

That's only one example. Here's another one: burning witches, and especially the testing method for if one is a witch.

Edited by: baabis at: 10/16/02 12:30:21 pm

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 431
(10/16/02 1:34 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Quickly, Datah

Money = root(Evil)
Evil = Money^2

baabis
Vortininja
Posts: 68
(10/16/02 5:12 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

yah right.

I'll mathematically prove that girls are :evil

heheh..

Everyone agrees that: Girls=Time*Money
as they say, Time=Money, so Girls=Money^2
and as "money is the root of evil": Money=root(Evil)
which means that Evil=Money^2 and as Girls=Money^2,
and so the equation Girls=Evil proves true.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 364
(10/16/02 5:52 pm)
62.238.255.224
| Del

Re: q

Keenempire your last post had nothing to do with our discussion. Please reply on the posts so we can talk futher....

Forge315
Grand Intellect
Posts: 990
(10/16/02 11:21 pm)
68.1.75.121
| Del

Oh baabis, :lol

your way ahead of the rest of use!

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 434
(10/17/02 12:10 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Oh the joys of visiting MT

Sorry babbis, but that is so outdated:

Quote:
Postulates:

Time = money
The more time you spend with a girl, the more money you lose

***

If the more time you spend with a girl, the more money you lose, a proportion is formed, that the more time you spend, the more money you lose, and the less time you spend, the less money you lose, therefore:

Girls*time = money
OR
Girls = money/time.

The equation Girls = time*money does not work, because as you increase the variable "time", the variable "money" you spend on her decreases, which contradicts the postulate that the more time you spend with a girl, the more money you lose.

Therefore the proof is wrong. Girls are not equal to time*money, but they are equal to money/time, or, since time = money, 1.

Quote:
What happens if you don't spend money on girls?
Would this girl not be evil? (that makes some sense actually)
I also agree with Jumper, if girls=time*money, then the more money you spend, the more girl you get...

Quote:
Here is a flaw in the original problem (maybe it's already been pointed out):
The whole case depends on the fact that money = the root of all evil. Well, sorry, but it's the love of money = the root of all evil.

Djaser, I probably won't reply to you for some time...maybe tomorrow.

Edited by: KeenEmpire at: 10/17/02 12:16:50 pm

adurdin
Wormouth
Posts: 612
(10/22/02 11:24 am)
144.137.28.186
| Del

Re: q

baabis wrote:

Quote:

That's only one example. Here's another one: burning witches, and especially the testing method for if one is a witch.

Well, this is even more obviously enforcement of the settlers' own ideas; even though they might have considered it as pertaining to their Christianity, it actually does not.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 438
(10/22/02 2:37 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

The problem is: not only the settlers. This was a pre-colonization, feudal era idea, brought up by the Church in the general belief that God would protect the innocent and expose the guilty, using tests of this sort. And yes, they were already killing people based on the results of those tests.

baabis
Vortininja
Posts: 93
(11/2/02 1:28 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

...

I'm still waiting for KeenGamer's answer about his comment.

The board is a mirror of the mind of the players as the moments pass. When a master studies the record of a game he can tell at what point greed overtook the pupil, when he became tired, when he fell into stupidity, and when the maid came by with tea.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 77
(11/2/02 8:52 pm)
207.109.179.46
| Del

Re: ...

Btw, about evolution: I think you guys should research "irreducible simplicity".

Coming soon: My answer to "Is Harry Potter bad? Satanic?"

Edit: fixed spelling error

Edited by: UppyII at: 11/4/02 7:07:29 pm

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 447
(11/3/02 3:33 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Btw, on creationism, I think you guys should research "mixing objectivity with subjectivity."

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 82
(11/4/02 7:38 pm)
207.109.179.46
| Del

Re: b

Researching...

Edit: Hmmm... I need some specific references as to where I did that.

Edited by: UppyII at: 11/5/02 6:41:48 am

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 448
(11/5/02 12:18 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Recite to me the beliefs/definition of creationism. I think the answer will reveal itself shortly.

Keengamer
Vortininja
Posts: 145
(11/5/02 10:16 pm)
203.123.71.97
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

baabis wrote:

Quote:
I'm still waiting for KeenGamer's answer about his comment.

okay i underestimated you all harry potter isn't evil. i haven't even seen the 1st harry potter film. i just a dead serious chirstian who goes against all things that are evil. maybe i will see harry potter one day who knows!

If The World Had No Commander Keen
The Keen Craze Would Have Never Begun

Jawa Wars (Rorie's Place On The Web)

Killspy
Vortininja
Posts: 208
(11/13/02 1:21 am)
198.81.27.9
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

To the people who think Harry Potter is bad/evil...etc. simply beacause they practice magic, I say what about all those disney Movies with magic, are you against those to? Ive always wondered if they thought so..

I like the Harry Potter Books, and 1st movie, and look forward to the other 6 on there way, one of which opens this friday.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 101
(11/13/02 1:51 am)
206.63.170.32
| Del

Re: h

Quote:
Recite to me the beliefs/definition of creationism. I think the answer will reveal itself shortly.

Why waste space when you have all of this debate and the "dolphins" one?

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 102
(11/13/02 2:32 am)
206.63.170.32
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
To the people who think Harry Potter is bad/evil...etc. simply beacause they practice magic, I say what about all those disney Movies with magic, are you against those to? Ive always wondered if they thought so..

I think Harry Potter is evil. I don't think it's evil because they practice magic, but because there are actuall occultic practices in the books and Rowling has made these out to be innocent fun. I guess I'll pick this argument up where Forge left off by showing some actuall occultic practices--but not yet...

Bloogaurd
Vortininja
Posts: 52
(11/13/02 2:09 pm)
209.81.165.241
| Del

my view

This is my view, (not to sound pompus)
i went to my cousin's (kittyyorp) church and they had a big discussion on Harry Potter, and well it was funny but the HP lovers actully won the argument with the sunday school teachers, but if u don't want to read the book that's fine i don't care if u wan't to that's fine too, cuz i do. It's really a matter of opinion, what, are u not going to go skool cuz they teach about the Salem Witch Trials?
Are u going to wet your self if u here the name Harry Potter and run and lok your self up in a closset, screeming?

eK
Isonian
Posts: 905
(11/13/02 2:28 pm)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: h

This is one of the stupidest topics I've ever seen...
and... one of the funniest too.

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 443
(11/13/02 11:22 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Amen!

(you see the religious content of my post! Eh? Eh!!!)

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 102
(11/14/02 10:09 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: my view

Uppy, do you like Lord of the Rings? Anyone else who thinks a book with magic=evil? You like LOTR?
And what about the "occultic practices"
I've read all the books, and I really can't seem to find any from them? Could you clear this thing up?
My guess is that you haven't even touched one of these books.

Bloogaurd
Vortininja
Posts: 54
(11/14/02 10:24 pm)
209.81.167.212
| Del

floase

What duz that mean, floase?

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 39
(11/15/02 12:52 am)
209.115.59.181
| Del

Re:

i don't really have an opinion cuz i haven't read any of the books or anything.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 410
(11/15/02 2:48 pm)
62.238.255.224
| Del

Re: my view

I'm not sure if Harry Potter is evil.
I like LOTR and fairly-tales.
But I think it is dangerous: the books testify of a very low fantasy and still everyone like the books. And because these books are of magic I don't trust them...

-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité, il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et sauvés par les autres.
Djaser est normalement régie par une féodalité...-----

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 104
(11/15/02 10:01 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

...

You seriously think that people like the HP books because of some magic?
I mean, c'mon!
btw. I don't like lotr, I think the books were boring.

Killspy
Vortininja
Posts: 263
(11/15/02 10:23 pm)
198.236.13.32
| Del

GRRR

It makes me so mad when people argue over wether or not Harry Potter is evil! All it come from is some ladies mind. While some things may be portrayed as evil/satanic, there not, at least not in the books. All JK Rowling does is take 'fact' and fiction, and creates a cool fun world. Thats my opinion.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 105
(11/16/02 6:39 am)
206.63.170.53
| Del

Re: my view

Quote:
My guess is that you haven't even touched one of these books.

eK
Isonian
Posts: 908
(11/16/02 6:57 am)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: ...

Saw the new movie two days ago, pretty good. Felt a bit rushed (yes, I know it was 2.5 hours), but otherwise a good movie.

Can't wait for the third.

Can't wait to take all I've learned and go practice witchcraft, I'll let you know if my evil satanic Harry Potter spells work.

/me goes off to sin.

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 106
(11/16/02 11:47 am)
62.78.173.104
| Del

...

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 421
(11/16/02 6:34 pm)
62.238.255.224
| Del

Re: my view

( You seriously think that people like the HP books because of some magic?
I mean, c'mon! )

I have never said that :confused

...

( btw. I don't like lotr, I think the books were boring. )

At least we agree at some point

.

Ow and I tend to say that Harry Potter is not dangerous however I'm not sure.
It is good to think or things are wrong or right.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 455
(11/17/02 9:38 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Quote:
But I think it is dangerous: the books testify of a very low fantasy and still everyone like the books.

Are you suggesting that the books are low level fantasy, and we only like them because Rowling has put some Satanic magic into them which forces the reader to like the books? :lol

On the other hand, the low level fantasy may be precisely the reason we like them. Most "hardcore" fantasy books take place a long time ago, with complicated spells and mysteries no one can understand; this takes place right now, in an understandable time. It has understandable magic (I'm not talking complicated, but understandable) and still it breeches the same volume (magical doings) as does most other magic books.

Plus, there's the sheer quality of innocence. Being scared of pronouncing Voldemort's name because he killed a few people. They've obviously never heard of Hitler.

Quote:
And because these books are of magic I don't trust them..

Do you have a reason for not trusting books that talk of magic?

Quote:
but because there are actuall occultic practices in the books and Rowling has made these out to be innocent fun.

Er...strange. The first book alone I must have read 8-10 times (because honestly, I didn't have anything else to do) and I didn't notice any occultic practices. Still, I might be wrong. But we need examples!

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 108
(11/17/02 10:56 am)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: ...

Yah. Everyone talks about these occultic practices but no-one has said what they are!!

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 431
(11/17/02 12:00 pm)
62.238.255.223
| Del

Re: my view

( Are you suggesting that the books are low level fantasy, and we only like them because Rowling has put some Satanic magic into them which forces the reader to like the books? )

No, I don't know why people like these books (I have read one) .

( On the other hand, the low level fantasy may be precisely the reason we like them. Most "hardcore" fantasy books take place a long time ago, with complicated spells and mysteries no one can understand; this takes place right now, in an understandable time. It has understandable magic (I'm not talking complicated, but understandable) and still it breeches the same volume (magical doings) as does most other magic books. )

Compicated and understandable are most time compared.
Because a book is complicated you don't understant it that well, right

.

( Do you have a reason for not trusting books that talk of magic? )

Well its like 1+1=2. I really can't understant why people like the books and it is about magic (this can but needn't to be wrong) I don't trust them. Understant me well I am not saying I'm against those books or fans but I'm a little bit carefull.

( Er...strange. The first book alone I must have read 8-10 times (because honestly, I didn't have anything else to do) and I didn't notice any occultic practices. Still, I might be wrong. But we need examples! )

hint hint hint hint the ghost of Voldermort, zwerkball, and dragons. Again this needn't to be wrong but it is magic.

Killspy
Vortininja
Posts: 274
(11/18/02 9:34 am)
216.26.2.115
| Del

COS

The Chamber of Secrets was great!

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 689
(11/18/02 3:44 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: ...

I watched the second movie yesterday, and it was by far better than the first.

There is what you could call occult pratices near the end of the fourth book, but because it is the bad guys that are doing this and Harry is trying to stop them because they are in his (and preferably the reader's) mind doing evil things, I don't really think it matters. Now if Harry and friends were sacrificing people and such throughout the whole story and saying that's a good thing, I might agree with Uppy and Forge.

Edited by: Xtraverse at: 11/18/02 3:48:59 pm

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 461
(11/18/02 11:05 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: my view

Quote:
Originally Posted by: Djaser
hint hint hint hint the ghost of Voldermort, zwerkball, and dragons. Again this needn't to be wrong but it is magic.

Dragons aren't occultish in the least! They are simply fantasy creatures (there's a huge difference)! Even The Holy Bible talks about dragons...does that make it an occultish book?

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

eK
Isonian
Posts: 910
(11/18/02 11:19 pm)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: COS

Yes!

I say we ban the Bible for teaching our children satanic things!

Keengamer
Vortininja
Posts: 162
(11/18/02 11:32 pm)
203.123.71.97
| Del

Re: ...

posted by Flaose

Quote:

Dragons aren't occultish in the least! They are simply fantasy creatures (there's a huge difference)! Even The Holy Bible talks about dragons...does that make it an occultish book?

now that's just complete rubbish Flaose the holy bible does NOT talk about dragons. REPEAT the holy bible does NOT talk about dragons

posted by ek

Quote:
Yes!
I say we ban the Bible for teaching our children satanic things!

if chirstains did ban the bible. the world would be in complete chaos, FINE! ban the bible but you are the one that will go to hell in the end ek!

If The World Had No Commander Keen
The Keen Craze Would Have Never Begun

Jawa Wars (Rorie's Place On The Web)

Edited by: Keengamer at: 11/19/02 12:20:54 am

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 462
(11/18/02 11:41 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by: Keengamer
FINE! ban the bible but you are the one that will go to hell in the end ek!

You other Christians are so negative! :lol

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

Killspy
Vortininja
Posts: 280
(11/19/02 12:56 am)
216.26.3.102
| Del

Re: COS

Does anyone know when the 5th book comes out?

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 439
(11/19/02 6:45 am)
62.238.255.224
| Del

Re: ...

( Dragons aren't occultish in the least! They are simply fantasy creatures (there's a huge difference)! Even The Holy Bible talks about dragons...does that make it an occultish book? )
( I say we ban the Bible for teaching our children satanic things! )

Bweuh :barf

, yes ofcourse there are occult things in the bible.
But that isn't always bad as long as book teach us that it is wrong. Or even in fair-tales were you have friendly wizzards itsn't wrong. So you can say that Harry Potter isn't Evil because magic and occult things.

( now that's just complete rubbish Flaose the holy bible does NOT talk about dragons. REPEAT the holy bible does NOT talk about dragons )

Come on Keengamer you aren't going to tell me that you don't know the bible. Read the last book.

( ban the bible but you are the one that will go to hell in the end ek! )

Keengamer don't say things like this the discussion here won't
become with this

Bloogaurd
Vortininja
Posts: 85
(11/19/02 12:51 pm)
209.81.165.238
| Del

Re: ...

quote:"ban the bible but you are the one that will go to hell in the end ek!"
That was a bit too harsh Keengamer, and eK that's not really nice too make fun of us too, you should have at least some respect for my, Kittyyorp, and keengamer's (and others) religion.

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 115
(11/19/02 3:10 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Geeeeeeeezzz...

Can't you people recognize a little sarcasm?
And besides, eK has a point:
the bible does talk about occultic practices, but doesn't say you should do them.
The Harry Potter books talk about occultic practices, but don't say you should do them.
Am I clear enough?

BTW. How many fantasy books have you read with dragons in them? Or ghosts? Should we ban all those too?
Should we ban LoTR for having evil magic in it?

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 466
(11/20/02 12:20 am)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by: Keengamer
now that's just complete rubbish Flaose the holy bible does NOT talk about dragons. REPEAT the holy bible does NOT talk about dragons

Are you stupid Keengamer? Or just a little dim?

Deut. 32: 33
Neh. 2: 13
Job 30: 29
Ps. 44: 19
Ps. 74: 13
Ps. 91: 13
Ps. 148: 7
Isa. 13: 22
Isa. 27: 1
Isa. 34: 13
Isa. 35: 7
Isa. 43: 20
Isa. 51: 9
Jer. 9: 11
Jer. 10: 22
Jer. 14: 6
Jer. 49: 33
Jer. 51: 34
Jer. 51: 37
Ezek. 29: 3
Micah 1: 8
Mal. 1: 3
Rev. 12: 3
Rev. 12: 4
Rev. 12: 7
Rev. 12: 9
Rev. 12: 13
Rev. 12: 16
Rev. 12: 17
Rev. 13: 2
Rev. 13: 4
Rev. 13: 11
Rev. 16: 13
Rev. 20: 2

Note especially Isaiah and Revelations. Makes me wonder if you've even ever cracked open the book...

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 712
(11/20/02 12:37 pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del

Quote:
if chirstains did ban the bible. the world would be in complete chaos, FINE! ban the bible but you are the one that will go to hell in the end ek!

A book isn't necessary for the world to run normally, and I'm sure thousands of Christians would read it anyways, even if it was "banned."

Keengamer, don't bother taking eK seriously, most of the time he's being sarcastic

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 112
(11/20/02 8:38 pm)
207.109.179.46
| Del

Re: ...

Quote:
the holy bible does NOT talk about dragons. REPEAT the holy bible does NOT talk about dragons

I don't see anything "occultic" about dragons. The term "dinosaurs" wasn't invented untill the 19th century...or was it the 20th? Well, in the last few hundred years. "Dragon" was the term used before that.
No dinosaurs in the Bible?

Keengamer
Vortininja
Posts: 169
(11/20/02 10:23 pm)
203.123.71.97
| Del

Re: ..

posted by Xtraverse

Quote:
Keengamer, don't bother taking eK seriously, most of the time he's being sarcastic

sorry about that eK

If The World Had No Commander Keen
The Keen Craze Would Have Never Begun

Jawa Wars (Rorie's Place On The Web)

Bloogaurd
Vortininja
Posts: 94
(11/21/02 12:02 am)
209.81.167.227
| Del

Re:

Quote: "A book isn't necessary for the world to run normally, and I'm sure thousands of Christians would read it anyways, even if it was "banned."
True, that Christians would read it anyway, but not true that the world does not need it, you should read it and think about what it says.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 715
(11/21/02 2:53 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: ...

I have read it, and I agree that it has a lot of good messages in it. I'm sure most every religious book does (the Quran, for example). Later this year I'm going to be doing a Bible studies in English. Still, I don't think the world would fall to pieces if the Book was banned, especially since it already is in pieces.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 456
(11/21/02 11:51 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Quote:
FINE! ban the bible but you are the one that will go to hell in the end ek!

I hope Christian people like these find out suddenly that their religion is wrong, and they're going to Hell of another god after all.

On the other hand, I hope the other Christians find out that Christianity is true after all.

Quote:
Compicated and understandable are most time compared.
Because a book is complicated you don't understant it that well, right

Yes. Is there and point and/or something I said that this applies to?

Quote:
( Do you have a reason for not trusting books that talk of magic? )

Well its like 1+1=2. I really can't understant why people like the books and it is about magic (this can but needn't to be wrong) I don't trust them. Understant me well I am not saying I'm against those books or fans but I'm a little bit carefull.

So basically, you don't trust books that talk of magic, because they talk of magic.

Why be careful?

Quote:
hint hint hint hint the ghost of Voldermort, zwerkball, and dragons. Again this needn't to be wrong but it is magic.

1st: I'm sorry, what is a zwerkball? I can't quite recall ever reading that in any of the HP books.
2nd: Dragons are not supernatural. Dragons are not occultic.
3rd: Voldemort used magical experimentation, not supernaturality, which is incomprehensible by any universal laws, to manage to survive his death. And not that this needs saying, Voldemort is an evil dude who was better off dying than surviving; this is actually comdemning his "occultic practices"
4th: You said "occultic practices." Dragons, zwerkballs, and ghosts of Voldemort are objects, not practices.

Quote:
But that isn't always bad as long as book teach us that it [the occult things] is wrong.

So you are saying that occult things are wrong, simply because, by definition, you do not understand them. I love this kind of open-mindedness.

Quote:
if chirstains did ban the bible. the world would be in complete chaos

okie dokie. I love accuracy too!

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 717
(11/21/02 1:23 pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del

...

I really don't get why a Christian would ban the book of their own religion anyways.

eK
Isonian
Posts: 911
(11/21/02 2:31 pm)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: ...

........

Oh my god.

........

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 116
(11/21/02 3:20 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: q

I'm never gonna stop being surprised by how stupid people, especially religious people, can be.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 445
(11/21/02 6:47 pm)
62.238.255.223
| Del

Re: ...

( I hope Christian people like these find out suddenly that their religion is wrong, and they're going to Hell of another god after all.

On the other hand, I hope the other Christians find out that Christianity is true after all. )

I respect this opinion because I can understant it very well.

( So basically, you don't trust books that talk of magic, because they talk of magic.
Why be careful?
1st: I'm sorry, what is a zwerkball? I can't quite recall ever reading that in any of the HP books.
2nd: Dragons are not supernatural. Dragons are not occultic.
3rd: Voldemort used magical experimentation, not supernaturality, which is incomprehensible by any universal laws, to manage to survive his death. And not that this needs saying, Voldemort is an evil dude who was better off dying than surviving; this is actually comdemning his "occultic practices"
4th: You said "occultic practices." Dragons, zwerkballs, and ghosts of Voldemort are objects, not practices.
So you are saying that occult things are wrong, simply because, by definition, you do not understand them. I love this kind of open-mindedness. )

For the last time I'm not against Harry Potter!!!
Being a little bit carefull can never be wrong. Can't it?
Aand about the Zwerkball that's the Dutch word for the sport Harry Potter plays. But whatever it doesn't matter.
Magic can be wrong occult thing can be wrong.
Voldermort is a ghost without a body I call this occult, sorry.
I'm not against these things most times.
I'm only carefull because in my eyes to much people like Potter and in my opinion magic and occult things can be wrong. Why can this be wrong? Well read the bible if you are so curious. I'm not out to convert you of these things are wrong or not.

( I'm never gonna stop being surprised by how stupid people, especially religious people, can be. )

And what do mean with stupid? Examples please...
There is no need to say such things in a discussion no matter how stupid the discussion is...

Bloogaurd
Vortininja
Posts: 99
(11/22/02 1:17 am)
209.81.167.110
| Del

Re:HP

*sigh* Ok, I'm going to say just this: God does exist, and that all people that have received him into their heart will go to heaven.

"I hope Christian people like these find out suddenly that their religion is wrong, and they're going to Hell of another god after all."

THAT was REALLY mean, and it is incredibly awful that you would wish that a fellow human being to go to hell, and that you would find this humorous.

And unlike Keengamer I have "cracked open the old book" so I will not stand for this insulting of my God, so I wish that you would stop insulting MY God (heck I don't tell you you're going to go to hell, you lousy ****, do I,now?)

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 119
(11/22/02 10:34 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: q

Quote:
Voldermort is a ghost without a body I call this occult, sorry.

Ghosts are occult?!? I mean, c'mon! Geezz..

Quote:
*sigh* Ok, I'm going to say just this: God does exist, and that all people that have received him into their heart will go to heaven.

Alright, let's get back to the forever-question: prove God.

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 470
(11/23/02 5:53 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: ...

Or the opposite: disprove God.

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 58
(11/23/02 7:00 pm)
209.115.59.190
| Del

God

how do u all believe we came to live on earth? i believe that we were all created by God.

eK
Isonian
Posts: 914
(11/24/02 12:07 am)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: q

I believe that we used to be snowmen, but a fairy turned us into real people.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 114
(11/24/02 1:16 am)
207.109.179.46
| Del

Re: q

Quote:
Alright, let's get back to the forever-question: prove God.

Yes, lets get back to the question you never answered:

"How, in a materialistic, naturalistic, outlook on life can you account for laws of science, laws of logic, and laws of morality?"

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 120
(11/24/02 9:09 am)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: God

Quote:
Or the opposite: disprove God.

Before I have to disprove anything, you have to proove it.

Quote:
How, in a materialistic, naturalistic, outlook on life can you account for laws of science, laws of logic, and laws of morality?

I don't really get your point. Why couldn't I?

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 457
(11/24/02 10:58 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Quote:
Being a little bit carefull can never be wrong. Can't it?

Not really. But being careful might also lead to something analogous to jailing innocent people.

Quote:
Aand about the Zwerkball that's the Dutch word for the sport Harry Potter plays. But whatever it doesn't matter.

(Quidditch) I see. But that is still not a "hidden, supernatural" thing. Hell, the rules are all over the place! (And, if you believe it, there is a book called "Quidditch Through the Ages" in circulation in our libraries

Quote:
Magic can be wrong occult thing can be wrong.

Aye, that's the point of having Voldemort. He's the one that kills people with magic. But because A leads to C and B leads to C does not mean that A equals B.

Quote:
I'm only carefull because in my eyes to much people like Potter and in my opinion magic and occult things can be wrong. Why can this be wrong? Well read the bible if you are so curious. I'm not out to convert you of these things are wrong or not.

Still doesn't say why magic is occult. Wait! Try converting me: is there an actual reason why these things are wrong? Any more wrong, that is, than democracy, which is self-destructive, or sports, which can kill, or space shuttles, which can explode and vaporize the astronauts. All of these can be "wrong," in ways, I'm asking for a reason.

Quote:
THAT was REALLY mean, and it is incredibly awful that you would wish that a fellow human being to go to hell, and that you would find this humorous.

Not humorous, only ironic. After annoying all these people on Earth about God, you go to another religion's Hell after all. Though now that you put it that way, I don't actually wish that you're going to Hell (i.e. if I somehow had to choose your fate, I'd say no).

Quote:
And unlike Keengamer I have "cracked open the old book" so I will not stand for this insulting of my God, so I wish that you would stop insulting MY God (heck I don't tell you you're going to go to hell, you lousy ****, do I,now?)

These are some reasons I do wish your afterlife to get ironic after all, taking all this time to insult people only to recieve a hell in another religion sounds good, riteeoh?

Quote:
How, in a materialistic, naturalistic, outlook on life can you account for laws of science, laws of logic, and laws of morality?

Quote:
Laws of logic/science are to, as close as possible, accurately explain the world. That is why they assume as little as they can. Laws of morality are to make the world a better place for human beings. (Though the key word is safer).

That is the definition of materialisticness (well, maybe not, but yeah). The laws of science are what is in the universe, because there are limits to how fast things can go, and et cetera; if God created the universe with those limits, fine, but it doesn't take God to say "Thy mass shall increaseth relatively if thy speed increasth too." The laws of logic are determined by that: if you do something, and do the same thing over again (at least theoretically) the same thing will happen. The same thing applies as for science, with limits. In another view: Materialisticism does not attempt to explain why, these natural rules are true. Maybe in the big bang (if you believe in one) a single atom got displaced in a temporal field occupying 0.000002*10^-28422 kilometers and... materialism does not care. If you can find out, cool, if you can't, you know, at least, that there are certain laws in the universe, if not why.

Laws of morality are far easier. They were created by human beings (or God, but the point is that humans could have created them all the same), to minimize things that are considered "bad." You can attain this entirement from the postulate that "Pain is bad," justified by that we try to avoid pain, and we get something very similar to the religious ones, minus things such as homosexuality.

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 63
(11/24/02 7:01 pm)
209.115.59.81
| Del

re:

4 all of u people who think that God isn't real cuz u can't see him, can u see the wind? it's still there, though, ain't it?

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 724
(11/24/02 7:30 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: God

Quote:
God does exist, and that all people that have received him into their heart will go to heaven

I thought that the Christian way is that you don't have to believe in God, but live a generally good life to get to heaven.

Quote:
4 all of u people who think that God isn't real cuz u can't see him, can u see the wind? it's still there, though, ain't it?

Who said that? I don't believe in a God because I think the idea of it is too far-fetched. There's no explanation for where God came from. All that is said is that God was, is, and always will be. I disbelieve this just how I disbelieve that Harry Potter could be true. There's no explanation for why certain people have magic and for where it came from.

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 65
(11/24/02 7:41 pm)
209.115.59.72
| Del

duh!

Quote: I thought that the Christian way is that you don't have to believe in God, but live a generally good life to get to heaven.
-------------------------------------------------

nooooo... that is catholics

Quote: Who said that? I don't believe in a God because I think the idea of it is too far-fetched. There's no explanation for where God came from. All that is said is that God was, is, and always will be. I disbelieve this just how I disbelieve that Harry Potter could be true. There's no explanation for why certain people have magic and for where it came from.
--------------------------------------------------

God has always been and always will be. and magic is true. it just comes from the devil. i have never said there is no magic in real life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i would like a triple skinny, two thirds decaf, half chocolate, no whip, grand de mocha. oh yeah, extra foam, to go... --TMac
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 462
(11/25/02 11:36 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

The problem is, kittyyorp, that there is no proof for what you are saying, which makes some people unconvinced (just as if I said "the angles of a triangle add up to 179" without anyone knowing a proof for that, or against that. It might be right (if I said 180 instead of 179), but it could just as easily be wrong (if I pick a number besides 180).).

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 728
(11/25/02 9:59 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: God

Quote:
nooooo... that is catholics

Umm...as long as I can remember, Catholics are Christians, and all Christians believe in the same God and about Jeses, etc.. The only difference is that Catholics have a Pope, their church hymns are more boring, and the elements of a Sunday mass might be a little different.

BTW, kittyyorp, what denomination of Christianity are you?

Quote:
God has always been and always will be. and magic is true. it just comes from the devil. i have never said there is no magic in real life.

First of all, I was just using magic as an example. Second, where's your proof? I can say that my dog's uncle was, is, and always will be and created the universe, but there's no proof for that, just like there's no proof of God. The only reason that Jesus was thought to be son of God was because there were a number of coincidence's having to do with his birth. I forget exactly why, but for some reason Jupiter was shining brightly in the sky at around the date when they say Jesus was born, which probably led the wise men to him.

Why not just admit that you have faith in something that has no proof?

Bloogaurd
Vortininja
Posts: 107
(11/26/02 1:56 am)
209.81.167.51
| Del

re:duh!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why not just admit that you have faith in something that has no proof?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Liar! Our faith does have proof, but what do you believe? If it didn't why would there be somany Christians? And as for proof, what is the Bible?

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 730
(11/26/02 4:09 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: t

Quote:
Liar! Our faith does have proof, but what do you believe?

I'm an agnostic.

Quote:
If it didn't why would there be somany Christians?

Why are there a hell of a lot more muslims, hindus, buddhists, and members of other religions?

Quote:
And as for proof, what is the Bible?

The Bible is a collection of stories, most of them I'm sure are based on fact (excluding Genesis).

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 464
(11/26/02 10:41 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Quote:
Liar! Our faith does have proof,

It is not amazing that a person could be so faithful to something unproved that they could actually believe there is proof?

Quote:
If it didn't why would there be somany Christians?

You argue based on quantity not quality. Back in the Middle ages, most everyone in the European world believed that the Earth was flat. Now tell me: if the Earth really was not flat, if there was proof that the Earth was not flat, why the hell would so many people believe that it is flat?

Quote:
And as for proof, what is the Bible?

The Bible is similar to a book I could write, saying that a God name Malbob created the Earth by doing such and such, inventing a few events such as a flood, and packing it all together by saying that whoever does not believe in it is going to Hell. The Bible itself is only proof so far as a Keen story straight out of my mind is proof.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 454
(11/26/02 3:13 pm)
62.238.255.224
| Del

Re: God

*Djaser plugs in*

( Not really. But being careful might also lead to something analogous to jailing innocent people. )

That's not wjat I want to do and am doing.

( Aye, that's the point of having Voldemort. He's the one that kills people with magic. But because A leads to C and B leads to C does not mean that A equals B. )

Even magic used for so-called good thing can still be wrong.
It's just my opinion.

( Still doesn't say why magic is occult. Wait! Try converting me: is there an actual reason why these things are wrong? Any more wrong, that is, than democracy, which is self-destructive, or sports, which can kill, or space shuttles, which can explode and vaporize the astronauts. All of these can be "wrong," in ways, I'm asking for a reason. )

Well I wil do my best:
In the bible the Devil or his people uses magic. So if you write a book about magic it's in name of the Devil.

Ow and about that probing God thing:
God has showed hisself enough to the people in the bible.
Do you really believe that God is kind of a slave, that he shows up when you aren't sure if he exict.

I have the funny feeling that this discussion turn nasty.
So I propose to stop.......

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 732
(11/26/02 4:41 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: t

Quote:
In the bible the Devil or his people uses magic. So if you write a book about magic it's in name of the Devil.

Just because someone evil uses magic doesn't mean magic is evil. If I recall correctly, Moses used his magic staff to split the waters to let the Jews return from Egypt. Tell me that's not magic.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 456
(11/26/02 5:36 pm)
62.238.255.224
| Del

Re: n

I tell you it is the power of God that different (at least for me) .

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 735
(11/26/02 10:39 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: God

So why is one the power of God and the other magic?
According to your logic it would be "power of the devil."

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 78
(11/26/02 10:42 pm)
209.115.59.92
| Del

Can u not get it through your thick skull?!?!

Quote: The Bible is a collection of stories, most of them I'm sure are based on fact (excluding Genesis).

BASED on fact? they ARE fact!
----------------------------------
Quote: Just because someone evil uses magic doesn't mean magic is evil. If I recall correctly, Moses used his magic staff to split the waters to let the Jews return from Egypt. Tell me that's not magic.

magic staff? that "magic staff" was as magic as a regular stick you might pick up off the ground in the woods. God worked through moses to split the red sea so his people could escape from the egyptians who were using them as slaves.
---------------------------------
Quote: Why not just admit that you have faith in something that has no proof?

no, i can't because it does have proof. why don't you admit that what u believe doesn't have proof?
---------------------------------
Quote: BTW, kittyyorp, what denomination of Christianity are you?

i am a baptist.
---------------------------------
Quote: Umm...as long as I can remember, Catholics are Christians, and all Christians believe in the same God and about Jeses, etc.. The only difference is that Catholics have a Pope, their church hymns are more boring, and the elements of a Sunday mass might be a little different.

true, christians are similar to catholics, but not entirely. their bible is different. they add and move things around in the bible because they believe that it "flows better that way". of course our bible states somewhere that you are not to add, remove, or move anything in the bible. plus, christian churhes can be "boring" too, some christian churches still still to old hymns and have a three-hour long sermon every sunday. church could always be interesting, though. it just depends on why you go there. are you forced, you feel that you need to to get to heaven or to lead a good life, or do you go cuz u want to go?

PS- if i ever offend any catholics or people of any other religion, i am sorry. i just feel it very necessary to defend what i believe.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 737
(11/26/02 11:13 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: n

Quote:
BASED on fact? they ARE fact!

Proof?

Quote:
magic staff? that "magic staff" was as magic as a regular stick you might pick up off the ground in the woods. God worked through moses to split the red sea so his people could escape from the egyptians who were using them as slaves.

I admit, I was wrong there. According to the Bible, God does work through Moses. But still, according to what Djaser said, that could be qualified as magic. Still, there's no proof for what you are saying.

Quote:
no, i can't because it does have proof. why don't you admit that what u believe doesn't have proof?

1. Show me the proof
2. Well, considering the only thing applicable to this topic that I believe is that Harry Potter is not satanic, and that can't really be proven, can it?
You could also say that I disbelieve in God, but you have to prove something before you can disprove it.

Quote:
it just depends on why you go there. are you forced, you feel that you need to to get to heaven or to lead a good life, or do you go cuz u want to go?

I go because my parents want me to go.

Kittyyorp, the problem is that what you're saying is proof, has no proof for being true itself. I need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 85
(11/26/02 11:21 pm)
209.115.59.92
| Del

Re: God

no, i am not admitting defeat, because i still have proof, however i think this conversation is getting tiresome. xtraverse, if you want to carry on this conversation go to the "wat do you believe?" poll, ok? go to it @ pub128.ezboard.com/fpubliccommanderkeenforumfrm5.showMessage?topicID=219.topic

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 121
(11/27/02 5:14 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: Can u not get it through your thick skull?!?!

Hey, kittyyorp, read this topic from the beginning, and these two topics too, and you'll have loads of proof against religion(of course there is counter-proof too):
How many people here are religious?
and:
Dolphins

PS. Please do read at least some of that stuff before trying to counter anything.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 115
(11/28/02 12:19 am)
207.109.179.46
| Del

Re: lk

Ah, finally something to go on!

Quote:
That is the definition of materialisticness (well, maybe not, but yeah). The laws of science are what is in the universe, because there are limits to how fast things can go, and et cetera; if God created the universe with those limits, fine, but it doesn't take God to say "Thy mass shall increaseth relatively if thy speed increasth too." The laws of logic are determined by that: if you do something, and do the same thing over again (at least theoretically) the same thing will happen. The same thing applies as for science, with limits. In another view: Materialisticism does not attempt to explain why, these natural rules are true. Maybe in the big bang (if you believe in one) a single atom got displaced in a temporal field occupying 0.000002*10^-28422 kilometers and... materialism does not care. If you can find out, cool, if you can't, you know, at least, that there are certain laws in the universe, if not why.

First of all, announcing materialism does nothing for accounting for materialism. Second, you have declared that there are laws of logic and science. For that, I thank you.
Once again, or for the first time, you will have to defend that position. You stated that

Quote:
...humans created laws of logic.

What you have said is that these laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote", correct? So, why do different people groups have the same laws of logic? Please, don't give me that "ten fingers" response. (btw, maybe its because people have two legs, two arms, one head, two ears, two eyes, and one nose for a grand total of ten?)"The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory."

Quote:
Laws of morality are far easier. They were created by human beings (or God, but the point is that humans could have created them all the same), to minimize things that are considered "bad." You can attain this entirement from the postulate that "Pain is bad," justified by that we try to avoid pain, and we get something very similar to the religious ones, minus things such as homosexuality.

Again, you state that there are laws.
I guess I don't see how you get laws of morality from "pain is bad". Could you please explain?
Baabis:

Quote:
I don't really get your point. Why couldn't I?

*sigh*
Look, maybe you should think about that for a while. I've been explaining this for a while now.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 116
(11/28/02 12:26 am)
207.109.179.46
| Del

Re: Can u not get it through your thick skull?!?!

Quote:
Quote: Umm...as long as I can remember, Catholics are Christians, and all Christians believe in the same God and about Jeses, etc.. The only difference is that Catholics have a Pope, their church hymns are more boring, and the elements of a Sunday mass might be a little different.

true, christians are similar to catholics, but not entirely. their bible is different. they add and move things around in the bible because they believe that it "flows better that way". of course our bible states somewhere that you are not to add, remove, or move anything in the bible. plus, christian churhes can be "boring" too, some christian churches still still to old hymns and have a three-hour long sermon every sunday. church could always be interesting, though. it just depends on why you go there. are you forced, you feel that you need to to get to heaven or to lead a good life, or do you go cuz u want to go?

Catholics have a works-based religion. Christians have a faith-based....faith. "Faith alone in Christ alone." We also believe that this paying reference to (worshiping) Mary is unbiblical.

Forge315
Grand Intellect
Posts: 1079
(11/28/02 5:46 am)
68.106.137.215
| Del

Quote:
BASED on fact? they ARE fact!
Quote:
Proof?

[/quote]Here’s an example I was given; rewritten from memory:

Okay we all know Abraham Lincoln existed and was the sixteenth president of the united states. But can we prove he existed?

There are books about him, pictures, paintings and countless documents. However did you write that book? Or take that picture? Fictional books are written and pictures can be faked. It appears all we have is unconfirmable evidence; evidence that can’t be proven.

The belief of Abraham Lincoln’s existence is based on indirect evidence. We can’t prove it because we didn’t see it.

How do we know that the Earth is round? Have been to space? You’ve seen pictures videos and whatever, but unless you find out for yourself it’s indirect evidence.

In the past people scuffed at ideas like the moon being bigger than an apple. Why would they do that, it was proven -- wasn’t it? No it wasn’t proven. What happen is that direct evidence was presented to some, and then indirect evidence via the mouth to the rest. They didn’t believe it, because they didn’t see it. And a lot that did see it, still didn’t believe.

So can I prove Jesus existed? No. But you can’t prove you exist either, a picture wont do, and there are stalkers online who make the skeptical of your intentions. Right?

Maybe the next time you laugh at the guy who doesn’t believe we exist, you should consider the fact that he may not exist. (That’s supposed to be funny!)

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 477
(11/28/02 4:07 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: Can u not get it through your thick skull?!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by: UppyII
Catholics have a works-based religion. Christians have a faith-based....faith. "Faith alone in Christ alone."

So what James says means nothing at all?
'For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.' (James 2:26)

--------------------

Seems to me that Catholics are Christian too...

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 123
(11/28/02 4:44 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

...

Quote:
why do different people groups have the same laws of logic?

That's simple: If you have two apples, and you give one to some other person, then you have one apple, right?
I'm sure no-one from any people group would disagree.

Quote:
I guess I don't see how you get laws of morality from "pain is bad". Could you please explain?

Perhaps "pain is bad" is a bit bad example. Maybe this'll be a bit better: Generally, killing is considered bad. That's (as I see it) mainly because we don't want to lose our loved ones. That makes a general moral law: Killing is not allowed.

Edited by: baabis at: 11/28/02 4:49:05 pm

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 118
(11/28/02 8:57 pm)
206.63.170.71
| Del

Re: Can u not get it through your thick skull?!?!

Quote:
So what James says means nothing at all?
'For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.' (James 2:26)

Granted works are important, but it's not the works that save you.

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 93
(11/28/02 10:42 pm)
209.115.59.22
| Del

i agree

yes, works are important, and you are right when you said that they don't save you, though. no normal person could ever be perfect, and unless you are perfect, works can't save you.

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 480
(11/28/02 11:12 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

But according to that without the works you can't be saved.

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

chogall
Vorticon Elder
Posts: 1123
(11/28/02 11:29 pm)
217.70.229.42
| Del
ezSupporter

Re: .

Forge, you don't seem to understand how science works.

Nothing can be absolutely proved by examining facts (such as seeing Abraham Lincoln on a photo). When scientists publish a finding, what they've asked themselves is "What is the probability of all this happening if the theory we explain it with is false?"

What is the probability of books being written about Lincoln, countless pictures, paintings and documents about him existing, and lots of accounts from people having talked to him or witnessed things he did, if he in fact never existed? Pretty slim. You can never give an absolute proof of Lincoln's existence, but the probability of all this happening if he didn't actually exist is so small that we accept it as true.

Then, people could start making predictions from the theory that Lincoln existed. "If Abraham Lincoln really lived among us in the past, then something must be true". At some point, it will be possible to see if that prediction holds. If so, the hypothesis about Abraham Lincoln's existence has been strengthened. If not, then it has been disproved.

I could say that George W. Bush doesn't exist. You could then take me somewhere where I see him in person. I could then say "No, that's just an android duplicate ploy". Thus, there are (at least) two hypotheses explaining the fact that I saw George W. Bush:

He exists
What I saw was an android duplicate ploy[/link].Since android duplicate ploys are very unprobable, people will accept the first hypothesis as true, and those who keep talking about android duplicate ploys will be looked upon

Forge315
Grand Intellect
Posts: 1083
(11/29/02 5:09 pm)
68.106.137.215
| Del

Quote:
Forge, you don't seem to understand how science works.

All my point was, which must have been missed, was that there will never be enough evidence to have someone believe something they don’t. What your pointing out is that even though they can all fit in the same category, some thing’s are more plausible than others; and I accept that.

I did give a good example to show how an approach like that is not plausible either:

Quote:
In the past people scuffed at ideas like the moon being bigger than an apple. Why would they do that, it was proven -- wasn’t it? No it wasn’t proven. What happen is that direct evidence was presented to some, and then indirect evidence via the mouth to the rest. They didn’t believe it, because they didn’t see it. And a lot that did see it, still didn’t believe.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 469
(12/1/02 9:41 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

We are not, for the most part, here, trying to undermine the theory that Jesus existed. He exists on the same proof as is Julius Caesar(sp?). The problem is that the arguments "Jesus existed" and "God exists, in the way that Jesus protrayed him" are on a considerably different standpoint. The argument of evidence undermines the validity of words that (might have) came out of Julius Caesar's mouth. While it is not beneficery to argue whether or not these people, from the past, existed, it is moreso, to argue about something that might affect our fates even now.

"Isn't it strange, that you can create dead men, but not living ones?"

Quote:
In the past people scuffed at ideas like the moon being bigger than an apple. Why would they do that, it was proven -- wasn’t it? No it wasn’t proven. What happen is that direct evidence was presented to some, and then indirect evidence via the mouth to the rest. They didn’t believe it, because they didn’t see it. And a lot that did see it, still didn’t believe.

Well, if the moon was the size of an apple, it follows that in order to appear as large as it is, it has to be relatively low over the earth's surface. In order for that to be true, you must be able to touch it, if you get up to a suitable height. You can't exactly do that.

One of the things that can be referred to as "reality," though, is its effect upon the human being. You can believe that you are not hungry as long as you want, and still starve, you can believe that you have the power to traverse space as much as you want, and still not find food from the Green Planet, you can believe that the sun will not die, and that status quo will maintain for all eternity, and then have humanity wiped out.

Quote:
What I saw was an android duplicate ploy. Since android duplicate ploys are very unprobable, people will accept the first hypothesis as true, and those who keep talking about android duplicate ploys will be looked upon

You're wrong! George W. Bush is an android duplicate ploy, set up by Mortimer McMire to initiate the third world war and take over the world!

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 473
(12/1/02 10:26 am)
62.238.255.224
| Del

Re: .

( You're wrong! George W. Bush is an android duplicate ploy, set up by Mortimer McMire to initiate the third world war and take over the world! )

It is that I'm aware of your irony otherwise I would have believed you! I've never trust him :evil

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 133
(12/6/02 10:40 pm)
206.63.170.31
| Del

Re: .

*ahem*

As most of you now know, I’m a Christian and as such, I will be comparing the Harry Potter series with the Bible. I guess everyone wants examples of satanic or wiccan practices and connections so I’ll start with some of those.

Here is a scene from Book II:

Quote:
He [Riddle] pulled Harry’s wand from his pocket and began to trace it through the air, writing three shimmering words: TOM MARVOLO RIDDLE.
Then he waved the wand once, and the letters of his name rearranged themselves: I AM LORD VOLDEMORT.

Another anagram appears in Book I inscribed on a mirror: “Erised stra ehru oyt ube cafv oyton wohsi.” When written backward it reads: “I show you not your face but your heart’s desire.” Similar connections seem to exist between Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, founder of Theosophy, and Cassandra Vablatsky. Rowling’s Adalbert Waffling also has a connection with the French pseudo-mystic Archbishop Adalbert of Magdeburg. Connections not only in similar names, but in ideas and the books they write.

Pagan and mythological names also appear in Rowling’s books. Minerva Gonagall is named after the Roman goddess of agriculture, navigation, spinning, weaving, and needlework. Argus Filch is named after the Greek mythological giant with a hundred eyes. Other names include Hermione, Circe, Draco, Morgana, Merlin, Cliodna, Bane, Firenze, and Potter, which means ‘witch.’

As for pagan practices, I’ll copy a section from the book Harry Potter and the Bible.

Quote:
FORTUNE-TELLING/MEDIUMSHIP

Fortune-telling plays a prominent role in Prisoner of Azkaban (Book III) through the character of Sibyll Trelawney, Hogwarts’ divination teacher. Coincidentally, “Sibyl” was the title given to the women in ancient Greece and Rome who lived in caves and who were “renowned for their gifts of prophecy.” During Trelawney’s classes, the children study palmistry, reading tea leaves and crystal ball gazing (also called scrying). Trelawney pays special attention to scrying, a very old form of divination wherein a person “gazes at a shiny or polished surface to induce a trance-state in which scenes, people, words or images appears as part of a psychic communication. The familiar crystal ball of the gypsy fortune-teller provides the best example; but mirrors, polished metal, coal or bone, and even cups of clear liquid have also been used for scrying.”
“Crystal gazing is a particularly refined art,” she tells them. “We shall start by practicing relaxing the conscious mind and external eyes...so as to clear the Inner Eye and the superconscious.”
This is exactly what scryers do when they enter a trance and attempt to contact the spiritual dimension to gain knowledge about the future. The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology explains the crystal gazing is a form of self-induced hypnosis which help free one’s telepathic powers. In other words, we have a fantasy character giving realistic scrying instructions. Moreover, Trelawney accurately predicts: 1) Hermione’s dropping of a class; and 2) the escape of Peter Pettigrew.
The manner in which Trelawney gives her prediction about Pettigrew is especially disturbing. Without knowing what is happening, Trelawney becomes momentarily possessed by someone (or something) which, through her mouth, speaks using a loud, harsh voice described as “quite unlike her own.” This scene occurs when Harry and Trelawney are engaged in scrying. Suddenly, Trelawney goes “rigid in her armchair; her eyes were unfocused and her mouth sagging.” From her gaping jaws, the voice (which Rowling never identifies) declares, “IT WILL HAPPEN TONIGHT.” The voice continues to make its prophecy, while Trelawney remains transfixed, completely unaware of what is going on:
THE DARK LORD LIES ALONE AND FRIENDLESS, ABANDONED BY HIS FOLLOWERS. HIS SERVANT HAS BEEN CHAINED THESE TWELVE YEARS. TONIGHT, BEFORE MIDNIGHT...THE SERVANT WILL BREAK FREE AND SET OUT TO REJOIN HIS MASTER. THE DARK LORD WILL RISE AGAIN WITH HIS SERVANT’S AID, GREATER AND MORE TERRIBLE THAT EVER HE WAS. TONIGHT...BEFORE MIDNIGHT...THE SERVANT...WILL SET OUT...TO REJOIN...HIS MASTER...
Trelawney’s head then falls forward onto her chest, and she make “a grunting sort of noise” as if she is exhausted. This incident is nothing less that full mediumship (i.e., demon possession). The history of spiritualism is filled with mediums, who have always held prominence in occultism as persons “qualified in some special manner to form a link between the dead the living.” According the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, “[t]he essential qualification of a medium is an abnormal sensitiveness, which enables him or her to be readily ‘controlled’ by disembodied spirits.” Trelawney’s episode of possession is perhaps the clearest contradiction of the assertion that character in Rowling’s novels “don’t make contact with a supernatural world.”
A final prediction in Book III is made by none other that Harry as he takes his final scrying examination. By looking into a crystal ball, he accurately sees on of Hagrid’s pets being set free and flying away, even though this same creature is scheduled to be executed for injuring a student. Harry’s accurate divination seems to be Rowling’s way of showing readers that her lead character is one of those rare “True Seers” who has inherited what Trelawney calls the “Gift granted to few.”
End of quote.

The writer of the book then goes on to cover herbology, potions, palmistry, tea leaves, fire omens, arithmancy, numerology, ancient runes, and charms–All of which are in the Harry Potter series.
The Bible prohibits such pagan practices: Deuteronomy 18:10: There shall not be found among you anyone who make his son or daughter pass though the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord you God drives them out from before you.
These are just three of about sixty verses that deal with witchcraft in the Bible.

Morality:

Harry and his two friends, Ron and Hermione, constantly lie and break the rules at Hogwarts and get rewarded for it. It’s obvious that Rowling tried to create a ‘good’ side and a ‘bad’ side, but the distinction between the two is blurred. Both sides, though their final goals are different, use evil means to achieve them.
The adults portrayed in the books like and break rules just as much as the kids do. They are mean, bossy, fussy, stupid, and hot-headed.

For further reading: Harry Potter and the Bible: The menace behind the magick by Richard Abanes.

Crazy Dude
Vortininja
Posts: 122
(12/6/02 10:48 pm)
207.54.102.45
| Del

Re:

I'm a Christian as well and I think that it is clear to everyone that in Harry Potter, there is the use of magic or witchcraft which is not in any case whatsoever good.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 134
(12/6/02 10:52 pm)
206.63.170.31
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
But according to that without the works you can't be saved. -Flaose

Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9) not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Galatians 2:16 - knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; or by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 135
(12/6/02 10:57 pm)
206.63.170.31
| Del

Re: Re:

Quote:
I'm a Christian as well and I think that it is clear to everyone that in Harry Potter, there is the use of magic or witchcraft which is not in any case whatsoever good.

Actually, the correct term would be 'magick.' 'Magic' refers to stage tricks.

Killspy
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 326
(12/7/02 4:50 am)
216.26.3.1
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Maybe there are satanic or evil things portrayed in the HP books. But do the characters (minus the bad guys) use it to actually harm people and what not. There using it for good.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 137
(12/7/02 5:10 am)
206.63.170.64
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

One doesn't use evil to ahieve good.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 473
(12/7/02 12:40 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

I'll just say something, very quickly, and that is that the main source where Uppy quoted IS CORRUPTED in its knowledge. Half (actually, more than half, practically all of them minus one) of the predictions they refer to was actually bluffing and random guesses. This is especially confirmed when the source says that Potter looked into a crystal ball and saw a Hippogriff flying away, having been freed. Harry Potter never saw anything in the crystal ball, as the person writing the source would know if he/she had actually read the book; what he is doing is bluffing to his teacher when the teacher wants a result, quite quickly. In fact, if the writer of the source has indeed failed to notice, almost every single one of these predictive methods, from tea-reading to crystal gazing, were useless in their means of acquiring information, which is based almost totally on finding what you already know (or think will happen) from vague pictures within, say, those floating leaves. (Or in the case of the crystal ball, finding it from absolutely nothing.) These predictions are, as stated in the book itself, mere bluff and coincidence. Note the continual finding, by Professor Triwaney(sp?), of the "Grim," the dog-like omen, in every single predictive method, despite the inability of anyone else to recognize a coherent pattern within the, for instance, tea. I have no idea how anyone could have found this source to be reliable, when the occultic factors first: do not work, and second: if they do work, they are used on the "evil side." Triwany has made precisely two predictions total in her career, and in light of the most recent one the source instantaneously jumps to the conclusion of having a "demonic spirit" occupy her at that time. Note that the method of doing so is similar to the one of "Foretelling" in the Wheel of Time, and note how the Foreteller is reacting in that series. The Channeler is within a trance, and while doing so sees (not is occupied by a demon telling her to say something, sees) a vision of the future, which is immediately interpreted by her semiconscious self and translated into words, and after having the Foretelling, sometimes forgets it after the end of the trance. There was no demon involved. I am not trying to say that there is no demon involved here, but that definitely did not necessarily happen, and the immediate jumping, by the author, to that one, out of ever so many conclusions, suggests merely the very same process as involved in these fortune-tellings in the first place: a predetermined knowing of what your conclusion will be in the first place, and the mere "interpretation" of that conclusion inside vague and unsatisfactory data. I diss the reliability of this source, and accuse it of not having gone through the scientific process, as well as coming up with an inert, crappy, conclusion. Thank you.

(That last is habitual in the end, now that I've written some 10 MUN speeches)

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 805
(12/8/02 9:05 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
I'll just say something, very quickly

Right...

Forge315
Grand Intellect
Posts: 1101
(12/8/02 10:55 pm)
68.106.137.215
| Del

Quote:
We are not, for the most part, here, trying to undermine the theory that Jesus existed. He exists on the same proof as is Julius Caesar(sp?). The problem is that the arguments "Jesus existed" and "God exists, in the way that Jesus protrayed him" are on a considerably different standpoint. The argument of evidence undermines the validity of words that (might have) came out of Julius Caesar's mouth. While it is not beneficery to argue whether or not these people, from the past, existed, it is moreso, to argue about something that might affect our fates even now.

I wasn’t trying to say Jesus was God because we know He existed based on the same type of evidence that we use to prove Lincoln existed. This is left up to faith, and the testimony of other such as John.

In the gospel of John, I draw two verses:

John 1:34
"And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the son of God."

John 1:25-36
John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked upon Jesus as He walked, and said, "Behold, the lamb of God!"

I except the witness and testament of John.

Quote:
"Isn't it strange, that you can create dead men, but not living ones?"

Jesus is alive at least to me He is. But what’s wrong with this question, it says Jesus both existed and didn’t. Why? To mock; this question exists on the same argument as the that Lincoln didn’t exist.

Observe,

"Isn’t it strange, that you can create dead historical hero’s, but not living ones?"

or how I would word it,

"Funny isn’t it that we can create dead historical hero’s?"

Please note the "we" element. Think about the difference between me and the person who worded the original. By having the "we" I’m implying my acceptance if this fact. Without the "we" it becomes mockery, so the writer is rude, though I suppose most of the world is or can be, even me! *I wonder if that’s wrong though, it supposes I guess*

Edited by: Forge315 at: 12/8/02 10:58:43 pm

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 474
(12/9/02 10:25 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

That last was an indirect quote from "1984," actually, and was dealing with the question of creating someone like Lincoln, who would have to be dead in order to satisfy the rules of reality. I guess I was valuing the quote more than the politeness. (Though, in all honesty, when I say something like "you," I don't accuse you in particular of doing something, but am stating more in the lines that everyone, if everyone reads it and sees the "you," can do the action.)

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 816
(12/9/02 2:00 pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del

I don't doubt Jesus existed. I doubt he was the Son of God.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 140
(12/9/02 9:31 pm)
206.63.170.44
| Del

Re: I

Quote:
I diss the reliability of this source, and accuse it of not having gone through the scientific process, as well as coming up with an inert, crappy, conclusion. Thank you.

Ok, explain to me why we need to use science when dealing with spiritual matters? I've noticed that you continue to use the "crackers in the pantry fallacy."

As for the rest of your "short" post, I'll not answer straight away. When I finish Book IV I'll start Book III and give you an answer when I'm done.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 141
(12/9/02 10:03 pm)
206.63.170.44
| Del

Re: ...

Quote:
That's simple: If you have two apples, and you give one to some other person, then you have one apple, right?
I'm sure no-one from any people group would disagree.

"Where do we observe in nature that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist? You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does no exist. You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all and how hac any laws of logic be applied to or derived from observing nothing at all?The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions."

Quote:
Perhaps "pain is bad" is a bit bad example. Maybe this'll be a bit better: Generally, killing is considered bad. That's (as I see it) mainly because we don't want to lose our loved ones. That makes a general moral law: Killing is not allowed.

So, if someone isn't loved, is it ok to kill them?

Edited by: UppyII at: 12/9/02 10:10:17 pm

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 477
(12/10/02 5:30 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

In all honesty, the lack of scientific process, which is mentioned only once in my post, is only a "spice" to make the speech sound good (despite that it is true by even Uppy's indirect admission). The main problem I found with that particular area is the problem I address just before that, which is the immediate drawing of one conclusion from several, without evidence giving support that that one conclusion is more plausable than the others.

Still, the lack of "need to use science when dealing with spiritual matters" is a vague generalization that is not true when asking the question: "is this really a spiritual matter?" (Or a spiritual matter in the way the author describes it.) The need to simply use circular logic and ignore science in dealing with religion, such as the Bible. Let us accept that for the time being, for the sake of argument. The problem is: what the source is saying is not directly relating to what the Bible says. What the source is saying, in this case, is "The professor did this, therefore a demon occupied her." That is an accusation with other alternatives (analogous to me saying "You act guilty, therefore you are guilty"), and in order to prove that the alternative is the most viable, you need scientific evidence. The source goes through no process, scientific or whatnot, to prove that their interpretation of the events is correct, and that the other people's possible interpretations are incorrect. They simply say: "This incident is nothing less that full mediumship (i.e., demon possession)" and give a history of other (supposed?) demon possessions, while never actually trying to prove that the incident is actually demon posession, and not anything else, including what I suggested might have happened in my last post. This is where they need the scientific process: when making their plausable claims, because even the bible, which we accept temporarily, for the sake of argument, as a postulate, says not whether this act is actually an act of demon occupation. Thank you.

(Ignore that last, now.)

Crazy Dude
Vortininja
Posts: 139
(12/13/02 7:14 pm)
207.54.102.45
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't doubt Jesus existed. I doubt he was the Son of God.
---------------------------------------------------------

Well, doubt what you will. You will come out on the wrong end of things in the game of eternity.

What you belive, by all means believe it if it suits your needs. But the Bible is packed full of evidence that Jesus Christ came down to Earth in the form of a man. It is hard for me to understand how some people can't believe in the best-selling book of all-time: the Bible.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 851
(12/13/02 8:22 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: ...

Quote:
So, if someone isn't loved, is it ok to kill them?

You know he didn't say that, so stop twisting his words.

Quote:
Well, doubt what you will. You will come out on the wrong end of things in the game of eternity.

Is this another one of these "You're the one going to hell in the end!" statements?

Quote:
What you belive, by all means believe it if it suits your needs.

What the hell is with "suiting my needs"? I disbelive in God because I don't think miracles and such happen. End of story. It doesn't "suit" any of my needs.

Quote:
But the Bible is packed full of evidence that Jesus Christ came down to Earth in the form of a man.

Well sorry, I don't happen to believe that Mary was a virgin. As I said before, I believe miracles don't happen.

Quote:
It is hard for me to understand how some people can't believe in the best-selling book of all-time: the Bible.

Because there aren't multiple sources saying the same miracles happened. Show me some and I'll reconsider. BTW, the historian Herodotus wrote about many supernatural events in his books of history. Why don't you believe those?
And one more thing, why are Bibles sold? Making money off a religion sounds pretty lame to me.

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 530
(12/13/02 9:55 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: i

I don't think anyone actually makes money off the Bible...I could be wrong though.

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

Forge315
Grand Intellect
Posts: 1136
(12/15/02 3:09 am)
68.106.137.215
| Del

Quote:
Is this another one of these "You're the one going to hell in the end!" statements?

There’s nothing wrong with stating what you believe, if he’s wrong why should you care? I admit saying "your going to hell," is rude, but it wasn’t said rudely.

Quote:
What the hell is with "suiting my needs"? I disbelive in God because I don't think miracles and such happen. End of story. It doesn't "suit" any of my needs.

Lets look it up. These seem to fit best:

"To be appropriate for; befit: a color that suits you."
"To be suitable or acceptable."
"To be in accord; agree or match.?"

I really don’t see why you object; and not meaning to be rude, I guess that suits you. Believing in God and miracle suits me, if it doesn’t suit you okay; but the opposite does suit you.

Quote:
Well sorry, I don't happen to believe that Mary was a virgin. As I said before, I believe miracles don't happen.

He’s telling you why he believes what he believes, not saying and your wrong because of this. Your wrong to him and he’s wrong to you, but he did say "what you believe, by all means believe".

May I ask why you don’t believe Mary was a virgin?

Quote:
BTW, the historian Herodotus wrote about many supernatural events in his books of history. Why don't you believe those?

I don’t like to go off and find this stuff myself. If you find this piece of evidence appropriate post it, with a link or just a quote; since I don’t even know what your talking about.

Quote:
And one more thing, why are Bibles sold? Making money off a religion sounds pretty lame to me.

That’s nothing I approve of, but I agree it has happened. Power does corrupt. The Bible says, "One sinner destroys much good."

You’re a catholic right? Well in the past the catholic church sold pieces of paper that would get you into heaven, was this done for sole profit? It could be argued, but I say we’re all guilty at some point. The best of us sometimes become the worst of us; and we should all by no means be judged by the worst. (I read that fact in one of my high school history books.)

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 506
(12/15/02 8:47 am)
62.238.255.223
| Del

Re: ...

(BTW, the historian Herodotus wrote about many supernatural events in his books of history. Why don't you believe those?)

Yeah post it, I'm very curious about this

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 875
(12/15/02 2:27 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: i

Quote:
Herodotus involves the gods, unlike Thucydides. Herodotus does not go to the extent that Homer does by having the gods directly involved with events and battles. Homer tells the reader that Paris (a mortal) had intercourse with Aphrodite (the goddess of love, and beauty amongst other things). Herodotus tells us of no such stories, but the gods play a part in terms of oracles, dreams and portents. Although he does not specifically say this, he implies that it was divine will that the Persians lost the Persian Wars. This is because of the idea of hubris, as the Persians were being too arrogant in crossing the natural boundary between Asia and Europe, and thus they were doomed from the start. Thucydides has no such beliefs. He mentions oracles as incidental facts and nothing more. To this extent, he is regarded as a "better historian" by modern standards.

http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/Thucydides.htm

I'm sure you could find much more.

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 99
(12/15/02 7:11 pm)
209.115.59.159
| Del

re:

xtraverse, ur being kinda stubborn, aren't you?

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 130
(12/15/02 8:05 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: ...

Geez..look who's talking...

Killspy
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 423
(12/15/02 11:00 pm)
216.26.4.111
| Del

Re: i

What about Sabrina the Teenage witch?

Keengamer
Vortininja
Posts: 218
(12/15/02 11:35 pm)
203.123.64.148
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

posted by eK

Quote:
Yes!

I say we ban the Bible for teaching our children satanic things!

allright eK you win this time. but if you ever bring up the subject about banning the bible again. i promise you that i will have your admin privilege's removed

If The World Had No Commander Keen
The Keen Craze Would Have Never Begun

Jawa Wars (Rorie's Place On The Web)

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 885
(12/16/02 1:54 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: ...

kittyyorp, do you think that other types of Christians such as Lutherans, Protestans, and Catholics will be going to hell because they aren't Baptist?

Forge: I do go to a Catholic church, but I do not consider myself a Catholic, considering I don't believe in the religion.

Quote:
i promise you that i will have your admin privilege's removed

I'd love to see how you're going to do that :lol

Keengamer
Vortininja
Posts: 220
(12/16/02 2:02 am)
203.123.64.148
| Del

Re: i

posted by Xtraverse

Quote:
I'd love to see how you're going to do that

lossen up Xtraverse, i was joking

If The World Had No Commander Keen
The Keen Craze Would Have Never Begun

Jawa Wars (Rorie's Place On The Web)

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 887
(12/16/02 2:35 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

And I was being sarcastic

Edited by: Xtraverse at: 12/16/02 2:36:38 am

Killspy
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 433
(12/16/02 6:59 am)
216.26.6.238
| Del

Re: ...

This topic scares me....

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 146
(12/16/02 4:01 pm)
206.63.170.47
| Del

Re: ...

Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if someone isn't loved, is it ok to kill them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know he didn't say that, so stop twisting his words.

No, no. You're the one doing the twisting. I didn't say that he said that. I didn't even imply that. I was simply asking a question.

Quote:
As I said before, I believe miracles don't happen.

Er, I don't remember that. Why, again, don't you believe in miracles?

Quote:
And one more thing, why are Bibles sold? Making money off a religion sounds pretty lame to me.

You know, I'll have to agree with you there. Well, I can understand selling study Bibles, but some churches are run like businesses. Non profit org.? Yeah, right...

Quote:
I do not consider myself a Catholic, considering I don't believe in the religion.

Ya, that would do it...

Edited by: UppyII at: 12/16/02 4:03:54 pm

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 512
(12/16/02 5:04 pm)
62.238.255.223
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

(Er, I don't remember that. Why, again, don't you believe in miracles?)

People talk a lor rubbish.
That's why almost never believe them.

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 101
(12/16/02 9:13 pm)
209.115.59.128
| Del

re:

Quote: Geez..look who's talking...

ya know what, i at least gave up on this conversation because it was pointless... some1 says something for one thing, some1 else just says "prove it", some1 says something for one thing, some1 else just says "prove it", etc., etc... however, SOME PEOPLE just won't give up, now will they?

Quote: kittyyorp, do you think that other types of Christians such as Lutherans, Protestans, and Catholics will be going to hell because they aren't Baptist?

not necessarily... i never said that.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 149
(12/16/02 9:36 pm)
206.63.170.62
| Del

Re: re:

Quote:
ya know what, i at least gave up on this conversation because it was pointless... some1 says something for one thing, some1 else just says "prove it", some1 says something for one thing, some1 else just says "prove it", etc., etc... however, SOME PEOPLE just won't give up, now will they?

Are you saying that we should ignore the facts and 'just believe'?

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 898
(12/16/02 10:03 pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del

...

Quote:
No, no. You're the one doing the twisting. I didn't say that he said that. I didn't even imply that. I was simply asking a question.

That's a pretty lame question, that I'm sure you already knew the answer to. I guess you could say we both twisted words. (Remember baaba only said that was the main reason.)

Quote:
Er, I don't remember that. Why, again, don't you believe in miracles?

No scientific backing..in other words no proof that they are possible. It is not scientifically possible for a virgin to have a child, nor are the other miracles Jesus performed.

Quote:

Quote:
kittyyorp, do you think that other types of Christians such as Lutherans, Protestans, and Catholics will be going to hell because they aren't

not necessarily... i never said that. [/quote]
Umm..I know you never said that. That's why I asked. The two kinda follow now don't they

Anyways, what do you mean by "not necesarily"?

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 153
(12/17/02 6:43 am)
206.63.170.37
| Del

Re: ...

Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er, I don't remember that. Why, again, don't you believe in miracles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No scientific backing..in other words no proof that they are possible. It is not scientifically possible for a virgin to have a child, nor are the other miracles Jesus performed.

Er, wouldn't that, like, defeat the whole point of a miracle?

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 482
(12/17/02 9:05 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Actually, scientific proof is used to prove that the miracle did actually happen, which, contary to destroying the point of the miracle, further validifies it.

Bloogaurd
Vortininja
Posts: 122
(12/17/02 1:52 pm)
209.81.165.181
| Del

Harry Potter

You know it's pretty funny but, this thread is way of topic.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 155
(12/17/02 8:37 pm)
206.63.170.54
| Del

Re: a

Quote:
Actually, scientific proof is used to prove that the miracle did actually happen, which, contary to destroying the point of the miracle, further validifies it.

I'm not talking about the evidences afterwards. I'm talking about the possibility of a miracle happening.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 483
(12/18/02 12:42 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Quote:
No scientific backing..in other words no proof that they are possible. It is not scientifically possible for a virgin to have a child, nor are the other miracles Jesus performed.

If there was pretty sure proof that the scientific miracle did happen, then the "possibility of a miracle happening," in other words the "proof that they are possible," would be confirmed. Three people are along two lines, here.

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 131
(12/18/02 12:50 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: Harry Potter

Quote:
Remember baaba only said that was the main reason.

Hum. My exact point was that these rules are possible without the existence of a god. And that particular statement was only one of the reasons for the moral law to be created.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 933
(12/21/02 1:21 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: a

Going back to the main argument...

Where does the Bible forbid imagination and storytelling?

Edited by: Xtraverse at: 12/21/02 5:04:17 pm

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 561
(12/21/02 1:48 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

It doesn't...some people are just crezzy...

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

Bloogaurd
Vortininja
Posts: 133
(12/21/02 2:46 pm)
209.81.165.56
| Del

gettin' off

I'm gettin' off this post 'cause I'm tired of "The Bible's real (next person) Prove it! ect.,ect.,ect.,and ect.
bye to y'all on this post.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 488
(12/21/02 5:26 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Quote:
I'm gettin' off this post 'cause I'm tired of "The Bible's real (next person) Prove it! ect.,ect.,ect.,and ect.
bye to y'all on this post.

Prove it! The words "Prove it" probably consist of around 0.001% of the content of this thread. Whatever.

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 139
(12/21/02 5:31 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

People can say stuff as much as they want but when it comes to proving that stuff they get angry because they can't prove it and leave the thread alone. Sad. Very sad.

<edit>And I'd like to add that I admit not being able to prove some stuff, but my point was that people stop arguing at that point and give up.</edit>

Edited by: baabis at: 12/21/02 5:32:53 pm

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 520
(12/21/02 6:18 pm)
62.238.255.223
| Del

Re: gettin' off

I hope both sides didn't plug in this discussion with the illussion that they could convert other people and prove all their points...
I agree with Baabis here...

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 140
(12/21/02 9:21 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: p

I'm defending my own opinion. Though it wouldn't hurt me if someone said he/she turned into an atheist because of me

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 938
(12/21/02 9:56 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Personally I don't care what religion people are as long as they don't say stuff like "If you're not a baptist you're going to hell."

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 524
(12/22/02 2:59 pm)
62.238.255.224
| Del

Re: gettin' off

I don't like that people either Xtravers.
But people who say that Christians and other religious people are stupid are the same to me.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 161
(12/23/02 5:12 am)
206.63.170.49
| Del

Re: gettin' off

Quote:
I'm gettin' off this post 'cause I'm tired of "The Bible's real (next person) Prove it! ect.,ect.,ect.,and ect.
bye to y'all on this post.

Well, that is the whole point of this thread. If someone said that something was true and couldn't prove it, would you believe them?

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 491
(12/23/02 8:20 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

I dunno. If I said "the Sun revolves around the earth" and couldn't prove it, would you believe me?

Bloogaurd
Vortininja
Posts: 141
(12/23/02 1:40 pm)
216.214.12.67
| Del

re:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
People can say stuff as much as they want but when it comes to proving that stuff they get angry because they can't prove it and leave the thread alone. Sad. Very sad.

<edit>And I'd like to add that I admit not being able to prove some stuff, but my point was that people stop arguing at that point and give up.</edit>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wrong! Me, forge, and kittyyorp have proved you wrong and you just go to someting else and say "prove this". So I'm tired of "proving this". And have better time to waste at this dumb forum (Well, it's not as dumb as the "Game Maker Forum")

P.S. When have I told you you're going to go to hell?

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 492
(12/23/02 3:00 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Quote:
Wrong! Me, forge, and kittyyorp have proved you wrong

Where did you, forge, and kittyyorp collectively prove... "us" ... wrong?

MRC Marky
Vortininja
Posts: 244
(12/23/02 5:40 pm)
62.71.135.136
| Del

Re: i

Perhaps some people have the tendency to believe.. after thousands of years of mankind being subject to the "God". Religious cultures shape your beliefs, which probably become trails, getting carried as genes through generations. Isn't it that simple? People who ponder the reason of life either find it within the materialistic world or from the spiritual 'dimensions'. You can't really turn someone into an atheist or from an atheist to a religious person.. or even if it's possible, it won't be long until their mind seeks for a balanced state, which could as a matter of fact be the opposite to what they started to beleive.

chogall
Vorticon Elder
Posts: 1177
(1/4/03 12:15 pm)
129.240.241.4
| Del
ezSupporter

Re: i

Douglas Adams has written a very good speech called "Is there an Artificial God?" You should read it.

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 145
(1/4/03 4:55 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Who needs religion?

Religion is for people who don't want to or don't have the brains to think about the world themselves. Religion is for people who want all answers ready in a tidy package.
I myself couldn't live without contradicting everything told to me. And that doesn't mean that I have an urge to disprove all theories about everything, but to think about them.
For example, a theory says that dna was first created in water some billions of years ago. I thought about it, and it fits my logic well enough for me to believe it. So I base my thoughts about evolution on that presumption.

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 109
(1/4/03 4:58 pm)
209.115.59.142
| Del

*sigh* i'm bored

Quote: Where did you, forge, and kittyyorp collectively prove... "us" ... wrong?

:rolleyes

here we go again. :tired

this thread is getting old.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1043
(1/5/03 2:56 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: i

Nice try kittyyorp...I see you've given up trying to defend yourself so I don't suppose you'll actually answer that question KeenEmpire directed at you.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 173
(1/6/03 12:00 am)
206.63.170.48
| Del

Re: Who needs religion?

Quote:
Going back to the main argument...

Where does the Bible forbid imagination and storytelling?

I think you missed my point entirely. There’s nothing inherently wrong with imagination and story telling, but when you use that imagination and story telling to spread wiccan practices and ideas it becomes wrong. The Harry Potter series has furthered the wiccan religion tremendously and for you to say “Well it wouldn’t make me a witch” is irrelevant because thousands of real kids are being drawn into wicca, thinking that it’s just innocent fun and games.

Quote:
Perhaps some people have the tendency to believe.. after thousands of years of mankind being subject to the "God". Religious cultures shape your beliefs, which probably become trails, getting carried as genes through generations. Isn't it that simple? People who ponder the reason of life either find it within the materialistic world or from the spiritual 'dimensions'. You can't really turn someone into an atheist or from an atheist to a religious person.. or even if it's possible, it won't be long until their mind seeks for a balanced state, which could as a matter of fact be the opposite to what they started to beleive.

Worldviews are not carried through genes.

Quote:
Religion is for people who don't want to or don't have the brains to think about the world themselves. Religion is for people who want all answers ready in a tidy package.

Baabis, you keep saying that religion is for ignorant people (I’m assuming that Christianity is included) yet you can’t prove atheism, you can’t disprove Christian theism, you can’t prove Darwinian evolution, you can’t even show that they are reasonable theories and beliefs.

Quote:
For example, a theory says that dna was first created in water some billions of years ago. I thought about it, and it fits my logic well enough for me to believe it. So I base my thoughts about evolution on that presumption.

For how long and how hard did you think about that theory? Did you actually study it? How could such a thing as a cell evolve?

Quote:
...and it fits my logic well enough...

Oh? I didn’t realize you had your own logic. What’s that all about?

Quote:
Where did you, forge, and kittyyorp collectively prove... "us" ... wrong?

Yes, and what did you prove wrong?

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1050
(1/6/03 2:38 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: *sigh* i'm bored

Quote:
I think you missed my point entirely. There’s nothing inherently wrong with imagination and story telling, but when you use that imagination and story telling to spread wiccan practices and ideas it becomes wrong. The Harry Potter series has furthered the wiccan religion tremendously and for you to say “Well it wouldn’t make me a witch” is irrelevant because thousands of real kids are being drawn into wicca, thinking that it’s just innocent fun and games.

I seriously doubt JK Rowling is trying to spread a Wiccan message. I doubt she's even Wiccan herself. And how many kids do you know that actually believe Harry Potter? There may be plenty of little kids who do, but as they grow up they'll understand the difference between story and truth. I just don't think this book is spreading a Wiccan message.

Quote:
Worldviews are not carried through genes.

That's true, but I think he meant that parents will pass the ideas down on to their children.

Uppy, do you think all Wiccan people are evil and should be shunned, etc... And if you had a friend who you learned was Wiccan, would you stop being their friend?

Alecswrld

Vortininja
Posts: 158
(1/6/03 8:44 pm)
68.1.110.193
| Del

Re: i

If JK Rowling was trying to spread witchcraft with a book about it, then does that mean the person who made up a story such as Jack and the Beanstalk or the 3 little pigs is trying to spread ideas about giants or talking animals? Here's one word what most books are for : Entertainment.

Edit: Oops didnt mean by the way

http://www.harrypotterrealm.com/

Jingle Bells!,
ID Smells!

Edited by: Alecswrld at: 1/6/03 10:47:54 pm

Alecswrld

Vortininja
Posts: 159
(1/6/03 9:05 pm)
68.1.110.193
| Del

Re: Who needs religion?

Christians have themselves to blame for witches. Christians believed that there were witches. Christians believed that they were evil. Christians burned a whole heck of a lot of innocent people. And now today witches are etched into our culture, whether its halloween or Harry Potter.

Jingle Bells!,
ID Smells!

Scizor CT
Vortininja
Posts: 168
(1/6/03 10:32 pm)
67.34.169.8
| Del

A few things...

I can't believe I missed this thread before. Anyway, here's my personal proof of God:

Speaking in tongues.

bible.crosswalk.com/Onlin...in+tongues

If there is no God, then why exactly do thousands of people still speak in languages that they do not know? Something supernatural must be the cause, unless you can scientifically explain it, which I seriously doubt. Considering that I've seen it myself throughout my life, it can not be fake.

Second thought: Under the idea that God did indeed create the laws of physics and nature, and that God is all-powerful, why is it too hard to believe that He can bend and change them as he desires?

And if you're wondering, I'm Protestant Christian. Assemblies of God, to be specific.

My Remixes: Here! Click here!

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1058
(1/6/03 10:39 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: i

I don't get it, that link has nothing to do with what you just said.

Scizor CT
Vortininja
Posts: 169
(1/6/03 10:48 pm)
67.34.169.8
| Del

Re: Who needs religion?

Biblical references to what I'm talking about if you have no idea what it means.

My Remixes: Here! Click here!

Alecswrld

Vortininja
Posts: 163
(1/6/03 10:55 pm)
68.1.110.193
| Del

Re: Who needs religion?

What's your proof in god? A saint in a jar of peanut butter??

No offense ; just had to get it out of my system.

Jingle Bells!,
ID Smells!

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 175
(1/7/03 1:48 am)
206.63.170.74
| Del

Re: *sigh* i'm bored

Quote:
Uppy, do you think all Wiccan people are evil and should be shunned, etc... And if you had a friend who you learned was Wiccan, would you stop being their friend?

Yes, no, and no.

I will reply to the rest of your message later.

Quote:
If there is no God, then why exactly do thousands of people still speak in languages that they do not know? Something supernatural must be the cause, unless you can scientifically explain it, which I seriously doubt. Considering that I've seen it myself throughout my life, it can not be fake.

Though I am a Christian, I do not agree with the Charismatic movement (Speaking-in-tongues included). In the Bible, when people spoke in tongues, there was a purpose (i.e. someone on the recieving end who could understand) or a translation afterwards. I see neither today. In fact, in the church I used to go to (Assemblies of God, btw) when someone spoke "in tongues" no one in the whole audience could understand them. I also don't find anywhere in the Bible where people spoke in "tongues of angels".
You stated that you've seen it yourself. What language did they speak? Could anyone else understand? How do you know it was from God?

Quote:
If JK Rowling was trying to spread witchcraft with a book about it, then does that mean the person who made up a story such as Jack and the Beanstalk or the 3 little pigs is trying to spread ideas about giants or talking animals? Here's one word what most books are for : Entertainment. -Alecsworld

Yes, and add Peter Pan to that list. It teaches about how you have to snort pixie dust in order to fly...I don't think so. Harry Potter books contain explicit directions on how to perform magick practices; Jack and the Beanstalk does not.

Btw, here's the rest of Dr. Bahnsens closing statement:

Well, to begin my closing statement by thanking the debate team for inviting both Dr. Stein and myself here for this interesting evening and interchange and thank you all for giving up an evening to discuss what I consider a very important question. And I thank Dr. Stein for coming and his graciousness toward me.
As far as my closing statement, I need to deal first of all, perhaps in the entire time, analyzing this remark that “my statements have been tonight, irrational.” Well, perhaps they have, but, you see, saying so doesn’t make it so. That’s something we just heard as well. And so if my statements have been irrational, we are going to need some standards of reasoning by which these statements have been shown to be irrational. Dr. Stein has yet to explain to us in even the broadest, simplest, Sunday-school-child manner that I told you about laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality. He hasn’t even begun to scratch the surface to tell us how, in his worldview, there can be laws of any sort. And if there can’t be laws or standards in his worldview, then he can’t worry about my irrationality–my alleged irrationality. The transcendental argument for the existence of God has not been answered by Dr. Stein. It’s been debated, its been made fun of, but it hasn’t been answered. And that’s what we’re there for: rational interchange. The transcendental argument says the proof of the Christian God is that without Him you can’t prove anything. Notice the argument doesn’t say that atheists don’t prove things. The argument doesn’t say that atheists don’t use laws of logic, science, or laws of morality. In fact, they do. The argument is that they cannot account for what they are doing.
Their worldview is not consistent with what they are doing. In their worldview, there are no laws; there are no abstract entities; there are no universal–there are no prescriptions. There’s just the universe, naturalistically explained in the way things happen to be. That’s not law-like or
universal and therefore their worldview doesn’t account for laws of logic, science, or morality, but atheists, of course, use logic, science, and morality. And in so doing, atheists give continual evidence of the fact that in their had-of-hearts, they aren’t atheist. In their hard-of-hearts, they know the God I’m talking about. This God made them. This God reveals Himself continually to them through the natural order, through their conscience, and through the very use of reason.
They know this God and they suppress the truth about Him. One of the ways we see they suppress the truth about His is because they do continue to use laws of logic, science, and morality though their worldview cannot account for them. Dr. Stein has said the laws of logic are merely conventional. If so, on convention, he wins tonight’s debate. On convention, I win tonight’s debate. And if you’re satisfied with that, you didn’t need to come in the first place. You expected the laws of logic to be applied as universal standards of rationality. Rationality is not possible in a universe that just consigns them to convention. Dr. Stein has said the laws of science are law-like because of the inherent character of matter, but Dr. Stein doesn’t know the inherent character of matter. Now if he were God, he might reveal that to us as I think God has revealed certain things to us about the operation of the universe, but he’s not God. He doesn’t even believe there is a God. Since he hasn’t experienced all the instances of matter and all of the electron reactions–all the other things scientists look at. Since he hasn’t experienced all those things, he doesn’t know they’re all universal. He doesn’t know the future’s going to be like the past. When he says, “Well it has always been that way in the past. Boy, if it changes tomorrow won’t that make the front pages.” That’s not an answer. You see, we’re asking what justifies you’re preceding on the expectation that the future’s like the past. You say “well it’s always been that way in the past” is just to beg the question. We want to know on what basis your worldview allows for the uniformity of nature and laws of science.

Thirdly, we’ve spoken of laws of morality, tonight. He says they have laws of morality.
The utilitarian standard of what brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number. Well that doesn’t justify utilitarianism to announce it. He’s announced that is his standard, but why, in an atheist universe, should we live by that standard. Marquee de Saab enjoyed torturing women.
Now why should he give up torturing women so that he might bring greater happiness to those women that he was torturing? Now I’ve got an answer for that. So now whether Dr. Stein like and maybe some of you out their don’t like it, but at least I can begin, philosophically, to deal with that; I have an answer, a universal absolute about morality. Dr. Stein doesn’t. He simply has an announced, stipulated standard. And if morality can be stipulated then, of course,
Marquee de Saab can stipulate his own even as Dr. Stein has stipulated his own. Why should he feed the poor? He says they want to do that. I grant that. My argument tonight has never been that atheists are the lousiest people in the world. That’s not the point. Some Christians can be pretty lousy too. But why is it that I call atheists or Christians lousy when that act in the way we’re thinking of? Because I have absolute standards of morality to judge. Dr. stein does not and therefore, once again, from a transcendental stand point, the atheistic worldview cannot account for this debate tonight because this debate tonight have assumed that we’re going to use the laws of logic an standards of reasoning or else we’re irrational. That we’re going to use laws of science. That we’re going to be intelligent men that way. That we’re going to assume induction and causation and all those things that scientists do and its assumed moral standards. So we’re not going to be dishonest and try to lie. I’m just trying to deceive you. I mean, if they’re aren’t laws of morality I could just take out a gun right now and say, “Ok, Dr. Stein, make my day: Is there a God or not?” You see, if he argues “Oh, no, you can’t murder me because there are laws of morality!” Then, of course, he’s made my day because I win the debate. That shows that the atheist universe is not correct
but if he says, “Oh, no, there are no absolute standards. It’s all by convention and stipulation, that sort of thing,” then I just pull the trigger and it’s all over and I win the debate anyway. Would you expect me to win the debate in that fashion? Absolutely not. You came here expecting rational interchange. I don’t think we’ve heard much from Dr. Stein. I asked him repeatedly, it’s very simple. I don’t want a lot of details. Just begin to scratch the surface. How, in a materialistic, naturalistic outlook on life, can you account for laws of logic, laws of science, and laws of morality? The atheist worldview cannot do it and therefore I feel justified in concluding as I did my opening presentation this evening by saying the proof of the Christian
God is the impossibility of the contrary. Without the Christian worldview this debate wouldn’t make sense.
The Bible tells us: “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.” Don’t misunderstand that. When the Bible uses the term ‘fool’ it’s not engaging in name-calling. It’s trying to describe somebody who is dense in the sense that they will not use Hid reason as God has given it.
Somebody who is rebellious is hard-hearted. It’s the fool who says in his heart, “there is no God.” Paul tells us in I Corinthians, the first chapter, that “God has made foolish the wisdom of this world.” He called, rhetorically, “Where is the wise? Where is the disputer or debater of this age? Hasn’t God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” In a sense, I think what Paul is telling us, if I can amplify and read between the lines, is the whole history of philosophy is an argument for the existence of God. The whole history of philosophy is an argument for the existence of God because of the impossibility of the contrary. Someone who wants to say, “Contrary to what the Bible says about God, let him stand up and answer these questions. Let him how that in his heart he may say “there is no God,” but he can’t live that way. He can’t reason that way. In
Romans, the first chapter, Paul says God is making Himself known continually to all men an
persuasively and men do not have an excuse for their refection of the existence of the Christian God. That isn’t to say that all men confess this God. Not all will own up to Him as their heavenly father, and not all will submit to Him. Some continue to rebel. Some continue to devise their fool’s errands and rationalizations for why they don’t have to believe in Him. That’s what the
Bible teaches. I didn’t come here and make this up. I didn’t come her, tonight, to say “Well, if you don’t agree you’re being rebellious.” That’s what the Bible says. What I want you to do, tonight, is to go home and consider whether there isn’t something to that. Why is it that some
people continue to use laws of logic, laws of morality, laws of science, and yet they have a
worldview that just clashes with that? And they just won’t do anything to resolve the
contradiction?
Dr. Stein, tonight, made reference to my doctrinal dissertation on self-deception.
He wondered how relevant it might be. Well, it’s very relevant. It’s very relevant. Because what I
do in that doctrinal dissertation is to show that some people who know the truth and yet work
very hard to convince themselves that it’s not true. Now, of course, atheists think that’s what
Christians are doing. I recognize that and we have to argue what the evidence for and against
self-deception is. All I want to leave with you tonight is that self-deception is a real
phenomenon. It does happen to people. People who know the truth and yet work very hard to
rationalize the evidence, convince themselves, as Paul says, “suppress the truth in
unrighteousness.” Convince themselves that there is no God. Well, you can choose, tonight,
between the Christian worldview, the atheist worldview. We haven’t touched all of the issues
you may want to look into, but in broad strokes, we’ve touched on a very important issue. If
you’re going to be a rational man; a moral man; a man of science, can you do so in an atheist
universe? I say you can’t.

Scizor CT
Vortininja
Posts: 170
(1/7/03 2:17 am)
67.34.169.8
| Del

Re: Who needs religion?

Quote:
Though I am a Christian, I do not agree with the Charismatic movement (Speaking-in-tongues included). In the Bible, when people spoke in tongues, there was a purpose (i.e. someone on the recieving end who could understand) or a translation afterwards. I see neither today. In fact, in the church I used to go to (Assemblies of God, btw) when someone spoke "in tongues" no one in the whole audience could understand them. I also don't find anywhere in the Bible where people spoke in "tongues of angels". You stated that you've seen it yourself. What language did they speak? Could anyone else understand? How do you know it was from God?

My main point here is that:

A. It does happen.
B. It isn't something that occurs as a result of something physical.
C. Because of B, it must be supernatural.
D. Because it is supernatural, it isn't a very large step to go from there to saying that God exists.

That's all I was trying to prove at the moment. I've never been able to understand the languages myself, nor do I know what they are, but I have heard translations from other people in the church. I've heard tales of missionaries in foreign countries who heard people speaking English as the language, even though said person couldn't speak it normally. Also, in Acts, during the first filling of the Holy Spirit during Pentecost, the people from other countries could understand the tongues that were being spoken by the Galileeans (sp?), although the speakers could not have possibly known the languages. As for it being from God, I really don't have any good proof for you there at the moment, other than the fact that all signs point to it being the same now as it was 2000 years ago. Like I said, that wasn't my main purpose. You won't convince anyone if they don't even believe that God exists in the first place.

My Remixes: Here! Click here!

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1059
(1/7/03 3:20 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Who needs religion?

Quote:
Harry Potter books contain explicit directions on how to perform magick practices

Somehow I doubt JKR thinks anyone's really going to try these "magick practices." Anyways, it's not like doing them would accomplish anything, so what's the big deal? The people in the book aren't worshipping Satan.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 493
(1/7/03 10:42 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

About the speaking in tongues stuff..

I do that all the time. To me, it's gibberish. Why does that prove the existance of a God? It might simply prove that certain people have too much imagination.

Alecswrld

Vortininja
Posts: 164
(1/7/03 2:47 pm)
68.1.110.193
| Del

Re: Who needs religion?

Harry Potter books contain explicit directions on how to perform magick practices

Huh? All they do is wave around a wand and say some funny words, or they make a potion out of strange ingredients that don't exist. Those aren't explict directions.

Maybe you should actually read the book so you know what you're talking about?

Jingle Bells!,
ID Smells!

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 634
(1/7/03 3:16 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: Who needs religion?

Well I just read the fourth book and this was a good one.
The first one really suchs but the last one is good.
Now I understant why people enjoy the book so much.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 495
(1/8/03 9:36 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Yes...that is why they enjoy the book so much...

SATANISM!!!

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 640
(1/8/03 3:35 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: Who needs religion?

You're annoying Keenempire :barf

if tolld you hundred times that I don't think that it is Satanic. So why don't you shut up, please.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1064
(1/8/03 4:07 pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del

...

Give him a break, he was just being sarcastic.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 177
(1/8/03 6:28 pm)
206.63.170.64
| Del

Re: Who needs religion?

Hehe

Quote:
I've heard tales of missionaries in foreign countries who heard people speaking English as the language, even though said person couldn't speak it normally.

Yes, I've heard them too. Dunno what to think about them. Anyway, welcome to the never-ending thread!

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 644
(1/8/03 6:49 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: Who needs religion?

Sorry Xtraverse but I've tolld so many times that I didn't thin Potte was satanic. Still I'm pushed in that corner. That makes me really angry.

Edited by: Djaser at: 1/8/03 6:50:00 pm

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 607
(1/9/03 5:03 am)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: ...

I believe in speaking in tongues. But only when it's someone speaking a language they don't know...human languages. That speaking in tongues crap that most people spew is at best, them shouting gibberish in an emotional fever, at worst, people possesed by a devil. That stuff's scary!

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

grafix5000
Grunt
Posts: 10
(1/11/03 9:02 am)
80.192.71.237
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Hasn't anyone realized that whether something is evil depends on your point of view? Some people think that Harry Potter is evil; some don't. Who truly knows? Or maybe i'm just :confused

...

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 191
(1/11/03 5:36 pm)
206.63.170.48
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

So you're saying that good and evil are just relative? There is no absolute truth?

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 656
(1/11/03 6:40 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: ...

Reminds me of Sananisch Gothics. :goth

They believe in Satan and want him to come back to torture and kill everyone includoing theirselfs.
For us it's pretty :barf

but they like the idea and they are serious so perhaps evil is relative for some people.

KeenRush
Garg
Posts: 1885
(1/11/03 7:28 pm)
212.246.177.248
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I think that that's just sick. They forgot their mind pills.

The universe is not toast!

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1103
(1/11/03 7:50 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

A community called the Shakers believe that you can rid yourself from all evil by vigorously shaking your body for hours on end.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 660
(1/11/03 8:03 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: ...

Sick Keenrush, yes I guess you're right.
I regret that some friends of my are satanisch.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 498
(1/17/03 4:24 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

asdhfpoifjsdapojsdfodsfasfda

Djaser: I don't think Harry Potter is Satanic either.

Uppy, do you have Dr. Stein's closing statement? I'd like to see it, if possible.

Oh, I hope I have not answered this already, because I've lost track:

Quote:
First of all, announcing materialism does nothing for accounting for materialism.

And does materialism care? However, I have had a few months of school, and must reject this opinion now. Now, I have no idea what materialism is

Nice school..

Quote:
Second, you have declared that there are laws of logic and science. For that, I thank you.
Once again, or for the first time, you will have to defend that position. You stated that

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...humans created laws of logic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (I assume this is part of the same question)

What you have said is that these laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote", correct?

No. What I've said is that humans made them, not that democracy made them. Maybe some guy suddenly came up with postulates, which led to such-and-such... Who knows? Maybe I'm incorrect, and God really told someone that "These are postulates. (Blah blah) This therefore leads to this, by this postulate. Etc."

Quote:
"The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory."

...So, why do different people groups have the same laws of logic? Please, don't give me that "ten fingers" response...

Because postulates (which is what these laws come from) are obvious. Very simply: if some philosopher says "If a = b, and b = c, then a is not = to c," he'll be hard-pressed to come up with a situation where that is true (okay, okay, excluding some modern math..I think) A philosopher, to be sure, can make that postulate, but as is approximately said in 1984, "two plus two can equal five in religion, but in calculating suicide bomb trajectories it must always equal four." That's what it approximately said. No civilization, to our knowledge, has yet come up with doublethink, so those philosophers won't (for the most part) believe 2+2=4 in certain situations, and 5 in the rest. In a nutshell, it's pretty hard to believe absolutely in something, when proof to the contrary is sitting right in front of your desk. That stops in 1984, but we're not there yet.

Quote:
(btw, maybe its because people have two legs, two arms, one head, two ears, two eyes, and one nose for a grand total of ten?)

That's a very curious hypothesis. Hey, if you cross out the ears and nose, it might also have to do with (don't report me!) the fact that both males and females have the same number of sex organs, two rounded parts, one..er, yeah. It adds up to a magic number: three. Hey, that might actually be right :pig

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 200
(1/17/03 7:56 pm)
206.63.170.46
| Del

sdfasdf

Quote:
Uppy, do you have Dr. Stein's closing statement? I'd like to see it, if possible.

Heh, I'll have to copy that off the tape so it will be a while, but sure, I'll get it for you.

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 110
(1/19/03 8:01 pm)
209.115.59.69
| Del

sigh...

i haven't stopped "defending myself", i've just given up... if u can't get it through through ur thick skulls, that's ur problem. of course, some of u actually are smart and finally realize that there IS a God.

fools.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 703
(1/19/03 9:10 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: asdhfpoifjsdapojsdfodsfasfda

Kittyorp do you believe that beings smart has anything to do with being Christian or atheist? Well I'm sure you're not the only one, I feel pity for the people who think this way

Edited by: Djaser at: 1/20/03 3:39:03 pm

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1158
(1/19/03 10:22 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: sdfasdf

I wonder what you mean by smart...
At first I respected you for arguing your position, but then you began make statements that had no base or proof for pretty much every statement in your arguments. Now that you've lowered yourself to just trying to insult the opposing side in this debate, I've lost all respect for you.

Edited by: Xtraverse at: 1/19/03 10:22:52 pm

0 UNFLEEXABLE 0
Grunt
Posts: 25
(1/21/03 1:32 am)
203.213.62.66
| Del

Oh my god!

I can't believe this thread has been here since 2001, i read the first page and... i got sick of it already! :mortlol

BlueIllusionX
Vortininja
Posts: 171
(1/21/03 4:27 am)
209.82.28.58
| Del

umm, i think its time for a new topic.

KeenRush
Garg
Posts: 2001
(1/21/03 3:58 pm)
212.246.177.61
| Del

Re: sdfasdf

And this topic has been viewed over 2.5 thousand times too..

The universe is not toast!

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1187
(1/21/03 9:16 pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del

I wonder if Dolphins would still be up top in Miscellaneous if eK hadn't locked it.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 724
(1/22/03 3:51 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: eh

No, look at this discussion we don't discus much. The real discussion is over, I propose that eK lock this treat because this treat is only bumped to the top because someone started to insult people.

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 149
(1/24/03 12:51 pm)
62.78.173.104
| Del

Re: sdfasdf

Why on earth lock this up?
Frankly speaking, this is one of the very few interesting topics in the whole board.

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 740
(1/24/03 1:12 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: ..

Mwjah, it was.....

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 203
(1/25/03 8:23 pm)
207.109.179.46
| Del

Re: eh

Quote:
The real discussion is over, I propose that eK lock this treat because this treat is only bumped to the top because someone started to insult people.

No! The discussion is not over!

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 749
(1/25/03 8:39 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: sdfasdf

The discission is over for this moment, and because it will prevent us for spamming is it better to close this treat.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1228
(1/25/03 10:47 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: ..

Why do you call topics treats?

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 753
(1/26/03 10:22 am)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: eh

.Hmmm, I thought that was another word for topic

KeenRush
Garg
Posts: 2069
(1/26/03 12:31 pm)
212.246.177.116
| Del

Re: sdfasdf

Maybe the word is 'thread'. Dunno.

The universe is not toast!

Djaser
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 759
(1/26/03 12:50 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: ..

So, I've mixed my English up again :oops

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 204
(1/28/03 5:38 am)
206.63.170.85
| Del

Re: asdhfpoifjsdapojsdfodsfasfda

Quote:
No. What I've said is that humans made them, not that democracy made them.

And how would people do that? Humans can't create a universal abstract entity, as laws of logic are.

Quote:
Maybe some guy suddenly came up with postulates, which led to such-and-such... Who knows?

What you are describing here is a guy who discoveredceratin laws. He did nothing to create them.

Quote:
Because postulates (which is what these laws come from) are obvious. Very simply: if some philosopher says "If a = b, and b = c, then a is not = to c," he'll be hard-pressed to come up with a situation where that is true (okay, okay, excluding some modern math..I think) A philosopher, to be sure, can make that postulate, but as is approximately said in 1984, "two plus two can equal five in religion, but in calculating suicide bomb trajectories it must always equal four." That's what it approximately said. No civilization, to our knowledge, has yet come up with doublethink, so those philosophers won't (for the most part) believe 2+2=4 in certain situations, and 5 in the rest. In a nutshell, it's pretty hard to believe absolutely in something, when proof to the contrary is sitting right in front of your desk. That stops in 1984, but we're not there yet.

But didn't you just say that human created laws of logic? Can't they create more?

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1325
(2/5/03 3:11 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Harry Potter accepted by Vatican

Check this out:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/02/03/pope.harrypotter.reut/index.html

KeenRush
Garg
Posts: 2209
(2/8/03 7:16 pm)
212.246.17.130
| Del

Re: ..

Hmmm.. Haven't heard that bit of news yet..

Greetings from Bloogton Tower!

Edited by: KeenRush at: 2/8/03 7:20:02 pm

grafix5000
Grunt
Posts: 25
(2/9/03 8:49 am)
62.30.77.15
| Del

Meh.

Mmm, stupidly long topic... :drool

------------------------------------------------------------

Life is just a distraction from Commander Keen. Everyone knows that...

------------------------------------------------------------

KeenRush
Garg
Posts: 2250
(2/12/03 3:34 pm)
212.246.17.130
| Del

Re: Harry Potter accepted by Vatican

Have you seen the dolphins topic?

Greetings from Bloogton Tower!

LordOfGlobox
Meep
Posts: 3
(2/14/03 1:18 am)
209.81.165.248
| Del

So back again

So, since I'm to lazy to read 4 pages of crap could some one fill me in?

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1386
(2/14/03 1:58 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Meh.

The only thing new is that the Vatican said [in regards to the Harry Potter series]:

"They are not bad or a banner for anti-Christian ideology. They help children understand the difference between good and evil."

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 217
(2/14/03 6:32 pm)
206.63.170.38
| Del

Re: Meh.

...Which is just what I would expect from a Catholic...

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1392
(2/14/03 8:17 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: So back again

So Catholics are "misguided," right? :lol

Djaser

Vorticon Elite
Posts: 919
(2/14/03 8:30 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: Meh.

You should know that Protestants and catholics are not always very positve to each others

.
However that is a very bad case.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1400
(2/15/03 5:46 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Meh.

What exactly do Wiccas do that's so evil Uppy?

Djaser

Vorticon Elite
Posts: 926
(2/16/03 12:34 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: So back again

He were is his Wiccca post?

Personnaly I'm not against wiccas exept however it's aa pity that I hate Christians. And vica-versa.
Repect is what this world lacks

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 219
(2/17/03 8:50 pm)
206.63.170.119
| Del

Re: Meh.

Quote:
What exactly do Wiccas do that's so evil Uppy?

Uh, I thought I had covered this already. God strictly forbid pagan practices.

LordOfGlobox
Grunt
Posts: 13
(2/25/03 1:35 am)
216.214.12.47
| Del

:) :)

Amen, UppyII.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1449
(2/25/03 2:00 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: So back again

So Hindus are evil as well?

I really can't see how breaking the rules of a god someone does not believe in makes that person evil. Maybe if that person did believe in that god but was breaking the god's rules, your statement would have some merit...

LordOfGlobox
Grunt
Posts: 16
(2/27/03 12:52 am)
216.214.14.198
| Del

re:Meh.

NO God said NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO PRACTICE MAGIC, TALK TO THE DEAD, OR ANY MAGICIAL PRACTICES. (I'm not screaming, just firmly saying)

ceilick
Vortininja
Posts: 103
(2/27/03 1:28 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

To answer what the pole is asking: I dont think Harry Potter is satanic, But it could be if you decide to be a Wizard after reading it.

Wiccas are not evil, its what there doing thats evil.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1469
(2/27/03 2:12 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: So back again

They don't believe in your God, so I really think it's bad to immediately classify them as evil, when they're doing what they think is right in their eyes.

Read this to see a different perspective on "the evil Wicca"
www.wicca.com/celtic/wicca/wicca.htm

Djaser

Vorticon Elite
Posts: 973
(2/27/03 6:19 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: re:Meh.

wicca's, Hindu's, are just the same as atheists to me.

I respect them I have: Gothics, wicca's, and even antichrists

as my friends.

I won't judge people with another believe: exept satanists and people who don't respect other believes.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1476
(2/27/03 7:45 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

What's wrong with Satanists?

Read this for info: www.religioustolerance.org/satanis3.htm

And I'd like to clarify this:

Quote:
Their Satan has nothing to do with Hell, demons, pitchforks, sadistic torture, buying people's souls, demonic possession, performing miracles, human sacrifices, cannibalism, and profoundly evil deeds.

LordOfGlobox
Grunt
Posts: 19
(2/28/03 1:20 am)
209.81.165.15
| Del

RE:satanism

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Man as just another animal - the most vicious of all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Man was created in the image of God(Sorry, folks but that's my belief),Man is not a animal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Its followers have occasionally engaged in a Black Mass for publicity purposes, in which the Roman Catholic Mass is ridiculed. But, otherwise, their rituals have no connection to those of Christianity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ok, so they make fun of Catholics for publicity?

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1482
(2/28/03 1:22 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: re:Meh.

That's not what the religion is about now is it? I just want to know, what is your opinion on who should be let into heaven?

LordOfGlobox
Grunt
Posts: 20
(2/28/03 1:32 am)
209.81.165.15
| Del

RE:satanism

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Satan has nothing to do with Hell, demons, pitchforks, sadistic torture, demonic possession, and profound evil.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Satan is DIRECTLY related to Hell, and demons.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Engage in sexual activity freely, in accordance with your needs (which may be best realized either through monogamy, or by having sex with many others; through heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality; using sexual fetishes as you wish; by yourself or with one or more consenting adults). The ideal is a monogamous relationship based on compatibility and commitment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I guess that's the reason they have so few poeple in their religeon, they all die of AIDS...

That is all folks!

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1483
(2/28/03 1:45 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: RE:satanism

Quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Satan has nothing to do with Hell, demons, pitchforks, sadistic torture, demonic possession, and profound evil.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Satan is DIRECTLY related to Hell, and demons.

Their idea of Satan is not the same as the Christian idea of Satan. If you had read the article carefully, you would have known that.

Anyways, I'm not saying Satanism is good, I just don't think it's so incredibly evil.

S3
Grunt
Posts: 13
(2/28/03 4:18 am)
203.109.254.59
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

HARRY POTTER IS AS AWSOME AS COMMANDER KEEN, IF NOT MORE AWSOME!

LordOfGlobox
Grunt
Posts: 21
(2/28/03 7:54 pm)
65.43.169.172
| Del

RE:hp

Actually I did read it carefully, and Satan (No matter what satanists believe) is not a "good guy".

S3
Grunt
Posts: 21
(2/28/03 10:00 pm)
203.109.254.59
| Del

Re: RE:satanism

dunno why u think HP has anything to do with Satan... or are you crazy?

ceilick
Vortininja
Posts: 104
(3/1/03 12:35 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

_______________________________________________
...whats your opinion on who should be let into heaven...
------------------------------------------------------

To Answer that: You are only saved by believing in Christ Jesus as your salvation. Not by what you do, or any thing else. After this you must live like a Christian.(Following what the Bible says.

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 749
(3/1/03 3:22 am)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: RE:hp

Or what? You go to Hell? A place of Eternal punishment? What kind of loving God would do that?

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1488
(3/1/03 3:56 am)
24.169.44.67
| Del

Re: RE:satanism

Really, you got to be serious. If your god is so loving (like what I constantly hear in church), He wouldn't send perfectly good people to hell just because they don't believe Jesus Christ was their savior.

ceilick
Vortininja
Posts: 105
(3/1/03 3:55 pm)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

God will not let sin into heaven. Christians ask God to Forgive their sins as according to the Bible. Perfectly good people that are athiests or of another religon have no way, except through Christ, to wash away their sin. God is love in allowing you to ask for forgiveness.

Djaser

Vorticon Elite
Posts: 987
(3/1/03 7:07 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: RE:hp

[quotte] HARRY POTTER IS AS AWSOME AS COMMANDER KEEN, IF NOT MORE AWSOME! [/quote]

You should be shot for those last words :crazy

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1500
(3/3/03 1:07 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: RE:satanism

Quote:
Perfectly good people that are athiests or of another religon have no way, except through Christ, to wash away their sin. God is love in allowing you to ask for forgiveness.

Perhaps outside the Pearly Gates?

I think that if Christianity was really true, and their God is really loving, it wouldn't matter what a person believes. As long as they are willing to reconcile, that'd be good enough for me. And other religions have their own forms of reconciliation anyways.

ceilick
Vortininja
Posts: 106
(3/3/03 3:23 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I dont think there are pearly gates. I think you are immediatly judged in front of God.

<edited>

Edited by: ceilick at: 3/3/03 4:03:00 am

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1505
(3/3/03 3:50 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: RE:hp

Quote:
First, I dont think there are pearly gates. I think you are immediatly judged in front of God.

I meant that only as a metaphor, but if one is immediately judged in front of God, and they are willing to ask forgiveness for their sins, why should they not be forgiven, just because they didn't earlier. A benevolent God wouldn't say "Sorry, too bad" to a genuinely good person.

Quote:
Second, It does not really matter what you or I think about getting to heaven, this is the way God wants it.

And how would you know that? Unless you're an angel sent down from heaven, you don't know that.

ceilick
Vortininja
Posts: 109
(3/3/03 4:05 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I dont have all the answers. My mistake typing that, your right, I dont know.

Djaser

Vorticon Elite
Posts: 998
(3/3/03 4:08 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: RE:satanism

About you Satanist people.
Read a few lyrics about this satanic band: darklyrics.com/lyrics/dim...ant.html#1 Take Mourning Palace for example. And have fun :barf

KeenRush
Garg
Posts: 2474
(3/3/03 7:56 pm)
212.246.17.130
| Del

Re: RE:hp

No thanks..

Greetings from Bloogton Tower!

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 762
(3/3/03 9:55 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by: Xtraverse
I think that if Christianity was really true, and their God is really loving, it wouldn't matter what a person believes. As long as they are willing to reconcile, that'd be good enough for me. And other religions have their own forms of reconciliation anyways.

Which is why I think Mormonism's belief in heaven makes way more sense than most other Christian religions...

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

ceilick
Vortininja
Posts: 110
(3/4/03 12:18 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

It really doesnt matter which religon you like. Only the one, true religon matters. You can not repent during judgement because it is too late. Faith in God is required(As said in the Bible). You do not need faith when you are in front of God being judjed. Only on earth can you repent.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1515
(3/4/03 12:32 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: RE:hp

Quote:
Only the one, true religon matters.

I dunno, but I think comments like that are pretty naive. Just because you believe it doesn't make it the "one true religion". You have faith, and so do people that believe other religions.

What if someone was raised a Buddhist by their parents and they stay a Buddhist their entire life, and they were never even exposed to Christianity. They are a very nice person, but they've sinned occasionally, just like every other person on earth. Now lets hypothetically say that Christianity is true, and they're being judged in front of God. Is God going to say, "Well you lived a good life, and even though it's not your fault that you were never exposed to Christianity, it's too bad for you, you're going to hell."

That has got to be the most uncaring unloving religious belief I've ever heard.

ceilick
Vortininja
Posts: 111
(3/4/03 1:40 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I used to wonder the same thing. The Bible says that who ever seeks the Lord will find him.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 226
(3/4/03 5:30 pm)
206.63.170.46
| Del

Re: RE:hp

Hey, everyone. Sorry I haven't posted in a while. I haven't checked this thread for some time. Glad to see that we've found a new rabbit trail!

Ok, so I've been reading these last few posts and noticed a problem. I think we're all using different definitions of 'evil'. The definition I'm using is 'wicked; totally devoid of Christ'. By definition, everyone who is not a true Christian is evil.
Sin began at the fall in the Garden of Eden. As a result, the whole human race is infected with sin. God gave his law through Moses—a law that could not be kept. Call it a 'mirror' if you will. A mirror that man could look into and see his own sin and short-comings. As punishment, man had to sacrifice animals until, as promised, God sent his son to die on a cross for the sins of the world. God is a loving God. He sent his Son to die for you. Everyone who is in hell chose to go there.
John 3:16 - 17: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the would through Him might be saved.
Everyone has sinned and Jesus is the only way to heaven and the only way to avoid hell.
Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:20: Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified is His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
John 14:6: Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

Quote:
I really can't see how breaking the rules of a god someone does not believe in make that person evil. Maybe if that person did believe in that god but was breaking the god's rules, your statement would have some merit...

Link: www.carm.org/atheism/why_believe.htm

Quote:
Anyways, I'm not saying Satanism is good, I just don't think it's so incredibly evil.

What is your standard of judging good and evil?

Quote:
Or what? You go to Hell? A place of Eternal punishment? What kind of loving God would do that? -Flaose

This loving God made a way out. Refuse it if you will, but don't call God unloving if you refused his free gift.

Quote:
Really, you got to be serious. If your god is so loving (like what I constantly hear in church), He wouldn't send perfectly good people to hell just because they don't belive Jesus Christ was their savior.

By what standard do you call them 'perfectly good'? By God's?

Quote:
I think that if Christianity was really true, and their God is really loving, it wouldn't matter what a person believes. As long as they are willing to reconcile, that'd be good enough for me. And other religions have their own forms of reconciliation anyways.

Hmmm..."I think"... Well, that's not what the Bible says. That's what you say. That's
your plan. I'm sure God has a better one.

Quote:
I meant that only as a metaphor, but if one is immediately judged in front of God, and they are willing to ask forgiveness for their sins, why should they not be forgiven, just because they didn't earlier. A benevolent God wouldn't say "Sorry, too bad" to a genuinely good person.

God created us, sent His son to die for us, and gave us a perfectly good chance. Who are we to say that He is unfair?

Quote:

Second, It does not really matter what you or I think about getting to heaven, this is the way God wants it.

And how would you know that? Unless you're an angel sent down from heaven, you don't know that. -Xtra

I don't have all the answers. My mistake typing that, your right, I don't know.

God revealed exactly how he wants it in the Bible.

Quote:
I dunno, but I think comments like that are pretty naive. Just because you believe it doesn't make it the "one true religion". You have faith, and so do people that believe other religions.

Link: www.carm.org/atheism/why_believe.htm

<edit: it was inevitable...>

Edited by: UppyII at: 3/4/03 5:40:49 pm

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1518
(3/4/03 6:29 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: RE:hp

Quote:
Link: www.carm.org/atheism/why_believe.htm

I already knew everything I read there, it's nothing new. The problem is, that author assumes everything in the Bible is true, which I do not.

Quote:
What is your standard of judging good and evil?

Works. What someone does in their life.

Quote:
This loving God made a way out. Refuse it if you will, but don't call God unloving if you refused his free gift.

Quote:
God created us, sent His son to die for us, and gave us a perfectly good chance. Who are we to say that He is unfair?

Do you not understand that I don't believe in God? How can I accept the offer of someone I don't believe in?

Quote:
By what standard do you call them 'perfectly good'? By God's?

By what they do in life.

Quote:
God revealed exactly how he wants it in the Bible.

Show me the proof that God said that, because one very old book doesn't cut it for me.

Quote:
The definition I'm using is 'wicked; totally devoid of Christ'. By definition, everyone who is not a true Christian is evil.

So you're saying that a mass murderer who rapes, decapitates, and eats his victims, yet still believes in God and goes to reconciliation and such, should get into heaven, but a caring person who does volunteer work for people in Africa their entire life who doesn't believe in God shouldn't?

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1519
(3/4/03 6:35 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I'll admit Djaser, those people are disturbed.

Quote:
I could drag you to my chambers
and strip you naked in darkness
I could pull your fingernails out one by one
and rape you till you find no hope

I could rip your guts out
and let you watch me
sacrifice your unborn child
I could leave you to starve
and even bring you to total silence
...for once

For I find no pleasure in your physical pain
I want your christian soul to crumble

Your ****ing soul

When I have seen your church go up in flames
and you are weeping I will laugh
When I have seen you mourn over loved ones
I will feel bliss when your mortal soul is in ruins
I will grin in the shadows
for that gives me pleasure

Tormenting a christian soul

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 228
(3/5/03 6:14 am)
206.63.170.37
| Del

Re: RE:hp

Quote:
I already knew everything I read there, it's nothing new. The problem is, that author assumes everything in the Bible is true, which I do not.

Not a baseless assumption, mind you.

Quote:
Works. What someone does in their life.

Quote:
By what they do in life.

I didn't ask about what they did that was good, I asked by what standard you use to judge something good or evil.

Quote:
Show me the proof that God said that, because one very old book doesn't cut it for me.

Actually, 66 well documented books.

Quote:
So you're saying that a mass murderer who rapes, decapitates, and eats his victims, yet still believes in God and goes to reconciliation and such, should get into heaven, but a caring person who does volunteer work for people in Africa their entire life who doesn't believe in God shouldn't?

I did not. Well, yes to the African volunteer, but no to the canibalistic murdering rapist. I would say that someone like that is not a Christian.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1530
(3/5/03 12:31 pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del

Re: RE:hp

But according to your logic, the african volunteer is evil, and lost their chance to get to heaven.

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 151
(3/5/03 8:06 pm)
62.78.239.196
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
What if someone was raised a Buddhist by their parents and they stay a Buddhist their entire life, and they were never even exposed to Christianity. They are a very nice person, but they've sinned occasionally, just like every other person on earth. Now lets hypothetically say that Christianity is true, and they're being judged in front of God. Is God going to say, "Well you lived a good life, and even though it's not your fault that you were never exposed to Christianity, it's too bad for you, you're going to hell."
-- Xtraverse

Uppy you still haven't answered that.

Oh and one more thing. When a baby is killed at birth, which leads to that he/she isn't baptised, then the baby would go to hell, because he/she hasn't been baptised.
Am I correct?

Edited by: baabis at: 3/5/03 8:41:56 pm

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1533
(3/5/03 9:11 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: RE:hp

To some Christians, yes.

In the old days, priests used to come to births to baptize children because it was so common that children died in childbirth.

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 768
(3/6/03 12:05 am)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: RE:hp

To some Christians no (the ones that actually use their heads).

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 112
(3/6/03 12:53 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Babies are not sent to hell. There is somthing called the age of understanding. This, I believe, is when you are bout 12-14(although there could be exceptions according to the person).
Anyone under the age at which they could understand and except christ, will be sent to Heaven.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1534
(3/6/03 2:28 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: RE:hp

Then what's this thing about original sin?

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 114
(3/6/03 2:35 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

What do you meen?

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 231
(3/6/03 5:13 am)
206.63.170.30
| Del

Re: RE:hp

Quote:
But according to your logic, the african volunteer is evil, and lost their chance to get to heaven.

Ok, that didn't come out too well. What I'm trying to say is that the African Volunteer is not a Christian and neither is the other dude.

Quote:
What if someone was raised a Buddhist by their parents and they stay a Buddhist their entire life, and they were never even exposed to Christianity. They are a very nice person, but they've sinned occasionally, just like every other person on earth. Now lets hypothetically say that Christianity is true, and they're being judged in front of God. Is God going to say, "Well you lived a good life, and even though it's not your fault that you were never exposed to Christianity, it's too bad for you, you're going to hell."

Quote:
Uppy you still haven't answered that.

No, I didn't. Ceilick did.

Quote:
Oh and one more thing. When a baby is killed at birth, which leads to that he/she isn't baptised, then the baby would go to hell, because he/she hasn't been baptised.

Two things: First, the Bible is clear that baptising does not save people because that would be salvation by works. Second, Ceilick is right about that 'age of understanding'.

Quote:
Then what's this thing about original sin?

Ah, Catholics again. The Bible says nothing about original sin though everyone is born with a sin-nature or dendency to sin.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1535
(3/6/03 2:25 pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del

Re: RE:hp

You're saying two different things here. First you said what gets you into heaven is believing in God, but the murderer believes in God and you're saying that he shouldn't go to heaven because he does bad things. So why shouldn't the african volunteer go to heaven because she does good things?

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 232
(3/6/03 9:16 pm)
206.63.170.77
| Del

Re: RE:hp

No, I'm just not making myself very clear. (seems to be an on-going problem with me...) The murderer may believe in God, but he's not a Christian and is living a life of sin. Jesus said that one must be born again to get to heaven.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1537
(3/6/03 9:34 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: RE:hp

Quote:
I used to wonder the same thing. The Bible says that who ever seeks the Lord will find him.

How is one to seek the Lord if they know nothing about the Lord? I just want a straight answer. If that Buddhist lives a good life, will they get into heaven?

Also, another thing: The firemen that died saving people's lives in the WTC on 9/11, I'm sure some of them were not Christians. Would they have gone to heaven, because they are a lot more deserving in my mind then just the regular Jon Doe Christian.

Edit: typo

Edited by: Xtraverse at: 3/6/03 9:35:17 pm

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 234
(3/6/03 9:40 pm)
206.63.170.77
| Del

Re: RE:hp

Quote:
Also, another thing: The firemen that died saving people's lives in the WTC on 9/11, I'm sure some of them were not Christians. Would they have gone to heaven, because they are a lot more deserving in my mind then just the regular Jon Doe Christian.

Works will not get you into heaven. You must be born again.

The other part will require a little more time.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1538
(3/6/03 9:48 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: RE:hp

That is the belief I think is the worst of some Christian denominations. I'm really glad my parents raised me Catholic, even though I do not believe the religion.

How exactly can someone save themselves if they're not a Christian? I know some people go through life-changing events and change their religion to Christianity, but for most non-Christians don't. There isn't any way I can make myself believe in God, or that Jesus was his son. Maybe my brain was wired the wrong way, but there isn't (and I highly doubt there will be) a way to make myself believe in God.

Grelphy
Vortininja
Posts: 131
(3/6/03 11:12 pm)
12.23.198.254
| Del

>_O

That's interesting... Actually, I think that anyone, if they want to, will go to heaven. It's really not like the God of the New Testament to bar anyone from heaven on the basis of morality, deeds, religion, etc... Didn't Jesus say something about loving thy neghbor as thyself? A lot of christians don't live up to that...

Also, in case you hadn't noticed, this topic is supposed to be about Harry Potter.....

You and all those other mental wimps deserve to die!
-Mortimer Mcmire in Commander Keen 3

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 115
(3/6/03 11:49 pm)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Any one can be saved, even that murderer you were talking about. A christian would not do that stuff, but if he was saved after words he would truly admit that he was wrong and that he should be put to death. Grelphy, your right, many christians do not live up to that. They say there christians but dont live like christians.

LordOfGlobox
Grunt
Posts: 22
(3/7/03 12:23 am)
209.81.165.154
| Del

RE:RE:

Sorry I haven't had time to check this board.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Grelphy, your right, many christians do not live up to that. They say there christians but dont live like christians.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yep, there are too many "sunday christians", but it's wrong to asume all christians are like that.

Xtra- Everyone has a chance to hear about God, the question is will they except Him?

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 114
(3/7/03 1:04 am)
209.115.59.131
| Del

hello, i'm back. (every1 groans) well, even though i decided to give this topic up, i wanted to say a few things. first of all, a while ago something was posted about babies dying and going to hell. actually, babies go to heaven. so do all children who are too young to make the choice to accept the Lord. also posted a little while back, someone talked about how "perfectly good people" should get into heaven and how the firefighters "deserved" to get into heaven. ok, view it this way, if you just think about only 2 of the 10 Commandments, well, if anyone steals as much as a pencil, that makes u a theif. it also says in the Bible that if you even look at a woman lustfully (i mean, if ur a guy), then u have already commited adultery. so then u might be a theif and an adulterer. of course, that's only 2 of the 10. would some1 like that "deserve" to get in2 heaven? again, another thing posted was about a good God not letting those "perfectly good people" into heaven. well, let me ask u something. u like some choices, right? wat if your parents ordered you to do everything they told you to and never let you choose anything at all? well, God just wants to give you some choice. the choices: accept God as ur Savior, or face the consequences. it's not that hard of a choice, not is it?

PS- if u think I'M weird, my mom wouldn't let me watch pokemon in 5th grade bcuz it had "physic pokemon" in it. ???

PPS- here is a poem i have been hearing a lot lately:

Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer are not allowed in most public schools anymore because the word "God"
is mentioned....
a kid in Arizona wrote the attached NEW School prayer.

I liked it....

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.

It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen

If you aren't ashamed to do this, please pass this on.

Jesus said,
" If you are ashamed of me,"
I will be ashamed of you before my Father."

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 116
(3/7/03 3:10 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Xtraverse, what happened that made you stop believing in God? You can be saved by accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, asking Him to forgive your sin and to be present in your life.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1540
(3/7/03 3:51 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: RE:RE:

Quote:
Xtraverse, what happened that made you stop believing in God?

I first believed in God, because my parents raised me that way. I was young and didn't know much, so I just assumed it must be true. Eventually I got to the age where I started thinking about my beliefs, and I realized that there couldn't be a god, in my mind, it wasn't possible. I'm not exactly sure how to describe it, but to me, it seems like believing in God is just like believing Harry Potter is true, and there are really wizards out there. I guess I just can't accept supernatural forces to be true.

Quote:
Xtra- Everyone has a chance to hear about God, the question is will they except Him?

The Buddhist I described above didn't.

Quote:
ok, view it this way, if you just think about only 2 of the 10 Commandments, well, if anyone steals as much as a pencil, that makes u a theif. it also says in the Bible that if you even look at a woman lustfully (i mean, if ur a guy), then u have already commited adultery. so then u might be a theif and an adulterer. of course, that's only 2 of the 10. would some1 like that "deserve" to get in2 heaven?

Everyone is sorry for their sins, whether they're a Christian or not. It seems to me like reconciliation is just a ritual, and rather unnecessary. Can't someone ask for forgiveness on their own?

Uppy, in #keeners you said something along the lines of "Jesus was just trying to make a point" when we were arguing about hypocracy in the Bible. Now I know you're avidly for the death penalty, unless you just recently changed, so think about what you said there. What point was Jesus trying to make? (Duh...)

LordOfGlobox
Grunt
Posts: 25
(3/7/03 4:27 pm)
65.43.166.49
| Del

Xtra

The death penalty is better than sending poeple who like kill back on the streets.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1541
(3/7/03 8:13 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Those aren't exactly the two options Bloogaurd.

There's either the death penalty, or a life sentence with no chance of parole. The latter makes by far more sence.

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 115
(3/8/03 1:21 pm)
209.115.59.180
| Del

Re:

Quote: Everyone is sorry for their sins, whether they're a Christian or not. It seems to me like reconciliation is just a ritual, and rather unnecessary. Can't someone ask for forgiveness on their own?

so... what your saying is that if you go murder someone and say "i forgive myself" than you are forgiven and have no guilt after it?

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 155
(3/8/03 7:09 pm)
62.78.239.196
| Del

Re: Xtra

So you're saying it's a lot better to just confess your sins to a priest and forget about them than suffer the pain of guilt yourself, right?
You know it's a lot harder to forgive yourself what you've done if someone doesn't say "your sins are forgiven"

Edited by: baabis at: 3/8/03 7:11:27 pm

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1553
(3/8/03 11:23 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
so... what your saying is that if you go murder someone and say "i forgive myself" than you are forgiven and have no guilt after it?

Where did I say you should have no guilt? If you killed someone, you should have the proper justice.

If someone thinks going to a priest is reassuring, I encourage them to do it. I just don't think it should be required.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 516
(3/9/03 12:15 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Here's what can be dubbed "Raistlin's dilemma."

For many years, someone has raged, fought, and plotted against the Gods (or God, in this case). He has sinned, disputed, and thrown away his very soul in order to gain power. He has knowingly done this (although that doesn't necessarily have to be the case), knows that if he fails, his salvation in eternity is forefit.

He is but a few steps away from victory. In a few steps, he would cross the threshold, make himself utterly immune to the vengeance of God in some way, at least for the foreseeable future.

But suddenly, a great change happens over him. He suddenly realizes that what he is doing is wrong. "He searched his soul for a final scrap of good, and found it. It wasn't much, but it was nevertheless there." Unfortunately, he realizes that, just as doom is about to overtake him and his companions (who happen to be good, but have been decieved by him). He had many other choices: he could fail to abort his plan, make himself apparently immune to the ravages of God; he could himself escape, and leave his companions to the doom that follows them, but Raistlin in a burst of greatness instead sacrifices himself, to that doom, so that his friends can escape.

Unfortunately, because he was caught so long in his darkness, and because of the limits of his mortal brain in the situation, he could not truly repent of his sins in the short amount of time required to save his companions. This might have several meanings: for certain denomination(s), he obviously had not enough time to find a priest, and make his confessions; for most others, suffice it to say that he was incapable of totally dragging himself from his darkness and changing his emotional mind in the space of the few seconds he had before his doom. In even a five day period, he would have cleared his mind of all his sins, but in his remaining time on earth, he could not have truly repented to Jesus Christ. In his final action of good, he has doomed himself to eternal torment.

Before you state anything, consider this. His friends, though decieved, were "good," and would presumably go to Heaven if they fell prey to that doom. Raistlin, though "evil," would have managed to change his entire situation, had he performed his escape. After a brief time on earth, he would have believed truly his repentance, and bring upon himself life in eternal salvation. Meanwhile his companions, who fell upon doom, would also be in Heaven. The last sentence in the last paragraph was very intentional. Raistlin doomed himself through saving his peers. Had he not doomed himself, had he left the doom for the companions who followed him, had he sacrificed them for the sake of himself, there would be one more soul in heaven than would have been in this situation, where he performs the ultimate action of good in order to bring about his own downfall.

Does Christianity, then, say that Raistlin should have sacrificed his peers in order to save himself? Is the ultimate doom avoided through what certainly seems to be an act of evil, rather than an act of good? Or would God, in these cases, make exemptions in his judgment? Would He ignore, in these cases, what would have been a sinless soul had the man not performed his final act of good?

What afterlife do you think would have befallen him?

(Note: This is, of course, an imperfect "Raistlin's dilemma." Had it been Raistlin himself who were judged upon his beliefs, the case would have been far, far different...)

"...And during the 'DemOps' event, Keen set the series of events leading to the formation of the Second Universal Empire That Ever Existed...

...That Empire, with an economy based on capitalism, and yet not quite, was..."

-The Summerizer's Guide to the Universe, Day Edition; Last updated 8/14/2021.

LordOfGlobox
Grunt
Posts: 29
(3/10/03 9:21 pm)
209.81.166.128
| Del

RE:hp

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If someone thinks going to a priest is reassuring, I encourage them to do it. I just don't think it should be required.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did I ever say it was required?

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 158
(3/11/03 8:33 pm)
62.78.239.196
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
Where did I say you should have no guilt? If you killed someone, you should have the proper justice.

whoops
I wasn't looking at the subject at all ^^;
I mean't that as a reply to Kittyyorp

Keengamer
Commander Keen Mad
Posts: 418
(3/17/03 1:34 am)
203.123.64.148
| Del

Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

cmon please lock this now please? this poll is too big

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1655
(3/17/03 2:29 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: RE:hp

Why lock it? Just because a topic's big doesn't mean we should lock it. It's one of the most interesting topics on this entire board.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 55
(3/17/03 12:35 pm)
209.81.165.86
| Del

RE:HP

Used to be, you mean, because no one has posted for 6 or so days.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 527
(3/17/03 1:45 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Well, actually, this topic has been known to die down for weeks and then reemerge in hot debate again.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 248
(3/18/03 5:41 pm)
206.63.170.45
| Del

Re: RE:HP

Quote:
Used to be, you mean, because no one has posted for 6 or so days.

Just be patient, I'm working up a reply.

I'm waiting for a Harry Potter book to come in from the library so I can continue with my arguments. I've been waiting for about 5 months now. I wish people would only read them once through...

I have Dr. Stein's closing statement almost ready. I can't seem to remember who asked for it. Want me to email it to you or post it here?

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 529
(3/20/03 11:12 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Re: RE:HP

I suppose you should post it here (Not to mention the fact that my email is hidden.. or is supposed to be, anyway.)

Grelphy
Vortininja
Posts: 176
(3/21/03 1:43 am)
12.23.198.254
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I find it amazing that this topic has gone on for so long. @_@

Being sarcastic: If God really does exist why doesn't he prove it? It should be really easy. All he has to do is start posting on this topic...

Hey! I've got an idea for another username!

You and all those other mental wimps deserve to die!
-Mortimer Mcmire in Commander Keen 3

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 137
(3/21/03 2:36 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Grelphy, God did reveal humself to us. Not by posting on this forum, but by taking the form of a man and coming down to earth. The man he was is Jesus. Even if God posted here, nobody would believe it was God.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1730
(3/21/03 3:28 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: RE:HP

Ehm yes but us suspicious people don't believe things that we can't see for ourselves necesarily. We're talking about this day and age.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 85
(3/21/03 12:13 pm)
216.214.12.6
| Del

RE: stuff

So, acording to what you just said, a molecule must not exist because you can not see it? (I believe I made my point)

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1735
(3/21/03 12:34 pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I can see molecules. And I didn't say everything I couldn'tee anyways. If something has enough legit evidence to back it up, I'll believe it. I wouldn't call the Bible enough evidence.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 90
(3/21/03 12:38 pm)
216.214.12.6
| Del

Re: RE:HP

Fine then, there are very reliable tablets that state Jesus lived and was hung on the cross, and that three days after it he rose and was around for forty days after.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1738
(3/21/03 3:02 pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del

Re: RE: stuff

I have no doubt that Jesus existed and was hung on the cross and was a very good man.

I do doubt however that he performed miracles and rose from the dead.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 93
(3/22/03 12:40 am)
209.81.165.156
| Del

I know

I know u believe he lived, but how could he be killed on a cross & be alive 40 days after?

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 141
(3/22/03 12:47 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Xtraverse doesnt believe he was alive 40 days after.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 96
(3/22/03 12:56 am)
209.81.165.156
| Del

Re: RE: stuff

But there is proof (I think) that he lived 40 days after.

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 143
(3/22/03 12:57 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

You better find the proof, although it does say it in the Bible.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 530
(3/22/03 6:55 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Better be quick about it too; accidents may happen to any one of us anyday now.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 100
(3/22/03 12:37 pm)
216.214.12.3
| Del

stuff

& you better stop making smart ass remarks.

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 144
(3/23/03 11:56 pm)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Sorry LordofGlobox, i shouldnt of said that.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 106
(3/23/03 11:59 pm)
216.214.12.78
| Del

RE:

Actuelly, I wasn't posting to you, I was posting to "KeenEmpire". It's ok.

Grelphy
Vortininja
Posts: 197
(3/24/03 12:07 am)
12.23.198.254
| Del

Re: stuff

Geez...

Anyway, there is absolutely no proof that Jesus rose again from the dead. There may of may not be proof that he lived at all; once again, laziness saves those who disagree with me.

Did you know that, somewhere on the internet, there is the information I need to prove every single one of my points. =)

You and all those other mental wimps deserve to die!
-Mortimer Mcmire in Commander Keen 3

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 148
(3/24/03 12:16 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

The bilbe proves it, but you doent accept the bible as true. Even if I did find another source, you would not accept it either.

Grelphy
Vortininja
Posts: 199
(3/24/03 12:55 am)
12.23.198.254
| Del

Re: RE:

Well, really that depends on the source. It's true that I don't take everything in the bible as fact, but...

The Bible Contradicts Itself!

That may come as a shock to many of you devout Christians out there... But read it carefully. Again, I'm feeling to lazy to find a good source for this.

You and all those other mental wimps deserve to die!
-Mortimer Mcmire in Commander Keen 3

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 151
(3/24/03 1:18 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I dont believe the bible contridicts itself. Sow me the verse.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1779
(3/24/03 1:32 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I'm not going to bother to find verses, but the Bible says in many cases that there are crimes punishable by death (including adultery). In the Ten Commandments, however, it says you shall not kill. Than later, when a croud wants to stone a woman who committed adultery, Jesus tells them not to.

This I'm sure is not the type of contradiction that Grelphy was talking about though.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 531
(3/24/03 12:12 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Re: RE:

That remark wasn't meant to be "smart;" oh well, it doesn't really matter anymore.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 108
(3/24/03 12:58 pm)
209.81.165.143
| Del

Is hp bad?

Wrong, look in Romans (not shure which verse), about how a goverment should work, the only reason for Capital Punishment is to make some one think twice about killing some one.

Grelphy
Vortininja
Posts: 207
(3/24/03 8:57 pm)
12.23.198.254
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

More biblical contradiction. If the Romans were to perform capital punishment, they would have broken the commandment, "thou shalt not kill," and "gone to hell."

Since I consider the Commandments above all other biblical law, this means that the Romans had no "biblegal" basis for capital punishment.

You and all those other mental wimps deserve to die!
-Mortimer Mcmire in Commander Keen 3

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1796
(3/24/03 9:56 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: RE:

You mean Biblical?

Yes, someone who kills is not supposed to go to heaven, according to Uppy, they aren't a Christian.

Execution is killing, therefor... :eek

Grelphy
Vortininja
Posts: 212
(3/24/03 11:17 pm)
12.23.198.254
| Del

biblegal

No, I ment biblegal. It's a pun.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1799
(3/24/03 11:45 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Bah, I'm too stupid to notice such a subtle thing as biblegal..

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 152
(3/24/03 11:57 pm)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

someone who kills can go to heaven. They must accept God, ask to be forgiven and will except the punishment of death. They then will go to heaven.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1800
(3/25/03 12:54 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

OK, let me get this straight. A guy murders some dude. He is tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death.

Now the guy doing the lethal injection is killing this man who committed the crime, yet he has not murdered, in some way I do not understand.

Now take this scenario. Some random guy kills my brother. I know who he is, so I hunt him down and kill him. I'm doing the same thing the government is, so according to your logic that's the right thing to do.

Hmm... :rolleyes

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 116
(3/25/03 1:12 am)
209.81.165.11
| Del

QOUTE:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More biblical contradiction. If the Romans were to perform capital punishment, they would have broken the commandment, "thou shalt not kill," and "gone to hell."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Number one, lets get something strait, CATHOLICS believe that if you kill you will go to Hell no matter what you do, because what they believe is contradicting to what the Bible says. I agree with you, Cielick, you should have to pay for what you did.

Secondly, the Bible does not contridict its self, it is the man that kills him, but he is representing the goverment. Don't try to pull that trick, there's a big differense between a man by himself, & the goverment, cuz there's a price ta pay for actions you make, & the goverment ('sides for wars) is here to make you pay for them.

Thirdly, (just to make this clear, that God is loving) the reaon for this is to make a murder think twice about murdering, before he does it. Also, it has been known for a murderer to get out of jail and kill more poeple.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1804
(3/25/03 1:30 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Yes but if I kill the man that killed my brother, I would be found guilty of murder, yet the guy that performs the lethal injections is not.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 120
(3/25/03 1:37 am)
209.81.165.11
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Let me make a little more clear:

YES, HE DOES KILL, BUT IT IS THE FOR LAWS THE GOVERMENT. HE IS ACTING THROUGH THE GOVERMENT.

Grelphy
Vortininja
Posts: 213
(3/25/03 2:15 am)
12.23.198.254
| Del

ERRGGHH...

So it's the government that is sinning. Does that mean that everyone that is a part of the government "goes to hell," or is it just the leader? Or the peaople who instated the capital punishment laws, or failed to repeal them? Or is it the executioner himself?

BTW, Xtra, if someone killed my brother, i wouldn't bother to hunt him down. Maybe send him a thank you note, but... =0

eK
Isonian
Posts: 997
(3/25/03 2:18 am)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Killing because someone tells you to is no better than normal killing.

Grelphy
Vortininja
Posts: 215
(3/25/03 2:20 am)
12.23.198.254
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I agree.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1807
(3/25/03 3:08 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: ERRGGHH...

Well that was just an example of course

I think it's wrong to kill in general.

KeenRush
Garg
Posts: 2788
(3/25/03 5:14 am)
212.246.17.130
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

What about killing something bug, is all life equal or is human above animals?

Greetings from Bloogton Tower!

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 123
(3/25/03 12:04 pm)
209.81.165.107
| Del

BTW, Xtra, if someone killed my brother, i wouldn't bother to hunt him down. Maybe send him a thank you note, but... =0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ya, me too!

Now, NO ONE WOULD DIE, ITS THE GOVERMENTS JOB TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER.

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 835
(3/25/03 3:29 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: ERRGGHH...

Quote:
Originally Posted by: KeenRush
What about killing something bug, is all life equal or is human above animals?

Seeing as how this is a bible discussion:

Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

KeenRush
Garg
Posts: 2799
(3/25/03 4:06 pm)
212.246.17.130
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I expected that, but thanks anyways.

Greetings from Bloogton Tower!

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 260
(3/26/03 2:57 am)
206.63.170.69
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
How is one to seek the Lord if they know nothing about the Lord? I just want a straight answer. If that Buddhist lives a good life, will they get into heaven? –xtraverse

The Bible says that no one seeks after the Lord and that no one can come to the Lord unless Jesus calls him.

Quote:
There isn't any way I can make myself believe in God, or that Jesus was his son. –Xtraverse

You're right. That is for God to do.

Quote:
That's interesting... Actually, I think that anyone, if they want to, will go to heaven. It's really not like the God of the New Testament to bar anyone from heaven on the basis of morality, deeds, religion, etc... Didn't Jesus say something about loving thy neghbor as thyself? A lot of christians don't live up to that... – Grelphry

You have the wrong picture of God. God makes it very clear that every man is sinful.

Quote:
Xtra- Everyone has a chance to hear about God, the question is will they except Him?
-----------------------------------------
The Buddhist I described above didn't. – Xtraverse

I would say that he did. God has revealed Himself to us through the natural order and our conscience. And the Bible.

Quote:
Everyone is sorry for their sins, whether they're a Christian or not.

Not everyone is sorry for their sins and not everyone believes that what they did was a sin.

Quote:
Uppy, in #keeners you said something along the lines of "Jesus was just trying to make a point" when we were arguing about hypocracy in the Bible. Now I know you're avidly for the death penalty, unless you just recently changed, so think about what you said there. What point was Jesus trying to make? (Duh...)

If you read the passage carefully, the accusers brought the woman to Jesus, not seeking justice, but to find fault in Jesus. Here is the passage in question:
John 8:2 – Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?" 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"
11 She said, "No one, Lord."
And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

Jesus made it clear in John 3:17 that He did not come to condemn the world but that through Him, the world might be saved:
John 3:17 – For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Quote:
Being sarcastic: If God really does exist why doesn't he prove it? It should be really easy. All he has to do is start posting on this topic...

Ah, but He has revealed Himself to us through the natural order, though creation, our conscience, and logic.

Quote:
The Bible Contradicts Itself!

That may come as a shock to many of you devout Christians out there... But read it carefully. Again, I'm feeling to lazy to find a good source for this.

*gasp*
Really?! Where?
No, seriously, it doesn't.

Quote:
More biblical contradiction. If the Romans were to perform capital punishment, they would have broken the commandment, "thou shalt not kill," and "gone to hell."

Since I consider the Commandments above all other biblical law, this means that the Romans had no "biblegal" basis for capital punishment. -Grelphy

Heh. I didn't get the impression that the Romans were really concerned about following the Bible. Executing someone as the Bible commands is not murder.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1825
(3/26/03 3:32 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: ERRGGHH...

Quote:
The Bible says that no one seeks after the Lord and that no one can come to the Lord unless Jesus calls him.

So what exactly is this Buddhist supposed to do.

Quote:
You're right. That is for God to do.

So should I be waiting for something..?

Quote:
I would say that he did. God has revealed Himself to us through the natural order and our conscience. And the Bible.

I think I've told you about 4000 times. The guy's NEVER heard of the Bible, and he's never heard of the idea of this one God ruling over us all. He's not going to "go to Jesus" or whatever if he's never heard of Jesus.

Quote:
Not everyone is sorry for their sins and not everyone believes that what they did was a sin.

I admit, you're right there. Some people are crazy.

Quote:
If you read the passage carefully, the accusers brought the woman to Jesus, not seeking justice, but to find fault in Jesus

I must have read it in a different book of the Bible, the version I read wasn't like that at all.

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1005
(3/26/03 4:19 am)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Dominion carries with it responsibility.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 263
(3/26/03 4:51 am)
206.63.170.104
| Del

Re: ERRGGHH...

Quote:
I think I've told you about 4000 times. The guy's NEVER heard of the Bible, and he's never heard of the idea of this one God ruling over us all. He's not going to "go to Jesus" or whatever if he's never heard of Jesus.

As I said, he has all of creation and his conscience. God has left His 'fingerprints' all over the universe.

Quote:
So should I be waiting for something..?

'Man can close the mouth, but God opens the heart'...or something like that. Well, I wouldn't be a fatalist if I were you.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 131
(3/26/03 1:18 pm)
209.81.165.111
| Del

The point of your post, Ek, would be?

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 843
(3/26/03 1:22 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: ERRGGHH...

Xtra, since Uppy seems inable to give you a satisfying answer, this is the Mormon answer to your Buddhist question:

Even if this Buddhist never learns about Jesus in this life, he will be fine. After he dies he will be taught about Jesus, in the spirit world. Everyone will get the chance to choose to follow Jesus, whether in this life...or the next.

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 134
(3/26/03 1:27 pm)
209.81.165.111
| Del

Re: ERRGGHH...

Not quite what I believe but ok........

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1828
(3/26/03 1:59 pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del

Re: ..

Now that sounds reasonable to me, Flaose.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 266
(3/26/03 5:05 pm)
206.63.170.56
| Del

Re: ERRGGHH...

Quote:
Even if this Buddhist never learns about Jesus in this life, he will be fine. After he dies he will be taught about Jesus, in the spirit world. Everyone will get the chance to choose to follow Jesus, whether in this life...or the next.

So when do they become gods? Where do you find that in the Bible?

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 852
(3/26/03 9:11 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Uppy, what does that have to do with anything? I wouldn't be posting flamebait if I were you.

Anyways, answering your questions: if he decides to follow Christ, and fulfills all the necessary covenants, the former Buddhist will be exalted after the Final Judgement.

As for Bible references:

Romans 8:16-17
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 4:7
Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Revelation 3:21
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Revelation 21:7
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 157
(3/27/03 4:29 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Mormanism is based off Christianity, right? If so, there is a problem with it. I dont remember the guys name, but he was visited by an angel and told about the tablets and the tablets told about god, or something. The bilble says that even if an angel tells you somehting about the Lord, you should test it with the Bible. The book of mormem teaches things contrary to the Bible and therefore, I believe it is false.

If im wrong, please tell me.

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 855
(3/27/03 1:40 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: ERRGGHH...

This is quoted from the Official Church Website (http://www.lds.org):/

Quote:
As a boy, Joseph Smith was surrounded by various churches which each claimed to teach the truth. This caused him much serious reflection. He wanted to know which church was right. One day he read a passage in the Bible which says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (James 1:5). Joseph decided to accept the invitation to ask God.
In the spring of 1820, Joseph went to a grove of trees near his home and prayed to learn which church he should join. In answer to his prayer, Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to him. Joseph wrote: “When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” Joseph was told to join none of the churches that existed at that time.

You can read Joseph Smith's full written account of this event here: scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/3#3

Continuing the account:

Quote:
The Apostle Peter prophesied of the “restitution of all things” before Christ’s Second Coming (Acts 3:19–21). Having been lost because of the Apostasy, Christ’s Church and His authority were to be restored to the earth. This Restoration would make available the opportunity for all to receive once again all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Joseph Smith’s First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. In subsequent years, Christ restored His priesthood and reorganized His Church. He has continued to reveal truths to His prophets and to restore the blessings that were taken from the earth for a time.

Part of that Restoration involved Joseph being visited by an angel, and being told of gold plates hidden near his home. From these plates we get The Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

As for the other part of your post, I'm unaware of any contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible...but I'm sure Uppy would love to point them out to me.

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 267
(3/27/03 6:47 pm)
206.63.170.53
| Del

Re: ERRGGHH...

Quote:
As for the other part of your post, I'm unaware of any contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible...but I'm sure Uppy would love to point them out to me.

Heh.

I've been working on it. We have lots of Mormons here in Spokane esp. with the temple and all.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 270
(3/28/03 3:36 am)
206.63.170.107
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
Uppy, what does that have to do with anything? I wouldn't be posting flamebait if I were you.

Ack, I just noticed this. I wasn't posting 'flamebait'. My question would be more correctly stated 'So do they become gods?

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1017
(3/28/03 5:28 am)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: ERRGGHH...

Flaose:

Can amnesia make people forget the Bible? Hmm...

and if so, would they get a second chance when they went up to heaven to accept Jesus, or, if they rejected him the first time before the amnesia, would that hold unless they learned of him again and accepted him before death?

I know this is a strange scenario... I was just curious if you have any idea...

Edited by: eK at: 3/28/03 8:02:35 am

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 139
(3/28/03 1:21 pm)
209.81.165.16
| Del

Re: ERRGGHH...

If they acepted him before or after, they would go to heaven.

Flaose
Pooper, King of the Slugs
Posts: 866
(3/28/03 5:28 pm)
68.147.124.200
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

It seems to me, that when it comes time for Final Judgement, your entire memory is restored (actually, it may happen right after you die, I can't remember).

Keeping this in mind, if the guy forgot the Bible due to amnesia, even if he didn't re-accept Jesus, I think he'd be a-ok. However in the other case, I'm not really sure...he might get some lee-way after he's dead...or maybe not....

Yeah I think he'd get a second chance.

Pure speculation though (and highly unlikely situation to boot)...

--------------------
Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen Needs.

Grelphy
Vortininja
Posts: 221
(3/28/03 9:24 pm)
209.195.250.215
| Del

Re: ERRGGHH...

I seem to be wondering what would happen if somebody were to di accepting Jesus and than be reincarnated and not accept Him. Of course, this scenario requieres that you believe in reincarnation. =)

Oh yeah, Uppy misspelled my name somewhere. Just noticed. =)

You and all those other mental wimps deserve to die!
-Mortimer Mcmire in Commander Keen 3

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 142
(3/29/03 3:24 pm)
209.115.59.90
| Del

In which case, I don't.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 275
(3/30/03 9:18 am)
206.63.170.46
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Btw, here's Dr. Stein's closing statement:

Dr. Bahnsen in his last response, indeed throughout his entire talk, has made a number of claims about what's possible in an atheist universe and what is not possible in an atheist universe. All I can say is that he has a very strange conception of an atheist universe and, perhaps, of the universe in general.
First of all, evil in an atheist universe: Yes, indeed, there can be evil in an atheist universe. Evil is, by definition, in an atheist universe 'that which decreases the happiness of people. The most unhappiness of people ', in other words, if we have two things that, if you want to make a comparative evil statement, (which is more evil than another) the thing is more evil which causes more people to be unhappy. Now how do we know this? Well, we don't know it; it's a consensus. It's like morality in general is a consensus. It's a consensus reinforced by the teachings of society, through its parents to children, teachers to students, the media literature, the Bible. All these things reinforce morality through teaching and the socialization process and also we pass laws to punish people that violate some of the more blatant cases that we have said are ‘no-nos’. So, the idea that there is no evil in an atheist universe is utter hogwash, but evil is at least a rational determinate thing. We don't say 'Well, did God make this evil?' and then we have to go flipping through the Bible to see if it was covered at all. You know, there's a hundred volumes of commentaries, at least a hundred volumes more, called the Tallinn, which is the Jew's interpretation of all the places the Bible didn't give many guidance on for ethical and moral issues. So, I mean, these things are not clearly spelled out in the Bible. We have no guidance on a lot of things as to what's evil. Is ovum transplant evil? I mean, you won't find that in your Bible. You've got to go and look at the issues and you do an analysis just the way any rational philosopher would do it or an ethicist. So, I mean, we have standards by which we determine evil and good. And in a atheistic world. The atheistic would view.
I think I've demonstrated that the regularity of matter, which is an inherent property of matter, explains that the way we are able to make laws to generalizations in the field of science. To say that, first of all most—many, many scientists are atheists. It has been shown by studies over and over again. So to claim—Dr. Bahnsen claims to claim, that science doesn't give us an atheistic worldview that is in conformity with—I mean that science is not in conformity with an atheistic worldview, is utter nonsense. Science is in itself atheistic. It doesn't use God to explain things and it understands that matter behaves in a regular and therefore predictable way. And that is the way in which scientific research is done. The same with logic; logic is a consensus. I think it has a mathematical and linguistic basis. It has some conformity to the reality of the world. I don’t know how many times we have to repeat that for it to get through to Dr. Bahnsen, but it doesn’t seem to be.
And he seems to specialize in what we call ‘the thinking makes it so’ school of logic we want to call it that. Because he says something is so, because he knows what God’s thinking was therefore, it is so. The omnipotent Dr. Bahnsen has answered. Well, that doesn’t answer anything if we’re apply the test of reason to what he says. His statements are not only irrational, they are unreasonable. The idea that the future is going to be like the past. It’s a statistical probability statement. We have never seen a future-today is the future from yesterday. And yesterday, what’s happening today was the future. We have not seen anything in that time period that we have observed which is several hundred years to show that the regularity of matter and its behavior is going to change. If it changes, scientific experiments will go hay wire and we’ll know it right off the bat and then we’ll have to revise a lot of things. I think the chances of that happening are pretty small.
Now, let me just finish by saying that atheism is not a bleak and negative concept. It frees man; it sweeps away the theological debris that has prevented man taking action to correct the problems of this world. We want to feed the hungry; we want to educate the illiterate; we went to clothe the naked; we want to raise the standard of living; we want to spread reason and thinking and progress and science. These are all things which are in an of themselves atheistic. We don’t do them because God tells us to do them. We do them because they are right. They need to be done in this world. And if we do them because they’re right we make people happy. We will be made happy ourselves by making other people happy. It’s a very positive world outlook. It’s something which I don’t think Dr. Bahnsen has even mentioned but it’s certainly the other side of the coin and what happens when you wipe away the God concept. Are you left with nothing? No, you’re left with the responsibility that you have to take on yourself. You are responsible for your actions and also you get the credit for the things that you do. And I would rather have a realistic worldview that gives up a few things that would be nice to have, but just don’t happen to be true, and I’d rather operate on a worldview like that then I would making wish fulfillment on things that are just not so.

Keengamer
Commander Keen Mad
Posts: 458
(3/31/03 1:30 am)
203.123.64.150
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

still popular after 24 pages

Billy Blaze Is The Hero Of The Universe

Jawa Wars (Rorie's Place On The Web)

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1860
(3/31/03 1:58 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: rE

1 page for me, can't stand tons of pages :barf

EDIT: erk..wrong topic

Edited by: Xtraverse at: 3/31/03 4:04:13 am

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 536
(3/31/03 11:44 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Thanks, Uppy.

The suns were green, the spaceships tall
In ancient days before the fall
Of empires of Parlmtheon,
And Shikadine, who now beyond,
The Eastern stars have passed away,
Deep space was fair in DemOps' day
-A dirty copyright infringement

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 277
(3/31/03 6:41 pm)
206.63.170.67
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Np.

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1049
(4/3/03 8:06 am)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: rE

POW!

Another fabulous quote from Uppy! The quote master!

Does he talk for himself? No, he uses a bombardment of strategically placed quotes to confuse, dismay, and bore his enemy!

:deadkeen

We've been defeated!

Djaser

Holy Monk Yorp
Posts: 1218
(4/3/03 4:01 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

At least he has a clue about what he is talking about eK.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 281
(4/3/03 7:23 pm)
206.63.170.40
| Del

Re: rE

?
eK, KeenEmpire asked for that. It hasn't confused or dismayed anyone.

baabis
Gannalech
Posts: 170
(4/3/03 8:08 pm)
62.78.239.196
| Del

Re: rE

Quote:
I would say that he did. God has revealed Himself to us through the natural order and our conscience. And the Bible.

Umm.
Is the buddhist supposed to know that god exists because the leaves in the trees have His fingerprints on them? Ahem....

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1898
(4/3/03 8:26 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Uppy, you still didn't answer my question...

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 283
(4/3/03 10:37 pm)
206.63.170.117
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Patience...

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 146
(4/4/03 1:08 pm)
216.214.12.61
| Del

....

Amazing, god, look where this topic went, from Harry Potter, to wiccans, to satanism, to Creationism, to evolution..................

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1908
(4/4/03 1:13 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I think I'm going to convert to the evil wicca, and every day perform evil magick.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 147
(4/4/03 2:16 pm)
216.214.12.61
| Del

...

therealdopefish
Vorticon Elite
Posts: 404
(4/4/03 2:55 pm)
62.251.83.73
| Del

Re: ....

About the amnesia part. Before you get amnesia you believe sacredly in God, always goes to church(being a little bit orthodox) and after amnesia you become an atheist, would you get to heaven then?
And what if you have a split personality? :lol

RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis 2

Djaser

Holy Monk Yorp
Posts: 1233
(4/4/03 3:05 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Ehm if you have a splited personality than your soul will be split. And if you have amnestia.... Well come one you know the answer.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1910
(4/4/03 3:09 pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Globox, you can't escape me! Satan wants your soul! Because I read Harry Potter, I am now an evil evil Wicca, and Satan commands me to bring him your soul. :mortlol

Djaser

Holy Monk Yorp
Posts: 1236
(4/4/03 3:47 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: ....

What if you're 666 than I'm 555

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 538
(4/4/03 5:34 pm)
203.151.38.3
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

I have a split personality. No kidding. :shockshund

That question really applies to me.

And for clarification, I did ask Uppy to post Dr. Stein's closing remarks. If eK wishes to make that accusation, he might refer to a different example.

Edited by: KeenEmpire at: 4/4/03 5:56:48 pm

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 287
(4/4/03 7:27 pm)
206.63.170.60
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Ah, ha! Got it. Halfway down on page 16:

Quote:
Uppy, do you have Dr. Stein's closing statement? I'd like to see it, if possible. -KeenEmpire

And I replied (on the same page):

Quote:
Heh, I'll have to copy that off the tape so it will be a while, but sure, I'll get it for you. -Me

I rest my case.

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1061
(4/6/03 10:00 am)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: ....

Does that mean you'll stop talking?

And why can't you email it to him?

And for that matter, you posted the quotes in the first place without anyone asking you to -- perhaps I'm wrong in this, but it looks like it. I don't want to spend half an hour dredging through this entire post, but I found what looks like your first quote of this guy, and it doesn't look like anyone asked for it.

All you ever do in keeners is quote... all the time, quote quote quote. Parrots can quote too....

Djaser

Holy Monk Yorp
Posts: 1249
(4/6/03 11:05 am)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
And why can't you email it to him?

eK please can you admit that you was wrong here. You won't be lose value if you. Grow up.

KeenEmpire
Keen's Empire
Posts: 544
(4/6/03 11:32 am)
203.151.38.3
| Del

afsd

I stated that he "might as well post it here," since if there happens to be any more people who might vaguely want to read it, they could find it on the record.

Just clarifying the truth :potter

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1062
(4/6/03 12:38 pm)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: ....

Djaser, wrong about what? What is there to be wrong about? Uppy quoting a lot? He quotes all the time - in #keeners probably 5-10% of all the things he's said have been quotes. (discounting greetings and goodbyes).

I don't know anyone else who was intersted in hearing the rest of what that guy was saying -- and we generally (admins) generally don't like private messages being posted on the board when an email would suffice.

I just asked why he couldn't email it, I didn't yell at him for it. I don't like people who quote all the time like him. To use other's wisdom (or lack there of, in some cases) as your own is rather weak, in my mind.

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 121
(4/6/03 8:51 pm)
209.115.59.158
| Del

grr...

hello, people

i have a few things to say. 1st, about the death penalty thing, the bible does NOT contradict itself. also in the old testament, it says how if a man takes the life of another, he must lose his also.

2nd, i want to talk about sual/paul. saul was this priest in nazareth who went around killing christians because he thought christianity was a cult. he raided churches and everything, killing every christian he found. once, there was a christian named stephen. stephen was stoned with saul's utmost approval. as stephen was stoned he exclaimed to God how the men shouldn't be punished for their actions. as a result of the killing, the christians decided they would move to damascus to try to get away from saul. saul decided to go meet them there and to murder even more. however, on the way, a blinding light suddenly appeared around saul and his other men as God appeared and spoke to saul saying that saul was persecuting him and to stop what he was doing and follow him. ~~~
After, saul's name was changed to paul and paul became one of the greatest missionaries ever, risking everything to reach out to people, working for the one true God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
saul thought he was actually helping God when he was killing the christians because he thought it was a cult. thankfully, God found saul before it was too late.

no matter who you are, God has a purpose for you, just like he did for saul.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
you may not think it so, but EVERY religion contradicts itself in some way EXCEPT for christianity? i even have a book about it.

chogall
Vorticon Elder
Posts: 1288
(4/6/03 9:20 pm)
217.70.229.39
| Del
ezSupporter

Re: grr...

Quote:
in the old testament, it says how if a man takes the life of another, he must lose his also.

But then the man killing the killer would be taking the life of another and thus have to lose his. And the executioner killing the executioner would have to be killed, but then the person executing the executioner executing the executioner would also be a killer, etc...

Those who have read Franquin's "Black Pages" will recognise this

kittyyorp
Vortininja
Posts: 126
(4/6/03 10:28 pm)
209.115.59.180
| Del

Re: ....

Quote:
But then the man killing the killer would be taking the life of another and thus have to lose his. And the executioner killing the executioner would have to be killed, but then the person executing the executioner executing the executioner would also be a killer, etc...

no, because the person wo killed the murderer is permitted to kill. (i mean, most murderers don't kill themselves because they murdered someone else)

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1938
(4/7/03 12:35 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: grr...

But this raises the problem I mentioned before.

First of all, why should they be permitted to kill? They're committing a sin as well according to the Ten Commandments.

Second of all, if some guy goes and kills my brother, then I go kill him because he killed my brother. According to you, this would be OK. But I would be tried for murder just like that other guy would have.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 289
(4/9/03 5:43 am)
206.63.170.54
| Del

Re: ....

Quote:
And for that matter, you posted the quotes in the first place without anyone asking you to -- perhaps I'm wrong in this, but it looks like it. I don't want to spend half an hour dredging through this entire post, but I found what looks like your first quote of this guy, and it doesn't look like anyone asked for it.

You know, eK, I think you should spend a few hours reading this entire thread before making anymore assumptions or posting further. Yes, KeenEmpire, as I quoted above, asked for that quote and specifically asked me to post it here.

Quote:
All you ever do in keeners is quote... all the time, quote quote quote. Parrots can quote too.... –eK

Eh, you know the admins here don't like private messages being posted on the board when email would suffice. If you have anymore private questions or complaints, you can email me at uppyii@yahoo.com.

Quote:
I don't like people who quote all the time like him. To use other's wisdom (or lack there of, in some cases) as your own is rather weak, in my mind. –eK

I don't know about you, eK, but some of these people I've quoted are a lot smarter that I am and I'd rather lean on someone else's intelligence rather then rely completely on my own stupidity.

Quote:
Djaser, wrong about what? What is there to be wrong about? Uppy quoting a lot? He quotes all the time - in #keeners probably 5-10% of all the things he's said have been quotes. (discounting greetings and goodbyes).

Hmm, seems to me that we already addressed this 'issue' (if you can call it that) in a somewhat private conversation started by my own initiative in #keeners. Would you knock it off with the personal jabs. That was very low, eK, something that I would expect out of a five-year-old. Take Baabis, for example. Do you see him calling everyone who disagrees with him a moron? Do you seen him taking personal slams at the people he's debating? Do you see him attacking his opponent's character? He's what, 15? eK, you're almost five years older that he. Act at least as mature as him, if not more.

We're trying to have a rational discussion here. Something you seem to be unable to have. We're not here to attack each others character or to throw around names and accusations. If you would like, you can start a thread specifically for that purpose or email me, but we don't need that kind of childish behavior here.
In section III of the posting guidelines, some rules have been laid out. I believe I need to bring a couple of them out into the light. You may not:
1) Insult or otherwise offend other users. You're allowed to disagree with somebody, but that's no reason to call that person an idiot.
2) Troll, that is, post a message with the sole intent of provoking a fierce reaction.
With you being an admin, I would expect that you at least follow the rules you are supposed to uphold. Please, eK, do us a favor and stop. This is the closest I've been to irritation on the internet. I'm politely asking that you stop with the name-calling and personal jabs. Thank you.

Djaser

Holy Monk Yorp
Posts: 1265
(4/9/03 7:22 am)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: ....

Quote:
Eh, you know the admins here don't like private messages being posted on the board when email would suffice. If you have anymore private questions or complaints, you can email me at uppyii@yahoo.com.

clever Uppy .

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1081
(4/9/03 9:06 am)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: grr...

I'm not calling people morons as insults.

I'm merely stating their obvious level of intelligence.

But really, the word I should be using is ignorant, not moronic. Because you guys aren't entirely stupid. It's a combination of the two.

Firstly, you're ignorant as to what evolution is.

and Secondly, you're idiots not to bother to change that, and argue anyway.

How'd you end up thinking that knowing evolution consisted of only knowing the pseudoscience creationists have concocted to brainwash the public into thinking evolution has serious and irreparable flaws?

I really REALLY loathe dealing with people like you guys, and yet, I can't help thinking I can change you. Because I've had people turn to me and say something contrary to what I've believed and I went out, looked up what they said, realized they were right, and adopted their view. Heck, my whole philosophy on life is self-improvement... self-change. To find people who don't make an effort to correct their ignorance enrages me. Only one thing really angers me in this world, stupid people.

So now you know why I call you idiots and morons. Personally, I think I show surprising restraint in not calling you worse, more deserving words. People with these character flaws, as I've stated, make me sick.

---

As for uppy. I wasn't just talking to you, I was replying to people who criticized what I said.

As for Baaba, yah, I do see him doing that. He's called everyone who believes in god stupid. Do you not read what he says?

Quote:
I've asked about religion from people in my class, and it appears that even though only two(me and on other) from our class aren't in the church, only two others really believe in god. The rest belong to the church just so they can get lots of money from their relatives after confessing. It isn't surprising though, as I've always thought of most of them as somewhat intelligent people.

You should have picked a better example, like chogall. You seem to be the very same thing you're berating me for -- you're insulting me by equating me to a five year old. Way to maintain the high ground there!

And finally,

Quote:
We're trying to have a rational discussion here.

Well if you're trying, you haven't succeeded yet. I've even appealed to the rational and the logical in my arguments - and you guys don't even blink. So I'll repeat myself for... I think the 3rd or 4th time.

Logic:

If Evolution had serious flaws, science would have thrown it out years ago. Scientists aren't ones to cling to a silly, out dated notion for too long when a better one shows up.

An argument made solely through logic. One I don't believe you ever addressed...

Djaser

Holy Monk Yorp
Posts: 1267
(4/9/03 9:35 am)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: ....

Quote:
I'm not calling people morons as insults.

Ow in that way I take it as a complimetn. Thank you

Quote:
I'm merely stating their obvious level of intelligence.

Thank you again for taking a IQ test

Quote:
I really REALLY loathe dealing with people like you guys, and yet, I can't help thinking I can change you. Because I've had people turn to me and say something contrary to what I've believed and I went out, looked up what they said, realized they were right, and adopted their view. Heck, my whole philosophy on life is self-improvement... self-change. To find people who don't make an effort to correct their ignorance enrages me. Only one thing really angers me in this world, stupid people.

You really thought anyone here would be coninved???
Ah I understant wrong topic.

Quote:
So now you know why I call you idiots and morons. Personally, I think I show surprising restraint in not calling you worse, more deserving words. People with these character flaws, as I've stated, make me sick.

But there is one good thing

. You don't need to look at this discussion great isn't it. Just ignore this topic.

Quote:
As for Baaba, yah, I do see him doing that. He's called everyone who believes in god stupid. Do you not read what he says?

You're right here.

Quote:
Well if you're trying, you haven't succeeded yet. I've even appealed to the rational and the logical in my arguments - and you guys don't even blink. So I'll repeat myself for... I think the 3rd or 4th time.

Completly true. but hey thanks for at least trying with your sarcasme and insults to make this a good discussion

Quote:

If Evolution had serious flaws, science would have thrown it out years ago. Scientists aren't ones to cling to a silly, out dated notion for too long when a better one shows up.

Things like that happened before and will happen again.

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1082
(4/9/03 10:04 am)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: ....

Example?

Djaser

Holy Monk Yorp
Posts: 1268
(4/9/03 12:18 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: grr...

Here you go: Dinosaurs like the T-Rex, how straight did they walk? In the last 7 years scientist rechanged their view 3 times about the way they walked. First they walked extremely upright. But no that meaned they couldn't run. So they must have been walked almost horizontal. But that wasn't possible too because they would have broken their legs. Conclusion they walked upright :sick

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1083
(4/9/03 12:22 pm)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: ....

Yes, they changed their views.

They didn't cling to the old view.

Thanks for supporting my point.

Djaser

Holy Monk Yorp
Posts: 1269
(4/9/03 12:59 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: ....

No? Than you may explain that.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1955
(4/9/03 2:45 pm)
64.30.37.14
| Del

Re: grr...

Djaser, his point was that if evolution was wrong, scientists would've changed their views about it many times in the last century. But they haven't.

UppyII
Vortininja
Posts: 291
(4/9/03 4:36 pm)
206.63.170.73
| Del

Re: grr...

Quote:
I'm not calling people morons as insults.

I'm merely stating their obvious level of intelligence.

Obvious to you only because I disagree with what you believe.

Quote:
But really, the word I should be using is ignorant, not moronic. Because you guys aren't entirely stupid. It's a combination of the two.

Ignorant, moron, idiot—whatever. It's still name-calling.

Quote:
Firstly, you're ignorant as to what evolution is.

Not at all.

Quote:
and Secondly, you're idiots not to bother to change that, and argue anyway.

Not applicable since #1 isn't true.

Quote:
How'd you end up thinking that knowing evolution consisted of only knowing the pseudoscience creationists have concocted to brainwash the public into thinking evolution has serious and irreparable flaws?

Pseudoscience? Ah, so every scientist who doesn't believe evolution is not a real scientist? You're only in college? I suggest that you take post-graduate level classes and get a Ph. D. before making such outrageous statements.

Quote:
I really REALLY loathe dealing with people like you guys,

Really? I was beginning to think that you enjoyed this.

Quote:
and yet, I can't help thinking I can change you.

How? By calling me ignorant? That's not, well, let's just say that it's not the most effective way to win an argument.

Quote:
Because I've had people turn to me and say something contrary to what I've believed and I went out, looked up what they said, realized they were right, and adopted their view. Heck, my whole philosophy on life is self-improvement... self-change.

Ok, so a little more change in your life won't hurt anything at all.

Quote:
To find people who don't make an effort to correct their ignorance enrages me. Only one thing really angers me in this world, stupid people.

I think what really angers and frustrates you is that you've found someone who disagrees with you and you can't change that.

Quote:
So now you know why I call you idiots and morons.

Yah, because you're really angry and frustrated. Gotcha.

Quote:
Personally, I think I show surprising restraint in not calling you worse,

For that, I thank you.

Quote:
more deserving words.

I resent that.

Quote:
People with these character flaws, as I've stated, make me sick.

Not seeing things your way is a character flaw?!

Quote:
As for Baaba, yah, I do see him doing that. He's called everyone who believes in god stupid. Do you not read what he says?

Quote:

I've asked about religion from people in my class, and it appears that even though only two(me and on other) from our class aren't in the church, only two others really believe in god. The rest belong to the church just so they can get lots of money from their relatives after confessing. It isn't surprising though, as I've always thought of most of them as somewhat intelligent people.

Ah, but later on in the same page he stated that it was merely a joke.

Quote:
You should have picked a better example, like chogall.

I thought about that, but Chogall is only two years younger than you.

Quote:
You seem to be the very same thing you're berating me for -- you're insulting me by equating me to a five year old. Way to maintain the high ground there!

Ha! I call that hypocrisy. Yes, your actions were befitting of a five-year-old. Notice, I wasn't calling you a five-year-old (or a moron), but merely stating that your actions were as such.

Quote:

Quote:

We're trying to have a rational discussion here.

Well if you're trying, you haven't succeeded yet.

On the contrary. Tried and succeeded. Until now, that is, when you got here.

Quote:
I've even appealed to the rational and the logical in my arguments - and you guys don't even blink. So I'll repeat myself for... I think the 3rd or 4th time.

Really? Wow, I guess I did miss that.

Quote:
Logic:

If Evolution had serious flaws, science would have thrown it out years ago. Scientists aren't ones to cling to a silly, out dated notion for too long when a better one shows up.

You put too much faith in the scientific community. No, I've already answered this one in the 'beliefs' topic.

Quote:
An argument made solely through logic.

Care you back this statement up? No, not solely through logic. Logic, lots of faith in the scientific community, mixed in with a Pollyanna view of the world.

Quote:
One I don't believe you ever addressed...

See above.

Edited by: UppyII at: 4/9/03 4:45:10 pm

Djaser

Holy Monk Yorp
Posts: 1273
(4/9/03 5:38 pm)
212.92.76.33
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Quote:
Djaser, his point was that if evolution was wrong, scientists would've changed their views about it many times in the last century. But they haven't.

WTF really

. .....big error......
So in fact dinosaurs never lived

?
another..... *big*......error....

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1085
(4/9/03 7:30 pm)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: grr...

twist

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1958
(4/9/03 7:52 pm)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: grr...

Maybe my words were a bit confusing to a non-native-English speaker, Djaser, so I'll restate that.

The theory of evolution has remained unchanged for so long that there can be little doubt that it is true.

Because what is thought about how dinosaurs walk has changed numerous times in recent years, scientists aren't too sure of it.

Quote:
Ha! I call that hypocrisy. Yes, your actions were befitting of a five-year-old. Notice, I wasn't calling you a five-year-old (or a moron), but merely stating that your actions were as such.

Couldn't he just say you're acting like a moron? It's basically the same thing.

EDIT: Fixed grammaticaly error that made it look like I was saying the opposite of what I was trying to say.

Edited by: Xtraverse at: 4/10/03 1:38:10 am

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 173
(4/9/03 11:52 pm)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

But Christianity has also remained unchanged and has been around much longer than evolution. One of the reasons I dont believe evolution is because it can not give a good answer of where man came from. if nature by chance produced living orginisms, than why can't the intelligent man do it?

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1088
(4/10/03 12:47 am)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: grr...

Geez. You guys claim competence in this issue and yet look at you.

Umm... have you heard of the Miller-Urey Electron Discharge Expiriment? Essentially, using a closed system including all elements found to have been on Earth during it's primordial, pre-life phase and exposing it to energy (electricity, heat) as one would find at the time in the form of lighning and extreme UV radiation.

The results, often duplicated, show that these conditions naturally produce all the building blocks we've found for life. Including all 20 major Amino Acids, DNA, RNA, Glucose, etc. The list is quite long.

Another expiriment, one I don't know as much about, created lipid microspheres, which are basically hollow globs of fat that resembles cells.

Xtraverse
Stranded Fish
Posts: 1961
(4/10/03 1:40 am)
24.48.163.42
| Del

Re: grr...

Quote:
But Christianity has also remained unchanged and has been around much longer than evolution. One of the reasons I dont believe evolution is because it can not give a good answer of where man came from. if nature by chance produced living orginisms, than why can't the intelligent man do it?

Christianity is not a science. It is believed because of faith, not evidence.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 150
(4/10/03 5:25 pm)
65.43.152.57
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amino Acids, DNA, RNA, Glucose, etc. The list is quite long
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Show me the damn human & I'll change what I believe.

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1092
(4/10/03 8:07 pm)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: grr...

The damn human? Hmmm... I dunno, he doesn't just just ANYBODY.

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 176
(4/11/03 2:22 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Xtraverse, there is science in the bible. Some facts in the bible were that Earth is a sphere, That the water cycle keeps land watered, The universe is running down(entropy), Ocean currents flow through the sea, Blood sustains life, The universe is made of invisible things, the stars are incredibly distent from the earth and cannot be numbered, the winds form a cirrculating system, that the earth rotates on its axis, and that mans body is made of the same materials as the materials of the earth. How did these people know these facts unless from some supernatural power? the verses are Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7, Job 36:27-28, Ecclessiastees 1:7, Amos 5:8, Isaiah 51:6, Psalms 102:26, Psalms 8:8, Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 11:3, JOb 22:12, Genisis 15:5 and 22:17, Jerimiah 33:22, Ecclesiastees 1:6, Job 38:12 and 38:14, Genisis 2:7 and 3:19, and finnally Psalm 103:14.

And how could nature, by random chance, create life when intelligent human beings can not create life.

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1095
(4/11/03 2:29 am)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

That's not science -- that's taking things the bible says and interpreting them. For all you know, it could mean something else. Really though, my point is that it's not science because there's no rigorous expirimentation or body of evidence to support the bibles claims within the bible itself.

The Bibles claims, right or wrong, are less substantial at that time, and within themselves, than the Theory of Evolution. Heck, than even String Theory, which has no body of evidence to support it other than if it were true it sure would explain a lot. Evolution, on the other hand, has tons of supporting evidence. Geez, if you guys would just read about it you would know these things!

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 178
(4/11/03 2:45 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Ek, you ask us to read about evolution, do you bother to look at the Bible?

ceilick

Vortininja
Posts: 179
(4/11/03 2:46 am)
207.252.227.7
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

And, please answer my question on spontanious generation.

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1096
(4/11/03 7:25 am)
143.109.91.236
| Del

Re: Is Harry Potter Bad?Satanic?

Because we don't have a billion years to do it?

Yah, I've read some of the Bible -- the main reason I haven't read most or all of it is not lack of interest, but I just don't like the way it's written. I love Shakespeare, but there's something about the Biblical language that is just boring and unreadable to me.

I don't think I'll ever read it because of that.

LordOfGlobox
Vortininja
Posts: 152
(4/11/03 12:43 pm)
209.81.165.71
| Del

re:..

I'm sorry I have to do this: F^ck you Ek, you have no clue what you are argueing about, you Hypocrit! You say I am ignorant, but really that's all you are, have you no clue what evolution is? Can you proof it? Tell me how it's scientific? There is no & never will be any proof that evolution ever happened. Tell me how my belief is different, besides ideas, from yours? It sure as hell can't be prooved! & STOP CALLING US FOOLS, YOUR SUCH A HYPOCRIT!!!!

eK
Isonian
Posts: 1099
(4/11/03 1:24 pm)
143.109.58.24
| Del

How am I a hypocrit?

I haven't been debating the Bible at all, I've been talking about evolution. The Bible has absolutely nothing in it that in any way pertains to evolution. I fail to see what you're talking about.

And yah, you guys are ignorant, and your posts are hilarious. Sometimes it's depressing though, to know that there're are so many people out there with these stupid notions about evolution.

Ah well, there's really nothing I can do about it. What needs to change is the educational system that would allow such idiocy to persist.

chogall
Vorticon Elder
Posts: 1293
(4/11/03 1:51 pm)
130.67.68.204
| Del
ezSupporter

Re: Uh

Too bad you couldn't discipline yourself, LordOfGlobox.
This thread has turned into a flame war. Better send it where it belongs: to Locked Thread Land.

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Commands

Click to receive email notification of replies