Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Corsair on March 28, 2002, 11:43:48 am
-
Hehehe...just to make myself feel good and because I couldn't resist, here's the thread like Gortef's but for all the Jews like me out there!
-
Passover? what's that?
-
IIRC, it's like Easter but completely different :)
-
That's not a very accurate reply. It's like saying: What's a bicicle? It's like a car, but completely different! :p
-
i'm not jewish but i'll give it a shot:
the Passover celebration was first celebrated during the last days of the captivity of the Isrealites by the Egyptians. the Pharoh at that time refused to let Isreal leave because they were his inslaved workforce, but one night the angel of death came and killed the first born of every houshold that didn't have the mark of lambs blood around it's door post. if it did, the angel would pass over the house, ensuring it's safety. the Isrealites ate the body of the lamb they had slaughtered for the blood to put on the door post, and bread they had made in a hurry without yeast. they knew that they didn't have time to bake bread with yeast because as soon as the Pharoh found his son dead he would kick them out of Egypt.
-
Ah... much better. :nod:
-
Same as the other thread for me:
I'll be doing what I do every other day; working on The Procyon Insurgency and doing math and physics problems. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Same as the other thread for me...
Heh, and I'll still be working. :sigh:
-
uh, what day is passover on?
-
Originally posted by Styxx
That's not a very accurate reply. It's like saying: What's a bicicle? It's like a car, but completely different! :p
I know, it's a joke :)
-
I learnt of passover when i was younger, watching rugrats hehe.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Hehehe...just to make myself feel good and because I couldn't resist, here's the thread like Gortef's but for all the Jews like me out there!
Yahoo!! (not the search engine, the exclamation)
I had Pesach (Passover in Hebrew) dinner with my family last night - we realized that it was the first time ever that it was only the four of us for Passover dinner, no guests. :D It was nice. We broke with tradition a bit and had a huge salmon steak (sorry, Setekh) instead of lamb's meat.
Uhm, over the 8 days of Passover I'm going to try and invent more ways to make matzah not only edible, but downright tasty as well! :p From years past, I know that peanut butter and jelly matzah is good, as is matzah pizza and matzah toast (butter & honey).
Aside from the food aspect, let's see... work, methinks. Getting another computer set up as an net connection sharing server for the home LAN instead of my own, so I can have some leeway to reboot every once in a while. :p
Originally posted by Carl
i'm not jewish but i'll give it a shot:
the Passover celebration was first celebrated during the last days of the captivity of the Isrealites by the Egyptians. the Pharoh at that time refused to let Isreal leave because they were his inslaved workforce, but one night the angel of death came and killed the first born of every houshold that didn't have the mark of lambs blood around it's door post. if it did, the angel would pass over the house, ensuring it's safety. the Isrealites ate the body of the lamb they had slaughtered for the blood to put on the door post, and bread they had made in a hurry without yeast. they knew that they didn't have time to bake bread with yeast because as soon as the Pharoh found his son dead he would kick them out of Egypt.
Hey, pretty good, Carl! :)
-
yeah, we were here 4000 years ago and caught the whole thing on sensors :D
-
Originally posted by Carl
yeah, we were here 4000 years ago and caught the whole thing on sensors :D
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!! :lol:
-
Originally posted by Carl
yeah, we were here 4000 years ago and caught the whole thing on sensors :D
So that's how he knows so much...:D Great summary Carl!
Oh and sandwich, try matzah bry. It's scrambled eggs with matzah mixed in, and if you put some jelly on it, it can be very good tasting actually.
And for all the Christian people out there, in case you didn't know, Jesus's last supper was Passover dinner. In fact, Easter was on the same day as passover for a long time until the Church got mad at the Jews (what else is new? everyone hated us at one time or another) and changed it to the week after (except that for some reason they're close together this year...that's the lunar calender working for ya I guess)
EDIT: hey I saw that rugrats episode too...a long time ago! Hehe it was funny :D
-
Ohhh bah, everyone posted the history of the holiday before I could make a wisecrack:
What are you planning on doing for Passover? Putting lambsblood on my door! :drevil:
-
Originally posted by sandwich
huge salmon steak (sorry, Setekh)
Oh, the humanity! :D
@ Carl: :lol:!!
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Oh and sandwich, try matzah bry. It's scrambled eggs with matzah mixed in, and if you put some jelly on it, it can be very good tasting actually.
And for all the Christian people out there, in case you didn't know, Jesus's last supper was Passover dinner.
Heh - actually, that's what I just had last night for dinner. :p But it was a savory as opposed to a sweet kind. :p
And BTW, Jesus was crucified on the ninth hour (3pm, counting from 6 in the morning). THe Passover lamb was supposed to be slain during the "evenings", which was between 3 and 6 pm. Plus, the dinner Jesus had with the disciples was one night early, a pre-passover, as it were, which was customary for the rabbis to do with their disciples, so that their disciples could celebrate the real Passover night with their families. And since Jesus was crucified the day after.... I think it's cool. :cool:
-
Originally posted by sandwich
And BTW, Jesus was crucified on the ninth hour (3pm, counting from 6 in the morning). THe Passover lamb was supposed to be slain during the "evenings", which was between 3 and 6 pm. Plus, the dinner Jesus had with the disciples was one night early, a pre-passover, as it were, which was customary for the rabbis to do with their disciples, so that their disciples could celebrate the real Passover night with their families. And since Jesus was crucified the day after.... I think it's cool. :cool:
Yeah... :nod: Man, there's so much to find out, to learn. :)
-
jesus was crucified on passover? i hadnt known that.
that's interesting. fits in with the whole lamb thing..., jesus the lamb of god and everything... his blood pushing the angel of death away...
okay, ill shut up now...
-
Originally posted by icespeed
jesus was crucified on passover? i hadnt known that.
that's interesting. fits in with the whole lamb thing..., jesus the lamb of god and everything... his blood pushing the angel of death away...
:nod: :yes:
-
Originally posted by icespeed
jesus was crucified on passover? i hadnt known that.
that's interesting. fits in with the whole lamb thing..., jesus the lamb of god and everything... his blood pushing the angel of death away...
okay, ill shut up now...
Yes; Jesus is the final fulfillment of the Old Covenant set out in the Old Testament. Now we have a New Covenant; all we have to do is accept Jesus' gift, and all sins for all time are forgiven (as opposed to performing all the necessary sacrifices, and then having your sins forgiven until the next time you sin). :)
-
Nobody has anwered my question yet.....
-
what was it?
-
When's passover.
-
...
-
Originally posted by Shrike
When's passover.
It began Wednesday evening, and goes for 8 days.
-
Too... many... coincidences... It's all a conspiracy!! :eek:
-
About the whole Jesus thing:
People worship Jesus and pray to him don't they? Can someone refresh my memory; What's the 1st commandment again?
-
Jesus IS God, if you don't know... :p
-
?
ah?
So Jesus went and... well, looked art Marie, and gave birth to... jesus? Whoa spacy
-
?
ah?
So Jesus went and... well, looked art Marie, and gave birth to... jesus? Whoa spacy
now you're confusing me. :p :D
-
Originally posted by venom2506
?
ah?
So Jesus went and... well, looked art Marie, and gave birth to... jesus? Whoa spacy
Drop the crack, man... :D
-
Jesus is the son of God, he never said he was God.
I believe in believing in God the way Jesus did, a more personal religion where God is like part of the family as opposed to the almighty killeth ye cities type of god. What I don't believe in is many of the fundamentalists who use Jesus as a "modern God" functionally.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Jesus is the son of God, he never said he was God.
I suppose all that Father, Son and Holy Spirit thing is all catholic bull**** then...
-
Originally posted by Styxx
I suppose all that Father, Son and Holy Spirit thing is all catholic bull**** then...
Nope - it's completely Biblical, But it loses something in the translation.
Take for example Adam and Eve. It says in Genesis that Man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
In the Hebrew, the word used there for "one" is "echad", which does not mean singular, which would be "yachid". The same thing is in the Sh'ma: "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is One."
"Echad", not "Yachid". :)
-
Aaahh... Thanks for making me even more confused by adding those Hebrew words there... :D
-
Also the "Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as it's currently thought of in context came with the Nicene Creed. Written after the Bible when the Church decided to hold a council on what it believed.
Now a lot of people disagreed on many parts such as this, and got ex-communicated.
The line was in the Bible, but how it was interpreted varied greatly until this point.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Also the "Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as it's currently thought of in context came with the Nicene Creed. Written after the Bible when the Church decided to hold a council on what it believed.
Now a lot of people disagreed on many parts such as this, and got ex-communicated.
The line was in the Bible, but how it was interpreted varied greatly until this point.
Ah.
-
further details on the father, son and holy spirit:
they're sort of like three aspects of one thing- they're all the same but they do different jobs, all going towards the one goal...
does that make sense?
-
Originally posted by Styxx
I suppose all that Father, Son and Holy Spirit thing is all catholic bull**** then...
I hope you didnt mean offence when you said that, i really do hope....
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
I hope you didnt mean offence when you said that, i really do hope....
No, I didn't. Why, you'd have taken offence if I meant? :p
-
Originally posted by Styxx
No, I didn't. Why, you'd have taken offence if I meant? :p
Because im a Roman Catholic.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Because im a Roman Catholic.
All my family is roman catholic. I'm not one myself, but I respect all their beliefs.
-
Thought it said in there in the old testament that it was a Trinity...I dont remember havent read it in awhile. I've always been taught that God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit were different but yet all one being. I dunno, something that our little pea brain minds can't understand.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
further details on the father, son and holy spirit:
they're sort of like three aspects of one thing- they're all the same but they do different jobs, all going towards the one goal...
does that make sense?
Unfortunately, the magnitude of their relationship is very difficult to describe on human terms. St. Patrick used a 3-leafed clover to describe the way the Trinity were seperate, but the one entity; you can also think of them as the primary colours, that all come together to make white light. But, when it comes down to it...
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
I dunno, something that our little pea brain minds can't understand.
...this is as true as it gets. We have to learn to deal with a God who is so vast and awesome (that is, inspiring awe) that we can't understand him. Just like the sky - our minds think small, so we see the sky as flat, not round. It's the same with lots of things - predestination and free choice, for example. Add them together and you get something the human mind can't twist itself into understanding.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Unfortunately, the magnitude of their relationship is very difficult to describe on human terms. St. Patrick used a 3-leafed clover to describe the way the Trinity were seperate, but the one entity; you can also think of them as the primary colours, that all come together to make white light. But, when it comes down to it...
...this is as true as it gets. We have to learn to deal with a God who is so vast and awesome (that is, inspiring awe) that we can't understand him. Just like the sky - our minds think small, so we see the sky as flat, not round. It's the same with lots of things - predestination and free choice, for example. Add them together and you get something the human mind can't twist itself into understanding.
Bingo...:yes:
BTW, this is probably one of the first religious threads that made it 2 pages without getting closed. Good Job guys.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
BTW, this is probably one of the first religious threads that made it 2 pages without getting closed. Good Job guys.
He's right. I think we're... uhh, getting better? ;)
-
Originally posted by Setekh
He's right. I think we're... uhh, getting better? ;)
:eek:
:snipe:
I guess that's a good thing...:)
But damn, look what I've started! This whole religious thread out of a complete joke! :D
I feel special!
-
Originally posted by Corsair
But damn, look what I've started! This whole religious thread out of a complete joke! :D
I feel special!
I suppose the intent was there, but a lot of people don't know about Passover. I see it as an opportunity to explain that which can save lives. Think of it like this:
Judgement Day has come, and everyone is headed on a huge pair of stairways - one up to Heaven, and one down to Hell. As you're walking up the stairs, someone you recognise walks past you, on the other set of stairs - down to Hell. He shouts to you...
"Hey! I knew you. How come you never told me about Jesus?"
Jesus is the ONLY way to be saved. And there's an eternity at stake. It's quite a serious matter. :)
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Jesus is the ONLY way to be saved. And there's an eternity at stake. It's quite a serious matter. :)
:wtf:
Maybe if you're a steak, Jesus is the only way to be saved, but for most regular people who aren't also food, there are other ways too.
;)
-
Hey, I'm not kidding... :sigh:
-
Originally posted by Setekh
I suppose the intent was there, but a lot of people don't know about Passover. I see it as an opportunity to explain that which can save lives. Think of it like this:
Judgement Day has come, and everyone is headed on a huge pair of stairways - one up to Heaven, and one down to Hell. As you're walking up the stairs, someone you recognise walks past you, on the other set of stairs - down to Hell. He shouts to you...
"Hey! I knew you. How come you never told me about Jesus?"
Jesus is the ONLY way to be saved. And there's an eternity at stake. It's quite a serious matter. :)
Fire in the hole!
I bet the shooting will start now.
But yes it IS a serious matter.
-
Everybody stay calm. We are the 158th Banshees and we are here to control the situation and prevent this thread from being locked.
:D
-
Blueflames was right; the R-word is the most volatile subject, at least on the internet...
I'm not going to go too much into my views on the matter (I'll be banned in five seconds if I do :D), but the discussion seems to be progressing fine so far. Lets just try not to push our beliefs on others. ;)
Wait, but uh...wouldn't it be just as nice to go to hell as heaven? You get to see and experience what the others aren't able to, so it would essentially be the same either way. ;)
Just out of curiosity, where does the bible say that these places are located?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Blueflames was right; the R-word is the most volatile subject, at least on the internet...
I'm not going to go too much into my views on the matter (I'll be banned in five seconds if I do :D), but the discussion seems to be progressing fine so far. Lets just try not to push our beliefs on others. ;)
Wait, but uh...wouldn't it be just as nice to go to hell as heaven? You get to see and experience what the others aren't able to, so it would essentially be the same either way. ;)
Just out of curiosity, where does the bible say that these places are located?
Yes, it certainly is a volatile subject. But that's because of its very nature - it touches on the very stuff of life. :)
I wouldn't mind if you put your views in on the matter. So long as you mean to be informative, there should be no problems. We just have to remember to stay level-headed and this will be fine. :)
The following are my opinions. I believe them to be true, but they are my opinion - any offense is not intended.[/i]
Don't joke about Hell, though. :( The Christian belief is (I won't say it IS, since though I believe it is true, I will for the sake of discussion leave it at that) that Hell is the ultimate punishment - separation from God. Since all good things come from God, you will be in a permanent state of non-goodness. It may sound funny when I say it like that, but in short, it is eternal death. :o
Heaven and Hell are, as far as I know, not physical places. After our physical bodies die, our spirit remains. It will suffer one of two fates - either being taken into complete separation from God, or being taken into perfect fellowship with God.
-
Who is Blueflames?
and...
THE ONLY PERSON WHO IS KIND OF TRYING TO PUSH THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS IS THE PERSON WITH THE POWER TO BAN OTHERS!!!!!
It's good to be an admin, isn't it Setekh? I wish I was one. ;)
EDIT: Oh look! now he's calmed down! (Jesus is the only way to be saved, right?)
-
Exactly! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... amongst our weapons.... amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
-
The only BlueFlames I knew used to be a staffer at R128. :)
Originally posted by Corsair
THE ONLY PERSON WHO IS KIND OF TRYING TO PUSH THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS IS THE PERSON WITH THE POWER TO BAN OTHERS!!!!!
My mistake. My post has been adjusted with a big orange-red sign. Hope that helps. :)
The thing is, though, that Christianity is very different to other religions. Other religions either let you believe what you want, or don't give a toss whether you suffer eternal damnation or not. Christians see it like this: if someone is running off a cliff to their death, what do you do? You shout at them, and you shout loud!
-
I actually agree with Setekh. If you have a friend wanting to do a destructive thing to themselves, do you stop them or leave them alone? BTW, the Monty Python reference above is a joke.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Yes, it certainly is a volatile subject. But that's because of its very nature - it touches on the very stuff of life. :)
I wouldn't mind if you put your views in on the matter. So long as you mean to be informative, there should be no problems. We just have to remember to stay level-headed and this will be fine. :)
The following are my opinions. I believe them to be true, but they are my opinion - any offense is not intended.[/i]
Don't joke about Hell, though. :( The Christian belief is (I won't say it IS, since though I believe it is true, I will for the sake of discussion leave it at that) that Hell is the ultimate punishment - separation from God. Since all good things come from God, you will be in a permanent state of non-goodness. It may sound funny when I say it like that, but in short, it is eternal death. :o
Heaven and Hell are, as far as I know, not physical places. After our physical bodies die, our spirit remains. It will suffer one of two fates - either being taken into complete separation from God, or being taken into perfect fellowship with God.
Or Hell could quite possibly be the state of nothing ness. Without God there is no life, and no spirit so the spirit could possibly vanish. Poof into darkness.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Other religions either let you believe what you want
Actually, I don't think that's a very good description of non-Christian religions. All religions have a definite set of beliefs that they follow. If they didn't, they wouldn't be a religion...
Anyway, my problem is this: if we can agree that God is so much beyond human experience that He is truly unknowable, then why should anyone insist that their small glimpse of Him is the only glimpse worth seeing?
-
Originally posted by Geezer
Actually, I don't think that's a very good description of non-Christian religions. All religions have a definite set of beliefs that they follow. If they didn't, they wouldn't be a religion...
Pardon me; that was a bit of a silly sentence. I wrote that while thinking of Hinduism (which holds that all ways to salvation and God are true).
Geezer, I don't think Christianity (I'm not entirely sure about other religions - but I am studying other religions regularly and frequently) holds that what we see of Him is the only one seeing - rather, we hold that we He told us of Himself is true. :)
-
Who is Blueflames?
He's someone on my clan; one of his articles came to mind as I read through the topic. ;)
http://www.shatteredstar.com/ff_week.php?id=50
I wouldn't mind if you put your views in on the matter. So long as you mean to be informative, there should be no problems. We just have to remember to stay level-headed and this will be fine. :)
Okay, prepare to hear some ravings... :D First in accordance with The Steak™,
[glow=blue]The following are my personal opinions. It is not my intention to offend anyone here. [/glow][/size][/i]
I'm a bit of a philosophy nut and think about this stuff in my free time, as I see the questions posed by philosophy to be the pinnacle of all learning. These are basically my own ideas that I have formulated over the years:
- The only axiom I am taking for granted is the supremacy of the principles of logic - in plain words, things have to make rational sense. I decided upon this because the alternative leaves no possibilities open for deduction and is essentially a dead-end, so even if it is "true," it is impossible for any theories to be put together.
- It is not possible to determine whether truth is absolute or perceptive, but it should be assumed to be absolute for all practical purposes for the same reason as above.
- From what I have seen so far and the development of modern quantum theory up to this point, the universe is not deterministic but instead randomized. This seems to do a much better job of explaining other observed phenomena and I am accepting it for the moment to derive some of the following ideas.
- Human actions are governed by randomized movements of particles in the brain; inherent randomization, or in other words, infinitely complex order, can exist. There can basically be no distinction between living and nonliving objects other than their levels of structural complexity.
- The universe does not revolve around humans in their current state - humans form a component of it but nothing more. It is quite possible that things will be centered around humans when we achieve higher levels of technology and further power to control things, but at the moment, the universe would essentially be the same without us.
- Factual knowledge is infinite and cannot be completely discovered in a finite amount of time. Also, the "paths" that knowledge can take over time are infinite. (for example, a new kind of math based on entirely different assumptions can be put together; humans have just followed one path in this case)
- Infinite values do exist in the universe. To give an example, if the beginning of the universe can be linked to the end, an infinite loop will be created and no further explanation will be necessary on that point.
- If humans are not at the center of everything, absolute moral values do not exist, or in other words, there is no "good" or "bad" Morals are simply by-products of very early civilization; the laws created by the first governments of man. Over the years, they have turned into religious principles and become engrained in the minds of people for the same reason stated earlier.
- God may or may not exist, but should not be taken into account because his existence will only introduce new variables into the problem that may not need even to be there, complicating an already difficult issue. Until some definite proof is found that a god-like being has any connection with our existence, by the principles of logic, it should be assumed that there is no god.
I could elaborate on that a lot more, but I would probably just bore you all to death. :D Also, in accordance with the laws of logic, all of these ideas are subject to change based on newly discovered information. I think about these issues constantly, so I may think of new stuff.
Religion mostly lives on because people teach it to their descendants at an early age; people have been brought up to believe that it is the ultimate. Since the people have collected other ideas after the religious ones, the religious ideas form a sort of foundation for the others; these become so engrained in their minds that they simply refuse to believe anything else, even if the facts are laid right before them. Marx once stated that "religion is the opium of the people" - I fully agree with him on this. People have no choice but to follow their religions unquestioningly because they don't know of the existence anything else; personally, for me, it is worth losing the protective arm of a god in favor of the sometimes harsher truth. Still, subtle trends can be seen, and I think that we are heading for a future when religion gives way to more fundamental principles.
One thing that I expect to see sometime in the future is that humans will give up their bodies for simpler and more efficient mechanical equivalents. The brain will soon follow as well, and humans wil be indistinguishable from machines. The immediate objective in view, which will be achieved a bit later, is the combining of all humans into a collective intelligence that can scientifically progress at a much faster rate, but this cannot be done using humans in their current state. (as communism has shown) It is not possible to have humans work together indefinitely and still retain randomized ideas unless a common necessity; this need can only come from a common goal, which needs to be engrained into people just as religion is today.
I have not yet determined the answer to what I think is the most important question of them all (second only to the truth one); what is the purpose of all existence? We exist, but towards what end? What would happen if nothing existed? Currently I am leaning towards the eventual assimiliation of all knowledge for the objective; although it is infinite, it can be done in a similarly infinite amount of time. We would have then essentially become the gods that we speak of - the currently accepted model of the universe shows that it is possible to modify the laws -, and the stage would be set for something new (assuming time is infinite), but what would that be? The end of the pursuit, or merely the beginning of a whole new odyssey through the next level of intelligence? I wonder if I will ever find an acceptable answer to this in the course of my life.
If you actually had the patience to read through all that, I am quite impressed. Have a cookie. :D
-
Originally posted by Setekh
I don't think Christianity... holds that what we see of Him is the only one seeing - rather, we hold that we He told us of Himself is true. :)
No argument. That's what faith is. Good Christians believe that they have a clear path to follow. But why must there be only one path to God? There are a lot of good people in the world who faithfully try to follow other paths to God. To take extreme cases, is it reasonable to believe that God would condemn someone like the Dalai Lama or Gandhi to everlasting Hell?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
God may or may not exist...
So that would make you more agnostic than atheist.
Hey i dont like oatmeal cookies i want chocolate chip! :p
-
Originally posted by Geezer
No argument. That's what faith is. Good Christians believe that they have a clear path to follow. But why must there be only one path to God? There are a lot of good people in the world who faithfully try to follow other paths to God. To take extreme cases, is it reasonable to believe that God would condemn someone like the Dalai Lama or Gandhi to everlasting Hell?
Man's greatest deeds are like dirty rags to God.
-
Scorched Lore? Yep, that's definitely the same BlueFlames. ;)
CP, every day I look at you and see bits of myself. :) I went through a very similar stage, about 4 years ago (yes, when I was about 12), and came up with all sorts of wierd and wacky theories (some which still seem to hold some decent ground today, despite my age). Then, I researched more into many religions - Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism (sp?), Judaism, Atheism (well, it's kind of like a religion) and Christianity especially. The more I tried to disprove Christianity, the more I was compelled by it.
It was very frustrating; many of my friends were also going along similar lines at this stage, seeing if they could find things wrong with it - and why Christianity was so unique to other religions - and then, I found God. :) Rather, He found me. I probably cannot prove to you through words what God now means to me, but... I tell you what, in all honesty - I don't know how non-Christians survive, mentally, when everything comes crashing down on you. I tell you the truth, I've gone through a lot of things and seen things I haven't wanted to see in the last six months, but only leaning on God has kept me stable. I kid you not. :)
-
Yes, I am open to the possibility. However, going by the standard scientific and logical laws, I will assume that he does not exist unless material evidence to the contrary is found. ;)
To take extreme cases, is it reasonable to believe that God would condemn someone like the Dalai Lama or Gandhi to everlasting Hell?
Well, Gandhi would deserve it... :p:D (I have a number of reasons for disliking him)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
If you actually had the patience to read through all that, I am quite impressed. Have a cookie. :D
Sorry, I've set my browser not to accept cookies :)
-
Originally posted by Geezer
Good Christians believe that they have a clear path to follow. But why must there be only one path to God? There are a lot of good people in the world who faithfully try to follow other paths to God. To take extreme cases, is it reasonable to believe that God would condemn someone like the Dalai Lama or Gandhi to everlasting Hell?
I see your point. It's something I still kind of grapple with, despite holding what I believe as true; but let me try and show you the limits of my understanding on this matter. Maybe it can help you, too. :)
The Dalai Lama and Gandhi are, yes, extreme cases. But nonetheless, they are human. The question is, do they fall under the category of 'sinners'? Sinners, by Christian definition, are people who 'turn away' from God. That is, instead of treating God as ruler of their own lives, they treat themselves as ruler of their own lives. This results in things like selfishness, which one could argue is the stem of a lot of the things that are wrong with this world.
Now, if the Dalai Lama and Gandhi turned away from God - that is, chose to rule their own lives, and not submit themselves to God, who is Sovereign (ie. supreme ruler), then they too are sinners. They will suffer the same fate that all other sinners will. The only way to escape that fate is not through being good, or through our own power; God states explicitly that Jesus, who paid for our sins, is the only way...
But this lands us back at square one. To answer this last question, we have to go back to the Old Covenant Laws, which state that for every sin performed, there must be an atonement sacrifice performed (this was before Jesus came, died, and was resurrected). So it went on... when you sinned, you made a sacrifice, and all was well. But it was only temporary, since all the sacrifices in the world that we can make are not perfect - so they cannot pay for our infinite sin.
The only person in the world who has never sinned, the only person who could offer a perfect sacrifice, who could hence pay for our infinite sin, is Jesus Himself. That is why He, the only perfect being, can be the only sacrifice that will pay for our sins.
I hope that explains things for you - I think I deviated a little there. :o
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Scorched Lore? Yep, that's definitely the same BlueFlames. ;)
CP, every day I look at you and see bits of myself. :) I went through a very similar stage, about 4 years ago (yes, when I was about 12), and came up with all sorts of wierd and wacky theories (some which still seem to hold some decent ground today, despite my age). Then, I researched more into many religions - Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism (sp?), Judaism, Atheism (well, it's kind of like a religion) and Christianity especially. The more I tried to disprove Christianity, the more I was compelled by it.
It was very frustrating; many of my friends were also going along similar lines at this stage, seeing if they could find things wrong with it - and why Christianity was so unique to other religions - and then, I found God. :) Rather, He found me. I probably cannot prove to you through words what God now means to me, but... I tell you what, in all honesty - I don't know how non-Christians survive, mentally, when everything comes crashing down on you. I tell you the truth, I've gone through a lot of things and seen things I haven't wanted to see in the last six months, but only leaning on God has kept me stable. I kid you not. :)
Pretty much same experience about the same time. Except most of my friends are athiest or agonostic. Which I don't mind since most of our confersations are about dirty jokes and sex.
I battle with common everyday things that most people do without thinking, and religion has helped me to not go shoot myself or do something stupid of that nature.
-
Well, I hate contributing to a discussion like this (I feel like I'm adding fuel to a fire or something), but it's 12:30 and I have nothing better to do. :p
Here's my question: If someone is going to preach love and peace, who are you to argue, no matter the specifics?
Hmm?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, I am open to the possibility. However, going by the standard scientific and logical laws, I will assume that he does not exist unless material evidence to the contrary is found. ;)
Let me ask you this, CP: :) What do you think of the Bible as an archaeological document? :)
-
Originally posted by Alikchi
Well, I hate contributing to a discussion like this (I feel like I'm adding fuel to a fire or something), but it's 12:30 and I have nothing better to do. :p
Here's my question: If someone is going to preach love and peace, who are you to argue, no matter the specifics?
Hmm?
Truthfully? I'm really quite an inadequate example. It really is like sending a boy to do a man's job, except imagine the boy is a hundred times too small for the job and the man is a hundred times too big in the first place. All I can do is humbly try to show you guys the way. After that... it's in God's hands. :)
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Truthfully? I'm really quite an inadequate example. It really is like sending a boy to do a man's job, except imagine the boy is a hundred times too small for the job and the man is a hundred times too big in the first place. All I can do is humbly try to show you guys the way. After that... it's in God's hands. :)
Phew I was trying to put it into words but you did a better job than I did.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Phew I was trying to put it into words but you did a better job than I did.
I've had the benefit of experience and lots (nay, LOTS & LOTS) of prior thought. Like all you guys, I think a lot. :D
-
CP, every day I look at you and see bits of myself. I went through a very similar stage, about 4 years ago (yes, when I was about 12), and came up with all sorts of wierd and wacky theories (some which still seem to hold some decent ground today, despite my age). Then, I researched more into many religions - Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism (sp?), Judaism, Atheism (well, it's kind of like a religion) and Christianity especially. The more I tried to disprove Christianity, the more I was compelled by it.
It was very frustrating; many of my friends were also going along similar lines at this stage, seeing if they could find things wrong with it - and why Christianity was so unique to other religions - and then, I found God. Rather, He found me. I probably cannot prove to you through words what God now means to me, but... I tell you what, in all honesty - I don't know how non-Christians survive, mentally, when everything comes crashing down on you. I tell you the truth, I've gone through a lot of things and seen things I haven't wanted to see in the last six months, but only leaning on God has kept me stable. I kid you not.
That is quite an interesting experience. My years were similar, but the more I looked at Hinduism (which I was brought up with), the more doubtful I would become of its correctness. When I originally began to question the principles, I actually was trying to find out why certain unexplained things existed, and how people originally figured those out. For example, as an analogy to Christianity, you could ask "What exact processes went into the creation of mankind" or "Why is Christ 'pure' while others are not?" Finding there that was no simple way to answer these, I moved on to more fundamental questions: Why does humanity exist? Why does god exist? I studied the other religions as well, but found them much less to my liking because there was no freedom of thought there and everything still remained unexplained. I eventually got to thinking, Does god exist? What if god did not exist? The latter question intrigued me, and I looked back in my own past: What chain of events led me to accept god? Why did I accept god? What if I had not accepted god? As a math lover, I like to carefully analyze everything and attempt to build a theory that would explain the facts. ;). When I learned more of the implications of quantum theory, it seemed to explain everything that I had previously thought god was responsible for, so that essentially became my god for one of the purposes.
The other purpose of god - an upholder of justice - did not seem as important to me, as I percieved that the world pretty much went on randomly and did not have much of what was defined as "righteousness" to it. As you said, relying on god keeps people stable and gives them courage to face the world, which is one of the main reasons that people like to accept god. As someone in the Foundation and Earth novel said, "who doesn't prefer a well-worn belief to the chilly winds of uncertainty?" ;) I decided that the truth was more important to me, however, and that there is nothing to be gained in avoiding the truth in favor of a better reality. (at the moment, at least) Over time, I made my ideas a bit more precise; there was no cognitive stagnation anymore, as was the case with religions, and so that is where I am now. ;) I still have a long way to go (probably infinite), but the pursuit appears to be an enjoyable and rewarding one. ;)
(I spent hundreds of hours thinking about this during my visits to India, since there was nothing to do there. :p I think it paid off though. ;))
Let me ask you this, CP: What do you think of the Bible as an archaeological document?
I would think the main value of it in that case would be to examine how people thought at the time and how they analyzed facts. By comparing that to what is seen today, trends can be formulated and the future can be theorized. ;)
-
I can correlate a lot of the things you say here. You really do think very closely along the lines that I do. Except, it seems, we were born in different environments; funny that we two should find each other like this. ;)
I guess I cannot argue that any of your points are wrong. To do so is similar to arguing with the existence of the fabric of space... if you prove it wrong, then you prove your very existence wrong. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? It gets so fine that it almost becomes trivial. All I can relate to you is my life experience and that through Christianity, through having a personal relationship with Jesus, I now am certain that I will be going to Heaven; my future is sealed. :)
Originally posted by CP5670
(I spent hundreds of hours thinking about this during my visits to India, since there was nothing to do there. :p I think it paid off though. ;))
Hah! What's funny, is that I have many Indian friends myself, and when they describe what it's like to return to their homeland, they all say the same thing - there's absolutely nothing to do. They all just seemed to sit around in the heat and either breathe, think and read. But eventually they run out of books, so it just turns into breathing and thinking. ;)
So, do you think Jesus, as a person - son of Joseph and Mary - existed, physically? :)
-
You know scientific probability says that ice should not float. But it does and if it did not float your basis for live couldn't survive. Probability of a molecular compound like water forming in the universe is around 1:1,000,000,000 which is alot smaller chance than winning the lottery. Life's probability is infintecimal which means it cannot be calculated.
Not making a point, but pointing it out.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
You know scientific probability says that ice should not float. But it does and if it did not float your basis for live couldn't survive. Probability of a molecular compound like water forming in the universe is around 1:1,000,000,000 which is alot smaller chance than winning the lottery. Life's probability is infintecimal which means it cannot be calculated.
Not making a point, but pointing it out.
Heh, yeah. Water is certainly... an interesting compound. When you cool it, after a certain point. it begins to get larger instead of bigger. And so ice's density is lower than water's... if there was an ice age, the ice would have floated and insulated the water below. If it had sunk, it would let the water above freeze too, everything would get colder, until we lived on an inhospitable (well, inhospitable by human standards) planet. :)
-
I can correlate a lot of the things you say here. You really do think very closely along the lines that I do. Except, it seems, we were born in different environments; funny that we two should find each other like this.
It's nice to know that there is someone who thinks similarly. :) (despite us reaching different conclusions) Great minds think alike, as the saying goes. ;)
I guess I cannot argue that any of your points are wrong. To do so is similar to arguing with the existence of the fabric of space... if you prove it wrong, then you prove your very existence wrong. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? It gets so fine that it almost becomes trivial. All I can relate to you is my life experience and that through Christianity, through having a personal relationship with Jesus, I now am certain that I will be going to Heaven; my future is sealed.
I guess we all find happiness in our own way. ;)
Hah! What's funny, is that I have many Indian friends myself, and when they describe what it's like to return to their homeland, they all say the same thing - there's absolutely nothing to do. They all just seemed to sit around in the heat and either breathe, think and read. But eventually they run out of books, so it just turns into breathing and thinking.
LOL, it seems that they had the same experience as I always do there; breathing and thinking is about all there is to. :p The last time I went there it wasn't as bad since my dad brought his laptop along - I spent most of the time playing whatever games worked on that :D - but it was still pretty boring, as there was no 3D card and FS2 therefore wouldn't work on it. So it still turned into a lot of breathing and thinking. ;) (and swatting mosquitoes, which are all over the place :p)
You know scientific probability says that ice should not float. But it does and if it did not float your basis for live couldn't survive. Probability of a molecular compound like water forming in the universe is around 1:1,000,000,000 which is alot smaller chance than winning the lottery. Life's probability is infintecimal which means it cannot be calculated.
Actually ice floats because of its higher surface area and tensile strength. (although as Setekh said, water is a fairly unusual compound ;)) The probability of a molecular compund (actually a compound other than hydrogen or helium, which are very common) forming in space is very small, but the thing is that the particles came into contact with each other so many times, that the vastness of that number cancelled out the small probability and made the amount of matter fairly abundant. The same can be said for the creation of intelligent life; the probability is very small (but still finite, because if it was infinitely small it would equal zero according to math), but the procedure was carried out so many times by the interactions of particles that it resulted in the forming of at least one species of intelligent life. ;)
So, do you think Jesus, as a person - son of Joseph and Mary - existed, physically?
Sure, I am pretty certain that there was a man named Jesus Christ around that time. He was probably the creator of the religion and had a large following that lasted after his death; anything that fits in with current scientific facts is easy to accept for me. ;)
-
hehe me likes this "gentile" muhahahaha
-
Originally posted by CP5670
LOL, it seems that they had the same experience as I always do there; breathing and thinking is about all there is to. :p The last time I went there it wasn't as bad since my dad brought his laptop along - I spent most of the time playing whatever games worked on that :D - but it was still pretty boring, as there was no 3D card and FS2 therefore wouldn't work on it. So it still turned into a lot of breathing and thinking. ;) (and swatting mosquitoes, which are all over the place :p)
Ah yes! The mosquitoes. :D I have this story of how I got the FS2 demo to work without 3D acceleration; just a Pentium II and some crazy stuff. It came out at something like 1/2FPS; but hey, it was FREESPACE 2!! ;)
Originally posted by CP5670
Sure, I am pretty certain that there was a man named Jesus Christ around that time. He was probably the creator of the religion and had a large following that lasted after his death; anything that fits in with current scientific facts is easy to accept for me. ;)
Okay, then. Do you believe that what is recorded in the Bible as what Jesus said, He actually said? Do you believe that He said those things? :) (I'm getting somewhere - have patience with me ;))
-
You guys should really read through Encarta 2002. They tracked all the religious crap (technical term) back to it's roots. In ancient Israelite religion (the 'One God' religion) that's all there was. One huge, omnipotent god and some evil force. When they started butchering all the 'savages' they decided to incorporate parts of the conquered religions into their beleifs and the polytheist views of religions such as Hindu, were incorporated under the One God as angels and demons and such. It's all quite fascinating really and it serves to illustrate how people 'reworked' the word of the One God to improve their relations with conquered peoples.
Homo Superior. Hmmm. So many ways to interpret that.
-
Ah yes! The mosquitoes. :D I have this story of how I got the FS2 demo to work without 3D acceleration; just a Pentium II and some crazy stuff. It came out at something like 1/2FPS; but hey, it was FREESPACE 2!!;)
That sounds pretty neat; I'm ready to play at 1 or 2 fps if it means FS2... ;):D
Okay, then. Do you believe that what is recorded in the Bible as what Jesus said, He actually said? Do you believe that He said those things? :) (I'm getting somewhere - have patience with me ;))
Most of that was probably true; I bet some things were exaggerated and some extra stuff was added in, but there was really nothing to gain by putting in things that were completely false. ;)
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Now, if the Dalai Lama and Gandhi turned away from God - that is, chose to rule their own lives, and not submit themselves to God, who is Sovereign (ie. supreme ruler), then they too are sinners. They will suffer the same fate that all other sinners will.
You're searching pbs with christianism? here's one: God is quite unfair, isn't he?
I think pretty much like CP on this particular subject, tho I tend to avoid discussing such a matter in a publmic chat, due to the various beliefs of peoples around.
Here's some questions I could never find an answer to (tho I never really searched): how is it possible to discrimininze one religion in favour of another? Why didn't God show up before the Jews ( or someone else, forgive my lack of knowlegde on this matter), when mankind already existed for a long time? Did God thought humans were worthless before? So did all the people from back then were condemned to hell, no even having the knowledge that God exists?
Pardon my opinion, but in the christian religion, I see only things that would frighten me if I had the faith. All our actions are kindda worthless, if everything you need to do is just to believe in Jesus and God.
Mmh, but I guess actually all that could have been answered if I had read the bible through ( I stoppped after the 37th "and God saw that it was good" ).
:rolleyes: I think I'm worthless in this kind of discussions actually
-
The existance of God is extremely easy to prove by logic:
If the universe is infinite, anything, even the most unprobable things, exist. Therefore, God exists. ;)
-
Originally posted by Styxx
The existance of God is extremely easy to prove by logic:
If the universe is infinite, anything, even the most unprobable things, exist. Therefore, God exists. ;)
correction: anything can exist as long as it applies to the laws of physics or whatever: I bet thetre's no 12 legged pink and purple chickens everywhere, :ha:
-
Originally posted by venom2506
correction: anything can exist as long as it applies to the laws of physics or whatever: I bet thetre's no 12 legged pink and purple chickens everywhere, :ha:
No, the 12 legged pink and purple chickens are not everywhere - but they're out there somewhere, you just never saw them! :D:ha:
-
I meant anywhere, damn i keep doing typos :p
-
If the universe is infinite then at some point, the laws of physics change.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
You're searching pbs with christianism? here's one: God is quite unfair, isn't he?
I think pretty much like CP on this particular subject, tho I tend to avoid discussing such a matter in a publmic chat, due to the various beliefs of peoples around.
Here's some questions I could never find an answer to (tho I never really searched): how is it possible to discrimininze one religion in favour of another? Why didn't God show up before the Jews ( or someone else, forgive my lack of knowlegde on this matter), when mankind already existed for a long time? Did God thought humans were worthless before? So did all the people from back then were condemned to hell, no even having the knowledge that God exists?
Pardon my opinion, but in the christian religion, I see only things that would frighten me if I had the faith. All our actions are kindda worthless, if everything you need to do is just to believe in Jesus and God.
Mmh, but I guess actually all that could have been answered if I had read the bible through ( I stoppped after the 37th "and God saw that it was good" ).
:rolleyes: I think I'm worthless in this kind of discussions actually
There is something in there about ingnorance, mostly applies to children tho, but I bet it applies to those who lived their entire life without ever hearing of God as well.
I think wasn't Abraham that was the first monotheisist man? Don't remember.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
I meant anywhere, damn i keep doing typos :p
Yeah, typos that manage to completely change the meaning of the sentence. :D
-
I think pretty much like CP on this particular subject, tho I tend to avoid discussing such a matter in a publmic chat, due to the various beliefs of peoples around.
Here's some questions I could never find an answer to (tho I never really searched): how is it possible to discrimininze one religion in favour of another? Why didn't God show up before the Jews ( or someone else, forgive my lack of knowlegde on this matter), when mankind already existed for a long time? Did God thought humans were worthless before? So did all the people from back then were condemned to hell, no even having the knowledge that God exists?
Pardon my opinion, but in the christian religion, I see only things that would frighten me if I had the faith. All our actions are kindda worthless, if everything you need to do is just to believe in Jesus and God.
Venom got some of the points there; every religion I have seen has these weird quirks in it that are completely unexplainable. I tried to explain the weird things in Hinduism, but came to the conclusion that they are only what people use in place of what they do not understand, rather than trying to actually explain the things, and therefore, by the rules of logic, should be discarded.
The existance of God is extremely easy to prove by logic:
If the universe is infinite, anything, even the most unprobable things, exist. Therefore, God exists. ;)
Yes, but there are an infinite number of things as well. Like I said earlier, try applying mathematics to logic: infinite quantities can be compared with other infinite quantities, and finite ones with other finite ones. You just cannot mix them together. ;)
If the universe is infinite then at some point, the laws of physics change.
They probably do, based on the general relativity theory and the standard model of the universe. ;)
No, the 12 legged pink and purple chickens are not everywhere - but they're out there somewhere, you just never saw them!
As I said earlier; no possibility can be completely ruled out, but things should be kept as simple as possible for deduction purposes. This includes assuming things that have not been observed or have no effect on our lives to not exist. ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
As I said earlier; no possibility can be completely ruled out, but things should be kept as simple as possible for deduction purposes. This includes assuming things that have not been observed or have no effect on our lives to not exist. ;)
And that's the biggest flaw I see in your logic pattern. Assuming that a thing does not exist is surely the easiest path, but in an universe that is, for all we know, infinite, it's most certainly the wrong path. ;)
Ah, and you can compare finite and infinite values, you just have to use certain... tricks. :D
-
Yes, as I said, it could well be "wrong," but should be assumed to be true (again, apply math here ;)) because the other direction leads to a dead-end and we cannot progress from that point on at all. (this is a basic axiom of logic) If we have to take things into account that do not have any effect on our universe, anything could exist and there is no point in trying to figure stuff out, so we should head in the other direction for now.
Ah, and you can compare finite and infinite values, you just have to use certain... tricks. :D
This I must see... :D Try the following:
¥
å sin( p x ) cos( p x )
x->1
:D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, as I said, it could well be "wrong," but should be assumed to be true (again, apply math here ;)) because the other direction leads to a dead-end and we cannot progress from that point on at all. (this is a basic axiom of logic) If we have to take things into account that do not have any effect on our universe, anything could exist and there is no point in trying to figure stuff out, so we should head in the other direction for now.
But the discussion about the existance of a God or supreme being is not something related to your frame of reference alone, it's related to the universe as a whole - therefore, you must take in consideration anything that's possible in the universe. It escapes the standard for logic problems. ;)
-
This I must see... :D Try the following:
¥
å sin( p x ) cos( p x )
x->1
:D [/B][/quote]
And what does the sin and cos of X have to do with anything?
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
And what does the sin and cos of X have to do with anything?
Absolutely nothing... :D :p
-
But the discussion about the existance of a God or supreme being is not something related to your frame of reference alone, it's related to the universe as a whole - therefore, you must take in consideration anything that's possible in the universe. It escapes the standard for logic problems. ;)
Yes, but as I said earlier, we should only take into account that which has an effect on the universe, because if this is not the case, how would you deduce anything? Cognitive thinking itself would be meaningless, so we have already discovered all that can be known in that area. Because of this, we have already gone part of the way towards proving it cannot be so. The only alternative here is to go in the other direction, and coming back to this part once the other part has been solved. (a good strategy in any problem is to break it down into discrete parts; this is what we are trying to do here)
BTW you are using logic here to disprove logic; a bit strange, huh? :D
Also, what does this have to with frames of reference? :D
And what does the sin and cos of X have to do with anything?
A nice nonmonotonic oscillating series to demonstrate that it is not possible to directly compare finite and infinite quantities. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, but as I said earlier, we should only take into account that which has an effect on the universe, because if this is not the case, how would you deduce anything? Cognitive thinking itself would be meaningless, so we have already discovered all that can be known in that area. Because of this, we have already gone part of the way towards proving it cannot be so. The only alternative here is to go in the other direction, and coming back to this part once the other part has been solved. (a good strategy in any problem is to break it down into discrete parts; this is what we are trying to do here)
What does this have to with frames of reference BTW? :D
It has to do with frames of reference because you're clearly saying that you ignore things that don't affect the universe, while you state that the universe is that which is perceivable by you. You're talking about logic inside your frame of reference (or context), not in the universe as a whole. You're discarding a simple and logic law of probabilities because you never saw it proved inside your context - simply because your context is too limited to ever prove it (as is every human being's context).
Originally posted by CP5670
A nice nonmonotonic oscillating series to show that it is not possible to directly compare finite and infinite quantities. :D
You ever studied formal semantics and theory of categories?
-
5 Pages and the topic hasn't been locked! WOW! :eek:
Oh and Setekh: I wasn't being offended or anything about what was before the big orange type, it's just that you were pointing it out and all so you were being pretty hypocritical. No hard feelings.
Damn do you people have a lot to write about on this topic!
And it's true, if people are preaching love and peace, just under a different name, why have people been so hostile towards them in the past? Wierd.
-
It has to do with frames of reference because you're clearly saying that you ignore things that don't affect the universe, while you state that the universe is that which is perceivable by you. You're talking about logic inside your frame of reference (or context), not in the universe as a whole. You're discarding a simple and logic law of probabilities because you never saw it proved inside your context - simply because your context is too limited to ever prove it (as is every human being's context).
Exactly, which is why I said the probability always exists, but we should concentrate on the other part of the problem until it has been fully solved, because, as you said, the perceptive part is insolvable. So, uh, what's your point? :p:D
Human beings in their current state will not be able to prove this mathematically, which is why I stated earlier that the progress towards further complexity is inevitable if we are to prove this.
You ever studied formal semantics and theory of categories?
No, but it isn't really necessary here. You just need to know a little bit of variational calculus and number theory to be able to prove that. ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Exactly, which is why I said the probability always exists, but we should concentrate on the other part of the problem until it has been fully solved, because, as you said, the perceptive part is insolvable. So, uh, what's your point? :p:D
Human beings in their current state will not be able to prove this mathematically, which is why I stated earlier that the progress towards further complexity is inevitable if we are to prove this.
My point is - it's not provable by perception inside our current context, but the probability is there - and in an infinite universe (which may or may not exist, actually - in fact, the current trend points to the existance of an infinite number of finite universes, which leads to the same result) it will be true. :D
Originally posted by CP5670
No, but it isn't really necessary here. You just need to know a little bit of variational calculus and number theory to be able to prove that. ;)
Actually, if you take in consideration any of those things I mentioned, you can compare infinite and finite values - either by derivating a semantic value for each of them or by representing them in terms of categories (what would make them not only comparable, but would allow you to operate the values at will). ;)
-
My point is - it's not provable by perception inside our current context, but the probability is there - and in an infinite universe (which may or may not exist, actually - in fact, the current trend points to the existance of an infinite number of finite universes, which leads to the same result) it will be true. :D
Uh, yeah; that is what I said. :p So what are you trying to prove? :D Also, what will be true? (remember that by taking no assumptions, nothing can be true or false)
Actually, if you take in consideration any of those things I mentioned, you can compare infinite and finite values - either by derivating a semantic value for each of them or by representing them in terms of categories (what would make them not only comparable, but would allow you to operate the values at will). ;)
I'm not quite sure what a category is, but it is probably something like a sum if it is possible to express it finitely. However, that isn't necessarily solvable. :D
Try this one: :D (the formal "d-e" definition would be necessary here)
lim x+1
x->¥
lim x³
x->¥
If this is true, according to you, x³=x+1. :D
Tell you what; I have to go somewhere for a while now, but I'll be back to argue later. ;7 :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Try this one: :D (the formal "d-e" definition would be necessary here)
lim x+1
x->¥
lim x³
x->¥
If this is true, according to you, x³=x+1. :D
Tell you what; I have to go somewhere for a while now, but I'll be back to argue later. ;7 :D
Math nerd. :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Uh, yeah; that is what I said. :p So what are you trying to prove? :D Also, what will be true? (remember that by taking no assumptions, nothing can be true or false)
The original assumption is the law of probabilities. Somewhere in the universe, or in one of the infinite universes, anything can be true. Simple as that, eh? ;7
Originally posted by CP5670
I'm not quite sure what a category is, but it is probably something like a sum if it is possible to express it finitely. However, that isn't necessarily solvable. :D
Try this one: :D (the formal "d-e" definition would be necessary here)
lim x+1
x->¥
lim x³
x->¥
If this is true, according to you, x³=x+1. :D
Hell, no! I don't know if they told you, but there are infinite degrees of infinity, and infinite numbers of infinites degrees of infinities, and so on. The infinity found on your first equation is not the same infinity that was found on the second. I don't know the name in english, but there's a term for that (it's álefe in portuguese).
And categories have almost no similarities to the basic math constructs (that you have been using up to now). They are a completely different take on mathematics, and it would take LONG to explain - but I suggest you look into it if you like math. They are for math what the GUT is for physics. :nod:
-
The original assumption is the law of probabilities. Somewhere in the universe, or in one of the infinite universes, anything can be true. Simple as that, eh? ;7
That is why we are not discounting the probability completely, but not taking it into consideration until the current problem is solved. ;)
Hell, no! I don't know if they told you, but there are infinite degrees of infinity, and infinite numbers of infinites degrees of infinities, and so on. The infinity found on your first equation is not the same infinity that was found on the second. I don't know the name in english, but there's a term for that (it's álefe in portuguese).
And categories have almost no similarities to the basic math constructs (that you have been using up to now). They are a completely different take on mathematics, and it would take LONG to explain - but I suggest you look into it if you like math. They are for math what the GUT is for physics. :nod:
I need to look at the category stuff sometime. Yes, I have heard of the "infinity of infinities" (I spent some months trying to figure out why 0/0 was indeterminate and not imaginary and ran into this a number of times) but the infinity we're talking about here is a finite symbol for all the infinities combined. There are an infinite number of infinite values between any given finite value and an infinite value, so that is what the ¥ here means; it is not possible to go any further, because it will lead to the same value. However, things like ¥-¥ and ¥/¥ are indeterminate, and more information is required (namely, the "roots" of the ¥'s), which means that part of the problem (the part that can be solved) has to be determined first. Apply this to our little philosophy issue and you get the thing I was saying. ;)
Anyway I gotta go now (parents are shouting from the car :p); see you in a bit. ;) ;7
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That is why we are not discounting the probability completely, but not taking it into consideration until the current problem is solved. ;)
And that's why I told you about contexts. You're trying to solve it one way, I'm trying to solve it another way. You're focusing on what you can perceive, I'm focusing on what is made possible by the laws of probability.
Originally posted by CP5670
I need to look at the category stuff sometime. Yes, I have heard of the "infinity of infinities" (I spent some months trying to figure out why 0/0 was indeterminate and not imaginary and ran into this a number of times) but the infinity we're talking about here is a finite symbol for all the infinities combined. There are an infinite number of infinite values between any given finite value and an infinite value, so that is what the ¥ here means; it is not possible to go any further, because it will lead to the same value. However, things like ¥-¥ and ¥/¥ are indeterminate, and more information is required (namely, the "roots" of the ¥'s), which means that part of the problem (the part that can be solved) has to be determined first. Apply this to our little philosophy issue and you get the thing I was saying. ;)
Actually, the two infinities you stated are different, they're just not comparable through standard basic math. Look into categories and formal semantics (this last one is damn fun), and you'll get a new view of all this. Just be sure to have lots of time before you start. :)
-
Styxx, you can't assume that because something may exist, you can use it. In this case, why would God be the most powerful being in the universe? Everything exists in the universe, according to you, right? so I decide that there's a god more powerful than the christian one, hey, I decide he created this God, and told him to create the whole fluff about christianism maybe. Why not? Now I can hear everybody yelling at me, damn :p ( So I have to point out that I don't take this hypotesys seriously, and it's ABSOLUTLY NOT an attempt at offending anyone )
Anyway, following your conception of the infinite universe, Styxx, please prove me wrong :)
-
Originally posted by venom2506
Anyway, following your conception of the infinite universe, Styxx, please prove me wrong :)
Who says I want to prove you wrong? :p
Then again, if there's a God that's more powerful than any other, that one would be the one recognized by Christianism...
-
Anyone want a piece of my at 9am in the morning made appel pie?:D
hey i was hungry so why not make appel pie:p
-
Originally posted by Styxx
if there's a God that's more powerful than any other, that one would be the one recognized by Christianism...
I'm confident that any religion following one (or even many) gods would claim to recognise any god that showed up.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Now, if the Dalai Lama and Gandhi turned away from God - that is, chose to rule their own lives, and not submit themselves to God, who is Sovereign (ie. supreme ruler), then they too are sinners. They will suffer the same fate that all other sinners will. The only way to escape that fate is not through being good, or through our own power; God states explicitly that Jesus, who paid for our sins, is the only way...
The only person in the world who has never sinned, the only person who could offer a perfect sacrifice, who could hence pay for our infinite sin, is Jesus Himself. That is why He, the only perfect being, can be the only sacrifice that will pay for our sins.
Well, I went to sleep and the thread went on. But I want to go back to what Setekh said for a moment:
If you want to say that anyone who sins "turns his face from God", I've got no problem with it - provided "turning your face from God" is used to describe things like murder and rape as well.
But, again, you're assuming that the face of God shown to Christians is the only face of God that there is. The Dalai Lama has not turned his face from God. He is seeking God along the path he knows. This is where simple faith, simple belief, enters in. Whatever brought you to your own beliefs, whether it was study or sudden insight or the words of your elders or something else, those same things happen to non-Christians. A devout Moslem or Jew or Hindu is as sure that his beliefs are true as you are.
Now, maybe the Christians are the only people on earth who know the true path to salvation and maybe there's many true paths. And maybe there is only one true path and it's the one that the Dalai Lama is following. For our time on earth, we can only do our best - none of us can prove that his path is the only true one - it's all "belief".
-
Originally posted by Thunder
I'm confident that any religion following one (or even many) gods would claim to recognise any god that showed up.
I heard a clergyman (I'm pretty sure he was a Catholic, but it was a while ago) on TV. He said something along the lines of "If the heavens suddenly parted and the face of God was revealed to all mankind, we would have God but we would no longer have faith." He seemed to think that that was a bad thing.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That is why we are not discounting the probability completely, but not taking it into consideration until the current problem is solved. ;)
I need to look at the category stuff sometime. Yes, I have heard of the "infinity of infinities" (I spent some months trying to figure out why 0/0 was indeterminate and not imaginary and ran into this a number of times) but the infinity we're talking about here is a finite symbol for all the infinities combined. There are an infinite number of infinite values between any given finite value and an infinite value, so that is what the ¥ here means; it is not possible to go any further, because it will lead to the same value. However, things like ¥-¥ and ¥/¥ are indeterminate, and more information is required (namely, the "roots" of the ¥'s), which means that part of the problem (the part that can be solved) has to be determined first. Apply this to our little philosophy issue and you get the thing I was saying. ;)
Anyway I gotta go now (parents are shouting from the car :p); see you in a bit. ;) ;7
There are two types of formula thinking. Mathematical and Scientific. Math is in a controled enviroment(A bubble) while scientific formulas normally account for the randomness of the universe. The atom for instances. We knew it exist before we could see it. The electron and nucleus with the protons, neutrons and quarks, we can't see them but indirectly know they are there. Point is with your type of thinking unless you can prove something exist you don't consider it a factor. Thust if you don't consider it a factor than you wouldn't atempt to discover if it does or not. Am I following you?
Oh and BTW it's Christianity not Christianism.
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Oh and BTW it's Christianity not Christianism.
Ops, my bad. :D
-
I'm currently on a slow computer with a crappy 56k modem and an awful laptop mouse (I'm in a hotel in Pittsburg :p) and will be on this for the next few days, so bear with me. ;)
Anyone want a piece of my at 9am in the morning made appel pie? ;)
I just had apple pie. :D
And that's why I told you about contexts. You're trying to solve it one way, I'm trying to solve it another way. You're focusing on what you can perceive, I'm focusing on what is made possible by the laws of probability.
Exactly, but the thing is that you cannot really get anywhere using that approach. The laws of probability state that logic itself might be flawed and that its own laws might not be true, which is why I refer to it as a dead-end. If we want to think about the topic at all, we have no choice but to go with the other assumption. ;)
I think we have gotten a bit off-topic though. I am all for agnosticism (which makes perfect sense to me), but we should not take into account the existence of a god until all known values have been completely understood in order to maximize efficiency in accordance with logic. Once this has been done, the realm of hypothesizing is open, and we can attempt to incorporate the god idea into existing stuff and see what comes up.
Actually, the two infinities you stated are different, they're just not comparable through standard basic math. Look into categories and formal semantics (this last one is damn fun), and you'll get a new view of all this. Just be sure to have lots of time before you start.
I'll need to look into this subject more if it goes into infinite quantities, but calculus of variations specifically proves that quantities that are either absolutely infinite or zero cannot be directly compared (divided or subtracted, essentially) without the stuff that they were computed from. I was skeptical of this as well until I did some more work into oscillating series and finally saw a proper proof of the thing, along with several supporting examples. The subjects you talk of probably deal with general infinities instead of absolute infinities, which can indeed be directly compared and manipulated. ;)
I'm confident that any religion following one (or even many) gods would claim to recognise any god that showed up.
That definitely makes sense to me. ;)
There are two types of formula thinking. Mathematical and Scientific. Math is in a controled enviroment(A bubble) while scientific formulas normally account for the randomness of the universe. The atom for instances. We knew it exist before we could see it. The electron and nucleus with the protons, neutrons and quarks, we can't see them but indirectly know they are there. Point is with your type of thinking unless you can prove something exist you don't consider it a factor. Thust if you don't consider it a factor than you wouldn't atempt to discover if it does or not. Am I following you?
Absolutely correct. Unknown variables should only be taken into account after all known variables have been synthetically analyzed. If we indirectly know that elementary particles exist, it is because we have observed their effect on other objects; they do have an effect on our universe and can therefore be explored further. This is not the case with god; there has been no credible observation of god, nor have we anything that would require god to explain. (you could call the unknown "god," which is fine, but it is necessary to go beyond that in order to form theories)
Although if we are going by science, that dictates skepticism unless proof is derived from existing facts, while math actually is the one that leaves the possibility more open, but even then, has similar proofing systems.
-
Okay, I've read through all this (every word: yes, I really did). I will not reply, since my intellectual faculties will probably let me down. ;) Instead, I'll point you to a very good little book. You should be able to find it, CP (and all those others who want to read it) - it's called "Know Why You Believe", by one Paule E. Little. It explains a lot. I've read through it and, short of quoting the entire book, I really can't tell you how fitting it is to this very situation.
Please, I beg you, read this book. It is available worldwide. You might even find it on Amazon. I will consider it a favour to me if you actively pursue this book, find it, and read it. Thanks. :nod:
-
"why i believe" is also a good book.
-
Originally posted by sandwich
"Echad", not "Yachid". :)
you talk funny
-
Errr....sort to on topic (you guys kinda lost me back in the 2nd page)
Im not Jewish ( Im Roman Catholic) but the most Jewishy thing I've ever done was go to this Jewish event where a 13 (or something like that) year old read Hebrew (I think its Hebrew) text and stuff...everyone wore those Jewish hats.....it was like two hours long....
But there was candy involved so I think it all worked out. :nod:
-
I've seen ceremonies like that. Never participated in one, but I've seen them. :nod:
-
Originally posted by JR2000Z
Errr....sort to on topic (you guys kinda lost me back in the 2nd page)
Im not Jewish ( Im Roman Catholic) but the most Jewishy thing I've ever done was go to this Jewish event where a 13 (or something like that) year old read Hebrew (I think its Hebrew) text and stuff...everyone wore those Jewish hats.....it was like two hours long....
But there was candy involved so I think it all worked out. :nod:
A Bar Mitzvah if the person is a guy and a Bat Mitzvah if the person is a girl. It's a rite of passage where the kid becomes a member of the adult Jewish community. I had mine last February. And you don't have to be exactly 13, you can be older too, but not younger. And the hat is a kippah (sp?) in Hebrew or a yamulke(pronounced yamukah) in Yiddish. The candy is only sometimes used (and when it is, you usually throw it at the kid when the service is over. did you do that JZ?) and it symbolizes the sweetness of the event. At my cousin's Bar Mitzvah, the rabbi (Jewish version of the priest or minister) threw a big bag of jelly beans at him when the service was over, but the kid ducked and it hit somebody else...that was an expirience. The rabbi had a good arm for an old guy though. The service can be from 1 1/2 hours long to 3 hours (maybe more in other places I don't know). Anyway, that is a seriously important event...especially because everyone who comes usually gives you a really cool present! :D But it is very important and very symbolic. It's basically like confirmation (sp?) for some Christian people. And that's just the basic overview. I could go on and on and on forever about it but I'll spare you guys from the pain of Hebrew and stuff, since the pronunciation doesn't even come out at all the same as the way it would be written in english. For example, echad isn't the normal ch sound but a sound you make with your throat.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
A Bar Mitzvah if the person is a guy and a Bat Mitzvah if the person is a girl. It's a rite of passage where the kid becomes a member of the adult Jewish community. .
In a wider context, many different peoples have had rites of passage to adulthood. In other times, it could have been surviving in the wilderness or killing a lion. Now, it might be a "debutant's ball" or something similar. The Jews are the only people I know of whose rite of passage is to prove that you can read. That might not sound like a big deal in the modern world, but it wasn't so long ago that the vast majority of people were totally illiterate.
-
Originally posted by Carl
you talk funny
LOL! :lol: :lol:
-
Confirmations much longer, about 4-6 weeks of 1 hour meetings and then a whole day at a centre.
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Confirmations much longer, about 4-6 weeks of 1 hour meetings and then a whole day at a centre.
If it's what I think it is, it was a lot shorter for me. Not that I really cared that much about it, anyway - I was forced by my parents. :p
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Confirmations much longer, about 4-6 weeks of 1 hour meetings and then a whole day at a centre.
Confirmations? what's that? lol You can tell I'm not Catholic.
<---- Baptist :p
-
My friend was recently confirmed (he is a member of the Presbyterian church - a Presbytery is basically just a meeting of all the nearby church leaders to check up on each other and make sure all is good), and the confirmation is simply one's 'confirmation' as a member of the church - very similar to a coming of age thing, when someone is recognised as an adult. We could be talking about something different here. :)
-
Originally posted by Corsair
A The candy is only sometimes used (and when it is, you usually throw it at the kid when the service is over. did you do that JZ?) and it symbolizes the sweetness of the event.
No, I pretty much watched. If I knew that the candy was usd to hit the kid with, than I definately would have done it. ;)
-
You should be able to find it, CP (and all those others who want to read it) - it's called "Know Why You Believe"
Thanks for the recommendation; I think I might have actually seen this title somewhere... ;)
In a wider context, many different peoples have had rites of passage to adulthood. In other times, it could have been surviving in the wilderness or killing a lion. Now, it might be a "debutant's ball" or something similar. The Jews are the only people I know of whose rite of passage is to prove that you can read. That might not sound like a big deal in the modern world, but it wasn't so long ago that the vast majority of people were totally illiterate.
Yes, I think almost every religion has this this type of thing. I had a similar event a long time ago; I cannot remember much, as it has been over eight years since then, but what you guys are saying sounds similar to that. ;) (if I remember correctly, the crowd also threw stuff at the person in question, only it was colored rice, which was harder to dodge :p)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Thanks for the recommendation; I think I might have actually seen this title somewhere... ;)
Fantastic. :nod: Look, it's even on Amazon, if all else fails... :)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156476754X/qid=1017653864/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8186746-5196749
(As you can see, I'm very serious about wanting you to read this book. ;))
-
Originally posted by CP5670
(if I remember correctly, the crowd also threw stuff at the person in question, only it was colored rice, which was harder to dodge :p)
Well, if someone had thrown stuff at me, you can be sure that they'd get something in return, if you get what I mean. ;)
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Confirmations much longer, about 4-6 weeks of 1 hour meetings and then a whole day at a centre.
Bar Mitzvah training for me was like 3 years of four hours a week.
That's cuz I can't sing but still...:snipe:
-
Originally posted by Corsair
That's cuz I can't sing but still...:snipe:
Singing...? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Singing...? :wtf:
Yeah, I had to sing it all. Most people do. :snipe:
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Yeah, I had to sing it all. Most people do. :snipe:
That's... weird. :p
-
That's...part of being Jewish! :p
-
Originally posted by Corsair
That's...part of being Jewish! :p
As I said, weird. Do you wear those hats all day and eat only kosher (sp?) food too?