Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/30/05 10:47 AM, afliXion wrote:

You highlighted what I originally said. But you just proved my point, because it simply doesn't contains the words 'can't be trusted.' And I was never implying that the Spanish version was 'wrong.' Its just that when debating the Bible and word meanings the original language is best. Cause you know, The authors of the Bible didn't speak spanish.
Your criticisms of my criticisms are null and void, because I never criticized it. I simply said its not important right now, because the original text is what should be used for that matter.

So obviously all discussions about biblical texts can only be had in it's original aramaic. Shall we...?

The only thing you have pointed out is a criticism that I never even made.
I didn't argue spanish semantics at all. What was implied obviously is that if we were going to argue Bible semantics it would make no sense to use the Spanish Bible, but the original language.

Then bring it out. Let us discuss the subtleties of the aramaic language and how the word "neighbor" as it was translated in english might be taken.

But anyway.. I think the passage your refering to is Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

I never saw 'violent' death anywhere. That was your own artistic liscense.

Highlighted again for your ease of reading. Tell me again how that doesn't imply being put to death in a violent manner? How does one's blood flow if violence is not put upon them?

Maybe decapitation? Just one quick painless swipe with a sword? Who knows how they did it.

Umm... I'm not sure if you're trying to be cute or just completely missing the point here. The passage implies violence... you claimed not to see any violence in the passage... and now you suggest Decapitation as a NON-violent way of spilling someone's blood...? Man, you guys are more messed up than even *I* thought.

And you too.

Yes, except I admit it.

Let me say it again, because it bears repeating: If everyone else can be wrong, then so can you. There is NO more evidence for your religion that for any other. In fact, if it were a popularity contest, even if christianity got to include every minor sect and branch it wouldn't come out on top.

Actually there is more evidence for my 'religion.' But thats another topic.
I think what you meant to say is 'evidence that I know about.'

Bring it. I'm serious. If there is actual scientific evidence for your religion that trumps the evidence for any other religion, then show it here. And I would suggest sources of an unbiased nature. Also, what, exactly, IS your religion? There are so many these days, and a lot of them claim to be "christian".

Not sure where your going with that.... I wouldn't call the Torah blasphemy, considering it is in the Christian Bible.....

Where I'm going is this: every heartfelt argument you make defending your religion about faith and everything else can be made for any other religion. So basically every faith-based argument you make is an argument for another religion as well.

So god created a universe and a people that he knew a vast majority would spend in eternal suffering? Well i don't know about you, but that certainly makes ME feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I can feel the love of god flowing through me like warm syrup.

God does not predestin our actions, He predestins the consequences to our actions.
I hope you can understand that.

Y'know... I've heard that line spouted by at least three different people on this board... and none of them got it. I know what you're TRYING to say, but I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. Predetermining the actions or the consequences doesn't matter, they all add up to the same thing: Path predetermined. God doesn't predetermine multiple consequences for a choice because he knows what you will choose. As such: he predetermines your actions by the very act of knowing which action it is you will take.

Your feeble attempt at some pseudo-existentialism doesn't change the fact that god created the universe KNOWING how it would end and where everyone would end up. The mechanics of how they got there, for this argument, aren't important.

I'd just like to point out that every person I've ever known to be injured or killed by a gun was so by their OWN gun.

One was accidental. One was a break-in robbery that turned ugly. One was a club night gone wrong. 3 people dead, one injured and all with their own guns.

On a completely different note:

Guns are illegal: ZOMG drive-by SWORDINGS!!!

sunuva... my HTML didn't work thus my "highlighting" didn't happen.

First passage "highlighted":

I don't care what the spanish translation says. Its not important. What is important is what the original language says... You can't prove your point by a spanish translation.

Second passage "highlighted":

they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

I'd like to thank you, before I go on, for rising to every single piece of bait I placed in my reply.

At 5/30/05 12:15 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 5/29/05 03:35 AM, afliXion wrote:

I don't care what the spanish translation says. Its not important. What is important is what the original language says. But unfortunatly I don't know where I can find out.
You can't prove your point by a spanish translation. Because that probably isn't what the original text meant.

When did I say no translation can be trusted?? Can you highligh it? No you can't because I never said that. All I said the most important text is the original. *duh*

Ok... I have highlighted it. While not word for word, what you imply is that the spanish translation is wrong. And by such logic, all other translations have the ability to be just as wrong (as they are just translations and not the original). And to be able to know where these translation errors lie, one must be fluent in each of the languages involved. You are not, thus your criticisms of the spanish translations are null and void.

Now I agree that one would need to know idioms and things like that for the original language. But certainly not every single one from Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. And um, if you don't know them either, then shut up. ;)

Except I'm not arguing the semantics of that phrase... you are. I am simply pointing out the gaping flaw in your argument, which is not affected in any way by my knowledge of the bible, the spanish language, or aramaic. Good game... next map.

But anyway.. I think the passage your refering to is Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

I never saw 'violent' death anywhere. That was your own artistic liscense.

Highlighted again for your ease of reading. Tell me again how that doesn't imply being put to death in a violent manner? How does one's blood flow if violence is not put upon them?

No body is picking and choosing. Homosexuality is STILL an abomination.

By not putting homosexuals to death you are violating gods direct command. And yet you claim to be following gods word, and that your stance on this matter is in accordance with that word.

Of course billions of people can be wrong. There was a time when the whole world thought the earth was flat. Except for one person. There was a time when people thought going to the moon would never happen. Except for one person. Just because the majority of people believe something is wrong, doesn't mean its wrong.

Then

so

can

you.

Let me say it again, because it bears repeating: If everyone else can be wrong, then so can you. There is NO more evidence for your religion that for any other. In fact, if it were a popularity contest, even if christianity got to include every minor sect and branch it wouldn't come out on top.

If I could argue the Judaic religion (or the Hindu, or the Muslim) with any effectiveness I would, just to mirror your own arguments back at you with a different name capitalized. If I were able to drop the single sentance out of the Torah, or the Qu'ran that satisfied my current argument I would just to watch all you christians go up in arms at the blasphemy.

The way the world is today most people probably will go to Hell. Jesus told us plainly that this is so. Matthew 7:13
"You can enter God's Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell[a] is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose the easy way. But the gateway to life is small, and the road is narrow, and only a few ever find it."

So god created a universe and a people that he knew a vast majority would spend in eternal suffering? Well i don't know about you, but that certainly makes ME feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I can feel the love of god flowing through me like warm syrup.

At 5/29/05 02:23 PM, afliXion wrote:

At 5/29/05 03:55 AM, Empanado wrote:

At 5/29/05 03:35 AM, afliXion wrote:

I don't care what the spanish translation says. Its not important. What is important is what the original language says. But unfortunatly I don't know where I can find out.
You can't prove your point by a spanish translation. Because that probably isn't what the original text meant.

Wow... just wow. Well, since no translation can be trusted, how's about you shut up until you DO know, eh? Until you can actually understand the original language, including all idiomatic uses of the time, then your understanding of the book, ESPECIALLY the idiosyncrasies of each languge into which it was translated, is flawed, and unfit to argue such points.

But anyway.. I think the passage your refering to is Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

...Homosexuality is a terrible abomination. In Moses day, death was the necessary penalty.

Apologies for the edit... But all of a sudden, bible passages that are extremely specific on what MUST be done in certain circumstances are no longer relavent to current day? If this is the word of god, as you all so frenetcally proclaim, then it's specificity and meaning should be universal, for ALL times. Your own bible says that Homosexuals should be put to violent death.

But now the death penalty for that kind of thing isn't necessary.

So then you find that this part of the bible isn't to be followed anymore? Well, since we get to pick and choose now, that makes things MUCH easier, doesn't it?

Answer me this, since it is "your" religion that is "right", what happens to the majority of the human population that has ever lived believing otherwise? Can billions of people be wrong?

Amazing all the knee-jerk reactions you get when you dare mutter the word "Communism".

ZOMG communism is inherantly evil, so of course my good book could never be saying anything that resembles a communist ideal!

Get a clue people.

At 5/24/05 01:35 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 5/24/05 12:00 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:
Solar sails are about our only possible mode of theoretical transportation that is feasible in the next centuries or so. And that is still a slow, craped out stretch.

What about that theoretical nuclear craft? The one that drops nukes out the ass and rides the shockwaves. They figured that thing could get up to 0.5C (assuming the shockwaves didn't crush the ship. Not good for universal exploration but it would get us around the solar system pretty good.

The problem is the bombs. You'd need a whole hell of a lot o get to 0.5 c... and twice as many to get back. We'd have to dissasemble and remake almost every nuke in our arsenal, then make about 300 more for a trip to Mars. An Orion craft can work, but is materially unfeasable.

There are 2 feasable crafts that are currently thought probable for our first long-range manned space mission: The Solar Sail and the Ramjet. The Ramjet is only theoretical right now. We have the knowledge and technology to make it, but it would be supremely cost-prohibitive. The solar sail is possible, but very slow. The amount of technology one would need to be able to efficiently travel the galaxy is immense. to say that we are a couple of theoretical "Eureka's" from having the "key to the galaxy/universe" is VERY optimistic.

Not that I don't hope you're right. Hell, if scientists figured out a way to go FTL, I'd be signing up for the first trip out. But I don't really think it's going to happen in my lifetime.

At 5/23/05 09:10 PM, Pritty_Kitty wrote:
Where are the 'missing links'?

Out there somewhere. It's a rather large earth to dig up, and not every animal that has ever lived has had the decency to become nice and fossilized for our study. Stoopid animals >:(

How old IS earth?

round 5 billion years, give or take.

How old are humans?

Homo Sapien Sapiens? Or just the Homo Genus? Homo Habilis (the first Homo) is about 2 million years old. Homo Sapien Sapien is about 150-200,000 years old. In fact, Mitochondrial Eve (the one female from which all human life has come... you can read up on Mitochondrial family trees on your own) is calculated to have lived 150,000 years ago.

Why haven't we evolved in the past 5 thousand years? There has been strife.

Environmental pressure is the reason for most evolutionary change. Once we gained the ability to make tools, and change our environment, we no longer had the pressure to evolve. This is not to say that our current handling of the ecosystem will not put a new pressure on our species forcing another evolutionary change. In fact, the last few evolutionary changes in Humans are thought to have been pre-programmed into our genes through the acting of DNA-encoded Retroviruses. Some still linger in our genes, as yet un-expressed. Who knows what those retroviruses will do if they ever do express themselves.

Why do we only use ten perfect of our brain? if we evolved to stand upright, use thumbs, and have larger brains...wouldn't we use it all?

That's an urban legend. We may only consciously use 10% of it at any one time, but we do use it all.

Look at one part of the human body. the cardiovascular system. How were these valves, so miniscule, derived from a single cell organism?

Those valves have been evolving and perfecting themselves for billions of years. if they didn't work, they wouldn't have lived on in the species.

Seriously. The evolutionist's theaory for life's creation: A primortial ocean is struck by lightning, causeing a chemical reaction to occuer which formed life in the form of single celled organisms. (Bacteria and such)

An extremely simplistic explaination, but sorta right. It's not this frankenstein, lightning strikes and there's life thing that you seem to have put forward. A lightning strike may have been the catalyst for the bonding of amino acids to form a duplivcable strand of DNA or whatever, but to put it like that is rather insulting and VERY misleading.

Here's religion's backup:
Did you know, that at the very moment of death, the body loses 13 ounces of mass? There is NO answer for this. People have been weighed second before death, and right after their pronouncment OF death. A differance of 13 ounces is universal, regardless of body size or cause of death (except for dismemberment, etc etc).

Funny, I've actually hear that it was 3.5 grams, 7 ounces, 2 ounces, a whole plethora of weights and measures and have never seen a single medical study to back it up. Welcome to Urban Legend.

What about ghosts? I believe in these things, really, and have been visited once by my now deceased great grandfather, who also visited my entire family the SAME night at the SAME time.

If you say so. There is no concrete evidence for ghosts anywhere.

Ever had a near death expierience? I have. Your life really flashed before your eyes, and when I technically drowned, I remember an encompasing white light...warm to boot.

When the brain suts down, the last place to lose it's electrical charge (le last part of the brain to die) is in the center, near where dreams are formed. Many scinetists believe that the light at the end of the tunnel that many near-death experience folk recall seeing is simply the mind's dream-like visualization of this loss of energy/life.

Now I don't doubt your own beliefs or hold them in any lower regard than anyones, even my own, but there ARE answers in science for many of the things you find to be puzzling. Mebbe not the ghost thing, but whatever. Also remember that there is no science in religion, and there is no religion in science. the two are completely incompatible. You can be religious and study science, but in order to fully understand it, you need to leave the religion at the door. The same applies the other way around.

And to the guy who asked people to prove god doesn't exist: Please refrain from asking ridiculous questions. That is not a viable request. Proving a negative is ALWAYS impossible. For instance: Prove Unicorns don't exist. Prove Leprechauns don't exist. Prove Aliens (little green men, not Illegals >.>)don't exist. All three of those are "commonly accepted" to not exist... ok, now PROVE that they don't... it should be easy, right?

Right.

At 5/20/05 05:56 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 5/20/05 03:11 AM, Ravariel wrote: VCV, we meet again...

Indeed... But I thought you were agnostic.

Technically I am, but I felt the need to post this. While I don't totally discount the idea of intelligent design I am rather strongly against the christian view of it.

You don't need to think hard. Seeing this incredible universe is enough to make some believe that only a divine Architect could have designed such a masterpiece. It's more logical to believe in design (in my opinion) because of the order of creation. The chances of an amazingly orderly universe springing up from nowhere and, through a series of random events, producing unbelievably complex systems, environments, organisms, and physical laws... is nigh impossible (no matter how much time is granted). So I believe it makes more sense to believe that order originated with order, not chaos.

Indeed, however, with the current math, there is thorized to be an infinite number of universes. With an infinite number of them, the chances that the perfect conditions to create human, or any other, life instantly reaches 1. Which means, that while the mechanics of our creation in this universe might seem to come from chaos and be random, it is in fact, impossible that we NOT exist. Believeing in this, or believeing in randomness, or believeing in God is, to me, equally logical. To take the Anthropic approach to it: The universe must exist in such a state that it brings about observers: Or, To argue that our existance in this universe is unlikely to the nth degree is irrelevant, because had it happened any other way, we would not be here to ask the question.

No, all that's proven is that you come back down when you jump up (LoL). That's like a theist saying the existence of God is proven because we see His creation. Sure, you can see how gravity works, just as we can see how God works. But you cannot prove that "gravity" is what's causing you to fall back down. You accept the idea of gravity on faith --and it helps that there are no other reasonable explanations.

I don't know what you're talking about... Gravity is the name for the force that causes us to fall... to say we dont know that it's gravity is like saying we don't know that a cow is really a cow, because cows aren't proven to exist, nevermind that cow is merely our label for said cow-like animal. Gravity is the long-range attractive force that all matter has upon eachother. We don't yet know how it works, but it DOES work, in all of the observable universe. it has NEVER been seen to not work somewhere... it doesn't just turn off randomly. Gravity exists, it is PROVEN... HOW it works is not.

You're misunderstanding me. Atheists have a difficult time believing that there's something more than what they can see --not in a scientific way, really. All we know is the natural world and its laws. That's all we're able to comprehend. But whose to say that there's not a greater, supernatural world... with its own laws? It is foolish to believe that nothing exists beyond the realm of human understanding. Because atheists can't fully "understand" God, they throw out the possibility that He exists. HE COULD EXIST. There's no denying that. But there's a problem with agnosticism, as well. They can't remain indecisive all their lives; avoiding the question doesn't make it go away. It's an important subject, so I believe it's best that agnostics decide what they believe.

Note: agnostic does not mean indecisive. For me, to be agnostic simply means that all current explanations are somewhat lacking. Every religion on earth has logical and moral flaws that are glaring to me. And you're right, there is no way to percieve the supernatural, if it exists. If you want to believe in something that there is absolutely zero evidence for, go right ahead. I prefer not to.

If that person doesn't believe in Shakespeare, does it make sense to quote him? ~_^

Of course it does... he made some very excellent quotable quotes. Some say that all of Shakespeare's works were written by someone else... that "William Shakespeare" never really existed (or at least didn't write all that stuff)... that doesn't mean the books aren't there to be read. I don't believe in the christian god... yet I know a lot about the religion and I have read the bible... just because I disagree with much of your religion doesn't mean I disagree with all of it, or that I can't use the book to prove my own points. Believing in the author of a book doesn't preclude you from reading, or understanding, or taking to heart, what the book they write says.

VCV, we meet again...

At 5/19/05 11:47 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

I have a few questions for the atheists around here:

Question 1) Looking at our natural word, is it more logical to believe that our existence is a total accident or that we were designed with a purpose? Do you think wiser to believe or not believe in the existence of God?

Actually, neither is more logical.

Question 2) Why believe in gravity and not in God? The existence of gravity cannot be proven (just like God), no one understands it completely (just like God), but nevertheless we recognize its presence (just like God). Would I be a fool to not believe in gravity?

The existance of gravity IS proven (I mean, duh... we jump up and come back down)... it's mechanics are still only theoretical. Please do not confuse the two.

Question 3) How do you know that what you see is all there is? There is plenty of stuff in the world that cannot be explained. What makes you so confident that if YOU can't understand God, He must not be real?

There is plenty of stuff in the universe that can't be explained... YET. Science is ever evolving and changing and learning new things as our understanding and observational abilities grow. Outside of limitations set down by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, there is nothing in the universe that is unknowable... only things that are unknown. (Black holes are not even as "black" as they once thought. It turns out they actually radiate information and atrophy over time... thus the event horizon is not as impassable as originally thought)

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of anything outside it's influence (i.e. the universe). God, if he exists, MUST exist "outside" the universe and its laws. Arguing the existance of God with science is pointless and futile. God can only be discussed on a philosophical level. Science has NOTHING to do with it.

Funny how you would use a phrase from out of the BIBLE --"root of all evil".

What does using a well-known quote have to do with anything here? "Zomg, you used a bible verse, you must be a closet evangelical Christian!" So... if I quote Shakespeare, does that make me a playwright? If I quote Marx, does that make me a Communist? You're usually above cheap shots like that. Keep it up and you'll lose your credibility.

Actually, to clear something up, English IS the OFFICIAL national language. There WAS a vote on it back when the country was founded. English won the vote over German by a single vote.

At 5/19/05 03:32 PM, Marcus_Arilius wrote:

At 5/19/05 06:23 AM, ReiperX wrote:

There doesn't have to be a begining, eternity is something that is extremely hard for the human brain to comprehend if at all possible. But that does not meant that it doesn't exist.

This is very simple to explain and contradict. Everything that is what it is now, has a beginning. The Laws of Physics has been my scientific proof. Matter had to be created at some point in history, and the fact that it cannot be created shows devine intervention. It doesn't matter if it was yesterday or 100 trillion years ago. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.

Actually, that's only true on a general, rule-of-thumb level. Once you get into real theoretical physics, you will see that matter is created and destroyed all the time. In Vacuum, particle-antiparticle pairs pop into existance, then recollide, annihilating eachother. Black Holes radiate, because one of these particle-antiparticle pairs gets sucked in, while the other goes free. Nature "violates" the matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed "law" all the time.

In fact, it is currently thought that, a very large event of this nature is what brought much of the matter in the universe into being. And I'm not talking about the Big Bang, that has been disproven by the very man who concieved of it, Stephen Hawking. I am fuzzy on the details of what his new theory says, but if you look through your library for science journals, I'm sure you can find it.

Basically my point is this: If you want to use the "laws of physics" as your proof, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about.

At 5/18/05 05:44 PM, NarcolepticAlarmClok wrote:
Point=made, people who believe in universal morals=owned.

Declaring your own ownage immediately negates any points you may have made, be they good or bad. If someone else claims there was ownage, then you're golden. Claim your own and you have just shifted from possible serious participant in the discussion, to unwelcome troll.

Anyay, on topic: There is no absolute morality, nor is morality absolutely relative. It is FAR, far more complex than that. Arrabbicum has given us a very interesting stance on it, and one I agree with. What it doesnt give us is an "X is right and Y is wrong" answer, only how various moral codes came to be and came to be in conflict.

Something that is morally right, is constructive, it helps the world/race/person in a positive manner. It moves us forward. Something that is morally wrong, holds us back, is DEstructive and harms the world/people.n It is as simple as that, and as complex. For who can know sometimes if what they have done is, in fact, constructive?

To further complicate the matter, you can do the morally wrong action for the right reasons. Someone threatens you with injury or death, and you injure of kill them in self defense. That is morally wrong, but done for the right reasons. Going back in time and killing Hitler before the holocaust... morally wrong... but done for the right reasons.

Every action should be measured up to this standard: Will what I do help or hurt? Even if it hurts a person who is, himself, harming others,and it stops that person from harming further it is morally wrong.

Once you can accept that there are times when it is right to be wrong, and can wrap your head around the concept, a lot of things will become clearer... and a lot of evils will become very apparent.

Wow... buch of homophobics running about. You say no, but you mean yes.

Hell, if noone else was around to do it for me, and I could reach, I'd never leave the house ^_^

62% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

At 5/5/05 05:16 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote:

At 5/5/05 05:14 PM, Ravariel wrote: What You Waiting For has some very good melodies

Wonderful electronics in that song. Throbbing Gristle, however, she ain't.

Throbbing Gristle? I'll check out that band simply for the name. Somehow I'm not surprised I haven't heard them on the radio... XD

At 5/6/05 10:59 PM, afliXion wrote:

At 5/6/05 03:55 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Can we, as humans bound by the laws of our universe, make any choice that is not forseen by God? Can we do something that'll make God think: "Gee, I never expected him to do THAT!"?

God sees our choices, sure. Does God make those choices for us? No. Does God force us to make any choice? No. I've said it before and I'll say it again, God does not pre-destin our actions, he pre-destins the consequences to our actions.

It doesn't matter. If our choices are set before we make them it's not really a choice, just following the path. Free will is merely an illusion. It is the carrot dangled in front of our nose as we follow the path our creator has given us.

You see, it's not really about CHOICE, it's not about WHO chooses. It's about the timeline being predetermined. it doesn't matter who makes the choice be it us or God, if those choices are foreordained, pre-planned, set in stone, however you want to put it, they are not free, because there was never any chance to make another choice.

God knows what we choose, we cannot make a choice that god does not know, we cannot choose in a way to make god wrong about what he knows about our choice, thus the choice, though we make it, is indirectly not truly ours. You can talk around the logic all you like, but it is solid and infallible. If you believe in an omniscient god, you must believe that every choice you make has already been made, simply by God knowing about it. Once you are comfortable with that, then you can truly be comfortable with your religion. Otherwise, you are decieving yourself about the nature of the world, and the nature of God.

At 5/6/05 03:47 PM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:
Morality is a black & white issue, though. Tell me, is rape always wrong?

Tell me, is taking a person's life always wrong?

Self defense; Holy Wars; The Great Flood; Sodom and Gomorrah

Your morality might seem black and white to you. But ETHICS is not. Morality is what drives you you to act a certain way in public. Ethics are what drives you when noones looking.

I might be morally wrong to take someone's life... but I might also be ethically required to do so. I might be morally wrong to lie to someone... but I might also be ethically required to do so. I might be morally wrong to steal, but I might also be ethically required to do so.

Please do not confuse the two. Morality guides what you should do in most cases. Ethics is what you need to do in all cases... and is both more and less flexible depending on the person (because each person's code of ethics is different). Do morality and ethics overlap? Yes, quite often. But ethics are what give us the exceptions to the rule, those times when we are honor-bound to break the rules to do what we feel is right.

At 5/5/05 11:38 PM, revexe wrote:

At 5/5/05 02:48 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 5/5/05 02:10 PM, revexe wrote:

At 5/4/05 06:08 PM, Sameth-Penhaligon wrote:

He has a plan for all of us but, he gave us freewill, he didnt created us as toys. We all do have fate, but is not a fate we all can reach just because is our fate , we can reach that fate if we try to do everything correct, you could understand it better if you read my topic "Destiny or self control?" http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=261681
(Sry, i dont know how to link)

--rev.exe--

This is as a reply to both you, Rev and Aflixxion. I'll respond in this thread, even though the other one is interesting, because it's current and otherwise Maus might take offense. >_>

Can we, as humans bound by the laws of our universe, make any choice that is not forseen by God? Can we do something that'll make God think: "Gee, I never expected him to do THAT!"?

God is atemporal, "outside" of time, because time is a feature of the universe we live in and God, by definition must be "outside" that universe (unless he created himself at the same time). He has influence in the Universe, but he is not bound by it. Thus he is not bound by time. Thus all time is one to him, he can see every moment of the universe at once. All of our choices were made once the universe was constructed. Even IF we have free will, it is negated by the fact that god can see the actions and the consequences of every action "before" they happen.

It is diffficult to talk in a temporal sense about a being who is atemporal, but I'm trying. It is a very difficult concept to realize that time doesn't apply to everything, only those things that are part of this universe. God is, while present in the universe, not bound by it, not a part of it. As such we can speak of all times as being in the present, for God. Every moment in the universe is "Now" to God.

Think of eace person's path as grains in a wooden tabletop. The tabletop represents the universe, and the left to right length of the wooden grains represent the direction and flow of time. We as outside observers can follow the path of that grain throughout its entire length, from its birth to its death. No bend, twist or ripple in its path are invisible to us. This is the same with God and us in the universe. Our choices are set once they are observed by God, and as god is "outside" of time and omniscient, he MUST know our choices "before" we make them. Our will, to be free, would require that we be able to surprise God, to do something that he had not forseen... yet this is impossible. Our will may SEEM free to us, bound by time, but if a god such as the christian one existed, that would be mere illusion.

At 5/5/05 03:46 PM, ramagi wrote:

At 5/5/05 02:24 PM, ORKBOY wrote: stuff

Chill out for a while.

No Doubt lead singer went all poppy...I rather hear more music from the group.

Now I don't really listen to "pop" music. But a couple of Gwen's songs recently have been ok. Holla Back Girl sucks, I'll readily admit. Rich Girl was awesome, but that's because it's not hers. It's from Fiddler on the Roof. What You Waiting For has some very good melodies, but I don't really like the chorus... too repetetive, even though that's what she was going for.

I do prefer it when she's with No Doubt, though... totally.

As for my favorite group... since I'm not a big 'pop" fan, I'll have to go with CHerry Poppin' Daddies. They certainly have some pop-ish influences, but they're much more diverse than that. They're not a swing band, though they do play swing... They have some of the tightest, nastiest funk I've ever heard, a kickass horn section and some of the naughtiest lyrics ever.

At 5/5/05 02:10 PM, revexe wrote:

At 5/4/05 06:08 PM, Sameth-Penhaligon wrote: what if was gods plan for the baby to be aborted?

That doesnt makes sense cause if the mother dont kill the baby then the baby would live. Cause of our free will.
If God´s plan for the baby was die before he born , then the baby would get killed by medical complications or the mother would get attacked by some sick guy and the baby would get killed in the process, or something like that. Got it?

--rev.exe--

Everything that happens is in God's plan. There is no escaping it. You can do nothing that God has not forseen, no event is ever unknown by him, even before it happens. Every act of "free" will is part of his design. Even the most heinous of acts. We are quite unable to go against God's will, for his will is absolute.

Fatalistic? Yes. True? If god exists, it must be.

Take that as you will.

Umm... congratultions?

I'd be Lex Luthor. Get to fuck with the head of Superman, be rich as hell, have Talia at my beck and call and be prez...

All your base are belong to me!!

At 5/1/05 09:45 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote: I have always been a supported of M.A.D. I think the therom is pretty sound.

Not dependable, but I don't think nuclear war is a big threat at all.

I hope you're right. but I think the sane of us (read: most people) are singularly unable to fathom the depths of psychosis. Il is psychotic... he's nuts.. grade-A certifiable. I don't think he'll bomb a target (yet), because I do think it's a nuclear dick-waving thing, but after he's proven himself capable of producing the weapons, once he's got that bargaining power, there's no telling what he'll do.

Similar to suicid bombers, they don't care if they die as long as someone they don't like dies, too.

At 4/29/05 04:04 PM, Maus wrote: Can you get to the point (if there is one) rather than trying to seem all enlightened? Basically, you're mocking everyone that doesn't follow your train of thought. Talk about being culturally narrowminded.

Heh... the irony is a bit staggering, no?

But did everyone else do it with such an infrastructure as ours? The pure extent that the change would cover would be astronomically costly in our current state. Whether or not other countries with less affected infrastructure were able to afford it is completely beside the point and taking thinly-veiled jabs at US foreign policy is so far off topic as to be laughable... take it into the Bush Thread.

Not that the metric system wouldn't make 90% of our measurements easier, but can you fathom the cost of changing everything?

Change every roadsign in america.

Change every speedometer.

Make new machines for making canisters, jugs, cans, you name it.

Reformat all printing to the new system.

Adjust pricing systems on everything affected.

Remake every mathematics book that uses primarily English measurement.

Shipping, commerce, EVERYTHING would be effected and the cost to revamp our entire infrastructure around the meteric system would simply be cost-prohibitive.

Problem with blues is it's a live music. It doesn't translate well to recorded media. This has the unfortunate side effect of making it difficult to find good exposure to the form. The closest most people come to real blues is Stevie Ray Vaughan, Eric Clapton and Johnny Lang... and they never get to hear the real masters like Robert Johnson... much less hear the masters play live.

A shame, really...

It is, indeed only on the PS2. They're putting it out on that system for a few reaons:

1) 10th aniversary of Soule Blade is this year. Just like Tekken 5, I figure they'll have a 10th anniversary special edition, possibly with arcade ports of the first 2 or 3 games.

2) Programming a game for 3 different consoles takes manpower that they desperately need to fix the glitchtastic engine. SC2 was fun, but crap. It was so broken, it is nigh unplayable at times. You have to make a wish to get some moves to hit.

3) PS2 version of SC2 sold the most units and has the largest worldwide distribution.

4) The console-specific chars were a joke. Link was TERRIBLE... fun to play, yes, but absolutely awful... worse than Yunsung. Hei was freaking broken if he got anywhere near you. Spawn was just meh. Necrid was a pile of poo, too. I could crap a better character design. None of them brought anything to the game it didn't already have except for a few ravenous fanboys. "Zomg L1nk is liek sooo kewl. He'z the best char in the whole gaem i can even beat my 2-yr-old brother with him!!11"

All in all, it will be a better game because of the narrowing of its focus. I mean, jeez if you really dont want to play a game because it makes you go into another room to use a system or because you think the graphics are "behind the times" (have you even seen T5?) then dont buy the damn game. If you want to play the game then you're just going to have to buy it as it is. Complaining about SC2 being PS2 exclusive is like complaining that Halo or Baten Kaitos or Dead or Alive 3 or MK:D are console specific... it is pointless. Namco does something special for one game and all of a sudden you all feel entitled to it every time. They put a LOT of extra work into making it for all 3 consoles, and unfortunately it showed in the gameplay and the framerate issues in the PS2 version. Now they get to put all of that work into making a viable engine.

I say it's a damn good thing it's console-specific.

Aaaah... all you youngsters never got to experience the days of school internet in the early/mid 90's. They couldn't (didn't know how to) block sites and they REALLY didn't know what all was out there to be had. Heck, my first internet porn siting was some naughty disney toons on a school computer XD