Gaming Expert Pat Robertson: ‘Murdering Somebody In Cyberspace’ same as murder

[Sir_Hans]

Written records or literature is subject to opinions, grudges, the possibility of persecution and many other human variables.

While carbon dating has variables of its own which can affect the dates given, I find carbon dating is a much more believable and the information given less susceptible to personalized influences.

The bible, for example, is full of parables. This is not very surprising because before writing existed and even after writing existed (many were still illiterate), the main way of passing on knowledge and historical records was through storytelling. But should everyone take a parable or other scripture as inherently true, or could it be fiction intended to teach true lessons to the reader/listener?
When the bible mentions people living before the flood as over 500 years old, is it really meant to be taken literally? Or is it simply trying to state something like "People before the flood lived better"?
That's why I think fundamentalist christians are the silliest of all.

I find a great example of why you shouldn't take every passage in the bible as fundamentally true, is this verse, and the decoding behind it.

Revelations 13:18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

[Kafein]

Suppose, suppose, suppose! Yes that's right! We suppose they work because we haven't been contradicted. If, at anypoint, we find that stationairity changed, what happens then? In terms of Science, nothing, actually. Most science isn't built on past reference data(other than theories of change and evolution for things like the universe or soil mechanics, etc).

Actually yes, almost everything in astrophysics would change if we somehow demonstrated that things didn't work the same in the past. To some extent, the discovery of the acceleration of the increase in size of the universe had that kind of effect. We do explore the past when we look at stuff very far away and as far as I know, what we get from very old stars is that they are born the same way as today and emit the same light based on their category and age and die out the same way too.

Plate tectonics happens. Proven.
Did it happen faster, same, or slower: Science says same, but we can't prove.

Same with other major theories. The basic Application is PROVEN, but anything that relates to length of time outside of 10,000+ years is speculation on that stationary principle.

I doubt about that in the particular setting of plate tectonics (We know how the solar system was created and we know that the earth was extremely hot and much more fluid back then). But more importantly, you can't prove it happened in any other way and the current theory matches what data we do have.

It doesn't change science.

Integrating spurious hypotheses is breaking the scientific process (I was referring to that when I said science).

Algebra, Calculus, Newtonian Physics are all unchanged by this principle(Unsure of modern Physics applications as they are outside of my interest/learning). That's the thing about Math, it is a logical, and precise tool. Carbon dating, though is an empirical application of the current mathematical application of Radioactive decay.

It would take a change in radioactive decay to make carbon dating false. We can agree math can't be changed because everything in math is logic. Please don't go further on math because this discussion is going to become horrible if we do so. Anyway, I'm not sure this has been tested but I doubt radioactive decay works differently in stuff coming from space such as meteorites. Even more compelling, there's really no reason for that to happen, as everything is made out of the same stuff at subatomic levels, it's only the structure that changes. But stuff in meteorites traveled very fast and very far away so it doesn't necessarily come from the same time as us.

All I said was that we take it as a fact that stuff happened "linearly," for lack of better word, through time.

Hell, we don't really know what "time" is. In our perception of it anyway, considering that everything happens linearly does work. To the best of my knowledge, supposing otherwise is of no practical interest.

And that's why science is nice.
Theory(based on Observation) > Data > Confirmation or Change > New Theory > Law(End)

But what we have on some things is this:
Theory(based on Observation) > No previous data > Confirmation > New Theory > Law(End)

The nice thing with science is that everything is subject to change if we do invalidate it. The stationarity principle is among those things.

It's similar to Quantom Mechanics. We have knowledge its there(mathematically, it was shown to be true, if I remember correctly), but we are still at the DATA stage.

There are plenty of experiments going on such as the LHC that continually confirm quantum physics. A few months ago it was discovered that even "large" sheets of stuff can have some of the properties of quantum particles.

Here's a Fun question: If we lose the gravity from Sol, how long until we lose the light too?
(That's a classic Newtonian Answer)

I think modern physics would say immediately, because gravitational "information" travels at the speed of light.

[The_Bloody_Nine]

Just to emphasise on the changing religion part: in middle ages scientists were persecuted for heresies, such as suggesting that the Earth is not flat, or is not the center of the Universe. Only when these scientists were proven to be correct beyond any doubt, did the church "accept" this as the truth (pretended it had never said otherwise).

How is this anything other than the absolute proof that the church knows jack-shit? How can anyone still accept the statements of the church to be anything other than the self-preserving statements of a select group of simple, greedy old men?

well, the thing is you can ask what is church, the institution, the congregation, the pope, the bible? And that's always been part of Christianity, look at all those schisms, councils, synods, the bible itself and whatnot. Personally I care not much about the church, but reading through this thread and grapple with religious topics still seems worth it. It forces us to dispute on these difficult matters.

Btw. a similar example is the most recent retirement of the pope. I mean the divine pope, representing Jesus Christ, successor to Saint Peter, Gods voice on earth just retires like some piddling politician? wtf

When the bible mentions people living before the flood as over 500 years old, is it really meant to be taken literally? Or is it simply trying to state something like "People before the flood lived better"?

In this concrete example one should also mention that it is today widespread accepted that the creation and especially the flood topic stands in context of a long tradition of similar Mesopotamian texts like Enuma Elisch, Atrachasis, Gilgamesh, etc. Most early humans in these stories tend to live 20000-30000 years so the bible is downright modest in comparison.

Also that the people lived better before the flood is said nowhere. The human heart (or all flesh on earth) is evil before and after the flood, the only thing changes is that God allows animals to be eaten, sets up some rules to restrict the chaos/evil and makes a covenant with the humans.

[Molly]

[...]
Here's a Fun question: If we lose the gravity from Sol, how long until we lose the light too?
(That's a classic Newtonian Answer)
[...]

I am far from being an expert but... that question is rather... well... you know...

We wouldn't lose the light at all. I mean, why would we? The only gravitation-related model that is influencing light in a way that it would matter is a black hole. Other than that, light gets bend a little but still travelling and it will still be faster than Earth is travelling in any way.

Not to mention that in the case of the gravitational influence of the sun gone, there wouldn't be anyone on Earth left to witness this.
So, my question now: Is there a sound when a tree falls when there is nobody to hear it?

[Falka]

And if you believe in any other type of god you are a theist. 

Point is, atheism/theism is a yes/no stance.

Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge and not belief.

To be precise atheism isn't "belief" that god doesn't exist. Atheists - or at least those of them who know what they're talking about - state that god doesn't exist cause there's not a single evidence confirming his existence. So saying that agnosticism is based on not believing as opposed to atheism which is some kind of "belief" is misunderstanding the whole concept Thinking like that I'd have to say that I'm agnostic about existence of tooth fairy or unicorn, cause though there's no proof of their existence, there's also no proof of their non existence, so my opinion about it always would be based on "belief" and not on knowledge.

Why just the Western Europe, Kafein? Apart from Poland (or so i hear, anyway), Eastern Europe (or at least north-eastern) is dominantly atheistic. Probably the single positive effect of soviet occupation.

POland = Catholand. Sad truth

[Sir_Hans]

When the bible mentions people living before the flood as over 500 years old, is it really meant to be taken literally? Or is it simply trying to state something like "People before the flood lived better"?

Also that the people lived better before the flood is said nowhere. The human heart (or all flesh on earth) is evil before and after the flood, the only thing changes is that God allows animals to be eaten, sets up some rules to restrict the chaos/evil and makes a covenant with the humans.

Not saying people lived better before the flood, hence the question mark and preceding the statement with "Or is it simply trying to state something like...".
But you are wrong about the only changes after the flood according to the bible.
Nobody lived 200+ years after the flood. I'd say that's a pretty significant change. Whether or not any of it is actually based on fact.

[Molly]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Kafein]

Wow, that's sick

[Armpit_Sweat]

Even though my concerns keep being ignored by everyone, i will try one more time...
 
I do not see any point in discussing any specific religious texts, as they are so obviously full of complete and utter ignorance... And once again, the only reason most of us are referring to Bible, is due to a fact that we grew up in a culture, largely influenced by Christianity. Therefor discussing a possibility of Earth being as old as it is stated in the Bible is a waste of time, in my opinion.
 
Just to amuse myself, i will try an collect some logical inadequacies about the "Biblical flood":
 
Countless men, who took part in writing, correcting and editing Christian texts, obviously knew absolutely nothing about Australia, America, or any other part of the world outside of Mediterranean. Why? Because they chose an average mountain in Caucasus - Ararat, standing 5 km tall, it is not even in top 100 highest places on Earth. I bet they would go with something more impressive, if only they new about them. But, that of course does not prove or disprove anything, there could be different reasons for choosing Ararat, right?
 
Cool! Let's move on to the Ark:
- It is ridiculously small, obviously not large enough for all the different species.
- How did the animals and humans get to other continents from Caucasus mountains?..
- Did he take all the bacteria, viruses, parasites, and all other lovely creatures with him, on that fantastic journey? Poor animals had to carry countless flat worms in their bellies, all while being infected with hundreds crippling diseases and fungal infections - what a jolly ride!
- There was no need for food, and all animals were peacefully co-existing on that arc for about 27 days?.. oh, yeah, i presume it was one of Gods miracles.. But he was unable to just move all these animals on Ararat mountain without the arc, or make them walk on water, or what ever random magic solution there might have been. No, Noah had to build an Arc and handpick the animals...
 
Oh, i just can't do it anymore.. everything is so ridiculous, however you want to look at it... If it doesn't make any sense because "God works in mysterious ways" - stop applying logic or common sense to religious texts, it is embarrassing.

[Yaro]

Yaro:
And there's the rub.  How is a 2000-4000 year old instructions relevant in today's world?  I can see if you take the teachings with a grain of salt, but you're talking a literal interpretation, are you not?  I think a lot has changed in 2000-4000 years, and we've learned a lot as people.

I'll answer your question with questions

1. How God's teachings are not relevant? I would like you to rationalize this.
2. How can you take word of GOD with a grain of salt? Would that make you a non believer?
3. What has fundamentally changed in human nature in 2000-4000 years? What human sin has been eliminated? What eternal question has been answered? Do you know the meaning of life? What is soul? Is there life after death? Please, expand your thought and provide logical rational and undeniable empirical proof to your statements. 

[Yaro]

Utrakil:

I don’t divide anything, I’m afraid you misunderstood something, please quote part of my post that gave that impression. Christians don’t have ceremonies, since a ceremony is a secular word and should not be applied to what we call sacraments. Private life of a Christian is based upon preparing oneself for the reception of these sacraments and participating in the life of the Church (meaning life of the Holy Trinity). Therefore, there is no division between one’s life when he partakes in the sacraments and when one is not. Both co-exist and are inseparable.   Now, I don’t want you to have wrong impression of me, therefore I tell you that I don’t consider myself to be a model Christian, I do constantly err in my physical life, and I often neglect my spiritual growth. One thing that non believers often don’t realize (or maybe they do, therefore they chose to not believe), it is not easy to be a Christian. Life of a Christian is a service to God and attempt to emulate his holiness not on any given Sunday but everyday of one’s natural life. It is not a set of ceremonies designed for personal enjoyment but a rigid lifestyle designed to better yourself as a human being.

Regarding the verses you provided, I generally try to stay away from excessively quoting the Bible (especially when quotes do not include the historic and scholastic context) or getting into discussion about meaning of a particular verse because I’m not a member of clergy, neither have I received formal education in a seminary. Therefore, I’m afraid that if I try to explain the verse, I might start giving my personal opinions which is of course forbidden. That being said, I did not find any contradictions to the Orthodox practices in the verses that you quoted. Christianity does not have a Judaic way of worshiping. We have a historic continuity with the Church of Israel and trace our spiritual lineage to the Covenant of Israel. If we would not, why would The Old Testament be a part of the Bible? Observing Judaic feasts, festivals, and holy days is not for the purpose of receiving forgiveness for sins, since only the blood of Jesus shed on the cross has done that.  Nor are these observances to be performed to gain eternal salvation, since only His resurrection from the dead has provided for that.  Moreover, adherence of this traditions does not make Christians “become Jewish” nor cause them to “convert to Judaism”; that is not the objective. The purpose is rather to show appreciation of God and understanding that by his grace Gentile believers are allowed to be a part of His Covenant and partake in eternal promise to Israel.

You further asking: "I know this is addressed to the people. But don't you think jesus's general attitude toward the accumulation of wealth should also apply to the organisation which claims to represent his will ?"
What does accumulation of wealth has to do with the Church? Do you think the altar, icons or  iconostasis belong to one person or there to satisfy someone's vanity?   Orthodox church is the "temple", it is very obvious that you are not in an auditorium or meeting hall. You are in the Temple of God on earth where you have a foretaste of being in God’s Presence in His Kingdom. Everything that surrounds you is supposed to evoke the Presence of God, and make the invisible tangible. In the temple or church building design and in every aspect of its decoration, everything should be as beautiful as possible. Why? Because Beauty is a characteristic of God’s Nature and God is the Creator and Source of all Beauty. God is beautiful! Heaven is beautiful! Being in God’s Presence is beautiful! The Orthodox church makes the invisible divine realm and its beauty visible. Also, to create Beauty is in itself a holy act, because it is a way of imitating and participating in God’s activity. In a prayer at the end of the Divine Liturgy, the priest says, “Sanctify those who love the beauty of Thy House.” This is why Orthodox churches are rather ornate and highly decorated, in order to be as beautiful as possible.

Kafein
Your point is moot because you provide no empirical evidence or historical facts like I inquired of you to do (if you indeed claim to be a man of reason and science) to support your opinions. If you want to convince somebody that what he believes is wrong, you must provide a pretty significant and undeniable proof. Now, don't try to turn it around and tell me that you need to be convinced by me, because although, you may think otherwise, I clearly don't want to convince anyone of anything but only to share my knowledge on the subject. Allow me to quote your further statements: "... how comes current science literally disproves some parts of it ??" Once again quotations and facts need to be included to support such statements. I would like to hear about a scientific study specifically conducted to disprove the Bible... interesting exercise in futility this would be.

[chadz]

Yaro, the point is this:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

I think most people, including christians, agree that the bible is not the word of god, but a book with stories written by a few guys. But is that a problem? That doesn't mean that god does not exist.


Edit: now that I think of it - when you mean your churches teachings did not change - does that mean you take the bible literally? Creation of the world in 7 days, noahs ark, etc...?

[Lt_Anders]

I am far from being an expert but... that question is rather... well... you know...

We wouldn't lose the light at all. I mean, why would we? The only gravitation-related model that is influencing light in a way that it would matter is a black hole. Other than that, light gets bend a little but still travelling and it will still be faster than Earth is travelling in any way.

Not to mention that in the case of the gravitational influence of the sun gone, there wouldn't be anyone on Earth left to witness this.
So, my question now: Is there a sound when a tree falls when there is nobody to hear it?

Actually, that was a question that came up under Einsteins changes to Physics. Before hand, if we had lost the suns gravity(IE the sun blew up, dissappeared, whatever), Newton said it was instantaneous that Gravity would be lost, but light would still be here for the 8 minutes of time it would be left coming.

But, Einstein changed that by stating that the effect of gravity can be measured by light. IE: Light was the intergalatic speed limit and nothing can happen faster than the speed of light.

SO: If the sun disappeared today, the same time we lost it's light would be the same time we lost it's gravitation in the solar system.
Just what Kafien said. Modern Physics changed the way we thought of gravity. I mean, it makes LOGICAL sense now, but at the time it was perfectly valid. One reason science is so nice. It tries to improve upon every existing facet it can.

(click to show/hide)

Kafein, I never took, nor learned astro physics and that nature. Went to school for Civil Engineering, so my background comes from much more empirical and down to earth math. Same stuff we used for 1000s of years, before anyone even cared about where we come from. That's why I say that, if we DO change the way stationarity is, it won't really affect us here on earth. Age of Soil doesn't effect strength of a building foundation, type of soil does. That's what matters. Same things with lots of other common structures and roads, etc.(Sorry, only stuff I got experience in). Most things done on earth, are not effected by this. Even nuclear bombs and reactors aren't. They are only affected by the current state of decay and nuclear reactions.

It's a cautionary tale. Math is logic, but, sometimes math cannot translate to IRL due to the impossibilities of the way we know the real world to work. I wish I had the examples, but there are times where an equation known to work on all instances, fails if you actually try to create something that does that. I wish I remembered where it was, pretty sure it was stuff in calculus, but don't quote me on that.

[Utrakil]

 Therefore, I’m afraid that if I try to explain the verse, I might start giving my personal opinions which is of course forbidden.

an other quote of you:"Not a single thing that I have posted here is my opinion, but the official position of the Church."

Is this your thing or a thing your church requires to not think yourselve and come to your own conclusion.
I find it very dangerousonly to repeat what an authority says instead of questioning it first. and if you find they are right you can bring it to the word as your opinion as well.

[Swaggart]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


An oldie, but never loses relevance.