Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

<checks IQ>
No, sorry Kev, much too hidden a meaning for me.

<checks IQ again, gets reading over 60>
Wait, no. I understood it.

Then I'm sure you'll have no problem rephrasing what he just wrote. That is if keeping your IQ above 60 sisn't too much of a burden on the few grey cells you have.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Pfff. You're such a fu<kin' loser.

Running outta arguments, eyh? Of course you're having a ball ganging up on somebody.

Warung, do us all a favor and look who the first person it was who stopped discussing the topic, and started personally attacking, and making silly posts.

It was you. So yeah, running out of arguments....

Really suits a spineless little twit like you.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

<checks IQ>
No, sorry Kev, much too hidden a meaning for me.

<checks IQ again, gets reading over 60>
Wait, no. I understood it.

Then I'm sure you'll have no problem rephrasing what he just wrote. That is if keeping your IQ above 60 isn't too much of a burden on the few grey cells you have.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Note to self: Warung doesn't understand the basics of relative movement between two objects. Remember not to post such complicated matter in the future.

Doofy · Oct 25, 2005, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Errrr, I used the German spelling. If you wanna get nit picky, start using ancient Egyptian symbols.

I would, but I don't appear to have that font installed on this Mac. So perhaps we would be better conducting the conversation in English?

Doofy · Oct 25, 2005, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Then I'm sure you'll have no problem rephrasing what he just wrote. That is if keeping your IQ above 60 sisn't too much of a burden on the few grey cells you have.

Sorry, no. Reading this post of yours just made it drop to 58.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Sorry, no. Reading this post of yours just made it drop to 58.

I know, I phrased my post in such a way so that even people with an IQ in the single digits can understand it (after, all, Kevin is also trying to take part in the discussion).

I'm sorry for over burdening your mental capacity. Please continue with your sheep sodomizing. I'm sure it's less taxing and more pleasurable for you.

- - e r i k - - · Oct 25, 2005, 01:07 PM

Warung, while some of your arguments are sound, you really should take a debating class. Save the ad hominems for the other side.

Weyland-Yutani · Oct 25, 2005, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Well, I've never been called a heretic before. Call me what you will if it makes you feel comfortable or helps you in your walk with Christianity.

I'm certainly not worried what you think of me.

I'll tell you one thing important thing: Christianity is NOT about symbols. It's about abandoning symbols.

EDIT: Cheers!

If you are not Catholic (or Orthodox) you are a heretic. It has nothing to do with symbols. According to the definition of heresy:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas".

I feel for your soul, but I also feel for the Church you are helping to undermine

cheers

W-Y

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Warung, while some of your arguments are sound, you really should take a debating class. Save the ad hominems for the other side.

Yeah, you're probably right.

So in conclusion (before TI closes the thread), - monotheism was invented by the ancient Egyptians, the cross is an ancient symbol wich was adopted by the early Christians to serve their purposes, and that gadget from the thread topic is pretty damn cool.

Thank you. And good night.

ironknee · Oct 25, 2005, 01:24 PM

i can see zim/kevin with one

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

If you are not Catholic (or Orthodox) you are a heretic. It has nothing to do with symbols. According to the definition of heresy:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas".

I feel for your soul, but I also feel for the Church you are helping to undermine

cheers

W-Y

Wey, you don't need to be apart of a church to be saved.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Yeah, you're probably right.

So in conclusion (before TI closes the thread), - monotheism was invented by the ancient Egyptians, the cross is an ancient symbol wich was adopted by the early Christians to serve their purposes, and that gadget from the thread topic is pretty damn cool.

Thank you. And good night.

That is your idea yes.

Is it factual? Who knows. You or I do not.

So for now, it's an idea.

One many do not share.

That's what makes the world go round.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

One many do not share.

Or one may do just post something to back up their claims, instead of constantly doubting "historical evidence" whithout putting forth one's own theories.

idea != hypothesis arrived at by screening historical evidence

opinion != scientific conclusion

blind faith != sound theory

...

get the picture?

BlueSky · Oct 25, 2005, 02:24 PM

Regan likes it!

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Or one may do just post something to back up their claims, instead of constantly doubting "historical evidence" whithout putting forth one's own theories.

I am not making any claims of facts. I have an opinion. Opinions or Ideas do not need proven. I would never be foolish enough to say my opinions or ideas were based on fact when they were not.

And I have put fourth my ideas many, many, many times.

idea != hypothesis arrived at by screening historical evidence

opinion != scientific conclusion

blind faith != sound theory

get the picture?

I know all about scientific terminology and the semanitcs.

This isn't a scientific theology class. No need to make this chat of ours pretentious.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Regan likes it!

that was horribl..........y funny.

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am not making any claims of facts. I have an opinion. Opinions or Ideas do not need proven.

LOL. Who told you that?

Go ahead. What are your "opinions"?

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

LOL. Who told you that?
Go ahead. What are your "opinions"?

Warung, how does one go about proving an opinion?

If it could be proven it wouldn't be an opinion anymore. NO ONE HAD TO TELL ME!
It's called "common sense"

Not that any of this post has ANY relevence to what we were talking about. So how about you get back on track instead of trying to divert it?

Warung · Oct 25, 2005, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Warung, how does one go about proving an opinion?

If it could be proven it wouldn't be an opinion anymore.

Not if your opinion happenes to reflect the "facts".

Regardless, what are your "opnions" on the issues at hand (monotheism, the reason for Christians adopting the cross as a symbol...) And what do you base these "opinions" on?

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Not if your opinion happenes to reflect the "facts".

Well then it's not an opinion then.
It's just that person knowing the facts and believing them
As of right now, there are no facts in the matter. So we both have opinions and ideas.

Regardless, what are your "opnions" on the issues at hand (monotheism, the reason for Christians adopting the cross as a symbol...) And what do you base these "opinions" on?

My opinion truthfully? Honestly?

My opinion is it's ALL IRRELEVENT.

People who dwell on such matters are missing the BIG PICTURE.

My opinion is also that one will believe something is factual if they want it to be regardless of what the facts are, religious or not.

residentEvil · Oct 25, 2005, 04:38 PM

I believe I will take a big dump in about 3 hours. I believe I will be drunk in 6 hours. I believe this thread is now done (or should be).

bad_quote · Oct 25, 2005, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Say it's the year 4000 AD. They want to find out where Cola products came from.

So a team searches all beaches and such and the OLDEST clue of cola products is an old 70s Pepsi bottle. They can't find anything older than that yet.

Now, using your "logic" that would mean that Cola did NOT exist before 1970 because the oldest reference said people found so far was said Pepsi bottle from 1970.

And Coke didn't invent cola, Pepsi did!

Do you see the faulty logic in that?

Nope. Making the best guess on the evidence you have available is intelligent. Making a decision based on evidence that does not exist purely because you WANT to believe that christianity is correct and not a man-made religion created purely to control the masses is NOT intelligent.

bad_quote · Oct 25, 2005, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Actually it's just the opposite. The symbol you worship is everything but your"self".

Self-denial is the shining sore on the leprous body of Christianity.

Nicely put.

bad_quote · Oct 25, 2005, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Could you rephrase that? I do NOT understand what you are saying. How is self denial wrong?

It's wrong for many reasons. Your body needs many things. Go ahead and deny it. Don't eat. Don't sleep. Don't think. Don't act. See where that takes you. That's what self denial is. Proclaiming your body is the greatest thing in the universe is also pretty retarded.... I think it's all about being at peace with the universe and living in harmony with your body and everything around you. Your version of Christianity might help accomplish that, but unfortunately you pick and choose parts of the bible that you embrace, and I don't want a sewn together faith based on flawed foundations.

Kevin · 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by bad_quote

Nope. Making the best guess on the evidence you have available is intelligent.

CORRECT! The key word being GUESS. Facts aren't based on guesses. Guesses are ideas or opinions. What you are doing is taking that guess, and screaming that it's 100% Factual and that anyone that doesn't believe that it's factual is not intelligent.

Which has been pointed out to be bunk Rob. You yourself have tried to ignore your own original arguement in this thread. Hoping we'd forget what you have said.

Making a decision based on evidence that does not exist purely because you WANT to believe that christianity is correct and not a man-made religion created purely to control the masses is NOT intelligent.

Actually that is highly subjective, and nothing really to do with what you were originally arguing Rob.

Why have you changed your arguement mid-stream?

I wanna see some proof that said guy was the first to ever think of a heaven and hell concept like you originally claimed.

bad_quote · Oct 25, 2005, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Please rephrase your previous statement. I do not understand what you are saying.

Here it is so you don't have to look it up:

And concerning self denial: Self denial is not wrong. It is a commandment of Christ. John 15:13 NASB Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

Here's where it's flawed. Let's say you believe that. You embrace that way of thinking. Then something bad is going to happen to your friend, but you take the punishment instead becuase thats what YOU think is right.

Thus, you were just selfish. You did what you THOUGHT was the good thing to do. You indulged in your own (but created by someone else, so not technically your OWN) belief system. You do what you think is correct everyday, so you're CONSTANTLY not denying yourself, you're indulging yourself. You are doing what you want to do at almost ANY given time given the circumstances.

Also, if you are doing something purely to AVOID punishment (hell, being a bad person, etc) is a good deed still even good? You believe that if you don't save this orphan, you will go to hell. But you saved the orphan for selfish reasons! The whole concept of denying one's self is just retarded.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by bad_quote

Here's where it's flawed. Let's say you believe that. You embrace that way of thinking. Then something bad is going to happen to your friend, but you take the punishment instead becuase thats what YOU think is right.

Thus, you were just selfish. You did what you THOUGHT was the good thing to do. You indulged in your own (but created by someone else, so not technically your OWN) belief system. You do what you think is correct everyday, so you're CONSTANTLY not denying yourself, you're indulging yourself. You are doing what you want to do at almost ANY given time given the circumstances.

That is why intentions matter.

Doing something for someone because you honestly care for someone is different than doing something for someone because you think it will get you something.

bad_quote · Oct 25, 2005, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Why? Do you actually the believe that the Tora is some kind of magical "scripture" that has stayed unchanged for nearly 5000 years?

This forum his hilarious. First Hitler is a socialist and a "leftie", now people claim that the Hebrews invented montheism. What next...the earth is 6000 years old, flat and the sun revolves around it?

Kilbey and Zimphire remind me of a quote from Albert Einstein:

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
-Albert Einstein

bad_quote · Oct 25, 2005, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

That is why intentions matter.

Doing something for someone because you honestly care for someone is different than doing something for someone because you think it will get you something.

But that's what Christianity is all about. Be a good person, or suffer eternal damnation. Oh, and you have to accept Christ as your savior, so if you're a muslim or buddhist or anything else, you're going to hell despite your good deeds.

bad_quote · Oct 25, 2005, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

Yeah, you're probably right.

So in conclusion (before TI closes the thread), - monotheism was invented by the ancient Egyptians, the cross is an ancient symbol wich was adopted by the early Christians to serve their purposes, and that gadget from the thread topic is pretty damn cool.

Akhenaton might have created the first major monotheistic religion (sun god), but Zoroaster, the persian prophet, was the one who came up with the whole 'life = battle between good and bad, huge forces, every person plays a part with their choices, and when they die they'll either go to a good place or bad place' thing.

bad_quote · Oct 25, 2005, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

That is your idea yes.

Is it factual? Who knows. You or I do not.

Except his idea has reasoning and factual information behind it. The bible has genocide, misinformation, pretty sad explanations of why things happen in nature, and human ******** to control masses of stupid people all over it.

bad_quote · Oct 25, 2005, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I wanna see some proof that said guy was the first to ever think of a heaven and hell concept like you originally claimed.

Humanstic Tradition, by Gloria K Fiero. Page 56.

Monique · Oct 25, 2005, 05:33 PM

Actually the story of the cross is very interesting; the first Christians did not have any symbols after the death of Christ it was too morbid to have the cross as a symbol and they did not call themselves Christians it came many centuries later that they called themselves Christians, also, if you look carefully the Catholics still have Christ on the cross reminding people more about the suffering than about the resurrection; as for the other Christians not having Christ on the cross mean that Christ is dead and now ressurrected.

Also, the sign of the cross in the name of the Father (touching your head, the head of the Church, the son the heart of the Church touching your heart, and the Holy Spirit touching your shoulders meaning the spirit all around you.

Since I became a Jew I must prefer the star of David; but as a Christian (many years ago) I prefered not to wear the cross because I too found it too morbid.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by bad_quote

Except his idea has reasoning and factual information behind it.

Wait, it's a fact said guy existed and had ideas of heaven and hell. It's not a fact he was the first person to think such a thing.

The bible has genocide, misinformation, pretty sad explanations of why things happen in nature, and human ******** to control masses of stupid people all over it.

That is your idea.

Originally Posted by bad_quote

Humanstic Tradition, by Gloria K Fiero. Page 56.

Ahahah Please scan it or type out the quote for the class.

Rob, you need to stick to arguing about cars and such.

Atleast then you'd have a clue

Albert Pujols · Oct 25, 2005, 06:57 PM

what is this thread about again?

Ozmodiar · Oct 25, 2005, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Albert Pujols

what is this thread about again?

Pantyhose.

Kevin · Oct 25, 2005, 07:36 PM

Do girls still wear pantyhose?

JoshuaZ · Oct 25, 2005, 07:53 PM

Some I know do. But I think its mainly so they can then complain about them all the time.

jonasmac · Oct 25, 2005, 08:27 PM

LOCKINATE!

It's always gives me such a warm and fuzzy feeling whenver I read the baseless bashing of other people's religious beliefs. Such class.

Doofy · Oct 25, 2005, 08:32 PM

Heaven and Hell?

If that phrase doesn't call for a pic of Ronnie, then I'm a Venezuelan goat herder.

Face Ache · Oct 25, 2005, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by jonasmac

It's always gives me such a warm and fuzzy feeling whenver I read the baseless bashing of other people's religious beliefs. Such class.

Particularly Christian sect vs Christian sect.

Jesus used to hang with the lepers and the hookers. I can see why.

bad_quote · Oct 25, 2005, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by jonasmac

LOCKINATE!

It's always gives me such a warm and fuzzy feeling whenver I read the baseless bashing of other people's religious beliefs. Such class.

It's an even warmer feeling when Christians are burning you at the stake for disagreeing with them.

paul w · Oct 25, 2005, 11:09 PM

All I wanted was to find out if it was considered acceptable behaviour for a Christian to be able to use his rad crucifix to totally rock out to, say, Slayer (just an example).

I may never know.

Railroader · Oct 25, 2005, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by bad_quote

Here's where it's flawed. Let's say you believe that. You embrace that way of thinking. Then something bad is going to happen to your friend, but you take the punishment instead becuase thats what YOU think is right.

Thus, you were just selfish. You did what you THOUGHT was the good thing to do. You indulged in your own (but created by someone else, so not technically your OWN) belief system. You do what you think is correct everyday, so you're CONSTANTLY not denying yourself, you're indulging yourself. You are doing what you want to do at almost ANY given time given the circumstances.

Also, if you are doing something purely to AVOID punishment (hell, being a bad person, etc) is a good deed still even good? You believe that if you don't save this orphan, you will go to hell. But you saved the orphan for selfish reasons! The whole concept of denying one's self is just retarded.

You don't understand the concept because you are a very selfish person Rob.

Christians don't do good to avoid Hell. We do good because the person who saved us commands us to do good and we follow His example. A person cannot earn Heaven. It is given to him. You have been told this countless times and you still don't get it do you?

Railroader · Oct 25, 2005, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by bad_quote

It's an even warmer feeling when Christians are burning you at the stake for disagreeing with them.

No one is burning you at the stake Rob. Actually, the viscious attacks are coming from the non-believers onto the believers.

The victim card does not suit you.

Railroader · Oct 25, 2005, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

If you are not Catholic (or Orthodox) you are a heretic. It has nothing to do with symbols. According to the definition of heresy:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas".

I feel for your soul, but I also feel for the Church you are helping to undermine

cheers

W-Y

Why are you ignoring my request?

Originally Posted by Railroader

Please rephrase your previous statement. I do not understand what you are saying.

Cheers!

RR

Railroader · Oct 25, 2005, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

If you are not Catholic (or Orthodox) you are a heretic. It has nothing to do with symbols. According to the definition of heresy:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas".

I feel for your soul, but I also feel for the Church you are helping to undermine

cheers

W-Y

This is the first time I have ever heard that if you aren't Catholic you are a heretic. But then, the Catholic Church has twisted Christ's teachings so much I am not surprised. Do all Catholics believe this, or just your sect/local?

Dictionary.com says: her·e·tic- n.
A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

Well, blow me down. I am a heretic. A confident heretic. Because I do NOT believe what the Catholic Church says about a large number of things. I'll just go with Christ's teachings. and I don't recall Him saying anything about making crosses and displaying them all over the place.

Lasty, you don't have to be a member of a Church to be a Christian. Don't worry one mustard seed about my soul. It is secure.

Railroader · Oct 25, 2005, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Warung

...monotheism, the reason for Christians adopting the cross as a symbol

Are you stating that as a fact? How about a little proof?

Doofy · Oct 25, 2005, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by paul w

All I wanted was to find out if it was considered acceptable behaviour for a Christian to be able to use his rad crucifix to totally rock out to, say, Slayer (just an example).

I may never know.

...especially since nobody has yet made a "rad crucifix".

If you're talking "rad cross", then yes. But s/he probably needs to acquire more taste if s/he was going to even think about loading Slayer onto anything.

Altogether now...

Sing me a song, you're a singer
do me a wrong, you're a bringer of evil
The Devil is never a maker
the less that you give, you're a taker
So it's on and on and on, it's Heaven and Hell, oh well...

La la, la la, la la la.