Many of you guys say this alot in the forum and I still don't quite understand what you mean. There's not that much in the Bible to be taken literally, it's usually stories with very deep morals. Someone explain to me what that actually means.

The beatitudes and some of the Gospels could be taken literally. I would also assume that the genealogy could be taken literally.

The new testament parables shouldn't be taken literally. Revelation we won't know until it happens(if it happens...).

I'm guessing that a lot of the laws in the old testament were meant to be taken literally at the time, but as society and people have changed, so have their interpretations of those laws.

The Parable of the Two Sons

28“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’

29“ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

30“Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.

31“Which of the two did what his father wanted?”

“The first,” they answered.



This parable is found in Mathew 21. It is a story with a hidden meaning. It is to be taken literally because he was teaching a profound message.

Can you give a translation as to what Jesus was talking about?

Those who are faithful in action, even if they were resistant at first, are greater than those who are only faithful in word.

Time to quote Bill Hicks methinks:

Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.

"Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages: 12,000 years."

Well how fucking scientific, okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble. That's good. You believe the world's 12,000 years old?

"That's right."

Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?

"Uh-huh."

Dinosaurs.

You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point.

[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-10-2005).]

They were.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I hate it when people hate Christianity because of what they heard some other skeptic say.

You obviously haven't studied the Bible, or you'd know dinosaurs were in it.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

They were.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I hate it when people hate Christianity because of what they heard some other skeptic say.

You obviously haven't studied the Bible, or you'd know dinosaurs were in it.



wait, where?

edit: oh wait, is this sarcasm? i'm not very quick on the uptake in the morning.

[This message has been edited by LevitateMe (edited 04-10-2005).]

they don't use the word dinosaur because it's a relatively new word, but i think they use leviathan or something like that...

The world is not 12k years old.

Carbon dating? And no, I don't mean taking a lump of coal to dinner http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

1st day - heavens and earth are created, light was created indicating the different types of light which are night and day

2nd day - Sky was created to seperate the water from above and the water from below.

3rd day - ground and sea are seperated and dry ground was made. Then the different types of vegetation (trees, bushes, grass, etc) were made.

4th day - The stars and universe is created so we can mark time. (Time was created)

5th day - water creatures and birds are created.

6th day - livestock and wild animals are created. And lastly man (woman and man together) was created in the image of God.

7th day he rested.

So we are given an account of the order of created things. As you can see man was created last in this list.

The point being that seeing bones, and fossiles that predate man is supported by the bible. Dinasaurs, according to the bible, were on the earth before mankind.

Despite what you may here, man was not created first.

quote:Originally posted by Gorloche:

Those who are faithful in action, even if they were resistant at first, are greater than those who are only faithful in word.

I agree, there is a literal translation that we get. There is also a morale message and a symbolic message and finally a deeper hidden message that is only revealed under certain situations.

So we can take all that the bible says as a literal translation but due to the nature of a parable there is also other meanings.

Jesus was speaking about the religious leaders of the time. He was calling them hypocrites because they said they would follow God's word but in practice they didn't. God judges the heart and mind and not outside appearances and that is what Jesus was teaching. Don't just read the bible and ponder it. He is saying, apply it to your life in obediance to it.

The bible is too deep and multi dimensional to be just taken literally. There is more to it then what meets the eye.



[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 04-10-2005).]

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." -Exodus 22:18



http://www.totse.com/en/religion/miscellaneous_religious_texts/africanpenteco173932.ht ml (http://www.totse.com/en/religion/miscellaneous_religious_texts/africanpenteco173932.html)

You don't write something like that for the hell of it.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 04-11-2005).]

We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)

We should love God (Matthew 22:37)

There is no fear in love (John 4:18)

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)

We should love God (Matthew 22:37)

There is no fear in love (John 4:18)

The Greek and Hebrew use more words and have more and different definitions for "fear".

quote:Titus 1:12-13:

"Even one of [Crete's] own prophets has said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true."



Try taking that one on literally.

quote:We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)

We should love God (Matthew 22:37)

There is no fear in love (John 4:18)

haha

quote:Originally posted by LevitateMe:



wait, where?

edit: oh wait, is this sarcasm? i'm not very quick on the uptake in the morning.



No, sorry...wasn't being sarcastic.

Look up "Bible Leviathan", "Bible Behemoth", or "Bible Tanniyn"...heck, you could even look up "Dinosaurs Bible".

Just to help out, though:

~ http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

~ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

~ http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/behemoth.html (cheesy graphics, but to the point)

WHERE IS IT IN THE SCRIPTURE:

Job 40:15-24 - "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares."

That's just one example..there are a few more, but I am too lazy right now to find them and post.

Hope this clarified what I meant by saying that dinosaurs ARE mentioned in the Bible.

quote:Originally posted by The_Reckoning:

The world is not 12k years old.



You're right.

It's actually more like 8,000 years old.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

The Greek and Hebrew use more words and have more and different definitions for "fear".

God's the one who caused man to speak in many tongues. He's responsible for 'misinterpretations' such as this one. Besides, you're not saying anything unless you show me the original greek, roman, hebrew, or aramaic texts that use different words for 'fear' as directly relevant to my quotations.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

1st day - heavens and earth are created, light was created indicating the different types of light which are night and day

2nd day - Sky was created to seperate the water from above and the water from below.

3rd day - ground and sea are seperated and dry ground was made. Then the different types of vegetation (trees, bushes, grass, etc) were made.

4th day - The stars and universe is created so we can mark time. (Time was created)

5th day - water creatures and birds are created.

6th day - livestock and wild animals are created. And lastly man (woman and man together) was created in the image of God.

7th day he rested.

So we are given an account of the order of created things. As you can see man was created last in this list.

The point being that seeing bones, and fossiles that predate man is supported by the bible. Dinasaurs, according to the bible, were on the earth before mankind.

Despite what you may here, man was not created first.

the bible is full of shit, do you actually believe that some magical man snapped his fingers and made water? you're fucking insane!

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

We should fear God (Matthew 10:28)

We should love God (Matthew 22:37)

There is no fear in love (John 4:18)



i love you

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

God's the one who caused man to speak in many tongues. He's responsible for 'misinterpretations' such as this one. Besides, you're not saying anything unless you show me the original greek, roman, hebrew, or aramaic texts that use different words for 'fear' as directly relevant to my quotations.

Let's see if this works first, if it does we'll pull out the greek-english dictionary:



Mat 10:28 **954;**945;**953;**768; **956;**951;**768; **966;**959;**946;**951;**952;**951;**834;**964;** 949; **945;**787;**960;**959;**768; **964;**969;**834;**957; **945;**787;**960;**959;**954;**964;**949;**957;** 959;**769;**957;**964;**969;**957; **964;**959;**768; **963;**969;**834;**956;**945;, **964;**951;**768;**957; **948;**949;**768; **968;**965;**967;**951;**768;**957; **956;**951;**768; **948;**965;**957;**945;**956;**949;**769;**957;** 969;**957; **945;**787;**960;**959;**954;**964;**949;**953;** 834;**957;**945;**953;**903; **966;**959;**946;**951;**769;**952;**951;**964;** 949; **948;**949;**768; **956;**945;**834;**955;**955;**959;**957; **964;**959;**768;**957; **948;**965;**957;**945;**769;**956;**949;**957;** 959;**957; **954;**945;**953;**768; **968;**965;**967;**951;**768;**957; **954;**945;**953;**768; **963;**969;**834;**956;**945; **945;**787;**960;**959;**955;**949;**769;**963;** 945;**953; **949;**787;**957; **947;**949;**949;**769;**957;**957;**951;**837;.

^^ nope, guess it didnt work...TOTSE should allow other language characters

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

God's the one who caused man to speak in many tongues. He's responsible for 'misinterpretations' such as this one. Besides, you're not saying anything unless you show me the original greek, roman, hebrew, or aramaic texts that use different words for 'fear' as directly relevant to my quotations.

Ok, so pasting the Greek doesnt work.. so no i'll let you do some "homework".

First, grab an english dictionary and look up the word "fear".

Next, check online and see if you can find the greek new testament with greek Strong's numbers/definitions.

Next, report back to class (TOTSE- this forum)

oh, BTW, the greek has 3 different words for 'love': (forgive spelling and the rough english explaination)

eros - erotic love

philos - 'brotherly' love... philidelphia = city of brotherly love

agape (ah gop pay) - unconditional, unselfish, all encompassing love

quote:Originally posted by Kiefer:

the bible is full of shit, do you actually believe that some magical man snapped his fingers and made water? you're fucking insane!

which is more insane?:

belief that energy, being around forever, broke from equalibrium and "caused" the Big Bang. Which in-turn, randomly caused elements to form. Which, in-turn, radomly cause stars...planets... and peanuts to form?

Or

God, in His Word, says that He is eternal; says that He created via divine fiat(s); and says that He did it in 6 days.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

which is more insane?:

belief that energy, being around forever, broke from equalibrium and "caused" the Big Bang. Which in-turn, randomly caused elements to form. Which, in-turn, radomly cause stars...planets... and peanuts to form?

Or

God, in His Word, says that He is eternal; says that He created via divine fiat(s); and says that He did it in 6 days.





You're dumb. Don't make assertions against the big-bang theory or related theories having as much understanding of them as a chicken would have of a japanese typewriter. Stephen Hawking... no, no, Brian Greene would be good reading for you.

Here's my take:

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

There is no beging or end of time or the universe.

Gravitation and heat oppose eachother, gravitation causing universal contraction, and heat causing universal expansion. However they ultimately cause eachother. Heat causes our universe to expand to the maximum volume it can occupy, but diminishes in doing so. Heat having diminished allows gravitation to supersede heat as the dominant force, and gravitation causes our universe to contract to the minimum volume it can occupy. The immense friction resultant of our universe's minimized state causes heat to supersede gravitation as the dominant force, and heat again causes universal expansion. This cycle has always existed and always will, there is no contemplating a begining or end because the cycle is perfectly self-preservant. If one were to graph this phenomenon in three dimensions, x/y/z having X and Y represent the size of a universe, and Z represent time, one would see globes end-on-end in an infinitely continuous line--the equators of the globes marking the point of the universe's maximum volume, and the point of contact between two globes representing the point of the universe's minimum volume (keeping in mind that this is a very primitive visualization because a universe's matter exists in three geometric dimensions and must be improperly generalized into a two-dimensional circle for this).

Those are just my thoughts, forgive me of excluding the apposition "In my opinion," from each sentence. Also apologize for not going into explicit scientific detail, didn't feel like spending so much time as to do so.

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

You're dumb.

i only appear to be dumb because you're deaf... or from my speeth impedipment

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

Stephen Hawking... no, no, Brian Greene would be good reading for you.

Theoretical physicists? The key word being theoretical... when dealing with the origin of the universe.

What i wrote (japanese typewriting chicken though i may be), still stands.

Which is more insane?

Concerning your take on the matter i.e. continually expanding/contracting, physicist have stated that there are major problems with this theory.

What it boils down to is either God has always been (which He states), or energy has always been (which has been theorized).

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Theoretical physicists? The key word being theoretical... when dealing with the origin of the universe.

What i wrote (japanese typewriting chicken though i may be), still stands.

Which is more insane?

Concerning your take on the matter i.e. continually expanding/contracting, physicist have stated that there are major problems with this theory.

What it boils down to is either God has always been (which He states), or energy has always been (which has been theorized).

Yes, I'm aware that they are theoretical physicists, hence my use of the words "big bang theory or related theories". It is less insane to have a formative theory constructed with as good logic as your brain is equipped for, and allow it to be influenced by an adequate understanding of the best-guesses of some of the greatest minds in the world, than to believe in god and an entire convention of pre-determined beliefs that were assembled thousands upon thousands of years ago by the worlds greatest minds to propell themselves into total control and god-like elitism above the populous.

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

... to be influenced by an adequate understanding of the best-guessesof some of the greatest minds in the world, than to believe in god

hmmm.. best guesses vs. omniscient God

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve Jehovah, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

hmmm.. best guesses vs. omniscient God



The god who knows all, to whom time and place are nothing. The god who made "free will" first in angels, then in man, already knowing it fail in both so horribly that he would have purge the world of 'evil' with a great flood, and banish the arch-angel from the heavens to hell? The god who condemned some half of the humanity he created to eternal suffering by ingraining within the majority of us first the ability, and second the tendancy, to go against what he requires of us to grant us eternal bliss. Don't talk to me.

[This message has been edited by Adorkable (edited 04-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

Don't talk to me.

Why? Is there a sore spot?

i think that they meant that people have been around for 12,000 years. which could make sense. but to say the world is 12,000 years old is ignorant. one must find a balance between religion and science.

fundamentalists dont take the parables literally...because Jesus says that they are stories and not true accounts. fundamentalists know that the parables didnt really happen.

what they do take literally is the old testament, noah's ark, adam and eve, cain and abel, splitting of the red sea, etc.

and who is to say that it is not true? nobody can say. some arguments are that when jesus was being figurative (the parables) he said that he was, so if the old testament was filled with stories, then why wouldn't somebody say that these were just stories.

i dunno..nobody knows if those things really happened or not.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Why? Is there a sore spot?



No, you're just dumb is all.

if God is omnipotent then He already knows whether or not we are going to heaven or hell...the only people who go to heaven are saved by his divine grace. Now, if we people really had 'choice' then God wouldn't be omnipotent and therefore wouldn't be God as we understand Him.

So, to believe in God is to believe that we only have the illusion of choice and that we are predestined to go wherever we are going.

But if we dont have a choice...then why believe at all?

And i dont necessarily believe what i just said...im just putting it out there for you people to think about http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

*hijacks thread*

QUOTE Originally posted by Adorkable:

The god who knows all... The god who made "free will" first in angels, then in man, already knowing it fail in both so horribly...

Yes, the very same God. The God that knows this, is the God that knows that these things are only partway through His divine plan.

The god who condemned some half of the humanity

All are condemned. But all are allowed Salvation. This is the "free-will" you mention.

he created to eternal suffering by ingraining within the majority of us first the ability, and second the tendancy, to go against what he requires of us to grant us eternal bliss. /QUOTE

He created the ability to choose life over darkness.

The tendancy that you mention can be over-ridden by the key of the Law and the key of Salvation.

The key of the Law is described in John 8:4-5 (among other places):

4.They said to him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what do you say?

The wrath of the Law brought this woman to the feet of the Savior. That's the function of the Law: to condemn. Some may say that we shouldn't condemn anyone, when all the Law does is reveal to the sinner that he is "condemned already" (john 3:18). The Law shows him his danger and therefore his desperate need for the Savior.

The key of Salvation, described in John 12:23-26 (again, among other verses):

23 And Jesus answereth them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit.

25 He that loveth his life loseth it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will the Father honor.

In Joh 12:23 -

The hour is come - The time is come. The word “hour” commonly means a definite part or a division of a day; but it also is used to denote a brief period, and a fixed, definite, determined time. It is used in this sense here. The appointed, fixed time is come - that is, is so near at hand that it may be said to be come.

The Son of man - This is the favorite title which Jesus gives to himself, denoting his union with man, and the interest he felt in his welfare. The title is used here rather than “The Son of God,” because as a man he had been humble, poor, and despised; but the time had come when, as a man, he was to receive the appropriate honors of the Messiah.

Be glorified - Be honored in an appropriate way - that is, by the testimony which God would give to him at his death, by his resurrection, and by his ascension to glory.

[i]"The greatest proof of Christianity for others is not how far a man can logically analyze his reason for believing, but how far in practice he will stake his life on his belief." T.S. Eliot

This applies to the Christ first (which He was glorified for, by His Father), but also should apply to each and every Christian.. that is to say, each and every Christian should live their belief, so as to give glory God.

In verse 24, Jesus was explaining that He, being the only One to have been fruitful compared to the Law, had to die, that we may be fruitful.



Verse 25 ~~ He that loveth his life ... - This was a favorite principle, a sort of “axiom” with the Lord Jesus, which he applied to himself as well as to his followers. It is talking of serving God vs. serving self.

Verse 26 pretty much sums it up.

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

No, you're just dumb is all.

Fair enough. Compared to you, maybe i am. That does not make the Word of God true or false.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Fair enough. Compared to you, maybe i am. That does not make the Word of God true or false.

I'm not saying the "word of god" is true or false, I'm saying you're dumb as hell to believe it as you do.

EDIT: Oh, I totally missed your responses about the whole greek transcripts thing. It kind of seems you did too. First, you would have to find out the language that the passages I quoted were ACTUALLY originally written in, not just a language in which transcripts have existed longer than in english. Then, you would have to find copies of those passages in that language. Then, point out to me the variant of the words used for "fear" and "love" in that language specifically in the passages in question.



[This message has been edited by Adorkable (edited 04-17-2005).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Adorkable:

I'm saying you're dumb as hell to believe it as you do.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Thank you. I really respect that opinion.

EDIT: Oh, I totally missed your responses about the whole greek transcripts thing. It kind of seems you did too. First, you would have to find out the language that the passages I quoted were ACTUALLY originally written in, not just a language in which transcripts have existed longer than in english.

You're right, you did ask for the originals.

So, which language? Since Greek and Aramaic were the ones used in that area, at that time; is it difficult to reason that the Greek and Aramaic manuscripts were copies of the same?

Then, you would have to find copies of those passages in that language. Then, point out to me the variant of the words used for "fear" and "love" in that language specifically in the passages in question.

Sounds to me like you are looking for 'wiggle room'. The impression i got from your posts was that you felt that the Bible contradicts itself because of the use of these English words. English words from a version that was translated in the 1600's.

-Learn how to quote.

-I don't require you to respect my opinion.

-Learn the use of the semicolon.

-The bible contradicts itself regardless of "these English words," however English is the language we speak here on the totse boards.

-Again, you're dumb. I am no longer going to check this thread because it's a dissapointment each time I do.

QUOTE Originally posted by Adorkable:

-Learn how to quote.

-I don't require you to respect my opinion.

Do you mean quote tags? I removed them on purpose.

-Learn the use of the semicolon.

That's fine that you are the grammar police... but try not to throw too many stones until you are perfect yourself. Example: "you are dumb"

How do you know whether i am capable of speach or not?



-The bible contradicts itself regardless of "these English words," however English is the language we speak here on the totse boards.

No, there are apparent contradictions.

Oh, by the way, you put that comma before the closing quotaion marks. But hey, who notices?

-Again, you're dumb. I am no longer going to check this thread because it's a dissapointment each time I do. /QUOTE

pssst... yoo hooo, i wont tell anyone that you spelled 'disappointment' wrong.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

which is more insane?:

belief that energy, being around forever, broke from equalibrium and "caused" the Big Bang. Which in-turn, randomly caused elements to form. Which, in-turn, radomly cause stars...planets... and peanuts to form?

Or

God, in His Word, says that He is eternal; says that He created via divine fiat(s); and says that He did it in 6 days.





This is the oldest trick in the book, guys - don't believe his lies.

It's a classic misuse (abuse, actually) of Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation is that which is right. So it would appear that the Razor chooses God over Big Bang.

This is not true. It is not true because the God explanation relies on an assumption (several, actually) - that God exists, that God is all powerful, that God created the world. That last one is the kicker, because the explanation explains itself.

Since the God explanation is founded on false premises, Occam's Razor automatically chooses the Big Bang theory, because (extremely small chance) > (no chance due to logic flaw)

QUOTE Originally posted by deptstoremook:

This is the oldest trick in the book, guys - don't believe his lies.

Nope, not a trick.

It's a classic misuse (abuse, actually) of Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation is that which is right. So it would appear that the Razor chooses God over Big Bang.

Nope, not O's R. It's really looking at the same coin (someone/something has had to have been around forever) and coming to two differant conclussions.

This is not true. It is not true because the God explanation relies on an assumption (several, actually) - that God exists, that God is all powerful, that God created the world. That last one is the kicker, because the explanation explains itself.

I hate saying it this way, because i know that He exists, but....

If God exists, it does not matter what the beginning and supporting assumptions were, it only matters the outcome of the belief+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Crap, gotta leave for work, ill do this then.

Since the God explanation is founded on false premises, Occam's Razor automatically chooses the Big Bang theory, because (extremely small chance) > (no chance due to logic flaw)[/B][/QUOTE]

They have only changed to suit the needs of christianity and reform Judaism. They should be constant throughout history and they are to experts in the matter. The fact is, there are 70 different interpretations. The correct was taught to Moses through the Oral Law which, although Jesus was Jewish, was forgotten by christians because it conflicted with their beliefs.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:



I'm guessing that a lot of the laws in the old testament were meant to be taken literally at the time, but as society and people have changed, so have their interpretations of those laws.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

which is more insane?:

belief that energy, being around forever, broke from equalibrium and "caused" the Big Bang. Which in-turn, randomly caused elements to form. Which, in-turn, radomly cause stars...planets... and peanuts to form?

Or

God, in His Word, says that He is eternal; says that He created via divine fiat(s); and says that He did it in 6 days.





Don't kid yourself, you know the answer to that. God creating the universe would be more insane.

How in the world would the logically possible creation of the universe through a singularity be more insane, than the illogical existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent god? The redundancy of his existence, as well as the incompatibility of his attributes given the situation on earth, is itself illogical, which is the very definition of insane!



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE Originally posted by deptstoremook:

This is the oldest trick in the book, guys - don't believe his lies.

Nope, not a trick.

It's a classic misuse (abuse, actually) of Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest explanation is that which is right. So it would appear that the Razor chooses God over Big Bang.

Nope, not O's R. It's really looking at the same coin (someone/something has had to have been around forever) and coming to two differant conclussions.

This is not true. It is not true because the God explanation relies on an assumption (several, actually) - that God exists, that God is all powerful, that God created the world. That last one is the kicker, because the explanation explains itself.

I hate saying it this way, because i know that He exists, but....

If God exists, it does not matter what the beginning and supporting assumptions were, it only matters the outcome of the belief +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



That outcome is eternal life/damnation vs. nothingess. Belief that God exists or not, is not what makes it true or false.

Since the God explanation is founded on false premises, Occam's Razor automatically chooses the Big Bang theory, because (extremely small chance) > (no chance due to logic flaw)

The Big Bang Theory (or any other mechanistic theory) already presupposes that there is no God. You can not place eons of time within the first six days of creation (plus the day of rest), nor after the creation week. But "if" God exists, He could create everything anyway He wanted to--- including via fiat, and if that is the why He did it (which is the way He said He did), then looking for a mechanistic answer is "pissing in a fan".

So, it comes down to either God is eternal or energy is/was. There is no flaw in logic... like i said before: "It's looking at the same coin and coming to two different conclusions".

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

How in the world would the logically possible creation of the universe through a singularity

I already answered this: energy would have had to have been at some sort of balance for an eternity before the big bang, unless it has been oscilating (big bang, big crunch, etc.). I think most scientist have ruled that out. So, why would it stay at 'singularity' forever, and then "decide" to go boom?

It is the same question as "if God made everything, who made God?"

Logic itself is flawed. Everything has identifiable logical fallacy in it. Just stop with the "impossible due to flawed logic crap" because your logic is also flawed. And scientists have far from ruled out the repitition of big-bang--big-crunch theory. An understanding of the big-bang theory as the claim of an eternally existing singularity that was caused to explode by a random flux of energy is almost as old as Einstein struggling to define a static universe.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I already answered this: energy would have had to have been at some sort of balance for an eternity before the big bang, unless it has been oscilating (big bang, big crunch, etc.). I think most scientist have ruled that out. So, why would it stay at 'singularity' forever, and then "decide" to go boom?

It is the same question as "if God made everything, who made God?"

No. You did not answer the question. How is that illogical? It isn't. It being a theory, or it having a low chance of occurring, or it not being thoroughly explained by Science does not equal insanity.

A logical inconsistency in two self-refuting characteristics, (omnipotence and omni-benevolence), on the other hand, does.; at least much more so.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-20-2005).]

quote:Posted by Adorkable:

It is less insane to have a formative theory constructed with as good logic as your brain is equipped for, and allow it to be influenced by an adequate understanding of the best-guesses of some of the greatest minds in the world.

You just described Creation Science.

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

The god who knows all, to whom time and place are nothing. The god who made "free will" first in angels, then in man, already knowing it fail in both so horribly that he would have purge the world of 'evil' with a great flood, and banish the arch-angel from the heavens to hell? The god who condemned some half of the humanity he created to eternal suffering by ingraining within the majority of us first the ability, and second the tendancy, to go against what he requires of us to grant us eternal bliss. Don't talk to me.



It sounds like your issue is with God, not how we were created.

Your anger tells me that you really care about this subject, and in light of this I suggest you go talk to someone who can give you the answers you really need to make an educated decision about whether God exists or not.

Take your intellectual ammo...your science...your theories, and present them to a Calvary Chapel Pastor.

To find one in your area, click here: http://www.calvarychapel.com/ and then select the "churches" tab. Proceed by clicking on your state, and so on.

Your perception of the Bible, God, and His purpose for His creation is flawed...it is best to know the answers before you make such monumental conclusions. This is the most important decision you will ever make.

God bless you, and keep you.

quote:Originally posted by mjolnir:

if God is omnipotent then He already knows whether or not we are going to heaven or hell...the only people who go to heaven are saved by his divine grace. Now, if we people really had 'choice' then God wouldn't be omnipotent and therefore wouldn't be God as we understand Him.

So, to believe in God is to believe that we only have the illusion of choice and that we are predestined to go wherever we are going.

But if we dont have a choice...then why believe at all?

And i dont necessarily believe what i just said...im just putting it out there for you people to think about http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

*hijacks thread*

The following question is often posed by skeptics of Christianity to bring about a conflict with the idea of omnipotence. The question often posed is, "Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?" This question creates a dilemma in our initial definition of omnipotence. For if God can do anything then that means he must be able to create a rock he can’t lift (even if it’s infinitely heavy). Yet, if this were true then he would not be able to lift the rock; so we must conclude that God is not omnipotent. I think the argument can be broken down in the following manner:

Definition: Omnipotence means a person X can do anything.

P1. Person X can make an object heavier and heavier by way of omnipotent power.

P2. Because Person X is omnipotent, X should be able to make a rock so heavy X can’t lift it.

P3. If Person X does not have the power to lift the rock this conflicts with omnipotence

C1. Person X is not omnipotent

I think this is not a valid argument against God’s omnipotence because P2 does not make logical sense. The reason P2 is not logical, is that P2 basically says:

* Suppose a Person X exists and is purportedly omnipotent

* Omnipotent beings must be able to do A (create rocks)

* Omnipotent beings must be able to do B (lift rocks)

* X must be able to do A such that B is not possible otherwise X is not omnipotent.

Do you see the logical conflict here? The "skeptical argument" asserts that God must be able to do A and B or he is not omnipotent (which makes logical sense) AND God must be able to do A in such a way that B is not possible or God is not omnipotent. The argument sets God’s omnipotence up to fail by stating that in order to be omnipotent he must be able to do three things:

1. X must do A

2. X must do B

3. X must do A such that B is not possible

There is no logical way God can "do B" and "not do B" at the same time! I suppose we must conclude that there is one limit on God’s power: logic. Yet, is that really a limit? Does the skeptic truly suppose that an illogical God is more powerful than a logical God? I don’t believe so, and if the reader disagrees than re-read the above argument. The implication is that an illogical God either doesn’t exist (by the stone-lifting example) or can’t be discussed at all. For if God transcends logic, then we have absolutely no way of knowing or discussing him. Logic is the only mode by which we can make sense of the world in a rational manner. How can we even conceive of a being whose very nature is based on illogic? I submit that only a logical God is part of Christian dogma.

Now if evil cannot proceed from the combined qualities of omnipotence and omni-benevolence we seem to be in a real dilemma. Namely, how can an all-good and all-powerful God allow evil to exist in the world? This problem is called the problem of evil; and it is a very real problem for Christians. The classical atheist argument against the existence of God goes something like this:

P1. Evil exists in the world

P2. God is all-good and all-powerful and all-knowing

P3. An all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God should only create a world of total goodness

C1. Yet P1 conflicts with P3 so we must conclude that an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist.

One way out of the problem is to deny premise 1. A few philosophers have actually done this (I think the Buddhists probably see reality in this manner), but this view does that seem to be that of orthodox Christianity. Not only does it seem obvious that evil exists (a posteriori), but it is a defined dogma of the Church that evil exists in our world as the direct result of the devil. Thus a rejection of premise 1 seems out of the question.

A second way to solve the problem is to deny premise 2. One could accept that God is not all-good or all-powerful or all-knowing. For example, a God which is not all-good is not bound by his nature to create only good; he could create both good and evil. In a sense, if a Christian were to take this position then he has already granted victory to the atheist. A Christian must remember that it is an article of faith that God is all-good. In a similar manner, a Christian cannot abandon the definition of God’s power and knowledge. Therefore, a Christian defender of the belief in God cannot reject premise 2.

A third way the proof can be defeated is to deny premise 3, or show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. St. Augustine (of the Catholic religion) gives the traditional response to the problem of evil:

"Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil."

I think Augustine would agree that God allows evil to exist so that the highest form of good can exist. Now we come to the inevitable question, "what is this highest form of good which God can draw exclusively from evil?" Essentially, everything that comes from God flows from his omni-benevolent nature. I think it is possible to reconcile evil with the omni-benevolent nature only if we define evil and treat each definition separately.

* Moral Evil — That which contrasts with God’s love and the principles of his nature

* Physical Evil — Pain, the privation of goodness (deformities, starvation, etc.)

* Evil in Nature — The effects of nature on Man (hurricanes, floods, disease, etc.)

* The Evil of Death — The loss of life and the psychological aspects of death (fear, grief of lost loved ones)

If it can be shown that God draws a greater good from these evils, or that these evils do not conflict with the divine benevolence, then we can successfully show that the conclusion of the problem of evil does not follow from the premises.

We can now see the consequence of the fall of Satan: Satan constantly seeks to destroy all that is good. The powerful fallen angel, source of evil, is one explanation for the evil we see in nature. Yet, a final question remains: why doesn’t God stop the devil from spreading natural evil ?

We know God allows moral evil so that he can allow us to exist as creatures of free will, but why the natural evil ?

One solution is to recognize that justice demands retribution for evil. In this sense, the moral evils done by man are punished by natural evils. The human race is bound up as one family, and the evil done by one member merits punishment to all members. Therefore, the evil done by the first father and mother of the human race (Adam and Eve) merited punishment.

And God said to Adam, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return" (Genesis 3:17-30).

Therefore it is likely that God permits the devil and his army of fallen angels to prey on man and on all material things. Certainly this is a hard and difficult fact, but Paul the Apostle recognized that suffering had a redemptive value. He believed that if a person experiences the unavoidable suffering of life, they can use the suffering to draw themselves closer to God. A person bereft of the joys of the world can either despair or avail themselves to the deeper joy in God.

Thus, the existence of evil in creation is not incompatible with an all-good and all-powerful God. Evil is not a tangible thing created by a good God; instead it is an intangible lack of goodness caused by the abuse of free will of Satan. Ultimately, the problem of evil loses its force because P1 (premise one of the proof against God’s existence) is false. Evil is not a tangible reality within the universe; therefore we acknowledge that God did create a perfect universe. However, the corruptions of the good universe entered it through the free choice of Satan. Thus, the loss of goodness within creation cannot be ultimately attributed to the work of God. We can be comforted with the knowledge that nothing can ultimately contest the power of God; eventually in the fullness of time, good will triumph over evil.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-20-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

I'm not saying the "word of god" is true or false, I'm saying you're dumb as hell to believe it as you do.

If that isn't bigotry, I don't know what is.

Comparably, what you have said can be adequately applied to you;

"I'm saying you're dumb as hell to disbelieve it as you do."

As a Christian who knows the Bible pretty well, I can say with all assurance that it is only out of IGNORANCE that one does not believe the Bible as Christians do.

If you understood it (which means you have to actually read it all the way through, and study it), you would believe it.

quote:...

A third way the proof can be defeated is to deny premise 3, or show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. St. Augustine (of the Catholic religion) gives the traditional response to the problem of evil:

"Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil."

I think Augustine would agree that God allows evil to exist so that the highest form of good can exist. Now we come to the inevitable question, "what is this highest form of good which God can draw exclusively from evil?" Essentially, everything that comes from God flows from his omni-benevolent nature. I think it is possible to reconcile evil with the omni-benevolent nature only if we define evil and treat each definition separately.

* Moral Evil — That which contrasts with God’s love and the principles of his nature

* Physical Evil — Pain, the privation of goodness (deformities, starvation, etc.)

* Evil in Nature — The effects of nature on Man (hurricanes, floods, disease, etc.)

* The Evil of Death — The loss of life and the psychological aspects of death (fear, grief of lost loved ones)

If it can be shown that God draws a greater good from these evils, or that these evils do not conflict with the divine benevolence, then we can successfully show that the conclusion of the problem of evil does not follow from the premises.

...

1. This is not your work, so may I ask you to please cite a source, or if the source is unavailable, then please at least put it in quotation marks an write something similar to 'Source: Unknown', at the end?

2. This has been refuted before.

If god is omnipotent, then he must have the power to reap these beneficial qualities from evil (i.e. the power to bring closer to god, to draw a contrast from good, et cetera.) without it having to be "evil", "bad" or for it to hurt or cause suffering, all while preserving free will. That he does not do so means that he is not omni-benevolent.

Source: http://www.saintaquinas.com/omnipotence.html

Though I do not see what relevance this bears on the content of my post.

I agree with it, so I posted it.

The entire paper explains your problem with omni-benevolence away.

Please read, and enjoy.

1. Don't try to explain your lack of citing the source away. Plagiarism is illegal, as such I am completely justified in pointing it out when it is being done in an argument (whether it be purposely or not).

Moreover, it has everything to do with the content of your post, seeing as the content was not yours.

2. The article does not refute what I argued. I invite you to either re-read what I stated.

Again, if god is omnipotent and benevolent, then he can reap the beneficial qualities of "evil" or "suffering" etc. without them causing pain, suffering, death, etc; all the while preserving free-will. If he does not do so, then he is not benevolent. You article certainly does not explain this in any way.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-20-2005).]

*LOL*

It is not plagiarism since I didn't claim that it was my own writing. I could have, since you could never have proven that I didn't write it, but I gave the source as soon as you asked. It was more an oversight on my part, than anything else, since I always site my source. I was editting and moving things around, and searching for relevant points...bah.

That wasn't an attempt at explaining anything away...you can think that if you'd like, but again, it is unprovable since you can't say with any certainty that I did it intentionally.

You will also notice on the site that it doesn't say that it cannot be copied, for ANY reason. In fact, NOTHING is said. It's a sermon. Any and all sermons can be used in this manner. If you knew anything about the Christian faith, I wouldn't have to point that out to you.

It does refute your argument. YOU re-read it.

Explain how God can benefit from our suffering without suffering ? Also, do you not understand that while we suffer, God suffers ?

Your lack of ability to understand why this works stems from your lack of understanding of God.

As the author explains in the paper, God CAN be omni-benevolent and omnipotent at the same time.

"The free-will theodicy successfully explains how evil can enter the creation of an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God. Evil is accounted for by the free choices of creatures. God permits free-will because he deems it a greater good to create creatures of will than to eliminate all possibility of evil."

Maybe you should Google it (free will theodicy), if only one man's explanation of it is not sufficient for you.

I am glad, though, that for once it is obvious that you DID take the time to read the paper. That's a nice change.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-20-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



It is not plagiarism since I didn't claim that it was my own writing. I could have, since you could never have proven that I didn't write it, but I gave the source as soon as you asked. It was more an oversight on my part, than anything else, since I always site my source. I was editting and moving things around, and searching for relevant points...bah.

That wasn't an attempt at explaining anything away...you can think that if you'd like, but again, it is unprovable since you can't say with any certainty that I did it intentionally.

If you write something, without posting a source, you're implying it is your own work, hence plagiarism. I acknowledge it was a mistake, yet that does not refute that it was plagiarism, it merely means that you mistakenly plagiarized.

quote:

You will also notice on the site that it doesn't say that it cannot be copied, for ANY reason. In fact, NOTHING is said. It's a sermon. Any and all sermons can be used in this manner. If you knew anything about the Christian faith, I wouldn't have to point that out to you.

It does not have to say "do not copy". Though it is encouraged, one does not have to even say "copyrighted" for a piece of work to have intelectual copyrights, and thus forbiding you from using it.

quote:

Explain how God can benefit from our suffering without suffering ? Also, do you not understand that while we suffer, God suffers ?

Your lack of ability to understand why this works stems from your lack of understanding of God.

I do not have to explain anything, since if he is omnipotent, he MUST be able to do it. Period.

quote:

As the author explains in the paper, God CAN be omni-benevolent and omnipotent at the same time.

"The free-will theodicy successfully explains how evil can enter the creation of an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God. Evil is accounted for by the free choices of creatures. God permits free-will because he deems it a greater good to create creatures of will than to eliminate all possibility of evil."

Maybe you should Google it (free will theodicy), if only one man's explanation of it is not sufficient for you.

I am glad, though, that for once it is obvious that you DID take the time to read the paper. That's a nice change.



Again, the paper refutes nothing. Either quote the article directly, or admit that it does not refute anything. It is your burdern to prove that the article does in fact refute my argument so do so.

Moreover, that quoation you cited does not refute my argument either.

Since god is supposedly omnipotent, he must have the power to allow free will to exist, while barring the possiblity of evil from existing, thus that he does not means that he is not benevolent.

I am asking for your perspective on it....if you can't, just say that. Don't say you WON'T, and then not give a viable reason for not doing it.

I was curious about what you thought would be a sufficient explanation of it.

Where did I say "wont"? Where did you ask me if something was a sufficient explanation? I honestly do not understand what you're refering to.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



If you understood it (which means you have to actually read it all the way through, and study it), you would believe it.

Hahahahaha, man you're dumb as hell.

Yeah, you're right.

But then, you seem to think everyone is dumb.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Yeah, you're right.

But then, you seem to think everyone is dumb.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I mean... if you and xtreem are everyone then I guess so. You see there comes a level of utter retardation in someone's posts where you just don't even feel like replying to them. And let me tell you, in my humble opinion, you've said a christ-load of retarded shit on this page.

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

Logic itself is flawed. Everything has identifiable logical fallacy in it. Just stop with the "impossible due to flawed logic crap" because your logic is also flawed. And scientists have far from ruled out the repitition of big-bang--big-crunch theory. An understanding of the big-bang theory as the claim of an eternally existing singularity that was caused to explode by a random flux of energy is almost as old as Einstein struggling to define a static universe.

Logic is the only flawless construct in existence. And I don't mean construct in the psychological sense, I mean it in the usual sense.

If you drop logic you drop everything else, so be smart and don't drop logic, because it always always always wins. Always.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

Logic is the only flawless construct in existence. And I don't mean construct in the psychological sense, I mean it in the usual sense.

If you drop logic you drop everything else, so be smart and don't drop logic, because it always always always wins. Always.

I'm not dropping logic I'm just saying that a logical fallacy (especially an undesignated one) is no grounds to dismiss the validity of something. However a logical impossibility is a different story.

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

I'm not dropping logic I'm just saying that a logical fallacy (especially an undesignated one) is no grounds to dismiss the validity of something. However a logical impossibility is a different story.

Yes it is. In the scope of religion we don't have logical certainties and impossibilities, so we must instead go to fallacies.

Logical fallacies are merely simpler ways to point out logical invalidities. Rather than saying (as some poster did on another topic) "X --> !Y, etc" which is tedious at best, the term "reductio ad absurdo" represents a long logical chain quickly.

If you can't make an argument without committing a logical fallacy, that should indicate that either your position or your arguing skills are lacking. Yes, positions for and agains religion can be made without fallacies.

Proof: I've made arguments both for and against certain topics of discussion in this forum's scope, and none of them have ever had a logical fallacy. This must indicate that the arguing skills of people who commit fallacies are lacking. That's not my problem.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:



If you can't make an argument without committing a logical fallacy, that should indicate that either your position or your arguing skills are lacking. Yes, positions for and agains religion can be made without fallacies.

Proof: I've made arguments both for and against certain topics of discussion in this forum's scope, and none of them have ever had a logical fallacy. This must indicate that the arguing skills of people who commit fallacies are lacking. That's not my problem.

Every statement possible to make has an indentifiable logical fallacy.

/tardlist add deptstoremook

Adorkable,

I've found this link that you may be interested in. It is in response to:

quote:Originally posted by Kiefer:

the bible is full of shit, do you actually believe that some magical man snapped his fingers and made water? you're fucking insane!

which i responded with:

quote:Originally posted by me:

which is more insane?:

belief that energy, being around forever, broke from equalibrium and "caused" the Big Bang. Which in-turn, randomly caused elements to form. Which, in-turn, radomly cause stars...planets... and peanuts to form?

Or

God, in His Word, says that He is eternal; says that He created via divine fiat(s); and says that He did it in 6 days.

which you responded:

quote: Originally posted by Adorkable:

You're dumb. Don't make assertions against the big-bang theory or related theories having as much understanding of them as a chicken would have of a japanese typewriter. Stephen Hawking... no, no, Brian Greene would be good reading for you.

What i summed up in my "which is more insane?" post, is much more detailed here:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=269

I am sorry that i left out the third possibillity; that the universe could have created itself, but this link will deal with that, and you might know why i did not mention it in the previous post.

To Digital_Savior: If you quote somebody else and post it as your own work, then you really seem like an asshole. Make sure to at least tell us that it's not your own work, because otherwise we're going to assume it is.

It was more an oversight on my part, than anything else, since I always site my source.

No you don't. See your post on the Godly Formulas (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/003899.html) topic. You didn't even paraphrase it -- you copied it word for word.

You probably don't understand what's wrong with what you're doing, do you? Well, let me give you an example from my own life.

I used to play chess on Yahoo! Games. I thought it'd be fun to see how well my chess video game would do on it, so I set it up to play my moves for me. Essentially, the video game was playing chess against these people on the Internet. But I never told the people that I was using the game, I just let them think whatever they wanted to.

I don't know exactly why my thoughts on it changed, but eventually I understood that what I was doing was giving people a false impression about my chess-playing abilities.

In the same way, whenever you do not mention that it isn't your own work you are giving people a false impression on your debating and intellectual skills. So if you really did intend to say (in that post) that it was somebody else's work, you should be more careful next time.

Edit: Sorry, I was feeling a bit pissy when I first wrote this since this was the second post in a row that I had read by you that you didn't say you were quoting somebody else. Here's some advice: put a link to your source (or just name it if it's offline) directly above the quoted text. That way you'll remember it easier, and people will know as soon as they begin reading that it's a quote.

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 04-24-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Adorkable:

Every statement possible to make has an indentifiable logical fallacy.

/tardlist add deptstoremook



Argumentum ad hominem.

The earth is billions of years

old. Dinosaurs died millions

of years ago. Birds evolved

from small carnivorous reptiles.

The tooth fairy isn't real.

There is no evidence of a global

flood. Humans did not live with

dinosaurs. Chemicals can cause

mental disorders, not demons.

Nobody has all the answers.

The vast universe was not created

to make small pretty lights in

the sky. The world is not flat,

and it's not the back of a giant

turtle. The square peg goes in the

square hole. There is no such thing

as sin.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

There is no such thing

as sin.

If one (without)were to see someone that has leprocy, i would guess that they would have a hard time taking a piece of bread that was offered to them (by the leperous person). But if both had the disease, sharing bread would be no big deal.

It is easy to not notice sin, since we are sinful.

That was a really good analogy, Xtreem.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

That was a really good analogy, Xtreem.

Thank you, but to be fair (since the issue of siting reference has been brought up), it was not my analogy. But i cant post the reference, cause it was "some guy" on the radio. lol

I do think it's funny that you are being accused of plagerizing, since, in general, you tend to post your references more often than most in this forum (including me). I would say that Rust also post references more than most in this forum, so i guess it was fair that he called you on it... <<shruggs>>.

I seem to recall a while ago, that someone kinda gave you shit about the amount of references that you post. So, i guess the old saying is true, you can't please everyone.. lol.

xtreem5150ahm: Thank you, but to be fair (since the issue of siting reference has been brought up), it was not my analogy. But i cant post the reference, cause it was "some guy" on the radio. lol

As long as you're not quoting it word for word, it isn't necessary to give the resource, although it is helpful in some cases to get further information.

I seem to recall a while ago, that someone kinda gave you shit about the amount of references that you post. So, i guess the old saying is true, you can't please everyone.. lol.

They probably weren't complaining about Digital_Savior referencing her resources, it was more likely complaints that she was just copying and pasting all her material from other places. I doubt they'd get upset for her mentioning where she copied and pasted from.

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

To Digital_Savior: If you quote somebody else and post it as your own work, then you really seem like an asshole. Make sure to at least tell us that it's not your own work, because otherwise we're going to assume it is.

Edit: Sorry, I was feeling a bit pissy when I first wrote this since this was the second post in a row that I had read by you that you didn't say you were quoting somebody else. Here's some advice: put a link to your source (or just name it if it's offline) directly above the quoted text. That way you'll remember it easier, and people will know as soon as they begin reading that it's a quote.



Hmmm...being that every single person on here quotes until they are stinking of plagierism, I find it a little unfair that it is ME that has been singled out.

Twice, then...twice I have done it, completely unintentional, regardless of what the perception might be.

I post a lot of stuff on here, and constantly site my sources.

In light of this evidenced practice, I don't find that it is necessary for you to be "schooling" me in the proper etiquette of Totse posting.

I don't need to try and make myself look smarter by stealing other people's papers. Hell, I am convinced that everyone here thinks I am an idiot anyway, so what purpose would it serve to do so ?

quote:Originally posted by tryss:

Many of you guys say this alot in the forum and I still don't quite understand what you mean. There's not that much in the Bible to be taken literally, it's usually stories with very deep morals. Someone explain to me what that actually means.



There's a case of a man sticking his hand on a train track and letting the train cut off his hand because of a part of the bible that says if you think about another woman lustfully you have sinned and should cut off your dirty limb.

there's a case of a women who, above an open bible, cut off her arm with a knife after babtizing herself over the bathtub. all in response to the bible. she bled to death.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Twice, then...twice I have done it, completely unintentional, regardless of what the perception might be.



No. Not Twice. I have told you to cite your sources more than one time before.

quote:Originally posted by tryss:

Many of you guys say this alot in the forum and I still don't quite understand what you mean. There's not that much in the Bible to be taken literally, it's usually stories with very deep morals. Someone explain to me what that actually means.

There was a case in Houston, TX, where three sisters beat, stabbed, and murdered their other sister over adultry. Another case where a father murdered his son for being gay. It happens all the time.