Flyingjj

Well, since everyone's sharing, I graduated with something like a 4.2 cumulative GPA. My school only offered like 7 AP classes, so I took them all plus one online. We had no honors classes either :( . I graduated 1 of like 450ish. And the scale varies so much from school to school, that it is very difficult to make comparisons. For example, my school's GPA scale was as follows: AP Classes: A - 5.0 B - 4.0 C - 3.0 D - 1.0 F - 0.0 Normal: A - 4.0 B - 3.0 C - 2.0 D -1.0 F - 0.0 And the grading scale, in percentages: 100-93 : A 92-85 : B 84-77 : C 76-70 : D Below 70 : F

Depends on how conservative of a Muslim you are. I very recently gained a new respect for Islam, especially after I found out how accepting they are of Christianity and Judaism.

Sounds to me like I'm gonna do some serious level 1 clue work for my own research. Thank you HAM.

Never seen Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Blood for Dracula, Countess Dracula, Nosferatu (both original and remake), Vampyr or the Vampire Lovers? Did I forget Todd Browning's Dracula? And the Fearless Vampire Killers. There are so many good vampire movies. I bet you haven't seen them all! I've seen the original Nosferatu, didn't like it. I'm just not a fan of vampires at all. Then you wouldn't like one of my old teachers. He has 600+ vampire movies. And that's a conservative estimate. I think it's more like 700+. On topic: I'm actually quite intrigued by the popularity of these books/movie. I'm probably going to read them over Christmas break, no matter how horrible some people consider them to be. I love books, I'm pretty sure I'll find these ones to be decent.

Okay, after doing some research, I have found that a general relationship between being religious and intelligence does exist in various studies. However, this doesn't mean anything besides a correlation. For example, (I know its not exactly an unbiased site, but bear with me) here's a site that shows that a country's GDP has a negative correlation with intelligence, at almost the exact same rate as religion: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_vs_iq.html Either way, I still resent that theory.

As a highly intelligent person, I resent that. As, I'm sure, do many others.

The New Testament supercedes portions of the Old Testament. Jesus preaches a gospel of non-violent love, not of stoning people. Does some of what Jesus says contradict the Old Testament? Yes, because by Jesus's coming the prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled and we are placed under the gospel of the New Testament rather than under the Law of the Old Testament. Why do I not stone Adulterers and Homosexuals? Because Jesus preached a gospel of love and says "Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone." I know I have sinned, so I'm not going to stone someone. I can't even counter your counter to my mustard seed argument, because your writing is unclear. I'm not sure what you are trying to say exactly. This is not trying to be insulting, but I don't get what you were trying to say. As an honest question, could you restate it in more clear words? Thank you. For now, I was simply giving a couple possibilities as to what could have been meant. As I said, the most likely one was that Jesus was referring to the faith of the disciples. As for moving mountains, give me enough explosives, and I'll move your mountains. :P

My hometown got hit with a blizzard a couple weeks ago. My grandma ended up with four feet of snow practically overnight. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) I am away at college and only got a very little amount from it a couple days later. Everyone went crazy, it started snowing around ten PM and by midnight there was a pretty good amount. People were running around having snowball fights and generally having a very good time. It was awesome. I love college. :D

Ehh, you don't have to have a long title to be different. "Nonconformist" works just fine for me. Non-conformity is a myth. If your not conforming to one, your conforming to another. Okay, you got me there. I conform to my own belief system which deviates away from normalcy. In other words, I'm that kid that gets looked at funny. Oh and about everyone being unique... yes, that's a given. No one can say they are "exactly like everyone else" but compared to the average human being, there is a lot of room for leeway when it comes to nonconformity. It's possible. The problem with that last bit is that there is no such thing as an average human being. The average human being is just an average of all measurable traits thrown together. No one person contains all those characteristics. No person is "average." It's the same way that an average of faces is more attractive than the individual faces, no matter how many faces the average is made up of. I'd explain it better, but I don't have time.

Wasn't there a big freakout of someone "seeing" like a green monster or something on Karamja right before summoning came out? That turned out to be nothing, so I guess I'd think it's made up. I don't know.

Who says a mustard seed has little faith? :P Sorry, had to say it. Hate to start another war over semantics here, but faith as small as a mustard seed can mean faith the size of a mustard seed or faith which is equal to the faith that a mustard seed has. Which goes into interpretation. I know you keep saying we're choosing which parts of the Bible to interpret literally and which to interpret figuratively, so I'll admit it. We are. But that's the way it is supposed to be. I'm pretty sure your not going to understand what I am trying to say, but some parts of the Bible were meant to be taken figuratively. Numerous parables show this. When Jesus says mustard seed, he's refering to the whole context that comes with it. It'd be like me using an idiom now. No one who doesn't know the context/reference would know what I was talking about. I don't have time to explain it now, but I could if I did and you cared to hear it (not that you'd listen). Oh, and I believe I can move mountains. (not figuratively) On my own time, not yours. Jesus is not going round about. He straight out says that nearly everyone with faith can do it. It's not like it's Revelations here, he's straight out saying it in very plain language. A mustard seed is very very small physically, and I would think it not a hard wager to state that inanimate objects don't have very much faith, so either way the point is the same. Either you say that Jesus is LYING, or that you, nor anyone, has that much faith. How can you justify worshiping a book that is supposed to guide your life, that says that you must obey ALL of it, and yet pick and choose what to believe in? Why can't I say that the 10 commandments are figurative and I can make as many graven images as I want, but you can dance around this with the same argument? I am not saying Jesus is LYING. I do not pick and choose what to believe in. Those are your words and your words alone. Why can't you say that the 10 commandments are figurative? Because the context the 10 commandments were given in had nothing to indicate that that they should be taken figuratively. This, on the other hand, does. Can faith be measured and quantified in any way that would indicate size? No. Therefore, you must look for deeper meaning in the figurative possibilities. Besides, Jesus was directly addressing the disciples at this point. They had repeatedly shown that they were of little faith. They had seen Jesus perform miracles over and over yet still doubted him whenever he was about to perform one or said something they didn't understand. Then there is the idea that we are making a comparison to the mustard seed's own faith, which can be looked at in a different metaphorical light. The mustard seed, as you said a very very small object, must have a large faith that it will receive all the water and nutrients it needs to grow. If we assume it does in the metaphorical sight, we need only look to the spreading nature of the mustard plant. In those days, mustard plants were looked upon as weeds because they spread so quickly and could so quickly take over a plot of land. Seen in this light, the spreading of the plant is a result/representation of the seed's (very large) faith. Or, you could just go with the fact that the disciples did, indeed, have very little faith. As for myself, I already said that I believe I can move mountains (again, not figuratively). On the subject of gay rights, sure the Bible says it is wrong, and I believe that. But that does not mean that we should punish those people or take away any human rights because they are homosexual. Once again to you Tryto, I believe in the entire Bible, I DO NOT pick and choose what to believe in. Whether or not you think that is what I am doing, that's your opinion.

Who says a mustard seed has little faith? :P Sorry, had to say it. Hate to start another war over semantics here, but faith as small as a mustard seed can mean faith the size of a mustard seed or faith which is equal to the faith that a mustard seed has. Which goes into interpretation. I know you keep saying we're choosing which parts of the Bible to interpret literally and which to interpret figuratively, so I'll admit it. We are. But that's the way it is supposed to be. I'm pretty sure your not going to understand what I am trying to say, but some parts of the Bible were meant to be taken figuratively. Numerous parables show this. When Jesus says mustard seed, he's refering to the whole context that comes with it. It'd be like me using an idiom now. No one who doesn't know the context/reference would know what I was talking about. I don't have time to explain it now, but I could if I did and you cared to hear it (not that you'd listen). Oh, and I believe I can move mountains. (not figuratively) On my own time, not yours.

Electricity. Electricity comes, for the most part, from where, again? :roll:

Not true. Federal law supersedes state law, so if the state law has a lower minimum wage the federal law takes precedent. The national minimum wage in the US is 5.75$ an hour. In no state can it be lower then that. Straight from the website of the Kansas Department of Labor: http://www.dol.ks.gov/ES/HTML/laws_RES.html Federal law doesn't surpass it, and there have been many attempts to raise the pathetic minimum wage of $2.65: http://www.unionvoice.org/kansas_workbe ... id=1551213 As the article says, if you were to work full time in Kansas at minimum wage, you'd earn $5,000 per year. You can't live on that. Minimum wage employees that would be eligible for the FLSA are schools, government agencies and large companies; For which few poor people have qualifications to work for (should include the Burger Kings and fast food restaurants though) You can't go lower than the federal minimum wage unless it is a job that makes tips or is on commission. I'm fairly sure that he's right. [/hide] I think its something like any business that is not contained entirely in a state is subject to that states laws and any business (like fast food chains) that operate in multiple states fall under federal regulations.

Quoted for truth. I might say I'm a bit more "different" than most people, but that's strange to define in itself. I am quite spontaneous sometimes, and I do things that a lot of people don't. But, then again I probably am just a crazy genius at heart. Going back to the original post, one thing I am convinced of is that there is another form of energy other than the combustion system we have built everything on. Sure there's nuclear, but that's, well, radioactive. I am sure there is a form of energy as usable as the hydrocarbon system we have built so much on. I often ponder what the world would be like if it did not run on what basically comes down to fire.

A slight variant that makes things even more "fun" is that the one person is someone you know well, like a best friend, spouse, etc..

The schizophrenic perceives reality differently as well. I do not wish to liken theism to a mental illness -- the term has such a negative undertone (hell, homosexuality was once labelled a mental illness) -- but belief in god (more specifically, god's role in our lives) certainly is a delusion. At the very least, it is as much of a delusion as the belief in ghosts, goblins and the Tooth Fairy. There is debate among psychologists about schizophrenia and other such "disorders" being labeled as such. I say again, because they see reality differently, we label that as abnormal and a disease. You ever think that maybe we're all the crazy ones and the schizophrenics are the only ones who see the world for what it truly is? Us trying to "help" them might only be us supressing that which we cannot, or do not wish to, see. The real problem I have with the belief of theism as a delusion is when people state such a thing as a fact, something that is "certain." I don't care whether you believe that yourself, but don't state something as fact when it isn't. Running the risk of having this thrown right back in my face, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that we are delusional, as we claim we aren't and you do, therefore, you must prove that our delusion truly exists.

Wow, that was a busy day I missed. Not actually going to add to any arguments tonight, too much to do. But Sly, man you're digging a big hole for our religion here. Some of your arguments don't make sense to me, and I agree with you. I don't currently have the time or patience to pull us out of this hole. But some of the points you bring up aren't completely pointless. I'm sorry to sound so mean, but I was shaking my head as I read the last five pages. Good job irritating the atheists while I was gone though. :P (Just kidding, take it easy guys...) Both sides need to put a leash on their tone, my last post included, I let a bit of frustration and hurt into that one. Tone is very important and sometimes leads others to make assumptions about things you may not necessarily believe. My particular beef is with James, but everyone could take the harshness down a step, even if you do believe that the other person is completely unable to understand the point of what you just posted. I know this is a few pages back, but James, I again request that you refrain from calling me delusional because I perceive reality differently than you. It does end up sounding like you are calling me something very close to stupid, even if you aren't. ;)

I don't understand it either. The Bible may or may not contradict iself; matter it does not. What baffles me is how someone can take such an elaborate work of mind control over society seriously when it contradicts the only "religion" worth believing in: science. Unlike religion, science changes every day. If there was undeniable proof that God existed, science would not deny it. If there was undeiable proof that God didn't exist, religion would deny it. What bothers me is how closed minded you can be. I think no differently of you for choosing to be Atheist, but I do think differently about you for seeming as if religion is the worst thing that ever happened to society. Now, debates can be made about the effects religion has had on the world, but I take offense why someone starts calling me stupid. Why do I believe in religion when there is the "Almighty Science" to believe in? Because science does not do it for me. It "proves" nothing. All it "proves" is that things operate this way. It tells me no why, which is what I truly desire to know. Why are things this way? Why are people the way they are? Why are we here? Science does not answer these questions, and I doubt will ever be able to. That is why I continue to persist in my "delusion" of religion. It gives my life purpose, meaning, a sense of understanding. I say often enough that if I did not believe what I do, I would have killed myself and probably others a long time ago because of the desparity of it all. Life would seem so pointless without something to believe in. Let me ask you a few questions, ones that I would like to know. What do you think about when you think about death? Do you dwell on the fact that your life means nothing, that you've contributed nothing to this world that is significant in any way? How about the idea that the world would be no different if you had never been born? Are you afraid of death? My beliefs allow me to believe that my life and the life of everyone has a purpose. They also let me sleep peacefully, never afraid of dying. If nothing else, I am content to continue in my delusion of religion because it provides me comfort that science never will, allows me to never fear death. You can question religion all you want, but please do not insult me or call me crazy for believing what I do. Respect me as a human being, if you please.

Sorry, I did end up figuring out while typing that last post that I am actually gaining something from this conversation. I'm learning a ton about my own faith and growing stronger in it all the while. I may continue to put input in, especially when something outrageous is posted, like that list of contradictions. Here is what I wrote in response to that: Oh, it's definitely not that bad. I randomly picked some to check, and NONE of them I did were actual contradictions. For starters, many ignore context. Others simply leave off half the verse to prove their point. One prominent problem I notice is one I already pointed out, that being language. Just for example, Greek has several words for "sword," which have different meanings and refer to entirely different situations. One of the most outrageous examples was as follows: Taking the whole context, they read(bearing in mind I have a slightly different translation than that used in the example, but the point remains the same): If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid. -John 5:31-32 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me. -John 8:17-18 Even if you disagree with what Jesus is saying there, the complete context complements itself, not contradicts. And that was just for starters. I have neither the time nor energy to debate each one, but I wanted to point out that that is a completely biased list and should not be taken as fact by anyone who might be persuaded by it. Tryto and I can agree on one thing: we both are going to bed. Goodnight all.

Unless someone steps forward and says that this discussion is having an effect on them personally, I am unlikely to continue discussing it beyond this point, as neither of us, nor anyone who has posted recently, appears to be persuadable either way. Not that I expect any concession from either side on any points, but here goes anyway on some of the current points: I know this won't sway you, but nothing I say will. I don't believe that parts of the Bible have been "completely scientifically debunked" nor do I believe that you can pick and choose what to believe/interpret in the Bible. Science can tell me all they want about how things work, but I want why they work. Science can not give me that. Take gravity, for example. Science says that gravity is a force that exists between every two objects in the universe, the strength of which is determined by the mass of each object and the distance between them. It has not been shown (at least in "proven" science, maybe in theoretical science, which is pretty much based on the same thing religion is, speculation) why a force exists between any two objects. I take everything in the Bible as literal(well, maybe not Revelations, but that's a whole nother bird). If something does not compute, it is not because it is contradicting itself, but because you are not reading it correctly or do not understand the author's intent. Again, I point out differences in languages. Words can be translated with slightly different meanings and translations that have different connotations than the original intent. Don't write this off as "gymnastics," it's a legitimate scholarly argument and fact. You also must realise that the Old Testament and New Testament were written at different times(duh) and after different events. The New Testament fulfills many of the prophesies of the Old Testament and marks the beginning of a new "covenant" with God. Put elequently, we no longer live under the Law (Old Testament), but we live by the Grace of God. You can almost view it as a transformation of sorts. God was a vengeful God in the Old Testament. The people were taught to "fear" Him. But, God knew that he was vengeful and so, when the time was right, sent Jesus to redeem the people from the Law. I guess you could see Jesus as a barrier between God's wrath and human kind. After Jesus's death and resurrection, you see no more instances of God's direct interference in punishing humankind. The New Testament then preaches a gospel of a loving God who has taken pity on his lost and directionless sheep. He then expects to work in the world through those that follow him rather than directly. Does it always happen? No. Do we always hear God's message loud and clear? No. I guess I have gained something from this discussion. Even as I read these responses I become more and more certain that my interpretation of God's omniscience is the correct one. God sees and knows all possibilities, but the future is never known because it has never yet happened. He knows everything that has happening, is happening, and what will happen (in the sense that since he knows all possibilities he is not surprised). So, when the Bible says "I knew you before you were formed in your mother's womb," he does indeed "know" you because there was even the slightest possibility that you would be born. This was, in fact, my intial doubt that I spoke of. I resolved the matter then (at ten) because I decided it really didn't matter whether he was good or not, He was "God" and therefore good and evil did not really apply. Now I would say that no, I do not believe that God is good simply because He is good. As you have kindly pointed out, at certain times in the history of the Bible, He was quite jealous and vengeful, aspects one would not normally assign to a "good" person. In terms of the Old Testament (where all of God's direct acts of vengence occured), God wanted people to be content with the fact that He created them and they should be thankful for that. He did not need to be "good." Perhaps he became disillusioned with the idea that people would love Him simply because he was God and decided to take pity on them and send a Savior. I don't know His reasons, but after the coming of Christ, God is indeed transformed into this "good" Being that we think of Him as now. At a certain point, it comes down to a matter of choice of what to have faith in. I don't believe in God because of what the Bible says, but I believe what the Bible says because I believe in God. Certain events have occured in my life that have caused me to have faith in God. Whereas others often choose to assign such occurences to chance or random luck, I assign them to God because I have faith in Him. Others have faith in science or believe that such a thing could happen by chance, but I for many reasons do not. It is a matter of choice, preference, and, if I may, free will. I am the product of my choices. Oh, and who says I don't believe in pixies... :P

When it comes to almighty omniscience, I think predicting the future would be a piece of cake. Well, I don't. See, difference in opinions. Since the future has not happened, it doesn't exist, and I therefore think that it is not something that is known, knowable, or even something to begin with.

1) I'll concede the point - almost. Atheist implies that you have made a conscious decision to believe there is no God or religious entities at all. You are not born believing this fact, making you more... agnostic, perhaps? Atheism is a belief in and of itself. The second part is debatable, but lies solely on the religious basis that the Bible is the Word of God. 2) See my last post. Basically, he can not know what people will choose because they haven't chosen yet, or something to that effect. Surprised? No. Disappointed? Maybe. If you knew everything would you be surprised by anything? Things can, however, turn out differently than you would have liked.

I will not fully address argument, since it is obvious we will continue to disagree on the point. It does, however, seem to come down to the definition of omniscient. The problem with definitions is that they can be different for various and have slightly different meanings. Also, omniscient is an English (or Latin) word, meaning it could and probably does have a slightly different meaning than the original Hebrew and Greek languages in which the Old and New (respectively) Testaments were originally written. So, it comes down to me taking a slightly different turn with omniscient than you. Or I could go deeper into my own faith and say that although God does know what everyone will do, he still has hope and faith that that is not what they will do(I know that doesn't make sense, don't waste your time on that one). Or, how do you know that the future is something that is knowledge. After all, it hasn't happened yet, and therefore does not exist. Before you bring up the easy way out on that one (prophecy), God can act to make prophecies happen in specific ways. As for the man lying in the street, if the two (you finding him and God helping him) are not mutually exclusive, then perhaps God manipulated certain events in your life(perhaps sending a thought to you that delays you just enough to miss the bus and have to walk home) to ensure that you find the man and help him. Ignore the following comment completely, it's more of an off hand remark than an argument of any sort: Perhaps it is all an exercise in futility. Noone knows the meaning of life and, as far as I know, none is given in the Bible, except that God wanted to "play God" and have fun, in which case we are all like army men in his little war to entertain himself. Anyway, as for my own faith, I became Christian because I was raised Christian, but I stayed Christian through an extensive faith journey started when I doubted my faith in God when I was around ten and continues until this day, the details of which are extremely personal and I do not wish to share over the internet.

So. You believe that God does know everything that will happen. You're forgetting the creation part. God creates atheists, knowing that they will be atheists, and then decides to throw them in hellfire. God creates diseases, war, and murder, on purpose, to hurt you. God is a mentally challenged eight year old, playing with bugs and then punishing them for doing what he sentenced them to do perfectly conscious of what they would do. Humanity made the correct choices? Let's take the bible. God created the Isrealites knowing that they would follow idolatrous gods, then punished them for doing that. God created adam and eve, knowing that they would eat the "evil" apple and he would have to punish them for it. God created Job, knowing that he would punish him and his family for no reason other than a petty disagreement with Satan, and created Satan knowing that he would cause the fall of man, if you believe he was the serpent. Face it. With an omniscient, omnipotent god, there can be no free will. He knows everything that will happen. Everything is preordained. I never mentioned the creation part on purpose. It does not apply. Once God originally created everything, the possibilities were open. He saw and sees all those possibilities, but leaves humans to make choices that affect which ones actually occur. He may have a hand in everyone's creation, but that doesn't mean he forces them down a certain path, even if he has a path he wishes they would take. I never said humanity made the correct choices, I only said that God had faith they would make them. They didn't, hence the punishment. God does not make Atheists, they choose to become them. To be omniscient, you don't have to know everything that will happen, only everything that can happen (which is far more impressive). To be certain, God can interfere if and when he wants to, as with Job, but that's the point now, isn't it?