Astralinre

*applauds* Rihla, that was brilliant. I was cracking up when I read that - absolutely hilarious. Thanks for the good laugh. :P And, of course, in regards to the evolution of English, you forgot to mention the Great Vowel Shift! :P

Logic, you probally missed this, since it was buried so quickly under three more pages of posts, but I addressed a post to you a while back. :)

Ok, I know I've come in rather late to this part of the discussion, but I've been out of town and have something to say to Logic about Mere Christianity. I always interpreted Lewis's point about all cultures having the same basic values as talking about abstract values, not concrete applications. While not all cultures agree on the things you mentioned, nearly all cultures value honor, loyalty, respect, love, honesty, life, and the like. They simply have different ways of applying and expressing those values.

First off, allow me to say that I do not support it, I merely don't oppose it. However, I do believe that practising homosexuality is morally wrong. The way I see it, allowing them to enter the legal contract of marriage cannot do any more harm to the institution of marriage than a 50 percent divorce rate and rampant promiscuity are already doing. Let them make and break their vows just like everybody else. I don't believe the Church should recognize such marriages, but the government can define its own contracts however it wants to. Since I'm tired, about to go to bed, and don't feel like explaining myself fully, allow me to quote Paradox from the teddekker.com forums, who has similar views to mine and happened to make a post about this today. Tigra, cool your jets. Piano just asked me a question. There was no reason whatsoever for you to get involved and flame him. If I had a problem with it, which I don't, then it would be better to let me deal with it that to jump in and bash Piano the first chance you had. Besides, your assessment of me not caring what others do is way off. What good does love for God do if it does not yield love and concern for others? (Thanks, Ghost. You saved me some typing.) :)

Don't worry, guys. I hax0red into the Apple database and found some pictures of the iProduct prototype. :shock:

Isn't it fun to watch how easily we all go off on tangents? :P A simple etymological statement turned into the last two pages. :-s I'm American. I'm a Christian, and I tend to be politically conservative. I'm against abortion, but I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I've got some issues with the war in Iraq, but I'm not completely opposed to it. As for economic issues, I don't know enough to have a stance. I don't support any party, though almost all of my family is Republican. The upcoming presidential election will be the first one I can vote in, and I'll examine the candidates' view and their parties' views when the time comes. As you can probally tell, politics isn't of that much interest to me right now. Of course, once I'm able to vote, I'll be getting all the information I can.

Ok, you've explained your reasoning very well, but you still haven't told me why your reasoning can be trusted to be accurate? How do you know that you are perceiving and interpreting the evidence accurately? I'm not trying to disprove the merit of logic, my point, as Ghost's point was earlier, is to show that every system of thought, when you go to the most basic level, is built on unproven assumptions. You assume that your logic is trustworthy. I assume that God exists and His word is trustworthy. You assume that your view is better than mine because it is grounded in logic, rather than in faith. My point is that your logic is also grounded in faith.

I don't think he's saying that they don't know anything about God/gods, but that they profess that they don't know whether God/gods exist, thus making them ignorant (not knowing) in that one area.

That is a completely nonsensical question. I have already defined logic above. As far as logic being a good thing, maybe itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not for you. I know that religion has always had a problem with free thought and analysis. Hmmmm. Wonder why that is? Thanks for the insults. Allow me to rephrase my question in a way that you might not consider nonsense. How do you know that your reason can be trusted?

You know what, I feel very ignorant, but could someone please show me phoenectically how "ch" in loch is pronounced?

Godzira, I've got another question for you. How do you know that logic is a good thing? Can you prove that logic is a good thing? Can you do so without bringing your personal beliefs into it?

I believe that morally good acts are good because they are willed by God. To say that God wills them because they are morally good in and of themselves implies that there is a standard of right and wrong which is higher than and independent from God. I believe that God alone is self-existent, and that nothing is above Him, therefore I do not believe that there is a standard of morality which is above Him.

To be honest, I can't comprehend eternity any more than you can. I can't comprehend spending forever in God's presence. I can't comprehend spending forever completely cut off from Him. But simply because we cannot understand how long infinity is does not mean that our actions are not of infinite gravity. Regardless of your personal reason for doing so, rejecting God is rejecting God. Whether it's because of pride or simply intellectual skepticism, why would God give you Heaven when you have rejected the very one who makes Heaven what it is?

Logic, you raise some good points. My answer to the finite sin/infinite punishment is this: There is no such thing as a finite sin. Every sin we commit is an offense against an infinite God, thus making it an offense of infinite gravity. That is also why only Jesus, God in the flesh, could pay the penalty for our sins. It took infinite atonement to pay the price for our infinite sins against an infinite God. As to your point of how a good God can punish His creations like that, I would say that He is merely giving them what they want. They have rejected Him, so why would He force them to spend eternity with Him? They want to be their own gods, so He lets them. And since God is the source of all good things, including happiness, those who rejected Him are left with nothing but infinite misery. As far as I know, people could have different degrees of pain in Hell (see Dante's Inferno), but I do believe that not one of them will have a bit of joy, since they chose to be cut off from Joy Himself.

God is omnipotent, meaning that He can do all things which are intrinsically possible. It follows that He cannot do those things which are intrinsically contradictory, nonsensical, or otherwise impossible. Non-sense is non-sense, even if you put the words "God can" in front of it.

r _ b _ _ t _ Someone give me a hint on the Distance + Time one? I second that. Edit: Ooh, I just got it! Not a short time, but...

Bubsa, "Varrock, Varrock" was incredible. You sounded great in it. :P As a Sinatra fan, I can honestly say well done! :D

Whatever lol, when people speak Elizabethan it just makes me angry. And what do you mean by "don't want to be answerable to anything but yourself, correct"? To several of the 10 Commandments, you simply responded, "I'll do what I want." That makes it seem like you consider yourself the ultimate authority as to what you're going to do, so you don't want to have some higher authority telling you what to do. And MPC, watch out. This thread is his lair, so if you're going to post on it treat him with respect, else he destroy you. :shock:

So in other words, you believe in Satanism because you don't want to be answerable to anything but yourself, correct? And by the way, that's not Old English; it's Elizabethan. Old English looks like this:

By the way... Who asked you? :P

Well these rules are kind of old, by destroy they mean beat up, or kill even (I wouldn't kill anyone though). Would merely destroying someone's reputation or finances be acceptable? Besides this, the only other types of Satanism I've heard of either practice devil worship or simply revere Satan as a bringer of light and knowledge.

Have you never seen a Jedi block projectiles with his lightsaber? Those bullets would be dust before they could hit the Jedi. Wrong. Even if someone is invisible, a Jedi can still sense him through the Force, since it surpasses all physical senses. What? So? The Jedi can just use the Force to pull the ninja back down, as he waits on the ground with his lightsaber, ready to strike. One word: Flammable. "Size matters not" in regards to the Force. Yoda did not struggle with the weight of the pillar, but the fact that Darth Tyrannus was also using his Force powers to throw it. A Jedi could move a pirate ship no problem, unless another Jedi/Sith was using the Force to keep him from doing it. Because having a disease is so cool? Jedi > * :P

Because Trix are for kids and kicks are for Treds. [/topic]

Piano, I believe the other word you're looking for is "behemoth." :) Though I would like to point out that there are many who contest that those words are not referring to dinosaurs, though it does seem to fit.

If you're willing to dish out some dough, then you ought to spring for a nice SLR. I use a Nikon D50 and have been very pleased with it, but Canon has some nice products too.