Astralinre

Suffering builds character, but you refuse to let it build you up, it may destroy you. View every situation, good or bad, as a gift. The good situations are gifts because they make you happy; the bad are gifts because they make you stronger. I also believe that we live to know, serve, glorify, and enjoy God.

Forgive me for not understanding, but if the universe is isotropic, then how come our laws of physics wouldn't work in some areas of space? If they apply to one section of space, wouldn't they apply to them all? And, assuming you are correct that the universe is isotropic, I'd still argue that not finding God in a certain area wouldn't prove his non-existence. It could very well be that we just don't have the tools to detect him yet. You mentioned background radiation - how long have we had the tools to detect that? Imagine if we didn't have the tools to detect it, but we explored a significantly large area of space with the tools we did have. We wouldn't detect the background radiation, but that wouldn't disprove it's existence. We may have explored all the space, but we didn't explore every level of existence. In my mind, it's the same thing with God - we can explore all the space in the universe, but until we also explore all the levels of existence in the universe, we can't prove He doesn't exist. I realize this is a pretty weak argument and doesn't at all prove that God exists, but my point is simply that unless one knows all of reality (all space and all levels of reality), one cannot say with real certainty that God does not exists - the chance that He's out there cannot be entirely ruled out, though it may be made to seem unlikely. I agree that the Crusades were horrible, but they have nothing to do with the origins or teaching of Christianity. For one thing, Christianity orginated a millineum before the Crusades took place. For another thing, what the Crusaders did actually went against the teachings of the Bible. MyPurpleCrayon: One explanation I've heard is that the Flood was actually misinterpreted. The Hebrew word for world is the same as the Hebrew word for country or land, so the Flood was on a much smaller scale than we think. According to this explanation, only the Middle East was flooded, since that's where all of humanity was at the time and it wouldn't have been necessary to flood the rest of the world. However, I don't know Hebrew, and I've never seen the original text, so I'm not sure about the accuracy of that explanation. :?

Actually, it doesn't require absolute knowledge to prove there is a God, while it is required to prove there is no God. It's the difference between a positive universal claim and a negative universal claim. Imagine the universe as a room, and you want to prove that there is a spider in the room. If you want to prove the spider's presence, you only have to know one part of the room - the part where the spider is. However, if you wish to prove that there is no spider in the room, you must know every nook and crany of the room, lest the spider be hiding in some unknown corner. It's the same thing with God. To prove the existence of God, one would only have to have knowledge of one place where God is. But to prove that there is no God, one would have to know every bit of reality (be omniscient), lest God be in some far reach of the universe that man doesn't know about. Therefore, to say that there absolutely is no God is to claim omniscience. However, if you were omniscient, you'd probally fit the definition of God, hence proving that there is a God. All of that to say this: Man will never be able to conclusively say that there is no God, though one can reasonably say that one doesn't believe in God's existence. However, it is possible that someone could find direct proof of a God without being all-knowing. I'd have to agree that we aren't 100% sure whether or not we're right, but then again, everything we know is based on assumptions, axioms, unproven beliefs. I know I'm going off on a tangent here, but I can't think of any other response, so please humor me for a moment. =P Christianity is based on the assumption that there is an infinite-personal, triune God (to use Schaeffer's term) who created man in his image and wants man to spend eternity with him. Science is based on the assumptions that the universe is reasonable and that man's reason and senses can accurately explain reality. Democracy is based on the assumption that the masses can govern themselves well. We assume that knowledges is better than ignorance, that wealth is better than poverty, and that excitement is better than boredom. This conversation we're having is based on the assumption that we can communicate meaning to another human being. I think what I'm getting at is that we have to make assumptions and base our lives on them, so how is making moral assumptions any different? One of my assumptions is that it's better to believe in something and follow it than to say "All assumptions are equally valid, so I won't measure others against my assumptions." In the sea of pluralism, I prefer to find a voice, make in mine, and defend it, rather than try to accept all the voices at once. I'm not trying to advocate close-mindedness, just confidence and faith in your own assumptions. Well, that was a long post for me. :o :P

I'd say that the Trilogy easily beats out the origianl Star Trek, but TNG and DS9 are better than the Prequels. I haven't watched Voyager or Enterprise much, so I can't really comment on their place.

You could always try reading a good book or doing some homework. :)

Just putting my two cents in... No matter what, whether you ask her out now or choose to stay friends, treat her with utmost respect. Treat her as a person, not an object. Don't worry so much about getting access to her body, but rather focus on winning her heart. Ignore the guy who said ealier to forget about the poetry - if it's your thing, then go with it, because there's plenty of girls out there who like creative, poetic guys (my girlfriend being one of them). And I know you don't want to hear (erm... read) this again, but I think you're a bit too young for this. Right now, focus on building a strong friendship with her, then ask her out in a couple of years. But then again, you may be one of those rare few who's very mature for your age, but since I don't know you, I can't be the judge of that. Talk to your parents about it, and if you're too embarrassed to talk to them, then find an adult who you trust to discuss it with. Also keep in mind that there's a good bit of responsibility that comes with a relationship, and you may not be ready for that load yet. Whatever choice you make, I wish you well.

the nuke ended WW2 estimates say that it saved about 5 million people ...you didn't understand his post, did you? Heh, my thought exactly. That really goes in favor of my point - the nuke extended the duration of five million people's lives, which is improving the quality of life for them. However, it did nothing to make them better people. :)

You make a good point about science improving the quality of life for people, but I'd argue that religion can improve something science cannot. Science is great for improving people's circumstances, but it cannot improve people. I've seen people who were arrogant, lustful, deceitful, or hateful suddenly become humble, honest, and loving after becoming Christians. However, I've never seen any scientific discovery affect a change like that in a person. Science and religion each have their own place in life - science to improve the life; religion to improve the person living that life and to teach him how to enjoy and use it best.

I've honestly never understood how teaching ID in schools has anything to do with the separation of Church and State. Saying "There's a possibility that a self-existant intellegent being created is the universe." is hardly forcing people to follow the Church. It's not like their saying "The Genesis account is true, so you have to follow Christianity." or "The Greek gods created the earth and you, therefore you should worship them and sacrifice to them." It's hardly affirming one religion, so I don't think it has anything to do with Church and State separation. And to those saying there's no proof of ID - Do you not consider the degree of organization in this world to be proof enough? When one sees a highly complex structure that works well, one assumes that someone made it. Or at least I do. To use an old example, if you put all the pieces of a fighter jet together in a wind tunnel, turned it on, and let the pieces fly about, would you expect all the pieces to come together to fit the proper design and work perfectly? If you saw a perfectly working fighter jet, would you assume it came together by that process or that it was built by a skilled professional?

but she's 14 inches shorter than me, you couldn't understand, gnome :lol: *sniffles* I'm only 11 inches taller than my girlfriend who's 5'1. You're making me feel inadequate. :P I know two guys at school who are about 6'6 - one of them is thin as a stick and the other is pretty thick around the waist.

I'm a cross country runner, so I love running for miles, and this summer I started to really enjoy lifting weights too. Sadly, I've got an injured back right now, so I can't run or lift. :( 6'0 and 130lb.

As a Christian, I'd have to agree with Merc that alot of Christian bands don't do a very good job. They focus more on making "Christian music" than making good music that glorifies Christ. But there are a few really good Christian bands and singers out there- Phillips, Craig, and Dean MercyMe Chris Rice is also one of my favorites, but most people I know aren't big fans of him. Todd Agnew isn't too bad either. I can't think of any more off the top of my head, since I listen mostly to country western, but there's plenty of good, God-honoring music out there if you know where to look. :)

Eh? If I recall correctly, Nicolae Carpathia is the the name of a character in Tim Layahe's Left Behind series. The character is the anti-Christ in the books, but Nicolae isn't an actual person.

Ok. Going from that verse, so long as you do one or the other you'll be fine? This is why I find religion to be a bit on the 'bs' side of things. I must've read close to 30 ways of being able to get into heaven and they all can't be right since s lot of them have conflicting information. *shrug* Conflicting information doesn't automatically make religion false or ridiculous. What you if were to come across two conflicting hypothosises proposed by different scientists? Would you conclude that science is "BS"? Nearly all religions grasp at truth, and many, if not all of them, contain some truth. However, I believe that only Christianity contains the full truth. Please don't accuse me of being arrogant for this belief, because I'm not trying to be arrogant. I'm not saying "haha, I'm right, and all you suckers are morons." - I'm simply saying that I believe God has revealed his truth through the Bible, and that all of man's attempts to fully grasp that truth have only been partially successful. But yes, if you do one or the other (Obey God's commandments or accept His grace) you'll be fine. The problem is that none of us can keep His commandments. Christianity teaches that the only man who never sinned is Jesus Christ.

May I try to clarify some things about the Christian view of sin, salvation, and the afterlife? Basically, everyone is already condemned by his own sin. We are born into a fallen world, and each and every person has fallen short of God's standard. Everyone is heading for eternal death. No matter how much good we do, we cannot live up to the perfection God requires. However, God offers us a way out. He bore the punishment for our disobedience and disbelief so that we can be free to believe and do good works. To Cloaked Shadow: simply believing in Christ's existence does not get you into heaven, according to Christianity. Not even believing he was a prophet will. One must accept him as Savior, and believe he is Lord. This leads one to live a life of good works, though those good works have no power for salvation. Anyway, I don't want to go too far off topic, and the mods will get mad if they think I'm trying to turn this into (how's that for alliteration, eh?) an evangelizing post, so please PM me if any of you have any questions or replies, and I'll do my best to respond adequately. Hopefully I helped some of you understand the Christian view of things a little better.

My girlfriend's smile. That feeling of wonder during an eleven mile run in the rain. That satisfaction of having done a hard day's work well. A hot shower after that hard day. A great conversation with a close friend. A homecooked meal. Knowing that no matter what may happen, God will sustain me.

Well, this is a little off topic, but there's several kinds of love. There's what the Greeks called agape - charitable love. This is word the Bible uses when it says to love your neighbor as yourself. I believe that one should extend this love to everyone one meets. Then there's eros - sexual love. I believe that this should be reserved for a spouse alone. There's what some would call mother love - the special relationship a mother has with her children. Obviously, you can't love everyone in the same way. You will love your spouse differently than you love your children, and your children differently than your neighbor. I think it's best to love them all in which ever way is appropriate. I'm not really sure why I typed this, but hopefully someone will find it interesting or helpful. :)

Assuming it's true (moral absolution), horrible things are never justified, because "horrible" things, would contradict the moral Law. And how would you know it is true? You just assume? Just like everyone else who believes in an absolute moral Law? They contradict eachother - which is right? Would you mind explaining how they contradict each other, and what exactly are "they'? :confused: Sorry for not understanding what you meant there. Assuming morals are relative: Horrible according to what? This is where we run into a problem, there's nothing to justify, because horrible is a relative term. What's horrible to one person could be amazingly kind to another person, so justification becomes relative as well - justice ceases to exist and all actions become impossible to interpret one way or another. How can you possibly call us arrogant, assuming morals are relative? Arrogant is now, a relative term, that only applies to your point of view - trying to force that view on us, is simply being arrogant yourself. But wait, I can't use the word arrogant because it's relative! This is ridiculous! We can't even communicate using moral/personal terms anymore because they only apply to the person using them. It's not ridiculous, it means everyone is entitled to an opinion. The law is formed based on the common denominator of morals amongst the majority of a country's population, and you are judged on that. In the same way, sometimes judges find people guilty or innocent based on the law, while they themselves disagree with that (one of the reasons it's so hard to be a judge). See also Matthew 7:1-7. Might I ask what that passage has to do with what you said? "Judge not, lest you be judged. For with the measure you use, so it will be measured unto you." You know, if you believe that there is a universal moral law which everyone is accountable to, then what's wrong with judging people according to it, since you yourself are judged according to it? It declares others guilty just as it declares you guilty. As a Christian, this is where God's grace and the death of Christ come in - they enable you to avoid the punishment for moral guilt, since Christ took that guilt. Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent. And yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Their opinion may be wrong - I know I've had and do have many wrong opinions - but they're entitled to their own opinions no matter how incorrect they may be. It's their right to be wrong. Note that I don't mean to sound arrogant, since I make all those same mistakes.

Would you mind explaining how it is arrogant to appeal to a self-existant, universal law that is above everybody, but it is not arrogant to claim the right to create your own "sense of justice"? Say two different stores are robbed. The owner of the first store says, "It's wrong that somebody robbed my store because it goes against the law of the country." The second store owner says, "It's wrong that somebody robbed me because it inconveniences me and makes me mad." Which one of those is being arrogant? Certainly it isn't the one who is appeals to a higher authority, but the one who uses himself to define morality. It's far less arrogant to believe in a divine law than to believe in subjective morality, for subjective morality is dependent on what we want or think.

You're approaching the situation from the wrong angle. Don't think, "These girls would never be interested in me." Just think of them as people who are no different than anyone else you know. Approach then as potential friends, not potential dates. Also, some girls, including my girlfriend, find nerds attractive. ;) As a general rule, girls don't care about looks as much as guys do. They tend to be more emotional than visual. Sure, they like a strong guy with a good face, but many of them like a sweet guy who can make them smile even more.

Don't worry about getting a girlfriend; you're fifteen. Just focus on being friends with girls, and if something more develops from a friendship, then good. If not, then good, you've still got a good friend.

1. I'm not exactly sure what your definition of "personality" is. Could you explain? 2. Your possible answers basically agree with my views. However, I don't see any logical reason why personality can't be meaningless. 3. I disagree with your wording: "if there is a personal beginning, then personality can have meaning." It seems to imply that you want personality to have meaning. What we want the world to be has no bearing on what the world actually is. So, basically, my question is: What specifically leads you to believe that personality (and life in general) has meaning? 1. I was simply referring to a person, an individual. When I talk about a personal beginning versus an impersonal beginning, I'm simply talking about a self-existant person creating the universe versus some substance being self-existant. I'm not sure that's worded very well, but I hope I the idea across. 2. Theoretically, personality can be meaningless. However, no one consistantly holds this argument. Theory should match up with reality, and in reality, people live as if personality has meaning. No matter what people say they believe, they're actions show that they believe personality has meaning. You can raise a child teaching him that people are mearly highly-evolved animals, but he will still treat other children in his class as more important than the ants on the playground. A man might say that murder is no worse than stepping on an ant; but he will still grimace at the thought of murder, while hardly batting an eye at the death of an ant. I realise that this is not proof that personality has meaning, but it is fairly strong evidence. As you said, the way we want the world to be has no bearing on what it actually is. However, what we truly believe the world to be like may offer insight into what it actually is. 3. Of course I want personality to have meaning; I live my life as if it does, for it is impossible not to live that way. :P As I said, humanity's belief that our personality has meaning is not proof that it does, but it is rather convincing evidence. Basically, I believe in a personal beginning because it is the only beginning which provides meaning for personality and morality. I assume that personality and morality have meaning, for this is what I have seen in life - each and every person lives as if they do have meaning.

Morality. I'm a good person. Ive said this many times before but ill say it again. I do good stuff to people, I help out charities and donate a lot of my time and money to help other people. I don't do anything illegal and I'm nice to my friends and family. I don't belive in god yet i'm still more of a christian than most christians. Being good to other people is about having morals and respect, you dont need "god" to tell you whats right and wrong. You know whats right without being told, or at least I do. You are simply blinded by faith in something which does not exist. And for the record, look at New Orleans, one of the most right wing religious areas in America. In the time of need and in the time of despair in the superdome people were being stabbed, raped and killed. Horray for god. This is something I was going to get to in my post ealier - morality if there is an impersonal beginning. Mercifull, how do you get from molecules to morality, from energy to ethics? If there is an impersonal beginning, the everything is ultimately the same. There is no difference between right and wrong - they're both forms of that impersonal something. There's no difference between you volunteering for a charity and a man in New Orleans robbing and killing another man. Ultimately, both are just matter and energy moving around. However, if there is a personal beginning, there is a chance that we can distinguish between right and wrong. While an impersonal beginning cannot speak, the personal beginning can speak to us. Because it can speak to us, it can tell us what is right and wrong. This is also true of the meaning of life. If there is an impersonal beginning, then it is silent on meaning, since it cannot speak. There is no more meaning for a man than there is for atoms. But if there is a personal beginning, it can speak to us and provide meaning. To Weezcake and NewHaiku: I believe that man is personal, whereas matter is not. Of course, if you assume an impersonal beginning, this poses a problem. How can personality come from non-personality? One answer is that man is not personal after all, but all observation and everything we think we know about ourselves contradicts this. The other answer is that personality is simply the result of time plus chance, and randomly arose from the impersonal. This would leave personality completely meaningless. But if there is a personal beginning, then personality can have meaning, instead of being just a random fluke. Sidenote to Mercifull on Science and Religion: I'd argue that modern science (ie. the scientific method, observation and reason, trying to find truth about the world) would not have come about if not for Christianity. The early modern scientists, such as Galileo and Newton, believed that the world was reasonable because it was created by a reasonable God. They believed that the same God had endowed them with reason, which allowed them to observe the world and make accurate, logical conclusions about the world.

Nadril touched on something very important - the subject of what exists. There's really only three answers to the question of what exists: Nothing, an Impersonal Something (such as matter or energy), or a Personal Something (such as God). Your assumption about what exists will affect pretty much every belief you have. If you believe that nothing exists; then good for you. But wait... there is no you, there is no good, this conversation isn't happening. There isn't even such thing as a conversation. There isn't even such thing as a thing! In other words, the fact that we are talking, and that there is a we and that we are using words, disproves the idea that nothing exists. If an impersonal something exists, then it explains the unity of reality. If matter and energy are all that exist, then it would make sense that everything is made up of matter and energy. However, it doesn't explain the diversity of the world. If there is nothing but matter and energy, then what is the point of diversity? There is no more meaning for a human than a plant or an atom - they're all just that same impersonal something. Meh, I don't have time to write anymore, but I'll try to write more about the impersonal something and the personal something when I get a chance. Edit: To Nadril - whether it's energy or matter that cannot be created or destroyed, it's still an impersonal something, and both yield the same results philosophically. :)

Futurama said that he can't see how there could be a God. Well, to be honest, I don't see how there couldn't be. :P I was raised Christian, and believed it simply because that's what my parents taught me. However, over the last couple of years, I've really begun to examine Christianity and discover the amazing truth of it. :) For anyone interested in philosophy, I highly recommend He Is There and He Is Not Silent by Francis Schaeffer. It's a brilliant philosophical defense of Christian theism, and it's a very good read.