assassin_696

Nah, I liked it. Got a bit silly in places but it was fun.

It's an absolutely brilliant documentary, the quality of the filming is just astonishing. Definitely worth a watch, really inspires in you at the wonder of the world.

The way you can fit Dark Side Of The Moon over the Wizard of Oz? Pretty cool.

Am I the only one who never falls for that? It's not like it's invisble. :?

Oh yeah, a question i've been meaning to ask. Is going for a swim (10-20 lengths breastroke) after a workout a sensible idea? I want to keep up my swimming and it's more convenient to do it after a workout, but I don't want to negate all the work I put in in the gym by not resting them directly after or whatever.

This is a good article about macroevlution, read it if you're interested. It also indirectly debunks that ridiculous claim that macroevolution is a load of jiggery-pokery, and therefore the Bible is right.

Is 13 X-men? Don't know which one, bit of a long shot.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it pretty much Adam and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit (not very far sighted on God's behalf) that gave us self-awareness and ultimately, free will? So, God giving us free will was a consequence of us doing something He didn't want us to do? How does that work?

The fact that macroevolution is more subjective does nothing to spoil the massive evidence in favour of mirco-evolution, which still easily accounts for everything we see around us. This might make it more clear anyway Odd, every evolution debate I've gotten into makes grandiose claims of macroevolution. Yes, I believe in adaptation (aka microevolution). It explains quite a bit, yet still does not disprove Creation like macroevolution strived to do. When I say more subjective I mean more in the sense that Darwinian evolution is almost entirely non-subjective, marcoevolution is still a very sound theory.

The fact that macroevolution is more subjective does nothing to spoil the massive evidence in favour of mirco-evolution, which still easily accounts for everything we see around us. This might make it more clear anyway

I suppose I bodybuild. I go to the gym three times a week to lift weights and stick to a training regime and try to eat the relevant food. But instead of pure weightlifing I also want to maintain endurance and agility, so I go on long runs and bike rides and practice karate.

Sorry, my use of the word "proven" is misleading. Of course, not scientific principle can be proven with absolute certainty, but there is a massive, massive amount of evidence in favour of evolution, and none against it. That's pretty good. Read more here Also, Korskin, if you've as many people saying it's not proven as it's proven you're obviously hanging out with wrong crowd. In fact, less than 0.15% of relevant (by this I mean specialists in topics to do with biology/evolution) American scientists (a very religious country anyway) don't believe in evolution. Less than 0.1% of relevant worldwide scientists don't believe in evolution.

Read Unweaving The Rainbow by Richard Dawkins. No, it doesn't attack religion or talk about evolution. Yes, it does talk about the wonder and amazement of life and nature and everything around us.

Korskin, what you're doing is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalala". When you realise that evolution is a proven theory, yet because it contradicts with the creation story in Genesis you refuse to accept its validity relevant to what we see around us. You have to accept that whatever your beliefs, the Bible as we know it has been proven to be faillable. It's happened in the past, in terms of time we're really not that special. Most of history was bacteria, millions of years was dinosaurs and we've been around for a few thousand really. It's entirely conceivable that we won't always be the dominant species (i.e. Homo Sapiens as we know it). If, there is a God, the chances of him being the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible are really very small.

It's alright, wouldn't call is classy. Browns maybe (in The Light), Nando's nah.

Not to mention the lack of traffic order Woha :shock: I thought it was bad in Eygpt.

The only thing I can see missing from that is a steak. Apart from that, damn yeah. ~fix'd. :P As far as me probaly a perfect day would to go to a huge lan party the likes of PAX or Digital Overlord with a good friend (or friends). Haha, that gave me this great mental image of eating steak off a girl...whoa. :P

The only thing I can see missing from that is a steak. Apart from that, damn yeah.

First off: Any Christian who dares call a Jew a "Christ-Killer" needs to get the Hell out of our faith. Christ was a Jew, all the disciples were Jews, the Early Church were Jews, and by all rites of birth I can be considered Jewish. All Christians are Messianic Jews. If someone blames the Jews for killing Christ AFTER IT'S FREAKING PROPHECIZED BY 4 MAJOR PROPHETS, then they are ignorant morons. Second: Original sin still exists. The method of appeasing it has changed. By believing that Christ died on the Cross as our scapegoat, original sin is not an issue. You say Christ went against the earlier teachings. That was God's way of saying "I gave you those laws for a reason, but you have taken them too far." Christ was the Ammendum to the laws layed out in Deuteronomy. And in closing, any idiot who says Jews are Christ-Killers knows jack-crap about Christianity, and is nothing but a bigot. Firstly, I know people who call Jews "christ-killers" are not following their religion very well, but they're out there, deal with it. Second, that's nice that Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual. Who was he trying to impress? Thirdly, people taking God's laws too far? Correct me if i'm wrong but I could list numerous quotes in the Bible of God directly condoning sacrifices, ethnic killings, mass murder, [assault] and sexist attitudes. No wonder they were confused before Jesus came along. Is giving people hope in an after-life a good thing? I think people would appreciate and make the most of this life much more if they realised that this is all they've got. It cannot heal you physically, proven fact. The mental advantages could be replaced by anything, imaginary friend, purple elephant, why make a whole religion out of it? I think loving mankind and fellow man is a much better alternative to loving God.

First off: Any Christian who dares call a Jew a "Christ-Killer" needs to get the Hell out of our faith. Christ was a Jew, all the disciples were Jews, the Early Church were Jews, and by all rites of birth I can be considered Jewish. All Christians are Messianic Jews. If someone blames the Jews for killing Christ AFTER IT'S FREAKING PROPHECIZED BY 4 MAJOR PROPHETS, then they are ignorant morons. Second: Original sin still exists. The method of appeasing it has changed. By believing that Christ died on the Cross as our scapegoat, original sin is not an issue. You say Christ went against the earlier teachings. That was God's way of saying "I gave you those laws for a reason, but you have taken them too far." Christ was the Ammendum to the laws layed out in Deuteronomy. And in closing, any idiot who says Jews are Christ-Killers knows jack-crap about Christianity, and is nothing but a bigot. Firstly, I know people who call Jews "christ-killers" are not following their religion very well, but they're out there, deal with it. Second, that's nice that Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual. Who was he trying to impress? Thirdly, people taking God's laws too far? Correct me if i'm wrong but I could list numerous quotes in the Bible of God directly condoning sacrifices, ethnic killings, mass murder, rape and sexist attitudes. No wonder they were confused before Jesus came along.

Boo flame war, boo. Locked[/u]

Aaah, too excited. :P

How can you be ahead of your time if you are God? I am curious where you came up with this statement. I have never read anything of the sort concerning Jesus saying love your neighbor as yourself only applying to fellow Jews. I would like to know your reference for this statement. If you read in the Bible about Jesus he helped people that were not Jews and he also shared his message with them. Heck, he died for them also... John chapter 4 is a reference if you want of Jesus conversing with a Samaritan woman. (Jews stayed away from Samaritans and she was really surprised he even started talking to her) He got his morality from God because he IS God. He also said he didn't come to change the law, he just came to fulfill it. The whole old Testament is setting the stage for Jesus coming. All the sacrifices and everything else were symbolic of his sacrifice for us. Once he payed that sacrifice then there wasn't any need to continue sacrificing. There wasn't a need to continue a lot of that stuff after Jesus came because him coming and dying and his message fulfilled a lot of it. In response to my source: http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html I'm not denying the modern application is a lot better, but why do we need religion to love our neighbour? In the Old Testament God taught us to make war on neighbouring tribes, to keep the chosen ones pure as a race, to conquer other tribes. Then he goes and contradicts himself straight off in the New Testament. Funny for an omniscient and omnipotent being to do that. As for the rest of your statement, the old "he got his morality from God because he is God" holds no sway with me.

1 Is someone also well within his reason to judge people based on laws set down at the personal whim of a despot, based on what he thinks is right and wrong? 2If there is no absolute morality, can you say that this is wrong, or that it is worse than your democratic/utilitarian system? 3You are certainly well within your reason to judge people on those democratic principles so long as they agree with those principles, but if they disagree, who are you to tell them that their system is wrong? 4There are no real morals to compare the two systems to, so both are equally man-made. How can you judge between the two? 1. Yes, but only within his reason. That doesn't necessarily mean that he is doing what is right and proper based on democratic and generally accepted laws. 2. Yes, I can. That's how democracy works, and utilitarianism. 3. Wrong from who's perspective? It might not be to theirs, but it is for me. and the majority. 4. Utilitariansim. Barihawk The New Testament, I will concede is a lot better than the morals and ethics of the Old Testament. Jesus was way ahead of his time, love thy neighbour is a brilliant concept with modern application. (Of course, back then it didn't mean quite that. In fact, Jesus limited his in group of "neighbours" to mean fellow Jews.) But that's the whole point isn't it? Jesus didn't dervive his morality from the scripture, he deliberately went against a lot of the original teachings. So clearly, he didn't need to get his morality from God. Also, the whole idea of Jesus dying for original sin cheeses me off a bit. The fact that the eating of the forbidden fruit was supposedly passed down the line of males through their semen (according to St. Augustine, apparently an expert on sin). So according to Christian ethical philosophy, every child is condemned to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor (who didn't exist). If Jesus was the redeemer of all sins, as God incarnate, isn't he redeeming all future sins, whether or not we decide to commit them? What happened to free will? If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just do it? Without condemning future generations of Jews to persecution as "Christ-Killers". Oops.

splatmster, i'll ignore all the other contradictions in the Bible that state that if you break any one of the laws even for a fraction of a second (i.e. keeping the Sabbath holy) then you're going to burn in hell for ever, or something (it's in Revelations, I forget the exact reference). My question is, am I going to hell? I don't break laws but I have no faith. I suppose i'll get punished for that. Or do you not believe in hell? Cherry picker then.