PETA is another perpetraitor. They want to help animals by what? protesting infront of KFC? making videos of animal exploitation that aren't even taken in this country? 4 PETA members were arrested for animal cruelty, they were found with dogs and cats in their basement-that they wer beating. 4 more were arrested for stealing some animals from a flinstone vitamins....place that were used for testing....and then killing the animals. PETA refused to help starving bison in Yellowstone Park during a particularily harsh winter. PETA members are not allowed to have pets, eat meat, or go to zoos or anything that has to do with animals. I now detest Alec Baldwin for being a PETA member and Pamila Anderson ahs no idea what the fuck is going on she just joined for publicity. She did a photo shoot to protest fur by wearing...fur...yea. People beleive their utter bullshit. Milk Sucks is a prime example. Really? people beleive this crap?
PurpleRain: Gah, the ignorence of some hurts. Who's read or knows of The Secret. It's a book done by a bunch of people that believe how positive atoms attract other positive atoms, being positive (emotionally) will attract positive outcomes. This goes onto saying that the universe will give to you: money, power, car spots, etc, if you stay positive. Wow, just wow. They fail to realise that atoms and an emotion are two completely serprate things.
Actually, while The Secret is more or less a work of fiction, it is based on fact. To use an example, if you go into a job interview, and you're pumped up and really positive that you're going to nail it, your body language is going to make you a better candidate then, say, a guy who goes in depressed, worried, and anxious. Hell, just look at emos. All they do is piss and moan about how their life sucks and what happens? Their life ends up sucking. It's not so much life will hand you nice things on a silver platter as it is nice things will be easier to gain if you keep positive.
My brother thinks he will one day defeat my Pokemon party of Lvl 99 bruisers, all bred for Monstrous stats, Off-Type attacks (ever taken a Mega Punch from an Alakazam?) and item pumped abilities beyond reason.
Yeah, i have a shitload of free time. (harvest rare candy with a party of 6 zigzagoon, break the game fools)
PurpleRain: Gah, the ignorence of some hurts. Who's read or knows of The Secret. It's a book done by a bunch of people that believe how positive atoms attract other positive atoms, being positive (emotionally) will attract positive outcomes. This goes onto saying that the universe will give to you: money, power, car spots, etc, if you stay positive. Wow, just wow. They fail to realise that atoms and an emotion are two completely serprate things.
Actually, while The Secret is more or less a work of fiction, it is based on fact. To use an example, if you go into a job interview, and you're pumped up and really positive that you're going to nail it, your body language is going to make you a better candidate then, say, a guy who goes in depressed, worried, and anxious. Hell, just look at emos. All they do is piss and moan about how their life sucks and what happens? Their life ends up sucking. It's not so much life will hand you nice things on a silver platter as it is nice things will be easier to gain if you keep positive.
There's being positive through life and then there's the Secret positive. Saying you will get a car spot if you ask the universe. You will win lotto if you ask the universe. You will be supreme overlord if you're positive enough and ask the universe.
PurpleRain: There's being positive through life and then there's the Secret positive. Saying you will get a car spot if you ask the universe. You will win lotto if you ask the universe. You will be supreme overlord if you're positive enough and ask the universe.
Oh, don't get me wrong, The Secret is nuttier then squirrel shit, I'm just saying that the general principle behind it, ie: think good things and you'll do alright, is true enough in itself.
Fan death. An entire country, including medical experts, has fallen for this one. Still, people try to convince me that they're smart enough not to let Starcraft 2 take down their economy...
fat american: There is scientific proof that Jesus did exist. Wheteher or not you want to believe he was the son of God is your problem.
Yeah, he was just a king at the time. He probably bought people health and wine and people liked him a whole bunch. Something got mistranslated over the years and now people are ready to die for him believeing he is the 'all powerful'.
That is false. There is absolutely no mistranslation of who Jesus was. Bear with me for a moment...it's a good idea to research things like this before speaking about them falsely. I apologize in advance for the wall of text.
Let's think about ancient literature. The Bible isn't the only old book. There are several subject matters that come up when you're trying to determine the reliability of a book. The question that many people want the answer to when they pick up the Bible is, "is this really an accurate representation of what was written as much as 1500 years ago? How can I know if this is really God's book?" There are some issues that come up to determine that.
The first is the number of manuscripts. Manuscript is the word that refers to man-written copies. We've only had a printing press for about 500 years. Before the printing press, God's Word was written by hand and copied and copied over and over again. All books were. So the question is, "how many manuscripts do we have?" That's the first issue.
The second is this: among the manuscripts that we do have, do they agree? Because if one copy of the book of Genesis doesn't agree with another and they're all mixed up and confused, how do you know which one is the correct version?
Now...concerning those issues. First of all, in regard to the number of manuscripts, there are now more than 5300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. In addition to that, there are over 10,000 very old Latin manuscripts of the Bible. In addition to that, there more than 9300 other early versions. Today, we have more than 24,000 manuscripts, copies, or portions of the New Testament in existence. There are more manuscripts of the Bible than any other piece of literature in antiquity, by far. It's in first place.
So...24,000...let's compare that to something else. Second place goes to Homer's The Iliad. How many manuscript copies are there of The Iliad? 643. Now if you were to drive over to the ancient literature department at any major university and say "I don't believe in the reality of the text of Homer's Iliad. There are not enough manuscripts", they would laugh you out of the building. 643 is a lot. Now, how can many of those same scholars turn around and criticize the text of God's Word when He has preserved 24 THOUSAND manuscripts of the New Testament?
The second issue... What happens when you set down these 24,000 manuscripts next to one another? Do they really agree? In regard to the New Testament, there are just a few passages where we wonder if they were really in the original. If you read through the gospels, there's a story of a woman caught in adultery and Jesus writing in the sand. Some manuscripts don't have that story. There are some other very little things, like word changes and spelling. Not one of those variant readings affects any principal doctrine of the Christian faith.
Let's compare that to William Shakespeare. Did you know that there are whole large gaps, whole chapters, and whole acts missing out of the works of Shakespeare? Whole sections have been filled in because the manuscript evidence for the works of Shakespeare is so sparse and dispersed that in many places we have no idea what he really wrote. And that's just a few hundred years ago.
There is no doubt that what we have today is the preserved Word of God. Sir Frederick Kenyan, one of the greatest authorities in New Testament textural criticism has said this, "There is no fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith that rests on a disputed reading. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance, the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some form or another. This can be said of no other book in the world."
first the moon is just under 400 000 km away, in under a week wouldn't be difficult
I was just about to say that. Why would you think it was a trillion miles away? That's like 1.5 hours at light speeds, larger than the breadth of our solar system by a long shot.
SmartAssery: Actually at the point of Aphelion, Pluto is a little over 7 billion km away, taking approximately 6.8 hours for light from the sun to reach.
scientology, really self explanatory. PETA, My GOD what is the matter with you dumb asses. Then there was heavens cult... we all know how that turned out. See, when idiots gather round and call themselves a group or cult or association, stupid things are bound to happen
I've also read a book about fitness scams, man what people would do to get outta exercising.
Oh, and there are some idiots saying games cause violent behaviour and there's this one lawyer....
Not quite directly related to this, but I still find it hilarious that the Catholic Church condemn the Harry Potter books for promoting witchcraft, despite the fact that witchcraft obviously doesn't exist!
They're well-practiced at believing in things that can't logically exist. From that perspective, the paranoia over witchcraft makes a great deal of sense.
thedrop2zer0: There is no doubt that what we have today is the preserved Word of God. Sir Frederick Kenyan, one of the greatest authorities in New Testament textural criticism has said this, "There is no fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith that rests on a disputed reading. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance, the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some form or another. This can be said of no other book in the world."
thedrop2zer0: There is no doubt that what we have today is the preserved Word of God. Sir Frederick Kenyan, one of the greatest authorities in New Testament textural criticism has said this, "There is no fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith that rests on a disputed reading. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance, the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some form or another. This can be said of no other book in the world."
Read Proverbs 26:4. Then read Proverbs 26:5.
For those who don't feel like looking up those passages, here they are from the New King James Version:
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Supposedly a contradiction, right? Like the author forgot what he wrote one verse earlier... The first half of Proverbs 26 is talking about fools. These two verses are not providing conflicting commands for how to answer fools. They are making a point that against the foolish, you cannot really win. In other words...if you answer a fool according to his folly, you will seem foolish yourself. But if you don't answer a fool according to his folly, he will consider himself to be wise, rather than foolish.
My dad wore one of those "magnetic bracelet" things for a while. He said it helped him quite a bit, but it's very possible that he was just believing it worked. In my opinion though, even if it doesn't physically work, but mentally makes you think it works, it's still a good product.
If I sold sugar pills and claimed they "cured cancer", and everyone that took them fought the disease just that little bit more because they believed it worked, and it actually did work, that's a genuine cure in my opinion.
Like the whole chiropractor thing. If it's true that they don't actually fix your back, and that you only feel better walking out of the practice, then it works in my opinion. That's why you go in there. You want to feel better. If you walk out feeling better, it's a job well done.
fat american: There is scientific proof that Jesus did exist. Wheteher or not you want to believe he was the son of God is your problem.
Yeah, he was just a king at the time. He probably bought people health and wine and people liked him a whole bunch. Something got mistranslated over the years and now people are ready to die for him believeing he is the 'all powerful'.
That is false. There is absolutely no mistranslation of who Jesus was. Bear with me for a moment...it's a good idea to research things like this before speaking about them falsely. I apologize in advance for the wall of text.
Let's think about ancient literature. The Bible isn't the only old book. There are several subject matters that come up when you're trying to determine the reliability of a book. The question that many people want the answer to when they pick up the Bible is, "is this really an accurate representation of what was written as much as 1500 years ago? How can I know if this is really God's book?" There are some issues that come up to determine that.
The first is the number of manuscripts. Manuscript is the word that refers to man-written copies. We've only had a printing press for about 500 years. Before the printing press, God's Word was written by hand and copied and copied over and over again. All books were. So the question is, "how many manuscripts do we have?" That's the first issue.
The second is this: among the manuscripts that we do have, do they agree? Because if one copy of the book of Genesis doesn't agree with another and they're all mixed up and confused, how do you know which one is the correct version?
Now...concerning those issues. First of all, in regard to the number of manuscripts, there are now more than 5300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. In addition to that, there are over 10,000 very old Latin manuscripts of the Bible. In addition to that, there more than 9300 other early versions. Today, we have more than 24,000 manuscripts, copies, or portions of the New Testament in existence. There are more manuscripts of the Bible than any other piece of literature in antiquity, by far. It's in first place.
So...24,000...let's compare that to something else. Second place goes to Homer's The Iliad. How many manuscript copies are there of The Iliad? 643. Now if you were to drive over to the ancient literature department at any major university and say "I don't believe in the reality of the text of Homer's Iliad. There are not enough manuscripts", they would laugh you out of the building. 643 is a lot. Now, how can many of those same scholars turn around and criticize the text of God's Word when He has preserved 24 THOUSAND manuscripts of the New Testament?
The second issue... What happens when you set down these 24,000 manuscripts next to one another? Do they really agree? In regard to the New Testament, there are just a few passages where we wonder if they were really in the original. If you read through the gospels, there's a story of a woman caught in adultery and Jesus writing in the sand. Some manuscripts don't have that story. There are some other very little things, like word changes and spelling. Not one of those variant readings affects any principal doctrine of the Christian faith.
Let's compare that to William Shakespeare. Did you know that there are whole large gaps, whole chapters, and whole acts missing out of the works of Shakespeare? Whole sections have been filled in because the manuscript evidence for the works of Shakespeare is so sparse and dispersed that in many places we have no idea what he really wrote. And that's just a few hundred years ago.
There is no doubt that what we have today is the preserved Word of God. Sir Frederick Kenyan, one of the greatest authorities in New Testament textural criticism has said this, "There is no fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith that rests on a disputed reading. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance, the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some form or another. This can be said of no other book in the world."
This of course is based on that fact that anyone capable of writing is incapable of misinterpreting events, exaggerating events, lying about events, writing in a manner that could easily be misinterpreted by readers, you get the point. There are too many variables in this equation to believe it is infallible.
Taxi Driver: This of course is based on that fact that anyone capable of writing is incapable of misinterpreting events, exaggerating events, lying about events, writing in a manner that could easily be misinterpreted by readers, you get the point. There are too many variables in this equation to believe it is infallible.
Also the fact most things writen then were done metaphoricly(spelling?). The entire turning water to wine could have been as easy as Jesus buying everyone wine. The people were poor and he was a king so it would make sense. We bought a book about all this stuff, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
PurpleRain: Also the fact most things writen then were done metaphoricly(spelling?). The entire turning water to wine could have been as easy as Jesus buying everyone wine. The people were poor and he was a king so it would make sense. We bought a book about all this stuff, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
You're right about Him being a king, but He was not a king by our definition. He was not wealthy. He was a carpenter.
I find it quite interesting how people believe in the molecules-to-man theorem of evolution. It's fully apparant that animals change over time, as some die out, while others survive. Antibiotic - resisting bacteria prove that easily. Those that survive reproduce, pass on the gene, and the entire species eventually becomes immune.
But why bother developing a 'new' species? If you put me in an environment that requires drastic changes to fit in, I'll die. If you gradually alter the environment to make me change, I won't be a new species. I'll have some new bits tacked on, but it won't alter my physical structure. I won't develop into another creature. If I do, than the origional species dies out, because they don't have the necessary adjustments. If I don't theres no need to develop a new species because we can survive anyway.
PurpleRain: Also the fact most things writen then were done metaphoricly(spelling?). The entire turning water to wine could have been as easy as Jesus buying everyone wine. The people were poor and he was a king so it would make sense. We bought a book about all this stuff, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
You're right about Him being a king, but He was not a king by our definition. He was not wealthy. He was a carpenter.
Perhaps the best way to support the bible or your holy text of choice is not to assert and use the amount of full stops in your sentence as justification.
A more effective answer would be "Granted, but the jesus upon which this faith is built was not. While your explanation does offer a 'solution' to the Water-to-Wine problem, i do not require such an explanation as that is whole point of Faith."
PurpleRain: Also the fact most things writen then were done metaphoricly(spelling?). The entire turning water to wine could have been as easy as Jesus buying everyone wine. The people were poor and he was a king so it would make sense. We bought a book about all this stuff, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
You're right about Him being a king, but He was not a king by our definition. He was not wealthy. He was a carpenter.
Perhaps the best way to support the bible or your holy text of choice is not to assert and use the amount of full stops in your sentence as justification.
A more effective answer would be "Granted, but the jesus upon which this faith is built was not. While your explanation does offer a 'solution' to the Water-to-Wine problem, i do not require such an explanation as that is whole point of Faith."
Doesn't that make life a smoother ride?
I thought he was trying to take a more logical approach then just "it is because I believe it is." Also writing stuff in a complex manner may sound cool but that doesn't mean it's the best move, though it would be sweet if we all sounded like Morpheus.
I don't think people were really any more stupid then than they are now. They believe in Global warming and cell phone brain damage. Lots of people also think it's wrong to give your kids a good whooping.
Taxi Driver: This of course is based on that fact that anyone capable of writing is incapable of misinterpreting events, exaggerating events, lying about events, writing in a manner that could easily be misinterpreted by readers, you get the point. There are too many variables in this equation to believe it is infallible.
Taxi Driver, you are exactly right. No man, or words written by man, is infallible. However, Christ followers believe that the Bible was written by God through men. That the Holy Spirit chose the words which the authors of the various books of the Bible were to write. That's why we call it the Word of God, not the Word of Man.
Think about this though: there is amazing agreement in the Bible. Lets suppose that we were to take 40 random people from this forum and say to them that we want them to write about a subject, something non-controversial, like sports. Okay, ready to write? All 40 of you, write about what you think is going to happen at the next Cubs game. What you believe is going to happen, and how you think it is going to happen, I want you all to write about it.
Now tell me...what do you think the possibilities are of those 40 people agreeing in what they wrote? If you answered zero, you're correct. There is zero possibility. Now think for a moment what we have in the Bible. We have a book that was written over a period of 1500 years. It was written by 40 different people, and not 40 people who went to the same church... 40 people from all different walks of life. Poets and shepherds and kings and preachers. Very different people, over 1500 years, and they write with amazing agreement. How do you think that happened?
Taxi Driver: I thought he was trying to take a more logical approach then just "it is because I believe it is." Also writing stuff in a complex manner may sound cool but that doesn't mean it's the best move, though it would be sweet if we all sounded like Morpheus.
Yes, "it is because I believe it is" is not really a good answer, or a convincing way to make people stop and consider Jesus, or any other belief that people have. I try never to use that kind of answer :)
werepossum: She also beleives the moon landing was fake.
I'll be honest, so do I. Not in a conspiricy sort of way, but more of an, it's a good trillion miles from us. How did they 1: Get there in the course of a week 2: why haven't we gone back and 3: We didn't actually have the technology to safely store a reproducing supply of oxygen until the later seventies early eighties. (I think we just really wanted to beat them ruskies.)
1) once out of the gravitational pull of earth, there's no air to slow you down, so (in theory) you can accelerate exponentially, and (eventually) break lightspeed. SO, all they had to do was accelerate, not to lightspeed, but it got them there REALLY quick.
2) we did, several times, but there's a limit to how much wandering around on a barren rock can tell us, so the moon landings were scrapped to save money.
3) Oxygen on the apollo wasn't reproducing, there were these whacking great bottles of it, just like you get when you go diving.
and besides, if nobody anded on the moon WHY CAN YOU SEE THE FLAG THEY PLANTED?
PETA is another perpetraitor. They want to help animals by what? protesting infront of KFC? making videos of animal exploitation that aren't even taken in this country? 4 PETA members were arrested for animal cruelty, they were found with dogs and cats in their basement-that they wer beating. 4 more were arrested for stealing some animals from a flinstone vitamins....place that were used for testing....and then killing the animals. PETA refused to help starving bison in Yellowstone Park during a particularily harsh winter. PETA members are not allowed to have pets, eat meat, or go to zoos or anything that has to do with animals. I now detest Alec Baldwin for being a PETA member and Pamila Anderson ahs no idea what the fuck is going on she just joined for publicity. She did a photo shoot to protest fur by wearing...fur...yea. People beleive their utter bullshit.
Milk Sucks is a prime example. Really? people beleive this crap?