>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^chingalera:
>> ^longde:
Great song, great album, great band.
But how is this vintage?

Because it's over 25 years old. 50 years would be antique.

HAH ! , made me chuckle. Completely wrong, but funny
nochannel
80s
livemusic
music
british
happy
Click on the channel word, up under the vote count. All channels have descriptions with the intent and use of the channel itself. You are required to memorize all these channels and proper use or you FAIL !


Back to vintage. Wine? Antiques? Is there a consensus? So the jurys' not out and it made you giggle?

Ok have it some other way-I like to play nice.
What's vintage to you bone? (While I change again from vintage to non-vintage to defer to a nit-picker with a smug sense of self. Why don't we axe the channel-maker,hmmm?

>> ^chingalera:

>> ^longde:
Great song, great album, great band.
But how is this vintage?

Because it's over 25 years old. 50 years would be antique.


HAH ! , made me chuckle. Completely wrong, but funny

*nochannel

*80s
*livemusic
*music
*british
*happy

Click on the channel word, up under the vote count. All channels have descriptions with the intent and use of the channel itself. You are required to memorize all these channels and proper use or you FAIL THE CLASS !

>> ^longde:

Great song, great album, great band.
But how is this vintage?


Because it's over 25 years old. 50 years would be antique.

As I said, copyright reform is needed. Also, the media companies have, for the most part, completely mishandled what should have been an incredibly profitable way to deliver their content. I get what you're saying about content creators spreading their own content. They're working on it! But running a business is an entirely different skill set, so distributing through a company that knows what they're doing (to the extent that they actually can pay you) makes more sense most of the time.>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
99% of the people of the world are pirates? There's about one computer for every three people. My parents don't even know what pirating is. There are less than 10 billion people on Earth, not 50 billion. This guy's exaggeration makes it look like he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Granted, copyright reform is needed. But I think it's a mistake to put it in a different category from physical media without recognizing that 3d printers are on track to become household items.

My parents know what pirating is, but they aren't savvy or motivated enough to browse over to PirateBay, run uTorrent, PeerBlock, etc.
However, they ARE savvy enough to fire up YouTube, where they can find "infringing" videos that get around auto-detection by horizontal flipping, etc. etc. etc. The RIAA's and MPAA's of the world would love to point at them and the hordes of people like them and and say "pirates! Cough up $1000 for every song/video/whatever"!
In the meantime, I'm living in Thailand. Piracy is my default way of obtaining media. In many if not most cases, it would actually be very difficult or impossible to "legitimately" obtain said media. If that makes me an evil criminal, so be it. But I tend to think that it says much more about the distribution system being broken beyond repair and utterly antiquated than it says about the people like me. The real content creators need to stop listening to (and paying) the AA's crying over spilled milk and start looking for ways to embrace (and fund themselves via) the pervasive and un-policeable internet, which will be the way to distribute their creations. The cat is out of the bag, Pandora's box is opened, the internet isn't going anywhere and nobody will ever be able to stay a step ahead of the pirates.
Maybe 3D printers will become a household item within our lifetimes, but we're a long ways off from Star-Trek like replicators.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

99% of the people of the world are pirates? There's about one computer for every three people. My parents don't even know what pirating is. There are less than 10 billion people on Earth, not 50 billion. This guy's exaggeration makes it look like he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Granted, copyright reform is needed. But I think it's a mistake to put it in a different category from physical media without recognizing that 3d printers are on track to become household items.


My parents know what pirating is, but they aren't savvy or motivated enough to browse over to PirateBay, run uTorrent, PeerBlock, etc.

However, they ARE savvy enough to fire up YouTube, where they can find "infringing" videos that get around auto-detection by horizontal flipping, etc. etc. etc. The RIAA's and MPAA's of the world would love to point at them and the hordes of people like them and and say "pirates! Cough up $1000 for every song/video/whatever"!

In the meantime, I'm living in Thailand. Piracy is my default way of obtaining media. In many if not most cases, it would actually be very difficult or impossible to "legitimately" obtain said media. If that makes me an evil criminal, so be it. But I tend to think that it says much more about the distribution system being broken beyond repair and utterly antiquated than it says about the people like me. The real content creators need to stop listening to (and paying) the *AA's crying over spilled milk and start looking for ways to embrace (and fund themselves via) the pervasive and un-policeable internet, which will be the way to distribute their creations. The cat is out of the bag, Pandora's box is opened, the internet isn't going anywhere and nobody will ever be able to stay a step ahead of the pirates.

Maybe 3D printers will become a household item within our lifetimes, but we're a long ways off from Star-Trek like replicators.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but you might not be seeing this from my perspective. From my perspective, I know God exists, therefore, if you don't know God, it means that you haven't truly sought Him out. You've also spent many of your replies telling me all of the reasons why you don't seek Him out and aren't interested in seeking Him out, which lends credence to that theory. You say it's no fault of your own, but scripture says He gives everyone sufficient evidence, which people suppress, and in the end no one is going to have an excuses. I am not trying to offend you by saying that, I just believe scripture and my own experience.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

My position is if you do what scripture says, you will know God. That's always been my position.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

I don't know anything about you other than what you post on this website. I don't assume anything other than you're a person worthy of respect.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

There are 1000s of religions, most of them in antiquity. If God has revealed Himself to the world, do you think it is going to be through some obscure religion no one has ever heard of? Do you think He is only going to have a handful of adherants? All religions are not the same, and they don't make the same claims. For most of the believers on the planet, Jesus is the central question. Also, Judiasm is the oldest religion on the planet, and that is where Christianity comes from.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

Maybe you have, and maybe you are. However, we cannot examine the comments you made about mathematics without examining the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

I have put in some time as well, as thus far I find you addressing the last paragraph or line of my replies and ignoring everything else.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

It can be, especially because of the limitations of the medium.



>> ^dannym3141:

From Lucifer, the Theosophical magazine:

"And, when God said: 'Let there be light,' Intelligence was made and light appeared.

"Then, the Intelligence which God had breathed forth, like a planet detached from the Sun, took the form of a splendid Angel and the heavens saluted him with the name Lucifer.

"Intelligence awoke and it fathomed its own depths as it heard this apostrophe of the divine Word, 'Let there be Light.' It felt itself to be free, for God had commanded it so to be, and it answered, raising its head and spreading its wings, 'I will not be Slavery.'…"

"God then unloosed from his bosom the thread of splendour which held back the superb spirit, and as he watched him dive into the night, cutting in it a path of glory, he loved the child of his thought, and smiling with a smile ineffable, he murmured to himself: 'How fair a thing was this Light!'…"

"Perhaps Lucifer, in plunging into the night, drew with him a shower of Stars and Suns by the attraction of his glory?" (italics in original)

From Helena Petrovna Blavatsky the founder of modern Theosophy

"Lucifer represents.. Life.. Thought.. Progress.. Civilization.. Liberty.. Independence.. Lucifer is the Logos.. the Serpent, the Savior." pages 171, 225, 255 (Volume II)

"It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God." pages 215, 216, 220, 245, 255, 533, (VI)

"The Celestial Virgin which thus becomes the Mother of Gods and Devils at one and the same time; for she is the ever-loving beneficent Deity...but in antiquity and reality Lucifer or Luciferius is the name. Lucifer is divine and terrestrial Light, 'the Holy Ghost' and 'Satan' at one and the same time." page 539

Doesn't seem like Levay was too far off. Perhaps he was just taking this rebellion against authority to its natural conclusion, in which Satan is its grand architect?

In reply to this comment by enoch:
levay was a plagerizing,self aggrandizing twat.
the church may have taken his bullshit seriously but the esoteric community practically laughed him out of existence.
his theosophy was a joke.

By "closest at hand", I didn't mean that you grabbed it right away. While you did spend years coming to Jesus, it's no coincidence that you did, IMO. You say that among religions, you were particularly prejudiced against Christianity for it's implausibility. This doesn't surprise since it was the one you were most familiar with, and so the one you had seen the most problems with, until you investigated the other ones, and found them even worse. As you have noted several times yourself, growing up in the West, you were also strongly prejudiced towards Christianity, since a large part of our cultural ethos and moral code stems directly from it, even for us atheists. So, if you were going to discover that one religion was the true one, it would almost certainly be a strain of Christianity as it's the one that fits your own culture's moral code the best. If you'd chosen Voodoo instead, then your careful search of religions would be something worth pointing to as evidence.

I was prejudiced against Christianity because I didn't believe Jesus was a real person. I had never actually seriously investigated it, and I was also remarkably ignorant of what Christianity was all about, to the point that it might strain credulity. So no, it wasn't due to familiarity, because there wasn't any. I was just naturally inclined to reject it because of that doubt about Jesus.

At the point at which I accepted it, I had already rejected religion altogether. I was no more inclined to accept Christianity than I was Voodoo or Scientology. I had my own view of God and I viewed any imposition on that view as being artificial and manmade. The *only* reason I accepted Christianity as being true, as being who God is, is because of special revelation. That is, that God had let me know certain things about His nature and plan before I investigated it, which the bible later uniquely confirmed. My experience as a Christian has also been confirming it to this day.

These definitions, especially the ones about Satan are really self-serving. You declare that you have the truth, and part of that truth is that anyone who disagrees with you is possessed by the devil, which of course your dissenters will deny. But you can counter that easily because your religion has also defined satanic possession as something you don't notice. Tight as a drum, and these definitions from nowhere but the religion's own book.

My view is not only based on the bible but also upon my experience. I first became aware of demon possession before I became a Christian. I had met several people who were possessed by spirits in the New Age/Occult movement. At the time, I didn't know it was harmful, so I would interact with them and they would tell me (lies) about the spiritual realm. I thought it was very fascinating but I found out later they were all liars and very evil. It was only when I became a Christian that I realized they were demons.

I don't think everyone who doesn't know Jesus is possessed. If not possessed, though, heavily influenced. Everyone who sins is a slave to sin, and does the will of the devil, whether they know it or not. The illusion is complex and intricate, traversing the centers of intellect, emotion, memory, and perception, and interweaving them; it is a complete world that you would never wake up from if it wasn't for Gods intervention. The devil is a better programmer than the machines in the Matrix.

Actually, it was a very different feeling from that. I didn't feel I was the target of any conspiracy. I had stumbled into one --my group of friends-- but I was ignorant of the conspiracy before I had my experience. After I had it, I realized that they were all part of something bigger than me that I could never understand, and that I was actually in their way, that my presence in their group was really cramping their style a lot, slowing things down, forcing them to get things done surreptitiously. I realized they weren't going to directly remove me for now, but I didn't know how long their patience would last. So I removed myself, and hoped they'd leave me alone. In hindsight, they were horrible friends to begin with, so it was no loss for me. Losing those friends was a very good move for me.

Whatever they were involved in, it sounds like it wasn't any good. I can get a sense for what you're saying, but without further detail it is hard to relate to it.

Again, you're claiming you are right, and everything untrue comes from Satan, and if I have any logical reason to doubt your story, you can give yourself permission to ignore my logic by saying it is from Satan and that's why it has the power to show the Truth is wrong. So, any Christian who believes a logical argument that conflicts with the dogma is, by definition, being fooled by Satan, and has a duty to doubt their own mind. Even better than the last one for mind control. It does away utterly with reliance on any faculty of the mind, except when their use results in dogmatic thoughts. Genius. Serious props to whoever came up with that. That's smart.

God is the one who said "Let us reason together". I accept that you have sincere reasons for believing what you do and rejecting my claims. If you gave me a logical argument which was superior to my understanding, I wouldn't throw it away as a Satanic lie. I would investigate it and attempt to reconcile it with my beliefs. If it showed my beliefs to be false, and there was no plausible refutation (or revelation), I would change my mind. The way that someone becomes deceived is not by logical arguments, it's by sin. They deceive themselves. You don't have to worry much about deception if you are staying in the will of God.

Like, if you say you believe God exists, I say fine. If you say you know God exists, I say prove it's not your imagination. If you say evolution is wrong, ordinarily I wouldn't care what you believe, except that if you're on school board and decide to replace it with Creationism or Intelligent Design in the science curriculum, then I have to object because that causes harm to children who are going to think that they are real science, and on equal footing with/compatible with/superior to evolution.

Have you ever seriously investigated the theory of evolution? Specifically, macro evolution. It isn't science. Observational science is based on data that you can test or observe. Macro evolution has never been observed, nor is there any evidence for it. Micro evolution on the other hand is scientific fact. There are definitely variations within kinds. There is no evidence, however, of one species changing into another species. If you haven't ever seriously investigated this, you are going to be shocked at how weak the evidence actually is.

evolution is unproved and unprovable. we believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.

sir arthur keith
forward to origin of the species 100th anniversay 1959

You may be right. I may be right. I think it's more likely that I'm right, but that's neither here nor there. How do you know you're not seeing things that aren't there? My experience proves the human mind is capable of doing so and sustaining it. The bible could have been written by several such people. Maybe in that time and place, people who ranted about strange unconnected things were considered to be prophets, and once plugged into the God story, they went to town. I'm not saying it's true, just a possible theory.

There isn't anything I can say which will conclusively prove it to you. The reason being, because my testimony is reliant upon my judgement to validate it, and you don't trust my judgement. You are automatically predisposed to doubt everything I have to say, especially regarding supernatural claims. So asking me to prove it when you aren't going to believe anything I say about it is kind of silly. All I can say is that I have been around delusional people, and the mentally ill, very closely involved in fact, and I know what that looks like. I am as sharp as I ever have been, clear headed, open minded, and internally consistant. You may disagree with my views, but do you sense I am mentally unstable, paranoid, or unable to reason?

Also, the prophets in the bible weren't ranting about strange, unconnected things. The bible has an internal consistancy which is unparalled, even miraculous, considering that it was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years in three different languages.

If I was "in it" and deceiving myself then, I was in something and deceiving myself before. My beliefs about all supernatural things remain unchanged by my experience, that's to say, I still don't believe they exist.

I didn't either, so I understand your skepticism. Until you see for yourself that material reality is just a veil, you will never believe it. But when you do see it, it will change *everything*.

First, not claiming to have created anything doesn't mean he didn't do it, or that he did [edit] claim it and the records were lost. Two, hold the phone -- this rules out Christianity. Genesis states the world was created in six days a few thousand years ago, or something. You can argue that this is metaphorical (why?), but surely you can't say that world being flat, or the sun rotating around the Earth is a metaphor. These are things God would know and have no reason to misrepresent. Since it's God's word, everyone would just believe it. And why not? It makes just as much sense that the Earth is round and revolves around its axis.

There is no reason to include Gods who made no claim to create the Universe, which is most of them. If their claims are lost in antiquity, we can assume that such gods are powerless to keep such documents available. What we should expect to find, if God has revealed Himself, is an active presence in the world with many believers. This narrows it down to a few choices.

I don't argue that this is metaphorical, I agrue that it is literal. I believe in a young age for the Earth, and a literal six day creation.

[On re-reading the preceding argument and the context you made the claim, it is a stupid see-saw argument, so I'm taking it back.] Consider also there are tens of thousands of different strains of Christianity with conflicting ideas of the correct way to interpret the Bible and conduct ourselves. Can gays marry? Can women serve mass? Can priests marry? Can non-virgins marry? And so on. Only one of these sects can be right, and again, probably none of them are.

The disagreements are largely superficial. Nearly all the denominations agree on the fundementals, which is that salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ alone. There are true Christians in every denomination. The true church is the body of Christ, of which every believer is a member. In that sense, there is one church. We can also look at the early church for the model of what Christianity is supposed to look like. The number of denominations doesn't speak to its truth.

2. The method itself doesn't take into account why the religion has spread. The answer isn't in how true it is, but in the genius of the edicts it contains. For example, it says that Christians are obliged to go convert other people, and doing so will save their eternal souls from damnation. Anyone who is a Christian is therefore compelled to contribute to this uniquely Christian process. I can't count the number of times I've been invited to attend church or talk about God with a missionary. That's why Christianity is all over the world, whereas no other religion has that spread. Also, there are all sorts of compelling reasons for people to adopt Christianity. One is that Christians bring free hospitals and schools. This gives non-truth-based incentives to join. The sum of this argument is that Christianity has the best marketing, so would be expected to have the largest numbers. The better question is why Islam still has half the % of converts that Christianity does, even though it has no marketing system at all, and really a very poor public image internationally.

Yet, this doesn't take into account how the church began, which was when there was absolutely no benefit to being a Christian. In fact, it could often be a death sentence. The early church was heavily persecuted, especially at the outset, and it stayed that way for hundreds of years. It was difficult to spread Christianity when you were constantly living in fear for your life. So, the church had quite an improbable beginning, and almost certainly should have been stamped out. Why do you suppose so many people were willing to go to their deaths for it? It couldn't be because they heard a good sermon. How about the disciples, who were direct witnesses to the truth of the resurrection? Would they die for something they knew to be a lie, when they could have recanted at any time?

3. This kinda follows from #1, but I want to make it explicit, as this, IMHO, is one of the strongest arguments I've ever come up with. I've never presented it nor seen it presented to a believer, so I'm keen for your reaction. It goes something like this: If God is perfect, then everything he does must be perfect. If the bible is his word, then it should be instantly apparent to anybody with language faculties that it's all absolutely true, what it means, and how to extrapolate further truths from it. But that's not what happens. Christians argue and fight over the correct interpretation of the bible, and others argue with Christians over whether it's God's word at all based on the many, many things that appear inconsistent to non-Christians. In this regard, it's obvious that it's not perfect, and therefore not the word of God. If it's not the word of God, then the whole religion based on it is bunk.

The issue there is the free will choices of the people involved. God created a perfect world, but man chose evil and ruined it. Gods word is perfect, but not everyone is willing to accept it, and those that do will often pick and choose the parts they like due to their own unrighteousness. We all have the same teacher, the Holy Spirit, but not everyone listens to Him, and that is the reason for the disagreements.

I didn't say people needed it. I said having a religion in a scary universe with other people with needs and desires that conflict with your own makes life a lot easier and more comfortable. Religion, in general, is probably the greatest social organizing force ever conceived of, and that's why religions are so attractive and conservatively followed in places with less beneficial social organization (i.e., places without democracy), and lower critical thinking skills (i.e. places with relatively poor education).

People come to Christianity for all sorts of reasons, but the number one reason is because of Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as Christianity without Him. I became a Christianity for none of the reasons you have mentioned, in fact I seem to defy all of the stereotypes. I will also say that being a Christianity is lot harder than not. Following the precepts that Christ gave us is living contrary to the ways humans naturally behave, and to the desires of the flesh. As far as education goes, Christianity has a rich intellectual tradition, and people from all walks of life call themselves followers of Christ. You're also ignoring the places where Christianity makes life a lot more difficult for people:



In contrast, in times and places where people on a large scale are well off and have a tradition of critical thinking, the benefits of having a religion as the system of governance are less apparent, and the flaws in this system come out. It becomes more common for such nations to question the authority of the church, and so separate religion from governance. The West has done so, and is leading the world. Turkey is the only officially secular Muslim nation in the world and has clearly put itself in a field apart from the rest, all because it unburdened itself of religious governance when an imposed basic social organization structure was no longer required.

Then how might you explain the United States, where 70 percent of people here call themselves Christian, 90 percent believe in some kind of God, and almost 50 percent believe in a literal six day creation?

You're right, and you may not know how right you are. Modern scientific investigation, as away of life, comes almost entirely from the Christian tradition. It once was in the culture of Christianity to investigate and try to understand the universe in every detail. The thought was that understanding the universe better was to approach understanding of God's true nature -- a logical conclusion since it was accepted that God created the universe, and understanding the nature of something is to reveal the nature of its creator (and due to our natural curiosity, learning things makes us feel better). The sciences had several branches. Natural science was the branch dealing with the non-transcendent aspects of the universe. The transcendent ones were left to theologists and philosophers, who were also considered scientists, as they had to rigorously and logically prove things as well, but without objective evidence. This was fine, and everyone thought knowledge of the world was advancing as it should until natural science, by its own procedures, started discovering natural facts that seemed inconsistent with the Bible.

This isn't entirely true. For instance, Uniforitarian Geology was largely accepted, not on the basis of facts, but on deliberate lies that Charles Lyell told in his book, such as the erosion rate of Niagra Falls. Evolution was largely accepted not because of facts but because the public was swayed by the "missing links" piltdown man and nebraska man, both of which later turned out to be frauds.

That's when people who wanted truth had to decide what their truth consisted of: either God and canon, or observable objective facts. Natural science was cleaved off from the church and took the name "science" with it. Since then, religion and science have both done their part giving people the comfort of knowledge. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is immutable and all-encompassing prefer religion. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is verifiable and useful prefer science.

The dichotomy you offer here is amusing; Christianity is both verifiable and useful. I'll quote the bible:

Mark 8:36

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

>> ^messenger:

@A10anis

Agnosticism is an epistemological position of the uncertainty of knowledge of things. In other words, the nature of knowledge about God, or knowledge in general really, as many above have pointed out (I'm taking it you did read the nice chart above!). Theism or Atheism is a position, either knowingly or unknowing rejecting or accepting the idea of God; one can be explicitly or implicitly atheist (like all children not exposed to the idea are implicitly atheist). Agnostic Atheist is the most common position, but few people have complete understanding of all the concepts involved, or have their own private understandings of what they mean; making any unilateral criticism troublesome. As to the foundations of science and Mathematics, Kurt Gödel had had a great role to play in the destruction of what most peoples concept of certain systems are. And the o so smart Karl Popper ideas on falsifiability has thrown the antique notion of certain truth from science against the wall, in which modern Philosophers of Science, like Hilary Putnam have found intractable to solve, except to say that very little separates, currently, the foundations of science form the foundations of any other dabble of the imagination. Einstein talked about this as well, that wonderment is really the pursuit of all great scientists...not certainty.

As to my original claim, that science has truths it can not rectify, I leave it to better minds to explain the problems of induction. David Hume, Nelson Goodman, and Kurt Gödel drastically changed any view of certain knowledge from science and maths that I had. The untenable nature of the empirical evaluation of reality is just as uncertain as Abrahamic codifications being real.

I close with this, some of the greatest minds in the history of science and philosophy had no problem, nay, drew power from the deep richness they gathered from their faith. It drove them to the limits of the thoughts of their day, René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Blaise Pascal, Alan Turing (who kept some vestibules of faith even after what happened to him), Georg Cantor, and countless others all had some "irrational" faith was more than just a ideal system of commands by some dead people, it drove them to greatness, and in many cases to rejection and madness of their "rational" peers. Georg Cantor, the father of the REAL infinite, died in a mental institution only to have his ideas lite a fire in the minds of the next generation of mathematicians.

It is my believe that we all want to have issue with x number of people, and make peace with y number. We elevate the slightest difference, or conversely, ignore a great flaw to peg this mark just right for us. Perhaps my y is just bigger than your x, or most peoples x as I find this debate I have is a common one; for tolerance, peace, and consideration. If you still think what I am saying is non-sense, then I guess we have nothing more to say to one another. I hope I cleared up my thoughts a bit more, I am not very good at communicating things that are more than just the average amount of esoteric.

Ignoring your blatant and ignorant mischaracterization of the bible for a moment, perhaps you don't realize the role the 10 commandments has played in our legal system. Not withstanding that every single one of those commandments were once laws of this nation, it has also profoundly influenced the legal system as a whole. Some quotes:

Delware supreme court:

Long before Lord Hale declared that Christianity was a part of the laws of England, the Court of Kings Bench, 34 Eliz. in Ratcliff's case, 3 Coke Rep. 40, b. had gone so far as to declare that "in almost all cases, the common law was grounded on the law of God, which it was said was causa causans," and the court cited the 27th chapter of Numbers, to show that their judgment on a common law principle in regard to the law of inheritance, was founded on God's revelation of that law to Moses.
State v. Chandler, 2 Harr. 553 at 561 (1837)

John Adams

"It pleased God to deliver on Mount Sinai a compendium of His holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, . . . is immutable and universally obligatory. . . . [and] was incorporated in the judicial law."

John Quincy Adams

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. . . . Vain, indeed, would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for morality as this Decalogue lays down."

Chief Justice John Jay

The moral, or natural law, was given by the sovereign of the universe to all mankind."

Jusice James Wilson

"As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed law. As addressed to men, it has been denominated the law of nature; as addressed to political societies, it has been denominated the law of nations. But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source; it is the law of God. . . . What we do, indeed, must be founded on what He has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of His. Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law as discovered by reason and moral sense forms an essential part of both. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form part of the law of nature, are of the same origin and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually."

Alexander Hamilton

"The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”"

Justice Joseph Story

"I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations." (emphasis added)
>> ^shuac:
Actually, the first ten commandments (out of a total of 623) were written by the jews and later co-opted by christians.
If they were authored by god (the way many people claim), you'd think they'd be the greatest top-ten list ever created anywhere at any time, greater than any writer living or dead. You'd think that, wouldn't you?
Here they are. Get ready.
1. I am the lord god, you shall have no other god before me.
2. Thou shalt not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above (so much for religious art & sculpture)
3. Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy (ignored by more christians than probably any other commandment)
5. Honor thy father and mother (apparently regardless of whether they're worthy of honor)
6. Thou shalt not murder (except when god does it or commands it)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (also ignored by many christians)
8. Thou shalt not steal (like, say, evangelical preachers?)
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his field, his manservant or his maidservant, his wife, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
A pretty unimpressive list, I must say. Nothing about slavery or rape or genocide here...but then, what would the rest of the bible actually contain if not for slavery, rape, and genocide? Number ten is my personal favorite because it's probably the first prohibition against a particular brand of thought. Thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would've put it.

Nonetheless, Congress repealed the law and the nation suffered the tragic consequences of the 2008 financial crisis about a decade later.

It may be implied that the repeal of Glass-Steven Seagal led to the 2008 crisis but evidence is scant.

"The legislation was signed into law by President Clinton on November 12, 1999. Clinton's support of the repeal is revealed in the following statement by a Goldman Sachs partner Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary"

“The banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933.” He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets. “U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically,” said the Treasury secretary. “Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.”

And in his own statement upon CLINTON signing the act into law:

"“Over the past seven years we have tried to modernize the economy. And today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down those antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority.”

Ecclesiastes, 1:9:
What has been is what will be,
and has been done is what will be done;
and there is nothing new under the sun.

Sonnet 59, Shakespeare
If there be nothing new, but that which is
Hath been before, how are our brains beguil'd,
Which labouring for invention bear amiss
The second burthen of a former child.
Oh that record could with a backward look,
Even of five hundred courses of the sun,
Show me your image in some antique book,
Since mind at first in character was done,
That I might see what the old world could say
To this composed wonder of your frame;
Whether we are mended, or where better they,
Or whether revolution be the same.
Oh sure I am the wits of former days,
To subjects worse have given admiring praise.

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary:
There is nothing new under the sun but there are lots of old things we don't know.

i agree that everything to some extent is a remix, but a person's first exposure to an idea/concept/whatever... isn't

It isn't that the bible is the origin of morality, it is that God is the lawgiver who has written His moral law on our hearts. Humans know what is right and wrong because their God given conscience informs them. We both know murder is wrong, just by intuition alone. Why? Because some things are in fact absolutely and universally wrong. If we seem to share any similiarites with the animal kingdom in spirit, it is because we all have a common design.

A point of fact is that sin is what keeps us separated from God. It is not that God is hiding from you, it is that we are born spiritually dead because of sin and thus spiritually separated from a Holy God.

Isaiah 59:2 (NIV) But your iniquities have separated you from
your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will
not hear.

This is the reason Jesus came, to reconcile us to God. The wages of sin is death, and He paid that price for us, so that we could be forgiven and receieve eternal life.

>> ^swedishfriend:
>> ^gwiz665:
Morality is what we make of it. There is no rulebook against which we can measure it. We weigh it in our experiences and in what our ancestors taught us. Our evolutionary development has also imprinted certain aspects, which stay with us, like community building and "people skills".
Nature and nurture, not "god did it".
There is zero evidence that points to the bible being the origin of any morality at all, neither is a supernatural being which happens to hide whenever we look for it.
Even if there was evidence that pointed to the bible as the rule of morals, would we even want that? It's antiquated and dare I say, evil?

This is exactly it. There is plenty of evidence to show that nature through evolution does give us encouragement or discouragement in response to threat, empathy, needs, etc. What triggers those emotions and how we deal with those emotions are influenced by culture. People have lived together for millions of years before the Bible or Christianity or even before the written word. Cooperation in order to survive and even selfless sacrifice to save someone else is something we see in many social animals not just ourselves. Morality is a reasoned thing combined with a natural tendency and always has been. Religions come from people and while religion can influence other people they are initially created by people and their culture. Why nature made us this way I don't know but I know that something experienced by a few people 2000 years ago did not create the concept of morality nor does it influence all the humans and other social animals who have never heard of religion of any kind who still manage to have a concept of how to treat each other well in order for all in the group to prosper.
-Karl