Slashdot Mirror

In the sermon on the mount Jesus says that the teachers of the law are like tombs.

WRT the "filthy rags" - I concede that I was in error. It was the prophet Isaiah who said that our righteous acts are like filthy rags

However, Jesus warned us not to do acts of righteousness in public merely so that men would see us doing it.

Jesus also said that pleasing God is not about what we do

Paul said that we are saved by grace through faith - not of works!

I wholeheartedly agree with you that Jesus was a Jew, and that He loved and loves Jews. There's no question, about that. I must respectfully disagree with you about Christ's approach toward the Pharisees.

He called the religious leaders on the carpet again and again for their hypocrisy. They were filled with pride about how well they fulfilled the law - that their deeds made them acceptable to God. That was never the point. If this does not make sense to you, please email me and I commit to searching the scriptures with you so that we clearly understand each other.

In Hebrews 11 the heroes of the Hebrew scriptures are held up as role models because of their faith, not because of their deeds.

Of course, God created us to do good works. We do good deeds out of a thankful heart, but the work of redemption was complete on the cross. My good works don't earn me heaven. Christ did that. My good works are an evidence of the internal change that happened when God saved me from my selfishness.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.

He did. He gave The Holy Spirit for us as a "down payment". This passage hopefully will help you.

Most regions relied on cistern water, which could be quite nasty as you'll see from that link.

[if y'don't get it, look up the passage. And yes, archaeologists have indeed found the grain storage complex in question]

First I want to thank you for publishing the reasoning behind the claim made that "In fact, (with some serious searching in the Bible) he even states exactly when he'll return. He said he would return in the year 1844". I hope this answering analysis is helpful to you and others reading this thread. After further research I have realized that your assertion is derived from the Millerite movement of the 1800's, which used the same passages and techniques to predict the return of Christ would be October 22, 1844. This movement is also the basis of the Seventh Day Adventists and their offshoot, the Branch Davidians of Waco infamy. See a brief history of the Millerites.

Prophecy in the Bible makes up nearly 30% of the text. It is a major emphasis of the Holy Scriptures; God wants us to both be able to know what will come, and to understand what has happened. We are to measure whether a prophet is from God by whether he or she is absolutely infallibly accurate in prophesying. Anything less is, to be blunt, from the other side.

There are over 300 individual prophecies in the Old Testament about the first coming of Christ; He perfectly fulfilled every one of them. That is important to recognize because it shows that there will be perfect fulfillment of the over 1000 prophecies in the Bible (both OT and NT) of His second coming as well. Anything violating even one of those prophesies is therefore not His coming, but something other.

There are some prerequisites to His return, such as Israel has to be back in the land. This is seen by (to cite one point) the fact that the "abomination of desolation" which occurs at the midpoint of the Tribulation happens in the restored Temple, which has not even been built yet. Forty-two months after that happens, the Lord Jesus Christ will return (see Revelation 11). This could not be the Herodian temple as it had been destroyed before Revelation was written in the 90's A.D. So a new temple must be built to house the abomination; currently there is none.

One claim I found in other Bahá'í writings is that Israel entered the land in 1844 when the decree forbidding Jews to be in Jerusalem was vacated. An interesting assertion, but since the government of the area was clearly still very anti-semitic, not one that makes a whole lot of sense. The true restoration of Israel to the land was in 1948 when the British finally carried out the Balfour declaration, the U.N. approved it, and the British withdrew. Actually it's quite interesting: eight days after Ben-Gurion declared the Jewish state of Israel, they were attacked (well over 100:1 ratio against them on the front lines). While they were bloodied, they were not vanquished. God calls for circumcision to be performed on the eighth day. When Israel was thirteen years old, in 1961, they were finally recognized by the U.N. Thirteen is the year of recognition or Bar-Mitzvah. There are other points, all along the same lines. The point being that the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel is much more clearly relevant than 1844.

Previously on this thread "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night (1 Thes 5:2)" was cited as evidence that the Lord's return will be a surprise or secret (and therefore could be some obscure Persian sage). However, Paul continues in the next verse: "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them..." First of all, the Day of the Lord is a technical Bible term for any time that God intervenes in judgment in the affairs of men. In the context here, it refers to the seventieth week of Daniel (9:24), the final seven years of apocalyptic events that precede the return of Christ. This is also called the Tribulation or Time of Jacob's Trouble. Paul is describing how the onset of this horrific period of earth's final days will come as a surprise for unbelievers who will have created a one-world-government/New-World-Order and will think that they have achieved "peace on earth.". When Christ actually does return, it will be neither subtle nor quiet. First, every eye shall see Him (Rev 1:7). Second, He will stand on the Mount of Olives, which will split in two. (Zech 14:4) Third, the forces gathered in opposition to Him will be wiped out and their blood will fill a 1600-furlong valley (that's 200 miles) to the height of a horse's bridle (Rev 14:20). This is commonly known as the Battle of Armageddon. Pretty clearly none of those things have occurred. In fact the only way Revelation 1:7 can happen (every eye seeing Him) is either by a miracle or worldwide television. Certainly neither of those happened in 1844.

Israel was dispersed in 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. In fact he did far more; he killed over a million Jews and enslaved so many others that the Egyptian slave market collapsed. From 70 A.D. until May of 1948, Israel was not in the land. In 135 A.D. the Romans renamed Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina (and renamed Israel Palestine), and proclaimed the death penalty for any Jewish person who set foot in the city; this decree was in effect for at least five hundred years. On May 14th (or 15th, depends on viewing days by the Hebrew or our traditional calendar) Israel was returned to the land when Britain surrendered their protectorate. An alternative view is to base Israel's return on the date when they regained control of Jerusalem: June 7, 1967. So any claim of a return of our Lord before whichever of those times is operative violates a specific prophecy and must therefore be either non-Biblical, or a fulfillment of a different prophecy.

Also in Acts 1:6-9 "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight." So just to make sure this point is clear: Jesus Himself foretold, as He was leaving for the last time prior to His return, that first - there would be a future kingdom in Israel, and second - that it is not for us to know the times or seasons when that will happen.

By the way, the next two verses of Acts continue: "And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold two men stood by them in white apparel. Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Christians await the Biblical prediction of the bodily return of Jesus, not some reincarnation, manifestation, "emanation of the "Christ consciousness", avatar, guru, or new incarnation (another baby). So how will we know him? Zechariah (13:6) tells us: "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." He also tells us (12:10): "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son..." Jesus forever carries the scars of his crucifixion, the cost of our salvation. If someone claims to be Him without those marks, then they are fulfilling the prophecy in Matthew 24:23-24 "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect", not the prophecy of Him coming.

As to your details, let me point out that the Numbers 16:34 verse this approach quotes is a self-referential point; it does not mean that "every time you see day, think year"; it's just explaining that there is a year of penalty to be paid for every day of that particular sin. This is not a timeline translation key, nor does it claim to be. The Israelites were just being told that the punishment for the sin of disbelief was a full year in the wilderness for one day of disbelief. This by the way caused all the unbelievers to be dead before Israel entered the Promised Land (Joshua and one other believed and entered). The only prophetic message in that passage is that only believers will enter Heaven. If the day-year premise was correct, then how could it be reconciled with 2 Peter 3:8: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" or Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night". When the Lord told Joshua to march around Jericho for six days, it meant six days, not six years. When Jesus was dead for three days before His resurrection, it did not mean He was dead for three years.

Second, if you are going to use a verse like Ezekiel 4:6, please read the entire chapter; quoting one verse out of context can lead to misinterpretation such as this. In the case of Ezekiel 4, these are literal days of a siege, as the context clearly indicates.

Let me quote Daniel 9:25: "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times." [emphasis added]

You must remember the context of this prophecy: Gabriel is telling Daniel, a Jew, about the future of his people. The weeks (shabu'im) here are specifically weeks of years. [Hebrew traditions include weeks of days, a week of weeks (shavout), a week of months and a week of years.] However, these are weeks of Hebrew prophetic years. The Hebrew calendar contains 12 months of 30 days each for a total of 360 days. When King Hezikiah corrected their calendar to reflect the 365-day solar year, he added a full month in every Jewish leap year (on a cycle of seven every 19 years). In the Biblical calendar, a year is always 360 days long. The wording of the prophecy is exact: there are 69 weeks of Bible years between the decree to rebuilt Jerusalem and the presentation of Meshiach Nagid (Messiah the Prince or King), that is 69 *7* 360 =173,880 days. While there were several decrees concerning the rebuilding of the Temple, there was only one that granted the authority to rebuild the walls of the city of Jerusalem, and recall that Daniel 9:25 specifically mentions the walls. Artaxerxes Longimanus gave this to Nehemiah on March 14, 445 BC. Adding 173,880 days to this trigger yields April 6, 32 AD (note that this date was 10 Nisan of the Hebrew calendar) as the prophesied date of the presentation of the Messiah the Prince. When was Jesus presented as King of Israel? Throughout the gospels, when people tried to make Jesus their king, he invariably declined saying, "Mine hour is not yet come." But He (the Lamb of God) arranges his presentation as Messiah to the people of Jerusalem deliberately on the very day (always 10 Nisan, four days before they are slain for the Passover) that the Passover lambs were being presented and inspected. He does this by riding a donkey into the city in fulfillment of Zech 9:9: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." Christians memorialize this event, known as The Triumphal Entry, today as Palm Sunday. Four days later, at 3:00 on 14 Nisan, just as the Passover lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple, Jesus (the Lamb of God) died on the cross. As you can see, this prophecy has been completely fulfilled. It is now history, not prophecy, and adding to it, or manipulating it in any way is forbidden (Rev 22:18) and has dreadful consequences.

The proof you cite states that there will be 2300 days from the decree to build Jerusalem to the end of the abomination of desolation, to which the work you cite applies the day-year formula, based on Daniel 8:14. First of all, the Abomination of Desolation is a technical Biblical term for desecration of the Holy of Holies in the Jewish Temple. Since the topic of the prophecy in question is an interruption of the Jewish system of sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem, it is massively distorting the scriptures to say it applies to a manifestation of someone claiming to be the Islamic Twelfth or Hidden Imam of the Shi'ites. The 2300 days in fact fits perfectly with the length of time that Antiochus Epiphanes had control of and desecrated the temple, from September 6, 171 B.C. to December 25, 165 B.C. The end of the desolation was the celebration of the Feast of Lights, known now as Hanukkah. Again, prophecy has to fit exactly or else. Additionally, you claim the 2300 "years" goes from one of the decrees to rebuild the temple until the manifestation of the Báb. Neither the decree to rebuild the temple nor the manifestation of the Báb has anything to do with the sacrificial system in the temple, which is the context of the 2300 days: "Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed".

A further claim used is that 1260 days (also referred to in Revelation as forty-two months or times, time and half a time -3 ½ years, which is the length of the second half of the seventieth week of Daniel known as the Great Tribulation and cannot mean anything other than ordinary days) converted to years is the year 1260, and that number year in the Islamic calendar is 1844 in the Gregorian calendar. First, this would only mean anything to persons who knew about both calendar systems, and the Bible is not limited to a select group (especially not only to scholars). Since the Bible focuses on Israel, and since Israel is the timepiece of God's prophecies, using an Islamic calendar does not make any degree of sense. A teaching of Islam is to kill Jews (Hadith 4:177 Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.""). But the Jews are still God's chosen people - so why would He choose to have anything to do with a religion that has writings saying kill His chosen people? From the twelve tribes of Israel will come the 144,000 witnesses during the Tribulation. God does not anywhere in His scriptures use calendar year numbers, and to assert that He did so using a system of a religion that denies His Son is Lord (as Islam denies that Christ is Lord) is not credible. Why is the secular world using "CE" instead of "AD"? Because they are so strongly disturbed by the concept of Jesus Christ as Lord. And Lord He is: "I and my Father are one (John 10:30)". So for God to use an apostate calendar system would be absurd. Citing it as a proof vastly weakens the case you were trying to build.

Remember the venerable programmer's axiom: if you torture the data long enough and hard enough, it will confess to anything. The Bible is a single story, the story of the creation, redemption and final judgment of the universe by our Lord Jesus Christ. As He told the Jews: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39) He is on every page: from Joseph, Isaac, and Joshua, who were all types of Christ, until His appearance in Revelation, He is the alpha and omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the ending. Perverting the scriptures to "prove" that He would sanction a mere man usurping His place is foolish at best: "Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another..."

If it is God, beyond Time and Space, then how come it is limited-to-within-male-gender, then??
Obviously non-infinite, any christian male 'god'...

I'm a buddhist tulku, so my take on all this is that .. much of it is ( at best ) idiocy:

1. Occam's razor is interpretive, as another ( above ) noted, so underlying assumptions define what is 'seen' as simpler/eleganter versus what is 'seen' as not-simpler/eleganter.

2. Some science can explain/predict, some can only describe-what-is, and our cultural chauvanism/make-believe is that descriptive science isn't as Important/Authoritative as explanatory science, so all sorts of BS goes on when from the observer's position no more than description is warranted.

3. According to scientism ( yes. it. is. a. religion. ) mind isn't really real ( my favourite form of it is
'it is ( scientifically ) known that .. knowing .. cannot be',
which is perfection-of-hypocrisy ), but Time and Space ( and particulate matter ) are real ( field-matter not counting, of course[tm] ), even though non-locality ( aka mind aka quantum-entanglement ) can be seen in quantum-stuff, in quantum-stuff-spread-over-hundreds-of-kilometres, in schools-of-fish ( non-local coherency that goes quicker than re-action allows but action implies knowing/mind, so therefore... ), in the famous electron ( or buckyball, now ) interfering with itself while it goes, simultaneously/non-locally through 2 physically-parallel slits... ( there's one, 'simplest/elegantest' by what standard? ), or a martial-artist's KI, or...

I've got a textbook on 'the hard problem of consciousness', and though it was written by ones of western culture ( I'm a tulku, western-body, eastern-deepmind ), even it admits that consciousness is only a 'hard problem' when one assumes that mind cannot be real... ( reductionism/mechanism/scientism is a reaction against us-possibly-being-not-god: fear-rooted prejudice, only. ).

Newtonian Mechanics didn't permit mind among universe: all is clockwork. Will, let-alone our-will, cannot be. That is Newtonian Mechanics' Law. This 'law' has been used as means of ignoring responsibility-for-action by many, against many.

Contrast that with cause/effect among mind, where the meaning this-soul's apparent-minds commit land on this-soul in future apparent-mind-manifestations ( or 'days' or 'lives' or 'incarnations' or 'someones', different words, same reality )...
Buddhism has the single-word for it 'karma', the Bible calls it one's 'robe', see here, or 'putting their deeds on their heads', or This Way... both extremely-different traditions hold it to be the case, yet the Bible assumes man-style-motivation of god so much that it isn't possible for universe to be instantiated to intrinsically include cause/effect itself, there has to be some authority doing it to all ( which shows god's limitation, 'he' couldn't get the universe to take care of itself or balance or express... )

Here's another one, the language the bible was written-in assumed that god-itself couldn't be gender-nugatory..., so wasn't that assumed simpler/eleganter than some non-men-centric reality?

Statistics also requires reality be mindless-in-nature, that reality be non-mind-holding.

If mind is, though, it is in universe, and that means it exists within universe ( baby-steps-here ), and that means universe-dimensions include enough depth for mind to be real in 'em ( just as they have to be N-dimensionally deep-enough to contain N-1 dimensional branes, according to Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe. ).

Buddhism holds that there isn't some Male Authority Patriarch God[tm], but buddhism does hold that shedding ego/false-mind, gaining deep-mind, is possible,
does hold that going-from-there shedding deep-mind gaining soul/very-subtle-mind/third-attention is possible,
and does hold that having shed bogus ( transient- ) minds it is possible to gain Awake! condition ( hence Buddha == Awake!-Soul == Enlightenment... Liberation is lesser ).

Buddhism's been using scientific-method for a couple of thousand years ( current cycle ), but it has been doing so assuming that mind is ( rather than is-not ), and knows that all is dependent on the observer ( Einstein et al re-discovered this ), and knows that there are different kinds of doubt, some valid and some not...

It is scientific analysis of mind allowing Universe.

It is effective, and THAT is the ultimate standard.

No I'm not going to claim most who label-theirselfs 'buddist' are scientific-method rather than religious, any more than I will allow that most who are among western 'science' ( which James Burke says is 'dragged, kicking and screaming' into the present ) are scientific-method rather than religious.

It is, to this-one, all-or-nothing ( if one values absolute truth ): one can commit, totally, to knowing universe's truth, on its terms, or one can commit to phony truth that at-least makes one seem important among one's belonging-group among human civilization/society. Choosing absolute truth means making oneself evolve ( that's right, evolution requires mind, or didn't the shocking difference between a living-body and a corpse, in-which entropic chemical process goes the way reductionism says it should .. was significant? ) and accepting the damage/hurt in unlearning one's ignosis and growing gnosis...

We can describe the early universe, but cannot get past that ourselfs. Scientism cannot deal-with being not-god, so it pretends otherwise. That is profoundly offensive.
The whole 'why did THE universe occur in some way that allowed Our Human Life?' question is tautological idiocy... rightly stated it is:
In a universe that can have us in it, us occurred.
Description, not Authority Explaining...

The most spectacular example of scientism ( the religion-nature ) is in Douglas R. Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern.
In two IIRC consecutive chapters, he
1. remaps male-female non-equality/rigged-suppression-of-validity to white/black, to shove-it-in-our-faces how default assumptions ( his term ) arrange that one cannot even question reality correctly, because default assumptions blind one's mind, and
2. attacks The Zetetic Scholar for openmindedly using scientific-method to test what Scientific Establishment already knows to be nugatory, and therefore non-worthy of considering/questioning/testing ( he even admits that it is their openmindedness that offends him )

Another spectacular example of this, is the Biblical use of the term 'day' in several senses ( the day of Isaiah, the day of Yeshua, as well as the conventional by-human-calendar-limit day ), and the assumption that The Third Day refers to calendar-day, rather than incarnation-day .. even though the Bible states clearly that there are two lesser days ( teachers who lay fallen for 3.5 days ), and one vast day ( the Alpha and Omega )... Does it matter what religion one is, if one won't see what is in front of one's face while one is 'knowing' one's world?
If one accepts the Bible as correct, and won't allow it to mean anything other than what makes one authoritative...
one is in the same boat as one is in with scientism ( not *scientific-method*! )...

Nothing I know of precludes there being a God(God), or, to phrase that otherly, a god-itself who is origin of livingness, origin of very-subtle-minds ( 'souls' or 'third-attentions', to use the terms familliar to other traditions ), origin-of-living-creation, AND ( simultaneously ) there being a god-of-our-Universe's-creator/god.

Why is that a problem?

Why is accepting the stark fact that mind is, a problem to scientism? ( answer? because it'd mean that scientism was within a Universal-Sea-of-mind, rather than ON universe, and our race won't know that our ASSUMED authority isn't centre-of-reality, that's all, and it is pathetic ).

Scientism can't accept/deal-with there being limits to scientism's authority, so scientism engages in weirdly contorted ignorings in order to maintain its sham.
If we're made-of substance-of-Universe, then we can't reach, with substance-of-Universe, beyond Universe ( where this-universe's laws-of-physics don't apply ).
Simple limit, ignored or non-accepted.
I don't care if that limit is macro-scale or micro-scale ( it may well be that if one goes fine-enough in scale one ceases-to-be-within-universe? ).

Having found means that change the substance of one's mind from lead to gold ( ignorance to wisdom, it's allegory, only, and if materialists won't-know that mind is real, then materialists can commit all reality to making reality obey materialism while some ones remove ourselves from the setting/context, thank-you-very-much ), I'm doing my damnedest to evolve me out so that this-one isn't again beaten-on by/in incarnate reality and its habitual ignorances.
Because effectiveness rules.
Because inner-peace rules.

Buddhism holds that there are three major dimensions, Mind, Time, and Space ( each major-dimension can contain minor dimensions, like harmonics, fractally, so the 3-open space-dimensions and the 7-hidden space-dimensions are all part of the Space-dimension, and the slightly symmetrical 3-minds that arise and 7 subtle-mind-structures, or chakras, that arise are part of the Mind dimension, and doesn't hold prejudice/hatred opposing-that in order to make universe obey some established authority-assumption ).
'creation' is a device whose function is to be:
1. place ( for souls to manifest/arise/be ), and
2. process manufacturing realization ( realization that is unlimiting, or ignosis-erasing, souls )

Buddhism considers the question of the origin of this device to be partly idiocy, because from our perspective only partial answers can be, but if one sheds false-mind, and then sheds deep-mind, and then annihilates ignorance from one's soul, then one's mind/instrument/observer can know the nature-of-reality's-being.

Who of you could possibly value or care-about this writing?

If it is God, beyond Time and Space, then how come it is limited-to-within-male-gender, then??
Obviously non-infinite, any christian male 'god'...

I'm a buddhist tulku, so my take on all this is that .. much of it is ( at best ) idiocy:

1. Occam's razor is interpretive, as another ( above ) noted, so underlying assumptions define what is 'seen' as simpler/eleganter versus what is 'seen' as not-simpler/eleganter.

2. Some science can explain/predict, some can only describe-what-is, and our cultural chauvanism/make-believe is that descriptive science isn't as Important/Authoritative as explanatory science, so all sorts of BS goes on when from the observer's position no more than description is warranted.

3. According to scientism ( yes. it. is. a. religion. ) mind isn't really real ( my favourite form of it is
'it is ( scientifically ) known that .. knowing .. cannot be',
which is perfection-of-hypocrisy ), but Time and Space ( and particulate matter ) are real ( field-matter not counting, of course[tm] ), even though non-locality ( aka mind aka quantum-entanglement ) can be seen in quantum-stuff, in quantum-stuff-spread-over-hundreds-of-kilometres, in schools-of-fish ( non-local coherency that goes quicker than re-action allows but action implies knowing/mind, so therefore... ), in the famous electron ( or buckyball, now ) interfering with itself while it goes, simultaneously/non-locally through 2 physically-parallel slits... ( there's one, 'simplest/elegantest' by what standard? ), or a martial-artist's KI, or...

I've got a textbook on 'the hard problem of consciousness', and though it was written by ones of western culture ( I'm a tulku, western-body, eastern-deepmind ), even it admits that consciousness is only a 'hard problem' when one assumes that mind cannot be real... ( reductionism/mechanism/scientism is a reaction against us-possibly-being-not-god: fear-rooted prejudice, only. ).

Newtonian Mechanics didn't permit mind among universe: all is clockwork. Will, let-alone our-will, cannot be. That is Newtonian Mechanics' Law. This 'law' has been used as means of ignoring responsibility-for-action by many, against many.

Contrast that with cause/effect among mind, where the meaning this-soul's apparent-minds commit land on this-soul in future apparent-mind-manifestations ( or 'days' or 'lives' or 'incarnations' or 'someones', different words, same reality )...
Buddhism has the single-word for it 'karma', the Bible calls it one's 'robe', see here, or 'putting their deeds on their heads', or This Way... both extremely-different traditions hold it to be the case, yet the Bible assumes man-style-motivation of god so much that it isn't possible for universe to be instantiated to intrinsically include cause/effect itself, there has to be some authority doing it to all ( which shows god's limitation, 'he' couldn't get the universe to take care of itself or balance or express... )

Here's another one, the language the bible was written-in assumed that god-itself couldn't be gender-nugatory..., so wasn't that assumed simpler/eleganter than some non-men-centric reality?

Statistics also requires reality be mindless-in-nature, that reality be non-mind-holding.

If mind is, though, it is in universe, and that means it exists within universe ( baby-steps-here ), and that means universe-dimensions include enough depth for mind to be real in 'em ( just as they have to be N-dimensionally deep-enough to contain N-1 dimensional branes, according to Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe. ).

Buddhism holds that there isn't some Male Authority Patriarch God[tm], but buddhism does hold that shedding ego/false-mind, gaining deep-mind, is possible,
does hold that going-from-there shedding deep-mind gaining soul/very-subtle-mind/third-attention is possible,
and does hold that having shed bogus ( transient- ) minds it is possible to gain Awake! condition ( hence Buddha == Awake!-Soul == Enlightenment... Liberation is lesser ).

Buddhism's been using scientific-method for a couple of thousand years ( current cycle ), but it has been doing so assuming that mind is ( rather than is-not ), and knows that all is dependent on the observer ( Einstein et al re-discovered this ), and knows that there are different kinds of doubt, some valid and some not...

It is scientific analysis of mind allowing Universe.

It is effective, and THAT is the ultimate standard.

No I'm not going to claim most who label-theirselfs 'buddist' are scientific-method rather than religious, any more than I will allow that most who are among western 'science' ( which James Burke says is 'dragged, kicking and screaming' into the present ) are scientific-method rather than religious.

It is, to this-one, all-or-nothing ( if one values absolute truth ): one can commit, totally, to knowing universe's truth, on its terms, or one can commit to phony truth that at-least makes one seem important among one's belonging-group among human civilization/society. Choosing absolute truth means making oneself evolve ( that's right, evolution requires mind, or didn't the shocking difference between a living-body and a corpse, in-which entropic chemical process goes the way reductionism says it should .. was significant? ) and accepting the damage/hurt in unlearning one's ignosis and growing gnosis...

We can describe the early universe, but cannot get past that ourselfs. Scientism cannot deal-with being not-god, so it pretends otherwise. That is profoundly offensive.
The whole 'why did THE universe occur in some way that allowed Our Human Life?' question is tautological idiocy... rightly stated it is:
In a universe that can have us in it, us occurred.
Description, not Authority Explaining...

The most spectacular example of scientism ( the religion-nature ) is in Douglas R. Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern.
In two IIRC consecutive chapters, he
1. remaps male-female non-equality/rigged-suppression-of-validity to white/black, to shove-it-in-our-faces how default assumptions ( his term ) arrange that one cannot even question reality correctly, because default assumptions blind one's mind, and
2. attacks The Zetetic Scholar for openmindedly using scientific-method to test what Scientific Establishment already knows to be nugatory, and therefore non-worthy of considering/questioning/testing ( he even admits that it is their openmindedness that offends him )

Another spectacular example of this, is the Biblical use of the term 'day' in several senses ( the day of Isaiah, the day of Yeshua, as well as the conventional by-human-calendar-limit day ), and the assumption that The Third Day refers to calendar-day, rather than incarnation-day .. even though the Bible states clearly that there are two lesser days ( teachers who lay fallen for 3.5 days ), and one vast day ( the Alpha and Omega )... Does it matter what religion one is, if one won't see what is in front of one's face while one is 'knowing' one's world?
If one accepts the Bible as correct, and won't allow it to mean anything other than what makes one authoritative...
one is in the same boat as one is in with scientism ( not *scientific-method*! )...

Nothing I know of precludes there being a God(God), or, to phrase that otherly, a god-itself who is origin of livingness, origin of very-subtle-minds ( 'souls' or 'third-attentions', to use the terms familliar to other traditions ), origin-of-living-creation, AND ( simultaneously ) there being a god-of-our-Universe's-creator/god.

Why is that a problem?

Why is accepting the stark fact that mind is, a problem to scientism? ( answer? because it'd mean that scientism was within a Universal-Sea-of-mind, rather than ON universe, and our race won't know that our ASSUMED authority isn't centre-of-reality, that's all, and it is pathetic ).

Scientism can't accept/deal-with there being limits to scientism's authority, so scientism engages in weirdly contorted ignorings in order to maintain its sham.
If we're made-of substance-of-Universe, then we can't reach, with substance-of-Universe, beyond Universe ( where this-universe's laws-of-physics don't apply ).
Simple limit, ignored or non-accepted.
I don't care if that limit is macro-scale or micro-scale ( it may well be that if one goes fine-enough in scale one ceases-to-be-within-universe? ).

Having found means that change the substance of one's mind from lead to gold ( ignorance to wisdom, it's allegory, only, and if materialists won't-know that mind is real, then materialists can commit all reality to making reality obey materialism while some ones remove ourselves from the setting/context, thank-you-very-much ), I'm doing my damnedest to evolve me out so that this-one isn't again beaten-on by/in incarnate reality and its habitual ignorances.
Because effectiveness rules.
Because inner-peace rules.

Buddhism holds that there are three major dimensions, Mind, Time, and Space ( each major-dimension can contain minor dimensions, like harmonics, fractally, so the 3-open space-dimensions and the 7-hidden space-dimensions are all part of the Space-dimension, and the slightly symmetrical 3-minds that arise and 7 subtle-mind-structures, or chakras, that arise are part of the Mind dimension, and doesn't hold prejudice/hatred opposing-that in order to make universe obey some established authority-assumption ).
'creation' is a device whose function is to be:
1. place ( for souls to manifest/arise/be ), and
2. process manufacturing realization ( realization that is unlimiting, or ignosis-erasing, souls )

Buddhism considers the question of the origin of this device to be partly idiocy, because from our perspective only partial answers can be, but if one sheds false-mind, and then sheds deep-mind, and then annihilates ignorance from one's soul, then one's mind/instrument/observer can know the nature-of-reality's-being.

Who of you could possibly value or care-about this writing?

Until this news is confirmed by a reputable and ubbiased third-party, I'd recommend some scepticism towards the Raelian claims. They are known for pulling attention-getting media stunts in order to further their cause up here in Québec. The cult itself puts forward some rather boring claims (that aliens visited the earth to sow the seeds of life, will return, bla bla bla). Both the rael.org and clonaid.com sites are down (though google archives are still available, here and here) and, even if this were for real, someone is propping them up and using the cult as a cover-- I can't confirm this, but the rumours here are of a wealthy billionaire whose child died of sudden infant death syndrome. More info on Rael can be found here. It's Christian web site-- another cult, IMHO-- but the information is pretty legit. They are notorious in Quebec for being sexual libertines, which makes me wonder why they feel the need to clone, since they have so much sex anyway.

iopha

I doubt turning the world into one big country will bring about the society you envision.

Ok, you're "sorrrrrrry" (but in all caps). Doesn't sound so apologetic, does it? You've got lots of reasons why you're not actually wrong, despite clearly being wrong factually.

I had no idea that this many Slashdot readers were so old. :P

Reason #1: Those who pointed out your mistake are "old".

After looking at some of those links though, it looks like those first two games were not id Software games? So why should they be considered "official" Wolfenstein games then?

Reason #2: The original game was made by Br0derbund, and since you don't really believe you're wrong (despite clear factual evidence), you'll now attempt to substitute the word "official" for "original". Yes, it's a desparate attempt, as the parent posts spoke of "original", but maybe, just maybe you can avoid being wrong.

I guess I'll always consider the first one to be Wolf 3D, since it's from id Software and is the one I played as a little kid.

Reason #3: It doesn't matter what the facts really are. It doesn't matter that the plain, undeniable truth might be. Because you played id's 3D version as a "little kid", you'll always consider it the first one. Truth and undisputable facts be damned.

But there are apparently two that are older, whether they are "real" Wolfenstein games depends on your point of view I guess!

Reason #4: If all else failes, as in reason #2, attempt to re-write history, this time subsitution the word "real" for "original".

As you said in the beginning "stop jumping all over me"... perhaps you should step back and look at yourself. I'm "jumping all over" you, not because you were wrong, but because even after being proven wrong, you post this crap claiming that even though you are factually wrong, it's somehow not so wrong, and you're "sorrrrrrry", yet not actually in the least bit sorry.

Since you're too young to remember 8-bit computers, you're probably also too young to have watched the old television sitcom "Happy Days". Briefly, "Fonzie" was one of the main characters who was ultra "cool". He road a bike, had girls hanging all over him, etc. In one famous episode, Fonzie was wrong about something, and he couldn't admit it. Every time he tried to, he'd say "I was wr, wr, wrrr" and couldn't say the word "wrong". It was quite humorous. Here's a page with a brief summary in the first paragraph, and then transitions onto a very christian-oriented sermon, which could do you some good.

Next time, when you respond, rather than telling people to get off your back, and then make a feable attempt to deny that you could have been wrong, try something like this:

What you SHOULD have posted

It looks like I spoke too soon. Kymermosst was right that there was a 2-D Wolfenstein game in the 80's, long before I played when I played id's 3D game, thinking it was the original.

I didn't realize people would react so strongly. I'm sorry I provoked such a reaction with the words "Um, sorry but you don't know what you're talking about", when in fact I was the one who didn't know what he was talking about.

This probably won't be the last time I'm wrong about something, but I'll try to make it the last time I fly off the handle like that without even investigating the facts first.

Had you posted something along those line, many people including me would not be "jumping all over" you. I hope you can learn to understand this... if not today, perhaps when you grow older and have an opportunity to mature a bit.

The original passage (and people, read it!) is Luke 10:25-37 for all those who want to check it out for themselves.

Here is proof that some of the first animal life did start in the seas. There's just not *strong* evidence of other types of life on land & in the air deriving from life in the water.

It's sad that you inflict that filth upon people in a public forum. You're obviously missing something in your life. Here's something that can fill your void.

RZ: If the Big Bang were indeed where it all began, may I ask what preceded the Big Bang?
Sci: The universe was shrunk down to a singularity.
RZ: But isn't it correct that a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down?
Sci: That is correct.
RZ: Then, technically, your starting point is not scientific either.

[silent panic]

RZ: When a mechanistic view of the universe had held sway, didn't thinkers like David Hume chide philosophers for taking the principle of causality and applying it to a philosophical argument for the existence of God? Didn't he warn that causality could not be extrapolated from science to philosophy?
RZ: Now, when a quantum theory holds sway, randomness in the subatomic world is made a basis for randomness in life. Are you not making the very same extrapolation that you warned us against?

[awkward silence, self-deprecating smile]

Sci: We scientists do seem to retain selective sovereignty over what we allow to be transferred to philosophy and what we don't.

Ah, the dark truth is snookered into revealing itself. Science plays the charade of pursuing truth while spurning the open-mindedness that is necessary to find ultimate truth.

Again, in the words of Zacharias, "The person who demands a sign [from God, a miracle] and at the same time has already determined that anything that cannot be explained scientifically [naturalistically] is meaningless is not merely stacking the deck; he is losing at his own game." (words in brackets in this quote added by me)

The translations don't differ that much.

Only the last bit ("... I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance.." ) in Jules quotation is from Ezekiel 25:17. The rest is from elsewhere (some have suggested Psalm 23) ... walk through the valley of the shadow of death etc..

But just as likely something that Tarantino just thought sounded good. And who's going to argue with Tarantino on that point..

They're actually in the Bible, too.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?SearchTyp e=AND&language=english&searchpage=0&search=unicorn &version=KJV

Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

Deuteronomy 33:17
His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Job 39:9
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Job 39:10
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Psalm 22:21
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalm 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Psalm 92:10
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

Yeah OT but who cares?

The Bible Gateway is a convenient resource for looking up Bible verses. Multiple language options as well as an advanced search that lets you compare many English translations.

Ezekiel 25:17

I don't know the quote in question so I can't say which version is closest, but NIV seems strong enough, or perhaps the CEV.

Yeah OT but who cares?

The Bible Gateway is a convenient resource for looking up Bible verses. Multiple language options as well as an advanced search that lets you compare many English translations.

Ezekiel 25:17

I don't know the quote in question so I can't say which version is closest, but NIV seems strong enough, or perhaps the CEV.

Um, you can't go around copyrighting other peoples' stuff... the Bible is copyright (c) God, and you know He's gonna be majorly pissed when He catches you swiping His royalty checks.

But ofcourse, one must judge yourself before [2] one can judge others.

Interesting argument, but I doubt Uri Gellar ever did anything as impressive as raise a man from the dead after he had already started to decompose. (See John 11:1-45.)

"(1) X performed miracles. (2) X said he was empowered to do so by God. (3) Therefore God exists." is not a valid argument. X could have been mistaken. That's a logical possibility, isn't it? Your argument needs to be fleshed out some more if it is to be logical.

You have a valid point here, and I'm not sure I'm going to be able to answer it to your satisfaction, but I'll try anyway.

I doubt we'll ever be able to completely prove God. Some things can be proven completely, like A=pi*r^2, or 2H[2] + O[2] = 2H[2]0, but other things can't be proven so easily. If a man commits a murder, and there are no eyewitnesses, it may not be possible to prove he did it with 100% certainty, but it may be possible to obtain enough evidence to convict him anyway. In the same way, it may not be possible to prove 100% the existence of God, but considering all the evidence (the miracles of Jesus, the miracles since Jesus, the rather startling changes wrought in so many people who have turned to God), many people -- even some dedicated atheists -- choose to believe.

There are other people who can explain the evidence for God much more completely than I can. If you're interested, I'd advise you to read The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel. The author is a former newspaper reporter who used to be a devoted athiest. He wanted to get the truth about Jesus, so he interviewed a dozen experts and asked them various questions about the life and records of Jesus. His research ended up convincing him of the truth of the Gospel, and he became a Christian. If a man like that can be convinced of the reality of God just by examining the bare facts, that says a lot for the available evidence.

It's not "just because"; God exists because The Bible says he exists. For proof that The Bible is correct, see The Bible.

That's the way it appears, isn't it? However, I'm no so sure I would trust my own mind and reasoning about all of this, especially without reading the Bible itself. God is well aware of how we, the "wise", think; but consider, if God exists, what gives us the right to question His forum of revelation? Who are we to say, "OK, we see this book; prove to us that it's really Your Word."?

At some point, it becomes a matter of willful disbelief rather than, "I just need a few more facts to back it up, then I'll believe this Bible stuff." And if what we have is willful disbelief, no amount of reasoning or intellectual discussion or proof will change it.

A few interesting verses to think about are:

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Proverbs 16:25
There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

The problem in my mind with all the "Prove it to me logically" crowd is the arrogance of the attitude. You're basically saying, "I have an understanding to match that of God. He should be able to explain to me His intensions and reasonings and I will be able grasp it and believe it." Or perhaps you say, "If He's so mighty, He should be able to condescend to my level and explain it to me." And to that one might answer, "He did, somewhere around 0 AD".

It's not "just because"; God exists because The Bible says he exists. For proof that The Bible is correct, see The Bible.

That's the way it appears, isn't it? However, I'm no so sure I would trust my own mind and reasoning about all of this, especially without reading the Bible itself. God is well aware of how we, the "wise", think; but consider, if God exists, what gives us the right to question His forum of revelation? Who are we to say, "OK, we see this book; prove to us that it's really Your Word."?

At some point, it becomes a matter of willful disbelief rather than, "I just need a few more facts to back it up, then I'll believe this Bible stuff." And if what we have is willful disbelief, no amount of reasoning or intellectual discussion or proof will change it.

A few interesting verses to think about are:

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Proverbs 16:25
There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

The problem in my mind with all the "Prove it to me logically" crowd is the arrogance of the attitude. You're basically saying, "I have an understanding to match that of God. He should be able to explain to me His intensions and reasonings and I will be able grasp it and believe it." Or perhaps you say, "If He's so mighty, He should be able to condescend to my level and explain it to me." And to that one might answer, "He did, somewhere around 0 AD".

It's not "just because"; God exists because The Bible says he exists. For proof that The Bible is correct, see The Bible.

That's the way it appears, isn't it? However, I'm no so sure I would trust my own mind and reasoning about all of this, especially without reading the Bible itself. God is well aware of how we, the "wise", think; but consider, if God exists, what gives us the right to question His forum of revelation? Who are we to say, "OK, we see this book; prove to us that it's really Your Word."?

At some point, it becomes a matter of willful disbelief rather than, "I just need a few more facts to back it up, then I'll believe this Bible stuff." And if what we have is willful disbelief, no amount of reasoning or intellectual discussion or proof will change it.

A few interesting verses to think about are:

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Proverbs 16:25
There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

The problem in my mind with all the "Prove it to me logically" crowd is the arrogance of the attitude. You're basically saying, "I have an understanding to match that of God. He should be able to explain to me His intensions and reasonings and I will be able grasp it and believe it." Or perhaps you say, "If He's so mighty, He should be able to condescend to my level and explain it to me." And to that one might answer, "He did, somewhere around 0 AD".

You will only be able to try if you have an immortal soul, which is what you were trying to prove. You can't prove the existence of something by assuming it's existence.

It's not an assumption, nor has the proof's "experiment" (although quite risky) been completed yet. You're assuming the "hypothesis" has been already proven, yet strangely enough, you're not dead yet. You will find it is true, after death. Not maybe. That is the only proof, this side of the chasm, that I can offer.

You are reading it. // Reading what? Slashdot? Slashdot is proof of God?

If you recall, your argument was that God should find you if He's so great 'n' grand. However, the seed seems to have fallen to the wayside. (Matthew 13:3-23)

You haven't shown that these things actually happened. Why do you believe they did? The Bible says so? How do you know the Bible is accurate?

So, you suppose that manuscripts passed down from ages past, delicately kept and translated so all may read, verified by historians and scholars alike and confirmed, proven then by the times thereof, are now false?

Do you also question the existence of Abraham Lincoln? You have neither seen nor heard him personally, but thousands of people will testify to his existence and claim he was the president. Historians verify and confirm, scholars agree. There is no way to physically prove, aside from texts, art, and word of mouth that Abraham Lincoln truly existed and was president. Such is the same for Jesus, except the proof of the 'hypothesis' above.

If I were to tell you that "if you put a piece of meat in the fire, it will sizzle, some of it turned into carbons, and become very tough," you might say, if you had never observed nor heard such a thing, that such a thing is absurd. There would be no way for me to prove it but to show you, or for you to try it yourself, but having it shown to me gives me faith that the process is true.

God reveals truth personally to those who earnestly and honestly seek answers, not just hoping to get a clue. If you really want to risk it, feel free to completely ignore my suggestion. Otherwise, some day soon, where no one can see you or hear, silently pray in all honesty of seeking for answers. After doing so, be patient and heed your circustances. God works on His own timescale, not yours. If nothing happens, then no big deal. No one knew about it, and no one ever will as long as you don't tell them. No embarassment, no shunning, and you've proved your measely point. Prove me wrong once and for all. Refuse and you have conceded the arguement.

Sample Prayer and short explanation or Full Explanation.

OK

> in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil.

OK

... If they were created hardwired to "not want evil", then they have no choice in the matter of decisions between one or the other.

I assume you see the problem there. If God can be both free and never want to do evil, then it isn't a logical contradiction to have "free beings that didn't want to [do] evil".

This God doesn't sound like an automaton to me. It doesn't sound like one incabable of doing things some might consider evil, either.

Like 1 Samuel 15:3 and Joshua 10:40, I agree. Note that if you agree with this, then your professed agreement with the "experiment" hypothesis in the next response is puzzling, since there would definitely be a possibility for God to, at least once in a while, be wrong on a question of ethics and morals.

> After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around.

Perhaps... but more likely it's because God is probably a little stronger in matters of philosophy than you are.

"I know God exists, and He's smarter than you, so there must be something wrong with what you said, even though I personally can't think of it or point it out." Sorry, but that's how that comes across.

OK

> in which case there is no problem with a being both having free will and yet never wanting to do evil.

OK

... If they were created hardwired to "not want evil", then they have no choice in the matter of decisions between one or the other.

I assume you see the problem there. If God can be both free and never want to do evil, then it isn't a logical contradiction to have "free beings that didn't want to [do] evil".

This God doesn't sound like an automaton to me. It doesn't sound like one incabable of doing things some might consider evil, either.

Like 1 Samuel 15:3 and Joshua 10:40, I agree. Note that if you agree with this, then your professed agreement with the "experiment" hypothesis in the next response is puzzling, since there would definitely be a possibility for God to, at least once in a while, be wrong on a question of ethics and morals.

> After all, God dislikes evil and doesn't want it around.

Perhaps... but more likely it's because God is probably a little stronger in matters of philosophy than you are.

"I know God exists, and He's smarter than you, so there must be something wrong with what you said, even though I personally can't think of it or point it out." Sorry, but that's how that comes across.

The passage you are thinking of is 2 Peter 3:8. But the thing is the verse says that a day *IS AS* a 1000 years, not a day *IS* a 1000 years. The word "as" is very important here as it denotes simile, rather than a literal "1 day == 1000 years" to God. The Hebrew word used for day in Genesis 1 is "yom" meaning 1 literal 24 hour period of time. And if memory serves the word for day when the Bible talks about Jesus rising after 3 days and such is the Greek equivalent of yom. So to say the 6 days of creation were each 1 billion years would mean that it's taking Jesus 1 billion years to rise from the dead and according to 1 Corinthians 15:12-14 Christianity is a waste of our time and all Christians today are doomed sinners.

As for the how God actually did it, the Bible plainly says that God said "Let there be light." I imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that God is omnipotent (all powerful), along with omniscient (all knowing) and omnipresent (He's everywhere). Now if God is all powerful, should we believe He's not capable of speaking light, along with all creation, into existence? Or is it safe for us to say that the Bible doesn't really say?

By the way, slightly off-topic, I find http://bible.gospelcom.net a good site to use when you run into those inevitable "I can't remember the verse offhand" situations that we all run into ;)

The passage you are thinking of is 2 Peter 3:8. But the thing is the verse says that a day *IS AS* a 1000 years, not a day *IS* a 1000 years. The word "as" is very important here as it denotes simile, rather than a literal "1 day == 1000 years" to God. The Hebrew word used for day in Genesis 1 is "yom" meaning 1 literal 24 hour period of time. And if memory serves the word for day when the Bible talks about Jesus rising after 3 days and such is the Greek equivalent of yom. So to say the 6 days of creation were each 1 billion years would mean that it's taking Jesus 1 billion years to rise from the dead and according to 1 Corinthians 15:12-14 Christianity is a waste of our time and all Christians today are doomed sinners.

As for the how God actually did it, the Bible plainly says that God said "Let there be light." I imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that God is omnipotent (all powerful), along with omniscient (all knowing) and omnipresent (He's everywhere). Now if God is all powerful, should we believe He's not capable of speaking light, along with all creation, into existence? Or is it safe for us to say that the Bible doesn't really say?

By the way, slightly off-topic, I find http://bible.gospelcom.net a good site to use when you run into those inevitable "I can't remember the verse offhand" situations that we all run into ;)

The passage you are thinking of is 2 Peter 3:8. But the thing is the verse says that a day *IS AS* a 1000 years, not a day *IS* a 1000 years. The word "as" is very important here as it denotes simile, rather than a literal "1 day == 1000 years" to God. The Hebrew word used for day in Genesis 1 is "yom" meaning 1 literal 24 hour period of time. And if memory serves the word for day when the Bible talks about Jesus rising after 3 days and such is the Greek equivalent of yom. So to say the 6 days of creation were each 1 billion years would mean that it's taking Jesus 1 billion years to rise from the dead and according to 1 Corinthians 15:12-14 Christianity is a waste of our time and all Christians today are doomed sinners.

As for the how God actually did it, the Bible plainly says that God said "Let there be light." I imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that God is omnipotent (all powerful), along with omniscient (all knowing) and omnipresent (He's everywhere). Now if God is all powerful, should we believe He's not capable of speaking light, along with all creation, into existence? Or is it safe for us to say that the Bible doesn't really say?

By the way, slightly off-topic, I find http://bible.gospelcom.net a good site to use when you run into those inevitable "I can't remember the verse offhand" situations that we all run into ;)

After thinking things over a bit, it occurs to me that my earlier post was too focused on your factual errors. While it is important to point out the errors of fact and logic that riddle creationist argument, so we won't end up with yet another generation of citizens who belief this guff, sometimes it's worth stepping back and pointing out a more basic problem that plagues creationist rhetoric, and which your post illustrates very nicely.

> Creation arguments are very well founded in evidence. Creationism makes some predictions about what should be observed, as does evolution. ... So, I hope you understand now. This is stuff that is observed and verified. It is not the realm of guesswork but on solid, verifiable observances. ... Just so you know, I've barely touched on the surface of overwhelming evidence for creation ... As you may or may not guess, I get very tired of idiots pretending that there is no evidence for creation. ... Because it's all out there, you've just closed your mind off to understanding it

Sadly, in spite of the big talk, you did not actually present any evidence for creation. As with virtually every other creationist argument you spend most of your time trying to explain away the evidence for evolution rather than trying to present evidence for creation.

For example -

> fact: Language in it's earliest form is it's most complex form. It has a much larger vocabulary, better formed grammar, and many more nuances in the language. The most recent forms of language have the least complexity, the smallest vocabulary. So, language is sufferring from entropy, it's getting simpler.

Beyond the fact that this simply isn't true, it wouldn't be evidence for creation even if it were true. The creation story offered in Genesis I doesn't give the slightest hint about how language should change over time. It portrays Adam and Eve created as adults - at least that's the traditional interpretation - and portrays them as using language when we first meet them. Other than Adam's role in naming the species, we aren't given any hint as to whether they were created already capable of speech, or taught speech by god, or made it up themselves. We certainly aren't given any model of language that would predict how it changes over time.

Unless of course you want to substitute a more general "biblical literalism" for "creationism per se", in which case your model for language change must come from the Babel story, from which you would predict that -

• language change is catastropic
• language change is the result of direct divine intervention
• all languages are mutually unintelligible
• all languages stand in random relationships to each other

The Falun Gong is a religous movement that has suffered much oppression in China.

Of course, one could also argue that Falun Gong is a doomsday cult which preachs racism. I assume that PRC's government believes that, aside from the implications of competing with a powerful organization full of people with martyr complexes, their actions are little different from Germany's treatment of the Church of $cientology and the United States' treatment of Branch Davidians, for example.

The NIV says:

1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.

The King James says:

For the love of money is the root of all evil

The NIV says:

1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.

The King James says:

For the love of money is the root of all evil

In much of Jewish culture, particularly the Orthodox, God's personal name is too holy to be spoken or written, outside of certain very specific circumstances. Mispronunciations or typos might be seen as a sort of blasphemy. See Exodus 20:7. So letters are left out when writing it. IIRC, the term "Jehovah" comes from using the vowels from Adonai (which means Lord) with the consonants from God's personal name, YHWH. Even the title "God" is respected similarly.

Jizyah Unbelievers are required to pay jizyah (poll tax) in lieu of security provided to them as the Dhimmis (Protected People) of an Islamic state, and their exemption from military service and payment of Zakah. Jizyah symbolizes the submission of the unbelievers to the suzerainty of Islam.

In Islamic law, however, this is simply not the case. The life of a Muslim is considered superior to that of a non-Muslim, so much so that whilst a non-Muslim killing a Muslim would be executed, the reverse would not occur. [5] This is despite the fact that murder is normally considered a capital offence in Islam, with regular executions in most Muslim states. This inequity is also demonstrable in the blood rate paid to non-Muslims where murder or injury has occurred, which is half that of a Muslim. [6] Effectively, this ruling means that a Muslim need not fear the usual retribution for murder if he kills a non-Muslim. The law deliberately and consciously does not protect non-Muslims as it does Muslims. The position of Islamic law is not that human life is sacred, but that Muslim life is so.
-----
the Christian must gain at least another Christian witness even to match the testimony of the Muslim
-----
Obviously, this considerably disadvantages non-Muslims, and becomes of practical import when we consider the frequent charges of blasphemy used by Muslims against Christians in places like Pakistan, which usually have an ulterior motive (often personal or land disputes). Legal conditions such as these give unscrupulous Muslims the idea that it is 'open season' on minorities. A similar ruling endangers the inheritance rights of Christian wives of Muslims. [8] Again, this gives opportunity to dishonest Muslim relatives of a widow.
----
The consequence of this is that in an Islamic State - specifically the Khilafah - non-Muslims should be denied Government posts, since the state exists for the Muslims, who alone are true citizens, whilst the non-Muslims are merely conquered residents, and the Jizyah signifies this
----
As this state of things inevitably produce chaos and disorder, it is the duty of the true Muslims to exert their utmost to bring an end to their wicked rule and bring them under a righteous order
----
AL-HEDAYA Vol. II (Hanafi Manual)
...capitation-tax is due only in lie of destruction... That is to say, is imposed as a return from the mercy and forbearance shown by the Muslims, and as a substitute for that destruction which is due upon infidels.
AL-HEDAYA Vol. II (Hanafi Manual)
[On infidels refusing either to embrace the faith, or to pay tribute, they may be attacked.]

...approves of violence against infidels and those who leave Islam as their native or chosen religion. Fighting and killing are described as beloved activities. Apostacy is punished by death.

In my book the people that pick up the Koran and say "Hey this is cool, there's some profound stuff in here" are okay, if they accept the minor tweaks by tacitly eating pork or drinking alcohol but if their country of origin is a Pakistani madrasa then he has the culture built not around the Koran but around other crap (see above) ingrained in him, the type of guy that believes he's the second coming or something. If your Muslim friends refuse to denounce AL-HEDAYA Vol. II (Hanafi Manual) then they must kill people that don't pay the Jizyah as these people are no longer entitled to protection in an Islamic state.

However just as the mafia doesn't represent every Italian, extremists don't represent Koranic Islam, they represent a very warped Islam (Pakistan madrasa edition) which I say is unreservedly evil. Many say that Islam is spreading, but here's the secret - it's not Koranic Islam that's spreading.

Certainly, he could (and did) expect good behavior as a result. In fact, what does the word "Christian" mean but to be a disciple, one who tries his or her utmost to follow in Christ's footsteps? See 1 Corinthians 11:1, Hebrews 12:1,2, and 1 Peter 2:21. If someone who was a Christian ceased following Christ's commandments, stopped doing as Christ did (or at least trying his best to do so), he would no longer be legitimately able to call himself a Christian. Hence, it could be said that living a Christlike life is a condition of being a Christian, by definition.

Of course, being imperfect, we cannot always do perfectly as Jesus did -- even the apostle Paul had that problem, as he describes in Romans 7:14-25.

Certainly, he could (and did) expect good behavior as a result. In fact, what does the word "Christian" mean but to be a disciple, one who tries his or her utmost to follow in Christ's footsteps? See 1 Corinthians 11:1, Hebrews 12:1,2, and 1 Peter 2:21. If someone who was a Christian ceased following Christ's commandments, stopped doing as Christ did (or at least trying his best to do so), he would no longer be legitimately able to call himself a Christian. Hence, it could be said that living a Christlike life is a condition of being a Christian, by definition.

Of course, being imperfect, we cannot always do perfectly as Jesus did -- even the apostle Paul had that problem, as he describes in Romans 7:14-25.

Certainly, he could (and did) expect good behavior as a result. In fact, what does the word "Christian" mean but to be a disciple, one who tries his or her utmost to follow in Christ's footsteps? See 1 Corinthians 11:1, Hebrews 12:1,2, and 1 Peter 2:21. If someone who was a Christian ceased following Christ's commandments, stopped doing as Christ did (or at least trying his best to do so), he would no longer be legitimately able to call himself a Christian. Hence, it could be said that living a Christlike life is a condition of being a Christian, by definition.

Of course, being imperfect, we cannot always do perfectly as Jesus did -- even the apostle Paul had that problem, as he describes in Romans 7:14-25.

Certainly, he could (and did) expect good behavior as a result. In fact, what does the word "Christian" mean but to be a disciple, one who tries his or her utmost to follow in Christ's footsteps? See 1 Corinthians 11:1, Hebrews 12:1,2, and 1 Peter 2:21. If someone who was a Christian ceased following Christ's commandments, stopped doing as Christ did (or at least trying his best to do so), he would no longer be legitimately able to call himself a Christian. Hence, it could be said that living a Christlike life is a condition of being a Christian, by definition.

Of course, being imperfect, we cannot always do perfectly as Jesus did -- even the apostle Paul had that problem, as he describes in Romans 7:14-25.

On the contrary, he welcomed the sinners of his day unconditionally, then instructed them to repent. Even the Ephesians passage you quote paints repentance and good behavior as a result, not a condition. See, for example, Romans 5:1-10, or Luke 5:27ff.

Read Matthew 7:13-23 and Ephesians 4:17-28.

Oh, and Mt. 19:24 doesn't say it's impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of the heavens, and it certainly doesn't say anything about hell.

Read Matthew 7:13-23 and Ephesians 4:17-28.

Oh, and Mt. 19:24 doesn't say it's impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of the heavens, and it certainly doesn't say anything about hell.

I should have known; it's a Bible quote. Matthew 26:41 " , ." See the full verse in here.

-Craig

Yes, there will be A LOT more wars now! Never underestemate the human capacity for offence.

And I don't think this disproves God because He isn't the one making it. I think that was what lead to Him disappearing in the "puff of logic" in the book. If you believe your bible, He is the one who created the need for this device when He counfounded the languages of men at the tower of babel... (Genesis 11)

MATT Chapter 14, verses 22-35:
22Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. 23After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, 24but the boat was already a considerable distance[1] from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.
25During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.
27But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."
28"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
29"Come," he said.
30Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
31Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"
32And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
34When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret. 35And when the men of that place recognized Jesus, they sent word to all the surrounding country. People brought all their sick to him 36and begged him to let the sick just touch the edge of his cloak, and all who touched him were healed.

From: http://www.gospelcom.net/

That is simply wrong.
Here is plenty of proof that the concept preexisted Dante.

Like any other technology, it is not good or evil in and of itself. It just is. What people do with it is either good or evil.

You've found the key to many problems within the world. As humans progress and gain new knowledge and tools, we must make fundamental choices in the use of that knowledge and those tools. Many of the topics in Slashdot such as violations of privacy via technology are judgement calls by those using that technology.

Unfortunately, some people make bad moral choices. Evil even.

God Loves You!
Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.
Psalm 34:14

You sound like a sad soul my friend. Why attack someone like that? Remember that we should love one another.

After writing an even loooonger discussion about the site and having it all erased in a system crash, this will be a short version. (On the second reading: ha-ha).

* The web service provider www.truepath.com/ has been online since September 1997. They are definitely for real and serves many, many other cristian sites. Let's not scan or bomb them. They are doing a great job handling the slashdot effect - we have seen many other sites choke immediately.

It all looks very, very much like a real site. Some glitches point in the hoax-direction however:

* On the member page, it is very hard to find any evidence of any pastors or doctors on the web. However, searching for '"Tim Allmon" baptist' on Google returns two hits.
-The Digital Missourian: Citing
"Tim Allmon, 22, plans to vote for Bush. But the Southern Methodist University student says he is tired of candidates "putting on the fake happy face, shaking hands and kissing babies.""
There is acutally a guy called Tim Allmon, about the age (24) of the portrait on the member page, studying at the Southern Methodist University. Sounds OK to study at the Methodist Univeristy if you are ultra christian, but I guess there are 10.000 other students there that are not, on the other hand...

The second link is not about our guy anyway.

* The bible verses they have chosen are good reading.
Tim Allmon, the treasurer, chose Mattew 22:17-22... (bible citations from bible.gospelcom.net)
"Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away."

Too good to be true? You judge. But the femnine looking Peggy Miller's choice is Luke 11:21:
""When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe."

Pastor Jose Rosas is also surprising. Claiming to work in "the ecumenical Catholic Outreach Baptist Ministries" is exceedingly hard to believe for me. If the catholic and baptist acutally had any collaborations, we would find it on Google... Wouldn't we? Again, we are directed to Objective as the first link...
Corinthians 8:1-13 is not that obvious either...

Kyle Goodman then. His story is almost too good to be true... We can read in the Google cache (to save his Geocities accound from flooding) that he was salvaged by Jim Carlson of the Objective site. He first was a "bad guy" with a webpage against Jim Carlson and pro Landover. Now he has changed and is against Landover. It is hard to know if he is serious. Would anybody changing mind so drastically still keep their old web page that insulted what you now believe in? (His pages are still up on Geocities, but they are often overloaded so use the Google cache instead.
There is some really good reading in Kyles guestbook. I especially like a comment (KirthGersen - 11/22/00 06:05:12):
"Taking parody to the razor's edge... The fact that you left your old site up shows you are faking your conversion. The fact that those idiots at Shutdown Landover believe you shows that they are really, really dumb. Congrats on your parody - it's quite convincing. Can't wait till you suddenly fall from grace - should be hilarious!"

Furthermore, Kyle Goldman is a very uncommon name in Google. Most hits points into golf result tables. Some link actually points to the Faith Presbyterian Church in Huntsville, Alabama, were they have posted the participants in the cermon (how about that privacy?). Actually Melissa Goldman also participated. This seem strange as Kyle have chocked his jewish parents when converting as the Objective site says. Maybe this Kyle Goldman is not the one we are looking for...

One of the links points to a sermon that was held the 15th of October 2000, which is only two days after Kyle's last note on his Geocities webpage. It seems normal to me that a young newcomer in a presbyterian congregation would be asked to lead the prayers.

The golf-playing Kyle was a freshman in Temple Highschool in Bell County, Texas in 1997 (See this link, and this directory listing). Is he the same Kyle Goldman? There also seems to be a horse-riding and -judging Kyle Goldman that originates from Washington in Wilkes county, Georgia. Btw, his horse is named Cookie.

Aaaarghhh. I want to know the truth!

Conclusion
It is harder for me to believe that someone spends the enormous amount of work on a site likeObjective for fun rather than if they do believe in it. (On the other hand it may be hard for people to believe that someone spent the time to write this :-) The only obvious people that could do it "for fun" is the Landover crew (and they are probably overloaded with that site, plus they specialize in sharp and clear irony) and Kyle Goldman that has a very different style on his other webpage. Faking the artwork on the Objective site would also take lots of skill and time.

This has largely turned out to be a study if the people named above really exist. It is hard to determine that using only the Internet, and it gets even harder when the persons are not supposed to use the 'net because of its low moral. It is next to impossible as the pages in discussion lack real-world adresses. Even if that is a sign of a hoax, nobody that tried leaving their mail adress on a page like that would do it again. They may be misinformed, but they are not stupid...

So, I choose to believe that there acutally are people different enough and determined to set up a site like Objective because they do believe in it for real. If anybody have hard evidence of the opposite, I welcome it.

...or maybe I think it is a hoax... :-) /Fredrik