Guest posts by Wimbledofy

1

Religion / Re: The Greatest Christian in history

« on: November 20, 2011, 05:08:43 am »

Some would say Jesus is the greatest christian in history, however I believe his mother, Mary, who is untainted with sin, is the greatest testament to Christian virtue.

Several times through out the bible Mary does sin, like in Luke 2:48 when she rebukes 12 year old Jesus for being at the temple. When Jesus is older he also rebukes Mary a few times for doing something wrong.

That aside, I believe other than Jesus, the greatest christian would be John the Baptist as Jesus once said the greatest person ever born before him was John the Baptist. Greater than Abraham, Moses, or Mary. Jn. 7:28.

I'm quoting these mostly from memory, so if I get this epicly wrong I'm really sorry.

none of them could be defined as christians, they were, in fact, raised to be jewish. the greatest christian would most likely have to be someone who acted after jesus's ascencion into heaven.
Mary never actually sins, she is rebuked by jesus, yes, but that was out of parental concern and ot an attempt to harm jesus, and doing something wrong does not equate to sinning- if I fail a test at school, I have don it wrong, but I have not sinned in failing it.

depends on what you mean by christian, because they were still christians, thats just not the term that was used in that time a better thing we should say if we want to include them would be "Greatest person of God's chosen people." and failing a test shows that you did not study or prepare for it, wand in the bible it says to do the best in whatever you do(sorry for not knowing the reference)

2

Religion / Re: Why should I forsake science and believe in religion instead?

« on: October 27, 2011, 05:44:00 am »

"You know, if I were to look at two competing hypotheses:
1) The son of god was able to turn water into wine, going against all of known chemistry, physics, etc.
or
2) The story is an exaggeration or a fabrication intended to draw people into believing a religion

I would have to say that really the first case is clearly a hypothesis, not even a theory. Which I am told is a very important distinction..."
Saying that is a hypotheisis is almost basically saying what you learned in a history book is a hypothesis. You could call it something other than a hypothesis but that term doesn't fit the description. (sorry if i'm not making any sense right now, i don't have very much time and will have much more over the weekend to think more thoroughly, and the fact that everything is being typed makes it much harder to comunicate what exactly you are trying to say than face to face, where you can get your point out quicker and if they don't understand it, it is much easier to ask questions)

3

Religion / Re: Why the English Bible is Wrong

« on: October 27, 2011, 05:34:59 am »

Original Post.

for like 2 minutes i was looking at the original post to figure out what op meant until i realized it actually meant original post. for a second i thought you were telling me to look at the original post. well i feel silly now. thanks, but yeah i think the title should be slightly changed to something like "Why the english bible is misinterpreted(or something about the translation)" or something similar to that.

4

Religion / Re: Westboro Baptist Church

« on: October 26, 2011, 06:08:32 am »

I was actually referring to the post. [If that is still ambiguous, I am specifically referring to the post that I quoted]

While Wimble's post does come across a bit harsh and offensive, it is nonetheless true i think. If homosexuality is a sin, then theres no need for riots or picketing. And God does not hate them any more than god might hate someone who dishonors their parents, or covets. In fact those last two are from the original 10 commandments, which stand as MUCH more powerful guidelines than the other sins written about. Heck, depending on your bible eating pork is a sin, I don't see WBC picketing butcherys. A final point, WBC wouldn't be so much a problem if they didnt do what they did in such bad taste. Protesting homosexuality is one thing, but thanking god for the death of soldiers at their funerals WITHOUT consent of the mourners is extremely bad taste. And I'm sure they do it so they can eat up all that publicity.

Roman clearly states that there are no longer any more unclean foods. And no i wasn't trying to be offensive, i was actually trying to make it not offensive by pointing out that i have flaws too.

5

Religion / Re: Why should I forsake science and believe in religion instead?

« on: October 26, 2011, 05:54:14 am »

Um... you going to add anything, or just put a large multi-user quote that gives no indication of what your point is?

sorry something happened, i actually did put something, but idk why it didn't appear

Theoretically. Name a religion that does not conflict, please?

IF there is a "superior being", which I believe we all agree can not be proven one way or the other, then it stands to reason that that being can interact with our world, and influence it if he so chooses. The virgin birth, would be one example of that. This does not relate to religious people not believing in science, as some would like to point out. It just means that religious people think there is more to life than science (which does not mean they believe science any less)

There's everything from walking on water to virgin birth. Evolution is a good example of something that has tens of thousands of pieces of scientific evidence, yet it's completely different from how Christianity tells us of how humans came to be.

Uhm, making the claim evolution is a theory isn't very wise of you. Evolution is a hypothesis. this is a quote from answers in genesis "1. (“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage; it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.)"

Evolution is a theory not a fact.

It's not very wise of you to state evolution is a theory, because it isn't, its a hypothesis. Quote from answersingenesis "(“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage; it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.)"

And scaredgirl, did you really meant to put that someone who believes in religious throws away part of the scientific method. or What i'm sure you meant is that they throw away what the scientific method has proven, not the scientific method itself. But for example assuming God exists even though science has "proven" people don't naturally rise from the dead, does that mean God can't bring someone back to life? If there is a God and he created everything does he not have the power to bring someone back to life? How does me believing that God has the power to raise someone from the dead make me throw out the scientific method? And you mentioned that there are many evidences that support evolution, can you name some?

6

Religion / Re: Why should I forsake science and believe in religion instead?

« on: October 26, 2011, 05:45:26 am »

Theoretically. Name a religion that does not conflict, please?

IF there is a "superior being", which I believe we all agree can not be proven one way or the other, then it stands to reason that that being can interact with our world, and influence it if he so chooses. The virgin birth, would be one example of that. This does not relate to religious people not believing in science, as some would like to point out. It just means that religious people think there is more to life than science (which does not mean they believe science any less)

There's everything from walking on water to virgin birth. Evolution is a good example of something that has tens of thousands of pieces of scientific evidence, yet it's completely different from how Christianity tells us of how humans came to be.

Uhm, making the claim evolution is a theory isn't very wise of you. Evolution is a hypothesis. this is a quote from answers in genesis "1. (“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage; it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.)"

Evolution is a theory not a fact.

7

Religion / Re: Why the English Bible is Wrong

« on: October 26, 2011, 05:06:45 am »

ok i understand, but what does op mean?

8

Religion / Re: Westboro Baptist Church

« on: October 26, 2011, 05:05:14 am »

i'm a christian and i thought that was stupid. god doesn't hate gays. being homosexual is just a sin, like insulting someone is a sin. But he doesn't hate them, those people were taught very wrong. I may think it is wrong, but you shouldn't treat them different. They do their wrong things, i do mine, doesn't mean we should hate the gays.

I am curious as to whether or not you thought that this could be construed as offensive.

The post or the video? The video actually kinda offended me for how hating they were. This post doesn't really offend me because of my dislike towards the video.

9

Religion / Re: Why the English Bible is Wrong

« on: October 26, 2011, 04:00:24 am »

didn't actually watch the video since it is 20 min, but from what you said about the bible being wrong, well that is not true. There may be some small slight errors, but the scribes of the bible had to write it down word for word, meaning that there are many copies the translaters had to go by, and they made sure that they would check through many different copies of the original language(not the original copy of the bible) to make sure it was very accurate and there very few passages(very very few) of which might not be right. The only bible that is truly 100% accurate is the original, but that doesn't mean that the context of the bible passages today are false. The bible is meant to be taken literally in the way it is written. True stories are meant to be read as true stories, parables as parables, and poems as poems.

10

Religion / Re: Why should I forsake science and believe in religion instead?

« on: October 12, 2011, 04:02:11 am »

To me, religion is more or less a set of good morals and good guide lines to be a "good" person (in contrast to what they, the religion either it be Judaism, christianism, etc. , consider "evil", "deviant" or "evil".) its simple as that, just some guidelines and morals.
That is the domain of wisdom.

Science is there to explain, teach and show what is, what could be and what has or never will be. It enlightens our path to the future and explains where we come from (all sciences together) and shows us the mistakes of our ancestors and their success so we can learn from their heritage and move forward as a society.
Science is the domain of intellect

One may have one without the other, but those who have both are truly those who should be known, reckoned and taken for examples of true citizens of modern society.

actually, science describes, it doesn't explain.

11

Religion / Re: Westboro Baptist Church

« on: October 11, 2011, 02:09:58 am »

i'm a christian and i thought that was stupid. god doesn't hate gays. being homosexual is just a sin, like insulting someone is a sin. But he doesn't hate them, those people were taught very wrong. I may think it is wrong, but you shouldn't treat them different. They do their wrong things, i do mine, doesn't mean we should hate the gays.

12

Crucible Archive / Re: Fission | Fission

« on: October 06, 2011, 02:05:53 am »

actually nvm on what i said, since you would no longer need fractals. I was thinking you would need an awkward combo of card types, but not really now that i think of it.