Repent for being a Mac user!!
- Thread starter simX
- Start date
nkuvu
Gone
I don't know the bible verse by verse, but I have looked at a few of the passages quoted in these questions, and the questions are valid. If you haven't read these questions (even a few of them) I encourage you to do so. They are very interesting to me -- I agree with Racer. I'd love to see some answers for these.
From the website:
From the website:
I would be very impressed to see someone answer these questions fully.
tagliatelle
_____________________
This information is intended for everyone on this site. We all know that the cube wasn't selling well. I have been analysing in Belgium how long that Cubes are available there and now I see iMac, Powermac, eMac, iBook and Titanium.
bighairydog
tail-wagging member
Glad we got that one straightened out 
)
)
bighairydog
tail-wagging member
OK - totally off topic here, but remember back on page 2 when fryke posted this
Cheers fryke, I toast you with my next cup of tea.
Bernie)
OK, 36497 words later - Damn that is the best bit of downloaded text I have ever read. Witty, so true, and a really good advocation of freedom and sensibility.Even if it did take me 3 weeks to read...
Cheers fryke, I toast you with my next cup of tea.
Bernie
)
bighairydog
tail-wagging member
Glad you liked it
BTW, anybody who's not trying to sell me insurance can call me Bernie
Bernie :o)
BTW, anybody who's not trying to sell me insurance can call me Bernie
Bernie :o)
bighairydog
tail-wagging member
I once knew somebody who called me dog, but then again he did prefix every sentence with "Yo", so I wouldn't go down that line. Come to think of it, I have no idea why I ever thought of the name bighairydog - it was a school thing years ago. I would change my macosx.com ID to 'Bernie', but that would mean having any old body knowing my name.
That would never do ;o)
Anyway, looks like this thread is bottoming out - probably a good thing (if the last christian thread was anything to go by, we collectively can manage about 5 pages of discussion, before we need a month or two to refresh). I'm off to tell some guy in the Support forum why OSX isn't installing on his x86 box.
Bernie)
That would never do ;o)
Anyway, looks like this thread is bottoming out - probably a good thing (if the last christian thread was anything to go by, we collectively can manage about 5 pages of discussion, before we need a month or two to refresh). I'm off to tell some guy in the Support forum why OSX isn't installing on his x86 box.
Bernie
)
bighairydog
tail-wagging member
They do?
Well I've learned that the answer to any religious question is "Because of the love of the lord our saviour Jesus Christ", so I'm tendering that as an answer. How'd I do?
Dawg
) (nope, doesn't work. I'll stick to my real name for now. Bernie )
scruffy
Notorious Olive Counter
Bernie got it right!
Who loves us better then Jesus? No one. And yet "a dog is a man's best friend."
Surely then, dogs are in fact avatars of Christ. (not in the "gif or jpeg image to represent you in a forum" sense, but in the "descent to earth and incarnation as an animal or a human of a deity (esp. Vishnu)" sense) (unless there's something you feel you should tell us, Bernie)
Who loves us better then Jesus? No one. And yet "a dog is a man's best friend."
Surely then, dogs are in fact avatars of Christ. (not in the "gif or jpeg image to represent you in a forum" sense, but in the "descent to earth and incarnation as an animal or a human of a deity (esp. Vishnu)" sense) (unless there's something you feel you should tell us, Bernie)
bighairydog
tail-wagging member
The Madhatter
Registered
Unfortunately, I missed out on the meat of the discussion a few weeks ago because of finals. Thank you MDLarson for defending our faith (Christianity), and wish I had been there to help, although I don't agree with you on everything (esp. the Creation stuff).
My father is a geophysicist and a Christian (believes in the Bible, that Jesus' lived a perfect life, his death was the only way to God, and practices what the Bible says) whose experiences have led him to believe that God used evolution as a tool for Creation. There is a website that states a lot about what some Christian Geologists believe, and when I get the address from my friend, I will post it.
Being a Christian does take faith, yes, but I believe that reason is just as much a part of it as any of your religions (or antireligions). There are a great number of true Christians who have reasoned their faith, and everyday I strive to do the same. A good example is C.S. Lewis, who wrote Mere Christianity, a wonderful work explaining how faith is a function of reason.
Someone previously had said that they believed in mathematics, because it made sense, well sure it does, but there are many things it fails to explain. No integral (whether surface, double, triple, definite, indefinite, regardless of coordinate system), sequence or series (convergent by any test, including Ratio, Alternating Series, Integral, Comparison, Limit Comparison), solid angle, inhomogenous linear differential equation, or anything else can explain something so simple as love (I assume many of us here like math, so I thought that sentence would be funny). I don't believe science will ever be able to explain certain things, and for this reason, I disagree with the statement that as modern science progresses, religion becomes obselete.
Unfortunately, there are hundreds and thousands of bad examples of Christians (aforementioned priests, crusaders, and the like) who tarnish the truth of Jesus. But, as the Bible says (whether you believe its doctrine or not), all men are sinners (do wrong, bad things), and Christians often succumb to tempation, that is our nature as humans.
I'll post more of my thoughts as they come.
BTW I am so glad school is out
My father is a geophysicist and a Christian (believes in the Bible, that Jesus' lived a perfect life, his death was the only way to God, and practices what the Bible says) whose experiences have led him to believe that God used evolution as a tool for Creation. There is a website that states a lot about what some Christian Geologists believe, and when I get the address from my friend, I will post it.
Being a Christian does take faith, yes, but I believe that reason is just as much a part of it as any of your religions (or antireligions). There are a great number of true Christians who have reasoned their faith, and everyday I strive to do the same. A good example is C.S. Lewis, who wrote Mere Christianity, a wonderful work explaining how faith is a function of reason.
Someone previously had said that they believed in mathematics, because it made sense, well sure it does, but there are many things it fails to explain. No integral (whether surface, double, triple, definite, indefinite, regardless of coordinate system), sequence or series (convergent by any test, including Ratio, Alternating Series, Integral, Comparison, Limit Comparison), solid angle, inhomogenous linear differential equation, or anything else can explain something so simple as love (I assume many of us here like math, so I thought that sentence would be funny). I don't believe science will ever be able to explain certain things, and for this reason, I disagree with the statement that as modern science progresses, religion becomes obselete.
Unfortunately, there are hundreds and thousands of bad examples of Christians (aforementioned priests, crusaders, and the like) who tarnish the truth of Jesus. But, as the Bible says (whether you believe its doctrine or not), all men are sinners (do wrong, bad things), and Christians often succumb to tempation, that is our nature as humans.
I'll post more of my thoughts as they come.
BTW I am so glad school is out
bighairydog
tail-wagging member
Firstly, welcome into the ring Madhatter.
OK, well given the 'defending of beliefs' stance taken by believers on this board, I'm adopting a defence of mine.
In truth, There is no scientific explanation for love, but until recently, there was no explanation for why food spoiled faster when left out in the Sun. Saying that Your emotions are such that they must have been created, they could not possibly have come about naturally through evolution, is in my humble opinion an argument based on convenience. We all like our conciousness, and the idea that it could be evolved is abhorrant to some. But our behaviour is full of what appear to be artifacts of evolution. All of the following subconcious attributes observed by psychologists are, from a theoritical point of view, what would maximise our evolutionary fitness, and therefore what we should expect if our minds did evolve as tools to help us survive and reproduce:
</rant>
Wow, break from revision to have that rant, very ejoyable it was too. Don't take my ranting personally, it's just that I feel I should defend my beliefs with the same vigor that people defend their religions, because I actively chose agnosticism as opposed to the default Christianity in my family, so these arguments are about a fundamental choice in my life just as they are with religious people.
Bernie)
OK, well given the 'defending of beliefs' stance taken by believers on this board, I'm adopting a defence of mine.
True, but no integral sets out to. Whilst I accept that sentence was intended in jest, so I won't hold it to be representitive of your best argument, you might as well have said "No microwave oven manual can explain my backache, therefore faith in an omnipotent being is required to explain it". That would be a bit of a large intuitive leap, and I'd suggest considering the possibility of bad posture to explain it. A silly analogy I know, but you see my point.
In truth, There is no scientific explanation for love, but until recently, there was no explanation for why food spoiled faster when left out in the Sun. Saying that Your emotions are such that they must have been created, they could not possibly have come about naturally through evolution, is in my humble opinion an argument based on convenience. We all like our conciousness, and the idea that it could be evolved is abhorrant to some. But our behaviour is full of what appear to be artifacts of evolution. All of the following subconcious attributes observed by psychologists are, from a theoritical point of view, what would maximise our evolutionary fitness, and therefore what we should expect if our minds did evolve as tools to help us survive and reproduce:
- People are most attracted to people resembling ourselves to a degree approximating a 2nd cousin.
- All things being equal, people will generally tollerate 1/2 of a sibling's danger to rid them of it, e.g. risk a 50% chance of being beaten up to save a sibling from certain beating.
- We generally find things that lower our survival / reproductive success, painful.
- We generally find things that raise our survival / reproductive success, pleasurable.
</rant>
Wow, break from revision to have that rant, very ejoyable it was too. Don't take my ranting personally, it's just that I feel I should defend my beliefs with the same vigor that people defend their religions, because I actively chose agnosticism as opposed to the default Christianity in my family, so these arguments are about a fundamental choice in my life just as they are with religious people.
Bernie
)
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Madhatter,
I'm sure the best is yet to come and that you haven't missed out on too much.
One thing that I think is missed by people who believe in religions is the fact that belief is more than choice. I can not just say today I believe. Many people of faith don't seem to get this. If you told me that for me to be saved I had to believe something that goes against my experiences, then I could not believe no matter what rewards await true believers. And honestly, this does go both ways. I have had to take a step back at times to remember that people of faith actually do believe this stuff, no matter how far fetched it may seem to me.
As for love and math, I would point out that one of my favorite philosophers, Immanuel Kant, was a mathematician. He set out to explain how ethics and morals are logical constructs, and that they exist independent of religions (though he was a Christian). As Bernie pointed out, though you may have intended it as a joke, the tools you sighted were never designed for exploring aspects of human social behavior. This is not to say that they could not be use for such, as these tools are being used for economic studies (I remember having one economic grad student in one of my topology classes). I would point out that the true global tool of mathematics are not these pretty characters used in equations that are taught in lower level math courses, it is the tool of proofs. Proofs are based on logical arguments and can be used to study many different types of human interaction (which is why most philosophy courses require a logic course as a prerequisite).
I'm sure that once we all get time, this thread is going to start up again. While your waiting, what were your thoughts on the questionnaire that nkuvu posted?
I'm sure the best is yet to come and that you haven't missed out on too much.
One thing that I think is missed by people who believe in religions is the fact that belief is more than choice. I can not just say today I believe. Many people of faith don't seem to get this. If you told me that for me to be saved I had to believe something that goes against my experiences, then I could not believe no matter what rewards await true believers. And honestly, this does go both ways. I have had to take a step back at times to remember that people of faith actually do believe this stuff, no matter how far fetched it may seem to me.
As for love and math, I would point out that one of my favorite philosophers, Immanuel Kant, was a mathematician. He set out to explain how ethics and morals are logical constructs, and that they exist independent of religions (though he was a Christian). As Bernie pointed out, though you may have intended it as a joke, the tools you sighted were never designed for exploring aspects of human social behavior. This is not to say that they could not be use for such, as these tools are being used for economic studies (I remember having one economic grad student in one of my topology classes). I would point out that the true global tool of mathematics are not these pretty characters used in equations that are taught in lower level math courses, it is the tool of proofs. Proofs are based on logical arguments and can be used to study many different types of human interaction (which is why most philosophy courses require a logic course as a prerequisite).
I'm sure that once we all get time, this thread is going to start up again. While your waiting, what were your thoughts on the questionnaire that nkuvu posted?