»Neo: 100% Human, 100% Machine«

This is amazing... I need provide no better proof of the Bible than you posters here accepting everything EXCEPT THE TRUTH! If there was one thing Satan would try to keep you from, it would be truth. See through the lies people....

@ STINKZ~
You do not have to be a Christian to believe in God-
- Listen I'm not having a go at anyones beliefs, far from it, what I disagree with is RELIGION - You know, the MAN-MADE stuff, that man wrote down a long time ago.
I know right from wrong, I admire people that have faith, what I don't agree with is the priests etc. that say you talk to God through them.
I believe in God - Not the God of the Bible or any man made hipocracy. I found God on my own, I know He/She hears me, and watches over me....I don't need anybody to tell me that. I don't know what God is but I do know that we are all a part of Him/Her - thoughts in the mind of God = and at this moment in time He/She must have an incredible headache. So lets all lighten-up and please be friends.

Another Smith... I'm glad you've come to believe in the existance of a God. That is wonderful. I also see your points about the priests. However, if you knew Jesus (who was not a mere man by the way) or his teachings, you would know that we do not need a priest to talk directly to God. I'm glad you believe in God... and I pray that he will continue to guide your steps in the right direction.

I happen to believe that people can find God, or at least prove the existance of God on their own. However, that is not enough to reconcile you to him. I encourage you to read the New Testament just to try it out. I think you will be able to see that it is not just man-made hypocrisy.

Dear stinkz,

Not only I need you do to find “holes” in my bogus logic, you are the very reason, the very cause, defining my presence*, as Zoroaster once said: “I exist, therefore the Sun exist.” I quote: “stinkz exists, therefore I exist.”

- from now, every point refers to the quote above it.-

stinkz wrote:

atreides... that does not mean that becase humans exist there is a purpose, but because humans exist and all are innately searching for purpose, purpose exists.

1. May I safely presume from the above quote that “purpose” exists, not only because humans exist, but because human exist and are “innately” searching for it? Would you like to add any other cause for the existence of purpose, or rather not ?

stinkz wrote:

There are not only four available options as to the purpose of our species, and even if there were, aliens would not be one of them.

2.Encountering another intelligent species a.k.a. “aliens” would very well be the end to “theology” as we know of it today, and shake the fundaments of all religions. Please do a search in Google or any other preferred search engine to see the reasoning behind this theory, discuss this issue in the relevant forums. I’m also very interested to know your “allegedly” other options not circumscribed by the above, since I obviously could have not thought of them myself but eager to know.

stinkz wrote:

atreides:"There is only one option where purpose could exist." stinkz:"Care to enlighten us as to which one?"

3.Read the options more carefully, you’d be enlightened, although obviously you are already enlightened and in no need of it.

4. Dear stinkz, you might have noticed that since you were not an addressee in my current correspondence with emp ,there are many different issues which do not concern you unless you consider the probability of those issues. In any correspondence, the correspondents are advised to share some mutual opinions in order to prevent the discussion from inanity.I and emp, both presume “evolution” to be a possibility. May I presume that you do not believe in “evolution”?, if so would you please explain the reason behind your comment. If this is not the case, please elaborate too.

quote wrote:

How could our purpose be not related to humans... that makes no sense

5.Once again, May we also presume from your comment that purpose could not exist without humans and their innate search for purpose?

6. As you might have noticed, I have expressed myself in despite of my intention, which was revealed to me through your attention. Therefore I have corrected the phrase to express myself as I have intended to. Although being occasionally diagnosed of having “Narcissistic PD”, not to the point that I would instruct another human beings to "forget everything the`ve read before".......

stinkz wrote:

Truth is not made true by something else being wrong. Truth is. Something is made wrong by being contrary to true.

7. And the “truth” is in term made by…….

Quote:

atreides wrote: "Why no other religion ever gave you a satisfactory answer to your utmost basic questions unless you "believe" in them?" stinkz replies: stinkz wrote: When you think you have found the answer you "believe" your answer to be true. Therefore, if you found Christianity to be true, of course you would believe in it. If you don't believe in it, you don't believe it to be the answer to your questions.

8. I would like to express my utmost appreciation for your answer; no one else could have described it better.

Quote:

atreides wrote: "they are willingly to provide you with the answers to you question 'because' they 'believe' their answers to be 'true'" stinkz replies: stinkz wrote: "Why are "because" and "true" in quotation marks? Anyways, you make an argument here which has no grounds. Yes, people who believe they have found the answer, when asked, will give you the answer they have found. That is obvious. If you thought you found what our purpose was... you would "believe" your answer to be "true."

9. Kindly read no. 8

stinkz wrote:

That makes no sense. If there were no non-believers, then everyone would agree... therefore there would be no need for the designation of it as a certain "religion," however, it would still exist.

10.Exaclty my point.

11.You do, and its an honor to have you among us. You think it is easy to find a “Believer” like you nowadays. How many people believe as you do in our forum? You are a jewel, a rarity, believe it or not.

stinkz wrote:

I look at people like you, who reject religion and accept the relativistic garbage spoon-fed to you by today's society... You try to find our purpose by vague questionings about the nature of the universe and misunderstandings of complex issues like Quantum mechanics.... Though you may claim to be searching for the answer, you never find it, or believe it doesn't exist.......

I do not reject religion. I do not “accept the relativistic garbage spoon-fed to you by today's society”. I do not try to find my purpose by vague questionings about the nature of the universe and misunderstandings of complex issues like Quantum mechanics. As a matter of fact it’s the first time I write this term in this forum. I do not claim to be searching for the answer, to have found it or to believe it doesn’t exist.

You "believe" I do, therefore I do, regrdless of what I do.

Regards,

Atreides

P.S. Do have the Decency and pray for all of us at this forum or elsewhere -no mockery, no humor intended.-

P.P.S. thanks for the spelling error

1. First off, my first point was just telling you what emp meant. You misinterpreted his statement.

2. Yes... the ridiculous thought of aliens coming to earth would throw a monkey-wrench in everything. However, if you believe that... I can't help you...

3. Make less sense plz...

4. Dear atreides... I was just pointing out that your 4th point had no logical reason for being there. "As we both know, the very first mitosis happened before the existance of Homo sapiens" Thats great and all... but what are you proving?

5. Without humans, a human purpose could not exist. However, we exist because of that purpose. The purpose doesn't exist because of us.

6. no comment

7. made by? Are you igorant? Who says truth needs to be made? If I murder someone, the truth is that I murdered them. If I deny it... it is still truth. Truth is not "made." You have a misconception of the nature of truth. What do you think all of science is? It is a search for the truth about nature. Therefore, what correspondes with the facts about nature is presumed to be the closest to the truth.

8. You are missing the point. When you think that you have found the answer to lifes questions what happens? You believe them. Even you... atreides. When you are through with your vague questions at the end of the day, you will believe something. I don't know what it will be, but you will believe it. If I find that truth corresponds with what I find in Christianity, it is only logical that I would believe it. A belief in Christianity does not "make" it the answer to your questions. If it is truth, then it IS the answer to your questions, whether you believe it or not.

9. Kindly read no. 8

10. How is that exactly your point? You claim that Christianity would not exist without non-believers... that is a false statement. How are we in agreement? I will restate what I meant. If there were no non-believers, there would be no need for the distinction of Christianity as a "religion." However... listen closely... it would still exist, and would still be Christianity.

11. I don't know whether to be flattered or repulsed by your obvious classification of me as a rarity. It is a great thing to be set apart from this world, however... your quick classification shows your mindset. I mean, what better way to just box everything I say into a category and look at it as if it doesn't exist. Anyways... if you are interested in finding truth, why would you just categorize everything someone says, even though they claim to have proof to back up what they say? The purpose of a discussion is not to classify all the people you talk to... not if you want to get anywhere. A discussion is about learning. Do you think that you could ever learn something from someone else?


"you "believe" I do, therefore I do, regardless of what I do."

First off... I never said "you," I said "people like you." Whether or not one of those doesn't describe you is a moot point. However, we already know that more than one of them are true of you. Whether or not you admit to searching for the answer, believing you have found it, or believing it doesn't exist, you are doing one of them. A search for purpose is instilled in you. This is why we have had this discussion. You may be lazy and just not think about any of it... however, I see that this is not you. You talk about it and show that you are searching.

I did not think you would care if I was praying for you... so I never said anything. Do you really care?

Dear stinkz

stinkz wrote:

1. First off, my first point was just telling you what emp meant. You misinterpreted his statement.

Or did I, what makes you certain that you or we both did not misinterpret his statement? Could you please point out my misinterpretation? I was merely asking him for confirmation whether I comprehended his statement correctly or not. Would you please let him be the judge of his statement?

stinkz wrote:

2. Yes... the ridiculous thought of aliens coming to earth would throw a monkey-wrench in everything. However, if you believe that... I can't help you...

Why is the existence of another form of intelligence “ridiculous”? What will its encounter cause to the religion that makes it “ridiculous”?

stinkz wrote:

3. Make less sense plz...

Would you please describe lesser sense? and if you meant less sense "to you" or "in general" ?

stinkz wrote:

Dear atreides... I was just pointing out that your 4th point had no logical reason for being there. "As we both know, the very first mitosis happened before the existance of Homo sapiens" Thats great and all... but what are you proving?

atreides wrote:

Dear stinkz, you might have noticed that since you were not an addressee in my current correspondence with emp ,there are many different issues which do not concern you unless you consider the probability of those issues. In any correspondence, the correspondents are advised to share some mutual opinions in order to prevent the discussion from inanity.I and emp, both presume “evolution” to be a possibility.

I humbly ask you to once more read the very first post where I had mentioned the above quotation. Was I trynig to "prove" anything ? If I were, could you point that out please. You are kindly solicited to read the underlined sections too.

stinkz wrote:

Without humans, a human purpose could not exist. However, we exist because of that purpose. The purpose doesn't exist because of us.

Could you please elaborate on the existence of "the" purpose without the existence of humans?

stinkz wrote:

7. made by? Are you igorant? Who says truth needs to be made? If I murder someone, the truth is that I murdered them. If I deny it... it is still truth. Truth is not "made." You have a misconception of the nature of truth.

Your instantiation between a “Murder Case” and the “Truth” is defined as “tangentially” in psychological terms. . In order to prevent such conclusion, I once again ask you to question if in doubt of someone`s intention rather than judge. I meant the “abstract truth”, not the validity of any physical incidence.

stinks wrote:

What do you think all of science is? It is a search for the truth about nature. Therefore, what correspondes with the facts about nature is presumed to be the closest to the truth

Who defines the spectrum of “presumed” relevance between science and truth? Do you? To what degree do you believe in science? To that point that it does not contradict your believes?

On two occasion, replying to my original inquiry "Why no other religion ever gave you a satisfactory answer to your utmost basic questions unless you "believe" in them?"

Quote:

atreides wrote: "Why no other religion ever gave you a satisfactory answer to your utmost basic questions unless you "believe" in them?" stinkz replies: stinkz wrote: When you think you have found the answer you "believe" your answer to be true. Therefore, if you found Christianity to be true, of course you would believe in it. If you don't believe in it, you don't believe it to be the answer to your questions. stinkz wrote: .If I find that truth corresponds with what I find in Christianity, it is only logical that I would believe it. A belief in Christianity does not "make" it the answer to your questions. If it is truth, then it IS the answer to your questions, whether you believe it or not.

And we finally come to the question: Who "believes" that religion - in this case christianity - IS the answer to my questions, whether I believe it or not ?

stinkz wrote:

I will restate what I meant. If there were no non-believers, there would be no need for the distinction of Christianity as a "religion." However... listen closely... it would still exist, and would still be Christianity.

Then what would Christianity or any other religion be ?

stinkz wrote:

It is a great thing to be set apart from this world, however... your quick classification shows your mindset.... A discussion is about learning. Do you think that you could ever learn something from someone else?

Well, What do you think? Could I "ever" learn something from somebody ?

Among other attributes, you got “honesty” and “devotion” ? Are those rarities nowadays or not ?Am I categorizing you ?

stinkz wrote:

However, we already know that more than one of them are true of you. Whether or not you admit to searching for the answer, believing you have found it, or believing it doesn't exist, you are doing one of them. A search for purpose is instilled in you. This is why we have had this discussion. You may be lazy and just not think about any of it... however, I see that this is not you. You talk about it and show that you are searching.

Believe on, no matter what......

stinkz wrote:

I did not think you would care if I was praying for you... so I never said anything. Do you really care?

What do you believe? , does it matter if I care or not ? I just asked for your prayer.

Regards,

Atreides

1. if you want to be true to what he said... here it is... "but since we are here and are asking, there has to be purpose to it." You took it to mean... "because we are here, purpose exists"

2. If you don't know what makes the thought of encountering an intelligent alien species ridiculous... then, like I said... I can't help you.

3. no comment

4. Ok, so it was a random statement of words not getting at anything.... Whatever...

5. "The" is a definate article, it contrasts to the indefinate article "a" or "an." I used the article "the" to show that i was referring to the same purpose that I was talking about previously, or the human purpose.

7. I can't understand this sentance... I can't understand this sentance... "I once again ask you to question if in doubt rather than judge." What does that mean? Anyways, I was using the "Murder Case" as an illustration to show you what truth is. Truth is what IS the case. Whether it deals with abstract concepts or concrete ones... truth is truth.

"Who defines the spectrum of "presumed" relevence between science and truth?" What a vague non-sensical question. Science works because it is geared towards finding the truth. People hypothesize and use observations to find out what seems to closely match the truth. However, when a more advanced method comes along, some ideas are proven wrong, and we get a little closer to the truth. The exact truth about atoms and their interactions exists, the scientific method allows us to take what we observe in order to discover this truth. Once again... truth is.

8. Once again you miss the point... you propose the question "Who 'believes' that religion - in this case christianity - IS the answer to my questions, whether I believe it or not?" It DOES NOT MATTER who believes it. If it is true, it is true... if it is false, it is false. If I am right, you cannot be. If you are right, then I cannot be. It is a simple concept which you are not grasping.

10. Well, if everyone agreed that Christianity was true, it would still be Christianity, because Christ is the central figure.

11. "Believe on, no matter what......" What do you mean by that? Are you not searching for the answer to our purpose? You are discussing it, which seems to show that you are.... But, if you are just discussing this out of pure boredom, and you are not really looking for the truth, then so be it... I was wrong. However, even though you are denying it, I still think that you ARE searching based on your actions.


I don't know if it is a language barrier or what... but you are refusing to understand. I think your main problem is that you see truth as relativistic. That is not the case. If something is true, it is true. It does not depend on who "believes" it. You need to convince yourself of this fact.
If I "believe" the earth is flat... it does not make it any flatter.


P.S. IF I was looking to correct your spelling errors, I would be overwhelmed. I was pointing this specific one out because it is a common mistake.

Dear stinkz,

Quote:

atreides wrote: I was merely asking him for confirmation whether I comprehended his statement correctly or not. Would you please let him be the judge of his statement? stinkz wrote: you want to be true to what he said... here it is... "but since we are here and are asking, there has to be purpose to it." You took it to mean ... "because we are here, purpose exists"

May I inquire why you insist on interpreting what emp and I wrote or tried to convey while we are both still present and active members of our forum?

stinkz wrote:

you don't know what makes the thought of encountering an intelligent alien species ridiculous... then, like I said... I can't help you.

Since you are insisting that the idea of encountering an intelligent species is “ridiculous”, I would like to ask your reasons, regardless of my ability to understand them or not.

stinkz wrote:

"The" is a definate article, it contrasts to the indefinate article "a" or "an." I used the article "the" to show that i was referring to the same purpose that I was talking about previously, or the human purpose.

Now that you have elaborated on the grammatical usage of the english articles, would you please answer the question itself?

stinkz wrote:

I can't understand this sentance... I can't understand this sentance... "I once again ask you to question if in doubt rather than judge." What does that mean? Anyways, I was using the "Murder Case" as an illustration to show you what truth is. Truth is what IS the case. Whether it deals with abstract concepts or concrete ones... truth is truth.

Even if you did not comprehend it consciously, you have responded properly – of course, in my point of view - , hence you inquired further. Then again what you are proposing is called “tangentially.” I will explain this by using the following example:

Quote:

If I murder someone, the truth is that I murdered them. If I deny it... it is still truth

Now substitute the verb “to murder” with “to love” or “to talk to”, now compare that with my original inquiry from emp about the "truth", which you deliberately interpreted as a statement, and instantiate it to a “Murder case”.

atreides wrote:

"Who defines the spectrum of "presumed" relevence between science and truth?"

Is the nature of my question “vague” and “non-sensical” - as you kindly described it - , or does it seem to you as being so?

I presume there are parts of science - in general - like "evolution" which you do not "believe" to be "true" due to the contradictory nature of this thesis to your belief , and there are other fields which you regard to be "true". Then again I might have misinterpreted your statements about "evolution".

stinkz wrote:

Once again you miss the point... you propose the question "Who 'believes' that religion - in this case christianity - IS the answer to my questions, whether I believe it or not?" It DOES NOT MATTER who believes it. If it is true, it is true... if it is false, it is false. If I am right, you cannot be. If you are right, then I cannot be. It is a simple concept which you are not grasping.

But you “believe” Christianity to be the only true answer, and concluding from your statement I must be wrong, else Christianity would be wrong. Am I grasping this simple concept now or not?

stinkz wrote:

Well, if everyone agreed that Christianity was true, it would still be Christianity, because Christ is the central figure.

But would there be a need for Christianity with Christ as the central figure as the only “religion” ? Would anybody be aware of the Christ teachings, since nobody "believed" otherwise ? I would like you to spare yourself from the burden of typing “vague, stupid or non-sensical”, if you consider my question to be so, unless you prefer otherwise.

stinkz wrote:

Are you not searching for the answer to our purpose? You are discussing it, which seems to show that you are.... But, if you are just discussing this out of pure boredom, and you are not really looking for the truth, then so be it... I was wrong. However, even though you are denying it, I still think that you ARE searching based on your actions.

I don’t know to what extent you have read my correspondent with emp, but I have never mentioned or implied by any mean that “ I was searching for purpose ”, if I did please kindly show me the quotation which you had drawn such conclusion upon. You go farther to the point that I am denying something, which I have not made any statement about.

Dear stinkz,

You are undoubtedly aware of the fact that the current discussion was originally started by emp posted 04.Oct.2003, which you were not an addressee of, and you have intruded upon with your replies the same day and 06.Oct.2003 addressing both of us. I also assume - assumption not accusation - that you did not paid close attention toward the subjects we were discussing, since some of the points you are still revolving around were either clearly understood by emp, or inquired further by him, aside from language being a barrier. I could provide you the list of those points upon request.

You have also excised some quotation from my argument and criticized them out of their context, predicating conclusions not intended by me.

On the other hand, your intention upon engaging in our conversation - unless you claim otherwise - , has provided me with a rare opportunity to observe a “believer” through his own words, and requesting further explanation from him, for which I am grateful to you. I would like to ask you not to draw conclusions about whether or not I deducted anything from my observations or the nature of my deductions, and base any allegation upon your conclusions whether true or not.

In my opinion, my replies has no further value to this forum, therefore I ask your permission to withdraw from replying publicly, but you are welcome to discuss it privately or publicly.

Fact 1: We are all little gods and goddesses bound with hope and love.

Beleive in yourself and those around you not a story about soemone who realised fact 1.

Stinkz,

How frustrating it is to read your posts.

Early on you complain that people's opinions are not rooted in "fact", all the while quoting a book that was traslated (incorrectly, might I add) over 100 times before reaching the English language. Furthermore, the stories of "Jesus" were written down over 5 generations after his death. Have you ever played the telephone game when you were young? The rumor changes....

Then you spout on about moral absolutes that are taught in your Bible. Then even go so far as to quote the ten commandments. Read up on the hebrew word "Zona". Zona is incest. Thou shalt not commit Zona not Thou shalt not commit adultury. There are other mistranslations, although I would need much more space or spoken word to relate them to you. Kind of like the flames of Jericho being translated to hell. Inaccuracy that you base faith in.

But, you know what... it is like Ogami says: Everyone reaches their own truths through whatever method is best for them. You insult him for this concept, but maybe that is because you don't fully understand that all things are correct.

Let's take an example of a giant river. There are ALL sorts of ways to cross this river. You could build a raft, you could swim, you could build a steamship, you could buy a canoe, you could fly. But once you get to the other side, does it matter how you get there? Of course not. Would you grab your steamship and carry it with you? No. The other side of the river is enlightenment. The different ways across the river are the many religions and ideals and concepts and philosophies that people create. But, they create them to attain the ultimate purpose of enlightenment.

Most religions are woven into each other - teaching the same truths. Some people need picture books (ie. The Bible), some people need teachers (ie. Buddha), some people just get it (ie. Jesus the Christ).

To me, we are all god. There is no right or wrong, but only our interpretation of right and wrong. We are all expressing that which cannot be expressed - that is god. See, if god is infinate, there is no way to see what IT is. So, life and existence is a game. This is why we don't innately "know" that there is a god... because to know would ultimately not allow god to experience. God is Hitler. God is Jesus. God is all there is. We are creating experience together in order for God to know what God is. I believe our ultimate purpose is to achieve enlightenment, or as the Buddists call it "mochsha" (sp). Mochsha is the coming together of "you" and returning to the source.

This concept is hard to imagine... and the best example I can give is taking a glass to the ocean. You can scoop up some water and do you now have ocean or a glass with ocean water? You of course have a glass with ocean water. You can then put the water back in the ocean and it seamlessly blends back with the source. Our soul is the glass of water. The ocean is god.

EMP is right. We really have no purpose except to experience.

I hope my thoughts were coherent, I am typing quickly in order to get out my thoughts. The spoken language is quicker and more powerful when it comes to my ability to explain things as I see them.

Sir Reef.

stinkz wrote:

Should murderers, who believe of their own free will that murder is right be allowed to murder innocent people? Come on man. You can choose to deny absolutes... but they exist beyond your denial of them and are apparent to most people who haven't trained themselves to believe otherwise.

If we truly understood the universe and its many intricacies ... then yes. But, if humans were at that point in spiritual evolution then the concept of murder would not even be an issue.

If you are god, or even a relection of god, do you really believe there is a way to truly hurt yourself? Sure, you can kill this bodily incarnation of yourself, but does your soul stop? There is no way to injure your "true" self.

If we were truly at the correct level of enlightenment, then if someone needed the experience of killing someone ... then we would just let it happen. The killee would gladly impale himself on the killers blade. Why not take a look at Jesus The Christ that you claim to understand.

This material world means so little, and it is only fear that prevents us from accepting death. It is only greed that makes us want to hold onto our possessions. If we really understood, and accepted, that the material world was the illusion to keep us from understanding, then murder wouldn't matter.

The only absolute is that there is nothing that is not god. And anything that exists that is not god does not exist.

Sir Reef.

Stinkz,

stinkz wrote:

Whether or not you are free does not in any way depend on the individual. If I was taken prisoner, I would not be free, and there would be nothing I could do about it.

It absolutely depends on the individual. Do you really believe that Jesus could not have walked at any moment? Do you not understand the saying that "god can move mountains"? With understanding of the illusion all is possible.

That is the point of the matrix. That the matrix is an illusion, and as such you can control it.

Further, it is your mind and soul that are you. Not your flesh and blood body.

stinkz wrote:

I did not say your logic made no sense... I said that you have no logic. What you have is not "eastern logic," it is a self-decieving vagueness.

What is vague aboiut anything he has stated? I think it boils down to your inability to comprehend concepts leaps and bounds ahead of your materialistic chrisitanity.

stinkz wrote:

You claim that no one believes murder is "right." How do you know? Islam preaches to fight and murder for "Allah," many people muder, cheat, and steal. To them it is not wrong to do these things. How can you claim that they are decieving themselves, yet you are not?

Islam does not preach that any more than the Catholic church promotes pedephilia. There are those with the ability to teach and the message they are teaching is wrong. Anyone can take a good idea and pervert it.

Hitler used the Bible to endorse his killing of the Jews. Does this mean that the Bible promotes Jew-Killing?

Take a cake. You take all the ingrediants... the sugar, the flour, the chocolate ... bake them up. Yum! But, throw some sand in the next batch and it won't taste so good. It takes something good and flavorful, and turns it gritty and rotten.

stinkz wrote:

Absolutes are just degrees of the same thing... what? Don't be ridiculous. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Let go of the insane eastern philosophy that right somehow is equal to wrong. It is not the case. If you murder someone, that is wrong. No matter how you jazz it up, it is always wrong. If we were to rid our world of murder, it would be a better place. This has nothing to do with hot and cold. Hot and cold are both relative terms. Right and wrong, however, are not.

And who determines what is right and what is wrong? If a man breaks into your house and you slay him in defense, is it wrong?

What you fail to grasp is that there is NO right and the is NO wrong. There is the way that we view the world. Our experiences lead us to the idea that murder is wrong.

stinkz wrote:

Your understanding of why murder is wrong is not true and you know it. There is a little thing called a conscience which everyone is born with. It allows the person to know right from wrong.

No one is born with a true conscience. How can you not believe that your conscience was not born from societies teaching and what you read in your bible? Do you really believe that if you were born in a cave you wouldn't murder for territory and have sex with multiple people that you aren't married to?

Sir Reef.

stinkz wrote:

However... what I have read of the Quran, and what I have found when I read about it, is that it goes against what we know to be right and wrong.

No, it goes against what YOU perceive to be right and wrong... let's continue.

stinkz wrote:

The fact that I could so easily find a site, even sites by Muslims, which outline discrepencies in their own scriptures lets one know that it is not infallible.

And you are to assume that I cannot find sites that point out the problems contained in the Christian Bible? Come now... if all we need is internet sites obtained through Google is enough to debunk something than we have truly stooped to new lows.

But, still using your barometer of fallibility, we can now say that the Bible is fallible. Thus, the Christian myth is fallible. Thus, god is fallible. The whole thing topples.

stinkz wrote:

I have never heard anyone recommend the Quran as a good piece of reading material... however, I have been recommeded, and would recommend the Bible, especially the New Testament to anyone...

I am sure in the circles you run in that no one would recommend that you read another religious text. Further, I am completely sure that they would recommend the Bible. How many Islamic followers have you surrounded yourself with?

Sir Reef.

stinkz wrote:

Where did matter come from? Has it always existed? Was there never a time before it existed? Could something so intricately designed have come into existance by chance? Nothing natural can answer these questions. My point of view is... if, according to our natural laws, matter must have existed for all eternity and will continue to exist for all eternity (-infinity to +infinity) then there must be an infinate being, existing outside the boundaries of time, who created it.

How very human of you. You base the entire universe on human experience. Something has to begin and end and have a creator.

Who created the creator? How can the creator create something that doesn't have a beginning or an end?

Or how about a thought that will completely blow your mind.... TIME DOESN'T EXIST! Oh, gasp. That will boggle you for a while. But, read your "bible"... it will tell you the simple truth. Man invented time in order to understand the movement of objects. Einstien eventually dropped all his research due to this belief. He finally realized that time does no exist. A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day.

Sir Reef.

Amen

Yeah....
Man... It seems some of the smartest and hardheaded (no names) are found iN Matrix Forums.

Was there a time, when time wasn't?

I DONT LIKE ARGUING RELIGION BUT HERE IT GOES TO THOSE OF YOU WHO GET OFFENDED EASY - DONT READ -

BUT IF YOU CHOSE THE RED PILL HERE IT GOES:

MAN It's good to know I'm not crazy and that there's still people in the resistance against "religion".

ALSO as much as Muslims try to stay away from western mythology THEY ARE INDEED WESTERN MYTHOLOGY.

Remember Christians are where they are now, NOT because of the path that lies before them, but because of the path that lies BEHIND THEM.

Remember That Muslims/Hebrews/Christian all have very similar roots if not the same. As much as you want to argue the point that you ALL are different from one another you cannot deny the fact that you can trace ALL OF THOSE traditions back to ONE place.

Remember that christian missionaries were the first terrorist LONG before the muslims were a STRONG force. Christians stand where they are because they killed MILLIONS of people.
--That who is not with you, is against you--
That IS THE MOST TOXIC of all the doctrines.

Remember that the christians of NOT LONG AGO (Hitler was 1940) were still capable of aming the rifle and driving the bayonet in the name of jesus. So trying to say that Muslims today are violent people is unfair, actually I belive they resemble the Christian of not long ago. PLUS the difinition of TRUE moslim or TRUE christian are only notions in the eye of the observer. The Quran remains more FAITHFUL to its original than the Bible because the because it was not allowed to be translated, which is also why the Arabic language spread quickly.
The Bible is pretty much impossible to trace back and even if you did, from Greek, Gothic, Latin translations remember that the Church was not out to save the world, they were (and are) OUT to conquer the world.
There were hundresd of Tribes in the Americas before the "christians/catholics" came along and they preached the 'good' word with guns and swords even killing their own (witch burning etc). They drove sharp objects into the arms, heads, and bodies of women and children in the name of jesus. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE the facts. You can choose to IGNORE them, but IF YOU READ THIS POST, then maybe now you can be free too, or chose the Matrix like Cypher did...

so RED PILL or BLUE PILL...

You can hurry to try and hurt my 'beleifs' because you think I'm attacking you, there's a lot of misconception of that. Christian claim everyone has tried to destroy Christianity, when in reality they're destroying the world ALONG with OTHER RELGIONS. When you take a hard look at the facts... This happens even today, maybe not at your church or mosque, but I remember reading in 1999 (yup 4 years ago) how a group of people in Ireland stoned to death a group of catholic children, they were christian and in their heart they were TRUE christians, so stating that muslins are violent is wrong, christians are just as much, maybe not where you live, but remember... there are still people who TRAVEL to other people's countries, spit in their land, defy their traditions, laugh at thier beleifs, and they CLAIM TO BE HEROS... they may no longer kill people (that stopped a short while ago), but they kill cultures.

YOU BE THE JUDGE

SIDEBAR: I expect justice in this world, not in a distant galaxy, or dimention where everyone who followed the instructions of a book, gets to go when they die.

One of my best friends is a Muslin (I'm not) and I know not only because of what he's told me, but because of what he's showed me (not religion)that muslims are peace seeking people.
He said Jihad is struggle against the odds, not war against people he also said I can't blame the christian down the street, for what some christian did YEARS ago or does now FAR AWAY or maybe on the other street, he said we are all our own being, let us judge the individual and not their association. (He told me this LONG before 9-11)

I told him

however SOMONE is taking BENEFITS from this CRIMES against humanity.
They are a powerful group, you can't ignore them, and CRIMINALS died heroes...

ANDROMEDA to the rescue - Yipeee well done another one who would rather take the RED PILL.... We should talk...
By the way - Where is STINKZ?
STINKZ? = where are you - he couldn,t convert us so I guess he'd rather take the BLUE PILL and wake-up in the morning believing whatever he wants to believe - lets hope ......

atreides wrote:

May I inquire why you insist on interpreting what emp and I wrote or tried to convey while we are both still present and active members of our forum?

Wow, if you don't want to take any criticism, then fine. I was just pointing out to you that, from my understanding of what emp said, you may have misinterpreted his statement. If emp was not meaning what he said and he confirmed your explanation, then fine. However, if not... you were concluding something from something no one said... that is all.

atreides wrote:

Now that you have elaborated on the grammatical usage of the english articles, would you please answer the question itself?

I was being sarcastic... an understanding of english will give you the answer to your question.

atreides wrote:

Even if you did not comprehend it consciously, you have responded properly – of course, in my point of view - , hence you inquired further. Then again what you are proposing is called “tangentially.”

you are still not getting it. If I told you that I "talked to" Abraham Lincoln in the flesh, would you "believe" me? I mean, theres no way to prove me wrong... so would you? Of course not. Because that would contradict what you know to be true. Not tangentially, not perpindicularly, not any other meaningless adverb.

atreides wrote:

I presume there are parts of science - in general - like "evolution" which you do not "believe" to be "true" due to the contradictory nature of this thesis to your belief , and there are other fields which you regard to be "true". Then again I might have misinterpreted your statements about "evolution".

You presume... first mistake. I do not "believe" evolution to be false because it contradicts my beliefs. I take it as it is. A theory... one that barely deserves to be called a theory. It will never be more than a theory. I find when I read science textbooks that science is not applied to the area of evolution. You can read one chapter where the book goes through, in detail, the experiments used and the reasons behind the belief of a claim. However, when dealing with macroevolution, this is not the case. There is no proof, this is why it will never be more than a theory. However, I do not wish to get into another discussion about the inconsistancies and holes in evolutionary logic. I just want you to realize that I don't blindly "believe" it to be false because of my other beliefs. I find that it is inconsistant and therefore "is" false, which coincides with my beliefs.

atreides wrote:

But would there be a need for Christianity with Christ as the central figure as the only “religion” ? Would anybody be aware of the Christ teachings, since nobody "believed" otherwise ?

If everyone truly believed it, of course they would be aware of Christ's teachings.

atreides wrote:

I do not claim to be searching for the answer, to have found it or to believe it doesn’t exist.

atreides wrote:

...that I am denying something, which I have not made any statement about.

You say that you are not searching for purpose, yet you say that you are not denying that you are searching for it. Make up your mind.

I have no comment on the rest of the stuff you said... except that if you no longer wish to discuss, that is fine with me.


Now, onto the truly ignorant...

Sir reef, yes, rumors do grow... as is evident by the blatantly false figures you have presented on the forum. Which do I believe... the greek manuscripts kept and translated carefully, or some ignorant guy on this forum out to prove that truth is relative so that he can go about his life however he wants? The New Testament is translated directly from the original greek into the english. Face the facts and stop spreading your rumors.

The difference between someone claiming to kill based on the Bible and someone claiming to kill based on the Quran would be evident to someone who has read even a portion of either of the two books. One says murder is wrong, one says to kill those who oppose "Allah."

SirReef wrote:

And who determines what is right and what is wrong? If a man breaks into your house and you slay him in defense, is it wrong?

Yes, it would be wrong to murder him. However, it was the guy who broke in and put your life in danger that created the wrong. You chose what you thought the lesser of the two evils would be and killed him. The fact that you were forced to choose between two wrongs does not make either of them less wrong. However, in a case like this, it is impossible that he be prosecuted for being forced into a situation where he had to face this decision. There are people in places of authority who have to face these decisions all the time. How about the decision to go to war? Is what we are accomplishing worth the blood we shed? Does the fact that we go to war for the greater good make war good? No. War is bad and always will be bad, even if done for the right reasons.

SirReef wrote:

There is NO right and NO wrong.

If I thought you really believed that....

SirReef wrote:

Do you really believe that if you were born in a cave you wouldn't murder for territory and have sex with multiple people that you aren't married to?

No. I believe that I might very well do that very thing. All humans are imperfect. However, the fact that I would do those things wouldn't make them less wrong. If I did murder someone for territory for the first time, I know that as I watched him struggle for life, I would see the wrong in it. Whether or not I would act on it is another story. And about sex... I know that if I did go around having sex with multiple people that I would never have a taste of the commited, meaningful sex which occurs inside marriage and which God has purposed for us.

SirReef wrote:

And you are to assume that I cannot find sites that point out the problems contained in the Christian Bible?

I at least know that you would not be able to find a Christian site outlining contradictions in its own Scriptures. I know that some random online person's claims about fallibility are subject to skepticism, but the fact that a Muslim site was outlining contradictions in its own scriptures says something.

SirReef wrote:

I am sure in the circles you run in that no one would recommend that you read another religious text. Further, I am completely sure that they would recommend the Bible. How many Islamic followers have you surrounded yourself with?

Good point. However, read the Quran, then read the New Testament and decide for yourself which you would want your child to read.

SirReef wrote:

A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day.

Yes, to something or someone existing outside the bounds of time this could be true. However, we exist inside time. Therefore, everything we experience is linear and can be expressed linearly. Only to an infinate being (one with no beginning and no end), could this be true.

Ogami wrote:

Amen

No comment.

SirReef, as for your other vague and baseless comments and analogies... I see that I cannot reach you, so believe whatever you want to believe.

I'm glad that all of you guys find that you are the "select few" that reject religion. However, you are not "select" and you are not "few." You are a direct creation of the society you live in. Seeing your close-mindedness, I have no desire to start over from square 1 and go through the process of proving you wrong. You obviously have made your decision... to believe whatever you want to believe. I know that I do wrong... do I therefore make excuses for my wrong and rationalize in my head that right and wrong are just made up concepts? No... I face the facts. I do wrong. I am not perfect. I am not God.

I dont loose my time with you ANYMORE, no matter the amount of crap you
say.

rm -Rf stinkz && killall -9 stinkz && service stinkz stop

Stinkz,

Truly ignorant, eh? Wow! You base this claim on what?

Quote:

rumors do grow... as is evident by the blatantly false figures you have presented on the forum. Which do I believe... the greek manuscripts kept and translated carefully, or some ignorant guy on this forum out to prove that truth is relative so that he can go about his life however he wants? The New Testament is translated directly from the original greek into the english. Face the facts and stop spreading your rumors.

I challenge you to provide me with a figure which I have incorrectly portrayed. Was the greek the first translation of the Bible? I am not so sure I agree, to my knowledge the first known written trascript on the Bible was Macedonian. Further, it is now not the oldest version, since we have the dead sea scrolls (which the higher christian authorities will not allow to be translated and given to the public).

But that does not fight the fact that the new testament was passed verbally for generations. Thus, the telephone game was created. Jesus grew from a radical with ideas to a mythic god. Is it any less to think the son of Zues walked among us?

Quote:

The difference between someone claiming to kill based on the Bible and someone claiming to kill based on the Quran would be evident to someone who has read even a portion of either of the two books. One says murder is wrong, one says to kill those who oppose "Allah."

There is no difference between those that kill in the name of the bible and those that kill in the name of Quran. To assume I have not read either is pure stupidity. While I have not read the Quran as in depth as I would have liked, I have a cursory understanding. You are taking a passage, one that was given to you by news networks, and using it out of context. I am sure someone with a background in the Quran would school you more than I.

Quote:

Yes, it would be wrong to murder him. However, it was the guy who broke in and put your life in danger that created the wrong. You chose what you thought the lesser of the two evils would be and killed him. The fact that you were forced to choose between two wrongs does not make either of them less wrong. However, in a case like this, it is impossible that he be prosecuted for being forced into a situation where he had to face this decision. There are people in places of authority who have to face these decisions all the time. How about the decision to go to war? Is what we are accomplishing worth the blood we shed? Does the fact that we go to war for the greater good make war good? No. War is bad and always will be bad, even if done for the right reasons.

Now you are getting into legal semantics. Either there is an ABSOLUTE wrong in murder, no matter who created the incident or there is not. What about murder by accident? Or worse yet, when a woman's body spontaneously aborts and murders an unborn fetus?

There is no absolute wrong in murder. There is a sociatal wrong, but not a spiritual wrong. We don't understand the universe so we fear things, but if we truly understood the design then we would understand that right and wrong are illusions and that everything is a demonstration of god.

Do you think Jesus the Christ would have fought me if I were to cut off his ear?

I truly believe there is no right and wrong, just expression of god. I choose moment to moment how I am going to express him.

Quote:

Yes, to something or someone existing outside the bounds of time this could be true. However, we exist inside time. Therefore, everything we experience is linear and can be expressed linearly. Only to an infinate being (one with no beginning and no end), could this be true.

How can one be inside and outside the bounds of time? How can one be everything and not everything? You are truly confused.

If god is infinite, as you suggest (and as I believe) - then there is no beginning and there is no end to god. By your definition, God IS. Therefore, god is everything. There is nothing that is not god. The space between the protons in the atom is god. The stars. The rocks. The guy who murders some woman tonight. The blade that stabs her. The blood. This "bad" act is an expression of god. A perverted expression, but an expression of god nonetheless. It is an experience.

Going back to god being infinite - how can this being be in time and out of time at the same time? If god is all there is - then it must be in time as well. Thus, since infinite things cannot be subdivided, there is no time. We live in god's time. We experience things linearly, but that is not because time exists. Time is a construct created by man to explain the motion of objects. It is an illusion.

It is an illusion, just as your hands are an illusion and the walls that surround you are an illusion.

It is as they say in the matrix.... but paraphrased:
"You can't become enlightened, know you are"

Quote:

You obviously have made your decision... to believe whatever you want to believe. I know that I do wrong... do I therefore make excuses for my wrong and rationalize in my head that right and wrong are just made up concepts? No... I face the facts. I do wrong. I am not perfect. I am not God.

How can you not be god? You have already stated that god is EVERYTHING! You contradict yourself. Either god is everything or it is not. If it is everything, then you are god and you are perfect.

What do you think it meant when your bible said "you were created in his image"?

Therefore, if you are god, either god is fallible or you are infallible. Take your pick. Just because a human makes a mistake or choses to go right instead of left does not indicate fallibility, but rather that they are refusing to acknowledge what they truly are.

You will always be grounded in reality and not understand your creator unless you understand that you are the creator. God is the force, but you are too. You are one and the same... no difference.

Sir Reef.

Quote:

SirReef, as for your other vague and baseless comments and analogies... I see that I cannot reach you, so believe whatever you want to believe.

You must see that I am right and that your arguments are not based in universal reality, that is why you fear them and insult them. Vague and baseless... I am anything but. Point out my vagueness and I will enlighten you. Point out my baseless argument and I will create a stone foundation.

As for not being able to be reached, it was you Jesus the Christ that said that those who are most in need of help should receive it. Thus, shouldn't my inability to comprehend your statements cause you to try to reach out more?

Sir Reef.

At the end of the DAY

If there was proof a god existed, then there would be no need for faith

You can try to discribe faith in any poetic way you can, however the statment above remains true, FAITH cannot exist with PROOF.

PLUS I dont concider myself or other like me a "SELECT" few that is ofcourse YOUR CONCEPTION of believing your group owns something we dont. LET ME remind you that Western Society is designed in groups and lets every member of society BEG for acceptance, creating the desire to belong somewhere or with someone, and we group ourselves with people that think like we do, to create the beleif that OUR MEDIOCRACY is not OF OUR OWN MAKING. That's is why you will not find people like US getting together in a place every week or every couple of days to masturbate our egos. If you can't understand that, then I'm sorry and we must agree, that our view is different from that of you.

I could never challenge someone's religious experience with the trancendant, however you canoot prove that your experience is superior to someone else's, and that EVEN religion admits that beleif is not necessary to experience that that is nature, but beyond our understanding.

GOOD LUCK

Just to interject something quickly, SirReef, you ARE blatantly incorrect on at least one point. The New Testament was kept in the original Greek for generation, probably until it was transcribed into Latin some several centuries later. At no point was it ever passed along verbally. In fact, the early Christians went to great efforts to make sure that the original manuscripts were circulated so that all could see them. What you might have been thinking of was when they were first compiled as the New Testament, and that did not happen until the 2nd or 3rd century A.D.

As for the New Testament being translated from the original Greek, it was. There WERE other versions in past centuries that were translated from the Greek to Latin to other languages, but most practicing Christians currently use Bibles that have been translated directly from the original Greek and Hebrew (in the case of the Old Testament) into their native language.

One final point: the Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing to do with the New Testament from a historical perspective. The scrolls were ancient manuscripts of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, and contrary to what you have said, experts and scholars have been allowed to study them for many years now, and what they discovered more or less discredits your "telephone" theory. In essence, what they discovered was that the Old Testament had remained virtually intact for several thousand years. In total, they found less than a dozen differences between what the Dead Sea Scrolls said and what modern manuscripts said, and the majority of those differences were the Hebrew equivalent of a missing comma or something.

More or less, you are wrong on that point. I'm not going to speak for the rest though, but on that point, yeah, you were very wrong.

as I said earlier, I do not want to have to burden myself with the task of setting you straight. But some of your blatant falsehoods must be made known.

SirReef wrote:

Truly ignorant, eh? Wow! You base this claim on what?

I base my claim on your response.

SirReef wrote:

I challenge you to provide me with a figure which I have incorrectly portrayed. Was the greek the first translation of the Bible? I am not so sure I agree, to my knowledge the first known written trascript on the Bible was Macedonian. Further, it is now not the oldest version, since we have the dead sea scrolls (which the higher christian authorities will not allow to be translated and given to the public). But that does not fight the fact that the new testament was passed verbally for generations. Thus, the telephone game was created. Jesus grew from a radical with ideas to a mythic god. Is it any less to think the son of Zues walked among us?

First off... you are being too vague for me to know whether or not you are talking about the Old or the New Testaments. The dead sea scrolls were of Isaiah which is in the Old Testament, which was written in Hebrew. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. Thanks to Anubis IV who was able to set some of this straight.

SirReef wrote:

There is no difference between those that kill in the name of the bible and those that kill in the name of Quran. To assume I have not read either is pure stupidity. While I have not read the Quran as in depth as I would have liked, I have a cursory understanding. You are taking a passage, one that was given to you by news networks, and using it out of context. I am sure someone with a background in the Quran would school you more than I.

Great... you contradicted me. That was expected. You also provided no new evidence for your claim. That was also expected. You claim that to assume you have not read either is stupid. However, then you go on to tell us that you haven't. Which is it?
Actually... I took my quote directly from the Quran, thank you very much, and have read the pages leading up to it. No amount of explaining away can change what it says. I dare you to find a passage remotely like that in the New Testament, if you have ever read a page of it.

SirReef wrote:

Now you are getting into legal semantics. Either there is an ABSOLUTE wrong in murder, no matter who created the incident or there is not. What about murder by accident? Or worse yet, when a woman's body spontaneously aborts and murders an unborn fetus?

There is ABSOLUTE wrong in murder... even by accident. Do you not see this? Do you not see the wrong in that persons death? The legal symantics you speak of is dealing with finding the fault of the wrongdoing, which is a much more complex process. However, seeing the wrong in the situation shouldn't be.

SirReef wrote:

Do you think Jesus the Christ would have fought me if I were to cut off his ear?

Jesus would not have fought you if you were to cut off his ear. Why? Because to do so would be wrong. Even though you have done wrong to him... He knows that there would be no good in doing wrong to you. Try to read some of His teachings...

SirReef wrote:

Therefore, god is everything. There is nothing that is not god. The space between the protons in the atom is god. The stars. The rocks. The guy who murders some woman tonight. The blade that stabs her. The blood. This "bad" act is an expression of god. A perverted expression, but an expression of god nonetheless. It is an experience.

A perverted expression of god... Tell me, if all the crap you just said is true, how could any expression of god be "perverted?" Who is doing the perverting? And is it making it less god by being perverted? I don't think you need to be reminded who is confused.

SirReef wrote:

Going back to god being infinite - how can this being be in time and out of time at the same time? If god is all there is - then it must be in time as well.

I laugh at this question. How can He be in TIME and out of TIME at the same TIME? Anyways, God exists beyond the boundaries of time and can therefore manifest himself in time.

SirReef wrote:

How can you not be god? You have already stated that god is EVERYTHING! You contradict yourself. Either god is everything or it is not. If it is everything, then you are god and you are perfect.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not state that God is everything. I believe you get that from Hinuism. God "IS" not everything. He created everything. Everything in your argument which stems from this idea is also false.

SirReef wrote:

What do you think it meant when your bible said "you were created in his image"?

There is much discussion as to exactly what aspects of our nature were made in God's image. We have a spirit which will exist forever... that, for one, makes us like him.


Andromeda... there IS proof that God exists. One does not need faith to discover this. What one DOES need faith in, is in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.
Thank you for being so adimate about what you believe. However, being adimate doesn't make you right.

Am I the only one in this forum who skips reading stinkz posts because they are so tragically long? That and that he is so stuborn he simply won't acknowledge another perspective other than his own.