Wirehead Studios

oh my, that's a phoenix™ rant alright :]

To me, the whole deal of approving or banning on religious grounds is as moronic as the need a lot of people on the planet feel to make beliefs equal for everyone and shift the focus from the individual to the masses (ala the jihad, mormon neighbourhood watch etc).
My beliefs are my own and I expect others to respect them in the way I respect theirs. Obviously, this would be too much to ask for a frighteningly large percentage of earth's population.

Indoctrination and other means of limiting or removing one's ability to use one's mind and come one's own conclusions and beliefs is not about respect at all. And if a god does exist, I don't think it'll approve of the compromise of something so beautiful.
I also find find it seriously hard to believe that the kids posting on that site how they are shocked by pentagrams and whatnot will generally have a feeling of being in touch with themselves as they mature. And in a few sad cases I've witnessed, people were seriously depressed about their past and the uncertainty of their future.

Another reason for me to say: 'Generations Arena, we put the CHILD back in CHILDHOOD' ;]

"Another reason for me to say: 'Generations Arena, we put the CHILD back in CHILDHOOD' ;]"

I STRONGLY agree Tab! Introduce them to Generations Arena!! hahah!


"I also find find it seriously hard to believe that the kids posting on that site how they are shocked by pentagrams and whatnot will generally have a feeling of being in touch with themselves as they mature. And in a few sad cases I've witnessed, people were seriously depressed about their past and the uncertainty of their future."

Kids? There are even some over 20's... :P

As anti religious as i am I fully agree with Phoenix on this part
I just find it incredibly funny that playing games can be related to satan worshipping, reminds me of that Tom Hanks movie about D&D and insanity

EDIT one for Oobey
http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/...3/fallout2.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/games/2003/fallout2.html)

What's even funnier about this one is they recommend Fallout Tactics, now if anyone has played fallout tactics will know how that is funny, not because Fallout Tactics is vulgar in any  way shape or form but because the subject matter is social control and doing what your told... ahahahaha

I agree with pho .
even if I didnt read his post (to long and me to laisy )
and im a christian .
but hell I only go to church one time a year because grandpa and grandma wants it .
without that I even dont believe in Gd.
I believe in the vadriger that comes to kidnap me to fight in his arenas  :unsure:

I was raised a Christian, but I don't believe everything... it's just too far out there to be believable, or maybe I was just taught wrong in Cathloic school(It's HIGHLY possible in this area).. who knows. In any case, I've came up with my own beliefs and disbeliefs now and follow those, no matter how far off track they are from what is truely right or wrong, it's what I believe.

Anyway, I agree with Phoenix about the above issue.

:321: @christian ratings..and them too  :D

Excuse me, Omega...there's no need to flip me off.  I'm a happy little Christian.  But I'm a very laid back Christian.  I'm very happy with the way I am, and if you're happy with the way you are, I'm all good.  I'm not going to force my beliefs down your throat because you all have a mind of your own and can make up your own mind in this matter.  I don't appreciate being given the bird for my beliefs.  

I hate being generalized.  Not all Christians are extremists, but you hear about them more.  They give us regular Christians a bad name.  You flip off all Christians, you flip off those that are fine and dandy.  By lumping us all together like that, you're no better than some of those extremist Christians who see everyone who doesn't believe what they believe exactly as infidels.  Think about that before you flip off the average Christian.

I think games are just that...games.  It's not real.  There's nothing wrong with having fun with a freakin game.  I know a lot of Christians that play these so called Satanic games, and they're no more violent than the next person.  I do agree that these people need to make peace with God rather than go on these crusades.

seems a bit odd how the reviewer in the fallout 2 review manages to praise 'the road warrior' in the begining paragraph, but goes on to talk about the vulgarity of fallout 2.

just some of them..they're so stupid! they're hypocrites! its stupid!

I'm a happy little hedon and proud of it

I know plenty of athiests that are pretty stupid and hypocritical too Omega, but I also know some that are pretty smart and stand by their principles.  Demonwench's point is that you cannot stereotype people by one aspect of their character.  Sure, some are stupid, but by lumping all Christians together, good with the bad, it just makes you appear to be like the very people you're offended by.  Bigotry has never been solved with more bigotry.  I for one am very passionate about my beliefs, but do I condemn others for not sharing them?  No.  I get along just fine with OoBeY, who's very much an admitted athiest.  So far Devlar and I are getting along fine here despite that huge clash we had a while back.  Notice that I'm very quick to call fellow "believers" on the carpet when they're not following what's written in scripture and are instead acting like idiots.  Why?  I don't care who's in the wrong, or what they believe, I call it like I see it.  To me the truth is more important than someone's ego or pride.  To me Christianity is a labor of love, and sometimes that love isn't always warm hugs and the like.  Remember Jesus whipping the money changers with a scourge and knocking over their tables because they were defiling the temple by their actions?  Sometimes caring means you have to lay down the law.  I'll smack down a goody-little-two-shoes holier-than-thou type faster than I'll ever smack down an athiest because the former of the two is doing a LOT more harm than the latter by preaching false doctrine and playing the guilt-trip game.  Nothing galls me more than a hypocrite claiming to be a Christian.  Our actions may define us, but we're more than just the sum of a collection of personality traits.  Simply categorizing someone by one aspect of their life, in this case religious preference, is no different than categorizing someone by another aspect of their life, like skin color.  Think hard about that before being so quick to pounce next time. <_<

Personal Interpretation is what counts, what annoys me about some people is they think that interpretation can be dictated to them by the organization.

on the count of people being hypocritical or stupid, I personally believe that 90% of the world population is  all that, no matter what they believe in. What other type of creature, given the ability to create, chooses to destroy instead? For no reason, I might add :]

i dont got a prob with christians..and everyone from any religion can be stupid  :D but the moment they start sayin how great god is..and that i should be that way too..and try to change me and crap is when i start to get pissed off. im glad there are still some smart ones like DW out there.. :thumb:

Religion is no different than everything else in the world. It has grown into popularity and a bunch of posers are trying to cash in on it. And those that are more sinister attempt to gain power by claiming they know what the Lord wants.

I have no beef with personal beliefs, because without those (no matter what form they are in) we would be nothing. But organized religion always seems to cause more pain than it does good. Not just Christianity either, take the Aztecs for example. They were very knowledgeable astronomers, and yet they decided to kill countless people in order to save them selves from the Sixth Sun.

Many wars have been created and many people have been killed just because they have had different beliefs which were seen in the wrong light. This is not what anyone wants, and yet it persists to this very day because of blinded people following the greedy. If there is indeed a higher power in this reality I doubt he'd want his children to be split by such trivial aspects of life. No, I'm sure he'd rather that we all just go about our lives and strive to be good people.

I think I saw people mention sinfest in the irc channel too, but here she is :]

(http://sinfest.net/comics/sf20030216.gif)

I could really care less about what others believe. :) I know that two people are no where near being the same... even in beliefs. Therefore it's futile to try and sway someone from what they believe. Even if the proof keeps mounting against people, they'll still hold firm to that belief.

I will agree with dev/null's last paragraph though.. especially one sentence: "This is not what anyone wants, and yet it persists to this very day because of blinded people following the greedy." Greed and selfishness seem to run the world, but whatever... to each their own. Perhaps that's why I feel the way I do about the rest of the world. *shrug*

And, Omega... I believe you're referring to the very extremists that Pho was rferring to. :)

I totally agree with this, but I also think people have to accept themselves as being hypocritcal, hate filled and hedonistic before they can attempt to grow beyond it. Conforming to doctrine makes you something you are not, and that will not help anyone

You know what's ironic Devlar is the point you just made actually mirrors the Christian viewpoint that all are people are sinners and do wrong, and that you have to admit to yourself what you've done wrong and repent of those things in order to better yourself.  An interesting parallel among two very different world views, don't you think?  I find that the "looking in the mirror" part is what all of mankind never likes to do, even among the faithful.  It requires humility.  Most men would run away, screaming in madness if they ever were to see themselves as they truly are, and not how they think themselves to be.

My view of the world is scientific, dark and atheistic. Some may even call it satanistic. I think that religion becomes a burden when it limits the persons life to the certain point. Nuff said.

Well, you can't be an athiest and worship the devil at the same time, since being athiest means you don't believe a devil exists, so it can't be Satanistic.  Although the flip-side to that is that a lot of people say if there is a real devil then those who don't believe in him often unwittingly do his bidding.  Then again the bible is full of passages where evil men were used unwittingly to do the will of God.  Makes you feel kind of used either way, doesn't it?  I think people can't stand the idea that they're not in control of their own destinies, perhaps this is why people rebel from all forms of control, including religions.  Parents, teachers, kings, policemen, gods...  nobody ever wants to be the lowly pawn on the chessboard, after all.  But then, being king means everyone is after you.  Being a lowly servent can have its advantages.  The important thing when dealing with others of differing beliefs is can you accept the fact that the other person, while they may think about life differently, might be just as happy with their way of thinking as you are with yours?  For a person entrenched in their way of thinking, myself included, it often times becomes impossible to see how anyone else can be happy by living differently, so then the urge to "convert", either towards a religion, or away from, starts to take over.  I do think that it is possible to be passionate about what you think and feel without belittling others for it.  It just seems as a rule to not be easy for people to do.  Educate and inform, yes.  Convert, never.  That goes for both sides.  In the end it does come down to a choice, and nothing more, but that ability to choose is a very sacred thing that should never be lost or taken away.

I think that result of rejecting religion ultimately is that of substituting one form of control for another, that of the perception of a god or gods being in ulitmate control, above and beyond mankind, to that of institutions and aristocracies of men being in ultimate control instead.  Someone will always be in control, and even those at the top are boxed in by the very rules they use to control others.  Unilateral rule, as it were, is a dream of tyrants, and ultimately their undoing since it clashes with the desire of people to not be controlled.  The most iron-fisted dictators are also the most hated, and the most hunted as a result.  Those who concede to public opinion are not fully in control either, since they have to give up absolute power for their existence to be tolerated.

In the end, nobody is ever absolutely free since there will always be people wanting control and always people willing to let men control them.  I'm aware that I'm a servent, and know of Whom I serve, and being this servent by choice instead of against my will means I can be happy with myself instead of being miserable and constantly bemoaning the constraints of the system that limits me.  I choose my constraints, instead of having them chosen for me, even if I'm not the one who defines those constraints.  It's no different from choosing to buy a car, and having a choice of models.  Nobody ever gets to completely engineer their own, after all.  You can choose the package, and a few options here and there, but that's how it works.  The constraints of life are no different, and even anarchists professing lawlessness have to obey the very laws they object to if they want to continue living outside of a prison.  To me the constraints of following my God are a better choice in my view than the abomination of a system that mankind subjects itself to, but others may be happy with that system.  Perhaps in the end that means I'm just another puppet, no different from the rest in that respect, but just a servent of different causes.  Whether I'm better off or not, who can say, but I'm happy with my choice.  I guess the question of religion versus secular life all comes down to who do you want pulling your strings in the end.  How much control do we really have over our lives, as opposed to how much control do we think we have?  The greater question I think is can you see the strings?  Can anybody?

--------------------
           

:band:  Come crawling faster.  Obey your Master. [/color]

My main problem with the review is all the stupid crap they make up or imagine happening in the game.


I notice people have mentioned this in the user comments too. I'm sorry but if you start reinventing the truth to aid your argument, it becomes invalid. Thank you, come again.

There is a similar site that does film reviews, although they actually watch the films and present a fairly accurate portrail with summaries of any violence/illegal activities etc. I can respect them for that, even though I don't agree with their sentiments.

I'm not going to touch on the religious argument here, but let me just say this: 50% of the worlds population has below average intelligence. :P There are stupid people of every school of thought.

Did I mention I was born a Catholic? So I've spent my time in brainwash camp, although a little less than effective

Yes, I think people should realize the kind of people they are, I don't necessarily label them as sinners, because I refuse to add the "negative" tag to it. But Self Acceptance is the key, even if someone continues doing that "sinning" or so society claims. My philosophy is hedonistic, but i realize no one can be happy unless they take a good realistic look at what they consider their negative sides, rather than what society considers their negative sides.

As for your arguement of that an atheist isn't a satanist (although this term isn't exactly accurate, since the tales of satan and lucifer more or less got mingled into one) is a matter of scriptural interpretation. From what I know the whole point is this, Lucifer thought he was a god which is what caused him to rebel, the religious communities believe that Atheists believe themselves to be gods since they control their universe.

Well, atheism means one does not believe in the existance of any god or gods at all.  I suppose the point could be made that believing in no gods could in effect deify one's self, but believing one's self to be a god kind of ruins the whole point of atheism, doesn't it? :P

The "self becoming a god" belief actually is rooted in ancient Egyptian culture, that of the Pharoahs being gods among men, but has been translated into some elements of the New Age movement, albeit not in the exact context of the old belief.  I'll reserve my opinion of the aforementioned movement on this forum.

Come to think of it, I find the beliefs of the Egyptians way more fascinating than the current mainstream ones. Also, I still prefer reading about Egyptian mythology then Greek, for instance ;]

This all has to do very little with what I believe ofcourse :]
About atheism: it's merely a play of terminology - I've stopped calling myself an atheist about 6 years ago, because this is indeed what it literally means, and these reactions were rather too common ;] -
Too bad, because I'd like to be able to say in one word again that:
- I believe that there is no such thing as being born into belief and thus having no way out of it
- I believe in not believing anything just because a lot of people do, or it sounds reasonable/logical- but because I feel it that way
(my feelings on that matter have so far been unchanged)
- I believe that it is unwise to be close-minded about a matter such as this (or any matter, come to think of it  ;)) - there's a  lot of interesting thoughts that a brain can toy with on this subject, too
- And, I've been having a feeling that it doesn't really matter what you believe - and more importantly, that it doesn't really matter what others' beliefs are.

That's a common misinterpretion caused by your language. Satanist is a man who is atheists, but he's view of the world is pessimistic. He believes that evil is the prevailing force of the universe. He worships no deities.

Satan worshipper is totally different guy. He DOES worship the devil. He may even sacrifice animals and drink their blood. He may call himself a Satanist , too. I think that satan worshipping makes this much sense:
 :idiot:  

I remember a good paradox invented by a high-school friend of mine. For God being omnipotent, he must be able to create a rock that he can't lift. But if he can't lift it, he can't be omnipotent. If he can't create a rock that he can't lift, it also means that  is not omnipotent. So... this should prove that if God exists, he can't be omnipotent.

If some creature comes from the sky and claims to be God, it could be easily tested. We could send a nuke without any warning and blow it up upon impact. If he truly is a God the creature must be able to shield itself from approx 20 000 000 K - 100 000 000 K temps, millions of atmospheres of pressure and shitloads of all kinds of radiation.

Always with the nukes aye Atom?

Can you solve anything without a nuke?

I can brush my teeth without the urge of blowing up a nuke, Daed.

Wow, you're high-school friend must be a pretty well recognized theologizer, because I've seen that exact same example in numerous other places.

Whatever the case may be though, I've always been fond of that one :)

If you want to think a little out of the box though, I'd suggest looking here: http://www.dur.ac.uk/r.a.worthington/qsd.html (http://www.dur.ac.uk/r.a.worthington/qsd.html)

I have the answer to this little test, but it only works if you believe the bible.  According to the bible, God is triune, that is, a single being, but with three distinct facets of that being - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit permeates everything and keeps reality working, and nudges people's conscience at times.  The Father is the "source" as it were, and the law maker and judge.  The "guy on the throne surrounded by angels" as He's so commonly depicted in art.  The Son, well, just read the Gospel for the details there, but we know that to be Christ, the Savior for all souls.  So how does that explain how God can create a rock He cannot Himself lift while still being omnipotent?  Simple.  God the father has the power to remove entire stars and planets from their orbits if he wishes, or to crumple creation up into a little ball.  Think fire and brimstone on Soddom and Gamorrah here.  Christ, as a mortal man, obviously cannot lift a heavy boulder if he was whipped, nailed to a cross, and died before rising again.  What the Father can do, that is, move this heavy boulder, Christ in a mortal human form could not, but both are still God, therefore your paradox is fulfilled.  

Learn to think outside of 3 dimensions and the constraints of linear logic, and you'll begin to understand the universe better.  :P

umm... pho, that only works if you believe in the trinity, which is not biblically based per se.

Byskwik, I must respectully correct you.  The trinity IS biblical.  I really didn't want to get into quoting chapter and verse, but I find it necessary to show this to be true.

Matthew 3:16 - And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water, and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: (17) And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

1) You have "A voice from heaven" speaking
2) You have "the Spirit of God" descending and lighting upon him
3) You have the voice in heaven (while the Spirit mentioned is not in heaven) saying "This is my son"

Right there you have the trinity.  Want more proof?  God is plural in the Old Testament:

Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us create man in our own image...

God is referring to Himself as "us".

Even more proof?  Ok, fine, no problem there.

Titus 2:13 - Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ

Here the "great God" is referred to AS CHRIST.  Equating the two.  If it appears gramatically uncertain, then maybe this will suffice.

Colossians 2:6 - As you  have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk you in him... (9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Emphasis mine.  This is saying God is also contained within Christ bodily.  Still not convinced?  Ok, here you go.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  (2)The same was in the beginning with God.  (3)All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made.... (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Christ we know is the only begotten Son of God in the bible, and is referred to here as the "Word made flesh", and then it states the "Word was God".

Here's the kicker.

First John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one[/i]

You cannot say the trinity is not biblical if you believe the bible.  It's right there, plain for all to see. :)

Next time a Jehovah's Witness comes to your door ask them about it. It has to do with your translation. I won't get into it now, since I'll admit it's been a few years since I've studied and I'm not perfectly clear on all of the details.

Forgive me, but I'm at a bit of a loss here.  Why should I ask a Jehovah's Witness?  The Jehovah's Witnesses are considered a "fringe" group by a lot of people, and what I've seen of their doctrine in the past disturbed me.  And why should I accept their doctrine over what the bible says itself, because they say so?  Should I believe anyone off the street who "claims to know something"?  I don't believe the banjo-slapping goody-goodies on TV who say everything from rock music to playing Doom to having hair longer than your color results in hellfire and damnation either.  Who are they or anyone else to tell me what's truth and what's not?  I think I can discern that on my own quite well.  And what's wrong with my translation of the bible?  Did elves get into my book and re-arrange the pages on me while I wasn't looking?  Can they prove this?  I could consult a few scholars who know the original Hebrew and Greek if I wanted to, or even consult the Latin Vulgate to see what is said verbatim if I wanted to, but why bother?  My purpose here was NOT in debating the validity of the bible itself, it was merely to point out that this is what it says and then to follow it to its logical conclusion.  My qualifier in my last post, "If you believe the bible", is a big part of that.  You either believe the bible or you don't.  If someone does not believe it, then what I said is irrelevant to their worldview, and it matters not to them.  If on the other hand you think someone else "re-wrote" the bible then I would suggest learning Greek and Hebrew, studying the original scrolls, and then you'll know for sure instead of having to take someone on their word.  I tend to take a fairly skeptical view of people who say this or that has been rewritten or changed without offering anything of concrete proof.  If that's the case, and if that's what you've been told, then my advice would be ignore what others have told you, and seek the truth for yourself, on your own, instead of buying into someone else's version of it.

Pho, whether they are fringe group or not you've just proven yourself as self righteous as those supposed Christians who wrote the doom/quake reviews. Jehovah's Witnesses are a fundamentalist religion, which means all of their beliefs (as a whole) are based on the bible and not on doctrine. (http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm?article=start.htm - check under the topic "How is the trinity explained?")
They use their own translation of the bible compiled by those who do speak Latin and Greek, but will happily discuss things using your own translation. I didn't ask you to believe in what they say, I asked you to discuss it with them.
Is your faith so weak that it can't stand a simple discussion?

Byskwik, if you want to think me to be self-righteous, then you're welcome to your opinion, but I'm sorry that you view me in this way.  I'm as entitled to my opinion as anyone else as well. My opinion of the Jehovah's witnesses is based on past experience, not prejudice.  I've read their literature, and I'm sorry, but to me it conflicts with the bible.  I might also add that good friend of mine's mother is a Jehovah's Witness, so I have a very good source of information on what they do and do not think at my disposal.  Anyway, it is my personal choice not to believe their doctrine just as it is Devlar's, Oobey's, yours Confusedus's, LeeMon's, Plague's, or anyone else's personal choice to follow their own beliefs.  That's the core element of the concept of religious freedom.  To quote the pagans: an it hurt no one, do as thou wilt.  Just because I do not care for the doctrine of a certain religious sect doesn't make me a bigot any more than OoBeY is a bigot for disagreeing with my religious beliefs.  As for discussing, have you seen nothing of my discussions with OoBeY?  He's an athiest, and he knows full well I'm not out to convert him, but we can discuss the mysteries of God, and science, and the shortcomings of both religion AND science without resulting to accusations or mudslinging.  I can discuss anything with anyone, so long as it is a discussion and not just an argument or an attempt to convert me towards or away from something.  I'm all for the sharing of ideas and beliefs and letting people draw their own conclusions.  It's my belief that God gave all creatures a brain, and that it should be put to use before just following someone or believing what they say to be true.  I may be passionate about my beliefs, yes, but you know nothing about my past, or my plague of doubts that I've wrestled with over time in search of the truth, the pains I've gone through, or the revelations in my own life.  I'd suggest you get to know me a LOT better before writing me off as a stereotypical self-righteous goody-two-shoes or anything else.  I've never accused you of anything nor personally attacked you.  I've made suppositions, yes, but I've also qualified them.  Notice I say "If this, then that".  That's because I make no assumptions about what you believe since frankly I don't know what you do or do not believe.  I'm not out to judge you or anyone else, why then are you judging me?

The original situation here, which we've digressed from, is that you said that the trinity was not biblical.  That was my original point, and my only point.  I quoted what is stated in the bible because your statement contained a factual error.  Like I said, you either believe it or you don't.  If you don't, then there is no need to debate this, and I have no quarrel with that.  However, the book, as it is written, the copy I have, says this, and that is what I was quoting.   This is the book I happen to go by.  It's a good book, that a lot of other fundamentalists go by as well.  I see no reason to change it out for another at this time.  I'm not going to start an argument here about who's the "true religion" or what translation of the bible is the "true" translation because nobody KNOWS for 100% what is the absolute truth concerning God except dead folks.  The permanently dead kind... I don't count.  That's why it's called faith.  We take what looks like it fits the best and apply it to our lives, and find meaning in whatever we find meaning in.

A book has hardly ever proven anything for me. It's a human concept, it's written by humans, translated by humans and interpreted by humans - that's at least thrice the opportunity to err. If there is a god, and it wishes me to believe in it, I hope it will use means other than any religion has sofar come up with, because I will need a feeling, not a 'proof' of any kind. ;]

wouldnt it be funny if they somehow found out the bible was written by some dudes that were all hopped up on drugs or something? ... i mean, it could happen, everyone says 'god wrote the bible', but noone has any proof,(or disproof for that matter).. so if noone knows who actually wrote the bible(again reiterating that the bible says god does, but offers no real physical proof... [phos gonna flame me for that one]) then its possible that some dude just wrote a book and a buncha people took it way too seriously...(not to say that it is a bad thing, but alot of bad things were done 'in the name of god'  in past and present..) ... i dunno, noone really knows.. nor will we ever know.. unless aliens land on the planet with their own version.. saying they left it here by accident or something..

the irony!! lmfao  :thud:

Ahh, but how do you know if I'm going to flame you, Hed?  Of course what you said is possible.  I'll be the first to say there is no absolute empiracle proof that the bible is the exact word of God.  That may surprise you, but as I've said before, I seek the truth, not what people claim the truth to be.  Ignoring possibilities just because they are undesireable would be fairly blind of me, would it not?  Also, Tabun is correct in that God did not literally write the bible, men did indeed hold the pens.  The generally accepted Christian belief is that the Holy Spirit moved these men to write what they did, when they did it.  That is, that "feeling" you speak of, to write exactly what is needed to be written in order for the jigsaw puzzle to fall together in precisely the manner needed is what God imparted unto them.  Let's suppose for example, a hypothetical here, that the universe was indeed made by an almighty, omniscient being, for a specific end result.  That being would then know exactly what would have to transpire in order for events to fall into place as needed to fulfill this "plan".  That could even include the rise of alternate religions, atheism, what have you.  Now, how do you communicate to this creation without directly interfering with it to an absurd degree?  Sure, you can have visions, and premonitions, but then you know what psychiatrists think of all that, so it's not enough.  So why not a written record, that while the words would be concrete and absolute to all people would also be open for interpretation, and could by circumstantial evidence prove enough to many people to believe in this God?  That would then open the door to faith, but leave enough room for doubt.  This means people retain their free will to choose.  What inspires a person to have faith in a given thing is purely personal.  To me prophecy has been the test of any religion.  If there's an almighty God who wants people to believe by faith that he and he alone is the one true God, what better a way then to show people things in advance, have them write it down, even though they do not understand it at the time, and then to have later generations unravel this puzzle and see these things come to pass?  Sure anyone can guess at the future, but only a being outside of time itself would know the exact future.  Prediction with a 100% accuracy is impossible otherwise.  To the hardened skeptic prophecy can be interpreted in any way shape or form, re-invented, and meant to mean anything you want it to as I've often heard it put.  Then again, to a hardened skeptic who's made up their mind that things are a certain way and not another then no amount of evidence will ever be good enough to prove something to them.  What's good enough for me might not suffice for others.  We're all different, after all, but then the universe would be boring if we were all the same.  The irony is that from what I know of prophecies I've seen many of the same elements and undercurrents within most religious beliefs around the world.  Who am I to say which of them is ultimately right?  For all I know God could have started all of them with mankind having "edited" them along the way?  I think it's better to let God be the judge of that.

I think the question comes down to applicability in one's own life.  If a person reads the bible, or the koran, or the Egyptian book of the dead, whatever, and finds that the lessons, rules, and events in the book relate to their own personal experience in life then they will find whatever meaning in it that is there to be offered.  That is the path they will be drawn toward, and ultimately the measuring stick they use for their worldview is that of what truths they find that most closely relate to them personally.  That's fine, just so long as they go in with their eyes open, and test that which they are led to believe with some degree of logic and reasoning.   The one's that don't and instead buy into the rhetoric of the local snake-oil preacher become mindless sheep blindly chanting mantras repeated to them over and over.  Such people are dangerous, and the world is full of too many of them.  For myself, I've examined many beliefs in the search to know God, and the reason for all this creation, over a fairly long time.  I've had an awful long time to try to get to know the big guy.  My personal experiences led me in one direction repeatedly because certain events in this universe coincided with what I had read, and certain events in my own existence, my own struggles, my own "feelings" and revelations, and my own battles with demons also coincided with what's written in this particular book.  But then, that's me personally, I could just as easily be wrong, or I could even be completely insane, but then again, I could also be right.  What does it matter, except how I treat others as the end result?  All the other consequences of personal sin, salvation, what have you, affect me personally and nobody else.  It's in how we treat others that the true worth of our lessons and moral code come into play, regardless of the source.  An honest athiest is worth more than a so-called Christian who lies, cheats, and steals, after all.  I think the greater question for someone is not whether or not they believe a particular book over another, or no book at all, but the question is that of do they seek to know God?  If the latter is true, they will obviously at some point embark on a lifelong quest to understand God, and what his intentions are, and what the meaning of all this is.  Even science seeks to know the meaning behind all things, just from a different direction.  A professor once put it that religion starts with God creating the universe, with man attempting to understand why it exists, and science starts with the universe existing and seeks to understand where it came from and why.  It is natural to desire to understand that which you do not know, and that which seems mysterious, and that path does not take everyone in the same direction.  If God instead doesn't exist, well then it's been interesting I suppose, but quite a disappointment to me at least that this is all there is and nothing more.  It also leaves me at a loss as to how I can exist at all, as well as the source for the more "miraculous" events in my life.  Either way the end result of all this has been quite a diversity of beliefs.  Sometimes they can coexist, sometimes they clash horribly, and sometimes even bloodily.  I guess, with all things, we'll just have to wait and see.  We do all have the benefit of the opportunity to know the answer for sure whether or not God exists.   It's a bloody shame that you have to die ( and rather permanently at that ) to find out for sure.

Science is indeed a religion, in many ways.

Maybe there is a plan indeed, but I don't feel there would be a connection with the bible. My only view of god that has ever felt right, was as a god that IS the entire universe (or smaller bits of it - the gaia theory, in a way). And maybe god is a big word in this one, since it would also not surprise me if, say, the earth is a sentient 'being' in a way (complexity leading to intellingence). Where the bible of this 'religion' could be DNA.

To me this sounds even more plausible and 'right' than there being a christian god struggling to get his plan too work in a world of human stupidity, but that is ofcourse very personal ;)
Both theories have flaws apparant to me aswell - a divine/mastermind plan would not result in something as awful as human nature, if I could prevent it. If the gaia theory is right, maybe earth is struggling to get rid of us (an experiment gone haywire?), to no avail - or it just lets us muck along, realizing that enormous asteroid is due to arrive in a few hundred years anyway. A depressing option, maybe - but I'm not ruling out that mankind maybe isn't all that. Maybe we are a mistake, or the black sheep fo the children of god - in which case many theories would be wrong, simply because they assume we are created 'perfect' (that is to say, before adam & eve did the booboo thing, if you will).

If the latter holds any truth, that would indeed raise many questions about the 'why' of life - but somewhere in my heart & mind I am prepared to accept 'There Is No Reason' for an answer. I'm looking forward to finding out, just not fast-forward ;]

I think its human mentality, or illness depending on how you look at it, that places a focus on finding out what the beginning middle and end of things really are. It is beyond our perception to simple say that something could have been in existance forever.

Why are we here? Where did the universe come from? Its simple human mentality to assume there is an answer to these questions. That there is a reason for why we are here, that there was in fact a beginning of the universe (don't say the big bang or I will slap you for not knowing what the hell your talking about). Its beyond us to simply say, that the universe has been here always, that we are not here for a purpose because it would shrink our lives to the point of insignificance. Its for that reason we make religion to better cope with the answers we cannot truely accept.

Yes, Science can be likened to a religion, because just like religion it dictates a modus operandi for recieving information. It in itself is no different than the numerous philosophies out there that dictate methods of thought. The main difference is we would not be so technologically advanced as we are without science, as for religion, i'd take a good look at the 16th century.

I for one will continue my existencial ideals, in all things that are not science, because I understand the limitations of the way I think.

42.


'Nuff said.

pho could you please shorten in your posts about something non Gen relatedbecause im really getting tired of reading your posts .
 :zzz:   could also be the yelow)
but please zip them up a little bit.

its really nice you know so much about it and you have an answer on everething but if I fall to sleep half your speech I dont have anything about it :(

If its too long or boring dont read it then.
I enjoy the debate/convo.

[sarcasm] I for one agree with games keeper, I believe debates are MUCH better when they're presented using only three syllabol words. [/sarcasm] :wall:

Ahh, the irony of it all, games!  Don't you know that asking me to shut up or not talk so much is about as likely to succeed as asking you to write with proper grammar and punctuation? :D

sorry pho but hell if I see your texts.
also (completely of topic just for pho)
monday thay gave a program where they viewed a girl who didnt had an arse ,a vagina or anything else . actually everething came straght out of one place .
docters called it something with CLOACA in it .
(is ths a girl for you or is shee even more evoluationary then you)


p.s. since this is of topicI only want an answer from PHO . the rest of you go on and debate some more )

Too bad, you're gonna get an answer from me anyway, games.
Because... this is the #1 prize winning el-typo/ill-grammar post I've seen in ages!
 -insert medal picture here-
Congratulations!

I know it's a long shot, and previous attempts have been in vain, but here goes again:
http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/ (http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/)
http://www.grammarlady.com/ (http://www.grammarlady.com/)
http://www.dailygrammar.com/ (http://www.dailygrammar.com/)
http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/web.pages/grammarsafari.html (http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/web.pages/grammarsafari.html)

Maybe these would form a good start?

Games, if I just wanted someone to screw there are plenty of other birds out there.  You don't seem to understand the concept of commitment, and chastity, of which I am sworn to both.  So no, this is NOT a girl for me.  You seem to mistakenly believe I have a sexual interest in human females, which I assuredly do NOT.  That is equivalent to me saying that you have a sexual interest in sheep.

As for the aforementioned condition for this girl it is a birth defect among humans.  You see, all other vertebrate forms of life on this world have a cloaca, mammals do not, the exception being monotremes.  That is, the Echidna and the duck-billed platypus.  Both also lay eggs.  At a point in the evolution of placental mammals the reproductive and urinary tracts both split off from the digestive tract.  For what reason, God only knows, but it did.  Maybe just to make it harder for you humans to have abortions since it's oh-so easy to just smash an egg, now isn't it?  Anyway, what happens during fetal development is that for a set amount of time the fetus DOES have a single opening, then at a certain point during development this area separates into the divided reproductive and rectal tracts.  When this process malfunctions the separation is incomplete.  In this case "cloaca" is used to describe the CONDITION, not an organ.  In birds a cloaca is a normal development, in humans it is a condition that in most cases has to be corrected by surgery or the baby will die, and then they have to live their lives with permanent scarring as a result of this correction.  Males born with this condition do not have a penis, so that requires reconstructive surgery as well.  I know damned well how your species torments people for abnormalities, especially those sexually related, so consider what hell these people go through when growing up.  I may not be very fond of mammalian anatomy as a rule, but that doesn't mean I find this sort of thing amusing when it happens to people.  Nobody deserves to be born a certain way, beyond their control, and then treated like a freak by their own species for it.  Try to show a little sensitivity will you?

pho, your response was expected, you pretty much just reiterated what i said only in about 20x the words..heh

In Character til the very end, huh?

This just in:

Two kids get themselves into a crazy stunt, injuring and hospitalizing themselves.

Predictably, the blame goes to Jackass, but they also had the NERVE to blame SKATEBOARDING.  :wall:

Now if they attached dead chickens to their Jock Straps and ran through Alligator preserves, I still couldn't see blaming Jackass
People who blame TV are too worried that its their own fault

Oh what, do you honestly expect me to secretly be some "average Joe" who's actually attracted to humans "just like everyone else" do you?  You're WAY off the mark if that's what you think.  I cackle in your general direction! :lol:

No I expect you to be sane, but then, this is the internet, and after 12 years of being online i should know better

Too bad.. things are quite different for us mammals. Homo Sapiens females are not within my reach. Yes, I don't need a commitment, just some "services", but no.. they don't seem to be interested. I'm considering  to start dating female birds if the sitouation is so good in your side  :rolleyes:
Then again.. maybe it's better for me to continue living in the cave where I belong.

You have to get out there, staying in your cave can have some seriously bad consequences in the long run. Get out, fix yourself up, and renter the hunt.