User talk:Kiron/Archive 1

First. —ǘŋ Ɛxɩsƫ  17:07, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
 * bah, i have observed from afar for so long I thought id just go ahead and make an account. (Kiron 23:44, 15 April 2008 (EDT))

second XD.--IM BLUE! Da Ba Dee Da Ba Die!
 * Welcome to the wiki. If you need any help with coding, just ask. Almost anyone will help.  15:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
 * sweet, thanks. Im rather inept when it comes to coding, but I dont plan on diving into any pages and doing anything crazy like that lol. ill take it slow. (Kiron 15:40, 18 April 2008 (EDT))
 * so i heard peace and harmony was a good skill.(Kiron 00:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT))
 * Cool I kinda made a build lol (thats big for me) (Kiron 15:18, 3 December 2008 (EST))

so..
Why couldn't god create the world using scientific methods unknown to us, and instead of just making a human appear he would have actually gathered all kind of mass from space, formed earth, slowly develop life, then finally when a "monkey" has gotten enough intellect he would name that "monkey" Adam, teach him a lot of stuff and voila, here's where the bible starts? Religion and Science could explain each other if they weren't trying to convince that the other is wrong. -- -Ch ao  s-   14:18, 8 January 2009 (EST)
 * Ah, the age old question. God is certainly able to do what you say. The question for Christians who are unwelcoming of theological evolution is two-fold. Firstly, why? why would God, who is all-powerful and able to make things instantly, take millions of years to do so? It is certainly within his power, but the logic seems not to fit. The second question has to do with sin. Theologically speaking, before man sinned and fell in the garden of eden, creation was perfect. before sin entered the world, there was no death, no disease, no evil, pain, crying, ect. Therefore, if man evolved from a monkey, chicken, lizard, fish, cell, that puts millions and millions of years of life and death (and therefore sin) into the creation story. This just does not fit, or, line up (theologically speaking) quite right with (yes) the Bible. In answer to your question, I believe he could have. I dont think he did, though. :D (Kiron 19:08, 8 January 2009 (EST))


 * I just woke up.. hope this won't look too confusing.
 * The Bible doesn't really comment how it was created, really just the order in which things were created. The days mentioned there, are periods of time. There was a whole period where animals were created before man was. Of course the periods are not all as long, but they're still long. He could always create a planet and the surroundings in just one week, but I doubt he would.
 * We can know that in Eden the animals were peaceful or what ever we want to call it, but I wouldn't comment about the world outside.. Perfect=God, right? Innocent=Unknowing of what's right and not, and as such not punishable for ones own acts. If creation would've been perfect then it wouldn't have sinned, and it would have been at the level of God, which I think is against your beliefs. Man, however, was innocent, and as such didn't know what's right and what's not. He couldn't get to "Heaven" without first knowing what is right and what is wrong because that doesn't follow the law of righteousness (direct translation :/ ). He brought sin upon the world through the fact that by eating the fruit he got the knowledge of what is wrong and not, and so did his descendants, who could then choose to do sin or not because they know what would be the right choice.
 * The stories of the bible had been passed on from father to son long before they were written down, and then more was excluded in a meeting during the.. 4th century?
 * Sowwy, I've been educated etc in religion mostly in Finnish, I'll be lacking a lot of terms I'd normally be using. -- -Ch ao  s-  [[Image:TheDentist.jpg|19px]] 05:02, 9 January 2009 (EST)
 * True, the Bible does not clearly state that the "days" of the creation "week" were traditional 24 hour days. I am interested to understand why you say "He 'could' always create a planet and the surroundings in just one week, but I doubt he would." What, in your opinion, leads you to think it is more logical for God to use extensive periods of time to create, as opposed to simply speaking things into existence? (Kiron 20:14, 11 January 2009 (EST))
 * As traditionally is taught, if we believe in God we get to Heaven, if we do something bad we go to Hell. So, progress stops when we die, because there's only heaven and hell, and although there is existance after death, there is nothing to do except for suffering or joying through all of eternity. Is that what you believe? Or what do you think we do in hell or heaven through all of eternity? (This is somewhat related to your question.) -- -Ch ao  s-  [[Image:TheDentist.jpg|19px]] 10:05, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 * I believe in heaven and hell. Eternity is different than time, since time will cease to exist. (Kiron 20:59, 12 January 2009 (EST))
 * Or you could just follow George Carlin's theories and say that if there is a God, he'll tell you where to go and if there isnt, you can decide. I'd like to end up in the playground section of a random Mcdonalds so i can flip up 7-year-old girls's skirts. 21:03, 12 January 2009 (EST)


 * God has existed all of eternity, right? The time on earth moves on, but God's time has stopped existing? How can someone watch time move if time for one has stopped? And how does creating a world last 7 days if there is no time? Also, if time ceases to exist when you, assuming you get to heaven, get to heaven, then what happens to time on earth? I get your way of thoughts though. -- -Ch ao  s-  [[Image:TheDentist.jpg|19px]] 09:04, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 * Eternity is impossible to fully understand, and hard to explain. Time is a dimension just like distance and such. Time is not a dimension that affects God. Before the creation of earth and the universe, there was no such thing has time. If there was, then God would need a beginning. If he existed in time (which has a beginning and end) then his existence would require a beginning (and arguably an end). He has neither. He is eternal. Time is a dimension we and this created universe have, but he does not. When our time on earth is over and we enter into eternity time will be gone. It is hard to imagine existence without time, and I have trouble explaining it... :( (Kiron 10:12, 13 January 2009 (EST))
 * That is the kind of mysticism that can be avoided ;/ you sound like you'd think there are no other worlds with people there too.
 * Concepts like eternity aren't understandable by human minds, as such none can explain how everything started, why bother.. Why couldn't our progress and learning continue after death, no matter where we go? -- -Ch ao  s-  [[Image:TheDentist.jpg|19px]] 10:36, 13 January 2009 (EST)
 * When I say it is impossible to understand, I dont mean that a functional understanding is impossible, just that it is hard to comprehend for people who live within the boundaries of time, much the same as it would be hard for a person without the ability to see colors would have a hard time understanding the concept. (Kiron 15:14, 13 January 2009 (EST))
 * Okay. If god would have created Earth just by speaking it into existance, why did it take a whole "six days" for him to create it, instead of it just suddenly appearing in the universe. But questions to questions, neither one of us can't prove anything.
 * So, do children go to hell if they die before baptized? -- -Ch ao  s-  [[Image:TheDentist.jpg|19px]] 08:42, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * That's quite a question. I know where you want to go with it. But no, baptism is an ordinance and sign of salvation, not salvation in and of itself. no physical act can save a person, we are taught in the the gospel. "Salvation is by grace through faith, not by works, lest any man should boast." since we are depraved and sinful, there is nothing we can do to earn salvation. Therefore, no physical act can save us. baptism is a symbolic tradition that shows that change that has taken in our lives. It symbolizes how the believer has gone from death to life in Christ. (Kiron 09:51, 15 January 2009 (EST))
 * No, cults have to save face, so they can't say children go to hell even though they say it about everyone else. - Auron 09:55, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * (+1 to Auron.) Being baptized doesn't mean that you've got a place in heaven secured. Which leads to the question, does everyone not baptized go to hell? What if I live a good life but never got baptized, do I go to hell? Or if I did never even hear of god? Will I suffer in hell for an eternity? -- -Ch ao  s-  [[Image:TheDentist.jpg|19px]] 11:17, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Lol, cults. Well, as I said before, being baptized does not save you. It is an ordinance, a celebration, a public declaration. It is something you do after you get saved. It has nothing to do with whether you are saved or not. There are pleanty of baptized people who do not love God and will end up in hell, and Im sure there are countless people who were saved by God's grace but never participated in baptism. it is a symbol, a ritual.
 * As for living a good life, the Bible says only God is good. Isaiah makes it clear that there are none righteous, none who seek after God. Left to our own devices, even our greatest "good" is evil. The bible calls our righteousness "filthy rags". Hell will be full of people that think they lived a good life. If the only people who went to heaven were those who lived lives "good" enough to get into heaven, heaven would be empty. I look at my own life and see one full of depravity. I am a pitiful, sinful creature. The only way I will ever see heaven is through the blood of Christ. Only in Him am I declared righteous.
 * As for your last question, I do not have a full answer. All I can say is that I do not know, but that God is sovereign. Im not going to dance around your question or avoid it. I DO know that God's wisdom is greater than mine. If I could fully understand Him I would not be interested in serving him. His sovereignty means that he can do with what is his as he chooses. Yes, there are many who have never heard of the name of Christ, and all I know is that God will deal with them in a just way. You, however, have heard of him. I would like to begin praying for you, that you would see his incredible and radical love for you. (Kiron 22:08, 15 January 2009 (EST))

lol religion on the internet --Ojamo  (>.<( O=(- -Q)  22:09, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * kike. 72.94.114.210 22:11, 15 January 2009 (EST)


 * nggr mcanon --Ojamo  (>.<( O=(- -Q)  22:12, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * If people get to Heaven just by being good, wouldn't religion be unnecessary, because it can only do as little as to tell people to live right? What would be the point in baptism, sacrament, confirmation, or any other thing related to church. It's according to the righteousness of god to give every human a fair chance of being saved. If God wouldn't be fair he wouldn't be a God, because he wouldn't be perfect. For the same reason he can't affect our free will (which is what Satan tried to do), because it makes him less perfect. Isn't it also unfair that God gets to be a god, and we don't? If so, does it make god less of a god, because it's unfair? You can't answer that we do not get to be gods, because Christ made possible for us to get our sins forgiven. Also, it's unfair that God would have been "born" a god, because then he wouldn't have lived a mortal life and had the same temptations as us. Neither do I think he would have lived a perfect life, if he would've lived one, because we both know how impossible it is to do no sins. Christ didn't sin, but he was also the son of god, allowing him to be "stronger" than any other human. The new testament indicates that Christ, already in his childhood years, had a special relation to god (when he was 12 he taught and discussed with wise men in the temple). But that doesn't matter, because we can still get all our sins forgiven. -- -Ch ao  s-  [[Image:TheDentist.jpg|19px]] 08:54, 16 January 2009 (EST)
 * I don't know what "religion" can do besides tell people to live well, but I can tell you what faith in a real and active God can do: much, Much more. Faith in a real God who is mighty to save results in him transforming your heart and mind. His death achieved the propitiation of your sins, meaning the wrath of God over your sin was placed on him instead of you. your sins were expediated, sent far away. If you trust in him and accept his death as your propitiation, he becomes your justification, meaning that you are declared righteous in Him. God sees your sin and only sees the blood of Christ, and he sees you as righteous, sinless.
 * "Isn't it also unfair that God gets to be a god, and we don't?" No. We often have a mislead vision of fairness."Fair" would be for God to let us all burn forever for our sin. We do not deserve to be god. we are created, He is the creator. because of this relationship, he has the right, or, sovereignty to do as He pleases with us (just as a potter has the right to do whatever he wishes with what he molds clay into). Since we as a race have been rebellious and have sinned against him, we deserve nothing less than to be wiped out and left to die. Hear my words: The most unfair thing to ever take place in this world or any other is that God would become flesh and die for sinners who would hate him even has he breathed his last breath loving them. WE, DO, NOT, DESERVE, LIFE. We deserve death. I deserve death! so do you! "Fair" is me and you perishing forever for telling our creator that our way is better.
 * And yet, "fair" is not what we got. We got a savior. Jesus came as both 100% human, feeling the real, raw, temptation of the flesh (the bible says he was tempted in every way man has ever been tempted.. and because he was tempted his whole life without giving in, this means he was tempted far more than you or I) and also 100% God, holy, righteous, and fully, wholly able to resist sin. He was perfect, the only one able to pay for sin. The bible says that while we were still sinners, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. This is his love for you. Forget about what is "fair" and "unfair" in your mind for a moment. Think for a moment. If there is a God out there, who is holy and cannot be associated with sin... if He has set rules that you disobeyed... if you have gone and spat in his face, then you my friend deserve to die. THIS is what is fair, but this is not what must be. Because he UNFAIRLY let his own die for your sin, you do not have to perish that way. (Kiron 18:28, 16 January 2009 (EST))
 * Yes, he created us and we can never repay him, and we owe him more than we can understand. But does god think so? Does god think that we should burn in hell? Such traits sound very human to me. God is above that. Would you tell your son that you created him and that you can do as you please with him? Anyway, if god loves us so much, why would he be so selfish that he wouldn't give us the possibility to become gods, if we do everything he asks of us? Christ tells us to be perfect, but only as gods are we perfect. We have been promised that we can inherit his kingdom, and we are his children. If we are his children, wouldn't that too mean that we can become like him? -- -Ch ao  s-  [[Image:TheDentist.jpg|19px]] 14:03, 17 January 2009 (EST)

/wave. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjwkFZ1j6dw&feature=related Also, your points made more sense upon reading through this time. Either way, you've prolly raged PvX ages ago :o -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 17:56, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, actually I still gw a bit and check in on the pv(x)s here and there. I'm actually planning on writing my college thesis on an updated and revised argument for Thomas Aquinas's logical argument for God. Ha ha, so howve you been? (Kiron 00:05, October 8, 2009 (UTC))
 * That person has flawed reasoning and doesn't explain much. Mostly just saying such and such is true without good/any reasons to back said point up. Fiendly Fire 00:53, October 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, it lives. I've been good and trollish :o
 * I had this nice reasoning which can or can not be true. Being something like: something has to keep everything together, for it to keep everything together it has to have the knowledge of how everything works, and if it knows how everything works it's basically a god. You can answer with that when people ask where god came from, tho I have no idea if it's true, due to insufficient knowledge of how the universe works x) -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 10:29, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thomas Aquinas argued that we live in a universe governed by cause and effect. Every cause has an effect, and more importantly, every effect has a cause. So we can trace all effects backward in time to what caused them. This establishes something very important, the law of cause and effect. Aquinas argues that we cannot have an infinite regress. this means events cannot simply keep on going backward forever. In other words, since every action has a cause, the first cause must have been brought about by some previous cause. This creates a very big problem for cosmologists and atheists. It means, basically, the big bang cannot really be the first cause. Something has to have preceeded it, "caused" it. but what? and if we can answer what (ie, modern theories on universes created by black holes), then what caused the cause? the universe (or multiverse) cannot be explained by cause and effect, and yet they run by them with strict adherance. even if we live in a perpetual cycle of universes expanding, contracting, exploding, singularizing, there must still be a cause for the system as a whole. it cannot be a circle. and if it is a circle, something had to draw it. the greatest question that leads to God is also a very simple one: why is there something instead of nothing? Aquinas said that only God can solve this paradox. Since the universe and everything WITHIN it must adhere to its laws, and since the laws of cause and effect and the logical problem with infinite regress, I argue that only something that stands completely outside the laws of logic and science could set both systems into motion, a necessary unmoved mover, a god who stands outside of time and space and scientific laws and who employs them to run his creation. only God could operate outside the need for a cause, and be that unmoved mover. no scientific process, not documented evidence, no wild scientific theory can account for the first action, for something rather than nothing. Thats my argument. i like it more than the one in the video. (which is ok but doesnt go very in depth and has some holes) (Kiron 22:31, October 8, 2009 (UTC))
 * "Has some holes"! :D My sis's husband laughed through the whole video because it's so ridiculously wrong.
 * Also, aye, I see the logic and reasoning in that, though some of those reasonings can't be proved true nor wrong. The video was so baddddddddddddddd :>> -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 06:38, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * It touches on some good ideas, but hey, its youtube ha ha. man i have some trolls on my page, ha ha. (Kiron 07:34, October 9, 2009 (UTC))
 * Ie. probability, thermodynamic laws, life from nothing. these are all concepts that could have been explained better. for instance, with probability, no mention of the argument for reasons why the universe is here the way it is (we are only able to observe a universe in which we came about, therefore the one we see is the one that defies the odds) which are inferior, or at least equally valid to the probablity demanding a "god". thermodynamic laws are an ok argument but it really only goes back to the beginning, if you could reason out cause and effect then the universe could follow the thermodynamic laws from most to least energy just like any other system, but the argument is useful in conjunction with cause and effect. and then life from nothing is useful for evolutionary debates. that one guy did an experiment because people thought flies came from rotten meat but he discovered that in fact flies lay their eggs on rotten meat, proving life doesnt come from un...living, things. since then no observable evidence has been recorded suggesting that any living thing has ever come from a nonliving thing (aside from evolutionary theory). I find debating evolution to be mostly tedioud though and usually stick with the existence of god. (Kiron 07:43, October 9, 2009 (UTC))
 * I just had about evolution in biology class, and I'd see the theory behind evolution very very flawless.
 * Also, about how things came to be... Aye, 'tis impossible to prove anythinggggg. I could reason mostly anything except for why there is anything instead of nothing. Probably so that absolute emptiness can't exist due to the forces that still influence it. Hurr, I should study more physics. I'm seriously considering working in theoretical astrophysics. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 10:20, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Also, Ellen Van Wolde just busted the thought of God creating Earth from nothing. The correct translation would be "In the beginning God separated the sky and the earth", not "In the beginning God created the sky and the earth", or however the English bible says it. I cba looking it up. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 13:45, October 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * A. a biology class is only going to present one side of the argument ha ha.
 * B. Using forces and laws that exist within a system to explain why the system exists is actually faulty logic. It still requires explanation of the same kind that the objects within the system do.
 * C.Um, idk what exactly she busted. the wording isnt really that important. ha ha. (Kiron 03:52, October 10, 2009 (UTC))
 * A, B, yeah, but I really don't care that much about if it's true or not :>
 * C, it basically means that the bible actually doesn't say that god created earth out of nothing. When I bother, I'll see if what the bible says about things and their order compared to what I've been taughttttt in school. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 07:46, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * not to get in a bible fight, lol, but yeah, the bible does teach, explicitly, that through god all things were created. If the wording is (by one person) said to be misinterpreted in Gen, it is still taught implicitly there, and then again in the NT (explicitly) Colossians 1:16, Revelation 4:11. Its a rather silly argument to say the bible doesnt (at least) imply God created and is the source of all things ha ha.(Kiron 05:16, October 11, 2009 (UTC))
 * Also, Hebrews 1:2 and Ephesians 3:9 with only a few moments of referencing. it actually seems to be a pretty common explicit teaching, not to dis your professor... but just because one person says something, well, big whoop. ha ha (Kiron 05:19, October 11, 2009 (UTC))
 * in fact, OT reference to God explicitly saying he created the earth, Isaiah 45:12. (Kiron 05:22, October 11, 2009 (UTC))
 * It's not my professor, it's some random person in a news article which I can't bother to dig up in English (Sorry, I know how much of an effort you seemingly put in finding those chapters (can't remember the English wordddd).
 * Saying "God created earth" doesn't indicate that God made it out of nothing, to be blunt. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 10:01, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, to be blunt though, creation out of nothing is taught scripturally. if those verses arent enough, there is john 1:1-3. It says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.  All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.  In him was life, and the life was the light of men." I mean, I dont know how to restate that any more simply. Its in the bible. thats all there is to it ha ha. Those are the words. He created everything, it says. and without him, nothing was made. that means he made it all. to make everything literally requires to start with nothing. I really cant think of anything to say on the matter. God created the universe from nothing. if you read the bible thats what it teaches. we didnt add it lol. (Kiron 23:55, October 11, 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm not saying that god didn't create everything, I'm just sayin that nothing implies that he created it in an instant =/ -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 08:00, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * How was God created? In my mind there had to have been something before him, even if nothing was there.  I suppose you're going to tell me he was always there though, right? Forgot to sign :/ Fiendly Fire 15:02, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't cbf feeding you (many) bad theories. First is the thingy that we don't comprehend time as a dimension and don't know how it works (is it cicular as some believe, goes around in many circles that finally repeat themelf or a straight line? Gravity also affects time I heard. Black holes makes time flipppppppppppppppp.) So if time happens to work a certain way, it's possible for some god to always have existed. Well, I think my beliefs go over to transhumanistic polyteism or whatever, I really don't know what it's labeled as.
 * If the universe works in a certain way, the laws that keep everything together have knowledge of how to keep it together and... bleh, I think that gets one somewhere close enough to being a god.
 * Ahwell, running out of timeeeee, I'll write more crap later. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 15:36, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read any of this but if I write a book saying a giant horse clanged it's hoofs together and the universe exploded from it, would it rival the Big Bang Theory and God. Since I believe this is what happened, and my evidence is dazzling. -- Frosty  Mc Admin  15:51, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * I bet your evidence is dazzling, and makes mucho sense too. I love how people question well accepted theories without actual knowledge of the matter. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 17:06, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

So what I got from 2 minutes of reading is that since we haven't figured everything out yet, you're impatient and would rather have the easy answer of "God did it". --Crow 16:00, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Ok so here we go.

Poof! http://www.godandscience.org/images/hubbledeepfield.jpg

As you can see, this is pretty hard evidence, now we all know the big bang evidence (microwaves or something), so let's hear this so called "God" evidence, as from what I can see, it is but a myth. -- Frosty  Mc Admin  17:44, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * You see, everyone knows you become an angel when you die, so when the first human, who was in fact born through coincidence, died, he went to an empty heaven and practiced hao2god! :o -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 17:51, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

This page is lulzy. I can't believe people take words from religious scripts as more than just a stories with moral intents. - Athrun Feya  17:57, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * People want to hear about promises of heaven and such. Also, I can't believe people really care that much about arguing that religion is wrong. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 18:05, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * probably because of some of the tragic stats you hear from america. I dunno really, I live with a Dawkins fanboy. - Athrun Feya [[Image:Athrun snow sig.gif]] 18:14, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people go way too far with religion. It can influence your whole life without turning you into an idiot, but that rarely seems to happen. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 19:23, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Well
Crap, trolls... there goes that ha ha. (Kiron 16:33, October 13, 2009 (UTC))
 * also the page is getting big. i dont really know how to archive... so... (Kiron 16:33, October 13, 2009 (UTC))
 * Move the page to "User talk:Kiron/Archive 1" then put (iirc) on top of your page. --  -Chaos- (talk) -- 16:47, October 13, 2009 (UTC)