User talk:Kiron/Archive 2

well...
that seems to have worked. thanks. (Kiron 19:33, October 13, 2009 (UTC))
 * First :> -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 19:35, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * second -- Angel us Evertonangelus.gif 19:36, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * anywho, weren't we discussing the doctrine of creation out of nothing? I am curious to see what you have to say in refutation to John 1:1. (Kiron 21:10, October 13, 2009 (UTC))
 * John 1-3 Doesn't really indicate anything about how the world was created, except that, depending on our definition of everything, God created everything. This however does not mean that it happened in an instant or 6 days (I don't know if you believe in both the bible and evolution, or just the bible).
 * My argument was that nothing indicates that God created everything during 6 days. Yes, it's the word of choice in the bible, yet I still insist on believing they're periods of time, not as long as each other, but periods of time nevertheless. I think that if you look at the order in which evolutionary theory says things happened, and what the bible teaches, it should be in the same order. I admit that I didn't check the facts behind that claim. I've watched some video's about creationism today, and I've mostly laughed at how terribly wrong those arguments/trails of thoughts have been. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 21:37, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. I thought you were specifically trying to say that the doctrine of creation out of nothing is unbiblical. As far as theological evolution versus creationism goes, I'm not really sure how I feel about it any more. A part of me deep inside just doesn't like the idea. To be honest (and possibly open myself up to criticism) it just doesn't sit well with me. However, I do fully acknowledge the possibility of theological evolution, and I think it makes more sense than atheistic evolution (a key point of my planned thesis...) If you ask me, given the poetic nature of Genesis's writing style, I would say yeah, it is fully compatible with a view of creation in which God triggers the big bang and guides and uses forces such as evolution in order to craft his handiwork. To be blunt though, the idea has never... felt "right" to me. Idk. (Kiron 21:41, October 13, 2009 (UTC))
 * To summarize and be specific, though, yes, I would say you are right. God could have used evolution to create man. he could have guided natural processes to create everything we see. there is no reason that could not be. Being who I am, though, I would also argue that this does not remove the need for God. I would go back to my previous statements and argue the essentiality of God in beginning, planning, setting into motion, and guididing of these processes. (Kiron 21:44, October 13, 2009 (UTC))
 * Aye, that'd be the smarter approach to religion + science together.
 * Science doesn't have an answer to all questions, there's some stuff it can't explain now/yet (I haven't really been taught much about astrophysics, so I can't say. Interesting subject tho, and I've thought of actually specializing into it).. And I'm not really satisfied by "God created this and that, you just have to believe that this is correct", either. Of course god can have created everything, but I always want scientific observations to correspond with what religion tells me. I couldn't claim to have deep knowledge of the doctrine of every religion there is, but so far Latter Day Saints have made the most sense to me, really. It seems like blasphemy to most Christian believers, I'd say, but there are no complicationssssssss (the whole Trinity thingy, as an example, is so messy). -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 22:27, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * For astrophysics I wouldnt know who to tell you to read. Ive read some Hawkins, which is interesting, but no names come to mind. you could probably make decent money majoring in it as its a science ha ha. as far as theology goes, I would recommend Systematic Theology by Grudam (or however you spell his funny name) its a huge book, but its basically christian theology by topic. for instance theres a topic concerning the creation of the world that iirc has a lot to say about stuff we just discussed. it also has sections on the trinity and basically every other theological idea. if yo uwant to research doctrine its a really well researched place to start. I havent heard a lot of stuff from the latter day saints, but i cant blame you from feeling put off by the doctrine of the trinity. its complicated and seems unneccessary at first. (Kiron 01:19, October 14, 2009 (UTC))
 * Yeah, its actually spelled "Grudem" (Kiron 21:31, October 14, 2009 (UTC))
 * I think I comprehend the trinity doctrine, tho I'm not entirely sure.. But I don't see a reason to why God, Christ and the Holy Ghost (do you call him a ghost or spirit) couldn't be three separate beings. The bible is quite confusing about it, sometimes saying they are one, sometimes speaking of them as different persons. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 10:23, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a sort of duality. Im not an expert on the doctrine (yes its one of the most debated and confusing doctrines there is) so dont take my word for it. God is 100% one god, one being, completely along in his omnipotence. But he is also 100% three persons, father son and spirit. Its really really hard to explain and Im not very good at it lol. the best analogy I can come up with is the doctrine of Jesus' deity. He was 100% human. completely human. but at the same time he was 100% God. completely god. a duality.(Kiron 18:00, October 17, 2009 (UTC))
 * I see. I do, however not see, how someone would try to come up with an alternate explanation to something as simple as three different persons being three different persons who share a common goal. "They are all the same. However, they are just as much all separate". Yeah, I criticize, but still.. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 22:25, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, personally I find the Nicaea council thing quite ridiculous. "These guys think Christ is human, and these guys think he's a god, so let's say he's both", and leaving out certain texts from the bible serves no purpose whatsoever. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 22:44, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the process of canonization was mainly to weed out written accounts that were not based off of a first hand account or off of collections of first hand witnesses. Basically finding the most accurate acounts in order to weed out untrue myths and rumors. (Kiron 20:29, October 18, 2009 (UTC))
 * Excluding whole books for that sounds dumb to me. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 14:11, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand that point of view, especially if you dont believe the Bible is the infallible word of God. (Kiron 22:21, October 19, 2009 (UTC))
 * I definitely don't believe it's infallible. So much has been added, removed, and translated wrong, and during the times it was just brought forward father-to-son style I'm sure many stories were simplified or changed. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 06:41, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hard to think of the Trinity as one in a traditional frame of mind. However, imagine it is being both a doctor and a janitor. You can be both at once without shunning the other. Now apply the concept to human and omnipotent being. It's takes practice to understand religion, and most practitioners don't even actually understand religion, but it is possible. ···  Danny  Pew   Pew  22:30, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * The truth is that very few people, especially here in America, take very little time to understand what they claim to believe about God. (Kiron 06:20, October 20, 2009 (UTC))
 * Americans are often amazingly ignorant. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 06:41, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that reasoning, but it still is the same person being both, which, to me, makes no sense. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 06:42, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop thinking of them as separate people, but more as separate identities. Remember that the English version was at some point translated from the Hebrew version and some context certainly didn't carry over distinctly. ···  Danny  Pew   Pew  20:20, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the new testament was Latin/Greek.
 * And I understood what you explained about the trinity doctrine, but I don't understand how someone would interpret the NT like that. My sis' said the guys in the Nicaean Council were disagreeing with whether they're separate or the same, so they'd compromise and claim it's both :> -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 10:18, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * NT? ···  Danny  Pew   Pew  18:06, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Disregard that. It's likely just because of the shift in interpretation from period to period. Someone says it's a metaphor at some point, and a few hundred years later someone says it's explicit. It's the general incongruities of organized and standardized religion, not to mention anything else that's as standardized and organized. ···  Danny  Pew   Pew  18:09, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * The trity was and always has been a large issue of contention, though mostly over details. We mostly agree on the larger points. (Aside from a few smaller denominations) (Kiron 21:57, October 21, 2009 (UTC))

Dear Christfag
If you're going to quote the only four gospels that were sufficiently malleable and vague for Jerome to include in the Vulgate, can i quote the some 50 other gospels that weren't included in the New Testament because they were too historically accurate? Christianity came about as a means for the Roman empire to exert a last-ditch effort at maintaining unity by subverting the minds of the common citizens. The Church has never been anything more than an attempt for an elitist minority to suppress and control the ordinary citizenry. Get over it.--TahiriVeila 22:23, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on who you talk to. ···  Danny  Pew   Pew  22:26, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually dont respond to posts like this, but I always find the level of aggression and hatred to be telling of how personal the need is for some people to try and discredit the gospel... It is telling in more ways than one. No one attempts to (with such hatred and animocity) discredit the faith of Muslims, Bhuddists, or most any other religion the way they attempt to make followers of Christ look stupid and foolish.

you can insult me, and attempt to make what I believe look foolish, and call me a christfag.... it doesnt really bother me. Im here to talk if you change your mind. I dont hate you or anything like that. I have this account here for the purpose of talking to people who would otherwise never come in contact with someone like me.

Like I said, if you want to talk, discuss.. learn about what I believe and why... in a more civil and respectful way... Im right here. (Kiron 05:29, October 22, 2009 (UTC))
 * Most other religions haven't made fools of their own organizations by trying to forcefully control and subvert the minds of the general population for political power. Wuts the inquisition m8. Religion exists solely as a form of political power, that's been a fact for millenia. In the modern world, religions that get violent or try to exercise the political power they once held tend to have a pretty negative backlash. Look at the fact that Christianity and religion in general have nearly become defunct in Europe. Look at Islam's attempt to control political power in the east, hasn't gone over too well everywhere else. If you want to delude yourself that's great, more power to you. But keep it to yourself for fuck's sake, trying to convince people that this political tool invented 2500 years ago has actual merit does no good to the human race. But w/e, give humanity a few hundred more years and we'll have moved onto something new. The abrahamic religions will be as widely believed as factual as the Greek and Egyptian gods are followed today.--TahiriVeila 15:27, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Really tempted to fire back at some of the wrong things you said. Uh, as far as Christianity dying, ha. That's what Voltaire said. He was wrong, too. As far as control goes, yeah, certain religious ORGANIZATIONS have done that, but that gives you no agency to say that faith itself is debunked because an organization in its name did horrible things. That's paramount to saying "An FBI agent defrauded the government. All of the FBI is evil." You say Christianity is dying in Europe, but I say its growing in China. You are a very rude person who speaks like someone who knows a lot more than you actually do. Just as I am free to believe what you call a "delusion", so are you free to believe your delusion. Unlike you, I will not resort to going to your page and calling you an idiot and saying you are a diservice to the human race. Why? Because I am not threatened by what you believe. I am confident in my faith. I will not go on and on with accusations that all your beliefs are delusions, and the fact that you have done that to me exposes an intruiging amount of hatred for Christianity that astounds me. Perhaps you've never met a real one. (Kiron 23:58, November 30, 2009 (UTC))

Finally!
someone else who understands my beleifs o.0. i ma also a christian, pentecostal, and i just read the entire talk above, way above, and i say that the trinity is like a clover, 3 different persons, but all one being. kinda like a big mothership, but with 3 big escape pods. they are detachable, and seperate, but all part of the same being(God). u could also compare this to a 6 legged, 6 armed, 3 headed person, lol. u can PM me ingame or on my account, i dont have alot of stuff goin on in my talkpage, or for my account for that matter. and im still tryin to make a great, good, or even other build...(sigh... and god is leading me towards rits for some odd reason...) PS my fav classes r 1.rits, 2.paras, 3. rangers, and 4 monks.--Bluetapeboy 00:46, November 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * oh yes my ingame main rit is L Oo Pe R, and i mostly dont log on on sundays or wednesdays, busy.(church, church, church, hanging out with friends, etc, etc, etc...)--Bluetapeboy 00:48, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * You just got yourself the reputation of a weird Jesus-freak with bad metaphors.
 * Other-category got removed. You might be able to push some builds through for PvE. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 07:47, November 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, well, good to meet you. I gave up on trying to get a build vetted. (Elitist Nazis!!!!) My friend and I are trying to get tyrian HM mission and bonus lately, ill add you and see if youre on when we try. (Kiron 20:24, November 15, 2009 (UTC))

Hunh?
So wait, you're Christian? Explain yourself! NAO! -- N  aoroji   20:40, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a Christian college student majoring in Philosophy at the University of Southern Mississippi. There's not really much about me worth explaining. When I was about fourteen I thought I knew what it meant to be a Christian: go to church, do good things that people can see me do, listen to christian music. I then had my world flipped upside down. I had to examine why I believed what I believe. From there my faith essentially had to start over. I had to decide for myself what I believe and why. I spent a lot of time searching. I came to the conclusion that there is a God. From there I found Jesus. At first it may sound like I reasoned God out first. this is untrue. I met God; experienced him. From there I began to reason what I was experiencing - the natural process of examination. Eventually I wound up where I am today - in a small minority of philosophy majors who take God seriously. (Kiron 05:50, November 16, 2009 (UTC))
 * Let me ask this question; do you believe in God? Do you think God is,... A person? Someone that looks at the world from atop his heavenly cloud and directs the world, favoring the believers? Or do you see 'him' as the 'good' in everyone? -- N  aoroji   14:11, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, to answer your question: he certainly is not the "good" in everyone. That doesn't even make sense, it just sounds good. There's no real ontological argument for that; it just sounds appealing because the implications are A. everyone has good inside them, and B. it gives a lot of agency to individuals to create their own lifestyle and justify it because they have god/good inside them.


 * I believe God must be a being, though I wouldn't say person is the right word. From the ground up, God being intelligent enough to create the universe and be all-encompassing enough to be free from the laws and rules of the system he made it within, he must have a set of attributes: omnipotence, omniscience, ect. These attributes logically rule out God as some nebulus "good" that inhabits all people. Such a force cannot explain much of anything. A weak theory. A single being, God, possessing attributes that set him apart from all other things and rule out the existence of any equal to himself by their very nature - these point to the form of God being a single identity - not a "force" or even many 'demi gods'. just god. alone. (Kiron 15:16, November 16, 2009 (UTC))
 * I've always pictured God as some form of energy, sort of like magnetic fields. It's the only plausible thing I can "visualize" given my other more scientific beliefs. ···  Danny  Pew   Pew  20:52, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * O. I see it as quite simple. To me God is a physical being. I mean, even Genesis says that he created man as his image. That obviously means that we look like God, and how could God look like something if he's just a spiritual being? It makes no sense. Obviously that argument is counterable, but hey. - -Chaos- (talk) -- 07:35, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the part where Galactic Federation Ruler Xenu rounded up all the aliens and sent them to Earth and blew them up with H-Bombs and volcanoes and captured their souls with magnets and made them watch 3d propaganda movies for days and days and sent them on the primitive humans? Shazzy diddles 07:40, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Happened before humanity. It's all part of the grand conspiracy. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 07:48, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I love Scientology. They always give me a good laugh. -- N  aoroji   08:17, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Have to agree. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 08:27, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm tempted to comment on scientology, I have to address the Genesis deal. Its implied by wording that we are created "in God's image", but its not exactly clear what that means. For instance, all other living things were created "not" in his image, while man was. "created in his image" could refer to the way in which we bear his image as a special creation that unlike any other living creation has the ability of introspective though, the ability to comprehend, ect. Basically, Gods image can be referencing a lot of things about us that arent necessarily visual. (Kiron 17:05, November 17, 2009 (UTC))
 * That's what I meant about the argument being counterable. Then again, we are nowhere near god's way of comprehending things ;o -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 17:19, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, dolphins can comprehend things, make inferences, etc. The intelligence of smarter dolphins actually rivals that of people with Downs Syndrome and severe mental retardation. I've always figured that that line referred to all living beings, but, then again, only a fully interpretive reading of the bible fits anything I believe. I'm not too hot on the Bible in general, though. I think it has many good stories we can learn from and interpret, but I don't think a book of uncertain origin should be the basis for an entire religion. ···  Danny  Pew   Pew  20:07, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Cranes and skyhooks. --Crow 17:33, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I understand this reference? ;o -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 17:38, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * By no means does a dolphin's comprehension of its own existence rival that of a person's. no dolphin has ever asked another dolphin, "wait a sec.. whats the meaning of life?" Dolphins may be intelligent, but they are animals; they possess no comprehension. comparing them to people with malfunctioning brains only proves people with malfunctioning brains arent very smart. not that its a very important debate. (Kiron 21:18, November 18, 2009 (UTC))
 * Not really, I don't even know if it's relevant to this convo tbh since I haven't read it (however I do know it's something about Christians) but I was watching a Richard Dawkins thing and he was talking about it :>. --Crow 21:39, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Dawkins should stick with science, as hes a scientist. his attempts at philosophy are arrogant and prudish imo. (Kiron 02:04, November 19, 2009 (UTC))
 * He's probably just annoyed with retards who deny things that are obvious, like most rational people! --Crow 17:38, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

I just have to ask you one last time; are you sure you don't want to comment on Scientology? D: -- N  aoroji   16:59, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * He doesn't want to say Scientology is ridiculous :> -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 17:38, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a Free Zoner and proud to be one. ···  Danny  Pew   Pew  18:50, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, ha ha. I will say it: Scientology is ridiculous. And no, I will not comment on the sure to follow argument about what I believe being "ridiculous". lol. Tom Cruise. (Kiron 00:35, December 1, 2009 (UTC))

I noticed you used the phrase "Spiritual Masturbation" on your User page
Please, please tell me you didn't get that from Mark Driscoll (or any other New Calvinist). If you heard it from Meeks' works, then I'll actually believe that you know what you're talking about, if not....... Karate  Jesus  18:48, 30 November 2009
 * Ha ha, what do you have against Mark Driscoll? He is awesome (if a little too... intense at times). But not, didn't get it from him. Though, I think he may have said that. (Kiron 00:33, December 1, 2009 (UTC))
 * Sadly, now I know that you have no idea what you're talking about. There's a reason that Mark Driscoll is the bane of all that is educated in the Christian sphere. He's a complete moron, leading a movement of complete morons, against a group of people that are actually trying to help him out. New Calvinism is setting Christians back 2 centuries and killing their hopes of ever being taken seriously in a postmodern world. Congrats. Karate [[File:KJ for sig.png]] Jesus  00:36, 1 December 2009
 * Yes, because I enjoy some of his theological teachings, I know nothing at all. Paramount to saying you studied one philosopher we no longer accept the ideas of, you are an idiot. The logic on the internet, ha ha. In all seriousness, though, I believe the postmodern movement has both flaws and good things to offer the evangelical movement. what those pros and cons are is to be debated. I actually read his book, Death By Love. It was good. I find it arrogant for you to make such broad assumptions about me (and to an extent, him). Just because we are on the internet, people take the freedom to be... jerks. (Kiron 00:47, December 1, 2009 (UTC))
 * You either misunderstood me or misread my statement.
 * I never called you an idiot. I'm just suggesting that you don't know what Mark Driscoll's agenda is, namely - New/Revised Calvinism, and I'd assume that you didn't know that the the most prominent idea of New Calvinism (that Driscoll strongly supports) is that women are subservient to men in both practice and soul, or you wouldn't have defended him. If you believe that tripe about women, then you're not only a contemptible Christian, but ethically contemptible as a human being.
 * By "postmodern world", I did not mean the set of philosophical beliefs labeled as "postmodern". I meant the coming/already come era. Christianity has struggled the last 2 decades, and people like Driscoll are not helping it.
 * The evangelical movement was in the 1800's. If you meant the various evangelical denominations, then you should be aware that they have lost a large number of people for the first time since the 1700's. There's a reason for that.
 * The very fact that you called me arrogant means that you have not read Dricoll's book. Dricoll considers arrogance the mark of a "true man" (yes, I've read the book. I read a LOT).
 * I have made no assumptions of you, I have made assumptions of Driscoll and anyone who attempts to subvert the egalitarian qualities of any religion. Christians typically call that "militant" when it applies to faiths other than their own.
 * I have not been a jerk to you. And I'm completely comfortable with any Christian expressing their faith online (Ask User:F0RG1V3 & F0RG3T), just not when they express it foolishly. You drew all of this argument upon yourself, which was just not wise. If you plan on "defending your faith", then be sure you're well read and well spoken (or in the case, written) or you will get torn apart as you have here...
 * Karate [[File:KJ for sig.png]] Jesus  03:29, 1 December 2009
 * cracks knuckles*
 * You implied I am an idiot in what you said. Whether or not Driscoll has an "agenda" is up for debate. If he does, I HIGHLY doubt it is centered around the subserviant nature of women, ha ha. I am, however, quite aware of his Calvinist theological rooting, which is mostly sound.
 * I think it is kind of obvious what I mean by the evangelical movement. Whether it is in decline is not really related to this as far as I can see?
 * I don't recall Driscoll saying arrogance is the sign of a true man. If he did and it isn't out of context, I fault him for that entirely.
 * I know Driscoll used to be a little intense, what with his cursing from the pulpit and such. As far as his teaching goes, I look at it just as I look at any person's teaching. I examine the argument, not the speaker. From what I saw in Death By Love, it was mostly solid. If something has changed since then, or he teaches other things I havent known about, I hardly see what that has to do with your original comment on quoting his "Spiritual Masturbation" thing. Even if he is a nut job, quoting that wouldn't make me "not know what" I'm talking about. As you said, you read his book. When I read, I take the good and leave the bad. Idk how you read.. but I fail to see the cause and effect relationship between liking one thing he apparently said and being out of touch with reality. I think it is a stretch.
 * I certainly did NOT draw this discussion on myself, good sir. I said the words "Spiritual Masturbation" which you assumed was a quote from a man you apparently have strong feelings against. You then asserted if I even like this man I'm out of touch with reality. The first (and only) assumption of ignorance came from you. Calling someone ignorant is "bringing it on" yourself.


 * I have nothing against you. If you don't like Mark Driscoll, that is fine. Even more so, if you've found ways he should be faulted and discredited, then more power to you. He should be, in that case. But please, don't get on the internet, come on my page, and accuse me of ignorance. The internet is a very easy place to say offensive things to people because you aren't there in their face. If you'd like, I would love to have a constructive discussion on Mark Driscoll, as I would love to discuss God, theology, and Driscoll. If you have valid complaints against him I'd love to talk about them with you. But what I'm not too excited about are threats of being torn to pieces on the internet. I'm here to talk about God, tell anyone who will isten what I believe, and discuss that sort of thing. I haven't gone on anyone's page, I haven't tried to shove any beliefs down anyone's throat (whereas many people have come on my page to crudely mock and deride me for what I believe and hold to be true). Instead, I have calmly and humbly stated what I believe and why, despite the "Christfag" comments and the like. I honestly wouldn't be putting up with this garbage, aside from the fact I get a certain amount of joy from having a channel like this to express my beliefs to (even when most people here are just looking for a place to troll... I believe God loves trolls.) I would love to have a conversation with you, but it cannot be a back and forth epeen measuring contest. (Kiron 04:02, December 1, 2009 (UTC))
 * New/Reformed Calvinism is entirely different from original Calvinism and isn't even founded on the "foundation" of Calvinism. It's based on Arminianism. Oh, and as for the rest...wut? Barely any of that addressed what I said....so I'm going to just stop.....yeah. Karate [[File:KJ for sig.png]] Jesus  04:13, 1 December 2009


 * Also, I honestly apologize if I came off as over-defensive. Its hard not to be on the internet, where its easier to misread what someone says, and when people are mostly just here to call you a moron. I am nowhere near perfect, and didn't mean to insult you. (Kiron 04:12, December 1, 2009 (UTC))
 * Woah, I somehow superceded you. Awesome. Anyway, if you ever want to have a conversation feel free to MSN me (not tonight, I'm too damn tired). I'm pretty open-minded and I tend to lean towards a postmodern-universalist viewpoint, so I can understand most people's positions (I just hate when equality is hindered in a faith). And I have a similar bachelor's to what you're working on, so it would be interesting to find out what you're learning. Just a head's up, I've read A LOT of Christian theology and books, and I've read the Septuagint/New Testament countless times in Greek (my second BA), so I can get kind of passionate about some things. Karate [[File:KJ for sig.png]] <font color="Black" face="cambria">Jesus  <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">04:18, 1 December 2009
 * Sounds interesting. Some good topics to discuss. I don't have MSN, but I have skype, and I check here semi-often. I'm interested to know how reformed Calvinism is closer to Arminianism than original Calvinism. As far as I know, reformed calvinism is still focused on the sovereignty of God over man's personal freedom, whereas Arminianism is vice versa. Also, a Universalist, huh? That's pretty hard to reconcile with, well, most of the Bible. I'd be interested to know how you got to that place. Its tempting to swallow everything that sounds good or nice or moral to the ear. But that can be baseless at times. For instance, if we say women are equal to men we have to base that on something. I find a belief like that hard to base on "just because its obvious". I believe man and woman are equal because God created them both in his image. When we take him out of the picture, I find it hard to justify any system of ethics beyond something outlandish (ie Rand's ethical egoism). The point being, people accuse Christians or Muslims or w/e of being evil because they say their God treats women unfairly. I see this as a ridiculous position. If an atheist critiques God based on morality, what does he point to as the standard for morality? His own self-created one? Like he can point at God and say "youre unfair, God! obviously, women should be treated this way!" "Why?" "Because its right!" "says who?" "Me!" "..." annnnnd now im rambling. (Kiron 04:41, December 1, 2009 (UTC))
 * I'll explain the Calvinism/Arminianism another time, and although you're close on the sovereignty thing, it's actually very very different. Oh, and btw, in Hebrew the Genesis account of creation doesn't say that both men and women were created in God's image. It says "men" were created in God's image and women in men's image. It was actually a group of Catholic monks who changed that (the ones who write the Anchor Bible) in the text. Ancient Hebraic culture commonly thought women were subservient to men in life and in the Sheol (the afterlife), so the reading made perfect sense to them (just based on pseudopigraphal works from the time and the Talmud which ancient Jews followed). So, you can't base gender egalitarianism on just the Genesis account....or really any of the writings of Paul (he hurt and help the situation). Most modern Christian ethicists would base their arguments on Luke's Gospel. He really pushed for the women's views. Anyway, I need to go to bed. Get MSN, everyone here has it. <font color="Black" face="cambria">Karate [[File:KJ for sig.png]] <font color="Black" face="cambria">Jesus  <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">04:49, 1 December 2009

ha ha, ok then. (Kiron 05:04, December 1, 2009 (UTC))

I noticed people wanna talk more about Christ fags
So I have a question for you: How can human eye see a star that is millions of light years away? Light travels, obviously, at the speed of light. Isn't Earth like 10K years old according to the Bible? (or something miniscule like that...) If it takes a couple million years for it to get to our Earth then...Did God like, make stars then get bored and make Earth 10 Million years later? :>  Ben   Tbh   00:12, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 6k years, according to biblical literalists. Btw, not all Christians are idiots and interpret the Bible/Torah literally. Not that I'm a Christian. I just happen to have random degrees in random shit and therefore know more than I probably should :/ <font color="Black" face="cambria">Karate [[File:KJ for sig.png]] <font color="Black" face="cambria">Jesus  <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">00:21, 1 December 2009
 * ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION. Haha, but really, I know.  My best friend is Christian (lolfag).  It just makes no sense to me.   Ben   Tbh   00:24, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * It actually makes plenty of sense. You just have to stop thinking in denotative terms. ···  Danny  Pew   Pew  00:27, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if you believe the Bible must not be interpreted. Strict readings are rare, although many Christians in America choose to interpret much of the Bible and use strict readings for other parts, notably the notion that marriage can be only between a man and a woman.
 * Nonetheless, as I said, strict readings are rare in this day and age in the Christian community. The Muslim community is beginning to use more interpretive readings, but it's not a quick transition, particularly due to the entwined nature of religion and government in their cultures. I don't know enough about the Jewish community to comment.
 * A simple answer to your original question, however: given that the King James bible is itself a modified version of the English translation of a book that was originally written in Hebrew, there are numerous omissions and connotative losses that have certainly occurred. Without knowing Hebrew myself, I can't claim to know what word was translated into "years", but I have a feeling that, regardless of it's denotative meaning, it is more symbolic and should be taken in context and with proper connotation. ···  Danny  Pew   Pew  00:26, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's all amazing, but if it's all spiritual then your (By your I mean Christian, which I know you aren't...) argument is gone. Explain race / fossiles of primitive humans. It's almost like Christians choose to abide by certain rules, etc., although the ones that are dated and disproven are suddenly spiritual and were not to be taken literally.   Ben   Tbh   00:29, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * You're correct. I"m not spiritual. I do, however, think the Bible has many impressive lessons that people could do well to learn from. Unfortunately, much of America's Christian community has been influenced by various forms of political propaganda which has only served to hurt its standing in the eyes of atheistic and agnostic society. It is no surprise that the founders of the United States chose to use principles from the Bible in this nation's most important documents, but it should also be no surprise that they desired a separation of church and state. I won't delve any further into that specific matter to avoid political confrontation, but I hope you see what I mean. ···  Danny  Pew   Pew  01:04, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the KJV was translated to English from various Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Arabic (inorite?), and Latin texts. The one that fucked them up was the Latin. They used the Vulgate as a secondary source to write their Bible, and the Vulgate had all kinds of textual errors, because the priests kept fucking with it. <font color="Black" face="cambria">Karate [[File:KJ for sig.png]] <font color="Black" face="cambria">Jesus  <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">00:31, 1 December 2009
 * Also, remember that many Hebrew phrases can have one meaning translated this way, and another translated another. I remember reading recently that the Hebrew version of Genesis can be translated to say that the universe was already here when God came along, and he just made the stuff in it. I'll find the source again some other time. =\ [[Image:Zyke-Sig.png]] 01:05, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * There are cosmological models for the age of the universe that both comply with the age of stars, the speed of light, and a young earth. Personally, I find them hard to argue when compared to the stuff Ill be arguing in my thesis. One example would be that our universe was born from a "white hole". In that model, stars are born way before the earth, but due to time dialation (time = relative) the earth is still young. Its a stretch.
 * Like I said, though, you dont have to be a literal interpreter of the Bible. You can read Genesis as it is: poetry. If the earth was created millions or billions of years ago, it doesnt conflict with Genesis' poetic account. The strong facts remain intact: God created everything, without help. This can mean he did it in six literal days or six poetic days. It can mean he caused the big bang in exactly the way that would bring about the earth and people. It could mean he created things the way they are. He is more than powerful enough to do such a thing. Personally, I wasnt there at the creation of the universe. No one was. There exists no way to fully know with certainty what happened. What we CAN know (as Ive said earlier in explaining my planned thesis) is that logically, God is a far more logical source for the creation of things than the big bang causing itself. (Kiron 00:44, December 1, 2009 (UTC))
 * The issue facing literal interpretation is astrophysics. Unless the rules have not always applied, the other cosmological models are not possible. Of course, if the rules haven't always applied, you're basically dealing with magic and myth.
 * I certainly agree that Genesis should be read poetically. When one reads Richard Cory or That time of year thou mayst in me behold, one doesn't assume that they are to be taken literally.
 * I disagree that God is a logical source for creation, but that's mostly because I've read Lucifer's Legacy. ···  Danny  Pew   Pew  01:11, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * God as a logical source for creation (as opposed to what? Matter being eternal? or what? creating itself??) is based in cosmology (standard, cosmology), logic, and natural laws. (Kiron 04:04, December 1, 2009 (UTC))
 * God as a logical source for creation (as opposed to what? Matter being eternal? or what? creating itself??) is based in cosmology (standard, cosmology), logic, and natural laws. (Kiron 04:04, December 1, 2009 (UTC))

In Conclusion
Priests are rapists and God is a fag.  Ben   Tbh   00:32, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Strict Christians are fags. All God did was write a set of morals which really don't have any problems among them, the "You shall have no other god" part meaning you shouldn't follow another set of rules. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but it's the people who worship it that do all the bad shit. In conclusion, you don't know shit about what you're talking about, and stop trolling terribly about 3-week old topics you were missing in action for. <font color=Orange face="Comic Sans MS">Shazzy diddles 00:44, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Which God?<font color="#b22222"> X 00:47, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it was a cleverly stated comment describing the state of the Internet and it's community. But cool story bro.  Ben   Tbh   00:48, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * The bible talks about god coming on more girls than you'll ever talk to in your life btw <font color=Orange face="Comic Sans MS">Shazzy diddles 00:50, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm the troll. Look up Shazam, you fucking retard. I was contributing to the discussion, which, clearly, isn't weeks old.  Look at the RC.  Pretty sure that 15 in brackets means it's been edited recently.  Fuck off.    Ben   Tbh   00:52, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually talking about the part where you just started 2 new subtopics on the page, and Golden and I trolled JJ/Forgive fucking hardcore about Christianity and started all the recent religion wikidrama a couple days before any of the above talk/archive even started. Fair enough. <font color=Orange face="Comic Sans MS">Shazzy diddles 00:55, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * :( (Kiron 01:06, December 1, 2009 (UTC))
 * Lol. "Contributing to the discussion". You were trolling, what's the big deal in admitting it? -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 11:30, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * If that was a reference to Mary, it was an amazingly clever one. -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 11:30, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

People who talk about Religion for an excessive amount of time be it in a good/bad manner are fags. --<font color="Black">Frosty  01:14, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * As opposed to what? Guild Wars builds? LOL. At least admit what you believe about God (or the lack thereof) is more fundamental and ultimately more important than what you believe about whether or not the higher DPS of palm strike sins outweighs the higher armor of a warrior frontline. (Kiron 04:08, December 1, 2009 (UTC))
 * no warrior has higher dps [[Image:Muffin.jpg|19px]]<font color="Brown">P WNAGEMUFFIN   <font color="Green">crabs  04:13, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Who still runs fucking PS sins?--TahiriVeila 05:21, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd value getting a decent career a huge step above talking about build wars or making myriad theorical debades that provide no subsequent benefit to humanity. The reason I'm not inclined to talk about my ambitions here though is because this is a Build Wars wiki, I'd suggest you find a more suitable platform for your rants. - <font color="CornflowerBlue">Athrun <font color="CornflowerBlue">Feya [[Image:Athrun snow sig.gif]] 10:46, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

oh wow.  Pimp strong  hand  04:19, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * seriously. oh wow.FMK- 04:58, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Insert Picard Facepalm. --<font color="Black">Frosty  11:33, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
I recommend it. Also, MSN. These convos are a lot less flamish when people can not each other. <font color="Black" face="cambria">Karate  <font color="Black" face="cambria">Jesus  <font face="Arial" color="gray" size="1">15:55, 1 December 2009
 * MSN discussions become boring. They're too active :> -- -Chaos- (talk) -- 17:32, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * i forgot how to archive ha (Kiron 18:08, December 1, 2009 (UTC))