Messages

farlander, maybe I'm just not getting your post the way I'm meant to, but the bible does NOT incorporate 5,000 years of history. It postulates the existance of an earth only 2,000 years old. Not a day more (okay - maybe a day or two, but you get the idea)

YakSpit is right on the money with his faith/works thing. And he's ESPECIALLY right about the dumbness of that site. I've decided to give my 'reasoning' a rest for two reasons. 1) People will hate me and call me a bible-basher, which would probably become quite true if I were to keep going like I am and 2) It will save your eyes a lot of tired reading that could have been saved had those silly people who made the site BOTHERED TO DO SOME RESEARCH. Often it's just a matter of reading a couple of verses before/after, and suddenly their whole issue dies.

I also agree with SSH. There are many conclusions to be drawn from your argument. Which one EXACTLY, I do not know. FINALLY!! SOMETHING I HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT!! YAY!!!! My only quibble is some of the stuff written in the Misna. I won't go into why, because it took me nearly six months to understand the bloody book, and I don't want to repeat my thought processes on the keyboard

DG - your dinosaur post was a joke, right? if so, it's kind of odd, but if not, it's already been answered. The bible doesn't go into definitions of dinosaurs, but then again a lot of what scientists produce is only theory anyway, so there's not much factual stuff to compare. But yes, behemoth's are mentioned (some other names are used, depending on your translation).

I officially end here for 12 hours. yes - that's right! my bed time!! yay!! sleep has come at last......

sorry if I've been a P3N!$ to anyone in particular. It's nothing personal, I just get a little fiery over some topics, and people can interpret that the wrong way.

See you when I rise, everyone!! Sweet Dreams!!

EDIT: I love Nigel. When I grow up I want to be like Nigel. Actually, when I grow up, I want to BE Nigel!

FARLANDER:: EDIT:: The sign, King of the Jews was irony. You think they believed it?? Yeah - completely. That's why they killed him; because they thought he was the rightful king. That doesn't make ANY sense.

Okay, DG, about that site.

The first couple are NOT biblical contradictions. It's just Paul being Paul. It is widely known that Paul spoke a lot of crap some of the time, and he was very passionate (like me) and he often said ANYTHING as long as it made him look good. This is acknowledged somewhere in the bible (can't remember where off the top of my head).

2 - Exodus 20 says "You shall not MURDER!!"" There is an EXPLICIT EXPLICIT EXPLICIT difference between murder and killing. Murder is the WILLFUL death. Killing is an act of duty, as in the bears that killed forty-two people earlier in my posts.

Actually, a LOT of the killing ones have been dealt with earlier. God killed those who SLANDERED his name. Which is not a contradiciton. He SAYS he will kill christian haters. But this is the muddle up between murder and kill again. It's common for people who have no clue about the bible to assume that they mean the same thing (not trying to make anyone out to be dumb here. It's just a fact)

As for lying: We should not tell lies. When the verses say: "God put a lying tongue in his mouth blah blah blah," it's just letting the reader know that he was a liar. God did not PHYSICALLY insert a tongue with a disposition to lying within his head. Because he was human, and God created all humans, it's just a reference to the fact that God has power over EVERYONE!! (note that this does not equate to control)

The stealing?? The first couple are not contradicitons!! It's just documenting what people did. It's like saying the law says cannabilism is illegal, but that guy in germany still ate a human. That doesn't make the law a contradiciton. It just means people don't FOLLOW the law. The last one is NOT stealing. God PUT the colt there for a purpose. None of this stealing business. He included the thing about "should a person ask you why" as a test of their faith. He wanted to know if they could really stand up for him, or whether they'd buckle.

The sabbath? First the John 5 issue: It says the jews wanted to kill him because he was 'working' on the sabbath. Jesus FIRST says: "My father is always at his work, and I too, am working." People conveniently forget that part. Jesus was preaching the gospel and performing miracles. That does not classify as 'work'. Jesus uses the term work in a sense of irony. Work is a 'bland' or 'non-proactive' activity, such as (believe it or not) collecting sticks. It's a bit much to thing about in TODAY'S society, but let's face it, these things did NOT happen in our society. Again the others don't CONTRADICT the bible. They simply state that people didn't FOLLOW the bible. Whoop-de-doo. Never heard THAT one before.....

The graven images?? What God commanded to be made was an ATONEMENT COVER!! nothing to do with idols, and he CERTAINLY didn't want them to be worshipped. I can't believe these are actually listed as contradictions... *sigh* I was expecting something I COULDN'T answer (yes, believe it or not, there are SOME things I don't know  )

EDITEDIT (other edit (for farlander) at top of page):

FURTHERMORE, the faith/works issue is soooooo wrong (I like to occassionaly insert a childish word here and there) . One is saved by Faith, NOT WORKS ALONE!! That does not mean the two don't work in conjuction. Because they DO!! If you are a true follower of God, you will ACT in his name, meaing you will do works!! That does NOT mean that if you do works, though, you will get to heaven. I guess the 'works' bit is sufficient, but not NECESSARY... that is kind of self explanatory IF YOU READ THE PASSAGE. (At this point I note that I'm sounding angry and impatient. I'm not. I'm just typing quickly to get through as many contradictions as I can. And I'm not going to spend the next half-hour retyping everything just to make it look nice, because then I WILL be impatient   )

Next: Should good works be seen?? The stuff concerning the Pharisees says "Do not do what they do"! WHY?!! BECAUSE THEY'RE DUMB!! They don't practice what they preach, and OBVIOUSLY God doesn't want his people preaching one thing and doing another. I'm seeing a pattern here. People just choose a verse and pose it as a contradiction, without reading the CONTEXT. And then they claim to be all the wiser for it...

As for salves: The exodus thing about "Own a slave for six years" is referring to the price to pay for THIEVERY!! Again, out of context, but not COMPLETELY without reason. This type of slavery is known as PENNANCE, and is different from typcial slavery which is what the site claims to associate it with. The stuff about Canan is a similie. It's not saying that one will ABSOLUTELY be a servant to the other. It means that one will be SUBSERVIANT (completely different meaning) to the other.

I will do more when I can... My bro wants to use the comp for the next couple of minutes. Don't post TOO much at me, or else I'll never be able to go to sleep

DG - The first verse of Jeremiah is a QUESTION!! It's not saying it's OKAY, it's just posing a question for people to answer within themselves. The line: But you yourself have lived for many years as a prostitute, should be clear enough about that. There is absolutely NO verse that clearly defines it as 'getting back together is cool as a cucumber'.

Farlander: Jesus was crucified because the Jews were MAJORLY under the influence of the Romans. They didn't want Jesus having a Jewish murder, because they didn't want him to be known as a Jew. It was a denial of who he was, by giving him a roman crucifixion.

Erm.. I KINDA see where you're coming from, but it's very skewed. Verse 15 says: "Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding". Some interpret this as marriage. It is not. The term 'shepherd' is used (widely thoughout the bible) to signify a loving LEADER, not a lover. So God is promising to provide a human network that will strengthen you, as opposed to providing a God-loving lover.

EDIT: YOu are right, DG. Jeremiah ACCEPTS IT!! But it never says anything about getting back together. Deut does not contradict this

EDITEDIT: Good for you, DG, if you can handle the truth. I mean that. But you can't deny it, a lot of people CAN'T. There is no point in Jesus talking plainly JUST for one or two people who can handle it, and leaving twenty others in the denying dark.

EDITEDITEDIT: I WILL do an analysis of some of the contradictions. Mainly because I'm stubborn and I'm passionate and I can be a smart-ass sometimes. But also because I want to genuinely show my beliefs. I won't do ALL of them because I'm lazy (not really - but there are only so many hours I can spend at a computer.) I will put them in a seperate post, however, to break things up a bit, if no one minds the double post.

Not quite, DG. You are indeed correct that Deut. denounces divorce, quite clearly too. But Jeremiah does not ACCEPT it.

God says: "Return, faithless Israel... I will frown on you no longer, for I am merciful... I will not be angry forever, only acknowledge your guilt..."

This has NOTHING to do with God ACCEPTING or AGREEING to divorce/remarriage. Just showing that he won't be angry FOREVER because of it. The inferences made about 'coming back and I will accept you', is referring to God's merciful nature of loving people even when they do wrong. It's not about marriage.

EDIT: ALso, I explained why Jesus used metaphors. He used them BECAUSE we couldn't HACK it. It's like walking up to someone and saying "You know what? YOU'RE A BAD PERSON!!" They're not going to listen to you. But when you use METAPHORS, people begin to see things from ANOTHER point of view, and they realise what's really going on

OKay, again dealing with multiple posts at once:

Las, read John Chapter 3: After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptised. And John also was baptising in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptised. For John was not yet cast into prison

That seems....erm... pretty clear to me...

Farlander: This is why Jesus was crucified: Jesus challenged the Jews to find legitimate fault with him, but they failed (Jn. 8: 46). Paul wrote thus, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5: 21). The crucifixion displays as no other event in history the depth of prejudice, moral and political corruption, and spiritual abandonment to which man is capable of sinking. It went to show that tradition didn't matter to the people. It was symbolism.

Shabz: This is a kind of difficult one, and (in case you were wondering) there were actually 42 (as opposed to 22) people killed. And they weren't children. The term 'small/youth' refers to their character, not their age.  This doesn't make the issue any different however. The answer is this: The people say "Go on up you baldhead" to Elisha, however it is not really an insult to him. It's to God. Elisha used to live under the mediterranean sun, in which it was necessary to shave your head to keep cool. This incident with the taunts happens 50 years later, in a different place where the sun is not as hot, and he is NOT bald. So the taunt is actually directed at his heritage, which was dedicated to the living of God. Therefore, God sends the bears to kill because these people were insulting God himself. There is another law of God that says you have to worship him and HIM ONLY. I'm not saying this is 100% justification for murder with regards to our perception of it, however God DOES say continually throughout the Bible that he will show his wrath on people who taunt his name. There are finer points for me to argue, if you care, but this is the general reason why.

To Yakspit: I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic. AT ALL. There has been so much debate over it, and so little resulting facts, that it suggests gay people are just looking for an excuse. But at the same time I do not believe that it's a conscious decision either. If you read my earlier post, where I explained MY struggles with homosexuality, you'll see what I mean. On the adoption issue, I'd have to think about it as well. Because I do not believe in a homosexual life-style, I cannot support it, but I DO believe that a lot of gay couples could raise a child better than 20% of the world's STRAIGHT population...

Okay - I'm trying to address 6 million topics here, so bare with me .

Firstly, the bible IS meant to be taken literally. That does NOT, however, mean that you can't use metaphors and similes. Jesus says continually things along the line of: "I'm using metaphors because humans are dumb and don't know what I'm talking about." Which is a fair statement. When a man comes up to you and starts lecturing in your face, you're BOUND to be a bit dazed.

Secondly, the bible DOES NOT contradict itself. I swear by my life, it doesn't. Aside the big things that are beyond human comprehension like 'What is God, and why is he everywhere?', of course (I'm not saying they contradict, I'm just saying I don't know all the answers). You're "killing" example won't be discussed here because it doesn't really exist.

Timosity, I agree whole heartedly that this shouldn't become a debate. I'm probably only exacerbating the problem with my post, but I kinda feel obliged to correct some false claims.

To Indiana, you need to do some research before you start making claims like non-working women. You're only saying what you think, rather than what you know. What about people like Dorcas? (Bad name, I know) Indeed, Galations (a book in the bible for the non-bible-readers) claims: "there is neither male nor female". Of course, it has a context within the chapter, but it's too long to type up, so I won't. And this is a metaphor (meaning that yes, you still can take the bible literally) meaning that men and women SHOULD be allowed to do most jobs together. As for this rape, story, excuse me??!!! Post it, PLEASE!!! I would LOVE to read this story... maybe it's because you're typing in layman's talk that I don't know... I tend to talk a lot more 'biblical' about stories. Post it and let me explain it, my friend

Next, I say there WERE a dozen extra new testament books that could've been chosen. But they weren't. Because what's the point of printing 100 books when you can condense it into 27? It makes sense really... There's nothing DRAMATICALLY excluded in the left-out chapters... just random babble. As for translation errors, correct - there are HEAPS, and christian leaders have been debating them for YEARS, however it is only the finely attuned eye that picks them up. Like the difference between 'lord' and 'Lord' means the same no matter what, however there is a significance that can be seen.

The bible may be 2,000 years old, so I can see why you might not believe it, but theories like the big bang don't have time to accumulate age, because they are changing constantly. I'd much prefer to stick my faith in something that has stood the test of time... it's scary to see how relevant some of this bible stuff is today.

My gorgeous long-distance lovelyness is coming to visit me...

Sorry, Trap, I didn't realise you were expecting me...... I'll get over as soon as I can

...not another kind of job.

Naughty boy, Último...

EDIT: Did you know (Último) that in portugese your name means "The Last Quão Cheese"? Erm... I'm guessing you probably DO, however I did not, and it is confusing me... I can't translate Quao!! SOMEONE HELP!

I KNOW!!! Temperatures in Brisbane this weekend were ARGH!!! That's only word I can use to describe it.

Something like 4 people died in Brisbane due to the heat, and 23 people died for the same reason in South-East Queensland. That's a hell of a lot of people to die from 41 degrees... (I'm talking celcius, for you american's)


On a completely UNRELATED topic to ANYTHING that has been said so far: THIS GAME LOOKS KEWL! And it is very rare for me to use such blatant misspelling in game descriptions...

...I think I love you...

ME?? Skip YOUR posts?? NEVER!!! Whatever I said before was a typo....

That is quite possibly THE funniest photo sequence I have ever seen  

the bible is folk lore??

I respect your opinions, Timosity, however I vehemently disagree. I DO agree that wacko's exist who create cults based on nothing, and I cannot give a 100% PROOF that Christianity is not one of these, however I can give a STACKLOAD of 98% proofs if anyone cares to read them (?)

But then again, no one can prove 100% that ANYTHING religious or scientific exists. Hell, we all believe in the atom, but even THAT is still undergoing modification. It's all about faith.

And, I suppose, I have a lot of it.  8)

EDIT: I forgot to deal with part of your post, Tim. You said that maybe Jesus wasn't famous?? How 'bout the Mount of Beattitudes?? That has 'star struck' written all over it. Look into it if you don't know what I mean.

This game be cool.

Hooray for Elaine!!

(I like the ending. It made me feel like the story was....complete)

Shabz; I HAVE read all the posts now, and I can certainly see where you are coming from. I didn't just skip to page four, mind. I just kind of skipped over all the posts people (like DG ) made. If you're wondering why, just check the post above.  

Contradicitons in the bible?? no. People CREAT and SEE contradictions in the bible, but they are not there. Believe me, I used to think the absolute same thing. I had 1000's of contradictions that I'd found, but when I got to the nitty-gritty, I saw that nothing had changed. The main thing people try to pose as contradiction is merely CHANGE. They say the old testament says one thing, and the new testament says another... well DUH!! The saviour of the world wasn't IN the old testament, so SOMETHING'S gotta change in between times!!!!

And I'm not being some ignorant snot-face, here. I went through a whole year of a 'gay-phase' (I can't believe I actually just typed that! ), and I AGREE that gay people don't CHOOSE to be gay. I would NEVER have chosen to be gay, given my religious background and my strict parents.

BUT, as I posted before, I gave in to the temptation without really knowing it, and it took a HELL OF A LOT OF GUTS to get out of it. And no, I wasn't brainwashed. My parents didn't know, the church pastor didn't know, in fact, NO ONE knew. NOT A SINGLE SOUL! so there was no external influence. It was something I took upon myself, and I'm truly greatful for it. That's why I stick with my gay friends today - I know what they're going through (only to an extent, of course), and I know they need all the 'suport' they can get. If I was to turn away now, it would be a bad rap against Christians everywhere...

Beetroot would have to signify the time of my life.

That's it, nothing more.


Just beetroot.

Think of time signatures as like Syllables. Take the poem Hot Cross Buns (because it's the first one that comes to mind)

Hot Cross Buns
Hot Cross Buns
One a penny, Two a penny
Hot Cross Buns.

Note that in line one you say THREE syllables, but there is actually room for FOUR! Ie - you could say Hot Cross Big Buns and still start line 2 'on time'. On Line three, however, you need to say the words faster because there are more of them, and you have still have to fit them into the same amount of time. So, in the time it takes you to say 'Hot', from line two, you should have said 'One a' from line three. That's REALLY REALLY basic just to make it easier.

Now imagine a basic drum beat behind the words (labelled as *hit*).
Hot------Cross-----Buns
*hit*----*hit*------*hit*------*hit*

There are FOUR hits in that line. Now each of those hits is equal to what musicians call a 'crotchet' or a 'quarter note' (quarter note because you need four of them to equal a semibreve, which is the longest STANDARD note that exists). So when you have four of them in a bar, you have 4/4th's = 1. Thus the time signature is 4/4.

A more complicated way to write it is using 'quavers'. A quaver is HALF a crotchet, meaning that you need TWO quavers to equal ONE 'beat'.  You can see this on line three, where you need to say the words TWICE as fast, so all the words on line three are 'quavers'. It is also called an eigth note because you need EIGHT of them to equal a semibreve (this makes sense when you think 4 crotchets = 1 semibreve, and you have to DOUBLE the amount of crotchets to get the number of quavers). Therefore 8/8ths = 1.  So the time signature COULD be 8/8. But it has just become standard to write it as 4/4


This is the most common time signature, and HEAPS of songs use it, like: 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star 'Amazing Grace', 'Old MacDonald' etc etc.

Things get a bit more wacky when you introduce other time signatures such as 6/8. You already know that the 8 means that you are working in QUAVERS. The six simply means that instead of using 8 of them ( as you are in 4/4) you have to use 6 of them. A good song is Humpty-Dumpty. Imagine that the little 'l' markings underneath the words are equal to quavers.


Hump--ty---Dump--ty
l----l----l-----l----l---l

Sat on a wall
l-----l---l--l-l-l

Note that each line is broken up with SIX quaver beats (even though you don't actually speak on all them, like in the word 'wall', which has three beats, even though you only say ONE! Just tap your foot to the beat as you say it and you'll know what I mean.

The time-signatures Fuzz is after are called 'odd-meters' or 'ill-meters' or a whole host of other names. The example he gives is 7/8, meaning you need seven Quavers in a bar. There are VERY FEW songs that use this time signature, because it has an ODD number of beats, making it hard to get a good beat going. (ie, on the dums you can play snare/base/snare/base in 4/4 and it has a good feel. In 7/8, you'd be playing snare/base/snare/base/snare/base/snare REPEAT INSTANTLY). There are really a HUGE number of odd-meters you can use. Basically most odd numbers (except a 3 and 9, for reasons I won't go into) signify an odd meter. But some even numbers do too.

This post is long enough already with my music-babble, so I won't waste any more of your reading time. You're either going to understand it or you won't, but it's almost impossible to learn time-signatures by reading a 2-minute-thread.

Edit: ACK! I crap on A LOT!!

Okay, somebody has probably already commented on this, but I can't be bothered sifting through four pages of responses for it, so if I repeat, forgive me.

Btw, this is not a flame, but I am a very PASSIONATE christian, and I feel the need to clarify a few 'quotes' that have been 'quoted' from the Ags 'quotable' bible.

Firstly, LIVING FOR THE SIGN OF THE TIMES??? EXCUSE ME??!! (sorry - that probably sounded really amart-ass of me, but I am in a state of disbelief here) AHEM!! To quote Romans Chapter 13:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

If you want to interpret this as living for the times, then fine, but consider this:

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

How the hell do you just overlook a passage like THAT, and yet still claim to use the bible as a sort of 'foundation' for your argument?? The bible tells us to obey the laws, not to change them, or force them. And in case you're thinking "oh well that's all fine and dandy, they didn't have any problems back then," you're wrong. This was written under the rule of the infamouse Nero, who was NOT a very nice man...

Yes, it is true that God DOES love all men. He loves the fornicator, adulterer, idolater, and the homosexual. However, these people cannot practice these sins and inherit the kingdom of God, according to the scriptures. Hear God: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals...shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians. I believe it's somewhere in chapter six) Some major denominations have now accepted practicing homosexuals in their pulpits. The major argumentation to promote such acceptance is that "we must be tolerant" and "we cannot say homosexuality is a sin." Well, I'd say this bible passage is a pretty CLEAR argument otherwise.

Fornicators, adulterers, idolaters and homosexuals can obtain forgiveness (I Cor. 6: 11). However, they must cease their practices.

Okay, I'm done for now, but I have more ammunition if anyone wants to read another of my infamous
thousand-paragrapg-long-post  

EDIT: This does not mean that I'm homophobic. On the contrary: I have a number of homosexual friends, but they all know my stance, and if they can accept me, then I will accept them (within prayer, of course )

EDIT EDIT: Don't take this as Bible-bashing, either. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. This post was written PURELY as rebuttal for the original thread that seemed to imply that the bible TOLD US to accept gay-ness

All the best, Mr. Hyde.

At least you know that the owner thinks you're good, else you wouldn't be having this interview.


__________________________
Live smaller, but more frequently

I will enter, but be warned, MIDI GALORE!!

Yes, until I get Kontact Player to work again (which will be whenever I get off my ass) I will be submitting everything, yes EVERYTHING, in midi.

It sucks.

But at least it works......