Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NoFap Technical Support and Feedback' started by meagainsttheworld, Jul 10, 2017.
Your avatar reminds me of the Joker.
I think translations is a better word than a change when the intent is proper. Yes, there are translations that have mistranslated a word or phrase whether intentionally or unintentionally. There are also translations that may have translated literally word for word, but the meaning was lost (i.e. In MSA, the word for motorcycle translates literally as “fire bike”, but if you said fire bike in English people would have no clue what it meant).
It is an argument for why 50%+ of Christianity has a specific authority to clear up such disagreements in translations. Also, the original texts being available and people being able to learn the ancient languages easier than in the past are also of benefit.
I think maybe cause religious ppl have more self-awareness and long term thinking than atheists ... for example: they work in this life for the hereafter .. it's the longest term personal plan ever .. not only living the moment ... so sacrificing the immediate pleasure for the eternal good life is normal approach for religious ppl ... and am not christian btw.
If I offered $5 for every actual case of a "Christian with a sign that says God hates whatever"...
It wouldn't cost me very much. What you see on TV or online is one group, out of Kansas, with a handful of crazy people.
And the reason 99% of Christians ever talk about hellfire, is because they are trying to keep you from going there. Like or don't like talk of hell, it's not hateful to try to keep people from suffering eternal agony.
It's also pretty much a free-speech community. If you don't like someone's religious beliefs, or the fact that people express them, you don't have to read what they say.
No, of course not! It can be amended, and has been, 28 times. But because it's our highest written law, it's pretty darn important. It also embodies our values. So our Constitution serves to unite Americans.
Because God's word strictly argues against people being slaves to their carnal desires. Also us Christians having been fighting against porn and the obsession of sex in our society for decades, arguably since the beginning of Hollywood.
Hardcore Christians have a religious belief that they are obliged to tell other people about the 'good news.' So, even when it seems totally irrelevant to the conversation, they will introduce Christianity and God and Jesus etc. They do this to combat being 'persecuted', which is a mindset they have from the Acts of the Apostles (in the New Testament).
People with other beliefs are not bringing it up all the time.
Perhaps because Christians are people too. Addiction doesn't choose by religion, race or anything else. Addiction can happen to anyone. I am appreciating the diversity on this forum. Thanks for the support, everyone!
Statistically, Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world. So its not some ego thing.
Yes you did! So, now we can refer to any sexual practices without a word of criticism or moral superiority from you!
Statistically, Christians are the most persecuted group in the world? I think you might be right, now that i reflect on it.
However, I think the point I was trying to make was that a lot of American Christians are on this website, and I don't think American Christians are persecuted, if you have a bigger perspective on things.
btw, I am not trying to make a cheap anti-Christian point. I have an AP on this site who is a great guy. I was just trying to talk about that mind set in the Acts of the Apostles, which seems to be a particular thing with some Protestant Christians, and their profile is quite large because they are quite 'in-your face' about their beliefs.
C'mon "progressive" is going to mean for example legalized bestiality in the future.
The "god of the gaps" argument is perhaps the most juvenile of all atheist arguments. They assume we see lightning and claim "God did that", but then we learn about electromagnetism and Farady and all that, therefore we can exit God at that level. And if your god is nothing more than a placeholder for scientific ignorance, then of course science would push out God.
But the Christian God isn't a placeholder for ignorance. God is ultimate reality. The would be no universe or laws of nature to study if God had not put them there.
To quote Lennox, "The more you understand about art, the more you can appreciate a Rembrandt. The more you understand about thermodynamics and engineering, the more you can appreciate a Rolls Royce engine. And the more you understand about the complexity of the known universe, the more you can join with the likes of Galileo, and Isaac Newton, and Clerk Maxwell, and worship the God who did it that way."
If you're talking about changes like two different types of spelling of a particular word, then yes, of course there are changes.
If you're talking about changes that would actually make a significant impact on core doctrines, no--there have been no changes. The historical accuracy of the Bible to its original manuscripts is remarkable ... by an enormous margin, it is the most accurately preserved work of antiquity.
You're being contradictory. Even before people knew about "the universe" and "the laws of nature", God was always an explanation. There is no greater unknown in science that the universe and reality itself, but you claim that he is the ultimate reality. Sounds like a placeholder for ignorance for me.
How about 'there are no laws of nature', that we ae a projection of our own mind?
You're making the mistake of treating process and agency as if they are mutually exclusive. To borrow from Lennox again, I'll put it to you this way:
Take the Model T Ford ... and say I give you two explanations for its existence:
1) Henry Ford.
2) The laws of physics, engineering, and thermodynamics.
It's a ridiculous proposition. You clearly need both. Science was the process, but Henry Ford was the agent. In creation, God is the agent, and science is nothing but process ... which is why science is so woefully unequipped to answer the most important questions of life: why are we here? Does life have meaning and purpose? Where are we going?
Those are questions science will never be able to answer, because they are not questions of science. When atheists put science on a pedestal and act as if it can answer everything, they do an enormous disservice to science itself.
That is exactly the problem though.
I am fine with not knowing all the details of the universe and I have accepted that fact, that there are certain things I will never understand.
For most "hardcore christians", this is an explanation for everything, though. Even the things that have been proven long times ago. Yet when you try to talk to them on scientific terms, they just brush it off with god. So god is basically a justification for everything. For some radical muslims, god is a justification for killing other people. And the most twisted thing about this, is that they believe what they are doing is actually right. Such things infuriate me.
This is also where religion originates from. There are some things we don´t understand, so there must be a higher power that does all these things. Nothing wrong with believing that. What is wrong is people using god as a justification for not WANTING to know things, because it contradicts their believes.
Why do you think is creationism still taught in schools, although there is overwhelming evidence, that humans do not actually originate from Adam and Eve? 2000 years ago, people were trying to find an explanation for where humans came from. To them it made sense that somebody must have created two humans that propagated and that they are direct ancestors of them.
Now we know that humans originated from apes, just as birds originated from dinosaurs. Yet people still cling to that believe.
That fairy tale of adam and eve is also flawed. If they were really the only two humans on earth, their children must have mated with each other, and isn´t that considered incest and taboo? (don´t know what the bible says about that though) And from a biological standpoint, I remember an experiement where they put two beetles into a cage and only let them mate with each other. Within 10 to 20 generations they have died out because of genetic defects.
And this is just one example of many...
Yes, and I doubt whether this desire to explain everything is really a religious sentiment at all. The desire to explain is also the desire to control. It is the 'libido domandi' allied with the 'libido scientia' we find described in St. Augustine. The religious person has [or should have] more of a sense of the sanctity of life, and that Life in general is just as mysterious as the life in particular which happens to be yours. Modern religion all too often seems to me a strange hybrid of the modern secular world and the old morality, where religion is privatized and the public world given over to knowledge/ power and technology.