Chefelf.com Night Life: LEft out of the Bible - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

LEft out of the Bible is the old and new testament all there is?

#91 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 02 March 2006 - 11:21 PM

Yeah, but to his credit. he didn't know she was his mother when he had sex with her, and when he did find out, he gouged his own eyes out in penitence.
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#92 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 03 March 2006 - 12:10 AM

Also he didn't exist.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#93 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 03 March 2006 - 12:40 AM

which was the other hurdle he had to jump in life.
0

#94 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 03 March 2006 - 08:55 PM

Poor bastard... There's not much more tragic than that. Accidental incest and not existing in the same life.
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#95 User is offline   Despondent Icon

  • Think for yourself
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:a long time ago
  • Interests:Laughter. Louis pups. Percussion. What binds us. Bicycling, Tennis.
  • Country:United States

Posted 03 March 2006 - 09:10 PM

Oh, my bad. Grafitti is ALWAYS factual. rolleyes.gif
0

#96 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 05 March 2006 - 05:38 PM

but never fractal sad.gif
0

#97 User is offline   Zatoichi Icon

  • Left Hand Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,250
  • Joined: 04-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate NY
  • Interests:Conquering the World! Being the who when you call "Who's there?"
  • Country:United States

Posted 01 May 2006 - 01:28 AM

Well, several months later and I still never got that damn thing to work. Don't worry though, I took out my anger and frustration on videogames for looking like I was lying through my teeth, ... er, my typing.

I recently borrowed a book called "What IF ... collected thought experiments in philosophy" One of the sections in it is the philosohy of religion, and I thought it would be neat to type them up and discuss them. I'll put down one for now. The first bit is from the author of the experiment, and the second is from the book's author.

QUOTE
Gaunilo's Lost Island
It is said that somewhere in the ocean is an island, which ... is called the lost island. And they say that this island has an inestimable wealth of all manner of riches and delicacies in greater abundance than is told of the Islands of the Blest; and that having no owner or inhabitant, it is more excellent than all other countries, which are inhabited by mankind, in the abundance with which it is stored.
Now if some one should tell me that there is such an island, I should easily understand his words, in which there is no difficulty. But suppose that he went on to say, as if by logical inference: "You can no longer doubt that this island which is more excellent than all lands exists somewhere, since you have no doubt that it is in your understanding. And since it is more excellent not to be in understanding alone, but to exist both in the understanding and in reality, for this reason it must exist. For if it does not exist, any land which really exists will be more excellent than it; and so the island already understood by you to be more excellent will not be more excellent.
Should I believe him?

The ontological argument for the existence of a supreme god, attributed first to Anselm (Proslogio, 1078) is as follows: we can conceive of God, something that is greater in all ways than anything else; a something that actually exists in reality is greater than a something that exists only in our mind; therefore, God actually exists. In short, God is "that than which a greater cannot be conceived." Unlike the argument from design (see "Paley's Watch"), which appeals to the perceived facts of experience (an a posteriori argument), Anselm's argument appeals solely to the concepts of reason (an a priori argument).
Guanilo wrote a critique of Anselm's proof of God's existence, of which the "Lost Island" is a part. "If," Gaunilo says, "a man should try to prove to me by such reasoning that this island truly exists, ... I should believe that he was jesting" (11). One might think Gaunilo's objection is simply that one can't bring something into existence merely by imagining it: we can imagine the most beautiful island, but that doesn't mean it has to exist. However, there is more to the objection than that, because Anselm isn't saying simply that God is the most beautiful--he's saying God is the most everything. And being the most everything has to include existing. But Gaunilo says, it doesn't have to: excellence doesn't necessarily imply existence. Indeed why should it? What's so great about existing that an X that exists is greater than an X that doesn't exist? Is it (always) better to exist than not to exist?
One might also challenge the circularity that seems to be present in Anselm's argument: if you define God as something that exists (and Anselm does this by saying that "greatest conceivable" includes "exist"), then hasn't he assumed before he started what he set out to prove?
In one of replies to Gaunilo, Anselm says, further, that "by no means can this being than which a greater cannot be conceived be understood as any other than that which alone is greater then all" (21). He thus "ensures" the Christian notion of a single god. But why is the quality of uniqueness, as well as existence, entailed? "That than which nothing greater can be conceived" is slightly, but significantly, different from "greater than all things" (a phrase Anselm seems to use interchangeably with the other one); two (or more) things can't be equally great and such that nothing greater than them could be conceived--can't they?


I myself argue against the both of them based on one of the implications of the arguments. They both imply that there is such a thing as existing perfection in the physical world. Perfection is perceived by those who perceive whatever it is, and that is done through/by language, experience, emotion, the senses, et cetera, all of which are inherently imperfect. Also, it is based upon individual opinion. Therefore, there is no such thing as perfection as a definite thing, but it does exist on an individual bases for certain points in time.

I know this first one isn't that great, but the others are better. I'm also a little confused as to what my argument accomplishes, if anything.
Apparently writing about JM here is his secret weakness. Muwahaha!!!! Now I have leverage over him and am another step closer towards my goal of world domination.

"And the Evil that was vanquished shall rise anew. Wrapped in the guise of man shall he walk amongst the innocent and Terror shall consume they that dwell upon the Earth. The skies will rain fire. The seas shall become as blood. The righteous shall fall before the wicked! And all creation shall tremble before the burning standards of Hell!" - Mephisto

Kurgan X showed me this web comic done with Legos. It pokes fun at all six Star Wars films and I found it to be extremely entertaining.
<a href="http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/starwars.html" target="_blank">http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/starwars.html</a>
0

#98 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 01 May 2006 - 10:48 AM

Descartes also tried to argue that God existed via "a priori" reason. Because he could supposedly still conceive of God after growing entirely introspective, God must have placed the idea of God in his head.

Then entire concept is just not something that can be argued in an objective manner like that.
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#99 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 01 May 2006 - 09:02 PM

which is why Descartes was lucky that his financial security relied more upon his rather successful line of 'pot a priori' air fresheners than on his philosphical popey quoting.


i am what i am ugugugugugug
0

#100 User is offline   Just another wretched fan Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 274
  • Joined: 31-January 05
  • Location:Boston or Syracuse
  • Country:United States

Posted 16 May 2006 - 12:22 AM

Yeah, i'm just going to jump in at the end here and act like i know everything.

The reason why people don't pay too much attention to these other gospels is because they are dated to around the 3rd and 4th centuries. That's like me writing about the revolutionary war and saying I had secret knowledge about Sam Adams (Brewer, Patriot) and then expect my writings to be put on the same level as soldiers' diaries from the actual battles.
0

#101 User is offline   Gobbler Icon

  • God damn it, Nappa.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,560
  • Joined: 26-December 05
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Three octaves down to your left.
  • Interests:Thermonuclear warfare and other pleasantries.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 16 May 2006 - 03:06 AM

I remember the Apocryphya being dated to around the first century... and Luke and John only made it into the bible around the third century, so there goes your argument.

Quote

Pop quiz, hotshot. Garry Kasparov is coming to kill you, and the only way to change his mind is for you to beat him at chess. What do you do, what do you do?
0

  • (7 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size