What is the internet comming to?

Crono's posts are always good for an interesting read even if I don't agree with them.

---

http://maze5.net

Yes. I know, they're long. I typed them.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Nickelplate said:
Religion is not a tool to control people.

I'm not saying ALL religion at all times is a tool for control, just certain religions at certain times used by certain people have been used as tools, like telling terrorists that they die for their religion and they get sent up to their heaven to 40 virgins. No offense to anyone who believes that.

---

Reckless disregard for childrens well being, women and nothing but utter contempt for other cultures.

Nickelplate said:
Religion is not a tool to control people.

I'm not saying ALL religion at all times is a tool for control, just certain religions at certain times used by certain people have been used as tools, like telling terrorists that they die for their religion and they get sent up to their heaven to 40 virgins. No offense to anyone who believes that.

Yeah ... except there's really nothing in the Muslim religion that claims this. It also says that you're not allowed to kill someone unless they are an immediate threat to you/your family and your place of worship (a specific mosque)

What terrorists are being told is pure ... well ... s**t. It's not part of the religion at all. Not to mention, Muslims believe very deeply in monogamy. It's one of the reasons why, during a marriage ceremony, the husband and wife are bound together by one of each's wrist. (With like some sort of lace or something).

However, all religions at some point have been misconstrued and changed to suit someone's objective, (King James Bible ... there's a reason why it's named after him) At one point a lot of kingdoms felt it was a good idea to put things in like, "It's a sin to not pay taxes", or something as such.

The only question that you REALLY need to ask is: did the ends justify the means? Those taxes wouldn't have been paid otherwise, for example, and those kingdoms would have fallen, quite possibly destroyed during a raid, because they couldn't afford to defend themselves (since if your kingdom is poor, many, better off people, would probably leave. This would include people in service).
So ... yeah ... there are some things that don't make sense, probably, for this reason.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Yeah I meant people bending religion to towards their own purposes.

---

Reckless disregard for childrens well being, women and nothing but utter contempt for other cultures.

Where does it say that it's a sin not to pay taxes? Or was that just an example?

In Islam, there is a thing called Jihad, or Holy War. It was meant to be an inner struggle that no one else needed to know about, but somewhere along the line, killing "infidels" got to be the fast track to heaven. They said if you die during a war defending yourself, your family, or your place of worship you are automatically in heaven no matter what. So they took the Jihad and made it a "holy war" against other ppl instead of with themselves, and since suicide bombing is a way to: die, kill infidels, be in the "holy war", it's thier sure-ticket to heaven with all them fine virgins.

Plus, who wants to deal with 70 whiney virgins? You'd think after being married to ONe woman, the "I told you so"s would get to be enough.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Nickelplate said:
Where does it say that it's a sin not to pay taxes? Or was that just an example?

someone asked jesus if it was right to be paying taxes to the roman invaders. as it was caesars head that was on the coin, the simple answer was to give to caesar what is caesars.

as most christians might say that disobeying the big man is a sin, then the answer to your question would be somewhere around Mark 12:17

---

i eat paint

Right in that instance, The Pharisees asked Jesus if it was right to pay taxes to the roman government. they knew that If he said it was bad to pay taxes that the romans would arrest him, but if he said that we SHOULD pay taxes, that the Jews would hate him. Jesus responded by asking whose face was on the coin. they replied that it was Caesar's face, and Jesus said, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's." It never said not giving taxes was a sin. That's the misunderstanding I thought might have been there. However, the bible does tell us to obey the laws of the land unless they counter God's law.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting The Bible</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext><SUP>13</SUP> And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Hero'di-ans, to entrap him in his talk. <SUP>14</SUP> And they came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? <SUP>15</SUP> Should we pay them, or should we not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why put me to the test? Bring me a coin, and let me look at it." <SUP>16</SUP> And they brought one. And he said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said to him, "Caesar's." <SUP>17</SUP> Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at him. </DIV></DIV>

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Im sorry that i offended you again nickelplate, i shouldnt have put it so black-white. Its more a gray area, in the medievals it definately was used to control people. I have done some personal research to this. It was mostly bend by kings and there followers to become better, especialy the church got extremely rich when abusing the good faith of people that they would go to heaven if they would pay. Obviously the rulers of the country wanted there share of the wealth and became good friends.

Obviously it isnt used like that anymore on such a big scale in these days, people are independent and can form there own oppionon as how they want it to, obviously its still influenced by many factors, but not as much as back then.

---

RUST Gamedesign
pepper design

The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee.

No, it was just an example. I don't know if that's literally happened. But how many versions have there been of many religious books over the eons? It wouldn't surprise me if a good deal of them reflected political attitude, or even, to a lesser impact, social norms.

And, I do know, that specifically the version of the bible my mom has, specifically depicts how women are suppose to keep themselves. So, that's along some of the same lines. (I don't know what version it is. I believe it has old and new testament or something, I don't know, I've never read it)

As for the whole "Jihad" and "infidels" thing, it is a inner struggle, as I understand it. However, most normal people over in middle eastern countries are very against the terrorist networks (and their ideologies). I mean ... they're the ones suffering the most.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

No offense taken, pepper! :smile:

Crono, instead of a 10,000 year-old book being affected by social norms, maybe the social norms were affected by the book. They've compared the earliest known biblical texts to the most recent translation, and they turn out almost identical with only differences in verb conjugation. Such as the difference between the Ustedes and Vosotros for of a verb in spanish. or the difference between saying "you" and "thee." The dead sea scrolls match up almost verbatim with our newest bibles. Amazing really, how a book so powerful WOULDN't have been changed eh? :dodgy:

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

I believe I said, "how many versions have there been of many religious books over the eons?", but: okay.

All I was saying though, is that it's foolish (YES, it is) to think that things don't get changed, especially when someone has a great deal to gain by it being changed. Whether it be a law, book, or whatever.

Even if you say "they" have dated the book back and "said" it is very close ... does that actually mean it is? It's possible, and is likely, but it's not guaranteed ... that's where the whole faith thing I was talking about comes in to play. When it comes down to it: it is something you BELIEVE. You may believe it so much and advocate your view to such a point that you claim to 'know' that's the way it is, but it's still a belief, whatever that specific belief is: it doesn't matter.

I know earlier, you said something along the lines of, "there is a right and wrong belief" and blah blah blah. And, what I'm saying is: of course there's a right and wrong belief, but as far as you, I, or anyone concerned: we don't know which one it is, or even if the belief exists yet! That's my view on imposing beliefs anyway. There really is no way to know you're correct ... you'd have to go there and see and come back ... but, there's always a million reasons why one single event can happen. So, it's no wonder why it can't be proven. I mean, seriously, even if we ran into an Alien civilization that said, "yeah, we spiked your oceans which eventually formed into Human life" ... even if that were true, I doubt many would believe it. (Except Alientologists. You know? That famous-people-who-like-Battlefield-Earth-a-little-too-much-cult ... which costs money)

Does that make sense? That's the only reason why I'm saying it's "wrong" to impose your views. I mean ... would you think it's okay if lets say: you taught your child that we were all created from Elves and fairies? And literally made them believe that their entire lives? Wouldn't that be "wrong"? And mean, not to mention, since you know it is a pointless quest if they ever took it, to find themselves through those beliefs (since it's rubbish you made up). I'm not saying any religion is this ... it is odd that religions that never really interacted have many similarities in their books and stories. But, as we DO know, just because there IS a correlation, doesn't mean it actually means something.

Of course, as Dr.G said, it is all speculative. No one really knows. And if they claim to, they're probably lying or have some other agenda.

On a side note, I've never understood the reason why some religions want SO many people, and going about it by any means necessary. It seems, they just don't want to be wrong. I don't see why it's any harm to let other people believe what they like.

On things like abortion ... I don't know, I think, it should be discouraged, since it does open a window of irresponsibility ... but, on the other hand ... do you really have the right to tell a woman you don't know that she has to have her child? Especially if the child isn't developed yet? (No, the answer is no). Think about it this way: most women who get abortions are teens, who're for all intensive purposes, on their own. If they DID have that child, chances are, it would not have a good life and could even be more prone to be involved in crimes. Now ... it's kind of along the same lines as: if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he was a threat, would you? I would hope you wouldn't, not because he was a terrible person, or anything like that, but the world would be very different if WW2 never happened. On top of that, who knows? Quite possible someone worse would have taken control of the armed forces in Germany. I mean, Hitler was a moron in strategy, what if his generals ran the whole thing? We would have been slaughtered.
So, really, the easiest thing, and most sensible thing, to do is to not speculate about whatever child being born and not having a chance or anything like that, because, let's take our teen pregnancy issue again, if she did have an abortion and later in her life, she found someone, who she would not have met otherwise, and then began a more wonderful life then if she had kept the original child, then wouldn't that be better? Not to mention, if she had a child then it would be taken care of properly and be a better person (most likely and hopefully).

And I understand what the view is that "everyone should have a chance" type deal, but, it's retarded to think you can control everything, look what happens when you try! Sure, be against abortion, that's your view, but, I would hope that if the time came, no matter how against it you are, you would let it be, since you really have no say. Unless you're willing to help the percentage of women who would have gotten an abortion out of your money, then you have no say. It's, as what was brought up earlier, unless it's happening to you it's very easy to give judgement or advise or to make a choice for who ever.

And, just to mention ... seriously, if you're going down the "group of cells are alive" route, then by your logic women should get pregnant and have a child at every menstruating cycle, since that is potentially another human being. The entire reason WHY women have, what is it? 40,000 eggs? is so they can CHOOSE when and how many children they'd like. Believe me, whether they have a kid now, or some other time, they're all children they can potentially have, they'll all, in some way, be the same.

What really defines a person is how they are treated in their life. But, again. Irresponsibility is such a problem now days. Let me ask you though, if people were more responsible and only got an abortion if absolutely necessary, would you feel differently? (I doubt you would, but I thought I'd ask anyway)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I see your points on some of these things.

But just like (you say) we don't know WHAT the "true right" beleifs are, how can one be so sure that someone else DOESN'T know?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

On the topic of religion being used to control people, in medieval times, the bible was only allowed to be in latin. Only preists and the nobility could understand latin, so the general populace had no idea what the bible actually said and theyd beleive pretty much anything. The bible was first produced for the masses (in English) illegaly, and people would travel the lands reading from it. This was shortly before the Renaissance.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

I didn't say no one could be right ... but you don't know. How could you know ... or anyone? What I was trying to point out with the alien comment is that, even if the truth, by whoever, was presented, chances are, if it didn't coincide with what people already believed they'd most likely try to 'destroy' it.

I'm not saying no one is right ... it's just ... how would you determine so? Kill everyone so we can all find out? Then what's the point? You can't go back (as far as we know) and even if you do ... how would you inform anyone? Anyone who generally comes back from "something" isn't believed.

A good example of this, where it is the case that it isn't true, is the general alien abduction. A lot of these abduction stories are too close to things that happen in media. (A good example is the first, ever, recorded report of someone being "abducted", or at least, saying they were, was in the 40's ... in America, only (mostly), which also makes you think, was the DAY after the premiere of the Outer Limits. The "Alien Commander who was controlling [his] brain" was described very closely to the alien commander from that episode.)

It's all belief. I just think, looking at something that's obviously ridiculed could help anyone look at their own beliefs and analyze them. And honestly, why wouldn't you want to do that? It'd only help you understand what you're so faithful in anyway, right?

But, The very concept of saying, "someone may know what is right" when it comes to the existential existence, but ... would it be accepted if it isn't already proclaimed?

I mean if a profit, from heaven, walked up to you tomorrow and said, "Hey, we just wanted to let you know, that only 1 being from out realm has made contact with this world before and you guys are pretty much wrong" ... would you believe him? Let's assume he's correct and everything .... No ... no you wouldn't. Because it goes against everything you believe. Not to mention you can't believe everything you hear or everyone you talk to.

Again, I'm not saying anything about any religion, I'm just saying ... put it in another perspective about something you could get more of a grasp on (since, none of us, most likely, can even comprehend what actually goes on in our universe, not to mention what value, if any, a life has.)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

holy s**t crono. your posts are so long

---

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/8521/windows981dk.jpg

Nickelplate is my dad

410 words is not long. If you think it is ... maybe you should read more. Because, you're going to have a hell of a time after high school if you have trouble reading something that's barely a page long.

Like, that post should only take you maybe ... 4 minutes. (I read it in 2 minutes at a gradual pace.)

So ... not that long.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

YEah, I get what you're saying crono. But as you've just explained, that's not what I beleive, what I know to be true, so I'm inclined to disagree.

Now, before you go saying "how do you know?" let me say that I think beliefs are what an individual KNOWS. see? that's why everyone is so sure of thier beleifs coz they KNOW. Also why they hold on so tenaciously, no one likes to be wrong.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Yes, I figured that.

But, when I think of the word know I think:

1. To possess knowledge, understanding, or information.
2. To be cognizant or aware.

and when I think of the word believe I think:

1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.

Not sure why I'd possibly think that's what those words meant :rolleyes: ( )

Also, let me ask you ... how can you KNOW what you think is true ... yet also have faith? What's the point of faith if you know ...

I'm guessing, it's just the words make you feel differently? Kind of like, the flood "victims", whatever agency was getting angry because media networks continually refereed to the people there as "refugees" ... and it's just like ... look, I know the word has gotten misconstrued because of people fleeing their country from government persecution, but, the word refugee is someone seeking refuge including from a natural disaster. (The on-line dictionary doesn't have that, but Oxford does)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Crono said:
Also, let me ask you ... how can you KNOW what you think is true ... yet also have faith? What's the point of faith if you know ...

Good question, and I'll tell you, it's another bit of symantics where you have to have it in the right order. You don't have faith because you're sure of something (you know), but instead, you KNOW because you have faith. If you think about it from an existentialist POV, all that we KNOW is really just taken on faith anyway. it's kinda the same thing with beliefs.

I've had 3 years of classes in college (16 cred. hours) dealing with Philosophy from it's very origins and all the different types like existentialism, christianity, buddhism, Islam, zoroastrianism, etc. etc. etc. it has really helped me to understand religions and beliefs and all that. If anyone has philosophy classes available to them, I'd suggest taking them, coz they really are a big help.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Yeah ... but ... once you "know" from faith ... at some point you "know" ... but would you still have "faith" at that point? Either way, whichever comes first, by your description(s), they will occur at the same time, at which point ... they're contradicting each other.

But, I'm really focusing on, believing or faith or whatever, based on whether you can prove it or not. Because all we "know" we generally have some way to prove it, at least right now. And by prove, I mean, 99.99% to the T (Not sure why that's so common ... to the T ... what a weird phrase ... what makes T more accurate then any other letter? It's not particularly hard to write or say either) that this is the case. Since, if it were disproved, in any situation, it would automatically become False. I think the only exception to this is "classical" physics, since it still works enough on our plane, no matter how much it doesn't work on a quantum existence.

I just keep racking up the posts, don't I? ... I'm almost at 4K aren't I? Man, that makes me feel like an ass.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

haha, well, you've had less retarded posts than windows98, and he only has like 50..lol

luv to windows98...

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

... to the T ... what a weird phrase ... what makes T more
accurate then any other letter? It's not particularly hard to write or
say either)

It's an allusion to the accuracy of a T square - right angles, parallel lines and so on.

There must be hundreds of phrases we hear on a daily basis where the
original meaning isn't generally known but are understood perfectly:
eg. "to the bitter end" - "kith and kin" - "upper crust" - "by and
large" - "toffee-nosed" etc.etc. I bet many (most?) Britons haven't the
remotest idea what a rain-check is though they understand what's meant
by it - and although we may operate on a "shoestring", we tie our shoes
with laces. Incidentally, does anyone know where that came from - "on a
shoestring"?

Americans call shoelaces "shoestrings" sometimes. Probabl signifies a thin, taut line.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Probabl signifies a thin, taut line.

I'm sure you're right, Nickleplate, though I seem to remember hearing
it was a little more involved than that. Probably not, though, I have a
s**te memory. :smile:

A T square! Yes. I didn't think about that possibility.

Some of those "phrases" I've never heard though.

You know what I think is a little ... well ... sad? Sliced bread wasn't "invented" until 1935. (That's the official date, because it wasn't sold pre-sliced before that day on wide scales) ... the toaster is older. Before, you just cut off the piece of bread you were going to use. Then again, most households either baked bread everyday, or bought it fresh from a baker. I just thought that date was a little late in the "game". (Same thing goes for Milkshakes ... and hot dogs for that matter)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I've lived in the US all my life and have never heard anyone use the word "shoestring" to mean shoelace.

---

http://maze5.net

mazemaster said:
I've lived in the US all my life and have never heard anyone use the word "shoestring" to mean shoelace.

I've heard it called "shoestring" more than I've ever heard "shoelace." Kids at my old elementary school in St. Louis always said "yer shoestring's untied!... Made ya look!"

colloquialism, i suppose

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

ive never heard shoestring either

---

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/8521/windows981dk.jpg

Nickelplate is my dad

Nobody else is from the midwest are they? lol I can't beleive that ppl have never heard of that.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

No. I've never heard "shoestring" either, except when people from New York talk about pasta. It's always been shoelaces. Here anyway.

You know what pisses me off? People who say Data like Da-Tah.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I've heard it.

Crono said:
I just thought that date was a little late in the "game". (Same thing goes for Milkshakes ... and hot dogs for that matter)

there were reliable atom bombs before there were reliable ballpoint pens. i always found that to be a little odd.

---

i eat paint