Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Shaydawg

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
31
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Catholic VS Christian
« on: October 16, 2008, 12:31:56 PM »
All the forms of christianity that are prevalent today (I'm excluding groups like the coptics and gnostics) have at their root catholicism.  The religion of the first few generations of christians quickly solidified into catholicism, which was then divided by the great schism, the reformation, and so forth.  The rituals you see at mass are an  evolution of those practiced in caverns under Rome, which were predominantly derived from the Jewish rituals of the time.  The evolution of these rituals was of special interest to me during my studies, as they continuously incorporated aspects of the rituals of my focus, pre-biblical religions.

Those groups were actually among the first Christians.  They came along before Catholics did.  And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty certain that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never actually met Jesus.

Mathew, Luke, and John were all diciples of Christ. Mark was the only one never to meet him.  John was actually the closest of all the diciples to Jesus.

32
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Catholic VS Christian
« on: October 16, 2008, 12:22:52 PM »
The first pope?

I have never even seen it mentioned in the bible. Can you please show me the scripture that gives us this answer.

I am assuming you are talking about Peter.

33
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Catholic VS Christian
« on: October 16, 2008, 12:13:42 PM »
Protestant and Catholic would be the comparison not Catholic and Christian.

Now many have said the Catholicism has been around longer than Christianity which is just not true. It has been around longer than Protestantism for obvioius reasons.

The early Apostles claimed a following of Christ which would be in line with Christianity. Catholism took more of a governmental approach to the religion.



You are correct, but the OP doesn't realize he is Protestant.

It is not correct.  It is no more correct than it is to say that Greek is no longer spoken because there are differences between what was spoken by Socrates and what is spoken now.

All the forms of christianity that are prevalent today (I'm excluding groups like the coptics and gnostics) have at their root catholicism.  The religion of the first few generations of christians quickly solidified into catholicism, which was then divided by the great schism, the reformation, and so forth.  The rituals you see at mass are an  evolution of those practiced in caverns under Rome, which were predominantly derived from the Jewish rituals of the time.  The evolution of these rituals was of special interest to me during my studies, as they continuously incorporated aspects of the rituals of my focus, pre-biblical religions.

That is not what I am saying though. Can you prove to me where the early Apostles taught Catholic rituals to the members?

I understand what it developed into but the first churches are not what Catholocism represents today. For one, none of the Apostles claimed to be priests, at least not from any thing I have ever read.

The original concept of the early church fathers seemed to be more in line with modern day cell based churches rather than a Mass.  But again, I cant disagree that the church quickly moved in the direction of Catholocism. I think the early converted Jews had a hard time understanding the concepts Paul was teaching as it pertains to the dropping of rituals.

34
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Catholic VS Christian
« on: October 16, 2008, 11:46:39 AM »
Protestant and Catholic would be the comparison not Catholic and Christian.

Now many have said the Catholicism has been around longer than Christianity which is just not true. It has been around longer than Protestantism for obvioius reasons.

The early Apostles claimed a following of Christ which would be in line with Christianity. Catholism took more of a governmental approach to the religion.


It is exactly that Governmental approach to it that I hate.

You just didnt bother mentioning that in your original post I guess.

And there is a difference between Catholocism and Roman Catholocism.

35
He is a disgruntled ex-NASA employee who was fired for being delusional.



duh

36
Liberals are generally Democrats

Democrats dont have to be Liberals

Conservatives are generally Republicans

Republicans dont have to be Conservatives


Who is the idiot?

37
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Catholic VS Christian
« on: October 16, 2008, 11:22:21 AM »
Protestant and Catholic would be the comparison not Catholic and Christian.

Now many have said the Catholicism has been around longer than Christianity which is just not true. It has been around longer than Protestantism for obvioius reasons.

The early Apostles claimed a following of Christ which would be in line with Christianity. Catholism took more of a governmental approach to the religion.


38
Goldstein you need to get better at this.

The space shuttle isn't very wide. A F-18 is wider than the space shuttle. It could easily be flown into a remote outpost or aircraft carrier like the Nimitz. It can be reasonably assumed that without the space junk it could be flown a lot better than the real spaceshuttle.

Even if you do not think it is possible for the fake shuttle to land on say an aircraft carrier, they could easily take off from one.

Bwahahaha!!  ROTFLMAO  From Wikipedia:

Shuttle Endeavour:
Length: 122.17 ft (37.24 m)
Wingspan: 78.06 ft (23.79 m)
Height: 58.58 ft (17.25 m)
Empty Weight: 151,205 lbs (68,586.6 kg)

F/A-18C:
Length: 56 ft (17.1 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft (12.3 m)
Height: 15 ft 4 in (4.7 m)
Empty weight: 24,700 lb (11,200 kg)
Loaded weight: 37,150 lb (16,850 kg)

Again, the fake space shuttle doesn't adhere to those standards.

The fake space shuttle doesn't come back from space so it can be built much much lighter. And anyway, NASA guards the shuttle very closely from the public, have you ever weighed it personally? The government can make up whatever facts it wants about the military/NASA.

Ok, I misread the specs of the F-18.

However the US military has launched/landed planes with much larger wingspans off smaller aircraft carriers than the nimitz. Such as the U2 spyplane.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0050.shtml

It is certainly plausible that a fake spaceshuttle could use an aircraft carrier as a base.



As assinine as your reasoning I dont know why I am baiting you but tell us exactly how the Space Shuttle is going to take off from the aircraft carrier?  Are you trying to tell us there is an aircraft carrier that has a Space Shuttle launching pad on it? Or are you really dumb enough to think it can take off like a normal plane?

39
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunsets
« on: October 13, 2008, 01:05:20 PM »
Serious FEr is an oxymoron

40
The Lounge / Re: Let's start a riot
« on: September 16, 2008, 10:34:12 AM »
There was a riot over no electricity?


The cavemen must have lived in constant chaos.

41
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how many true FE'rs are there?
« on: September 16, 2008, 10:32:34 AM »
If the earth was really round then my dog would not be able to catch a frisbee.

42
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Burden of Proof
« on: September 04, 2008, 02:10:07 PM »
It amazes me that Tom uses the same archaic arguments over and over again to no avail yet still thinks he has the correct perception of reality on this subject.

I have proven him wrong numerous times on the subject of the conspiracy and why it is the worst conspiracy theory every created to explain a defiance of factual and intellectual integrity.

I just remember asking my close friend who has his doctorate in Astro Physics and has worked for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CIT's JPA Laborarotory and is an award winning author on subjects in the same field, to read the FAQ here and he came back to me laughing at how horrible the argument was and basically told me you cant debate with people who do not listen to reason.

I asked him to at least join at debate for fun and he refused to lower himself to the idiots like Tom on this board who dont know shit about Atro Physics and how it works in accordance with RE theory or should I say fact.

Now Tom will just play this off as appeal to authority but I am not appealing to authority to prove you wrong I am appealing to someone I personally know and respect in the field of Astro Physics who has more knowledge on the subject than anyone who posts here.

I can also attest to his character that he is not one that would ever be involved in such a conspiracy theory and does not work for NASA anymore so it would behoove him nothing to keep the lie going.  Believe it or not there is intellecual integrity in our educational system at such high levels that no one could possibly stop the nonsense of such a cover up from being unveiled.


I personally dont care if Tom lives with this head up his ass or not but to try and act like we have to prove shit to such a bullshit theory is laughable. Especially when the bottom line answer to the opposition is that of a conspiracy.


43
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What happened here?
« on: August 15, 2008, 08:21:47 AM »
The conspiracy shut us down for awhile.

I knew someone would say this

Then why did you ask?

Because I thought I might get a real answer. Me knowing someone would say that was not the intent of the thread. It was to get answers on why the site was shut down.

I still have no answer

44
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What happened here?
« on: August 13, 2008, 10:22:04 AM »
The conspiracy shut us down for awhile.

I knew someone would say this

45
Flat Earth Q&A / What happened here?
« on: August 13, 2008, 10:12:34 AM »
When I tried to get here for like a month it said "server not found".



??????

46
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Five fundamental problems with Flat Earth theory
« on: August 13, 2008, 08:36:23 AM »
So you are saying the earth does not sit on the back of a giant turtle?


Like that makes any sense

47
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Belief-O-Matic
« on: July 02, 2008, 01:56:31 PM »
Of course I know dipshit


You think I am a proclaimed Calvinist because it sounds cool?

Your lack of knowlege on the subject is not my problem and I am not here to preach to anyone.

The 5 points of Calvisism are set in stone. It is not an opinion or something that needs an explanantion to those who are not theologically educated.

Here, let me cut and paste the five points. Or is it only meaningful if I type it out myself? Only an idiot would ask that. It is like asking the definition of the word. Just because I tell you to go look it up and do your own research does not mean that I dont know the answer.

Quote
Here:

Five points of Calvinism
Calvinist theology is sometimes identified with the five points of Calvinism, also called the doctrines of grace, which are a point-by-point response to the five points of the Arminian Remonstrance (see History of Calvinist-Arminian debate) and which serve as a summation of the judgments rendered by the Synod of Dort in 1619. Calvin himself never used such a model and never combated Arminianism directly.

The points therefore function as a summary of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, but not as a complete summation of Calvin's writings or of the theology of the Reformed churches in general. In English, the points are sometimes referred to by the acronym TULIP (see below), though this puts the points in a different order than the Canons of Dort.

The central assertion of these canons is that God is able to save every person upon whom he has mercy and that his efforts are not frustrated by the unrighteousness or the inability of humans.


[edit] Total depravity
Main article: Total depravity
The doctrine of total depravity (also called "total inability") asserts that, as a consequence of the fall of humanity into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God with their whole heart, mind, or strength, but rather all are inclined to serve their own interests over those of their neighbor and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term "total" in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as possible.)

Jacob Arminius himself and some of his later followers, such as John Wesley, also affirmed total depravity. Even so, the Remonstrants whose views were rejected at Dort opposed it.


[edit] Unconditional election
Main article: Unconditional election
The doctrine of unconditional election asserts that God's choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone.

The doctrine of unconditional election is sometimes made to stand for all Reformed doctrine, sometimes even by its adherents, as the chief article of Reformed Christianity. However, according to the doctrinal statements of these churches, it is not a balanced view to single out this doctrine to stand on its own as representative of all that is taught. Unconditional election, and its corollary in the doctrine of predestination are never properly taught, according to Calvinists, except as an assurance to those who seek forgiveness and salvation through Christ, that their faith is not in vain, because God is able to bring to completion all whom He intends to save. Nevertheless, non-Calvinists object that these doctrines discourage the world from seeking salvation.


[edit] Limited atonement
Main article: Limited atonement
Also called "particular redemption" or "definite atonement", the doctrine of limited atonement is the teaching that Jesus' substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its design and accomplishment. The doctrine is driven by the concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and the Calvinistic understanding of the nature of the atonement. Namely, Calvinists view the atonement as a penal substitution (that is, Jesus was punished in the place of sinners), and since, Calvinists argue, it would be unjust for God to pay the penalty for some people's sins and then still condemn them for those sins, all those whose sins were atoned for must necessarily be saved.

Moreover, since in this scheme God knows precisely who the elect are and since only the elect will be saved, there is no requirement that Christ atone for sins in general, only for those of the elect. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power (in other words, God could have elected everyone and used it to atone for them all), but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is designed for some and not all.


[edit] Irresistible grace
Main article: Irresistible grace
The doctrine of irresistible grace (also called "efficacious grace") asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith.

The doctrine does not hold that every influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible and effective. Thus, when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved.


[edit] Perseverance of the saints
Main article: Perseverance of the saints
Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints is also known as "eternal security." The word saints is used in the Biblical sense to refer to all who are set apart by God, not in the technical sense of one who is exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven (see Saint). The doctrine asserts that, since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return.

This doctrine is slightly different from the Free Grace or "once saved, always saved" view advocated by some evangelicals in which, despite apostasy or unrepentant and habitual sin, the individual is truly saved if they accepted Christ at any point in the past; in traditional Calvinist teaching, apostasy by such a person may prove that they were never saved.

Does that make you feel better?

Why would I want to type all that shit out? Like I said, in order to understand one point you have to understand all of them. If it was a simple fucking answer I would have answered it.

So get off your high horse.




48
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Belief-O-Matic
« on: July 02, 2008, 12:27:28 PM »
I don't even see how Calvinism can work with Christianity. If people are predestined for Heaven and Hell then what was the point of Jesus and the cross thing?

The hardest concept to understand from a theist perspective is that God lives without time. Thus why there are so many references to Him being the Alpha and the Omega.

In actuality though Calvisnism is the only theological view point which makes any sense when using the attributes of the biblical God. That being said all 5 points of Calvinism must stick together. Each of the points has its purpose.   

Basically in order to explain one single point of Calvinism I would have to explain all of them for it to make any sense. Try google. Even Wiki does a good job of explaining TULIP.

49
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Belief-O-Matic
« on: July 01, 2008, 04:42:36 AM »
There is no way a test like that could be accurate in its genaralities. For instance I am a Calvinist, which in turn means I am a Christian, though they used more of an Armenian style of theological beliefs to pigeonhole me into a category.


A fellow Calvinist. I almost thought we had died out. I think Calvinism is the FE of Christianity. Along with Messianic Judaism, I suppose.



No, Calvinism actually uses logic and reason and has no conspiracy tied to it.  ;D

But I do know what you are saying. Outside of the Presbyterians we are few and far between. 

50
The Lounge / Re: Seth Macfarlane is part of the conspiracy
« on: June 30, 2008, 11:37:07 AM »
What idiots.

They said that it was designed to attrack young men as their target audience.


You dont need a fucking intenet cartoon to do that you just need porn.


Fire their marketing department and hire me!!!!!!!!!!

51
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Belief-O-Matic
« on: June 30, 2008, 11:28:13 AM »
If you need that test to tell you what you believe then you probably then you really need to keep searching.

Granted, some people dont give a shit but the ones that do and took that test to find out are going about it ass backwards.  Unless you are a Secular Humanist then the search would be different.

There is no way a test like that could be accurate in its genaralities. For instance I am a Calvinist, which in turn means I am a Christian, though they used more of an Armenian style of theological beliefs to pigeonhole me into a category.

I dont know enough about some of the other religions but I imagine it was the same.

I also laughed when someone on one of the first two pages had "nontheist" as 1 and Christian as 2.


52
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Genius required
« on: June 30, 2008, 11:15:29 AM »
I just proved it


Sent my results to NASA though so they could be locked in the conspiracy vault.

53
Flat Earth Q&A / Just saw Wanted yesterday
« on: June 30, 2008, 11:11:02 AM »
Great action and special effects but a weak plot line.  Go see it if you like.


Oh yeah, and people can make bullets curve in the movie which means the earth is round.


Just saying

54
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle crashs
« on: June 30, 2008, 10:54:53 AM »
Messier wins as usual. Ski is one of those people on here who committed to FE and will do anything in his power to defend it no matter the consequencies or the academic integrity.

Besides it is very difficult to differentiate between the actual FEr's on this site and the trolls. Both are annoying but only one is delusional.

55
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Conspiracy.
« on: June 30, 2008, 10:24:19 AM »
At best, this belongs in Q & C.

Personally, though, I'd move it to Angry Ranting...or just lock it.

I agree with this. People coming to this site and posting for the first time need to learn to read, learn to think, or just learn to not be fucking idiots. Like I did.

Sorry but it is cause and effect. Believing in a flat earth and using fallicious arguments to try and prove a point only a person without minor reasoning skills would hold to then starting a forum to support said ignorant beliefs justifies anyone coming here to say what the fuck they want.

If you dont like it then make it a private forum and only invite in those people who agree with you or who will agree to take a FAQ test. See how fun this place is then.

56
Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Conspiracy" is not a valid argument
« on: June 25, 2008, 03:04:15 PM »
A question messierhunter,

What was your approximate height above the water when making this observation?

I think I'll make a diagram and that should clear things up.
About 6 feet.

At least now we know how tall you are. I had been curious. lol

57
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this!
« on: June 24, 2008, 04:56:04 PM »
Im not a dog, Im Tom FUCKING Hanks!!!!!




58
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this!
« on: June 24, 2008, 04:15:30 PM »


I don't understand all that crap...

Watch your fucking mouth dutch bag.

59
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth to be Proven Round Soon?
« on: June 24, 2008, 04:10:45 PM »
There's no proof the conspiracies don't exist.  Likewise, there's no proof that this one doesn't either.

Umm yes there is plenty of fucking proof the theories dont exist. They have even been listed in this very thread.

It just takes a very dense and unreasonable person to not accept the evidence.

60
The Lounge / Re: I'm moving
« on: June 24, 2008, 04:05:53 PM »
Why doesnt he just burn the constitution and start over while he is at it. He will have a democratic house and senate to approve.


All dems are just fucking sheep to the system anyway.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8