flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Few articles

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Hi, for anyone interesting, here is couple of articles, where one well-educated guy gives his opinions. I must say i really like all of his articles i managed to read. Note that articles are usually very long and exhaustive.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/

Note that many of articles are touching or focused on religion, so some of you may not want to learn information within...
Post 17 Jul 2007, 20:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
I'm not sure I'd give too much credence to this guy's opinion, research, or whatever you want to call it. He's somewhat counter-culture, reactionary, off-the-wall, etc. And certainly, he's got more than a few grudges he's holding onto very tightly. Caveat emptor.
Post 18 Jul 2007, 21:51
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Of course his opinion doesn't matter. But his research surely does matter, especially because it is very exhaustive.

For example, when i was interested on some evidence for early christianism, this was by far best conclusion i could find. Also he placed all citations in context, provided existing evidence against his opinions, and all that sort of proper approach to finding truth (instead of defending one's opinion).
Post 18 Jul 2007, 22:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
vid wrote:
Of course his opinion doesn't matter. ...
first of all: THANK you very much, vid, for bringing this site to my attention. I did not know anything about it. IT IS EXCELLENT.
WOW. I didn't know that anyone else thinks the way I do....
Gosh, what a revelation. I only have read one article, but it is SO WELL DONE, I had to return here, break away from my research on cpu architeture, and thank you, sincerely, for pointing this out. This guy is right on target, at least, his article on Darwin was:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm
"The misportrayal of Darwin as a Racist."
well done, vid.
Post 18 Jul 2007, 22:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
The Ten Commandments, American History and American Law wrote:

Furthermore, the New Testament says that Jesus has replaced the Ten Commandments with new rules and has created a new covenant with the people, thus making the Ten Commandments obsolete for Christians.


Jesus (Matthew 5:17) wrote:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.


Only the civil and ceremonial aspects of the old days are obsoleted. The moral part remains because it is God's own character, which cannot change. We are to imitate his behavior, not blindly follow our own wills or temptation from others.

Jesus (Mark 12:29) wrote:

The most important one [commandment]," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.


The first three commandments refer to man's obligation towards God. The last seven refer to man's relationship with his fellow man. These two groups form the 10 commandments. (You will often see 3 on the first tablet and 7 on the second tablet in stained-glass windows in churches for this very reason.)

Leviticus 19 wrote:

You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.


This chapter, in particular, shows much loving concern that we are supposed to have / learn towards God and neighbor, very strongly connected to the Ten Commandments.

Quote:

The very story of the commandments tells us that they pit father against son, friend against friend, and neighbor against neighbor. This may actually be the story's most timeless lesson.


Uh, that conclusion makes no sense to me. In fact, it sounds like he's saying the commandments are evil (compared to what standard of goodness??). If this is really true in the strict sense, then why do the commandments say this?

Quote:

Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.


We're supposed to be "the king's loyal servant, but God's first!" (to quote St. Thomas More). You are not supposed to rebel but obey (within the capacity of love, not for evil).

A more in-depth reference to the Ten Commandments and their meaning (with many references e.g. The Council of Trent) can be found in the Catholic Catechism:

Catechism: Part Three, Section Two, 2068 wrote:

The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; The Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.
Post 18 Jul 2007, 22:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
rugxulo: you pulled out that one sentence, but it is only conclusion of several pages of text and citations, where he provides biblical evidence for this.

Matthew 5:17 wrote:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

Jesus wasn't talking about Ten Commandments, i suggest you to reread that part. Further in text, he gives examples of "fullfiling" those laws he mentioned here, and many more beside Ten Commandments are there.

Quote:
Quote:
The very story of the commandments tells us that they pit father against son, friend against friend, and neighbor against neighbor. This may actually be the story's most timeless lesson.

Uh, that conclusion makes no sense to me. In fact, it sounds like he's saying the commandments are evil (compared to what standard of goodness??). If this is really true in the strict sense, then why do the commandments say this?

He is talking about story how commandments were given. This story shows what he mentioned: People were slaughtering their own relatives because they were worshipping other deity. Sorry, I don't like THAT kind of "moral values".

Also, due to bible, the actual ten commandments were these:
- Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
- Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.
- Do not make cast idols
- Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.
- The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. No one is to appear before me empty-handed.
- Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
- Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel. I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.
- Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
- Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.
- Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.

The version which we are using now was given prior to these commandments, but these tables were destroyed, and then god gave these different commandments. God nor bible didn't call the first ones "ten commandments", these were the ones to be called so, and ones stored in Ark of Covenant.

Did you at least read that article (completely)?
Post 18 Jul 2007, 23:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
In his rejoinder above, rugxulo wrote:
....A more in-depth reference to the Ten Commandments and their meaning (with many references e.g. The Council of Trent)

The council of Trent (concluded in 1563, chanting in unison) wrote:

"Anathema to all heretics, anathema, anathema."

counsulting with dictionary.com:
anathema: a person or thing detested or loathed:
According to dictionary.com, the word's origin dates from that same era, 1520-1530. Hmm. Well, I am not a "heretic", I am WORSE THAN A HERETIC, for, I am an atheist. The Muslims of course, would simply kill me. The Jews, I am not sure what they would do, if one searches the torah, I am reasonably confident that one can find examples of Jews justifying the killing of atheists who repudiate Judaism. The Catholics of that era, at the time of the Council of Trent, and here I am thinking of the infamous Thomas More, Catholic, scholar, (and friend of Erasmus,) who, as Chancellor under Henry VIII, (after his predecessor, Cardinal Wolsey, had been incarcerated,) murdered Protestants, often BURNING THEM ALIVE, for something as little as possessing a Bible printed in English, rather than Latin:
http://www.localhistories.org/henryvii.html
Upon the death of the tyrant, Henry VIII, a man who murdered Catholics and Protestants willy nilly, his successor, his FIRST daughter, Catholic MARY, so called, "BLOODY MARY", killed MANY, MANY Protestants, at the very same time as the "Council of TRENT". It is clear, to me at least, that the so called Christians, at least at that time, if not always, behaved with little kindness, charity, or even decency towards their fellow humans. To the extent that Catholicism STILL REVERES, even today, and STILL HOLDS UP in admiration, the "Council of Trent", i.e. defending the savagery and bloody hell on earth unleashed by these wretched Cardinals and Popes, to that extent, it is not simply a worthless religion, it is an anathema, to me.
In conclusion, I find NO REDEEMING qualities for the "Council of Trent" or its patron: Catholicism, a tyrannical, superstitious, irrational faith, responsible for the deaths of MILLIONS of people over the past two millenia, all the time hypocritically proclaiming LOVE, and REDEMPTION, while burning at the stake those of us who repudiate their irrationality. The Protestants, to me, have MUCH more credibility, though, that is not to write, that they have not ALSO committed their fair share of crimes against humanity. At least the Protestants repudiate the nonsense about the pope. I give them credit for that much.....
Post 18 Jul 2007, 23:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
You are only a heretic if you obstinately persist in your disbelief on purpose, lying just to be destructive. Back in St. Thomas More's day, supposedly only four (!) people were successfully tried as such.

St. Thomas More never killed anyone, and I don't know where you got the idea that he did. In fact, he was the one who was killed because he didn't approve of Henry VIII's divorce / slaughter of his wife (same "crime" as St. John the Baptist re: King Herod, also same punishment). It was Henry VIII who formed his own church because the true Catholic Church disapproved of his breaking of (at least) the sixth commandment. He split from them, not the other way around. Actually, St. Thomas More and he were good friends at one time, but Henry VIII didn't remain friendly forever. (Who kills their own friend??)

The Catholic Church does not (and has not) ever given permission to kill anyone. They are (unofficially) against the death penalty. However, I cannot argue with God. If someone worships something or someone other than Him, they are a bit off since He is the only "good" spirit who asks people to follow Him. The punishment fits the crime (even if no one wants to be punished). Some sins do indeed deserve death, but God is actually VERY patient and forgiving (else we'd all be dead).
Post 20 Jul 2007, 00:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
However, I cannot argue with God. If someone worships something or someone other than Him, they are a bit off since He is the only "good" spirit who asks people to follow Him. The punishment fits the crime (even if no one wants to be punished). Some sins do indeed deserve death, but God is actually VERY patient and forgiving (else we'd all be dead).

Thank god we aren't been living 2500 years ago, when god was so much less patient and forgiving... wonder what changed his opinion
Post 20 Jul 2007, 00:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
rugxulo wrote:
You are only a heretic if you obstinately persist in your disbelief on purpose, lying just to be destructive. Back in St. Thomas More's day, supposedly only four (!) people were successfully tried as such.

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/more/context.html
http://www.williamtyndale.com/0sirthomasmore.htm
Friends of William Tyndale, (translator of the first English Bible,) wrote:

In 1530 More also took an active part in a church council that condemned Tyndale's works.
Tyndale answered More in July of 1531 in An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue. In it Tyndale confirms More's worst fears by appealing to the scriptures as the ultimate authority to evaluate not only church doctrine but also church practice and by explicitly attacking the church hierarchy. He also accused More of having traded his earlier humanist convictions for wealth and power.

Friends of William Tyndale wrote:

More replied a year later in a long work, The Confutation of Tyndale, in which he repeats and intensifies his attacks, advocates the burning of Tyndale's books, and prophesies that Tyndale will burn in hell for his sins. He also supported the burning of heretics such as Tyndale:

Thomas More, supporting Catholic fervor to execute Protestants by burning at the stake, wrote:
"and for heretics, as they be, the clergy doth denounce them; and, as they be well worthy, the temporality doth burn them; and after the fire of Smithfield hell doth receive them, where the wretches burn forever."

link shortened
James Anthony Froude, in 1881, in a book titled 'History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Death of Elizabeth', wrote:
With Wolsey heresy was an error--with More it was a crime. Soon after the seals changed hands the Smithfield fires recommenced; and, the chancellor [More] acting in concert with them, ....The crime of the offenders varied, --sometimes it was a denial of the corporal presence, more often it was a reflection too loud to be endured on the character and habits of the clergy; but whatever it was, ....

James Anthony Froude, in 1881, in a book titled 'History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Death of Elizabeth', wrote:
... [James Bainham] was taken to the Bishop of London's coal-cellar at Fulham, the favourite episcopal penance-chamber, where he was left for many days, ....This failing to work conviction, he was carried to Sir Thomas More's house in Chelsea, where for two nights he was chained to a post and whipped; ... and finally to the Tower, .... The prisoner was brought to trial on the 20th of April, as a relapsed heretic.... the drama closed in the usual manner at Smithfield. Before the fire was lighted Bainham made a farewell address to the people, laying his death expressly to More, whom he called his accuser and his judge.

When I wrote that More "murdered Protestants, often BURNING THEM ALIVE," I did not intend to imply that Thomas More PERSONALLY gathered the wood, about the prisoner, and then personally lit the fire.
I meant that it was on HIS ORDER, that the prisoners were executed in such a deliberately cruel and inhumane fashion--a method which apparently derives from CHURCH DOCTRINE. As far as I am aware, the traditional method of killing people, for example, thieves, or murderers, was by HANGING, not burning them alive. Hanging and beheading represent relatively painless deaths, because disruption of the spinal cord leaves intact only the cranial nerves of the face to convey sensory stimuli to the brain--which survives for less than four minutes, due to anoxia, once the control mechanism for respiration is destroyed by the damage at C1.
If More had sought to regulate the thoughts of all the people of England, by insisting that they all accept the same nonsense he did, then, he chose the wrong method: torture and cruelty may lead to surly submission, but rarely result in enthusiasm. I regret that Henry VIII did not choose to execute More by the same grisly method, so that Thomas More too, could perceive to the fullest, exactly how Tyndale and the other true English heroes felt, at the time of their deaths, for having committed the crime of thinking.

http://biblelight.net/burn-heretics.htm
modern Catholic propaganda, amoral, utterly stupid, and profoundly insensitive,in an article entitled 'The Benefits of Burning Heretics at the Stake', wrote:
Over the course of six hundred years, the Catholic Inquisitions sent between forty to sixty thousand individuals to the scaffold to be burned by the secular authorities. This is less than half the number of abortions done in the United States every month.

The fetus, in utero, (a) is an alien tumor, from the perspective of the maternal immune system, and (b) IS COMPLETELY INSENSITIVE to pain, OF ANY KIND, during the first six months of gestation---The brain of a fetus quite simply has not developed sufficiently to sense ANY modality--vision, hearing, touch, olfaction. The Cerebral Cortex of a five month fetus has not yet even manufactured sufficient Myelin to permit normal axonal conduction. Comparing removal of a tumor to death by burning someone alive at the stake is the epitomy of DISHONESTY.
It is one thing to defend a faith, quite another to defend amoral, repugnant practices like burning "heretics" alive.
Please start by teaching us, just exactly what is a "heretic"? How is a "heretic" of the 16th century, today someone with whom the Vatican seeks rapprochement?
rugxulo wrote:
...However, I cannot argue with God.
I trust you do not genuinely believe that anyone on this forum represents a supernatural force....You are arguing not with God, but with mere mortals. Does your sentence betray condescension towards FASM forumers?
rugxulo wrote:
...
The punishment fits the crime.
Umm, I hope, friend, that I have misunderstood your writing. I sincerely, PROFOUNDLY, hope that you are not in some vague or mysterious fashion, here CONDONING this horrific practice of killing people by burning them at the stake.
If you are condoning this method of execution, please write it straight out, so that everyone can appreciate your humanity.
Post 20 Jul 2007, 11:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
shoorick



Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1605
Location: Ukraine
shoorick
quiet interesting site! i like to read similar, but have only in russian before.
Post 20 Jul 2007, 11:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
tom tobias wrote:
rugxulo wrote:
...
The punishment fits the crime.
Umm, I hope, friend, that I have misunderstood your writing. I sincerely, PROFOUNDLY, hope that you are not in some vague or mysterious fashion, here CONDONING this horrific practice of killing people by burning them at the stake.
If you are condoning this method of execution, please write it straight out, so that everyone can appreciate your humanity.


Two kinds of sin exist: venial (mostly annoying) and mortal (aka, grave or "serious"). Mortal sin kills the life of grace in the soul. Intentionally worshipping a non-god and therefore scorning God is very highly displeasing to God. It is not to be taken lightly. I cannot judge because I cannot see anything but external actions; therefore, I cannot know what is in a man's heart (so I don't know his destination), but I do know that some sins "deserve" death. However, I personally will never advocate anyone run to death, as death is the result of the Evil One's trickery (with partial consent by man) and is / was not God's goal. God is primarily concerned with salvation (eternity), and life is considered less (but still quite) "important" due to its temporal nature.

There are (supposedly) instances which may even require corporal punishment, but the Church says those are not prevalent these days. Besides, obviously I have no calling or urge to do such. God is not as personally as close to me as He was to those in the old days with Moses (Old Testament).

God saved all those thousands of people from slavery (through MANY works, signs, etc), and how did they repay Him? Sacrilege. Worshipping a freakin' piece of crud made of gold that can't see, hear, speak, etc. Fun fun fun. "Gee, this is the thanks I get?" Of course he's angry, it's a slap in the face. What you take issue with is the external act of death pressed by man himself (especially since you deny God's existence and authority in such manners, anyways). Death to you is the ultimate evil. However, in Christianity, sin is worse (since it can lead to suffering eternally as opposed to temporary punishment).

Face it, if God exists, and God is good and perfect, He has the knowledge and authority to judge as He pleases. Even if it sounds dumb to (weak) human ears, He is still correct.

Read Leviticus 19, it says don't hold grudges. Or read Jonah to see how God lets us repent of our sins. He is willing to forgive us (thankfully). And commandment #5 says don't kill. So why are you worried? No (sane) Christian alive today will kill anyone, only maybe nag a bit for you to convert. Razz

Leviticus 19 wrote:

Do not turn aside to idols, nor make molten gods for yourselves. I, the LORD, am your God.
...
You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him. Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.


Romans 6:23 wrote:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Post 20 Jul 2007, 19:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Thank you again, vid, for introducing this highly educational site. I fear that my long winded attempts to rebut the rejoinder of rugxulo may have sidetracked the main thread, please accept my apologies, if so.
rugxulo wrote:
...scorning God is very highly displeasing to God.
...
Of course he's angry,....
...
Of course not. This writing is not worthy of someone with as profound a knowledge of cpu architecture and assembly language programming as you possess. Your sentences quoted above do not even rise to the level of a simple high school English composition.
There is nothing wrong with your grammar, etc. The problem is with your childish logic. How can YOU, a simple FASM forumer, hope to claim some kind of knowledge about what "GOD" is thinking? Ridiculous. You have no idea what is "pleasing" or displeasing to GOD. Absurd. God, as you have yourself pointed out, rugxulo, is OMNIPOTENT. To paraphrase my hero, John Milton, God neither REQUIRES, nor asks for YOUR assistance in determining how he does, or how he SHOULD, think. You cannot POSSIBLY have even the TINIEST notion of what this omnipotent power contemplates. You certainly CAN NOT determine what is pleasing to GOD.
What is the question which we are responding to? As far as I am concerned, the question IS ABSOLUTELY NOT about God's supposed thought processes. The question which we ARE debating, is about the Council of Trent, and Sir Thomas More's culpability in murdering, in grotesquely inhumane fashion by burning alive, INNOCENT FELLOW CHRISTIANS, whose only CRIME was possession of a BIBLE printed in ENGLISH. Your response to my query of your own personal belief re: those CRIMES against humanity was UNSATISFACTORY:
rugxulo wrote:
...There are (supposedly) instances which may even require corporal punishment, but the Church says those are not prevalent these days....

REALLY?????
That's an odd answer. Why should corporal punishment (burning alive a fellow Christian) have been SUITABLE five hundred years ago, but not today, FROM A RELIGIOUS perspective? Of course, society has matured, so today we execute those whom we disapprove of by somewhat less gruesome methods, but those executions have little or no relationship to RELIGION, at least in secular countries. In other words, generally speaking, in Europe, Americas, Australia, Japan, China, et al, one is not tortured and killed for possessing a bible written in English rather than Latin. Why won't you CONDEMN the prior practice of not simply permitting such atrocities, BUT IMPLEMENTING these abhorrent policies, in harmony with Catholic doctrine, as did Thomas MORE?????
Further, you need to explain, rugxulo, WHY "these days" such instances ("of heresy") "are not prevalent"??? I should have thought JUST THE OPPOSITE were the case. In other words, from my perspective, as an atheist, who has absolutely no faith in Homo Sapiens, i.e. the CREATOR of all these horrible religions, the notion that there is today LESS brutality, LESS criminality, LESS inhumanity, LESS violence against innocents, is quite perplexing, and I honestly wonder whether you and I have been reading the same sources of news over the past few decades....VietNam, Iraq, to mention just two horrible instances of beastly brutality entirely unjustified, with WRETCHED crimes against humanity committed by our government, and therefore by our fellow countrymen, against two completely innocent nations. How can you sleep at night, obscenely quoting ancient Jewish texts in response to my question of whether or not you condone More's execution of fellow true believers. I am not interested in reading ANY Jewish nonsense, I am interested in YOU. I have a lot of respect for you and for your great talent. I cannot understand how someone can be at the same time so logical, precise, methodical, systematic, and rely heavily on WRITTEN documents in the field of cpu organization, but when the subject turns to history, suddenly, books, facts, documents, ALL BECOME IRRELEVANT:
rugxulo wrote:
....but I do know that some sins "deserve" death.

really? I wonder which ones? How about the "sin" of owning an English Bible? Does that warrant EXECUTION by burning alive? I wonder even more, HOW do you decide which "sins" warrant execution? What special powers do you possess that the rest of us lack, because I certainly can not imagine what your criteria would be? For me, a guy who brutally murders SEVERAL PEOPLE, (not just one person, in some sort of revenge plot, or romantic failure, or to steal money), causing horrific pain in these people, who are ENTIRELY INNOCENT, that guy, that Thomas More, HE DESERVES DEATH. If you cannot repudiate More's actions, then, as far as I am concerned, your other ideas on this forum are useless.
Post 20 Jul 2007, 20:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
tom tobias, not all Biblical translations are created equal. And not every so-called "gospel" is truly in accord with the others. Therefore, much care and concern must be taken before translating and spreading a translated Bible willy-nilly with no concern over correctness or absurdity, mistranslation, sacrilege, blasphemy, etc. (I am just saying, in theory, it would be bad. I haven't read Tyndale's Bible personally and don't need to.)

The Catholic Church in recent times took 25 years (with help of several Protestant individuals) to translate as accurately as possible from the original sources both the Old and New Testaments into modern English. The result is the New American Bible. And the Catholic liturgy has been performed in English for 40+ years (with a soon-official free allowance of old Latin masses since some prefer that). In other words, it takes a LONG time to make such heavy decisions, and they are not to be taken lightly. (In particular, a Church founded by God that wants to be / stay unified would not and does not agree to having ten different translations when errors can confuse and even hurt the faith.)

Schism is indeed an offense (if intentional) against the first commandment (see 2089).

And remember, not every story about what so-and-so did hundreds of years ago (or even a few days ago) is true. And the references you quoted can no more be verified than what I say. Your word against mine, I guess (except neither of us was there so neither can truly know, right?) Innocent until proven guilty, I say. Therefore, to me, without proof (besides endless words, which are found in abundance), I assume Thomas More is innocent of murder and refuse to call him names. Same with William Tyndale (although I don't know anything about him, honestly).
Post 20 Jul 2007, 20:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
And commandment #5 says don't kill.

Sorry, rugxulo. You are forgetting again. Ten commandments are not those you mean. Ten commandments are those which include boiling sheep in it's parent' milk, and driving other races out of earth's surfaces. Refer bible for more details.

Quote:
The Catholic Church in recent times took 25 years (with help of several Protestant individuals) to translate as accurately as possible from the original sources both the Old and New Testaments into modern English.

Which original sources? Almos every old version we have is different, often in major things. Older ones tend to call christ "chosen of god", not "son of god", etc... Also, what is "original of New Testament"? New testament as is, is product of 16th century, where the final collection of books was decided. There is nothing such as "origianl new testament". Earlier christians believed more / less scriptures than it's in current "New Testament". Were they wrong? How could god let this happen?

Quote:
And remember, not every story about what so-and-so did hundreds of years ago (or even a few days ago) is true. And the references you quoted can no more be verified than what I say. Your word against mine, I guess (except neither of us was there so neither can truly know, right?) Innocent until proven guilty, I say. Therefore, to me, without proof (besides endless words, which are found in abundance), I assume Thomas More is innocent of murder and refuse to call him names. Same with William Tyndale (although I don't know anything about him, honestly).

Do you apply same logic to truth of bible? It surely is mostly story about what so-and-so did hundreds of years ago.

Also, what "proof" do you have that Hitler was responsible for slaying millions of people, except "endless words, found in abundance"? THAT is the proof, if words are supported by enough of other evidence (unbiased author, two unreleated sources confirming each other, etc...)

I understand you probably won't admit it, but christianity has simply ended with it's reign of slowing advancement of mankind. It has withdrawn from most fronts it was fighting for (provable things), and tries to remain in area of yet-unknown. Or, it tries to prevent people from gaining knowledge, so that there are more unknown areas (how does "love" work? why do man's mind tend to create religion?) Be sure that science will soon cover these area too, and i hope this information will spread.
Post 20 Jul 2007, 21:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
rugxulo wrote:
...not all Biblical translations are created equal. And not every so-called "gospel" is truly in accord with the others. Therefore, much care and concern must be taken before translating and spreading a translated Bible willy-nilly with no concern over correctness or absurdity, mistranslation, sacrilege, blasphemy, etc. (I am just saying, in theory, it would be bad. I haven't read Tyndale's Bible personally and don't need to.)

yes, I too have not read Tyndale's Bible, but, if I never read it, I still will not need that excuse to justify his EXECUTION, for committing the crime of translating the Bible into English.
Please try, rugxulo, to use a little logic. You write that not every version of the Bible is correct, implying that Tyndale's INCORRECT VERSION justified his execution. Nonsense, I suspect that Tyndale's version HAD LOTS OF ERRORS. So what? Which version DOES NOT have any errors????
Doesn't EVERY "holy book" have beaucoup errors? The FACT (I will grant you your wish to have Tyndale's version FILLED with mistakes) that Tyndale goofed, and wrote MANY INCORRECT STATEMENTS, does not, to my way of thinking, JUSTIFY HIS EXECUTION.
So, even if his version was UTTERLY FALSE, COMPLETELY WRONG on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE OF ANY SUBSTANCE, still, I can not understand how anyone would kill him for this, even if he had DELIBERATELY FALSIFIED THE TEXT, and I think even the Catholic Church does not make that ridiculous claim about Tyndale. No. In my opinion, Sir Thomas More ordered the execution of honest Christian Englishmen for possesion of Bibles written in English, because these honest English Christians were DEFIANT of the Roman PAPAL AUTHORITY to issue TRUTH about the Bible. Rugxulo, EVEN IN MY OWN LIFE, half a century ago, when I was just a boy, going to Church every Sunday, as an eleven year old kid, I wondered why the Catholics NEVER referred to the Bible. I asked my father about it, and he told me, as a devout Catholic, that Catholics believe that it is NOT POSSIBLE for ordinary people to understand the Bible. The Church, according to my father, required its "flock" to look to the Priesthood, (i.e. the pedophiles) for instruction about the meaning of the Bible. Now, in that context, five hundred years ago, I can understand Thomas More. He was not ashamed to murder innocent Christians, because he believed that they threatened Catholicism, by making the Bible available to anyone, at any time, to read at their leisure, RATHER THAN REQUIRE those ordinary people TO COME TO CHURCH, and listen to the Pedophiles tell them what to believe, and make sure the ordinary citizens pay their ten percent tax. If ordinary people could read the Bible, without instruction from the Pope, then, why would they need to pay the additional tax? There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to justify either the papacy or the 10% tax to the pedophiles.
rugxulo wrote:
...I assume Thomas More is innocent of murder and refuse to call him names...
Well, I do not require you to call him names, I do require you to acknowledge AGREEMENT with More's assault on and MURDER of innocent Christians, if you do agree with him. I am not asking you to base this opinion on OTHER'S WRITINGS, but on MORE's OWN WORDS:

Sir Thomas More, Chancellor of England, wrote:
"and for heretics, as they be, the clergy doth denounce them; and, as they be well worthy, the temporality doth burn them; and after the fire of Smithfield hell doth receive them, where the wretches burn forever."

Were they "worthy" rugxulo? Was More correct to burn at the stake these Christian Englishmen with their English bibles?

vid wrote:

Older ones tend to call christ "chosen of god", not "son of god",

Yes, exactly right, vid, and let us not forget the Koran, at least the part not eaten by the goat, which similarly refers to Jesus as a prophet, not a god. A lot can happen in a couple thousand years, to history, to documents, to books, and to translations.
Post 21 Jul 2007, 00:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Recently I became quiet on a lot of forums/online activity, due to some of my (personal) work I have to do Sad

Again and again, everywhere I look there's a discussion about religion. And it's always starting from different subjects, most times. Confused

Now I am 'open minded' enough and wise to understand my limits. What limits am I talking about? Take this example:

Blind person asks: "How does green look?"
You are supposed to answer him, only with simple words. Remember he seeks how does it look (i.e the color) not some "light-waves intercepting your retina" because that won't make him able to 'know' how it looks (i.e visualize).

Please answer the question above before making any comments. Here's a quote to explain this concept:

vid wrote:
Be sure that science will soon cover these area too, and i hope this information will spread.
First of all, if you didn't have eyes (just for example) you would never "cover the looks of colors" just as you don't cover the Infrared light right now (not some device which reads it and outputs color which we percieve, but imagine a natural eye to infrared instead). In fact, the 'green' we see isn't even significant because it's only the illusion of our eye.. Is it?

But if humans didn't have eyes no one would even discover light by now since it would have never been accepted as "proof". If one man had eyes while others didn't, what could he have done to prove light to them?. Please do not say "genetically mutate them" because it's like saying: "I will genetically mutate you to see God/whatever spirituality." would you agree? (in fact, how do you know he isn't going to kill you so you'll end up with God? Just an example Laughing).

In short, no one would believe the man with eyes (if they were all else blind). Would 'science' be called "all-knowing" in this situation? Maybe only for the man with eyes, but not for the others.

In fact, the "yet to be covered" areas in science like "light" (for the blind people) will actually never be covered. If people don't have eyes they can't prove light.

Again the example above was illustrating if "all humans" (except one) didn't have eyes.


The example doesn't have to do with the Bible or Christian God either. It only states the limits of science. We should all be aware of that and understand it. Some people just make a God out of science.

As far as I'm concerned, we could as well be in a virtual simulation by some other "aliens". And this world is just some virtual simulation (atoms instead of polygons for example Very Happy).

Will science ever be able to "cover this area" as well? I doubt it. In fact, if this virtual simulation is completely "virtual" (that is, atoms, energy, laws of physics, do not apply in the "outside world" of aliens, much like our virtual worlds don't (we use bits, not atoms, to represent our virtual worlds).. Maybe Aliens use atoms to represent this virtual world, and their world is completely different.


Personally, if you for example just went into a black hole, saw something extraordinary (not necessarily God or anything like that), and then came back.. how would you be able to explain this to your fellow 'scientists' which were your friends before, who understood you, but now they all say you think like a chicken with childish comments.

This was only an example (again not referring to a Bible or specific God).

vid wrote:
Also, what "proof" do you have that Hitler was responsible for slaying millions of people, except "endless words, found in abundance"? THAT is the proof, if words are supported by enough of other evidence (unbiased author, two unreleated sources confirming each other, etc...)
What does "unrelated" mean? Many things are secretiously manipulated as well, especially information. In reality though it can be different.

And remember, popularity (aka the more, the better) doesn't imply truth either. As an example (only an example btw) just because there is only one human capable of understanding 'something' while others struggle in that area (much as monkeys struggle with our everyday bussinesses Wink ) doesn't mean that single man is wrong. No one else accepts it as proof from him as it may be either incomprehensible for them or simply bash it as absurdity.

Monkeys don't take our proofs either Very Happy


------------------
Here's an interesting book I found randomly few days ago. The Blind Atheist. Please read it with an open mind.

Note that the book says nothing about Christianity or any specific God. But it does cover the 'limits' and blindness of atheists from a simple 'example' view. (compares us to fish, or animals... surely atheists agree with this right, since we all evolved from animals in that theory). What if the Universe is just one giant Fish bowl we live in? And obviously some mega giants are our masters? Very Happy

By the way, if you don't wanna read it 'cause it's long, I can understand. But please read at least Chapter 2, it is for me the most significant and I found it highly informative.

Agnostics aren't covered however Wink


It's been a while since I were on forums and had the time to do this, so I apologize if I have mistaken the thread for something else. Please understand. Smile
Post 23 Jul 2007, 20:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
But if humans didn't have eyes no one would even discover light by now since it would have never been accepted as "proof".

Here you are terribly wrong. It is possible to detect light by other acceptable ways than just by our retina/brain sensory.

Quote:
In short, no one would believe the man with eyes (if they were all else blind). Would 'science' be called "all-knowing" in this situation? Maybe only for the man with eyes, but not for the others.

No they wouldn't "believe" him. In fact, no real scientist would ever "believe". He would rather make observations, formulate theories that make predictions, and test those predictions to either validate or invalidate theories. And slowly, they would find out truth.

If human eyes were able to see infrared light, you would use same argument regarding it. We can't see infrared light, yet we have discovered and proved it. Almost everyone (including you i bet) both "believe" and have proofs of infrared light. I hope this analogy is enough to dismiss your "eyes" argument.

(by the way, science already made it possible to make completely blind people see at least little, even though it is of no importance to this debate)

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, we could as well be in a virtual simulation by some other "aliens". And this world is just some virtual simulation (atoms instead of polygons for example ).

If that simulation would be imperfect, we would be able to discover it. If that simulation would be perfect, it wouldn't matter at all to anything whether we are in simulation or not. "Our" world will be exactly same in both cases.

Quote:
The example doesn't have to do with the Bible or Christian God either. It only states the limits of science. We should all be aware of that and understand it. Some people just make a God out of science.
Limits of science are well defined. Many claims from bible fall within these limits, and are obviously false. Idea of omnipotent being can be disproven in area of science, by using logic.

Idea of creator of everything cannot be disproven, but it was showed that it is very uncertain, exactly like idea about invisible pink unicorn for example. Majority of what we see around is already explained to be created just with bunch of very simple physical laws. All that is left to creator is just creating world with few very simple principes, and letting it work to create more complicated things... not really what most people advocating these idea believe.

Quote:
Personally, if you for example just went into a black hole, saw something extraordinary (not necessarily God or anything like that), and then came back.. how would you be able to explain this to your fellow 'scientists' which were your friends before, who understood you, but now they all say you think like a chicken with childish comments.

no, there is no reason to "tell" something to scientist. It is of no importance to real truth what anyone tells, or what he believes, or believes to have seen. Neither of these makes truth. Important are those things which can be repeatedly proven. I would rather try to scientifically explain and understand what i have seen.

Quote:
And remember, popularity (aka the more, the better) doesn't imply truth either. As an example (only an example btw) just because there is only one human capable of understanding 'something' while others struggle in that area (much as monkeys struggle with our everyday bussinesses ) doesn't mean that single man is wrong. No one else accepts it as proof from him as it may be either incomprehensible for them or simply bash it as absurdity.

I am glad you understand this. But I don't understand part "accept it as a proof". What proof? Telling someone that i understand something is not a proof, and shouldn't be accepted. Also prove is something that should be repeatable by (almost) anyone, otherwise i can claim anything and tell that only i can prove it. I hope you understand now why science can't accept such "proofs".

I will read the book you gave, or at least until i find too many logical errors and decide it's not worth (like most stuff out there) Wink

Meanwhile, i got something for you to read too. You demonstrated that you have "popular" view on what science is, and don't really understand it. I hope you could be interested in learning something about science. I was looking a lot for some good description of science (i am pretty sure i have read few), but best i could remember was this one, already posted on this board: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=7044. It isn't so strictly focused on science, but explains things well enough i hope.


Last edited by vid on 23 Jul 2007, 21:55; edited 1 time in total
Post 23 Jul 2007, 21:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
The Blind Atheist book wrote:

If you have an opinion about origins that cannot be changed based on scientific fact or logic, keep browsing; but if you read this book with an open (yes, even tolerant) mind, it's very unlikely you will regard life as anything other than a work of a creator.

this introduction practicaly tells me not to read this book Laughing
but i will still give it a shot...
Post 23 Jul 2007, 21:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
okay, i have read the chapter 2 of blind atheist.

First half is okay, but he gets terribly wrong in second half. If something is really "outside bowl", eg. perfect simulation, then it is not subject to being explored by science, because it simply cannot be explored. Nor by science, nor by praying, nor by divine relevations, nor by any scriptures from within the bowl.

Quote:
The very definition of God implies knowledge and power far beyond our own.
This is the problem with most such writing. He is refering definition of god, but he failed to tell us what this definition is. Which is wise from him, most people won't notice it. And immediately when he would give any definition, he would claim some knowledge about things from outside of bowl, which he himself said is not possible to obtain. It is precisely these "creationists" (or how to call them) who claim some knowledge from outside of bowl, not scientists. Scientists don't say anything about thing outside of bowl (those which are not explorable by science), nor they say they know if there is or isn't any kind of bowl around us.
Post 23 Jul 2007, 21:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.