Originally posted by Signe

Originally posted by phatpetey

I heard the pirates game wasn't that really good. So the site that gave away that price was just picking out a random game...

I don't understand.

explain phats? Pirates of the Caribbean is quite good, its the burning sea one that I hear is not all that.

Originally posted by nomadian

Why we're talking about Pirates, isn't Pirates of the Burning Sea meant to be quite decent?

lol, pirates of the burning sea doesnt come close.

Originally posted by HYPERI0N

Originally posted by xpowderx

Well of course there are many sites that offer Game of the Year ect. But this source is quite credible. Heres the link!  www.gameindustry.com/goty/winners.asp

And why is it as you put it "quite credible"?

Hyperion GIN is part of the G4 network. Guess thats the big difference. Most sites like here and others are not. So yes its credible.

Well of course there are many sites that offer Game of the Year ect. But this source is quite credible. Heres the link!  www.gameindustry.com/goty/winners.asp

Originally posted by Czzarre

I think anyones whos ever been guilded in WoW has experienced some sort of MMORPG drama. Collectivly, however, I would say the SWG CU/NGE changes would be the greatest,

Torrential

I completely agree with Czzarre SWG/CU has been by far the biggest drama fest since EQ developers left Sony and formed Mythic Ent(Dark Age of Camelot). That runs a close second.

Pirates of the Caribbean Online won "Best Online Only" game of the year and was runner up to "Best Game of the year". I play Pirates of the Caribbean and must say I could not agree more! Congrats to Disney on a very good game!

Originally posted by MadAce

 

Originally posted by xpowderx

 

Originally posted by MadAce

 

Originally posted by Umbrood

 

Originally posted by MadAce

 

Originally posted by Umbrood

 

As to the bible, or any ancient text of religion created to "guide" us?

They are ultimate tools of power for those who wield them.

Nothing more, nothing less, and they will be used like that until the day humanity rids itself of its greatest ball and chain.

Religion is like communism, a great idea on paper but utterly horrible as soon as you involve real people.

 

 

I bet you believe in the merits of science, right?

Not sure I understand the question, but yes I believe in science, if I can understand it.

 

You were bashing religion.

 

What does science tell you about religion? Does religion have a reason for existence according to science?

 

 

The question really should say "What does religion tell us about science? Which came first, which is nothing more than a break off of the other? I want to know about those Sun worshiping cave men who were mad scientist's!! Really I do!! While these questions may look credible due to our current ideology, education and moral value. In part the question is quite biased. Science would not even look at that question unless it is only for the present.

 

While this question may be valid at this moment in time. It really does not have much credibility historically. My hope is those who post , post carefully thought out answers.

 

Don't evade the question by asking one of your own. A very childish question yours is, btw. Scientific method is very new to religion.

So PLEASE look up what science tells us about religion. Maybe it'll make you stop your pointless religion bashing.

 

Originally posted by nurgles

Originally posted by MadAce

 

 

What does science tell you about religion? Does religion have a reason for existence according to science?

 

 

But let’s take one example of these stories and see if it is always successful. "thou shall go forth and procreate" therefore contraception is sinful.

Telling to go forth and procreate does not equal not to practice contraception. Your interpretation is skewed.

 

BTW, priests, celibacy.

 

Originally posted by nurgles

Originally posted by xpowderx

 

 

What does science tell you about religion? Does religion have a reason for existence according to science?

 

 

The question really should say "What does religion tell us about science? Which came first, which is nothing more than a break off of the other? I want to know about those Sun worshiping cave men who were mad scientist's!! Really I do!! While these questions may look credible due to our current ideology, education and moral value. In part the question is quite biased. Science would not even look at that question unless it is only for the present.

 

While this question may be valid at this moment in time. It really does not have much credibility historically. My hope is those who post , post carefully thought out answers.

 science is simply a tool, like language, spears etc,  it does not give any moral value to anything.

 

 

Religion is a tool too.

 

And scientific reason can give us a moral compass.

The questions I asked were very sincere. I wont apologize if someone does not like them. Because honestly they should be addressed before taking this debate further. You are right, religion is a tool as is science. Its a big high-five for being programmed. My questions in the above post still stand.

Originally posted by summitus

Originally posted by Draenor

Because the Universe is not infinite...there are various theories about this, I won't go into them unless you're genuinely interested and can't google search it :)

Ok so if the Universe is not infinite surely there would still be Infinite empty space yes ?

lololol.. good question..

Originally posted by MadAce

 

Originally posted by Umbrood

 

Originally posted by MadAce

 

Originally posted by Umbrood

 

As to the bible, or any ancient text of religion created to "guide" us?

They are ultimate tools of power for those who wield them.

Nothing more, nothing less, and they will be used like that until the day humanity rids itself of its greatest ball and chain.

Religion is like communism, a great idea on paper but utterly horrible as soon as you involve real people.

 

 

I bet you believe in the merits of science, right?

Not sure I understand the question, but yes I believe in science, if I can understand it.

 

You were bashing religion.

 

What does science tell you about religion? Does religion have a reason for existence according to science?

 

 

While this question may be valid at this moment in time. It really does not have much credibility historically. My hope is those who post , post carefully thought out answers.

Took me a little bit, but here is the answer so many wanted along time ago. Thanks to Time Magazine which ill reference in link as well as post here. Why this changes much of conventional science thought.

Weighing the Universe

Scientists discover mass in the tiny neutrino--maybe even enough to reverse the Big Bang

By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK

Physicists love nothing more than announcing a discovery that rewrites the textbooks--unless, perhaps, it's a discovery that rewrites two textbooks at once. That's evidently what happened last week at a scientific conference in Japan. An international team of 120 physicists reported that the neutrino, a subatomic particle long thought to be utterly without mass, actually weighs in at a tiny fraction of the mass of the electron (until now, the lightest particle known). For elementary-particle physicists, that means their most basic theories will have to be rewritten; for astronomers, it means that the missing "dark matter" believed to pervade the cosmos and far outweigh the visible stars may no longer be missing.

Evidence that neutrinos have mass has been reported before, but the measurements were so marginal that they left more room for doubt than confidence. Not this time. The Super-Kamiokande neutrino observatory, a stainless-steel chamber filled with 12.5 million gal. of water, lined with sensitive light detectors and located deep underground in an old zinc mine near the city of Takayama, is among the most sensitive instruments of its kind in the world. The physicists who use it are widely recognized as extremely careful experimenters. And, says University of Hawaii physicist John Learned, there wasn't much doubt about what they saw. "It was," he says, "something like a big fish slapping you on the face."

Even so, the detection was indirect: what the physicists actually saw was flashes of light caused by fallout from rare but occasional collisions between neutrinos and water molecules. There were fewer flashes than expected from so-called muon neutrinos, suggesting that some of them had changed into another type, called tau neutrinos. Arcane theory dictates that neutrinos can't change form unless they have mass--though scientists can't say precisely what that mass is.

For particle physicists, the answer hardly matters; the mere fact of neutrino mass will force a rethinking of the "standard model"--the theoretical framework of all subatomic physics. For cosmology, there could be even more tangible consequences. The universe is teeming with neutrinos--so many that trillions of them pass through every human being on Earth every second (fortunately, without doing any damage). Even a minuscule mass could give them enough combined gravity to slow the expansion of the universe that followed the Big Bang. They might conceivably even reverse it, leading to a cosmic catastrophe aptly named the Big Crunch. No need to panic, though; it won't happen for tens of billions of years.

The link:  neutrino.phys.washington.edu/~superk/news/time_980615.html

Thanks!!

Originally posted by rsreston

If you like a 7.5 girl it's ok - just be sure to know that when someone loves another person, looks are secondary.

Now this sounds weird to me: a person you met online spent some hundreds of dollars to buy a gift for another person she's never met. She might be crazy - at least.

Now, she's coming over. I'd say she is probably interested in you - very much, because she's spending a lot of money. Which is weird because usually women don't express love materially.

Now, you have to know that sex is a possible outcome of a date. If she's inclined to do it, she'll let you know. And if you do not comply, you may have broken her heart. She might then leave thinking she was so stupid buying all that stuff for you, and you rejected her.

Normally, men buy women gifts - not the other way around. Gifts are usually seen as tokens of men's appreciation - but they don't t guarantee sex. Women have the final word on that. What is happening to you is what goes through the mind of some women during their first dates: "If he/she gives me a gift/pays for the dinner, should I reward him with sex?" This is your first date with this woman - are you willing to have sex with her this first time? What will she think of you? That you're too easy? That you're going to have sex with anyone that gives you a pretty gift?

The nonsense apart, this is why the good guy in the movies sometimes refuses to accept an expensive gift from someone - because they don't want to be in someone's debt. Now the family of this girl might be the owner of, say, Microsoft - and thus buying a PS3 wouldn't be much - just like a normal visiting present (a bottle of wine, for example) should cost. But you have to check that with your life standards.

I hope this girl reads your post and sees she's going after someone whose first thought is: "Will I [have sex] with this 7.5/10 female after receiving her precious gift?" - oh, I've just realized why women don't give men gifts: the women already have THE GIFT to give to them - they just have to know if they're worth of receiving it.

You do not sacrifice one part of your ideal to get a little of another. Often one will say"Well shes/he is  very nice. Not that good looking but I still can make it happen. I can change her/him. This is a classic case of having expectations that will rarely ever be met. This is not just looks in this case. Often we over exert some things in hopes others will get better. The best way to look at it is; If its a apple its a apple, if its a orange its a orange. The apple is not a orange no matter what you do.

An important question today  is how much mass is contained in the universe. If there were no matter filling the universe, the universe would expand forever and the recession velocity of objects at rest with respect to the expansion of the universe would not change as the universe expands.

We know, of course, that the universe is not empty but filled with matter, and ordinary matter through gravity attracts other matter, causing the expansion of the universe to slow down. If the density of the universe exceeds a certain threshold known as the critical density, this gravitational attraction is strong enough to stop and later reverse the expansion of the universe, causing it eventually to recollapse in what is known as the "Big Crunch." On the other hand, if the average density of the Universe falls short of the critical density, the universe expands forever, and after a certain point the expansion proceeds much as if the universe were empty. A critical universe lies precariously balanced between these two possibilities.

Originally posted by Nasica

 

Originally posted by wikie

is there a proof that universe is not infinite?

According to all observable data and the best representation of that data, known as the big bang model. Yes there is proof that the universe is not infinite in size.

 

Shortcomings of the Standard Cosmology

Despite the self-consistency and remarkable success of the standard Hot Big Bang model in describing the evolution of the universe back to only one hundreth of a second, a number of unanswered questions remain regarding the initial state of the universe.

The flatness problem

Why is the matter density of the universe so close to the unstable critical value between perpetual expansion and recollapse into a Big Crunch?

The horizon problem

Why does the universe look the same in all directions when it arises out of causally disconnected regions? This problem is most acute for the very smooth cosmic microwave background radiation.

The density fluctuation problem

The perturbations which gravitationally collapsed to form galaxies must have been primordial in origin; from whence did they arise?

The dark matter problem

Of what stuff is the Universe predominantly made? Nucleosynthesis calculations suggest that the darrk matter of the Universe does not consist of ordinary matter - neutrons and protons?

The exotic relics problem

Phase transitions in the early universe inevitably give rise to topological defects, such as monopoles, and exotic particles. Why don't we see them today?

The thermal state problem

Why should the universe begin in thermal equilibrium when there is no mechanism by which it can be maintained at very high temperatures.

The cosmological constant problem

Why is the cosmological constant 120 orders of magnitude smaller than naively expected from quantum gravity?

The singularity problem

The cosmological singularity at t=0 is an infinite energy density state, so general relativity predicts its own breakdown.

The timescale problem

Are independent measurements of the age of the Universe consistent using Hubble's constant and stellar lifetimes?

Originally posted by Gameloading

Sex in exchange for a Playstation 3 and an Xbox360 elite? Hell yeah!

I'd do it.

Thats a really good deal! I would do it too. She could be Mfugly even.. Can always close my eyes!

Dark Age of Camelot probably the l33+35+ of games. Especially RVR.. Have to be CORE to do that alot.

In general, lets see.. hmmm.. Well there were these two women in my bedroom this one time.. Ohh that was definitely up there on the l33+ games..

Well Draenor,

To put it politely. I am not too hip on misinformation. Thats groovy you want to debate the bible and or history of it. But honestly I am not going to debate on hearsay. So for your benefit concerning biblical omissions I will show just some in this link. While you make it out to seem as though it is not bad. I see it quite differently.

If you wish to see them visit www.theseason.org/omitted1.htm

Thanks!

Originally posted by Draenor

Originally posted by xpowderx

Originally posted by Draenor

 

Originally posted by porgie

I recently converted to Christianity.  I'm proud of my decision.  However, I don't think that anyone who is a conventional evangelical Christian would find they agree with me on too much.

I find it relatively easy to question items in the Bible that is of widespread use in most of the evangelical churches.  I know there are a some slight variations in that Bible even.  But I find it sad to hear people quote it as if it is absolute fact without question.

Even amongst the folks who have studied the ancient languages there is disagreement to some extent or another on what the translations are.  And even amongst those folks there are some scriptures where they almost unanimously disagree on what evangelicals use as translations.

The reason that I am prompted to write this is actually two reasons.  The motivation first off was a show that I was just watching about Jesus.  In it they were talking about Judas.  Judas has long been thought of in evangelical circles as the betrayer of Jesus.  But he wasn't.  They had a Greek language scholar say that those are mistranslations.  He even said it with a chuckle in his voice leading me to believe he was laughing at how crazy it all is.  He said those Greek passages say that Judas was simply the one that handed him over, not took money as betrayal.  In other words, Jesus told him to go to the high priests and turn him in.  He told him to because Judas was the one disciple he called his "friend" and that he trusted enough to perform the task.

Now, here's my other motivation.  I wonder if anyone who is an evangelical ever considers what they are doing?  If this is a mistranslation, then why aren't you guys able to question this and other mistranslations and have it fixed?  Why?  Is it because tradition is too strong a factor?  Or is it because if you question one mistranslation then the house of cards might come tumbling down?

I would think that people would want the truth to be told.  But then again, I have seen all too often where the truth has been hidden.

Also, the church I attend welcomes, even encourages, questions like this.  Our preacher will stand up and profess anything found by one of us to the whole during a sermon.  It's not hidden, it's opened.  Is this the case in your church?  Or does that King James version of the Bible just keep on trucking along no matter?

Background on my education:  Everyone at my school recieves a minor in Bible and theology, and some of my teachers are world renowned historians and archaologists who have appeared on various news programs.My school is www.youtube.com/watch

 

Now, that said, The whole Judas thing is a farce.  Especially if you're talking about the gospel of Judas, which was written hundreds of years after the canon was finalized by a group of people known as the gnostics, I'll let you do your own research on them. Gnostics were the groups that had the many books of the bible prior to Constantine. At the time the stories of the bible were greatly separated by land and people. Only brought together during the time of Constantine. Constantine in a effort to gain control of his empire was on the verge of civil war/collapse due to the cultural and ethnic belief systems at the time. Paganism(Roman gods) and Christianity.

Constantine brought both groups together through the various stories and teachings and formed the early christian church. It is not coincidence that a Catholic in his/her time of need prays directly to a specific saint depending on the need(Fertility,wealth,harvest ect.). As this was originally Roman during this time period.

For future reference use this link. gbgm-umc.org/UMW/bible/cea.stm

The Gnostic Bibles are not canon, nor are they even part of the Apocrypha...  Once again they were written around the second century AD and therefore should not be of any consideration when discussing the historical authenticity of any other part of scripture.  Constantine and all that jazz is all well and good, but it changes absolutely nothing.

As far as the translation itself, all four gospels paint  a picture of Judas that is very negative, and John's gospel even says that he stole from the funds of the disciples...Now I don't speak ancient Greek, nor do I have any of my teachers sitting next to me right now (that would be quite creepy) but I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that Bible scholars throughout time have simply ignored glaring mistranslations that Judas was actually Jesus' only real friend, and would instead paint a picture of him as a betrayer.  All that said, I would like to see the sources for the claims made by the documentary that you referenced, if they seem at all valid I'll gladly cross reference them with some of my teachers when I get back from Spring Break. 

As far as the translations used by most evangelical churches, you will find very few modern evangelical churches who use a King James translation.  Most of them use NIV, NASB, or even an NL...The King James is actually the preferred Bible of the mormon church due to its many flaws in translations (makes it easier to distort the meaning to fit with their beliefs about who Jesus is). Actually the King James version is the most complete of all the current bibles. Every version of the bible past the King James version has had many verses from various books omitted(removed) Are current day theologians correct in doing such? If it continues at its current rate the bible in a 100 years will be nothing more than a 10 page pamphlet..

The various books that you refer to are the apocrypha, the King James version included them because the predominant religion in England at the time was Catholicism.  People grew up with those books, despite the fact that they are not canon.  Their omission in modern BIbles is a result of criticism due to disputes over their authenticity.  Your sensationalist claim that in 100 years the Bible will be a ten page pamphet is completely off, as the only books omitted were ones that were already heavily disputed anyway.  To say that it is "The most complete" is very deceptive.  It is only the most complete if you are referring to the sheer number of texts contained withn it.  If you are refering to the actual translation and how complete and accurate the translations are, then you could not be further from the truth.

By the way, the apocrypha are omitted from modern Bibles because there is a great deal of dispute as to their authenticity...who wrote them, whether or not they are divinely inspired, the time in which they were written, and whe