Originally posted by Nasica

 

 

Basically, all im asking is. If completely new information was added to the bible, not refinement of translation, but new literary text from known sources which do not fit with our current understanding of Christ, would we be so quick to change our ways.
And what does that say to the true meaning of the bible ?

I think that after 1600 years, the structure of the bible is pretty much fixed, no matter what is found.

Originally posted by Nasica

I have a question to ask the Christians in this forum.
If, tomorrow, we were to discover documents on the same scale as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in those documents was proof that something in the bible had been misrepresented. What would, in your opinion, be the reaction of your particular church ?

Would the new discovery just be 'tricks of the devil' ?
Would the Bible be changed to reflect the new evidence ?
Would the entire thing be glossed over and forgotten ?

 

I guess it would depend what the new information was. I think the Dead Sea Scrolls stuff has had little impact on most churches as the new gospels (which tend to be sayings rather than stories, from what I've read) are considered to be texts from a different sect and are generally thought to carry less authority.

My guess is that you'd see all three in different churches, if there was some major new revelation found.

I think a key difference here though than with the book of Mormon is that a change in a new translation of the bible is based on (often many) original texts, and can be verfied by various scholars (often with alternative translation added to the margin). I'm not sure who had authority to change the BoM or what they would base such a change on.

Originally posted by Aguy

Originally posted by upallnight

This is disgusting. 

 

The Hidden Truth Behind Hotel Drinking Glasses

Wow, thank you for bringing this to my attention!  I mean, with all the war, revolution, killing, communism, slavery and tyranny going on in the world, we definitely need to stay informed about hotel drinking cups.

To be fair, this is something which most of us are more likely to be directly confronted with than the list you mention, but your point is well made. Of course, we could say the same about every post on this site which doesn't cover war, slavery etc. How the latest MMO is going to do PvP doesn't come very high on that list either.

Originally posted by windstrike1

 

Originally posted by EggFtegg

Your enthusiasm is inspiring. Read this, this and this and set mind free to concentrate on genuine issues which actually exist and matter.

For further research into 9/11 start here.

 

Oh ok, now that I see whats on Geocities, I feel much differently.  Thanks for these top notch research links.  You've already made clear you're inability to think critically.  No need to prove it further. 

I've no idea how much of this video you have taken on board as truth, but if you're going to try to mock my critical thinking, perhaps you better start producing some links and evidence to back up whatever it is you're claiming is actually going on.

With two hours of footage, it's hard to know where to start the debunking.

...and why was it that something posted on Geocities carries any less weight than someone making a movie and buying a .com site for it? Is it something to do with having a little money to buy a domain name or is it the added scary music and a talent for the dramatic?

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

 

Originally posted by EggFtegg

Your enthusiasm is inspiring. Read this, this and this and set mind free to concentrate on genuine issues which actually exist and matter.

For further research into 9/11 start here.

 

Not bad links, but you need to ditch the answering infidels link. I'm an atheist not an anti-theist so I really could care less what you believe so long as you don't get pushy about it. Just answering one text is pretty weak considering that vast bulk of material criticizing the basis of religion going back thousands of years. It's a matter of faith and I don't have any faith that there is a personal God. I can't say that there isn't a God but, from the historical perspective, it's more than likely that if a supreme being exists it doesn't give a damn about humanity at all. Your opinion is no more valid than mine when it comes to religion so just let it be.

The rest was pretty good though.

Btw, I thought you made a great point about doing nothing but create paranoia and a feeling of helplessness.

Originally posted by windstrike1

 

Originally posted by MR-Bubbles

a good conspiacy theory

 

I find it mind boggling how many people still don't understand 9/11.  Do you even know what the words "conspiracy theory" mean?  It means it's bunch of BS? LOL No, it means you are illiterate if you still don't get it.  But whatever.  5% of the colonists won our liberty the first time.  Frankly, we really don't need you this time either. 

Your enthusiasm is inspiring. Read this, this and this and set mind free to concentrate on genuine issues which actually exist and matter.

For further research into 9/11 start here.

Jesus was invented so that the Rockefellas could kill Americans to make more money. Who knew?

Originally posted by windstrike1

 

Originally posted by Draenor

Originally posted by windstrike1

As I understand it, Satan was the #1 Angel, just behind God in the structure of power in Heaven.  I believe he went by the name Lucifer when he was in Heaven actually.  He was by far the brightest of the Angels and would sit on Gods throne when God was not present, so the story goes.  Lucifer is also known as the Light Bearer, the Morning Star, or the Light Bringer.  All was well until the Light Bearer decided that God was not worthy of his servitude.  Then came the war, and expulsion from Heaven.

 

I'm not trying to make fun of you...but go find where that is located in the Bible

I don't know.  Isn't that in the Bible?  What parts of what I wrote do you find inaccurate?  I'm genuinely curious to learn more about the topic.  Please, do tell me where I've lost the plot, so to speak.

 

This is the common story, and you'll find many Christians repeating a similar plot. As far as I'm aware this comes largely from Isiah 14 of the King James Bible ""How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!". I believe this is the only place where the word "Lucifer" is used in the bible.

It seems a whole myth was based around this passage, which according to the original Hebrew should have read "son of dawn" and not "Lucifer" and appears to be referring to a Babylonian king and not Satan. I'm not sure of any other Biblical reference which lends any support for the whole "light-bearer" thing.

Revelation 12 talks about a war in heaven and Satan as a dragon being cast into the earth and his angels being cast out with him after losing the war. It's unclear who cast him out or what the war might have been about and what the dragon was doing in heaven in the first place, but then Revelation isn't a particularly clear book at the best of times.

Originally posted by LeJohn

It depends on the game how much but PVP detracts from any MMORPG game. Notice I said mmoRPG not MMOG.

PVP is for team V team games but not RPG games.  Remember back to when you played P&P games, other than when you were PO by a fellow player did you ever fight another player?  NO. that because all P&P RPGs were COOP games. Yes, BattleTECH and WH2k were team battles but if you played a ShadowRUN, MechWARRIOR, D&D, CC or any other Role Playing Game and you played as a team to fight a commen enemy.

Remember playing DOOM?  What made the game a classic, was it the doom matches?.. No it was that you played COOP to beat the game.

How many of you played Dukenukem 3,  What made that game such a ledgend, was it the ability to play in dukematches?  No it was that you could start a lan game and play COOP to beat the game.

Diablo1/2  Was PVP important? Heck no, what was important was getting a good team of roughly the same lvl players and COOP fighting your way to Diablo then beating him on the head with Wirt's leg ...

 

The point, PVP in a RPG is there to give players that don't play well with others something too do, but at best it only detracts from the game.  Now don't get me wrong PVP does have it's place, I love BF2, COD, CS and am playing Quakewars, you know game styles where PVP actully belongs. 

So you may have a party of five working together on a particular adventure, but they might meet a rival party prepared to fight to be the ones to achieve the same goal. For the game to be about thousands of people all working together for the same goal is pretty unrealistic in that kind of world.

PvP does not mean an end to co-operation. If anything, done properly, it creates a greater need for co-operation. You're unlikely to make better friends than in a game where you have a lot to lose - sure, you'll have enemies too, but conflict creates stories when you're role-playing.

For me, good role-play requires choice - that is a great strength of the pen & paper games. If you want to butcher a fellow party member, that is up to you. You probably wouldn't, but the option is a real one. Having a game mechanic restricting you in this way is not an aid for role-play and creates relationships based on a false reality.

I'm not a great PvPer in these games. In fact I'm almost certain to refuse if someone challenges me to a duel for no reason.  However, I like what you get that goes along with PvP - the danger, the closer community (with those on your side), the politics and the player driven story lines, but most of all, the choice.

So long as good PvP is factored into the game instead of added as an afterthought it can add a huge dimension to the game (whether you're into fighting or not) in terms of player driven goals, politics, the need to socialise and an added importance to crafting.

I'd play a good PvE mmorpg, but for long term appeal, I'd want a bit more than that.

I wonder if we had the scenario where the older RTS games no longer worked on our latest version of Windows, so we all had to choose from the latest releases, but all new RTS games, while looking really impressive, had been significantly dumbed down for mass appeal.

Say, you no longer had to choose in what order to build things, or work out the best strategy for defending the resource spots. The AI decided your formations and attack roots and all you need to do is select keys 1-10 to send your troops out in slightly different ways. One RTS had done this and had significant success and all the other now copied it.

I would then expect to see forums with thousands of posts talking about the good old days of the RTS and longing for one company to break the mold.

People with the best intentions can find that the reality of giving comfort to someone in such positions you mention is that it's time consuming and emotionally draining, or uncomfortable dealing with such deep felt emotions and maybe they don't want to be reminded of their own hurts. It's at these times in your life when you find out who your friends really are.

Originally posted by Draenor
 

ps. to compare this to changes of translation and interpretation of the Bible itself is to compare apples to oranges.  The Book of mormon was written in modern English and has dozens of things in it that are just plain wrong or completely without evidence or Biblical support (believing that jesus and Satan were brothers, beleiving that Jesus came to America hundreds of years after the cross)  You're talking about translations of a book written mostly in ancient Greek and Hebrew, of course there are going to be some disagreements about exact translations.

Not to mention that in the case of the bible there are actually available texts in the original languages for scholars to be able to debate the translations at all.

I have no intention of paying for a game with such mixed reviews and possible performance issues, without trying it first on my PC. If they gave you the client and a month play for free, I would probably give it a try.

Apparently there have been around 4000 changes made since Joseph Smith declared the book of Mormon to be "the most correct of any book on earth". Most were spelling and grammar changes, but certainly not all. I don't imagine another change here or there will make a great deal of difference at this point.

Supposedly, Smith translated tablets which he found and subsequently lost, by the power of God, since he couldn't speak the language they were in. If that's true then God clearly speaks a strange ungrammatical version of attempted 17th Century English, and can't spell so well.

Originally posted by miffywiffy

In England the right lane is for overtaking and the left is the driving lane.

Indeed. The left lane is the right lane and the right lane is the wrong lane.

Originally posted by crazyiven

I would suggest that those of you complaining about proper spelling and grammar go back and check what you posted.  I know my skills are not the greatest, but when you complain about other people. Where does that put you? I found problems in all your post, so you all get an F.

Hmm...now I'm complaining about those complaining about those complaining...

Originally posted by Centhan

 

Some of my favorites are…

 

“Your an idiot!”

“I no your an idiot!”

“There wrong!”

“Their wrong!”

“That’s rediculous!”

“Where the best!”

 

Yes, for those of you who don’t know, here’s your first English 101 lesson..

 

Your is not the same as You’re (which is a contraction of YOU ARE)

No is NOT the same as know

There, Their, and They're are NOT the same things (you look them up as your homework assignment)

Rediculous is spelled RIDICULOUS !

Where is NOT the same as We’re (WE ARE)

 

Other than the issue of making many of the readers assume you're a bit thick, nobody's actually mentioned the whole point of having decent spelling and grammar (or at least some kind of standardization). It's to make yourself understood, which I would have thought mattered if you were going to the effort of typing something into a forum in the first place.

Originally posted by Vhayne

As stated above.  The problem is that the costs are too high.  Why are they too high? Well it's because like all other companies, the medical companies want to make money.  They want to make ALOT of money.  The have seen how, because of health insurance, people can still technically be charged more for a service or product, and they are exploiting it.

Without further legislation many of the same factors apply to the economics - pharmaceutical companies are just as likely to raise their prices whether it's the government or insurance companies paying. Instead of insurance prices going up, taxes go up or other government services suffer.

I'm in the UK and while I certainly appreciate the paid holiday leave I get and that I wouldn't have to pay for essential medical treatment, about half of the money I earn makes its way into government or council coffers (and I'm not a high earner) and our high street prices, not to mention housing prices are some of the more expensive in the world.

High taxes can have a bad effect on he psyche of a nation, in that many people expect the government to do things for them rather than being self-reliant and they expect the government to do things for others and so are less likely to give to charities (especially when the government takes so much that you can only just get by).

There's good and bad in a national health service. Our medical staff are generally overworked and underpaid, there are the usual inefficiences of nationalised industry and even with high taxes, our hospitals are severely underfunded and priortising cases means long waiting list for patients seen as needing non-urgent procedures. I believe there are other European countries who do it better than us, but I wouldn't say it is necessarily an all-round a better system than the USA have.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US, can't you pay for medical insurance which covers more if not all of the costs of needed medical procedures?