Home
Top.Mail.Ru Yandeks.Metrika
Forum: "Grab";
Current archive: 2003.05.08;
Download: [xml.tar.bz2];

Down

--- | The branch was untitled | --- Find similar branches


Supreme 2   (2003-04-11 20:45) [0]

I am sure many will say - YES! But I haven’t, although I believed in 13 years ago, and then I stopped. He checked this way: when, for example, my stomach ached (severely and for a long time), I whispered something like - "Oh, God! If you exist, please make this pain go away! I will behave myself and all that. .. "- and nifiga did not help. Or such: “God, if you exist, give me some sign! Let, for example, the door open” - also did not help.
It just seems to me that all this has remained since ancient times.

PS> I have a friend, so he believes in paganism :)



Вадим   (2003-04-11 21:07) [1]

Deleted by moderator



Ketmar   (2003-04-11 21:32) [2]

and not a moron at all. just small and silly. if it survives to a conscious age (which is unlikely) - it will grow wiser. however, I suppose he would die from spermotoxicosis% - ((



DelAlanPhi   (2003-04-11 21:35) [3]

Well, in some aspects of life, paganism is much closer to me than Christianity.
And since God did not pay attention to Supreme 2 © with his "philosophical and ingenious" questions, then you should not believe in him: damn, he didn’t open the door for me. Since the stomach has not been cured, it has been scientifically proved that there is no god ... In general, all my writings come down to the post of Vadim © (11.04.03 21: 07)
PS Listen, you're probably a joker (years so 30 ~ 50) and laugh at our answers



k-man   (2003-04-11 22:20) [4]

Whoever you are, no matter what you believe in: at least do not touch religion! What to believe your business and do not show it off.
PS Maybe you have nothing to do?



sancho   (2003-04-11 22:28) [5]

Disagree with the author of the thread ...



Supreme 2   (2003-04-11 22:36) [6]

I just expressed my opinion.



Психиатр   (2003-04-11 23:06) [7]

You, Supreme 2, I'm already doing. The case is serious. For the time being, despite all my experience, I can’t determine whether you are a very thin wiring (and there are very obvious signs), or whether you have pronounced Lydberg-Staines syndrome. But I'm working !



Плохой человек   (2003-04-11 23:21) [8]

Well, I believed until 13 years. 13 is a bad number. Such a coincidence is not casual. You are a Satanist! Urgently go cleanse yourself, demon!



Слесарь Матерящийся   (2003-04-11 23:40) [9]

Personally, I believe in psychiatrists. Especially in spring and autumn



VEG   (2003-04-12 00:19) [10]

God wrote a buggy prog for the human brain, and from this man himself took up programming and wrote programs in the image and likeness.



VEG   (2003-04-12 00:21) [11]

Delirium ^ .Tremens © (21.01.03 14: 49)
In doubt, I'm completely confused,
His morning saw the reflection -
Is it really the same as God the father,
Kohl I - his likeness and creation? ..



VEG   (2003-04-12 00:24) [12]

Delirium ^ .Tremens © (22.01.03 11: 58)
What's the matter? Enlighten me, Lord! -
Sometimes, I do not even have time to gasp -
Just put the idea in the flesh -
They want to fuck her immediately!? ..
Copyright © Vitaliy



VEG   (2003-04-12 00:27) [13]

Dumkin © (24.01.03 11: 56)

I'm naked ass brought to heaven
I ask for help Vladyka
So do wonders rather
Let's go to the pants even a piece of bast

Oh god i'm dunking my head
in the holy corner of a long hole punched
so why is god still a goal?
sawdust we eat, pledged everything is alive?

Forgive me sitting in the clouds
but do not forgive - so my God fuck with you
I'll scam the meadows
and back? - Well, I'll cover my palm.

-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Delirium ^ .Tremens © (24.01.03 12: 39)
Inspired by Dumkin © (24.01.03 11: 56)

I'm going to heaven
I’m guessing a little thought:
Chi God is not there,
Chi weed is bad ...




VEG   (2003-04-12 00:32) [14]

Sergey Chursin (24.01.03 15: 04)
Someone will answer me - WHAT RELATIONSHIP has this fact (a banal transition to the individual) - to the truth as such? All these stories about "repentant" atheists - have no relation to whether there is a god or not. So what if someone is temporarily obsessed with grief or fear? And they begin to pray, and run to the sorcerer-sorcerers - it proves nothing, except that the person is weak ...;) As if some dying atheist suddenly baptized - God will appear in the universe ... Clown. It has been observed that such an “argument” —purely emotional pressure — is used more often by the least intellectually developed believers.
By the way, one of them will answer - why in the DNA: "From format.exe (.com, if it is easier for someone), we make a text editor, from it - Doom, from it - graph editor, from it - format.exe with a win-interface with reduced graphical file editing functions ... heh :) "

NOT IMPORTANT what you believe in there - the truth does not change. FACTS do not depend on your attitude to them



Johnmen   (2003-04-12 00:33) [15]

> VEG ©

"Ostap suffered ..." (c) Ilf and Petrov



VEG   (2003-04-12 00:36) [16]

VEG © (24.01.03 16: 29)
There is no god! Everything that is written in the Bible from the point of view of science is complete bullshit!


-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Mischka © (24.01.03 16: 33)
> VEG
:)
"What is your evidence?" - (quoted from the movie Red Heat)


-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Ketmar © (24.01.03 16: 39)
> Mischka © (24.01.03 16: 33)
but to prove that God must have believers. why? because there is such a science - logic. which says that it is necessary to justify the introduction of an extra entity.

Satanas Nobiscum! 24-Jan-XXXVIII AS


-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Mischka © (24.01.03 16: 43)
I put it wrong: How to prove that everything written in the Bible is bullshit. The existence of God is indeed questionable in terms of secular science.


-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Delirium ^ .Tremens © (24.01.03 16: 51)

> and to prove that God must have believers. why? because
> what is such a science-logic. which says you need
> justify the introduction of an extra entity.

What is the essence and where is the introduction? What are you talking about? Who should prove to whom? Who will prove that Satanas Nobiscum! ? And no one asks ...

> The existence of God is really questionable in terms of
> secular science.

The sphericity of the Earth was also in question at one time, but it did not become flat.




-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
VEG © (25.01.03 00: 40)
> Mischka
We read the beginning, where it is told about the fact that there was no light on our Earth due to the absence of the Sun, and in order for the sun to become bright on it ... the luminaries ... It would most likely be brought from some black hole ... And even then the whole Sun could not be - this is proved ...
We read further. We see that two dudes and animals were created, and dinosaurs have forgotten ...
Still all sorts of moments ...


-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Dumkin © (25.01.03 07: 38)
The trick is that Providence can always find 7-th proof of the existence of God - this is the last. All other people can easily fold back with their logic and other weapons of their own greatness. But what to do if 7 is presented to you? Maybe it is not, but nobody knows for certain.
It was presented to Berlioz at that moment when his head was rolling down the slope and drank wine from it, and who can prove what was different? Here the story with KAMAZ is played up, but only - this is quite another.
A man stands on the shore of the ocean of truth and plays shells (almost c.) - and at the same time he rejects with ease that which he may not even be able to smell. Although it may sit head to head in the swamp.
The logic is interesting and it is very funny to play it - but there’s no point, although it’s a little more than if you don’t know it at all, you know, the gain is insignificant.



VEG   (2003-04-12 00:38) [17]

Such a branch was in January. Here are all my statements + statements of others :)



Johnmen   (2003-04-12 00:40) [18]

You urgently need IMMODIUM !!!
And you diarrhea!



Мазут Береговой Рюрикович   (2003-04-12 01:32) [19]

Supreme 2.
But didn’t you think that your stomach pain is a sign of God that you shouldn’t eat something that is harmful to your body? It's like taking care of you stupid. And he doesn’t need you to go to church, but you need to listen to Him.



kaif   (2003-04-12 01:56) [20]

And every time I check the presence of God as follows. I sit down and mentally want to open the door. And when I make sure it’s impossible, I understand that there is a god. He is the guarantor for me that the laws of physics will work no matter what I think!



race1   (2003-04-12 05:47) [21]

I heard the opinion that God is a certain boundary of human spiritual contentment.

those. I tell myself - God is. thus I limited myself to the scope - since God is, that is, hell \ paradise. Of course I want to go to heaven. what is needed for this? "behave well." there to help one’s neighbor, prays to enemies, etc. etc.

then I tell myself - there is no God. this will eliminate the framework and
there is no longer a spiritual boundary. I don’t need to help my neighbor, in general, keep the commandments and live according to the law of God. it’s easier actually.

The believer feels responsible, perhaps, for the fact that God created him, gave this beautiful life, and the believer will try to justify himself, not to face the creator in the dirt.

here is such an interesting point of view. and mine is the only true one. and whether he really is or not is already the tenth thing, the main thing is the faith of man and the actions that result from it ...



Мазут Береговой Рюрикович   (2003-04-12 09:40) [22]

As I understand it, what is God: this is the level of "understanding" with the environment. The more active "mutual understanding", the closer you are to God, or rather to the state of God. As far as you understand, you feel what is happening around, how sincerely it comes from you. God is a mechanism that makes every entity live. This is not something abstract like in a church. This is a complex of energies of our constituents. Take one and all the rest to fall apart. Even simpler is the law of nature.



copyr25   (2003-04-12 09:55) [23]

> VEG © (12.04.03 00: 32):
> Someone will answer me-WHAT RELATIONSHIP has this fact
> (banal transition to personality) -to the truth as such?

May I try to answer?
The thing is that there is no God. Objectively. From the materialistic
point of view, so to speak.
No matter how strange it may sound from my lips, a believer.
God is not a physical law or field manifesting itself in
experiment. Recognition of divinity and nature and life
depends on human consciousness.
I probably won’t be able to express what I want, just
think that in nature there are not only objective facts -
natural phenomena, physical or chemical experiments.
Human consciousness is sometimes able to manifest itself,
as a material agent, but certainly not in the primitive case of opening / closing
the door :))
Remember the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Indeterminism.
(oh, Diamond Shark "ain't on me :))
The result of a microscopic experiment strongly depends on
how experience was set. Those. from the researcher.
From his consciousness, experience, knowledge, as you want, but from the human
staging. Quantum mechanics first discovered humanity
amazing truth: the result of an experiment may depend
from the will of the test.
A. Einstein shortly before his death in 1953 was asked what problem
he cares now the most. He replied - how the universe is changing,
when does a mouse think about it?
So God, as an organizing force appears, as a production of consciousness.
Believers and not.
Everyone is used to considering nature as a collection of soulless objects.
Trees, crows, stones, rains.
And few people think that the world around us is very dependent,
(yes, yes, physically, chemically, biologically) from the consciousness of its inhabitants
individuals. And the mouse can change the world, not for nothing that Einstein thought about it.
Do you think old Einstein was "damaged in his mind" in old age?
I doubt very much.
What about God? God is the law governing changes in the physical world,
when a person or mouse thinks of Him. He is for the believer and
the thinker, he is not for the primitive materialist who believes only in
friction and that the doors will not open :))
It’s time, finally, to understand that the properties of the universe surrounding us are strongly
depend on our consciousness.
PS: I can clearly imagine what negative reaction my monologue will cause
from materialists. I studied dialectical materialism at school and at the institute
and I understand how heretical (opponents add that it is illiterate)
everything sounds. But let's remember again (I quote this once already
published) statement by BSDe Witte (General Relativity, an Einstein centenary
survey, Cambridge University Press, 1981)
"If the Universe as a whole was at some point or will be again quantum
object, what then is objectivity, which serves as the soil on which
are we standing like scientists?
If we are part of the wave function, how can we observe
reality the way we do it?
There is only one answer to these questions ... <which> saves as a basis
experimentally validated absolute statistical laws
quantum mechanics, but returns to determinism on a global scale,
introducing the universal wave function and considering it as such a description
reality which determines the course of thought itself. "

I do not want to impress everyone with an abundance of quotes.
I want reputable programmers to think, really
Is the world around us objectively independent of our consciousness?

Even the creation of a new program depends on our consciousness.
And its application changes this world.

And Windows was created by Dmitry Nagiyev :))



uw   (2003-04-12 12:15) [24]

The young man poses the question as follows: Does God exist as a person or not. After all, asking God to open the door, he turned to the person, and not to the moral and ethical constructions of copyr25. A truly believing person must answer unequivocally and without equivocation: God exists; you must believe in it without requiring any evidence; this is the essence of faith. The hopelessness of the evidential search for God was very well indicated by kaif (I just want to add Baskervilsky).

This is not enough for our copyr25. It is important for him to say that there are believers who can understand any verbal bells and whistles that he is free to invent, and there are primitive materialists who will viciously doubt these teachings. And beyond revelation:
> Quantum mechanics first revealed to humanity an amazing truth:
> The result of the experiment may depend on the will of the test person.

> It’s time, finally, to understand that the properties of the universe surrounding us are strongly
> depend on our consciousness.

And then a quote is quoted that is completely unintelligible (I suspect that something is dramatically omitted there, as the Americans say):

> There is only one answer to these questions ... <which> saves as a basis
> experimentally confirmed, absolute statistical laws
> quantum mechanics, but returns to determinism on a global scale,
> introducing a universal wave function and considering it as such a description
> reality, which itself determines the course of thought. "

And it is proposed to conclude from it that the world around us is objectively dependent on our consciousness.

As for Einstein, he spoke a lot, smartly and in context. Here is a link that, in my opinion, interestingly describes some of his ideas:

http://www.ihst.ru/~gorelik/O_chuvstve-90.htm#E&B




han_malign   (2003-04-12 12:16) [25]

> And he doesn’t need you to go to church, but you need to listen to Him.
- from the point of view of the Orthodox Church (I don’t know about the rest) - not one who believes and observes vows will be “saved” - but one who is baptized, regardless of personal faith and lifestyle, the main thing is that he would not forget about alms .. .

To the question of theology and sophistry, as a means of proving the existence of God, from the point of view of a mathematician:
- what is chaos?
- chaos is a state process, and a sequence of states that never repeats is modeled on a set of real numbers by a recursive equation, second degree, of the form X k= b (X k-1^ 2-1), where b is an irrational number (3.with something, selected by biffurcation analysis) ...

- what is infinity?
- Which one? Infinity is the pole spheres of the plane complex numbers, more specifically - the root of the divisor of the Laplacian transient, and their infinite a bunch of....

Z.Y. In wrapped up, with a hangover, and lied, to mine ...



Soft   (2003-04-12 12:24) [26]

The new theory of matter.

The whole world is on 3 postulates

1) The whole world consists of information matrices that determine the properties of particles. The information is intangible.

2) Energy defines the materiality or "virtuality" of particles. Energy is immaterial. Only when merged with the information matrix does it generate materiality. Energy is taken from the vacuum.

3) Time, space, energy, charge ... everything should be quantized, that is, to be discrete. This leads to the absence of paradoxes that we are now observing in quantum physics.



JibSkeart   (2003-04-12 12:26) [27]

Hmm, but I decided to leave God alone :)




DiamondShark   (2003-04-12 12:33) [28]


> copyr25 © (12.04.03 09: 55)


I'm here. ;-) And I see everything.
And we have already discussed the substitution of concepts you have used. The saddest thing is that you understand very well (you yourself admitted) that this is a substitution, but continue to use it. What for?

And a little in defense of materialism in general and of diamat in particular.
This is the only philosophical system that not made up.



Supreme 2   (2003-04-12 14:03) [29]

I fully agree with VEG. Why did you forget about dinosaurs? (although I can’t stand them, they annoy me). It seems to me that people invented all this and the Bible too, just to hope for something and to believe in something. In some power. I generally look at the world (and its CREATION as well) from a physical point of view.



uw   (2003-04-12 14:24) [30]

> han_malign © (12.04.03 12: 16)
> from the point of view of the Orthodox Church ... "saved" will not be the one who believes and observes vows - but the one who is baptized, regardless of personal faith and lifestyle, the main thing that I would not forget about alms ...

And if a person is baptized and pays taxes, is that enough?



han_malign   (2003-04-12 15:42) [31]

> And if a person is baptized and pays taxes, is that enough?
- priests say yes

"You will not sin - you will not repent, you will not repent - you will not be forgiven" (c) ...



copyr25   (2003-04-12 17:15) [32]

> uw © (12.04.03 12: 15):

> And then a quote is given that is not amenable to understanding
> (I suspect that there is something dramatically omitted, as the Americans say):

Suspect :)) Here is a complete link to you, I just thought that you had already read a similar one
posting earlier, therefore, reduced. And you see in this reduction
the intent of the distortion.

"If the Universe as a whole was at some point or will be again quantum
object, what then is objectivity, which serves as the soil on which
are we standing like scientists?
If we are part of the wave function, how can we observe
reality the way we do it?
There is only one answer to these questions, which has at least some
chance of success without changing the quantum structure known to us
mechanics is the answer proposed by Everett [Everett H., Rev. Mod.Phys., 29, 454, 1957].
Over the years since the modest appearance of the first article of Everett, his
the concept has attracted an increasing number of prominent supporters.
This concept preserves as a basis experimentally confirmed,
absolute statistical laws of quantum mechanics but returns
to determinism on a global scale, introducing a universal wave function
and considering it as such a description of reality,
which itself determines the train of thought, if we take it literally. "

> DiamondShark © (12.04.03 12: 33):

> I'm here. ;-) And I see everything.

Greetings :))

> And we have already discussed the substitution of concepts you have used.
> The saddest thing is that you understand very well (you yourself admitted),
> that this is a substitution, but continue to use it.
> Why?

We discussed the question only from the point of view of physics, when the observer
and the experimental facility are equal participants
experiment. From a purely physical point of view, I agree with you.
But if you recall such useless in terms of physics
property of the observer, how is his consciousness?
Completely absent from the object.
This fact, nevertheless, makes the experimenter and experimental
the object is unequal.



uw   (2003-04-12 19:09) [33]

> copyr25 © (12.04.03 17: 15)

I read your quote. The translation is clumsy, and even an extra comma before the words "such a description of reality", I could not understand what was happening. Of course, it’s impossible to get to the point now, but it’s clear - the description of reality proposed by Everett determines the further course of thought. This is normal, always the case. But it is not the train of thought that determines the world around us, and even on the scale of the Universe. If you wanted to say that our consciousness is changing the nearest world around us, then no quotes are needed for this.

Ok, let's get back to copyr25 © (12.04.03 09: 55) now.

> The result of a microscopic experiment strongly depends on
> how the experience was delivered.

The result of any experience depends on how the experience was delivered. Physicists are concerned about the repeatability of the results of an experiment set up under the same conditions. In this sense, quantum mechanics is no different from other branches of physics: if the experiment is set correctly, the wave function (or probability) will be the same. But we cannot measure, for example, the position of a quantum particle, because the measurement itself will introduce distortions, not the will of the test person.

Farther:

> God, as an organizing force appears, as a product of consciousness.

If you really consider the concept of God as a product of consciousness, not only separately of your, my, Supreme 2 © consciousness, etc., but as a result of the functioning and interaction of the consciousnesses of all people, then here I would probably cease to feel the difference between our worldviews. But what then is “believers and not so”? Or do you seriously think that it is a religion that unites "believers and not so" that contributed to the formation and development of science? Or do you think that Laplace, who did not need a well-known hypothesis at all, could do more under other circumstances?



copyr25   (2003-04-12 20:04) [34]

> uw © (12.04.03 19: 09):

> Translation clumsy, and even an extra comma before the words "how
> such a description of reality, ”I could not understand what was happening.

Sorry, good sir. Translated as I could :))

Translate better ?! Link published. You and a trump card in your hands.
I am pleased to read your interpretation. If she appears ...
But this is unlikely. It is convenient and reliable to criticize the speaker.
Only.


> The result of any experience depends on how the experience was delivered.

Not at all. How much do not fantasize about the fall of the subject -
sooner or later come to Newton's laws.

> But we can’t measure, for example, the position of a quantum particle,
> because the measurement itself will contribute
> distortion, not the will of the test.

We can! Let everyone beat me here in ignorance of the uncertainty principle :))
Whether it’s only a quantum particle or a wave, it depends
from the setting of experience, i.e. from the will of the experimenter.
How will the object manifest itself?
And the principle of uncertainty just allows ours with you
debate about the certainty of the experiment with an accuracy of half
Planck's constant. What if not a particle?

Why I suddenly again touched on this topic in a completely abstract,
at first glance, a branch, is there a God?
Because I wanted to show pensive readers that
perhaps an aspect of consciousness that every person understands
as personal, affects the objective result.
Not in everyday life, of course.
Criticism of uw is valuable.
I will take it into account.
God, perhaps among materialists, manifests as experienced
paradox. This is exactly what I wanted to emphasize.
Belief in God, which is based not on morality, but on experiment.

> Or do you think that Laplace, who did not need at all
> a known hypothesis, could I do more under other circumstances?

Laplace, who proudly exclaimed that he does not need "this hypothesis"
lived in the holy times of human confidence.

The reformation in Europe caused at the same time a successful bourgeois economic
the development, discovery of America and so on.

A strong and erroneous manifestation of this confidence is the French utopians.

Now, it seems to me, the time of human uncertainty has come.
Very similar to ancient Roman times. Then too, skepticism and philosophy
Stoics, expressed the opinion of the era.



uw   (2003-04-12 20:58) [35]

> copyr25 © (12.04.03 20: 04)

There is a stake in the yard, it is getting wet in a stake ... We go in the second round.

I apologize for criticizing the translation. If I knew what you were translating, I would not have hinted. But you could not tell me this either, because this is just a departure from the essence.

I repeat: the result of any experience depends on how the experience was delivered. If you think that experience can be set as you like, you won’t get Newton’s law. If you don’t think so, then what are you arguing with?

When trying to measure position at the quantum level, we must interact with the object through a photon or other particle. This will affect the object so that it will not be possible to talk about measurement at all. This thing is fundamental. And the uncertainty principle speaks about the connection of momentum and position, and not about measurement.

> Whether it is only a particle or a quantum, it depends
> from the setting of experience, i.e. from the will of the experimenter.

Does not depend. The duality of the nature of quantum objects is an objective thing, in any case, within the framework of modern concepts.



Kair   (2003-04-12 21:17) [36]

No



copyr25   (2003-04-12 22:28) [37]

> uw © (12.04.03 20: 58):

Let's calmly figure it out?
Stoletov did his experiments, being sure that light is
particle. And he received a proof of his conviction.
Photo effect.
Newton, Huygens, experimented with a stream of light and
got evidence that this is a wave.
Interference, dispersion, diffraction. They thought so.

I don’t understand why my humble generalization of the principle
uncertainty is perceived so "with hostility"?
The duality of even such investigated matter as light,
electromagnetic wave-particles?

If the question is why such a duality, then the answer is clear
to everyone, immediately and without hesitation - from a two-digit property
elementary particles (photon - one of them), from impossibility
The unequivocal answer for them is "how much and where."

The uniqueness of the answer depends on how the experiment was delivered.
More strongly: for what, for what purpose it was set.
In this position, the opinion of the experimenter plays a decisive role.
That's it.

The will (goal) of the researcher affects the result of the experiment.
Perhaps many will disagree with this.
But only with that.
I do not dare to revise the laws of physics.
I probably interpret them unconventionally.

Everyone knows elementary particles other than light:
peonies, baryons ... Why is there no pion wave in nature?
Huh?
Because nobody experiments with pi mesons
did not spend. They have traditionally been regarded as particles constituting
atomic nucleus.
This is the result of the absence of a phenomenon from the lack of will of the experimenter.
Primitive, of course, but it seems that this primitiveness is expected of me.



uw   (2003-04-12 22:51) [38]

> copyr25 © (12.04.03 22: 28)

Good. As you please.

Well, what about God as a product of the work of our consciousness?



Плохой человек   (2003-04-12 23:03) [39]

Is there a god, no - is it not one hell? What will you do if he is?



RIMMER   (2003-04-12 23:07) [40]

2 Supreme 2
>> PS> I have a friend, so he believes in paganism :)

Well, I'm odinist.



Хороший человек   (2003-04-12 23:20) [41]

> There is a god, no-is not it one hell? What will you do if he is?

Don’t you understand why this branch is necessary? People need faith like water to fish. So they want to believe. Moreover, why not believe if He really is?

To be bad does not mean to be evil!



Плохой человек   (2003-04-12 23:25) [42]

2 Good man:

While you will pray to God for money, I will earn it. I’m not earning money to show God how unbelieving I am. I earn because I live, so as not to die, so that his idea continues to live and develop ....




Knight   (2003-04-12 23:33) [43]

I believe in God, but I do not believe in church. They set idols there. And they ask, they ask ... And also, the Bible says that when Jesus was invited to call and ask God for help, he replied that one should not tempt his God. And in general, I believe that writers were earlier both novelists and science fiction writers ... The Bible was their work, and the church saw this as useful for managing the masses and, as they say now, took and spun this work to its fullest.

But God, if I may call it that, is and is unlimited, he is not good and not angry, he is neutral - like a yogi in nirvana. He does not come to the rescue and does not send troubles. This concept unites the so-called angels and demons, and all of us. In each there is a small spark of what we should strive for. God is not a person and perhaps not even a concept - this is the goal. The goal to which the spirit must come at the end of its development. This is the light at the top of the stairs to be climbed.

Yes! And more about the church ...

Prayer: Lord, I ask for death, hear me Lord, you must hear me, because I’m not asking for you ... :)))


A drunk man in a board is trying to put a candle in the church, his hands are shaking, he is sausage. After another attempt:
- H-h-ert !!! Overshot !!!
Nearby the priest heard:
- My son, do not blaspheme in the temple!
- Yes, leave me alone! ... H-h-ert !!! Overshot !!!
- Do not blaspheme, God hears everything and punishes ...
- Yes, fuck off, I said! ... H-h-ert !!! Overshot !!!
There is lightning above, peals of thunder ... the priest falls dead.
Above, the voice: "H-h-ert !!! Overshot !!!".

Good mood to all. :)

If you want to know what you need to do to get started, to climb this ladder, see:
http://delphimaster.net/view/14-1049916862/



Хороший человек   (2003-04-13 11:10) [44]

2 Bad man:
> While you will pray to God for money, I will earn it.

To believe in the existence of God does not mean to pray to God for money. Only the body needs money. And caring for the body should take place in the background, as it were, without getting too fixated on it.



DiamondShark   (2003-04-13 11:33) [45]


> People need faith like water for fish

Rather like an umbrella fish ;-)



Marser   (2003-04-14 12:51) [46]

> Supreme 2 ©
On the contrary, I started to believe in about 12-13. And as a child I was a young naturalist and believed in nonsense like the big bang or Darwin's theory. Then I almost got into the Baptist and Jehovah's heresies. But the genes won and I returned to Orthodoxy.



ZeroDivide   (2003-04-14 14:00) [47]

There is no god.



Axill   (2003-04-14 14:12) [48]

> 13
Me too. You can believe it is not just doubt - it is a fact - there is no God. People invented God for their comfort (or to take away sins (if conscience gnaws)).
Any religion calls for obedience to life, the existing order. No, it's all bullshit: a person should always be implacable. "Religion is opium for the people" {Lenin} The people are good, but see the consequences for yourself.



Jaxtor   (2003-04-14 14:33) [49]

In our country there are people who can say about themselves: "I am Orthodox, but I do not believe in God" ...
And anyway, after reading this thread
At the conference, I concluded that many have a distorted understanding of God. My advice is to read the Bible more often, there is
all information.



Ru   (2003-04-14 14:40) [50]

http://deep.webm.ru/forum/reply.php?num=3.2&id=3889 - бог есть, но я в него не верю



zx   (2003-04-14 14:56) [51]

> Supreme 2 © (11.04.03 20: 45)
About Signs

From Luke 16: 27-31 Then he said: So I ask you, father, send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers; may he testify to them that they also do not come to this place of torment. Abraham said to him: they have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them. He said: No, father Abraham, but if any of the dead comes to them, they will repent. Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then if someone had risen from the dead, they would not believe.

see whole chapter



zx   (2003-04-14 14:59) [52]

> Jaxtor © (14.04.03 14: 33)
I totally agree !!
The Bible is almost like MSDN (just kidding :))



gn   (2003-04-14 15:12) [53]

It seems to me that there is no need to discuss this topic at all, there is no difference whatsoever, and we will not come to the answer with just superfluous shellfish.


// Supreme 2
He checked this way: when, for example, my stomach ached (severely and for a long time), I whispered something like - "Oh God! If you exist, please make this pain go away! I will behave myself and all that. .. "- and nifiga did not help. Or such: “God, if you exist, give me some sign! Let, for example, the door open” - also did not help.


// But this, in my opinion, insanity
Imagine that God is, well, what the hell are you such a whiner from ....... and ano .... need
Just do that you sing one word sucker
And your idea of ​​taking God to Pont surprised me and amazes me at all.
Imagine such a situation, you are standing on the street, with whatever type
Let's say the champion of the city in Thai boxing is standing next to you, the minister has the right (well, or someone else thread) of the order of the dead so much, etc., etc.
You say to the champion, they say, I don’t believe that you fight well, I will believe it if you were a fool of that cop (now I’ll clarify why he needs this ???)



Danilka   (2003-04-14 15:23) [54]

A man died, woke up in the next world, and he is the same as this one.
Screamed, screamed, indignant, and then spat, began to suck a tit.



zx   (2003-04-14 15:33) [55]

> gn © (14.04.03 15: 12)
> I think no need to discuss ...

To the Romans 10: 14 But how to call on Him in whom they have not believed? how to believe in Him of whom they have not heard? how to hear without a preacher?



Ru   (2003-04-14 15:36) [56]

A man died, he went to hell. There are cafes, bars, restaurants, brothels everywhere. Do what you want in general. Then he looks at the hatch, and so they fry people in pans. He stops a passerby:
- Listen, what is there?
- Yes, this is hell for Catholics.



Namo   (2003-04-14 16:05) [57]

Yes. Like the author’s proof of the branch, they cause a smile, so I (about the stomach) also did years in 8-9. but in general, I do not believe in anything. I believe that everything can be.
That’s why, for example, to ruin yourself, your life, in order to please some god whose existence has not been proved, this is stupid. and many people will lose their wisdom. We must live in the present. tomorrow anything can happen, and you don’t need to die and climb your ass, only so that tomorrow doesn’t happen like it could.
In general, what kind of god does it take for the type of main faithful to wear rich clothes and live cool while others pray to God somewhere under the fence, dying, and not because of addiction to alcohol, but by chance (fire, earthquake). and after all, this contradicts the present idea of ​​the essence of that god, in whom they believed before, and this, in which some people believe now. it seems that at some point, Tipva was a kind god, and at another moment he liked the bloody sacrifices ....
And who are those people who say they believe in God, although they themselves do not know why. Yes, it’s just Mom’s Sakzala, Dad said, and they kind of believed. sometimes they wear crosses and yell that they believe. I could just as well come up with some kind of thread signs and say that the god Namo exists, worship him. to say, honestly Tolkien is a prophet, Ekm in a dream dreamed our story, etc. but nowadays they don’t believe in prophets. But if he had been born years of commercials on 1500 earlier, he could have spread like a cool preacher of a culture he had invented. and if only he met Magomed and killed him, then maybe instead of Islam there would be some thread of Valarism, and instead of the Koran, the Silmarillion ...
In general, I think it’s better not to believe in anyone and live in the present ...

Feanturi: Valanyö Mandos




Jaxtor   (2003-04-14 16:07) [58]

And I also want to share with you a wonderful text from the Bible:
"Go into yourself and the doctrine, do this constantly, because
in doing so you will save yourself and those who listen to you. "1 Tim. 4: 16.



zx   (2003-04-14 16:30) [59]

> Jaxtor © (14.04.03 16: 07)
Thank you!



Ru   (2003-04-14 16:41) [60]

"Our Father in heaven
.
Save us from the wheel.
.
Amen"



Danilka   (2003-04-14 16:44) [61]

8. Wash your hands after you go to the toilet.
9. Do not drink.
10. Eat smoked sausages with buns only. And no seasoning!

http://warrax.croco.net/Satan/Dark_literature/hank.htm



Danilka   (2003-04-14 16:47) [62]

it’s not necessary to read any Bible in order to be friends with oneself and others.



Ru   (2003-04-14 16:52) [63]

“laws” set forth in the Bible are naturally formed rules of cultural behavior. After all, if people at that time and it was there that they lived differently, then the Bible would still be a big question or not. There is a concept of causal relationship. Tear any of them and a lot will change, even more than you think.



copyr25   (2003-04-14 17:43) [64]

> Marser © (14.04.03 12: 51):
> And in childhood was a young naturalist and
> believed in nonsense like a big bang
> or Darwin's theory.

Well, much has been said about Darwinism from different angles.
Controversial theory.
But the Big Bang theory, oddly enough, focuses directly
from the idea of ​​the creation of the Universe, and not from the idea of ​​its eternity and infinity,
as Laplace thought.
The Big Bang came from the resolution of the space-time
features, points, as they say, are singularities, to the manifestation of which in the form
our Universe was born there was neither space nor time.
The reason for the Big Bang of this singularity, physicists amicably refuse
to discuss - this is the boundary of knowledge, this is the state when pregeometry is unknown
way began to give rise to matter. The fact of this generation is evident. Our universe.
The reasons are indescribable from the point of view of material science, since to the inexplicable
the resolution of singularity and matter has not yet been.
It seems to me that this is the best physically-mathematically sound proof
the act of creation of space-time-matter, ever given in history, physics
or in philosophy.
Still relic radiation, the "echo of this creation" is experimental
and theoretically fixed, for the knowledge of the origins of the act of creation are awarded
Nobel Prizes in Physics :))

On the one hand, materialists, suddenly, suddenly realized that even our planet
arose due to the inexplicable effect of the birth of the universe from points,
not possessing only pregeometric properties. And they are surprised to calculate
age and its final (universe) size. Those. the fact of creation is understood
already chronologically.
On the other hand, believers in God, idealists, always "understood" who was the cause
this singularity.
GR cannot explain the reasons, because it relies on the concepts of space-time,
geometry-matter. But it can correctly predict the consequences.
The individual consciousness of a believer is not even taken to explain
consequences, but confident in the reasons.
Ah, Die Dichter haben alles gekannt.
Poets always knew everything (Z. Freud)



uw   (2003-04-14 19:17) [65]

> copyr25 © (14.04.03 17: 43)

> On the other hand, believers in God, idealists, have always "understood" who was the cause
> this singularity.

For which they burned Giordano Bruno. And Gallileo Galliley managed to get out. And tell him about the singularity, as if there would be a cord.

And when it turns out that there was no singularity, then we will make another somersault. Our possibilities regarding somersaults are as inexhaustible as the atom.



chyaynik   (2003-04-14 19:48) [66]

I am only 12 years old! I’ll believe God for another year!



VictorT   (2003-04-14 20:39) [67]


> Oh God! If you exist, please make this
> the pain is gone! I’ll behave myself and all that ... "

He probably just did not believe that you would behave yourself :)



copyr25   (2003-04-14 20:44) [68]

> uw © (14.04.03 19: 17):

> For which they burned Giordano Bruno.
> And Gallileo Gallile managed to get out. And tell me about
> singularity, as if there would be a kerdyk.
> And when it turns out that there was no singularity, then we will make another somersault.

Dear uw!
I'm not talking about church policy Catholicism
in which the practice of the Inquisition played already recognized
even the Pope (John Paul II, 1994), the reactionary role (both Bruno and Galileo),
but an attempt at natural-scientific proof of the creation of the world.

It is better not to discuss church politics here.
Traditionally, all such branches are methodically rubbed
from causing a scary flame as an audience
there is a lot of confessional - there are both Orthodox and
Catholics, and Protestants, Mohammedans and other faiths, including,
not religious, such as anarchists, occultists, communists, etc.
(NB: I do not want to offend anyone with the wrong listing or
untimely mention).

Of course, a believer does not need proof.
But the believer and the thinker need it.
Paradox.
The position of the Inquisition is foreign to Orthodoxy.
The Orthodox Church has never been committed to dogma.
Watch at least Saturday weekly shows
on Moscow TV Metropolitan Cyril?

Faith does not need external scientific support, but amplified From him.
A believer is not a fanatic, who believes in spite of everything, in anything.
He is thoughtful and inquisitive. His "Faith" is manifested in this
curiosity is constantly just confidence in the reasons.
And the consequences, as they were, remain the property of the materialistic
sciences for Faith does not experiment, it is not magic and not witchcraft.

Look at the existing audience here?
There are many believers.
From the point of view of primitive communist ideology -
backward and superstitious. But these people are programmers.
Conductors of the most modern information technologies.
Maybe they are not very “cool”, but not “backward”.
The fact is that education and confidence are not related
things with each other.

Orthodox priest, father Pavel Florensky, very educated
the man who died in the Solovetsky camp, briefly stated that I
I verbally try to tell you: Knowledge strengthens Faith.

And there are a lot of historical confirmations to this
"materialistic" scientists were very religious people:
Blaise Pascal, Issac Newton, mineralologist Nikolai Stenon,
John von Neumann, they even say, Charles Darwin.

And, in conclusion, one anecdotal case:
Danish physicist Niels Bohr was once caught in a strange occupation - he nailed
a horseshoe on the porch of his house. He was asked - are you really, worldwide
Well-known scientist, believe in this nonsense that a horseshoe brings good luck?
You know, ”answered Bohr,“ it brings good luck even to those who do not believe in it :))



Плохой человек   (2003-04-14 20:46) [69]

2 Good man:

> in the background

Cool. And forget the rest.





DiamondShark   (2003-04-14 23:13) [70]


> copyr25 © (14.04.03 20: 44)
> Knowledge strengthens Faith.


This is very bad.
Because part of knowledge is filtered by faith.
Here God's servant Marcer is already firmly convinced: the theory of evolution and modern cosmology are nonsense. His faith is strong, but he no longer anticipates new knowledge on this subject.

But doubt strengthens knowledge.

So, to paraphrase one comrade,
"I do not believe, for it’s a matter."



Supreme 2   (2003-04-15 08:35) [71]

Apparently, not only I do not believe in God alone.



TTT   (2003-04-15 08:49) [72]

>> copyr25 © (14.04.03 20: 44)
Are you religious!:-))))
Interesting in whom. Your reasoning in other branches is the opposite of what is the basis of Orthodoxy.

>> Supreme 2 ©
Well done! You came to the right conclusion based on a false premise.
There is no god.
1. This is best understood if you go to church and look at the priests who are doing everything Christ spoke out against.
2. God is fair by all faiths, but we know from experience that it is not justice that triumphs, but strength.
3. Believers are by no means moral people. Even if they sometimes act according to moral rules, they do it only because of fear of punishment, and when they sin, they pray and “buy” themselves forgiveness (they buy! From the almighty).
Non-believers act morally, not because they hope to earn something for themselves, but because they love people and their children and want a better life for them.



stone   (2003-04-15 09:06) [73]


> Believers are not moral people. Even if they are sometimes
> act according to moral rules, they only do it
> for fear of punishment, and when they sin, they pray and "buy"
> yourself forgiveness (buy! from the almighty).
> Non-believers do not act morally because they hope
> something to earn this for yourself, but because they love people
> and their children and they want a better life.


No need to speak for everyone.



Danilka   (2003-04-15 09:07) [74]

TTT (15.04.03 08: 49)
It was you who walked only in people, not in faith :))
Even a believer can do something (for example, follow the commandments) not out of fear of being spanked after death, but simply of his own free will, believing that it is more correct.

And at the expense of God, up to a certain age, young people understand God as some kind of human-like creature ("in the image and likeness of ours") with all ambitions, human emotions, strengths and weaknesses, but immortal and omnipotent. As a rule - a gray-bearded man. :))
Something between Ilya Muromets and Santa Claus. :))
And both those who believe in him, and those who do not believe in him.

And after some age they begin to perceive it differently. As spirit, as energy, as will, each in its own way. And at the same time they can continue to believe / disbelieve, or change their views.

In this case, Suprem does not believe that there is any omnipotent Santa Claus, because he was not tempted by the promises of "behaving well" and did not heal his tummy. He did not think about the fact that God is not Santa Claus. Maybe he will think for years through the twentieth.



zx   (2003-04-15 09:54) [75]

Two questions are closely intertwined here:
1. Do you believe in God?
2. Does the Church (Orthodox, Catholic, ...) follow the Bible?
Based on what people who “say” that they believe in God do it’s impossible to judge whether God is or not, whether He is good or bad. The religious world is full of errors and deviations from the Bible. (see Jaxtor © (14.04.03 16: 07))



uw   (2003-04-15 10:02) [76]

No.



Ru   (2003-04-15 10:15) [77]

let's put the question differently:
Do the gods believe in our existence?



DiamondShark   (2003-04-15 10:50) [78]


> zx © (15.04.03 09: 54)
> 1. Do you believe in God?

And on what, sorry, basis? Who is this, or what?
In "God in general", something indefinite cannot be believed in principle. As for the specific, definite gods, I not only do not believe, I know that they are not.


> 2. Does the Church (Orthodox, Catholic, ...) follow the Bible?

Who cares? When a certain organization reaches a “critical mass”, it does not matter for what purpose this organization was created. She becomes self-sufficient.


> Based on what people who “say” what they believe do
> in God it is impossible to judge whether God is or not, good He
> or bad.

Absolutely right. The only problem is that this cannot be judged at all.


> The religious world is full of errors and deviations from the Bible.

Again true, and again you do not reach the logical end.
And where is the criterion of error / truth? Bible compliance not to offer. Well, or at least complete with the justification that the Bible is truer than the Qur'an, Bhagavad-Gita, the Message of Hank or the oral traditions of Mumbo Yumbo.



zx   (2003-04-15 13:10) [79]

A couple of fish swim around the aquarium and vigorously discuss something:
- Well, it’s good if you say that there is no God, please tell me who changes the water in the aquarium ??? :))

To prove that God is as impossible as the fact that He is not. Then it is not needed, there will be faith!



Supreme 2   (2003-04-15 14:35) [80]

I just think that every person is able to decide their own destiny. Well, look: here are people who believe in God so much that they have given everything and went to church to serve. Well, what have they got in life? Only insanity, and so some prohibitions, posts, no girls, nothing !! What a life? Who needs it?



N   (2003-04-15 14:44) [81]

God exists.



Neft   (2003-04-15 14:47) [82]

2Supreme 2
Here you have a problem. This branch is not even a hunt to read, probably full demagogy and taftology



zx   (2003-04-15 15:40) [83]

> Supreme 2 © (15.04.03 14: 35)
The Bible and the stereotype of a “believer” are very different.

Words of Jesus:

Matthew 19: 29 And ​​anyone who leaves home, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or land, for My name’s sake, will receive a hundred times and inherit eternal life.

John 10: 10 A thief comes only to steal, kill, and destroy. I came to have life and have more.



zx   (2003-04-15 15:49) [84]

Matthew 22: 29 Jesus answered them: You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God,



uw   (2003-04-15 16:05) [85]

> copyr25 © (14.04.03 20: 44)

Here is the pathos of all your religious posts:

The believer is a “believer and thinker.”
"A believer is not a fanatic ... He is thoughtful and inquisitive."

But opponents of believers:
"From the point of view of primitive communist ideology ..."

Etc.



Danilka   (2003-04-15 16:09) [86]

zx ©
what is all this for? :))



DiamondShark   (2003-04-15 17:07) [87]


> zx © (15.04.03 13: 10)
> A couple of fish swim around the aquarium and vigorously discuss something:
> -Well, it’s good if you say that there is no God, please say
> who changes the water in the aquarium ??? :))

Jokes as arguments are good because it’s stupid to argue with them. Unless so:

The inscription on the grave of the believer: "Do you want to go to Paradise? Ask me how!"


> To prove that God is as impossible as the fact that He is not.
> Then it is not needed, there will be faith!

And what is faith for?



Vlad Oshin   (2003-04-15 17:11) [88]

"I am ashamed that I believed in God, sad to me that I do not believe now"



copyr25   (2003-04-15 17:14) [89]

> TTT (15.04.03 08: 49):

>> copyr25 © (14.04.03 20: 44)
> You are a believer! :-))))
> I wonder in whom.
> Your reasoning in other branches is the opposite
> what is the basis of Orthodoxy.

This is a serious argument: - |

Given the communist ideology that you, in my opinion, share,
I doubt the positive result.
Just from what I suppose, even the foundations of Orthodoxy
You are simply unknown.
But still?
Would you be so kind as to provide evidence
Your such statement?

That is, will it not bother you (sorry for bothering you)
to quote in which "other branches" I managed
to argue contrary to the "basis of Orthodoxy"?

Avoiding an answer, primitive arguments, like:

> TTT (15.04.03 04: 50)
>> copyr25 © (14.04.03 18: 56)
> Everything is clear with you at the CIA.

I do not consider as an argument.

So?



Jaxtor   (2003-04-15 17:47) [90]

It’s interesting, but did any of you find a Church whose creed is based only on the Bible, and not on the “theory” of people? I, here, found and
very happy with that. I am a happy person!!



copyr25   (2003-04-15 17:58) [91]

> uw © (15.04.03 16: 05):
>> copyr25 © (14.04.03 20: 44)
> Here is the pathos of all your religious posts

This is not pathos.
Paphos, let it be known to you, this Greek word,
denoting what the Romans called Latin
the word "emotion."

In my arguments:
> Of course, a believer does not need proof.
> But a believer and a thinker-in need.
> There are many believers.
> From the point of view of primitive communist ideology-
> backward and superstitious. But these people are programmers.

there is not a drop of pathos or emotions. It’s just rational
arguments without tears or laughter.



uw   (2003-04-15 18:05) [92]

And I say that pathos climbs from each of your posts on this topic.



copyr25   (2003-04-15 18:18) [93]

> uw © (15.04.03 16: 05):

Hence the word "pathetic."
That is, something emotional.
Everyone knows that the Greeks did not have the exact "t".
Tau is not an example. There were different rules for tau.
In Church Slavonic, this fuzzy Greek
the letter had the name "fita" and replaced itself
the contradictions expressed in the names "Thomas" and "Thomas",

"Spelling" and "orthopedics".

Feel the difference:))

In English, this is a combination of "th"

Even language, even grammar, is highly dependent on ancient rules.
And only very confident people are able to invent
new rules, the price of which is only 100-80 years of nihilism,
disbelief, self-confidence, in the uncertainty that they
can surpass the Greek "fita" as in Soviet times
they took it, and suddenly Kommersant was canceled.

Uw, - this is my last paragraph - pathos.
The rest is not :))



Marser   (2003-04-15 18:25) [94]


> copyr25 ©

Do you need help?



han_malign   (2003-04-15 18:33) [95]

> From the point of view of primitive communist ideology
- Communist ideology, all the same, should not be confused with the worldviews of a rural (worker-peasant) commune. Communism is a completely normal model of the social system, simply unattainable because of its ideality (model) and non-ideality of people, and religion and communism lie in the same sphere - idealism, with full or partial denial of the realities of life ... (and faith in justice of the democratic system - there too)



copyr25   (2003-04-15 18:42) [96]

> uw © (15.04.03 18: 05):
> And I say that pathos climbs from your every post on this topic.

I honestly don’t care what you think about
my statements. I speak out AS I WANT.
If you incorrectly use the word "pathos" - this is your business.
I just tried to explain to you that it’s not worth giving arguments,
well, not even linguistically understood by you.
And you repeat, - "climbs," "climbs."
Well, well, let, in your opinion, "crawl."

I don’t understand why everyone wants to quarrel with me?
What, the explanation of the etymology of the word - may be the cause of the flame?



copyr25   (2003-04-15 18:47) [97]

> Marser © (15.04.03 18: 25)
> copyr25 ©
Do you need help?

On the one hand, it seems to me that I can handle it myself. (?)
On the other hand, a friend’s shoulder will always support!
Thanks for the support:))




Soft   (2003-04-15 19:01) [98]

There is no God, but there is something like him.

books "Something about the afterlife."



copyr25   (2003-04-15 19:07) [99]

> han_malign © (15.04.03 18: 33)
> Communism is a completely normal model
> social structure, simply unattainable

Well said!
Normal, but unattainable.
What then is “normal”?

Communism is a utopia.
Unlike all the other utopias of Saint-Simon,
Campanels or Owen - this utopia of Marx and Engels,
fully embodied by the crazy Lenin in reality in everything
surprised mankind.
Bringing death to millions of people with
knowledge, intellectuals and professional workers,
to engineers.
Bringing oppression to all until then free peoples,
Fallen under the oppression of the Bolshevik boot.

Utopian civilization banning genetics and cybernetics,
human rights and social psychology.

Normal?

Here are those times!

But such, as it turned out, achievable :))



uw   (2003-04-15 19:52) [100]

> copyr25 © (15.04.03 18: 42)

PAPHOS, pathos, pl. no, m. [Greek pathos] (book). 1. Passionate inspiration, animation. An unknown language sounded with harsh pathos. Nekrasov. Paphos is always a passion, burned out in the soul of a person by an idea and always striving for an idea - therefore, a passion is purely spiritual, moral. Belinsky. 2. Inspiration, enthusiasm caused by smth. - During the first five-year period, we were able to organize enthusiasm, the pathos of new construction and achieved decisive success. It is very good. But now this is not enough. Now we must supplement this business with enthusiasm, the pathos of the development of new plants and new equipment, a serious increase in labor productivity, and a serious reduction in cost. This is now the main thing. Stalin [report at the joint plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission of the CPSU (B.) 7 / I 1933]. 3. Inspiring, creative source, basic tone, the idea of ​​smth . The pathos of Pushkin's poetry lies in her humanity. The pathos of the shakespeare drama "Romeo and Juliet" is the idea of ​​love. Belinsky. 4. The external manifestation of animation, sometimes giving the impression of falsehood (disapproved.). He cannot speak without pathos.






Serj   (2003-04-15 20:00) [101]

> Supreme 2 © (11.04.03 20: 45)
I am sure many will say - YES! But I haven’t, although I believed in 13 years ago, and then I stopped. He checked this way: when, for example, my stomach ached (severely and for a long time), I whispered something like - "Oh, God! If you exist, please make this pain go away! I will behave myself and all that. .. "- and nifiga did not help. Or such: “God, if you exist, give me some sign! Let, for example, the door open” - also did not help.
It just seems to me that all this has remained since ancient times.


I didn’t have time to read everything written here, but Supreme 2 ©
read the bible, there is written about the signs (I will not quote - there is no time).
How do you (I turn to atheists) relate to the fact that 2000 years ago there lived a person whose birth dates back to Christmas (who does not know is Jesus). 20 centuries have passed, and since then there has been no such person. After all, we did not begin to count the years from the birth of Einstein, or Supreme 2 ©.
Indeed, probably each of you celebrates Christmas, Easter, etc.
Do not judge and do not be judged.
And in general, how can you judge how they didn’t read “Robert Sheckley True Question”, who didn’t read - I advise you, the link is on the main page.
If you still want to talk, I’ll bring a friend, he knows this better.
Okay, I’ve gone, don’t throw this topic over, but rather create a new sheet.




copyr25   (2003-04-15 20:07) [102]

> uw © (15.04.03 19: 52):
> PAPHOS
> Passionate inspiration, animation.
> Paphos is always a passion burned out in a person’s soul by an idea
> and always striving for an idea, therefore, a purely spiritual passion,
> moral.
> During the first five-year period, we managed to organize enthusiasm,
> pathos of new construction and achieved
> decisive success.

Well, now replace your pathos with the simple word Russian-Latin word "emotion"
and you won’t see the difference. Is that emotion a more capacious word, for it expresses
and positive, enthusiastic "pathos" about the first five-year plans and tears
about them.

Where did you unearth such a communistly consistent definition of pathos?
In the so-called "Soviet Encyclopedia"?
:))



Плохой человек   (2003-04-15 20:12) [103]

> How do you (I turn to atheists) relate to the fact that 2000 years ago there lived a person whose birth dates back to Christmas (who does not know is Jesus). 20 centuries have passed, and since then there has been no such person. After all, we did not begin to count the years from the birth of Einstein, or Supreme 2 ©.

Negative attitude. The bottom line is that in ancient times the church was like a school, as a scientific center that decided the cultural part of the country. Now this is not and will not be.



MsGuns   (2003-04-15 20:25) [104]

Brrrrrrrr ...

Dispute of bacteria in a drop on the toilet on the topic "Is there a Man?"



uw   (2003-04-15 21:03) [105]

uw © (15.04.03 16: 05)
> copyr25 © (14.04.03 20: 44)

Here is the pathos (basic tone, idea) of all your religious posts:

The believer is a “believer and thinker.”
"A believer is not a fanatic ... He is thoughtful and inquisitive."

But opponents of believers:
"From the point of view of primitive communist ideology ..."

Etc.



Плохой человек   (2003-04-15 21:56) [106]

I believe that we all live in a matrix. We are all just a battery.



Supreme 2   (2003-04-15 22:05) [107]

> Bad person
> I believe that we all live in a matrix. We are all just a> battery.

And for some reason it seems to me that each person represents the world in his own way, in a different way. Now, if I, for example, see a blue color, then another person can see with his own eyes this color is GREEN, but will call it BLUE, because accustomed from childhood, and GREEN inverse BLUE.



copyr25   (2003-04-15 22:06) [108]

> DiamondShark © (15.04.03 17: 07):
> And what is faith for?

It will be difficult for me to convince such an authoritative, knowledgeable
respondent, how do you argue “for what?”.
But I will try :))
Only one moment.
Try to answer yourself, - And why is nature needed?
Person?

This has already been discussed here.
And it seems that I gave the "exit" to the materialists simply, clearly,
and once and for all explain that all material
creations of nature are just accompanying it
"epiphenomenal" phenomena. Like a skin rash.
Or the sounds of a humming transformer. Do you remember?
But what about nature itself? On whose skin is it a rash? Or sound?

The need, the need for one or another (especially conscious
human) phenomena can never be accidental.
Hard to explain? Yes.
But not random.
Why Faith is needed - this is a question akin to - why do we need solar
eclipses?
Why they occur all competent people can explain.
But now, for what?
Your very question is a consequence of extreme materialistic
confidence that every phenomenon must satisfy
some kind of need. Mechanism, conservation law projection
in the field of public relations, as a Marxist-Leninist would say :))

"For what?" is a question calling for universal objectivity,
based on the opinion of the individual.

Science relies on objective experience.
On the experience, repeated at different times, in different situations.
Such a described experience is considered a scientific fact, laws are based on it.
Why is the experience repeated in society throughout its history,
leading at different times, in different conditions to the same result,
to religiosity, it requires the question "Why?"

Your question, “What is faith for?” as paradoxical as
the question is, what is gravity for?



uw   (2003-04-15 22:45) [109]

Associations of the day:

"A believer - ... pensive and inquisitive"

"Bird Talker is smart and smart."



vuk   (2003-04-15 22:48) [110]

to copyr25:
> Why is the experience repeated in society throughout its
> stories leading at different times, in different conditions to
> the same result, for religiosity, requires a question
> "Why?"
Are you only talking about yourself or about everyone? If only about yourself, then we can’t say that the result is objective. And if it’s about everyone, then it is better to quit such a habit, since different results easily follow from the very existence of this branch. : o)

> Your question "And what is faith for?" as paradoxical as
> question, why is gravity needed?
The comparison is incorrect. Gravity, it is for nothing, it just is. Feeling gravity is easy. It is enough to drop something heavy, clumsy on your foot. In the case of faith, what do I need to drop on my foot? Or maybe it’s better immediately on the head? : o)



copyr25   (2003-04-15 22:49) [111]

> DiamondShark © (15.04.03 17: 07):
> And what is faith for?

In addition to the above, in this problematic issue
the problematic answer is hidden.

For me.
For me personally, contrary to physical, chemical, and other laws.

It does not depend on them.
Because believers on the one hand
they don’t know at all, on the other hand, they know them pretty well.

St. Paul the witty remarked that there are
only the poor and rich, hinting precisely at the inconsistency
knowledge of the believer and unbeliever.

Believe in God can either "poor in spirit" or people who are fully possessed
objective knowledge, including the knowledge that their experience is experience
“human” knowledge is limited without religious knowledge.

And the middle ones, which are not in the temple - they are so sure of everything :))

I don’t fool you, as the priests did over Adam Kozlevich :))

But think about why educated and knowledgeable people are
next to the temple with completely uninformed old women?



Плохой человек   (2003-04-15 22:51) [112]

2 Supreme 2:

> Now, if I, for example, see a blue color, then another person can see with their own eyes this color is GREEN, but will call it BLUE, because accustomed from childhood, and GREEN inverse BLUE.

Quarrel, errors in the Matrix. Obviously, you are the chosen one. Now I’ll call Agent Smith because matrix has you ....



copyr25   (2003-04-15 23:06) [113]

> vuk © (15.04.03 22: 48):

> Gravity, it is for nothing, it just is. Feel
> gravity is easy. It is enough to drop something heavy, clumsy on your foot. In case of
> faith that I need to drop my foot? Or maybe it’s better immediately on the head? : o)

Well, you answered the question.
Congratulations on such a deep knowledge of religion and, at the same time, gravity :))
Quite well!



copyr25   (2003-04-15 23:24) [114]

> vuk © (15.04.03 22: 48):

> Gravity, it is for nothing, it just is. Feel
> gravity is easy. It is enough to drop something heavy, clumsy on your foot. In case of
> faith that I need to drop my foot? Or maybe it’s better immediately on the head? : o)

Well, you answered the question.
Congratulations on such a deep knowledge of religion and, at the same time, gravity :))
Quite well!



TTT   (2003-04-16 05:12) [115]

>> copyr25 © (15.04.03 17: 14)
You have to repeat you are lying that a believer.
1. For the Orthodox religion, the main thing is peace in the soul and the ability to forgive. All this is alien to you, if the basis is alien, then how can you consider yourself a believer?
2. My wife believes. Our archbishop Theodosius told her that So falseNitsyn, was a snitch in the camp, but for you - this falsec - authority. You quote his quotes which contain a hint of a national trait, but it is brought to the point of absurdity, which is not in life. Such presentation of information is an invention of America. Solzhenitsyn was carrying out the mission of the CIA to denigrate and debunk our successes - which means you are also an agent of the CIA, if you give them support in this.
3. The Orthodox Church is not antagonistic to communist morality. On the contrary, a lot in common. Morality is one and the difference is not significant. Some people believe in the almighty god - others in the almighty aliens.
4. Your explanation about the mouse, the thought of which changes the world (this is the case) is not permissible for the believer, since from the point of view of religion all changes can occur only by the will and plan of God.



OlDemon   (2003-04-16 06:21) [116]

I also "believe" in God. Yes, just from that? We must not just believe, but follow what he conveys to us through saints, prophets, the Bible, etc. But this is not always possible.
2 Supreme 2> and why did you decide that he should help you or prove something? why is it for him?
Threat. Has anyone heard of Sathya Sai Baba?



Danilka   (2003-04-16 07:57) [117]

TTT (16.04.03 05: 12)

> 1.for the Orthodox religion, the main thing is peace of mind and skill
> forgive.

gee, tell it to those who baptized Russia.

> 2. My wife believes. Our archbishop Theodosius told
> her ...

To me personally, a priest in the church said (I quote verbatim): "you never know what is written in these Bibles"

Why all this? Crusade again? Not tired? Everyone believes in something, in his own (even the one who says that he does not believe in anything).
copyr25 believes Solzhenitsyn.
Archbishop Theodosius believes that Solzhenitsyn is an agent of the CIA.
his subordinate believes that the Bible is written rubbish.
Serj believes that everything that is written in the bible is true, and everything is very good.

And now what? All villains except Theodosius?



TTT   (2003-04-16 08:20) [118]

Actually, copyr25 and I are twin brothers.
Only I am the bearer of the communist idea, and he is religious.
We are both like black grouse on a current: we listen only to ourselves.
Trying to change something in our minds -
only spoil us.
And sometimes it seems to me that we are me alone, only TTT is mine
morning incarnation, and copyr25 - evening.
As a TTT, I am unprincipled. I'm an undoubted atheist, but to
to smear Solzhinitsin, I am not averse to refer to libel
representatives of the church that I hate.
As copyr25 I'm even worse. Toward evening I start morally
child molestation. Ways are different - from direct lies
before attracting the ideas of quantum mechanics and cosmology, in which
I don’t understand much, but for corruption there’s even less understanding
this is enough for children.
This bifurcation sometimes bothers me, and I wonder:
What to do?



Мазут Береговой Рюрикович   (2003-04-16 08:26) [119]

Nobody called for anyone to go to church and believe in SOMETHING.

Here is from the Bible:

Gospel of Matthew:
22 Many will say to Me on that day: Lord! Lord! Have we prophesied in your name? And did not they cast out demons in your name? and did not many miracles work in your name?
23 And ​​then I will declare to them: I never knew you; get away from me doing iniquity.

Luke's Gospel:
46 What do you call Me: Lord! Lord - and do not do what I say?
47 Everyone who comes to me and listens to my words and fulfills them, I will tell you to whom he is like.
48He is like a man building a house, who dug, deepened, and laid the foundation on a stone; why, when a flood happened and the water pushed onto this house, it could not shake it, because it was based on a stone.
49A hearer and nonperformant is like a man who built a house on the ground without foundation, who, when he put water on him, immediately collapsed; and the destruction of this house was great.

Jesus called to believe in yourself, in your strength. God is in ourselves ...



Supreme 2   (2003-04-16 08:34) [120]

+ For everything else, why then there are different faiths, both in God and in Allah? Now, if you say that God is, then shouldn't he be alone?



OlDemon   (2003-04-16 08:42) [121]

2 Supreme 2> Are you kidding me? Do not you understand that he is already alone, just different names? A "faith" is different because People are different. To whom it is easier and closer he believes in that.



Мазут Береговой Рюрикович   (2003-04-16 08:54) [122]

Again.
The church, synagogues, mosques, temples and servants with them were invented for enslavement. In order for the “slaves” to think less and work more. Like, there is God, Allah, Buddha, he knows everything who needs to be awarded, who must be punished, and you don’t think about anything. Work.
Who needs a smart slave? To nobody! Here Jesus called people to THINK. He called to kill a slave in himself, for which he was crucified. And since he spoke in words that were understandable to ordinary people ("the kingdom of heaven" is the surrounding nature, the cosmos; "father, God" is the human spirit, faith in himself, etc.), the priests "turned" his words.
Jesus tried to teach people what he knew, to transmit his knowledge. Therefore, he gathered 13 students and "hammered" his knowledge into them, with the expectation that one of them would begin to write "memoirs." And there you look, one will remember one, the other - the other, the third - the third. Part of the knowledge will reach people. And the THINKING man himself will read and separate the "chaff from the grains." And in parables he said (created images) that would not be distorted over time.
If you, Suprem, begin to listen to your Heart and Soul (of your God) and act as they are sweet, then then you will begin to comprehend Life - the "Kingdom of Heaven" ...

A girl must be sought for heart and soul, then she will answer you the same, and not for removal ...



Vlad Oshin   (2003-04-16 08:59) [123]


> Supreme 2 © (16.04.03 08: 34)


Modern astral theory-bogeyman says so. Something higher mind - one. Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Moriah are his Great Messengers. They spoke in the light of the ignorance of the masses. And like an astral theory - that’s the crap that explains everything. Well, there are many kg books. attached.



Danilka   (2003-04-16 09:10) [124]

But what is "astral theory"?
I saw only one Astra, a Muscovite with beautiful (but red) eyes, and then, only once in a thread from Igor Shevchenko about an orcoclist for $ 300.
And why are the messengers? say so bluntly - the devotees.



OlDemon   (2003-04-16 09:11) [125]

Mazut Beregovoy Rurikovich (16.04.03 08: 54)

The beginning is nonsense. Whom did the Buddha urge to work and not think? And churches were not built for this. Just a man - a fetishist by nature (the example of Supreme is very revealing in this regard). It is difficult for him to understand that one can communicate with God anytime, anywhere. That's for such churches were created. For man to convince himself that God hears it. I agree with the rest.



Vlad Oshin   (2003-04-16 09:20) [126]


> Danilka © (16.04.03 09: 10)


Very big and heavy thing :)
I have not read
But the point there is such that a person does well, it accumulates in space, and then he will return (hell, paradise) to him and to all the others and right on the head :)
And if you behaved badly, then you will be returned so that you once again work out some point in your life. (I didn’t cowardly there, I loved better, and so on)

so, with the return, sinners :)



zx   (2003-04-16 09:46) [127]

And here is fun! :)

> DiamondShark © (15.04.03 17: 07)
> Jokes as arguments are good ...

Matthew 13: 34 All these things Jesus spoke to the people in parables, and without a parable he did not speak to them.

Like Jesus imitate parables, ... jokes.



Danilka   (2003-04-16 09:49) [128]

in general, judging by the cool film "dogma", Jesus is a young ugly black woman with an unpleasant voice.



zx   (2003-04-16 09:58) [129]

> copyr25 © (15.04.03 22: 49)
> Believe in God can or "poor in spirit" ...

Matthew 5: 3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

But what is “poverty” is the opposite of “sufficiency”.



zx   (2003-04-16 10:07) [130]

> Danilka © (16.04.03 09: 49)
School. The teacher:
- Children, how many will be twice two?
Gogi:
- Ten!
- Why not?
- In our family this is a national tradition!
Nastya:
- Three!
- Why three ???
- I feel it, with all my heart I feel!
Peter:
- Seven!
- Why seven ???
- Yesterday on TV they said that seven!
Little Johnny:
- Four.
- Why not?
- Yes, I looked at the multiplication table, it says four.



zx   (2003-04-16 10:18) [131]

> OlDemon © (16.04.03 08: 42)
> To whom it is simpler and closer he believes in that.

2 Timothy 4: 3 For there will be a time when they will not accept sound teachings, but at their whims they will choose teachers who would flatter their hearing;



Мазут Береговой Рюрикович   (2003-04-16 10:26) [132]


> zx © (16.04.03 09: 58)
>> copyr25 © (15.04.03 22: 49)
Quoted1>> Believe in God can or "poor in spirit" ...
>
> Matthew 5: 3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom
> Heavenly.

Never tried the phrase "Blessed are the poor in spirit" to understand as "the poor have good souls," and the phrase "for they have a kingdom
Heavenly "-" because they live in harmony with nature "(that is, they preferred spiritual values ​​to material values).


> Mazut Coastal Rurikovich (16.04.03 08: 54)
>
> Home-delirium. Whom did the Buddha urge to work and not think?
> And churches were not built for this. Just a man - a fetishist
> by nature


The commandments say, "Do not create yourself an idol" (I do not remember exactly, but the meaning is this). Any idol worship involves shifting one's cares to it. Person waiting for help from someonethat is fundamentally wrong. Frankly, I'm not a fetishist. Therefore, I do not expect anything from anyone, but I try to do everything myself. I have such a nature.



Ru   (2003-04-16 10:37) [133]

- Do you believe in God?
- No.
- But how? You must believe in God!
- Why?
“If you do not believe in God, you cannot go to heaven!”
- And what is paradise?
- Paradise is a place where everything is possible.
- And how to get there?
- You must believe in God, you must fulfill all the commandments of the church, and then, after death, you will wait for a great judgment. And after the great judgment, if God admits that you have not sinned, you will go to heaven.
“And what are these commandments?”
“They must not be violated.” Here they are. {shows the book of the commandments}
- Is it possible in paradise?
- Oh yeah.
“Why not here?”
- It is a sin!
“But is it possible in paradise?”
- Oh yes, you can.
“But you can't, because it's a sin?”
- Yes of course!
- And then what is the point?
“The point is to live a true life here and go to heaven where life is eternal.”



OlDemon   (2003-04-16 11:12) [134]

2 zx> Do you want to say that this is said about Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed? Or do you want to say that "our" God is right and "strangers" is not?

2 Mazut Beregovoi Rurikovich>
not so, namely:

1. may you have no other gods before me.
2. Do not make yourself an idol or any image of what is in the sky above, and what is on the earth below, and what is in the water below the earth;

including it was not about God himself. In general, they went to church to pray. And prayer is either gratitude to God for something or a request to help. But not so "do it to ..." but "give me strength and patience to do ..". Here it is. And after the prayer, people walked and did because were sure that God helps them and them. PS: And never asked God for help?



zx   (2003-04-16 11:46) [135]

> Mazut Beregovoy Rurikovich (16.04.03 10: 26)
no.

> OlDemon © (16.04.03 11: 12)
Joshua 24: 15 If it is not your desire to serve the Lord, then choose for yourself now whom to serve, whether the gods whom your fathers who were across the river have served, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you live; but I and my house will serve the Lord, [for He is holy].



MsGuns   (2003-04-16 12:28) [136]

Listen to Mazut - he’s wiser here. At least he separated Faith from Religion, and Religion from the Church.
The most important truth in his words is that the CHURCH ALWAYS SERVED AND WILL BE SERVED BY THE INSTITUTE OF SUBMISSION AND HORIZATION OF MASSES OF PEOPLE. At the same time, it can determine the geopolitics of the era (Middle Ages) or simply be a servant of the throne of the all-powerful of this world (modern times).
On the whole, the crisis of the Church is obvious. This is not recognized only by obscurantists or fanatics. (This refers not specifically to the Orthodox or, say, the Catholic Church, but in general - as the phenomenon itself, which has lost its former influence on people primarily because of its inertness and dogmatism)
I won’t give any arguments - not on the collective farm, but in the programming forum.

Therefore, speaking of God, do not mention the church - do not blaspheme;)))



DiamondShark   (2003-04-16 12:42) [137]


copyr25 © (15.04.03 22: 06)
Try to answer yourself, - And why is nature needed?
Person?

I apologize for asking a counter question instead of an answer: Who needs it?


And it seems that I gave the "exit" to the materialists simply, clearly,
and once and for all explain that all material
creations of nature are just accompanying it
"epiphenomenal" phenomena. Like a skin rash.
Or the sounds of a humming transformer. Do you remember?
But what about nature itself? On whose skin is it a rash? Or sound?

Not suitable. The chain A <-B <-C <-... ("<-" reads as "is an epiphenomenon") can be continued indefinitely. Do you have reason to break the chain on some element? They are listening carefully.


The need, the need for one or another (especially conscious
human) phenomena can never be accidental.

It’s completely not clear. "Need" is what? Is something existing in itself? Or just realized by man, and nothing else?


Why is Faith needed - this is a question akin to - why are solar eclipses needed?

No, not akin. Solar eclipses occur no matter what one thinks of them. Faith is entirely a product of consciousness. Personal or public.
Good. We pose the question more specifically:
Why to you personally Vera? Do you think that besides you, someone else needs faith, for example, me? If so, why, in your opinion do i need faith
( Note. Here "you" is not necessarily copyr25, the question is for anyone who believes (is going to argue) that faith a) is b) is needed)


Your very question is a consequence of extreme materialistic
confidence that every phenomenon must satisfy
some kind of need.

You, I apologize, did not confuse materialism with subjective idealism for an hour? Or is it a trick from the same arsenal as speculation around the principle of uncertainty?


Why is the experience repeated in society throughout its history,
leading at different times, in different conditions to the same result,
to religiosity, it requires the question "Why?"

The answer is clear, for me - for a long time, someone who knows how to think will just become: anthropocentrism and subjectivity - a primitive form of thinking, regardless of how tall the words are put on.



DiamondShark   (2003-04-16 13:04) [138]


> Mazut Coastal Rurikovich (16.04.03 10: 26)
> Never tried the phrase "Blessed are the poor in spirit" to understand
> as "the poor have good souls," and the phrase "because they have a kingdom
> Heavenly "-" because they live in harmony with priroda "(i.e.
> preferred spiritual values).

Duc, and then! If you assign a new meaning to all the words, then you can find any thought given in advance in any text.


> MsGuns © (16.04.03 12: 28)

Well, at the expense of losing influence, you hurried a little. And it affects, and subjugates, and enslaves.



Danilka   (2003-04-16 13:11) [139]


> that faith a) is b) needed)

is there
Of course it is, everyone has it. For example, for those who do not believe in God, this is also faith - after all, they can in no way prove with 100% reliability of the result that it is not.

b) need
How else?
Dahl's explanatory dictionary: "FAITH. Confidence, conviction, firm consciousness, the concept of something ..."
If no one had believed anyone until now, they would climb trees. :)) For example, no one would have believed Newton until he had gotten over the head, no one would have believed Mendeleev, Rutherford, Bohr, only those who personally personally repeated their experiments and got the same results. And there wouldn’t be these people.
;))



Soft   (2003-04-16 13:12) [140]

>> Supreme 2 ©
>> But for some reason it seems to me that each person represents the world in his own way, in a different way. Now, if I, for example, see a blue color, then another person can see with his own eyes this color is GREEN, but will call it BLUE, because accustomed from childhood, and GREEN inverse BLUE.

I will tell you the most terrible secret of all orders and sects ...

The grass is green!!!:))



uw   (2003-04-16 13:14) [141]

> Mazut Coastal Rurikovich (16.04.03 10: 26)
> Never tried the phrase "Blessed are the poor in spirit" to understand as "the poor have good souls"

This phrase is understood in this way:

"Beggars of the spirit" - this, according to St. St. John Chrysostom, "those who constantly keep in their minds and faithfully acknowledge their insignificance, humble themselves in spirit and regret their hearts, tame all pride and arrogance in themselves" (9 conversation on the book of Genesis).

"Beggar in spirit," according to Rev. Egyptian Macarius, "they are constantly in great humble wisdom and heartbreaking grief over their insignificance, they always have their sinful sores in the face of their souls, they know the darkness of passions surrounding her and ask for deliverance from them from the Lord." (Words 1, chap. X).


http://www.omolenko.com/texts/ispoved_nz1.htm



DiamondShark   (2003-04-16 14:12) [142]


> Danilka © (16.04.03 13: 11)
> Of course there is, everyone has it. For example, those who do not believe
> in god this is also faith


Yeah. Not faith is faith. A bald head is such a hairstyle.
Are you, dear, with such a level of thinking, how long have you been from a tree?
Let’s say that the word "God" I heard the first time in my life yesterday. It turns out that before that I had a belief that he was not?
And now you have the faith (confidence, conviction, firm consciousness) that there is no Big Pink Holopusik.


> For example, no one would believe Newton

Oh, great. I do not believe and never believed Newton. I get an apple on the head. Now I do not believe, but I knowthat Newton is right (note, by the way, that I did not believe) Attention, the question is: where and what should I get on the head to make sure that the Bible (Quran, Bhagavad-Gita, Vedas, Veles book, Kabbalah, oral tales of the Cherokee Indians, Greek myths) is true?

You get confused yourself and try to confuse others (copyr25 laurels are haunting? So he gets it finer) in two different ways: trust in the source of information and religious faith.
Explain further, or will you figure it out yourself?



Внук   (2003-04-16 14:45) [143]

>> Danilka © (16.04.03 13: 11)

"Of course there is, everyone has. For example, for those who do not believe in God, this is also faith - because they can’t prove with 100% reliability of the result that it doesn’t exist"

Oh, I didn’t want to get involved, but I have to once again explain this thesis.

Those who believe that people who deny God do not believe in its existence are severely mistaken. Here is an example ...
I do not believe in the existence of God, but to me no need believe that it does not exist. This is one of those things that "are not included in the circle of our concepts," as Prutkov said.

God is simply an unnecessary concept in the worldview of believing or not believing - both questions are meaningless. Well, come up with a concept from the ceiling, name it, say, WUFUJHWGJBCV, and discuss it with foam at the mouth, whether you believe in it or not. Is it stupid? That's it.

By the way, who believes in God and who does not believe are equally religious :)



Внук   (2003-04-16 14:48) [144]

>> DiamondShark © (16.04.03 14: 12)
Ahead :)





Danilka   (2003-04-16 15:05) [145]

DiamondShark © (16.04.03 14: 12)
I do not see the difference between the belief that God is and the belief that there is no God. And there and there faith, without any mixing of concepts.
> Attention, the question: where and how do I get on the head to
> make sure that the Bible (...) is true?

This is the point, no matter where, either believe that the truth is true, or believe that it is not true. Both that and that - faith. Moreover, these are rather voluminous books, something is true (for example, that killing or stealing is bad, at least for me personally), something is a lie (again, for me personally).

Grandson © (16.04.03 14: 45)
> ... but I do not need to believe that it does not exist
But this is already something new that I had never thought about before. :))

> God-just an unnecessary concept in the worldview, believe or not
> believe - both questions are meaningless

In fact, if this refers to a kind of omnipotent Santa Claus, then I agree, but the whole point is that I still can’t decide on the concept of what God is, therefore I can’t understand, believe in him, not believe or simply hammer on it. :))



Danilka   (2003-04-16 15:08) [146]

DiamondShark © (16.04.03 14: 12)
and on the account of "copyr25 laurels haunting you?", in my opinion the majority of his posts are extremely negative, which I do not want my posts.
:))



Игорь Шевченко   (2003-04-16 15:08) [147]

The multiplication table must be trusted. And holy, to the point of insanity :) And then the grace of heaven will descend.



Danilka   (2003-04-16 15:11) [148]

Igor Shevchenko © (16.04.03 15: 08)
or maybe to score?



zx   (2003-04-16 15:12) [149]

Well all attacked on one! :)

To Hebrews 11: 1 Faith is the realization of the expected and the certainty of the invisible.

Both of them believe in different things.

Jacob 2: 19 You believe that God is one: you do well; and demons believe, and tremble.

see Mazut Beregovoi Rurikovich (16.04.03 08: 26)



Игорь Шевченко   (2003-04-16 15:17) [150]

Danilka © (16.04.03 15: 11)

You can score. Especially when calculating salary :)



Supreme 2   (2003-04-16 15:23) [151]

> Oldemon

You say that you can communicate with God everywhere and at any time (for example, in a church). How? I came, imagined that God was waiting for you, ready to help you, and you begin to speak with him in thoughts, right? And how to hear the answer? There will simply be silence and your own thoughts you yourself will mistakenly take for an answer! Moreover, if God is one, the most high, then how can he deal with such a HUGE amount of people around the world? After all, you can not give advice to everyone at once, it is necessary in turn!



Vlad Oshin   (2003-04-16 15:30) [152]


> Supreme 2 © (16.04.03 15: 23)


According to the same astral theory
He is type in a dimension beyond our control. And it can be everywhere, in many places at the same time

As if we were looking at people living in the same plane, dimensions in the third dimension = 0. They glide in their world, and see only what they can see. And we see all of their insides, we can easily take one or two, and put them in a spin, from their so-called room, which for them will be a great miracle.



DiamondShark   (2003-04-16 16:38) [153]


> Danilka © (16.04.03 15: 05)
> This is the point, no matter where, either believe that the truth, or believe
> that is not true. Both that and that - faith. It’s also pretty
> voluminous books, something true (for example, what to kill
> or steal badly, at least for me personally) something
> -A lie (again, for me personally).

Sorry, but this is very similar to one notorious literary work ;-)
If you will, quote:
---------
Me: "Or maybe your friend Carl invented all this?"
John: “Nothing of the kind! The fifth paragraph says:“ This list is dictated by Hank. ”In addition, the second paragraph says:“ Do not abuse alcohol, ”the fourth:“ Eat well, ”and the eighth:“ Wash your hands after you went to the toilet. "Everyone knows that these points are correct, so everything else is also true.
---------


> I do not see the difference between the belief that God is and the belief that
> there is no god. And there and there faith, without any mixing of concepts.

And the difference between “believe” and “don't believe”? The essence of me I do not believe (but not I believe in the absence) that in my worldview (picture of the world) nothing would have changed if I had never heard such a concept. (see also Grandson © 16.04.03 14: 45))

And the words about the substitution of concepts related to the habit of other apologists to speculate. It looks (simplified) it is.
The following phenomena are put in one row:
1) Do you believe the question "What time is it?" a passerby will give you the correct answer (trust in the source of insignificant information)
2) Do you believe that the Earth is spinning, and the speed of light is 2.9Е8 m / s (fundamentally verified statements)
Your attention is drawn to the fact that "as you yourself have seen" all life is built on faith.



MsGuns   (2003-04-16 16:52) [154]

> DiamondShark © (16.04.03 16: 38)

Yeah, mixed in a heap and cutlets, and flies, and what remains of the cutlets some time after they were eaten.

Or maybe the whole point is that you need to clearly distinguish between 2 things:
1. faith - in the sense of a conscious understanding of the existence of a certain statement or phenomenon.
examples:
- I do not believe my companion because he is a rogue
- I believe that a black cat and empty buckets are in trouble
- I believe that in N years I will become rich

2. Vera. Those. one of those qualities, and there are not so many that are endowed with only a person from all living things. Belief that he is from the flesh and blood of the Creator. That the Creator has laid in him the best that he has at his disposal and even more - He gave the person the RIGHT OF CHOICE - to believe or not to believe in the soul, mind, actions and feelings. AND DOES NOT AFFECT in any way this person in this choice! You can’t BELIEVE a person. To this he may or may not come, but on his own. Notice that not one Church FORCES a person to Believe. Persuades, warns, rejects - but does not force. Just because it is basically impossible.




DiamondShark   (2003-04-16 17:14) [155]


> MsGuns © (16.04.03 16: 52)

Well, not me mixed up. I just illustrated one running gear.

Well, according to item 2. It will not be difficult for you to explain briefly why you (personally you) chose Faith?



copyr25   (2003-04-16 18:04) [156]

> TTT (16.04.03 05: 12):
>> copyr25 © (15.04.03 17: 14)

> you are lying that a believer.
Sure! After all, they pay me well here
for this lie :))

> for the Orthodox religion, the main thing is peace of mind and the ability to forgive.
> All this is alien to you, if the basis is alien, then how can you consider yourself a believer?

These properties are also implied in other religions, for example,
in Buddhism. And then the basics of Orthodoxy?

> Solzhenitsyn fulfilled the mission of the CIA to denigrate and debunk
> our success-it means you are a CIA agent, once you provide them with this support.

This is a clipping from an editorial in the Pravda newspaper of the late 70s.

> The Orthodox Church is not antagonistic to communist morality. On the contrary a lot
> general. Morality is one and the difference is not significant.

And you were convinced of this by the Communist Party City Committee?
The Orthodox Church does not call the Soviet government anything but the godless.

> Your explanation about a mouse whose thought changes the world

These are not my explanations, but Einstein’s hypothesis.
Thank you, of course, for accepting his search for mine, but I, right,
I didn’t deserve it :))

> from the point of view of religion, all changes can
> occur only by the will and plan of God.

This is a relic of the practice of a planned Soviet economy,
not the foundation of Orthodoxy. Trust me:))



uw   (2003-04-16 18:08) [157]

> Danilka © (16.04.03 15: 05)

I have practically nothing to add to the replicas of DiamondShark © and Grandson ©, with regard to religion I have a similar structure. But I want to repeat once again that all discussions on the topic of faith will inevitably slip into the statement that believers are moral, because 10 commandments are written in their Book, and they believe this Book, and the rest do not believe this Book, they do not know about these commandments, and therefore are immoral. Read your text

> ... either believe that the truth, or believe that the truth.
> Both this and that-faith. Besides, these are quite voluminous books, something is true
> (for example, that killing or stealing is bad, at least for me
> personally) something-a lie (again, for me personally).

and you’ll see that you have already divided me and yourself here. But you understand that I know what is good and what is bad. And we with DiamondShark © and Grandson © also know these commandments and live by them. And if sometimes we violate some of them, then by no means more often than believers do it. If we reject the moral and ethical side, then the whole conversation comes down to a simple vote: yes - no.

And if you want to "decide on the concept of what God is," then here you will not succeed. Better read Thomas Mann’s wonderful book, Joseph and His Brothers. Faith or unbelief will not be added to you, but what God is, you will understand.



uw   (2003-04-16 18:31) [158]

> copyr25 © (15.04.03 20: 07)

Sir!

You used plenty of canvas (copyr25 © (15.04.03 17:58), copyr25 © (15.04.03 18:18), copyr25 © (15.04.03 18:42)) to expose me as a person who uses words and not understanding their meaning. I showed you (uw © (15.04.03 19:52)) a definition that clearly indicates the polysemy of the word "pathos". In this definition, under paragraph 3, the meaning of the word in which I used it in the post uw © (15.04.03 16:05) is also given. Where I got this definition from, you can well understand by letting any search engine onto some part of it.

I admit that even a cultured person may not know all the meanings of a word, especially a foreign origin. But at the same time, I am convinced that a cultured, and just a decent person would consider it his duty to apologize for his unsuccessful statements.

I am waiting for your reply in this thread until the end of the day.

Best regards
uw

PS I realize that this message can be easily attributed to private correspondence. But I think that, affecting the ethical side of communication in the forum, it concerns everyone and therefore, I hope, it will not be deleted at least until midnight. Thanks.




MsGuns   (2003-04-16 18:32) [159]

> DiamondShark © (16.04.03 17: 14)
> Well, according to claim 2. It will not be difficult for you to explain briefly why you (personally you) chose Faith?

Where I wrote the phrase " Я CHOOSE "?
If you read carefully, you can see that FAITH is inherent in a person from the beginning. The choice is only to follow what she suggests or not. About myself, I personally did not say a word. And in general, IMHO, Faith - this feeling is deeply intimate. Just like Love (not to be confused with love for beer or sex). I consider it possible to discuss my personal understanding of these things only with people very close and one-on-one. And, again, within reasonable limits.




copyr25   (2003-04-16 18:51) [160]

> Danilka © (16.04.03 15:08):
> and on the account "copyr25 laurels haunt?", then in my opinion
> most of his posts are
> extremely negative, which I do not want my posts.

> TTT (16.04.03 08: 20):
> But actually, copyr25 and I are twin brothers.
> As copyr25 I am even worse. Toward evening I start morally
> molest minors. Ways are different - from direct lies
> to attract the ideas of quantum mechanics and cosmology, in which
> I don’t understand much, but for corruption there’s even less understanding
> children is enough.

This is like an attempt at ostracism :))
For minors, in the words of TTT, those who do not know - so in Dr. Greece
philosophers drove out of the city by voting
Protagoras was expelled from Athens, subsequently drowned, and his
books were publicly burned.
For just one statement, carefully preserved
his Roman followers:
De diis, neque ut sint, neque ut non sint, habeo dicere.
There are gods or not, I can not say anything about it.

(meaning pagan gods)

As you can see, even in ancient times, the forum also possessed
executive punitive function.

I will not drown.
And no one will burn my books publicly, because there are none :))

I leave unborn minors in
confidence of their innocence. Grow and take courage.
Trust in your majority.
Trust in a positive attitude towards your posts.
Enjoy the consent and confidence of everyone
your statement.

Reduce the conf to a simple and clear dialogue, - Do you agree?
- Not. - Fool. - Yes. - Well done.
Clear and clear. And, most importantly, priceless traffic will be saved.

Bye :))



DiamondShark   (2003-04-16 19:04) [161]


> MsGuns © (16.04.03 18: 32)


I generally ceased to understand something :-(
So laid, or is there a choice?
Do not want to discuss your understanding, let's discuss mine, I am without complexes. Is it embedded in me, or have I chosen?



Плохой человек   (2003-04-16 19:26) [162]

Hammer. Under no circumstances will God ever appear to any of you. Nafig think. Sleep. All sleep....



MsGuns   (2003-04-16 19:36) [163]

> DiamondShark © (16.04.03 19: 04)

Of course, I am not as savvy as some of the participants in this thread, and I have read not so much. But I’ll try to explain.

Making any decision (to drink, not to drink, to leave his wife, not to quit, to send a neighbor, not to send, etc.), the person THINKS and ANALYSIS. Anyone, even down. But, essno, each at his own level.
Unlike an animal or plant that cannot ANALYZE.
In this case, there is always a "FOR" and "AGAINST". In addition, there are criteria "GOOD" and "BAD", which are determined by many factors. We call them "RULES OF BEHAVIOR AND COMMUNITY IN SOCIETY" (hereinafter for brevity of vocational education and training).
This is not a set of laws and not the Constitution, but something else that has long been determined in the environment where a person was born and raised. You can call it traditions, customs, code of ethics in the end, in general, I hope that they understood me.
These same vocational schools did not take shape a hundred, or even a thousand years, but much longer. Rather, initially, they included the "Rules", observing that a person received complete happiness from his stay on Earth. But over time, these rules were partially lost, and the remaining ones were perverted. But the very essence is intuitively clear even to the most lost person. For example, even the most malicious killer or rapist understands that he does evil by tormenting his victim. Even if it is a barbarian warrior and the code of laws of his people, it approves. But he CHOOSES that morality, which at the moment seems to him more FAVORABLE - that is, kills. Even if he kills a lot of people at a time who he never saw in his eyes (a bomber pilot, for example) - this does not exempt him from CHOICE. And responsibility. If a person nevertheless goes to this (fear of the tribunal, desire to become famous or to become rich, etc.), then he simply drowns out the Faith that was incorporated into him from birth, making a CHOICE against her. Those. in other words we can say that he convinces himself to believe that this will get away with him, although Faith in just retribution (not necessarily punishing, by the way) lives in it constantly, although it is drowned out by everything that is possible (including the church - " sins ").

Constant "training" in making the CHOICE somehow leads the person to "GOOD" or "BAD." The more people take the “BAD" side, the faster the society of these people "spoils" and tries to legitimize new TVET by constitutions, governments, religions and other official bodies, as if trying hard to drown the smoldering Faith within themselves.

It is no secret that the Bible, the Qur'an, the Talmud and other holy books
there is nothing but squeezes and remarks, besides appropriately aligned and adjusted so that it is "incomprehensible" to those who benefit from it. The True Truth About Human Life on Earth is hopelessly closed to all of us.
And the best guarantee of a “castle” is that a person has almost forgotten Vera.
I do not believe in Christ or in Buddha, but I believe in myself as the embodiment of the Almighty Creator.

Threat. It turned out a bit hard. The books say much more elegant and convincing. Not claiming in any way at least some semblance of rightness (I do not need it), I still hope that there will not be many who want to make fun of what is written.

ZZY. Books can only help to think about Faith and give some very useful tips and techniques. The final decision of the CHOICE always remains with the person.






Songoku   (2003-04-16 20:17) [164]

Personally, I do not believe in God! People use God, they deceive each other. Nowadays, it is not real to live according to divine law (the Bible).

I only believe in myself and build strength.



Мазут Береговой   (2003-04-16 21:59) [165]

Well, you piled here while I was sleeping! ...


> DiamondShark © (16.04.03 13: 04)
Quoted16.04.03>> Mazut Beregovoi Rurikovich (10 26:XNUMX)
QuotedXNUMX>> Never tried the phrase "Blessed are the poor in spirit" to understand
quotedXNUMX>> as "the poor have good souls," and the phrase "because they have a kingdom
QuotedXNUMX>> Heavenly "-" because they live in harmony with nature "(i.e.
quotedXNUMX>> preferred spiritual values).
>
> Duc, and that! If you assign a new meaning to all words, then you can
> in any text any thought given in advance is to be found.


He did not assign a new meaning, but tried to understand the phrase correctly. It seemed to me that putting the “kingdom of heaven” at the disposal of it was the “poor spirit” (in other words, people with low moral qualities), and not just the “poor” (those for whom spiritual values ​​are higher than material ones, who are content with little) is not logical . And then it does not fit in with the phrase "it is easier for a camel to crawl into the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven," as Jesus said the same. And then Jesus also divided the poor into two categories: simply the poor (which I mentioned earlier) and those who are potentially suffering, fallen, unable to even think, who have lost faith in themselves.


> uw © (16.04.03 13: 14)
Quoted16.04.03>> Mazut Beregovoi Rurikovich (10 26:XNUMX)
QuotedXNUMX>> Never tried the phrase "Blessed are the poor in spirit" to understand
> like "the poor have good souls"
>
> This phrase is understood in this way:
>
> "Beggars", - this, according to St. John Chrysostom, "those
> who constantly keep in their minds and faithfully acknowledge their insignificance, humble themselves in spirit and lament their hearts, tame all pride and arrogance in themselves "(9 talk on the book. Genesis).


Why can't you read the phrase correctly?
Why do you put “poor in spirit” as a noun + adjective? These are different members of the sentence!
For example, the phrase "delicious apple juice." Here, no one will argue that the subject is an apple, the predicate is delicious, the definition is juice.
And in the phrase "blessed are the poor in spirit" - the same thing.
Try again:
delicious apple juice
blessed are the poor in spirit

Incorrect word order used. Let's try to put in the correct one:
Apple delicious juice
Beggars are blessed in spirit


And what does the word "blessed" mean? Most likely comes from the word "blessed", the root is "good", i.e. good.
"Beggars" - understandably, the poor.
If someone has more accurate data on the interpretation of words, please correct.




Мазут Береговой   (2003-04-16 22:03) [166]


> MsGuns © (16.04.03 19: 36)


Here! Right! You can’t say more precisely.



uw   (2003-04-16 23:51) [167]

> uw © (16.04.03 18: 31)
> I am waiting for your [copyr25 ©] answer in this thread until the end of the day.

So we write: it will not come.

Once I was on Triumfalnaya Square in Moscow at the moment when the right-wingers were going to carry from there a huge Russian flag to Tverskaya Square. Opposite me stood Gleb Yakunin and was discussing something with a man; I was right behind his interlocutor. I was struck by a combination of robes and a hard and evil look. Now it is remembered.

Good night.



MsGuns   (2003-04-17 00:24) [168]

I’ll finish the thought, if, of course, there are readers;)))
A believer is not one who observes fasts, prays for half an hour, and regularly attends church. And also serves "in a circle" and puts candles. And it’s not at all HOW he prays, WHERE, and WHEN, but rather that in essence he thus expresses only his FEAR before the punishment and the desire to atone. In the same way, as a small child, a naughty man, is afraid that he will get from his father, runs to repent to a good mother.
Virtually any religion is based on mortal fear. There is no room for jokes, fun, joy. It turns out that a person was born not in order to experience the joy of being, the happiness of his stay in this world, the enjoyment of a sense of dexterity and beauty of his body and soul, but only in order to suffer.

What monster invented all this? And why ? To re-educate souls with flour in order to improve them? Wow, experimentation! Why is the world so arranged? Or is that just what they say? Rather, very persistently impose?

Try to ask these and many more questions to any priest and watch the reaction. At best, they will begin to quote you from the Holy Scriptures; at worst, they will call you a blasphemer or simply drive them away.

Thus, for a long time a person has been persistently pushing that he should BELIEVE. Do not Believe, namely Believe. What's the difference ? It is that the word "believe" means to believe implicitly, without foundation, blindly. And follow all that the Servant of Faith says. It’s impossible to come up with a better leash. To rule not over property and not even over the body, but over the soul and thoughts. Keep in constant and ongoing fear.

A believer (meaning a true believer, not the one who pretends to be) is a deeply unhappy person, suffering, constantly afraid to do something wrong, living in eternal fear. Very often, he is not even aware of his misfortune.

The real Faith, first of all, is that a person BELIEVES that from his actions, words and even thoughts, the WORLD CAN CHANGE and he is free to make it worse or better. He does not need to fly into space, he does not need science, because BELIEVES that ONLY BECAUSE HE HAPPENED IN LIFE, IT HAS ALL NEEDED MEANS FOR PERFORMING ITS MISSION. There is no fear of the unknown, but only confidence that everything depends entirely on him.
I BELIEVE that people were once like that and this is my Faith, if this word can be applied. Why has everything changed? So it MUST HAPPEN. Apparently, because those very “golden” rules began to seem superfluous to someone.


Threat. It is not written scientifically and perhaps even not very correctly. But the meaning in brief, as I could, conveyed. I will not talk about IMHO - there can simply be no other opinion (in the sense of not personal, but some generally accepted or "scientific")

ZZY. I read and decided to round off. I can imagine what a Mont Blanc slop spills on my poor obstinate little head. Nevertheless, I'll post. Just because it needs to be said. For as many people as possible and as often as possible.



N   (2003-04-17 00:29) [169]

God is love.
And he exists, whether DiamondShark, Grandson, etc. believe or not believe in him.



Мазут Береговой   (2003-04-17 01:13) [170]


> MsGuns © (17.04.03 00: 24)

Allow me to split the Mont Blanc Slop?



OlDemon   (2003-04-17 07:17) [171]

2 zx> Forgive me submissively, but I don’t notice something from your meaningful quotes.

2 MsGuns © (16.04.03 12:28)>
Listen to Mazut - he’s wiser here.
What was measured, if not secret?

2 DiamondShark © (16.04.03 12:42)>
I need. I don’t know. Decide for yourself. But I think that you also find it difficult to answer the question "Why do not I need faith?".

2 MsGuns © (17.04.03 00:24)>
Some kind of very strange understanding of faith. I would say very narrow and one-sided. How did you determine what I feel like a believer, or Copyr25? Where does this information come from?

"I will not talk about IMHO, - there can simply be no other opinion (in the sense of not personal, but some generally accepted or" scientific ") on this subject"
Not much to take on?

2 Supreme 2 © (16.04.03 15:23)>
The fact is that God is not someone material with whom you can talk. He is inside of you. He is in everything that surrounds you. If you understand this, you will bring yourself closer to him. God is those unshakable principles that must not be violated. First of all, Love, humility, calmness, etc.



OlDemon   (2003-04-17 07:28) [172]

MsGuns © (16.04.03 19:36)>
Well said. But where did this come from then -
“A believer is not one who observes the fasts, prays for half an hour and regularly goes to church. He also serves“ in a cup ”and puts candles. It’s not at all HOW he prays, WHERE, and WHEN, but that, in fact, in this way he expresses only his FEAR before the punishment and the desire to redeem, just like a small child, who is crap, is afraid that he will get from his father and runs to repent to his good mother.
Virtually any religion is based on mortal fear. "
By the way, by no means any. Take Buddhism for example.

Songoku © (16.04.03 20:17)
"I only believe in myself and build strength."

Well done. YOUR POWER will help you. May be.



OlDemon   (2003-04-17 07:36) [173]

2 DiamondShark © (16.04.03 19:04)>
I generally ceased to understand something :-(
So laid, or is there a choice?
Do not want to discuss your understanding, let's discuss mine, I am without complexes. Is it embedded in me, or have I chosen?

Do you BELIEVE?



Supreme 2   (2003-04-17 07:37) [174]

Oops! They spoke, they spoke, and came to the conclusion that God is love!
And here it ??? I consider love to be a separate issue in general (and science, probably), but God has nothing to do with it.



OlDemon   (2003-04-17 08:00) [175]

2 Supreme 2>
Yes, God is Love. And love is God. And if you don’t understand, then you can consider that love is a manifestation of God. Honestly, it’s already becoming something to explain, and Jesus said .. In general, go down this ladder yourself. Neither I nor all the forum participants combined can raise you.



Думкин   (2003-04-17 08:24) [176]

Yeah, I skipped it.
Well, with Darwin - okay. Was there a Big Bang?



uw   (2003-04-17 09:39) [177]

> Dumkin © (17.04.03 08: 24)

Darwin certainly was.



Мазут Береговой Рюрикович   (2003-04-17 09:45) [178]


> OlDemon © (17.04.03 08: 00)
> 2 Supreme 2>
> Yes, God is Love. And love is God. And if you don’t understand,
> then you can consider that love is a manifestation of God. Fair
> saying, it’s already becoming something to explain, and Jesus
> said .. In general, go down this ladder. Lift you up
> neither I nor all the forum participants combined can do it.
>


I, too, no longer have the strength and hands drop, and everything else ... and it’s not time for love yet ... :-)))



zx   (2003-04-17 09:58) [179]

> OlDemon © (17.04.03 07: 17)
The idea is simple, the Bible is the truth, it must be known and followed.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.



OlDemon   (2003-04-17 10:45) [180]

2 zx>
I agree with that. Although I have never read the Bible. Nevertheless, the immutability of the truths stated in the Bible YOU and I recognize as Christians. Try to prove your thesis to a Muslim. Hence the conclusion - everyone believes in "his" God, who is actually the same one. And it's not bad, and not good. That's it.



zx   (2003-04-17 11:11) [181]

> ... which is actually the same ...
I do not agree.

Joshua 24: 15 If it is not your desire to serve the Lord, then choose for yourself now whom to serve, whether the gods whom your fathers who were across the river have served, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you live; but I and my house will serve the Lord, [for He is holy].



zx   (2003-04-17 11:12) [182]

> Although I have never read the Bible.
I strongly advise!



DiamondShark   (2003-04-17 11:20) [183]


> MsGuns © (16.04.03 19: 36)


But on the issue of the origin of moral standards, I will not argue with you. With historical materialism you do not differ much
;-)
Just clarification on the basis of innate faith (what, by the way?). IMHO, innate - an arbitrary assumption. But if you say that this is a product of the same public consciousness, then everything falls into place, and there is no need to introduce any extra entities.

And with extra entities, the problem still remains. The end of your message is not connected in any way with the beginning.

> The True Truth About Human Life On Earth is hopelessly closed to all of us.

I would be grateful if you would clarify something on the account of “The True Truth About Human Life on Earth”. In particular, on what basis do you believe that it a) exists b) is closed hopelessly. It is very interesting how you deal with these properties (existence and hopeless closeness) at the same time. In particular, how it was possible to establish existence with hopeless closure.

Also, the issue of Faith in the Creator did not become any clearer. On the issue of public morality, you have managed very successfully without it. Therefore, the question remains the same: where did you get the concept of "Creator", and why does Faith in it serve.




stone   (2003-04-17 11:25) [184]


> zx © (17.04.03 11: 11)
quotedXNUMX>> ... which is actually the same one ...
> I do not agree.
>
> Joshua 24:15 But if you do not want to serve the Lord,
> then choose for yourself now whom to serve, whether to the gods whom they served
> your fathers who were across the river, or to the gods of the Amorites, in the land
> whom you live; but I and my house will serve the Lord, [for
> He is holy].


Any chapter of the Bible can be interpreted in different ways. Dogmatism in interpretation does not convince, but rather the opposite. You can breed a wild flood about the geographical position of the river, argue about the left / right bank, calculate the origin of those Amorites, etc., but is it worth it?



OlDemon   (2003-04-17 11:29) [185]

zx © (17.04.03 11:11)
> ... which is actually the same ...
I do not agree.
So do you still think that Christianity is the only right faith? If yes, then you are deeply mistaken. Different faiths describe only various forms. But in fact all His forms and all His names. This can be proved by the fact that there are no fundamental differences between religions.

> Although I have never read the Bible.
I strongly advise!
Mandatory. :-)



Думкин   (2003-04-17 11:34) [186]


> uw © (17.04.03 09: 39)

Yes?! And maybe this is an illusion. % -)



DiamondShark   (2003-04-17 11:50) [187]


> OlDemon © (17.04.03 07: 17)
> 2 DiamondShark © (16.04.03 12:42)>
> I need. I don’t know. Decide for yourself. But I think that you too
> find it difficult to answer the question "Why do not I need faith?".


You know, I’m not at a loss. A thing that I don’t know about may not be necessary for me.

But those who claim that they have some kind of faith, for some reason they need solid questions when asking “what is it” and “why is it necessary”. Why would that be?



Думкин   (2003-04-17 11:56) [188]


> DiamondShark © (17.04.03 11: 50)

Difficulties - a difficult thing, but relief - they are also different.



DiamondShark   (2003-04-17 12:02) [189]


> Dumkin © (17.04.03 11: 56)


What are you talking about? Or is this understanding only for the enlightened?



OlDemon   (2003-04-17 12:23) [190]

DiamondShark © (17.04.03 11: 50)
Have you read the story about the defendant? Did you make any conclusions?



MsGuns   (2003-04-17 12:33) [191]

> DiamondShark © (17.04.03 11: 50)
> You know, I’m not at a loss. The thing I don’t know about may not be necessary for me

Finally, she is the quintessence! If I don’t know (I don’t understand, I don’t want or can’t understand) - then to hell!
Well, really, well, a fig fish is an umbrella, a hare has a drum, and Diamond is faith?




MsGuns   (2003-04-17 12:33) [192]

> DiamondShark © (17.04.03 11: 50)
> You know, I’m not at a loss. The thing I don’t know about may not be necessary for me

Finally, she is the quintessence! If I don’t know (I don’t understand, I don’t want or can’t understand) - then to hell!
Well, really, well, the fig fish is an umbrella, a goat is a button accordion, and Diamond is faith?




Marser   (2003-04-17 12:41) [193]


> Supreme 2 © (15.04.03 22:05)
QuotedXNUMX>> bad man
QuotedXNUMX>> I believe that we all live in a matrix. We are all just
>> battery.
>
> And for some reason it seems to me that every person represents
> the world in its own way, in a different way. Now, if I, for example, see blue
> color, then another person can see with his own eyes this
> the color is GREEN, but will call it BLUE, because accustomed to
> from childhood, and GREEN inverse BLUE.

And all from the fact that you do not know the concept of spectrum. I thought so in about 8 years. And this peculiarity is called color blindness.

> DiamondShark © (14.04.03 23: 13)
>> copyr25 © (14.04.03/20/44 XNUMX:XNUMX p.m.)
QuotedXNUMX>> Knowledge strengthens Faith.
> This is very bad.
> Because part of the knowledge is filtered by faith.
> Here is God's servant Marser already firmly convinced: the theory of evolution
> and modern cosmology-this is nonsense. His faith is strong, and
> he does not foresee new knowledge on this subject.
> But doubt strengthens knowledge.

Well, here you are bent and with a clearly provocative goal. It is simply that the probability of the formation of the modern world as a result of the Big Bang and evolution endlessly tends to zero. Therefore, the conclusion is that the above processes are nothing but the methods of the Higher Mind, the Higher Power - the Lord God. Heinrich Heine said : “If your vision interferes, poke out your eyes, if your mind interferes, turn to religion.” And for so many believers this is so. But don’t think that I truly believe in the 6-7 thousand-year-old age of the Earth and the Fiery Gehena (if a person is God's favorite creation and God is love, why invent all kinds of perversions). Moreover, I do not even exclude falsification of the Bible in order to eliminate references to reincarnation. I also study the occult theory (though I try not to go beyond the boundaries of the charitable) .Moreover, I - knight, nobleman, etc. I really don’t like to acknowledge myself as someone’s slave, although it is said that in humility the path to salvation.
And do not cite me as an example like this. That Suprim is another matter, though he is just an atheist.
PSMsGuns said excellently about bacteria in the toilet. Between God and us, the difference is about the same as between humans and bacteria (if not more)



Думкин   (2003-04-17 13:05) [194]


> DiamondShark © (17.04.03 12: 02)

Well no. Everything is simpler. And you understood that a long time ago. So - warming up. I just got into the branch late - while I look around.



DiamondShark   (2003-04-17 13:34) [195]


> MsGuns © (17.04.03 12: 33)


So, let's not be hysterical.
When I say "not needed," this primarily means that I do not feel a conscious need. It seemed to me that this is so obvious that it does not require clarification. Or are you going to claim “need” as an organic need (such as breathing)? I don’t think so ...

I’m trying to understand this need, and I’m constantly wedged at the most interesting place: in recent posts, after quite sound reasoning (in which you, by the way, are free to go without faith), there is a sharp jump to completely groundless statements. Naturally, my perplexity only grows, in particular, your sensations are interesting when you make this leap.
What are you jumping through?
If it hurts or discomforts you, just say so, I will leave you alone (in great perplexity, though, remaining).



DiamondShark   (2003-04-17 13:58) [196]


> Marser © (17.04.03 12: 41)



> Well, here you are bent and with a clearly provocative purpose.

And in my thoughts there was no one to provoke something.


> Just the probability of the formation of the modern world as a result
> The Big Bang and Evolution endlessly tends to zero. Therefore
> conclusion that the above processes are nothing but
> methods of the Higher Mind, Higher Power-the Lord God

I’m afraid to ask about the probability of the existence of a Higher Power (as it was believed, where did the data come from). Suddenly it will be a provocation?


> And do not bring me as a similar example. Here
> Suprim-another thing, though he is just an atheist.

Moreover, mind you, a spontaneous, innate atheist. Nobody agitated him, didn’t baptize, did not torture him. He was born that way. But his naive idea of ​​a Good God treating tummies, he is just has gained. From rumors, from speculation, etc.
But in matters of worldview, the naive atheist Suprem, who is mowing down as a fool, was capable of a deeper understanding.
Color, like wavelength, is of course an objective thing. But sense of color, i.e. that set of electrical impulses and biochemical reactions that occurs in the head can be exclusively individual, its own. And he is absolutely right: people just learn to designate their individual sensations as symbols.
He thought of it himself, and you learned the word "spectrum".
That's it.



zx   (2003-04-17 13:59) [197]

> OlDemon © (17.04.03 11: 29)
> there are no fundamental differences between religions.
It looks solid all the same. But the question is in a specific person (in me, in you, ...)

> stone © (17.04.03 11:25)
> Any chapter of the Bible can be interpreted in different ways.
The same is true. Therefore, I do not interpret it, but quote it.
This snatch was already here.

1 Tim. 4:16 Go into yourself and the doctrine, do this constantly, for in doing so you will save yourself and those who listen to you.



MsGuns   (2003-04-17 14:07) [198]

> DiamondShark © (17.04.03 13: 34)
> I’m trying to understand this need, and you constantly get stuck in the most interesting place: in recent messages, after quite sound reasoning (in which, by the way, you are free to go without faith), there should be a sharp jump to completely groundless statements. Naturally, my perplexity only grows, in particular, your sensations are interesting when you make this leap.
What are you jumping through?
If it hurts or discomforts you, just say so, I will leave you alone (in great perplexity, though, remaining).

I said at the very beginning that Vera is an extremely intimate feeling. But this intimacy does not come from shame (as, for example, the intimacy of Love), but from unconsciousness. Those. I myself, for example, ACCEPT so many things, and even UNDERSTAND, but do not realize. It is difficult to explain in words. In general, I took up this dirty business in vain, succumbed to your provocation;))
Well, for example, I got sick - I have a temperature and have a headache, body aches, etc. I ACCEPT it as I feel. I also UNDERSTAND that I got sick and that I need to be treated somehow, drink pills, go to the doctor, etc. But I am not able to RECOGNIZE my illness. Those. clearly and unambiguously identify the cause, identify the affected areas of the body, "see" the harmful bacilli and concentrate all their resources on their elimination.




DiamondShark   (2003-04-17 14:30) [199]


> Marser © (17.04.03 12: 41)
> Moreover, I am a knight, nobleman, etc. really do not like to admit
> yourself as someone's slave, although it is said that in humility the way
> to salvation.

Man is a slave, first of all, of himself, of his thoughts, concepts, patterns of thinking, stereotypes. And when you consider that a person receives most of the information from the outside in finished form, there are big doubts about how much he can consider himself to be at all.

You say a knight, nobleman, etc. (and beneath this etc. is still Ukrainian, Christian, man, and others etc.). But these are all hooks for which you can hook and pull. You can pull it with intent, or you can cling to a crap for some reason. And now think about which of the hooks you yourself, knowingly screwed yourself, and which of you drove from the outside.
And most importantly - why ...



zx   (2003-04-17 14:50) [200]

> DiamondShark © (17.04.03 14: 30)
> Man is a slave, first of all, of himself ...
Not only.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them: Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever doeth sin is a servant of sin.



uw   (2003-04-17 14:56) [201]

> DiamondShark © (17.04.03 13: 58)
> About the probability of the existence of a Higher Power ... I’m afraid to ask anymore. Suddenly it will be a provocation?

Well, the believers have a simple answer to such “provocations”: the human mind is, in principle, incapable of understanding God's providence; moreover, it makes no sense to talk about the causes and probabilities of His occurrence or existence; it is unknowable in principle. Point.



DiamondShark   (2003-04-17 15:00) [202]


> MsGuns © (17.04.03 14: 07)


Well, one more charge of provocation.



stone   (2003-04-17 15:01) [203]


> the human mind, in principle, is not able to understand God's providence

the human mind, unfortunately, is not always able to understand some things whose existence has been proved, but only theoretically. What can we say more?



DiamondShark   (2003-04-17 15:11) [204]


> stone © (17.04.03 15: 01)
> the human mind, unfortunately, is not always able to understand some
> things whose existence is proved, but only theoretically.
> What can we say more?


Excuse me, was the theoretical proof of the greenish humanoids brought on a plate?

Indeed, on the fact that the mechanic Uncle Vasya is not able to understand (when sober) the provisions of the general theory of relativity, it is not worth building a cosmic scale of conclusions.

Careful in wording. A culture of thinking is the first step to understanding.



stone   (2003-04-17 15:28) [205]


> Sorry, but the theoretical proof of the greenish humanoids
> was brought on a plate?

If something is proved only in theory, this does not mean that in fact everything is just that. Upon further study (research), it is possible that this was just another delusion.


> Right, on the fact that locksmith Uncle Vasya is not able to understand
> (when sober) the provisions of the general theory of relativity,
> do not build a cosmic scale of conclusions.

This is not about specific individuals ...

For example: I also do not understand the essence of many simple things, but, at the same time, I can talk about high matters, and at the same time, I do not submit my conclusions as the only true ones, but only as another hypothesis with a huge probability of error.



N   (2003-04-17 15:30) [206]

> DiamondShark © (17.04.03 13: 34)
> When I say "no need", this primarily means that I do not feel a conscious need. It seemed to me that this is so obvious that it does not require clarification. Or are you going to claim “need” as an organic need (such as breathing)? I don’t think so ...


What is Love for? There is no conscious need for it, such as breathing. Why parents love their children, unlike animals, all their lives, even adults. Why do children feel gratitude, love for parents and take care of them to the end? Why does the loss of loved ones and friends bring pain?
Faith is also love.



uw   (2003-04-17 15:42) [207]

> N (17.04.03 15: 30)

Faith, Love and Hope are three big differences.

The female dinosaur also did not understand why love was needed. And where are they now?



N   (2003-04-17 15:53) [208]


> uw ©

Why are you doing this?



uw   (2003-04-17 16:01) [209]

Moreover, for a person as a representative of a species, the need for love is vital. Read Schopenhauer or anatomy with physiology, if this is not clear.



N   (2003-04-17 16:12) [210]

apparently we are talking about different things: 0)



MsGuns   (2003-04-17 16:20) [211]

Oh guys, whatever you say, but without a bottle (and not one) this dispute cannot be resolved;))))



DiamondShark   (2003-04-17 16:22) [212]


> stone © (17.04.03 15: 28)

The armor is strong, and our tanks are fast.


> If something is proved only in theory, this does not mean that
> in fact, everything is just that.

It will not be difficult to indicate where I even said a word about "the thing"?
In the meantime, quote:

> stone © (17.04.03 15: 01)
> the human mind, unfortunately, is not always able to understand some
> things whose existence is proved, but only theoretically.

So we have:
a) Theoretical evidence [of some things]
b) The inaccessibility of such evidence (or things?) to the human mind.
Of interest at the moment is the origin of the evidence (and there, you look, we’ll get to the reason for inaccessibility). In particular, by whom / what they are given.



uw   (2003-04-17 16:27) [213]

> N (17.04.03 16: 12)
> apparently we are talking about different things: 0)

It was necessary to add: nasty, nasty!

But seriously, there is another substitution:

> Faith is also love.

This means that if I don’t believe, then I don’t like it anymore. Before that, there was only: if I do not believe, then I do not obey the commandments.




stone   (2003-04-17 16:28) [214]


> DiamondShark © (17.04.03 16: 22)

I'm not going to prove anything to anyone. Moreover, I consider this matter pointless.

If you want to argue, see
> MsGuns © (17.04.03 16: 20)




Ru   (2003-04-17 16:40) [215]

let's fill the face of Supriku2 and say that this is heavenly punishment



MsGuns   (2003-04-17 16:43) [216]

> Ru © (17.04.03 16: 40)

You won’t cure with stupidity. One remedy - time;)))



Ru   (2003-04-17 16:56) [217]

at least learn something



DiamondShark   (2003-04-17 17:58) [218]


> MsGuns © (17.04.03 16: 43)
> A whack from stupidity can not be cured. One remedy - time;)))

Does that mean he’ll die?


> stone © (17.04.03 16: 28)

Hmm ... see, with the words about the culture of thinking, I am not addressed ...



Supreme 2   (2003-04-17 18:09) [219]

> Marser © (17.04.03 12: 41)

> And all from the fact that you do not know the concept of spectrum. I thought so> at 8 years old. And this identity is called color blindness.

I knew that someone would say that!
I know what color blindness is, it's just that you did not understand me. I did not mean only colors. For example, I see a circle round and therefore I call it a "circle", and another person in my eyes can see this "circle" in the form of a square, but will call it a "circle" because accustomed from childhood.

> Ru

Why beat me? For not believing in God?


Yes, and just do, as can be seen from the posts, half of the people on the forum also do not believe in God! And what's wrong with that? Never mind! On the contrary, it’s even better. Because you decide how everything will happen, you are responsible for your destiny and life, and you can plan and choose everything yourself, and not ask God or someone else for advice.



John   (2003-04-17 18:51) [220]

> Supreme 2 © (16.04.03 15: 23)
> So you say, you can communicate with God everywhere and anytime (for example, in a church). How? I came, imagined that God was waiting for you, ready to help you, and you begin to speak with him in thoughts, right? And how to hear the answer? There will simply be silence and your own thoughts you yourself will mistakenly take for an answer! Moreover, if God is one, the highest, then how does he deal with such a HUGE amount of people around the world? After all, you can not give advice to everyone at once, it is necessary in turn!

Man cannot embody in his mind all the greatness of God. God is omnipotent and hears everyone. As for turning to God, in prayer a person asks the Almighty for blessing, healing and other needs. God sees the hearts of all people and leaves prayer unanswered.
MT7: 7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and find; knock and it will be opened to you.

Ask and God will meet your needs.

"God works in mysterious ways". A true believer sees in everything the hand of the Lord




Serj   (2003-04-17 18:56) [221]

> Danilka © (16.04.03 07: 57)

> Everyone believes in something, in his own (even the one who says that he does not believe in anything).
> copyr25 believes Solzhenitsyn.
> Archbishop Theodosius believes that Solzhenitsyn is an agent of the CIA.
> his subordinate believes that the Bible is written rubbish.
> Serj believes that everything that is written in the Bible is true, and everything is very good.

But is everything bad ???

> Ru © (17.04.03 16: 40)
> let's fill the face of Supriku2 and say that this is heavenly punishment

Better to read the Bible.

> MsGuns © (17.04.03 16: 43)
> A whack from stupidity can not be cured. One remedy - time;)))


Exactly so once taught.

> John
> A true believer in everything sees the hand of the Lord

And it’s easier to live like that.

> Supreme 2 © (17.04.03 18: 09)
... Because you decide how everything will happen, you are responsible for your fate and life, and you can plan and choose everything yourself, and not ask God for advice or anyone else.

Everything is decided for you.




MsGuns   (2003-04-17 18:58) [222]

> Supreme 2 © (17.04.03 18: 09)
> I know what color blindness is, it's just that you did not understand me. I did not mean only colors. For example, I see a circle round and therefore I call it a "circle", and another person in my eyes can see this "circle" in the form of a square, but will call it a "circle" because accustomed from childhood.

You're right. And there is even evidence of the dependence of the “work” of the senses on the environment of residence / upbringing. In a dream, when we are "liberated" from physical sensations, we see everything a little in different colors. Moreover, everything is different, and this suggests that each of us creates everything that surrounds him, "our own efforts."

> Why beat me? For not believing in God?

No, not for that. And because instead of reading books, communicating with smart people close to you, you pick up a poster with the clown’s wording of a question and bring it down to the market square. Like, "advise how to live" and "what am I doing wrong?"
If you sincerely believe that you will be helped more than ridiculed, you are simply stupid. If this is banter, then - an idiot.

So Ru and I disagreed about who you are. He wants to carve you, but I think see. MsGuns © (17.04.03 16:43)







DiamondShark   (2003-04-17 19:29) [223]


> Serj © (17.04.03 18:56)
> For you everything is decided.


Oh really ?! And if I hit someone right now, did they decide for me too? But what for then sin, repentance and other canoes. What sin is it if everyone decided for me?

PS
Dear fellow believers! Please do not rush to "enlighten" me on this issue. I want to know only the opinion of Serj.



uw   (2003-04-17 19:59) [224]

> DiamondShark © (17.04.03 19: 29)

Do not cling.



Плохой человек   (2003-04-17 20:09) [225]

And how it all began .....



Мазут Береговой   (2003-04-17 21:03) [226]


> Dumkin © (17.04.03 13: 05)
>> DiamondShark © (17.04.03 12:02)
> Yes, no. Everything is simpler. And you understood that a long time ago. So - warming up.
> I just got into the branch late-while I look around.

I liked your position: if everything has already ended, then you can start all over again. You amused me in the morning. Thanks!



Serj   (2003-04-17 21:52) [227]

> DiamondShark © (17.04.03 19: 29)
> Oh really ?! And if I hit someone right now, did they decide for me too?

Yes, I made a mistake, not everything is decided for you, you have a choice.
Although, I don’t think that you’re going to tap someone, well, is it not fate? Or will you go check?
Be that as it may, the embers will be poured onto your head.

> Supreme 2 © (17.04.03 18: 09)
> I know what color blindness is, it's just that you did not understand me. I did not mean only colors. For example, I see a circle round and therefore I call it a "circle", and another person in my eyes can see this "circle" in the form of a square, but will call it a "circle" because accustomed from childhood.

Sorry, but it’s unlikely that you still have a toyut - problems with geometry will say.



Думкин   (2003-04-18 05:41) [228]


> Onshore Fuel Oil (17.04.03 21: 03)

It's my pleasure. How else? % -)
Anyway - in a week this topic will pop up again - we will cross over again. And in a circle. % -)
I was absent for 2 days - and on those - it went awry. :-)
Okay, you.



Мазут Береговой Рюрикович   (2003-04-18 09:50) [229]


> Dumkin © (18.04.03 05: 41)

I like - as they say, to walk like that to walk, shoot like that to shoot ... When everyone is already drunk, a new one appears and says "Let me run away?". And it all starts again ... When everyone thinks that everything is already, there is nowhere else to go. It turns out that this is only half the way - purely in Russian "over the edge, to the bottom, and then another lecture at the club to read about the purity of sexual relations in the countryside." That's what I love Russia for - for the breadth of soul and simplicity. Someone I digress from the topic ...



Ru   (2003-04-18 10:07) [230]

> Supreme 2 © (17.04.03 18: 09)

Faith and unbelief is everyone’s personal affair and raise the theme of "Do you believe in God?" It is an insult to the believer and a teaser to the unbeliever.

> Serj © (17.04.03 18:56)
> It is better to read the Bible.

after i read the bible i realized in the objective world god does not exist



Serj   (2003-04-18 17:12) [231]

> Dumkin © (18.04.03 05: 41)
> Anyway-in a week this topic will pop up again-we will get into a fight again.
> Mazut Coastal Rurikovich (18.04.03 09: 50)
> I like-as they say, walking like walking, shooting like that ... When everyone is already drunk, a new one appears and says "Let me run away?". And it all starts again ...


Maybe you're right. Find a topic more relevant, so that everyone forgot about this. But where else can you SO fuss over?

> Ru © (18.04.03 10: 07)
> after I read the bible I realized in an objective world God does not exist


Quote from the old game:
Then I "m nothing to say you.



Supreme 2   (2003-04-18 22:41) [232]

> Ru

> faith and unbelief is a private matter and raise the topic "Do you believe in> God?" -is an insult to the believer and teaser for> unbeliever.

An insult to a believer ?? Hm. Has anyone brought even ONE FACT that God exists? And the real fact, and not a quote from the Bible or something else there. It just seems to me that those who believe in God are fanaticism!



Бог   (2003-04-18 22:56) [233]

Well well well! What kind of argument have you spread? I was, is and will always be, in spite of anyone! And you yourself will understand how you get to me here ....... Amen!



uw   (2003-04-18 23:42) [234]

> Ru © (18.04.03 10: 07)
> faith and unbelief is a private matter for everyone and raise the topic "Do you believe in God?" -
> it is an insult to the believer and a teaser for the unbeliever.

And I got the impression that everything is just the opposite.

> Supreme 2 © (18.04.03 22: 41)
> And someone brought at least ONE FACT that God exists?

You raised the question of faith. From the discussion it became more or less clear who believes and who does not. Start a new thread, ask a question about the facts. The people will come up with something, a fact.




Aristarh   (2003-04-18 23:58) [235]

I’ve read the branch for now, but I will keep it and will definitely read it when there is time. This is to the fact that the next joke does not apply to any post or to any author.

A young priest who has just completed his studies comes to church.
The priest tells him: go read a sermon!
He goes, afraid, for the first time after all ...
Another priest took pity on him and said: my son, go down to the altar, stop, and boldly go read, everything will turn out.
Well, he went, stopped ...
In the morning he wakes up - the head is square, all skewed, carries a fume ... Comes to the priest:
“Holy father, how did I report yesterday?”
- Well, actually nothing, but there were some inaccuracies ...
- You at least tell me so that I do not repeat myself ...
- Well, okay ... Only I told you to stop, and not get out,
go to the altar on two legs, not on four,
they don’t tuck their cassock
censer wave back and forth, and not above his head,
parishioners, not dudes,
Jews crucified Christ, not cops,
the scripture does not mention anything other than the Mother of God,
it’s necessary to say not “PиZDec to you, a sinner”, but “the Lord will forgive you all”,
there were 12 apostles, not 12 oPeZDyloV,
at the end of the service, you must let go in peace, and not send to} {Yy,
the prayer "Amen" ends, and not "PZZets."



Отец Бога   (2003-04-19 00:44) [236]

> Well, well, well! What kind of argument have you spread? I was, is and will always be, in spite of anyone! And you yourself will understand how you get to me here ....... Amen!

I shove those on the neck! Admin!



N   (2003-04-19 03:17) [237]

There is evidence. This is exactly what happened to me. Only 5 minutes: and all atheism or indifference to the question of God, as it vanished. Once and forever. I do not "believe" in God, but I KNOW ...



Supreme 2   (2003-04-19 10:27) [238]

> N
> There is evidence.

And?


What good or useful thing did faith in God give you? No, not so ... What did you receive from God that you could not receive (achieve) yourself?



Leran2002   (2003-04-19 10:40) [239]

I think you just need to live (there are more important things to do), and not to think whether he is or not (we will find out sooner or later :) ...
In the meantime:

May F1 help us,
May F2 save us,
In the name of Ctrl, Alt, Del ...
Enter !!!



Angel_Forever   (2003-04-19 13:01) [240]

At first, I don’t understand ... mine ... this site is dedicated to programming, not religion ... Secondly, you don’t drive against God ..., one person already suffered from this ... for a long time he regretted that he boasted of being atheist that he was getting worse and worse for 3 (!) days, the thing it got to the point that he was sent to the surgical department -> to intensive care ....
Draw conclusions gentlemen!



Хороший человек   (2003-04-19 13:47) [241]

> Firstly, I don’t understand ... I think ... this site is dedicated to programming, not religion ..

A section of the forum is devoted to chatter on various topics, including and religious.



Songoku   (2003-04-19 15:56) [242]

> Angel_Forever ©

Apache here is this ??? God cannot do this. in the "Bible" stands love your neighbor. In turn, God did not help him. Because there is no God, it’s just that people came up with it to control by other people (roughly speaking). And your program is just lucky DESTINY - it is called !!!



race1   (2003-04-19 16:35) [243]

God is what makes us human. We live in the spiritual world, we have a soul. God directs and rules all our souls, gives rules on how to live, how to “care for” the soul.

even an unbeliever knows - to kill is not good, to steal is not good. God also speaks, only he goes deeper - to reconciliation with his soul, to its tranquility.

God is the rules by which we live. as kaif © (12.04.03/01/56 XNUMX:XNUMX) said - for ANY person these rules are valid - he believes / does not believe that he doesn’t endlessly.



kaif   (2003-04-19 17:57) [244]

I somehow went crazy (in 1988). For two weeks I lived in terrible worlds, being sure that I was in a different dimension. I dreamed of breaking out of these worlds. He even went to church and prayed to God to bring me back. God did not help. I pulled myself out with the help of psychoanalysis of Z. Freud (95%). Then, for about 10 years, he studied psychology and invented his own, figured out how visual and auditory analyzers work, etc., tried dangerous energy practices and invented his own, until he was completely able to return to our world.
Yes, God sent me ... But this does not mean that there is no God. It just seems to work differently than an online store. Type asked - sent a miracle. Most likely, God farsightedly reasoned that I had enough strength to get out on my own ... Or he had other plans or other problems up to his neck ... In a word, I do not blame him. You can even say it is grateful in a way. :)
But now for me the question of believing or not believing does not matter so much. I know that you can see with your own eyes that which is impossible to believe. And it's best not to see this. I think F. Goya has also been to these worlds. This is something parallel to our world. But there is no radiant light and heat. There are other sizes, shapes, speeds, colors, sounds and smells. There are other people and other thoughts. It’s better not to get there. If you want to know what hell is, go and look there. We truly live in the best of worlds. And it is precisely the delight of this world for me that is the evidence of Creation. Since I have something to compare with ... And who exactly did this, what's the difference? It’s important to appreciate the creation itself. At least, if I were a creator, I would wish for this delight in front of my brainchild, and not personally worship me or my image, which no one can ever imagine ...



Рыжий Вася   (2003-04-19 18:13) [245]

> race1 © (19.04.03 16: 35)
> even an unbeliever knows - to kill is not good, to steal is not good.

Some progress in the discussion has been outlined. When the same phrase will be written without the word "even," I will assume that life has not been lived in vain.



uw   (2003-04-19 18:17) [246]

Sorry. Red Vasya is my daughter, who urgently needs to tear her diploma, and she asked a question about scanners and conversions.



kaif   (2003-04-19 19:23) [247]

> Red Vasya (19.04.03/18/13 XNUMX:XNUMX)
> race1 © (19.04.03 16: 35)
> even an unbeliever knows-to kill is not good, to steal> is not good.

> Some progress in the discussion has been outlined. When the same phrase> will be written without the word "even", I will assume that life> lived not in vain.

Who is not feeling well? The one who was killed is all the same. And the one who killed is probably good, otherwise he would not kill. Who says stealing is not good? Have you tried? For example, stealing soft is good. At least many people think so.
It would be nice to show specifically what exactly in all this is not good ...

For example, a person lives with an unloved wife and children. Leaving the family and leaving children is not good. Cheating on his wife is also not good. Living with an unloved wife is immoral. It’s impossible to love a wife, because you cannot command a heart. Hypocrisy is a sin. To commit suicide is also a sin. To deceive a wife is a sin. To kill a wife is a sin.
What to do?
Let believers and atheists answer this simple question, and then we'll see.





Serj   (2003-04-19 19:44) [248]

> God (18.04.03/22/56 XNUMX:XNUMX p.m.)
> Well, well, well! What kind of argument have you spread?


Sooner or later, I expected something like that.

> N (19.04.03 03:17)
> I do not "believe" in God, but I KNOW ...


I agree.

> Supreme 2 © (19.04.03 10: 27)
> What good or useful thing did faith in God give you?


It helps in difficult situations when you feel really bad - you know that after a while you will feel better and your torment will not go away just like that.

> What have you received from God that you could not receive (achieve) yourself?

I have not had English at my university for a month (all this time I can’t sit down and learn a text) - this is with a living teacher. For two weeks I could not sit on another subject for writing an essay, and on the last day (after a night of communication with you), when the teacher was not going to leave for a long time, he wrote and passed everything (although he considered it impossible until the last moment), and this is only study - a small part of my life.
What is it? Fate or where? These are not the only examples.

I do not set myself the goal of making any of you believe, but ...
It was something like this:
Noah asked the people: "Help build the ark, there will be a flood."
They answered him: "What are you a fool? Drought around, what a flood?"
... Noah went into the ark, God shut the door behind him and it started to rain ...
People knocked and asked: "Noah Let us inside"
And he told them: "I don’t open the door" ...


Supreme 2, unless you’ll kill a lot, if you don’t kill, thump to hell, steal, e..t’s neighbor’s wife ... wash your hands after going to the toilet, etc.
Isn't it better to play it safe. What would happen if people brought Noah a couple of boards and hammered a couple of nails? - they would not have learned to swim, but would have lived longer.

Everything I went, I’m leaving you, my monthly limit is net "and I’ve left (see" How much is the Internet? "), I’ll go to learn this fucking text in English ...
So do not wait before the end of the month ...



uw   (2003-04-19 19:46) [249]

> kaif © (19.04.03 19: 23)

Yeah. If I were a believer, I would solve problems as I arrived and would not forget to go to church so that my sins would be forgiven. And so I also steal software, but I don’t go to church.

And under the nickname Red Vasya, I only noted that they already mistook me for almost a person.



copyr25   (2003-04-19 19:55) [250]

After my ostracism (from a distant link :)) I cannot but express, nevertheless,
my sincere consent with a very bright opinion
MsGuns © (16.04.03 16: 52)
>> DiamondShark © (16.04.03 16:38)

(I, unfortunately, missed it, arguing with the TTT communist):

> Faith. Those. one of those qualities, and there are not so many that only a person from
> all living things. Belief that he is from the flesh and blood of the Creator. What the Creator laid in
> he is better than he has, and even more-He gave the person the right to choose-
> believe or not soul, mind, deeds and feelings. AND DOES NOT AFFECT in any way
> this person in this choice! You can’t BELIEVE a person. To this he can come
> or not come, but completely independently. Note that not a single church
> FORCES a person to Believe. Persuades, warns, rejects - but does not force.
> Just because it is impossible in principle.

The most important conclusion is that only man is endowed with faith.
As a projection, God's likeness and His image. Not a monkey or a dog, believing only
that the owner will feed her.
The argument about the impossibility of forced
religiosity.
Belief is a person’s voluntary act, independent of any
current politics, nor from the current economy.
It is precisely the choice of how to live, in conscience, in law, in coercion, or in persuasion.
Every believer carries a law that is higher than the law of the state,
(in any country) he is even ready to part with his life for the sake of his Faith.
Seren Kierkegaard, with his essay on Adam, develops the thought of MsGuns "a, but in a peculiar way:
(C. Kierkegaard, Fear and Awe):

And the Lord God commanded man, saying: From every tree
in the garden you will eat, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you do not eat from it, for in
the day that you eat from it, you die.

Why did Adam obey Eve, who believed the snake?
Because he and she did not know what sin and prohibition are, for both
lead to death, to a state that is meaningless in paradise.
Could Eve talk about death while being immortal?
Could Adam talk about sin without committing a single one until then?
God forbade the first people to eat the fruit of the tree. And the snake?
This, according to MsGuns, is a "compulsion". The serpent sowed a problem, discussing
simple question that caused question.
Forcing permission to "believe or not believe."
This paradox, of course, is allowed by the fall, i.e., voluntary
the choice of the first people. By turning a monkey sitting near a tree of paradise into a man.
Doubt is the sin that engendered all science, art and human
culture.
If not for the "doubt" of Eve, then there would be no humanity.
This means that there would be no need for the redemptive role of Jesus Christ.
Since there is no sin, what to atone for?
Eve's doubt gave rise to human history.
More precisely, as MsGuns clearly noted, its free choice.

The Trinity of God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would not manifest
so historically and synthetically, if not for doubt, not free
Eve's choice.

to TTT: Here you would have to intervene, about the foundations of Orthodoxy,
because, what I just wrote contradicts the Orthodox
The interpretation of history is the Protestant heresy of the Danes Kierkegaard.
Thank God that the Russian Orthodox Church is not like the Medieval
Inquisition - Kierkegaard's books are still carefully preserved
in the Orthodox Theological Academy in Sergiev Posad, former Zagorsk
(so named by the Communists in honor of Commissioner Zagorsky, personally
who shot several priests of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra).



VEG   (2003-04-19 20:59) [251]

I have not read 20% of everything that is written here, but I will say this. God NO!
Let me give you a hypothesis that I came up with based on the material I read. The whole world, the universe, so to speak, is something one whole, for example, as a program. Moreover, which is sometimes buggy :) And our minds are not at all in our brains, but somewhere far away from us (the brain is a means of communication). Many glitches are associated with this particular factor. I can write a lot about this, but not now. Sorry. Soon I will write a great article about this!



wnew   (2003-04-19 21:34) [252]


> copyr25 © (19.04.03 19: 55)
> By turning a monkey sitting near a tree of paradise into
> person.


> If not for the "doubt" of Eve, then there would be no humanity.

So, after all, is Darwin right? :) Still, from a monkey :)
He only said that labor created man, not doubt :)



uw   (2003-04-19 23:21) [253]

> wnew © (19.04.03 21:34)
> He just said that labor created man, not doubt

Here you are not quite accurate. Darwin said natural selection. But about labor, all the same, Engels. But I share the bewilderment.



copyr25   (2003-04-19 23:27) [254]

> wnew © (19.04.03 21: 34):
> So, after all, is Darwin right? :) Still, from a monkey :)
> He just said that labor created man, not doubt :)

Well, of course, nonsense.
Where did you see the working monkeys?
And at least one monkey that has become human throughout
the whole history of Darwinian theory?
Despite the fact that they worked with the gorillas personally
the best human psychologists, hoping to "teach" them
to be "people." Teaching them the language. All in vain.

In my opinion, let everyone here even laugh together -
The Lord really chose the superior class as
potential resource for creating a person.
Those. physical body best suited for
development and improvement on our planet.
And then there was a miracle of the creation of man from primacy.
Until now, anthropologists are surprised that they can not find
intermediate forms of "evolution".
All Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, etc., are people already.
With a low forehead, with an outstanding jaw, but people.
Qualitative leap of transition from a primitive monkey
until primitive man left in anthropology
no trace. Even gorillas or orangutans in Africa
higher forehead and less pronounced superciliary arches.
But this is a monkey.
And not one of them even makes an attempt to make fire.
And the last one. Please note that over 6 millennia
the human body has not changed much.
Babylonian living in the territory of modern Iraq
will differ from us only with a beard and clothes.
And the lack of a tail that never fell off among the higher primates.
:))



uw   (2003-04-19 23:50) [255]

> wnew © (19.04.03 21:34)

If you are not tired, answer me a few questions:

1) Have you seen at least one monkey that has become human during
of the entire history of Christianity, although this history is longer in duration than the history of Darwin's theory every 20 times?

2) Have you heard that at least someone said that a person descended from modern higher primates, if he is not from Kashchenko, of course?

3) Have you seen at least one representative of higher primates with a tail, if he is not from the Kunstkamera, of course?

If you answer me at least one question in the affirmative, I will ask fifteen more questions.



wnew   (2003-04-19 23:51) [256]


> kaif © (19.04.03 17: 57)

Very cool, beautiful, write smoothly! Nice to read!



Романов Р.В.   (2003-04-19 23:58) [257]

In THEM, Alah, I will be, etc. I do not believe



wnew   (2003-04-20 00:02) [258]


> uw © (19.04.03 23: 50)

Firstly, of course, I will not answer in the affirmative, because you yourself know that I could not witness such transformations :)
Well, by the way, I also doubt the Darwin theory, but not at all because I was not a witness to the evolution he described. However, I do not accept the biblical theory of the origin of the world either. For me, this is just a legend, and even that is not as beautiful as the legends of ancient Greece. I generally believe that the universe is infinite, time is eternal and life has always existed (not necessarily on Earth), and the general, “universal” mind is something, possibly called God.



uw   (2003-04-20 00:12) [259]

But in Germany, brothers in mind live!



Чёрт   (2003-04-20 00:19) [260]

Oh people!
Have you completely forgotten me ?!



wnew   (2003-04-20 00:29) [261]


> Damn (20.04.03/00/19 XNUMX:XNUMX)
> Oh, people!
> And then they completely forgot me ?!

Why did they forget. Often we recall both, but with nothing in mind, like annoying, intrusive melodies. That - God forbid, then - damn it :)



Supreme 2   (2003-04-20 09:59) [262]

Then “Damn” appeared, immediately the following question popped up in my head:
Why then is the separation of the underworlds going on - hell and paradise? In hell, as I read or heard somewhere, Lucifer rules, and in paradise God rules.
Those. it turns out that there is also some kind of "god"? Although I don’t believe in these, hell and paradise.

> VEG
Nichrome did not understand



Чёрт   (2003-04-20 10:40) [263]

Do not worry. Those whom you could call God are much more than 2 or 3.



DiamondShark   (2003-04-20 15:52) [264]


> copyr25 © (19.04.03 23: 27)


Excuse me, did you hit anything heavy on the way out of the link?


> Where did you see the working monkeys?

Half an hour ago, on the Discovery channel.


> Despite the fact that they personally worked with gorillas
> best human psychologists, hoping to "teach" them
> to be "people". Teaching them the language. All in vain.

And comrade Lysenko, I remember, tried to "teach" winter wheat to be spring.


> And at least one monkey that has become human throughout
> the whole history of Darwinian theory?

The history of Darwinian theory - is it a hundred years or something?


Until now, anthropologists are surprised that they can not find
intermediate forms of "evolution".

Your homework: go to the nearest forest and find there a skeleton suitable for identification, let’s say, a raven who died last year.


> Please note that over 6 millennia
> the human body has not changed much.

And the body of a crocodile has not changed in 10 million years. And the blue-green algae have not changed in 2 billion years. So what? What does God have to do with it?


> Babylonian living in the territory of modern Iraq
> will differ from us only with a beard and clothes.

But the Chukchi or, say, the Eskimos will differ from the European or, say, the Iraqi in such a trifle as the ability to independently synthesize vitamin C. Compared to the shape of the nose - sheer trifles.


> And the lack of a tail that never fell off the higher
> primates.

Right Gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, baboons are all completely tailed. But the hare has hooves and he chews gum.

PS
Why are people embarrassing? After all, not everyone (especially believers) will understand that it was a parody ;-)



Чёрт   (2003-04-20 16:30) [265]

> DiamondShark © (20.04.03 15: 52)

> Threat
> Why are people embarrassed? After all, not everyone (especially believers) will understand that it was a parody ;-)


Are you sure this is a parody?
Do you like Van when you are not taken seriously?



uw   (2003-04-20 18:39) [266]

When I wonder who my favorite character is in the forum, I boldly reply: copyr25. Well, Kostya will be offended completely in the 2000th and leave - Suprim Second or Third will appear. DiamondShark, Grandson and half of the participants will disappear, and what I lose is only the confirmation of their thoughts expressed by them (well, almost). If you imagine that there will be no kaif, then I will grieve for a week or two, and my pain will subside, but there will be hope that there will be at least another, but equally original-minded nickname. But every time I do not hear our copyr25 a little more than a day, I become restless, and my soul shrinks from anguish and fear. Because with its loss, I will lose the opportunity to communicate, direct or indirect, with a representative of another race, another bioclad, finally.

True, direct contact with copyr25 costs me quite a bit: I partially lose control of myself, start throwing not only at him, but at other conference participants, and then I feel embarrassed. Therefore, the last few days I switched to indirect contact with copyr25, expressed, for example, in the fact that I start asking some unmotivated questions to other conference participants (uw © (19.04.03 23:50)), or there is confusion with nicknames (I don’t remember where). In such cases, be aware - I am talking to copyr25, and without hope to get more or less intelligible answers.



БОГ   (2003-04-20 19:11) [267]

Deleted by moderator



БОГ   (2003-04-20 19:14) [268]

Deleted by moderator



DelAlanPhi   (2003-04-20 19:44) [269]

> GOD (20.04.03/19/11 XNUMX:XNUMX)
Something a lot of grammatical errors for god



Санчо   (2003-04-21 07:08) [270]

Hmm .......



Думкин   (2003-04-21 07:21) [271]

> uw © (20.04.03 18: 39)
I agree. So far, I sit too and reduce my pulse to a stable 70 beats per minute from 500.% -)

> DiamondShark © (20.04.03 15: 52)
That's for sure. This sometimes bothers me. I also saw little skeletons. And what I saw, I could not understand at all - why there are so many articles on one bone.



Danilka   (2003-04-21 08:05) [272]

kaif © (19.04.03 19: 23)
> Here, for example, lives a man with an unloved wife and children.
> Leaving the family and leaving children is not good. Cheating on my wife too
> not good. Living with an unloved wife is immoral. Love wife
> impossible, because you can’t command the heart. Hypocrisy is a sin.
> To commit suicide is also a sin. To deceive a wife is a sin. To kill
> a wife is a sin.
> What to do?

So you can consider absolutely any body movement. :))
For example, to get to work on time, I need to get up early. I don’t want to get up early, for me getting up early is bad, but if I do not get up early, I’ll be late too bad. What to do? Let anyone answer, today I have already made my choice.
Our whole life is a struggle :))
It has nothing to do with God.
And on the account of the murder, who will feel bad: there will probably be more than one person who will feel bad: relatives of the murdered person, his friends, etc. In the same way, a bunch of people will be fine: the police will be at work, a funeral home, etc.



uw   (2003-04-21 08:39) [273]

GOD (20.04.03/19/11 XNUMX:XNUMX)
GOD (20.04.03/19/14 XNUMX:XNUMX)

Fatal oversight of orderlies.



Она   (2003-04-21 09:41) [274]

> uw © (17.04.03 16: 27)
> But seriously, there is another substitution:
>
QuotedXNUMX>> Faith is also love.
>
> This means that if I do not believe, then I already do not like. Before
> this was only: if I do not believe, then I do not obey the commandments.

someone's logic is lame .. at the emergency room! urgently! ;)



uw   (2003-04-21 10:23) [275]

> She (21.04.03 09: 41)

Good morning!



Она   (2003-04-21 11:13) [276]


> uw © (21.04.03 10: 23)

Well I said that it was limping .. - incoherent answers ..;)



Supreme 2   (2003-04-21 17:05) [277]

> uw © (17.04.03 16: 27)
> Faith is also love.
>
> This means that if I do not believe, then I already do not like. Before
> this was only: if I do not believe, then I do not obey the commandments.

Well, here I absolutely disagree!
I don’t lie in God, but I LOVE !!!!! And I like to love!



Ru   (2003-04-21 17:48) [278]

"I do not believe in God!" I'm screaming
Pounding himself proudly in the chest
But only hearing thunder
I pray: "Oh God, carry me."



uw   (2003-04-21 18:15) [279]

> She (21.04.03 11: 13)
> Well, I said that it was limping .. - incoherent answers ..;)

But what did you expect from me - that instead of wishing you all the best, I would begin to bark at you like a dog? Pipes! On the contrary, I wish you good again, but already in the evening. Moreover, every time you want you to wish it again, tell me something pleasant, as in this case, and I will definitely respond.

> Supreme 2 © (21.04.03 17: 05)

Exactly! I won’t be fooled either, when you, an unbeliever, are suspected of inability to love properly. I fight this as I can.




copyr25   (2003-04-21 18:50) [280]

> DiamondShark © (20.04.03 15: 52):
> Excuse me, did you hit anything heavy on the way from the link?

I was "hit" by the fact of the link :))
It’s hard to read the opinion that your (i.e. my) posts cause negative
reaction among most respondents
In the end, this is the opinion expressed, he has to
be considered. But, I believe that most of the participants in the conference
speak out here not for the purpose of confirming your opinion?

Be that as it may, I will express my opinion here freely,
regardless of the opinion of the listeners (but after the link :))

>> Where did you see the working monkeys?
> Half an hour ago, on the Discovery channel.

This is not working people. These animals use only primitive
tools, like a stick, a twig. Those. what is already ready
found improvised tool. Ravens also know how
use pebbles and twigs for food.
However, no one ascribes them to human ancestors.
Worker's feature in use Created by
tools. If a monkey uses a club, then she is a monkey
it remains so. But if an ax is made of a club and stone, then it stops
to be a primate. Did your Discovery workers make axes?
Developed a glass-blowing craft?
Engaged in cave painting?

>> Despite the fact that they worked with the gorillas personally
>> the best human psychologists, hoping to "teach" them
>> to be "people". Teaching them the language. All in vain.

> And comrade Lysenko, I remember, tried to "teach" winter wheat to be spring.

This is not an argument. And you, I believe, understand this very well.
Modern psychologists, for example, Ladygin tried to eliminate the factor
randomness and time factor in the development of animal intelligence.
Her team in the 50-60s of the last century even managed to give birth
a kind of language with a chimpanzee, but only color (on painted
cards) laconic similarity. And this is despite great efforts.
No phonetic contact happened.
And with the dolphins - it worked! And very fast, throughout the year.

>> And at least one monkey that has become human throughout
>> the whole history of Darwinian theory?

> The history of Darwinian theory is a hundred years or something?

Not. This is the entire observable history of mankind.
Not monkeys, but humanity, say, the first civilizations
in Asia Minor. Why not even tens of thousands of years
did the monkey herd never become a human herd, even primitive?

>> Until now, anthropologists are surprised that they can not find
>> intermediate forms of "evolution".

> Your homework: go to the nearest forest and find there suitable for
> identification of the skeleton, let’s say, of a raven who died last year.

This is not an argument either. A specific question suggests a specific answer.

> Why are people embarrassed? After all, not everyone (especially believers) will understand that it was a parody ;-)
About the tail - for sure, it was a parody. I am glad that you were able to consider the smiley at the end of the line.
The rest saw only the tail :))



copyr25   (2003-04-21 19:27) [281]

> uw © (20.04.03 18: 39):
> But every time I don’t hear our copyr25 a little more than a day,
> I become restless, and my soul shrinks from anguish and fear.
> Because with his loss I will lose the opportunity to communicate, direct or indirect, with
> a representative of another race, another bioclad, finally.

Your pathos (remember? :)) certainly impresses me :))
Consider that I retired for a while so as not to cause you
anxiety and depression aggravated in spring
or in the fall.

Anyway, the opinion expressed is not an insult or
neglect, but very reminiscent of an insult,
especially in konf where it is not accepted to pass to the person.
You have chosen the path of transition to personality.
Well, so what?

> Therefore, the last few days I went
> it is on indirect contact with copyr25, expressed, for example, that I am starting
> ask unmotivated questions to other conference participants

Psychiatrists call this effect authentic thinking.
You can also ask an unmotivated question to yourself,
those. talk to yourself. Also an authentic experience.

And where am I? Representative of another bioclad (mysterious definition),
another race? Do you think I'm an alien? Alien?

Continue to meditate in the same spirit.
Only not more than 4 hours a day.
(one tablet of chlorpromazine lasts exactly 4 hours :))

Dear Nemtsov, I once expressed a similar opinion
disregarded by me Zhirinovsky, when the latter with a cry,
you are me <banknote> .... d, tired of splashing him (Nemtsov) orange
juice in the face. Nemtsov said, “We will cure you.”



Она   (2003-04-21 19:48) [282]


> uw © (21.04.03 18: 15)
Quoted21.04.03>> She (11/13/XNUMX XNUMX:XNUMX)
quotedXNUMX>> Well I said that it was limping .. -reliable answers ..;)
>
> And what did you expect from me-that I instead
> wish you all the best, would start barking at you like a dog?
> Pipes! On the contrary, I wish you good again, but already in the evening.
> Moreover, every time you want you to do this
> wish again, tell me something pleasant, as in
> in this case, and I will definitely respond.

Well, why bark? I have a higher opinion of you ..;)
I wish you a lot of amenities ..;)
but .. - the logic at that moment was still limping IMXO .. well, it happens with everyone .. / stuffing with "Good evening2" /;)



wnew   (2003-04-21 19:59) [283]


> Dear Nemtsov,

This is already very interesting! I didn’t expect to hear such a thing from anyone. Well, okay - off topic.



copyr25   (2003-04-21 22:05) [284]

> DiamondShark © (20.04.03 15: 52):
> And the body of a crocodile for 10 million years has not changed. And blue-green algae for 2
> billion years have not changed. So what? What does God have to do with it?

God has nothing to do with it. And the secret of Darwinian evolution.
Crocodile and, especially, blue-green algae, did not participate
in the active comprehension of the world, planet, our Earth.
According to the materialistic worldview, (correct me if I'm wrong) - a tool
active comprehension are the brain, arms and body of the comprehender
object. These characteristics of the "body" inevitably had to change.
for millennia. After all, the modern
technocratic utopian-Darwinists that a person will have in 1000 years
one index finger to click on the left mouse button?
And the brain, and body, and a person’s view have not changed since
ancient civilizations. Only language, technology and economic relations.
Physiology (and, in fact, the reason for Darwin's "evolution") did not leave
in the whole development of mankind not a single trace.
Even the spinal cord, and he got almost unchanged rudiment
primates, like the perfect CAMAC, the ancestor of modern tires. The same instincts
the same knee and ciliary reflexes.
Man did not change physiologically, but socially.
Not at the bus level, but at the processor level.
At the level of instructions to the processor, assembly language.
Without interfering with the wiring of the chip.
Once again, an ancient Babylonian resident with almost nothing physiologically,
anthropologically did not differ from us.
This means that the "evolution", or rather the "revolution" of development
reached its target limit. Essential parameters that evolution
would change for millennia (intelligence, forehead, language, fingers, humor, mythology
physiognomy, expression of emotions) were
suddenly and successfully achieved and no longer changed simply because of uselessness
these changes. This is the difference create from evolution.
Primitive, at first glance, Bushmen in Africa, have a sophisticated
epic, their tales and myths are comparable to the ancient heritage, their economic
experience is insignificant, but social is completely perfect.
Already in Babylon an incomprehensible method was tested, well, do you want the 386th processor?
Without preliminary testing of less advanced models.
And not a single set of KT-155A, a primitive transistor assembly,
eventually will not have the properties of a microprocessor, how much
would not have evolved for thousands of years :))

What I wrote is an analogy.
And then, suddenly, some will find that I urge transistor assemblies to evolution :))



uw   (2003-04-22 00:47) [285]

> She (21.04.03 19: 48)

No, the logic is not lame. It’s just that in this thread I wrote several times about the same thing, and it’s inconvenient to repeat myself. And what follows from what - faith from love or love from faith - this is completely unimportant in the context of N. And so it is clear what she means. Goodnight.


> copyr25 © (21.04.03 19: 27)

About the bioclad. For a long time I listened to a guy speaking on TV. He talked about the mechanism of heredity and noted the phenomenon that this mechanism is the same for all living things on Earth. He talked about some annelid worms found at great depths on the ocean floor near sulfur sources. These worms sank to the depths along with the bottom a very long time ago. The process was slow, and they adapted for millions of years and learned how to extract oxygen and food from the environment like no living creature. When they tried to put them into the classification of the animal world, they had to separate their own type, i.e. "Type - these same annelids." All.

And type is the largest classification category. A person, for example, is classified as follows: type - chordates, subtype - vertebrates, class - mammals, order - primates, species - intelligent person, race - to whom it was lucky. The only thing that connected these worms with the rest of the fauna (and flora) was the genetic apparatus. Here, in order to denote this fundamental commonality of all living things, this guy used the term "bioclad".

He further said that there is reason to believe that our bio-treasure is the third in the entire history of the Earth. Where did the traces of previous bioclades go? Here he pointed to events that seem to have taken place on Earth. Namely, as a result of the evolution of the core, there was a catastrophic change in the radius of the Earth by about 70 km in radius. For the planet as a whole - this is a one percent nonsense, for everything that was on the surface - a complete disappearance.

But maybe something or someone survived as a representative of another bioclad?




NewN   (2003-04-22 08:39) [286]

People! Before reasoning whether there is a god or not, it is necessary to give an exact definition of God, with which everyone would agree. While under the concept of God, everyone understands something of their own. For example, I can say: "God is Nature, and nature exists, and therefore God is." And with this statement, both Darwin's theory and the theory of the divine origin of man are consistent.



zx   (2003-04-22 11:11) [287]

Suma get off the branch for a second week stretches !!! :)
God's definition:
Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.



DiamondShark   (2003-04-22 12:31) [288]


> copyr25 © (21.04.03 22: 05)
> Crocodile and, especially, blue-green algae, did not participate
> in the active comprehension of the world, planet, our Earth.

Those. how was it not involved? Or I do not quite understand what “active comprehension” means, explain.


> According to the materialistic worldview, (correct me if
> I am wrong) - a tool
> active comprehension are the brain, arms, and body of the comprehender
> object.

I'll fix it a bit. According to the materialistic worldview, the specific nature of the instrument of knowledge is not important. The only real requirement for this tool is materiality.


> These characteristics of the "body" inevitably had to change
> for millennia.

Woo! How everything is up and running. It seems to me that you nevertheless got acquainted with evolutionary theory from the works of Comrade Lysenko.
Why would the characteristics of the "body" change if the characteristics of the world do not change? If light has remained light for a billion years, then the eye will remain the eye.
As soon as the forms of “knowledge tools” covered all channels of knowledge, they automatically stopped changing

Another myth, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is to attribute the evolution to a certain “goal," a direction. In particular, "complication." This is vulgarization, an incorrect interpretation of the particular. For example, you consider a person "developed" because he learned to draw pictures. But I deeply doubt this, because in the biochemical, for example, plan, a person is completely degenerate, because most of the necessary amino acids and vitamins are not capable of synthesizing itself, unlike many "lower ones".

What science fiction writers write there is the personal problems of the science fiction writers themselves. But if the ability to click with a mouse suddenly becomes a factor affecting survival, then the ability to click with a mouse becomes fixed, by the way, it is still unknown how, either by lengthening a finger, or by developing a special click organ, or even developing a new race , who can, in principle, do without computers, and therefore no longer dependent on a new survival factor.

Here it is. The dimension of the task is enormous. Any primitive models that creationists love so much will inevitably lead to absurdity. That in no way is the problem of TE, but the problem of the idea of ​​it in individual people.

In general, the situation with criticism of fuel cells is very interesting. An alternative, so to speak, “theory” is put forward here, which no one is in a hurry to prove positively, but instead a competing theory is strongly criticized (this time without quotes). The only positive statement (the existence of the Creator) no one wants to prove positively. Instead, it is suggested that this be taken for granted, with references to ancient myths.



DiamondShark   (2003-04-22 12:56) [289]


> NewN (22.04.03/08/39 XNUMX:XNUMX)

With the definition of stress. First of all, by definition of the definition itself (tautology, of course, but now I will explain).
To define (o-limit) is to put in relation with other concepts, to limit these concepts. Thus, a certain god is a limited god. Nobody (at least religion - for sure) needs a limited god, nobody needs it, because it implies the existence of concepts that are primary in relation to God. God is not primary - no longer God. Rather, it’s not the god whose concept grew out of prejudice, carefully guarded by dogmas and taboos, and, first of all, the taboo to think about.

And just two words about the interpretation of "God is nature."
The use of two words, two signs to designate one essence for cognition yields nothing. And it gives only cause for confusion and speculation.



Danilka   (2003-04-22 13:45) [290]

Local posts, of course, are interesting to read, but nothing more.
As I understand it, you will not prove anything to such branches, no matter how logical, understandable and correct, reasoning would not be.
As believers were believers, so they will remain, the same applies to those who do not believe, and to those who believe that believing and not believing the same is pointless.

I wonder why? In other matters, convincing someone is easy enough if you know you are right. :))



AVR   (2003-04-22 13:46) [291]

1. God is not nature, not our understanding of any
phenomena, He is a person, real.
2. Supreme 2: If you run away from civilization in the taiga, break
leg and call doctors and they will not come to you (and they are far
it’s your fault that he himself escaped from them), this does not mean that
there are no doctors. In addition, among the ten commandments are:
Do not tempt gentlemen (I do not remember literally). Not even jesus
decided to experiment with the Lord (Satan offered him
jump from a height and see if his Father will help him)
3. Logically you can prove anything, the only question
what facts do you have at the time of the dispute. Even if in this
I’m wrong, and you decide to think logically,
evidence of His existence may be that in Him
many physicists believe, realizing that without Him too
the probability of just such a chain of events is
we can be in a fuss here.



Vovchik_A   (2003-04-22 13:58) [292]

Some argue that there is a god, others - that there is no god. Both that and another are unprovable (c) x / f "Beware of the car".
Very correct and very cool said in my opinion.
You can argue endlessly ...



Danilka   (2003-04-22 14:06) [293]

Vovchik_A © (22.04.03 13: 58)
not quite right, it turns out there are still third and fourth - read the posts. ;))



Ru   (2003-04-22 14:28) [294]

Bible Exodus Chapter 20
1 And God spake [unto Moses] all these words, saying:
1
2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery;
3 May there be no other gods before me.
2
4 Do not make yourself an idol or any image of what is in the sky above, and what is on the earth below, and what is in the water below the earth;
5 Do not worship them and do not serve them, for I am the Lord your God, a jealous God who punishes children for the guilt of the fathers of the third and fourth kind, who hate me,
6 and doing mercy to a thousand generations, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
3
7 Do not pronounce the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not leave without punishment the one who pronounces his name in vain.
4
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy;
9 six days work and do [in them] all your deeds,
10 And the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God: do not do anything about it, neither your son, nor your daughter, nor your slave, nor your slave, nor [your ox, nor your donkey, nor every] your cattle nor a stranger who is in your dwellings;
11 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5
12 Honor your father and your mother, [that it may be well with you] that your days may be long on the land which the Lord your God gives you.
6
13 Do not kill.
7
14 Do not commit adultery.
8
15 Do not steal.
9
16 Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10
17 Do not desire your neighbor's house; do not desire your neighbor’s wife, [neither his field], nor his slave, nor his slave, nor his ox, nor his donkey, [nor all his cattle,] anything your neighbor has.



Плохой человек   (2003-04-22 16:01) [295]

Guys, come on, a little bit more and there will be 300 posts!



Ru   (2003-04-22 17:49) [296]

The first commandment is extremely interesting, god says
Moishe in the second verse that he brought Israel out of the house of slavery, nowhere is it about creating a world or something similar.

The three commandments are dedicated to God. His person. It turns out that God suffers from a complex of narcissism!

The fourth commandment was dedicated to the day off, and it is not regulated, and what a person will do for six days in a row. After all, man is not a god who supposedly created the world for six days, but rested on the seventh.

The fifth commandment. I would put her first!

By the way, 6-10 commandments - they say what should not be done, but unlike the 1-5 commandments, they do not regulate punishment.



Supreme 2   (2003-04-22 17:53) [297]

And here is another example in favor of the fact that God does not exist:

There are times when a mother gives birth and dies, and the child remains an orphan. Moreover, consider that the mother is normal (in the sense of not an alcoholic, etc.). Why did God let her die before letting her child grow up? It turns out that the child will grow up an orphan, without a mother ...



VEG   (2003-04-22 18:13) [298]

> Supreme 2
There are times when a woman gives birth, she watches this whole scene from the side. This is one of the glitches of our world, but in no case does not leave the "soul from the body." There is no soul, there is reason !!!



VEG   (2003-04-22 18:17) [299]

Why do you think animals don’t pray to god ??? Yes, because they do not care about where they came from. But curiosity is peculiar to a person, therefore, he came up with the devil knows whom (i.e., God :))



Плохой человек   (2003-04-22 18:22) [300]

Yes! I was three hundredth! Give me a prize!



copyr25   (2003-04-22 18:41) [301]

> DiamondShark © (22.04.03 12: 31):

> I.e. how was it not involved?
> Or I do not quite understand what "active comprehension" means, explain.

I have already explained:
tools of active comprehension are the brain, hands and body of the comprehending
object. These characteristics of the "body" inevitably had to change.
for millennia.

> I’ll fix it a bit. According to the materialistic worldview, the specific nature of the instrument
> knowledge is not important. The only real requirement for this tool is materiality.

Of course materiality. Hands, for example, if they are an active tool.
But also their simple presence :))
Crocodiles do not have “hands” (the mouth is the active organ :)), blue-green algae, especially.
And the monkey has it. And the hands of monkeys used by them for primitive
operations with twigs when picking the fetus or when searching for a worm in the ground
strongly and physically and operationally different from the human hand.
But the hand of an Egyptian slave or a Babylonian warrior both physically and operationally
no different from the hand and ability of the fingers of a modern person,
clicking the mouse button. Unless quantitative signs -
by force of biceps and triceps :)) However, there are the same powerful people now,
there are simply fewer of them than in the era of Ashurbanipal.
The question is why in the entire history of the development of mankind (not monkeys, but rational
of humanity) there is no material evolution of the most active members of the body.
That's the problem.
Why is there no material (physiological, as you want) evolution of the brain?
But another evolution is obvious.
Behavioral, intellectual.
And, finally, for the umpteenth time: Why for the whole millennium observed
in human history, so did not one of the monkeys become, well, at least Neanderthal?
And why, as archaeological research shows, the phenomenon of occurrence
primitive people occurred almost simultaneously on the whole Earth?

Here: http://www.asf.ru/Publ/sn/dubni.html I read another helpless attempt
materialists explain the qualitative leap in the emergence of man "from the monkey"
If someone is too lazy to go to this site, I quote an excerpt:

"Further in the study of the evolution of anthropoid apes into a modern type of human,
some dark or white spot that differently explain different
scientists. This is due to the appearance of humanoid monkeys with a sharply increased skull volume up to
850-950 cc Associate this with mutational processes taking place in nature under the influence of
increased background radiation, which occurred as a result of the intensification of the process of mountain building. IN
“History and Culture of the Peoples of Africa and Latin America” edited by A.A. Iskenderova
it is claimed that approximately “half a million years before the moment in which East Africa appeared
the first manufacturers of stone tools in the area of ​​a huge lake with an area of ​​130 sq. km, which then
existed on the site of the Serenga Valley in modern Tanzania, high volcanic
activity ". This increased radiation has affected mutational processes in plant and
animal kingdom, she apparently influenced the increase in mental abilities of pre-humans, turned
gradually, into a person of a modern type. "(end of quote).

A more helpless attempt is hard to find, unless fantasizing about the extraordinary
and the rapid evolutionary success of the victims of the Chernobyl accident.

> In general, the situation with criticism of the fuel cell is very interesting. Here comes an alternative, with
> permissions to say, "theory", which no one is in a hurry to prove positively, instead
> a competing theory (this time without quotes) is heavily criticized for this. The only
> a positive statement (the existence of the Creator) no one wants to prove positive.
> Instead, it is proposed to take it on faith, with links to ancient myths.

You're right. I myself don’t like it when an opponent only criticizes, asks abstruse questions,
rather than trying, even in his own way, to answer them.
The epistemological (i.e. related to cognition) problem is that the concept of Faith is not
lies in the field of cognition. Faith - not natural science, not social, not
historical concept. A religious. This aspect of human experience in institutions
still not studied. Therefore, the branches of "about God" cause so many responses.



VEG   (2003-04-22 20:14) [302]

> copyr25
There are times when people have beneficial mutations. It's just that they are not always fixed in the family!



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 whole branch

Forum: "Grab";
Current archive: 2003.05.08;
Download: [xml.tar.bz2];

Top





Memory: 2.3 MB
Time: 0.242 c
3-22958
Roman
2003-04-17 09:55
2003.05.08
Deleting records by request


3-23025
pavel_rosl
2003-04-17 02:17
2003.05.08
count the amount


14-23367
Acue
2003-04-18 10:01
2003.05.08
Bpl debugging error


3-23032
girl
2003-04-18 16:00
2003.05.08
DBASE-IV and MSSQL7


14-23337
Sh2
2003-04-18 21:51
2003.05.08
Why did they laugh?





afrikaans albanian Arabic armenian azerbaijani basque belarusian bulgarian catalan Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) croatian Czech danish Dutch English estonian filipino finnish French
galician georgian German greek haitian Creole hebrew Hindi hungarian icelandic Indonesian Irish italian Japanese Korean latvian lithuanian macedonian malay maltese norwegian
persian polish portuguese Romanian russian serbian slovak Slovenian Spanish swahili Swedish ภาษาไทย turkish Ukrainian urdu Tiếng Việt welsh yiddish bengali bosnian
cebuano Esperanto gujarati hausa hmong igbo javanese kannada Khmer lao latin maori marathi mongolian nepali punjabi somali tamil telugu yoruba
zulu
English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish