Friday, November 20, 2009
alot of ways to dispute the ark leh
OBJECTIONS TO THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT
The story is a myth based on other flood fables told by various ethnic groups who populated the Middle East at the time of Moses.
There are many cultures all over the world which have tales of a flood that completely covered the earth and destroyed all but a few people. I argue that the reason that there is so much similarity between the myths and the Genesis account is that this was a real event. All men and women being descendants of Noah, they passed down the story of this major episode in the life of their ancestor. The only truly accurate account is the one which God reveals to us in Genesis through the pen of Moses.
By the days of Noah there were not enough people on the earth to require a worldwide flood.
I estimate that 12 to 15 generations had been born on the earth by the time of the flood. (Genesis chapter 5 tells us that Noah was the ninth generation from Adam.) Easily, there could have been a billion people alive on the earth by the 600th birthday of Noah.
The flood was only a local flood and not worldwide.
I see two major problems with the local flood theories. You cannot cover the highest mountains with water for several months if the flood was only regional. (Gen. 7:20). Secondly, and even more significant is the covenant which God made after the Flood. God promised, "Never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth." (Gen. 9:11). If the flood of Noah was merely a local flood, then God would have broken that promise hundreds of times since then. Other problems include that a population as large as one billion would not likely be contained within a single valley that would be amenable to local flooding. Besides, some people and animals could have simply gone to higher ground as happens during local flooding today. Even if the world's human population was not widely spread, nothing would have kept the birds and all the animals confined within that local flood area. Genesis 7:21-23 says that all creatures outside the Ark who lived on the land were destroyed. I also object to the possibility of a local flood because God could have merely instructed Noah and his family, along with the animals to be saved, to migrate out of the area that would be flooded.
There is not enough water to cover the entire earth.
There is nothing to convince us that the oceans were as deep or that the mountains were as high prior to the flood. Consider Psalm 104:5-9. "You who laid the foundations of the earth, so that it should not be moved forever, You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled; at the voice of Your thunder they hastened away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You did establish for them. You have set a boundary that they may not pass over, that they may not return to cover the earth." From these verses we might reasonably conclude that God made the mountains higher and the valleys deeper to make adjustments for the greater quantity of water on the earth after the Flood.
There was not enough extra water to cover the entire planet.
The Bible says, "all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened," in Genesis 7:11. This is consistent with saying that volcanoes erupted and that previously stored water high in the atmosphere was released. A great quantity of water is released with a volcanic eruption. If hundreds of volcanoes erupted both above and below the surface of the oceans, then the amount of water spewing forth on the earth is unimaginable to me. Genesis 1:7 tells us that the earth originally had water above the sky. With the greater surface area at a very high altitude in the earth's atmosphere, the thickness of water, probably in a gaseous state, would not have to be very great to store an incredible quantity of water which God could release upon the earth. This water would have been thin enough to allow adequate sunlight through. Also, the weight of this water would have caused there to be a greater barometric pressure prior to the Flood. Worldwide atmospheric barometric pressure drops and increased sunlight penetration would have created a world that was very different after the Flood. These changes provide reasonable theories about the decreasing life spans and the extinction of numerous species after the Flood.
Noah and his family could not have traveled to all lands and caught all those animals.
Fortunately for Noah, he did not have to search the world and capture them. God caused these animals and birds to come to Noah. (Gen. 6:20).
The animals could not have all migrated to the Ark because of natural barriers like high mountains, rivers, and seas.
We cannot be sure what the earth's geography was like prior to the Flood. Five or six generations after Noah, we can read in Genesis 10:25 that in the days of Peleg (which means "division") that "the earth was divided." Many believe that this means that God divided the earth into the continents we now see (though, I have to admit, it might instead mean that God divided people by language). If the land prior to the Flood was one big continent, this would indeed have facilitated the migration of animals to Noah's location. After the Flood it would have provided a way for the animals unique to Australia to get there.
The Ark was not big enough to hold all those animals and carry enough food for a year.
A very real possibility was that the animals Noah put in the Ark were not full grown. It would not take as much food for young samples of each species. According to calculations in The Genesis Flood, by Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, page 69, the Ark could hold the equivalent of 522 standard two-decked railroad stock cars. To carry the no more than 35,000 estimated individual vertebrate animals, the average size being that of a sheep, would require no more than 146 such railroad cars.
The animals would be out of control in the Ark during the rough weather.
We must remember that God did not abandon Noah in the Ark. The Lord did not say get into the Ark at the beginning of the trip, nor come out of the Ark at the end. God told Noah to join Him in the Ark. (Note "Come into the Ark" in Genesis 7:1 and "Go out of the Ark" in chapter 8:16.) There is no doubt in my mind that God could have calmed the animals during the storm, as easily as Christ calmed the Sea of Galilee. (Mark 4:37-41). It is entirely possible that God even caused many of the animals to hibernate throughout much of the trip.
The Ark could not have carried enough fresh water for a year.
This is clearly not true when we consider that the Ark's cargo space was equivalent to 522 railroad cars, as mentioned above. Also, the Ark was surrounded by drinkable water. If we assume that the ocean's salt content was the same as today, then the excess Flood water likely diluted it sufficiently for drinking.
Saltwater fish could not have survived in fresh or less salty water.
Freshwater fish certainly cannot survive in saltwater. But, there are numerous examples of saltwater fish being able to survive for extended periods in fresh water. Keep in mind that the whole Flood period was a miracle of God, and I see no reason not to believe that He could keep saltwater fish alive during the event.
There wouldn't be enough oxygen for them at the high altitude at the peak of the flood.
Atmospheric pressure and oxygen concentration are relative to sea level. As the sea rose, so also did the air we breathe. No matter if the Flood waters were as high as Mount Everest (which isn't likely, as I explained above based on Psalm 104:5-9), the oxygen necessary to sustain life would have been more than adequate.
The Ark had no rudder or sails.
The Ark needed no means of propulsion or steering. There was no particular place that it needed to go. After exposing the land to the incredible Flood waters, it is unlikely that Noah's family could have recognized any landmarks after the Flood. The Ark came to rest where God wanted it to come to rest.
Noah and 7 other people would not be able to care for that many animals.
This might be true if they were out of control or if they were all fully grown or if they were always awake or if they had no assistance from their Creator. The God who was powerful enough to destroy the earth with a massive Flood, was unquestionably able to care for those in the Ark for a year.
God would not have killed innocent children in the Flood.
History is filled with examples where children were destined to suffer because of the choices of their parents. If we believe these children were innocent, then we should be comforted to know that by their drowning, God removed them from a wicked society and took their souls to eternal peace and rest.
There is not enough evidence that the whole earth was under water.
I am told that prior to the theories of Charles Darwin, most educated men explained the vast quantities of fossils as evidence of the global Flood from the days of Noah. In spite of what you may have heard elsewhere, animals and plants decay rapidly under normal circumstances, rarely leaving any trace for very long that they ever even existed on the planet. The mechanism for creating fossils requires unusual circumstances where an organism is buried before it can be eaten by other animals and bacteria. It is my opinion that the fossil record and sedimentary layers are best explained by a worldwide Flood. The Bible tells us that this Flood occurred during the life of Noah to destroy evil men who refused to walk in the righteous ways of their Creator.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
no.. don see it this way.. don sweet talk for the sake of sweet talk.. sweet talk coz u cannot contain the amt of love inside u anymore..
once, a pastor said in sermon, when the faith u have in God is overflowing from inside u, u will declare and say it out in prayers..
i believe it's the same for joy and love.. when u are SUPERRRRR damn happy time, im sure u will wan to tell everyone ur happiness and joy.. same for love, when ur love is soooooo much it's overflowing, u will wan to say it out to the one u love..
sincere words of love is different from normal patronising..
Yea ,, from forum
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA
creationist of the great flood in bible is disproved ... :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztJ_wmr6IS0&feature=player_embedded
meaning carbon dating is inaccurate so the age of dead scroll is invalid. Hence the dead sea scroll proof nothing ... try again harder Christians ,,, laughing at other doubting you while they can now laugh at you digging some useless thing and wanna say its proof of god ... haha
Originally Posted by boink! i took the liberty of reading that 14 page paper, and i'm sorry to inform you it's not convincing at all. and for those who are lazy to read, let me quote something from the paper that effectively summarizes the main assumption in the argument of the paper: so from the latter basis, the author argues that faith is not merely a belief, or belief in the absence of evidence; but a rational belief that generates trust and action. but look, any rational person will point out that the foregoing argument (faith is based on evidence) rest on these assumptions: (1) God exist, (2) God does not lie, (3) the bible is the word of God, and hence (4) the bible is true. what is essentially lacking is the justification for thinking these 4 assumptions to be true. nonetheless, there are at least 2 approach the author might take. he might take the semantic route by arguing that (1) and (2) are analytic truths (e.g necessary truths), hence (4) follows on the basis of (3). but to take the semantic approach is to open a whole philosophical can-o-worms, see (google) gaunilo island, or Kant's critique of existence as a predicate. the other approach the author might take involves forming an argument to support any of the preceding assumptions. but, any attempt to show these assumptions to be necessarily true would fail because it is viciously circular (see ampliative/non-ampliative distinction). hence, the best any such arguments will succeed in doing is to show such assumptions to be probable or contingent. nevertheless, any such probable arguments will face considerable philosophical critique. therefore, the author has failed in established his proposition that faith is based on evidence. he might succeed in doing so if he provides a plausible argument - that stands philosophical critique - to support his argument. |
Quote:
| The Bible (a body of factual information about God and His will for man) constitutes adequate evidence. Since God cannot lie, the integrity of the Scriptures cannot be disputed successfully. Faith comes after knowledge of the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Thus, faith is based on evidence. (Lipe 6) |
I will bloody score full marks for every single paper without spending a single minute revising at all.
Just something to ponder.
1st qn
If a person points a gun at your head and say he gives you 2 choices. One choice is to do what he want and he will spare your life and another choice is that you refuse and he will shoot you.
In this question, do you really think there are 2 choices?
2nd qn
People always say God give us free will, give us the power to choose. One choice is to believe him, praise him and do what he say, then he will grant you entry to eternal happiness in that wonderful land. Another choice is to do the opposite and end up suffering in a place full of fire and torturing forever and ever.
In this case, are there still 2 choices?
1st qn If a person points a gun at your head and say he gives you 2 choices. One choice is to do what he want and he will spare your life and another choice is that you refuse and he will shoot you. In this question, do you really think there are 2 choices? yes. afterall u can choose what you can or cannot do a) follow what he say b) dun follow c) hidden choice - snatch his gun and force him to bj d) pretend to faint ... ..... there are alot of choice in this situation... 2nd qn People always say God give us free will, give us the power to choose. One choice is to believe him, praise him and do what he say, then he will grant you entry to eternal happiness in that wonderful land. Another choice is to do the opposite and end up suffering in a place full of fire and torturing forever and ever. In this case, are there still 2 choices?[/quote] i assume there is god if there is none... den the question is bo liao still a choice... u can a) follow b) disobey c) find another god d) prove tat there is no god
 1. Criminals are not out to harm you they just want your money. 2. Did you just rewrote the bible? God created hell for not just for criminals but also unbelievers who does not worship him. If you believe in god then you must believe that every of your relatives and friends who aren't christians will be burned for eternity even though they done nothing. \ Question 1: the person being held under gun point would most likely fall into a state of panic, and end up doing as they are told. But by applying Game Theory and Psychology, it would enable the person to determine the risks & payoffs with each of the options available to them. a1) B agrees, the task is completed, but A kills him off (silenced). a2) B agrees, but fails to complete his task, thus A kills him. a3) B agrees, but tries to escape when possible. a4) B agrees, the task is completed, and A spares his life. But there is no guarantee A would not blackmail B again in the future. b1) B disagrees, A pulls the trigger. b2) B disagrees, and tries to steal A's gun. b3) B disagrees, and A's gun was found to be fake/not loaded, thus B tries to escape. b4) B disagrees, A failed in phase 1 negotiation, and brings out B's family or loved ones to further blackmail him. Question 2: it's a question of faith, so you either believe or you don't. |
the einstein equation v hard meh.. dunno why ppl always praise him for it.. the equation can do what? can cure cancer? its pointless in my opinion.. just a waste of taxpayers money all these scientist.. instead of inventing something practical like the light bulb or the internet.. einstein go and find the speed of light..  |
wah... today was damn zai ( from forum ... )
today, i was buying lunch when some dude arnd late 20s approached. dude 1 : hey, you often buy lunch from here? me : uh-huh, what's sup? dude 1 : you looked familar, anyway i want to ask you something.. me : yeah? shoot. dude 1 : Do you know what's God's (out of respect, i used a capital G) name? me : does your god has a name? dude 2 : of course, his name was Jehovah me : ok dude 1 : do you want to know what's the path of heaven and how to attain it? dude 2 : he shall forgive you and then you can also embrace his love! me : okay, i am a Buddhist (i showed them my amulets). thanks for your offer but i am comfortable with my faith. dude 1 : hey, you are so wrong. there's only 1 true God in the world and the rest does not show you the right path dude 2 : dun get us wrong, would like to come to our church, i am sure after that you will believe that only Him is the only religion. me : mind if i take a picture of you two? dude 1 : ??? dude 2 : for what my friend? me : i want to put a curse on you and see if you can be saved. in return i will give you my hp just in case you cannot lift the curse. dude 1 : you are disillusioned! me : haha.. joking, but i am really not interested. once they came knocking on my door too, asking me about my faith and etc etc. i was bored so i played along with them. :guy: so this sunday are you free? :me: Free? do what? :guy: Go to church so we can redeem your soul. :me: oh busy :guy: busy? :me: playing mahjong, and what does god want my soul for? redeem for cash voucher ar? -stun- -close door- |
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Living a life is just let the continuation of chemical reactions to take place only , we think and feel with the presences of chemical reactions and enzymes interaction...
The love and free will seem real but its just receptions of data and being process by brain not with your souls but your personality and character style that was already fixed and define to what according to your type of DNA..
Wake up Christians.. there is no eternal life... but there is eternal life in being atoms of random elements or molecules after you death...
However memories and expriences is what i have been living for , even then soul is not needed to remember memories or feel the expriences ... :)
Living a life is just let the continuation of chemical reactions to take place only , in think and feel with the presences of chemical reactions and enzymes interaction...
The love and free will seem real but its just receptions of data and being process by brain not with your souls but your personality and character style that was already fixed and define to what according to your type of DNA..
Wake up Christians.. there is no eternal life... but there is eternal life in being atoms of random elements or molecules after you death...
However memories and exprience is what i have been living for , even then soul is not needed to remember or feel the exprience ... :)
but i believe man made religion, not religion made man
from forum ... yah ,, totally agree and is agreeable :)
Originally Posted by BroInChrist EXCEPT that science is simply knowledge, knowledge does not deceive, but people can deceive and be deceived, or that their views and interpretations are not correct but they think they are. |
Replace the word science with the word BIBLE.
Anw, that is besides the point.
Knowledge does not deceive but people does? Erm yes, it doesnt take a genius to figure out that God decided to create human who are capable of saying things that doesnt reflect what they are thinking.
Which is why sci is open to all, just like wiki. People can deceive? Erm well, unless you manage to get everyone else to deceive together with you, how else are you going to pull off a global deception?
I. Introduction: Jesus and History
At the very heart of Christianity lies the life of Jesus Christ, which from nearly every perspective imaginable involves complications of some sort. Believers can choose to focus on Christ's human suffering or divine transcendence, theologians are left to debate the specific details of his resurrection and, without any contemporary portrait to go by, artists have little or no guidance in depicting him. Most problematical of all, an array of accounts now known as the Gospels, which have been ascribed to various disciples connected to him, present different and sometimes incompatible recollections of his teachings. But of all those struggling to situate him in some kind of framework, historians perhaps face the most intimidating challenge of all, trying to figure out what-really-happened in the wake of Jesus' life.Hard archaeology is quite marginal to the continuing power of the biblical tradition . . . Archaeology's most important role in the exploration of the emergence of Christianity is not as a fact-checker but as a context-giver—helping us understand what was happening all over ancient Judea during the lifetimes of Jesus and his followers. (Neil Asher Silberman, Archaeology, 2005)
Indeed, the first century CE presents an excellent example of the difficulties encountered in dealing with the various types of history. As "remembered history," for instance, the four canonical gospels are said to be contemporaneous accounts of his life and ministry, the recollections of four of his apostles (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). But careful analysis of these texts suggests otherwise, since from a historian's perspective they seem to be responding to issues and events relating to life in the Holy Lands decades after Jesus' death. Moreover, given the conflicting accounts of his life, we have no choice but to conclude that some of it must be "invented history." Worse yet, discoveries in the sands of Egypt have "recovered" a history of diverse approaches to Christianity, especially in the very early stages of its evolution. These so-called Gnostic gospels paint a very different picture of Christ from the one which orthodox Christians envisioned, as we'll see below.With all this, savvy historians tend to steer a wide course around Jesus himself. Particularly given the yawning vacuum of external sources for primordial Christianity, scholars cannot speak—certainly not with any sense of comfort—about the original stimulus producing this religion. That is, no contemporary Jewish or Roman account constitutes primary, external evidence of the actual events of Jesus' life. The closest we come is a brief mention by the Roman historianTacitus recounting Nero's cruelty to a sect called Christianos, a pathetic mob of doom-speakers in the eyes of most Romans at the time. To Tacitus, that is, the emperor's savage recrimination against this demented, benighted cult was unwarranted and only served to prove that Nero was a savage and deranged bully, not that Tacitus felt anyone should sympathize with Christians. His point seems to be that civilized people should be ashamed to stand by and watch a sadist butcher morons.
Likewise, the Jewish historian and general Josephus also notes the existence of early Christians, but he was active several decades after Jesus' life and thus cannot serve as an eyewitness to the central events lying at the heart of Christian history. Also, he writes in the aftermath of the Roman holocaust which destroyed the Second Temple in 70 CE and inaugurated the infamous diaspora, the Romans' general eviction of the Jews from the Holy Lands. Like Tacitus, then, Josephus' primary attention seems to rest not on Christianity itself but the plight and political crises facing his own people in his day.
The language of the New Testament only further complicates the situation, since it's all but certain that the gospels and epistles which make up its canon of twenty-seven books are, at best, translations of what Jesus actually said—that is, Jesus probably did not knowGreek, the language in which the New Testament is written—instead, he most likely spoke Aramaic, a Semitic tongue used commonly throughout the Holy Lands in his day. And because he was born a Jew and most Jewish boys of the time were trained in Hebrew, he almost certainly could speak that language, too, or at least read it.
At the same time, it's clear why the authors of the Gospels chose to write their accounts of Jesus' life in Greek. As the international language of science, philosophy and commerce, both intellectual and economic, the Greek tongue would in those days have reached a much wider audience than Aramaic or Hebrew. The result is that the gospels seem unlikely to represent the actual words spoken by Christ—surely, however, they're close to what he actually said—still, as anyone who communicates in a second language can attest, translations are never exact.
So if the New Testament does not transmit Christ's words literally—which is not the same thing as saying it's not the "Word of God"—the situation encompasses a hopeless conundrum for those intent on deciphering what-really-happened-in-the-past. On the other hand, believers and theologians who have freedom to traffic in mysteries or miracles may find easy and ready solutions to this problem—or difficult ones, but solutions all the same—by calling on resources historians do not find on their menu of executable options. So, without external sources to contradict, corroborate or give dimension to the testimony of its authors, the gospels of the New Testament do not admit history as such, which exempts the life of Christ itself from the direct scrutiny of historical investigation. And perhaps, in the end, that's not a bad thing for historians. It's always good not to attract the attention of anyone's Inquisition.
Little makes the desperation of this situation more apparent than the thorny issue of the year in which Jesus was born. The year we call "1 CE (or AD)" is almost certainly not the date of his birth—ironically then, Jesus was most likely born several years "before Christ," by perhaps as much as a decade—moreover, his birth story as related in the gospels is highly problematical, at least from a historian's perspective. For one thing, Romans in the day wouldn't have ordered a census so that they could tax "all the world," as the Gospel of Luke claims, because with the resources they had at the time it's utterly infeasible.
Neither would they have made those they were assessing return to their ancestral cities—that was a Jewish custom, not a Roman one—nor does the historical record support the proposition that, out of fear of Herod's wrath and subsequent proclamation to kill all male infants in Bethlehem, Jesus' parents fled from Judea to Egypt, a story related in the second chapter of Matthew. To top it all off, Herod died in 4 BCE which means his notorious Slaughter of the Innocents cannot have affected the infant Jesus if he were born in 1 CE. All in all, the life of Christ, especially his early days, is a narrative so fraught with bias and so frail in corroborating data that it's best left for specialists in religion to elucidate.
II. Early Christianity and History
"If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don't need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we'd never be able to prove his existence. And I think that's really cool." (Mary Schweitzer, paleontologist and self-described "complete and total Christian," 2006)
A. Saint Paul
This means that the historical study of Christianity begins not with Christ but with his most important follower, Paul. Originally Saul of Tarsus—Tarsus is a city on the southern coast of Asia Minor—Saint Paul (3-67 CE) is the greatest of Christ's early interpreters. Often called the "second founder of the Christian church," he was a Jew who had Roman citizenship and initially oppressed Christians until he experienced an intense vision of Christ and converted to Christianity. Though never having met Jesus in person, at least not in a conventional sense, Paul became the most visible of the apostles after the crucifixion since he was the best educated and uniquely positioned to bridge the Jewish and Roman worlds, opening the new religion up to a much larger audience.
More important from a historian's standpoint, Paul is an individual with clear connections to things attested in non-biblical sources outside of the Holy Lands. Addressed to budding communities of Christians in cities around the Roman world, Paul's letters are, as far as we know, the earliest Christian documents extant, predating by a decade or more the gospels, at least in the form we have them. In Paul's writings are also found for the first time several features of Christian life central in later worship, for instance, the rituals of communion and mass, the doctrine of redemption through Christ's suffering and a growing sense of separation between Christians and Jews. Over time, the last developed into a schism, then open contempt and finally outright insurgency, forging a long-standing tradition of animosity between these religious sects.In leaning toward the wider pagan world, Paul set a precedent for incorporating aspects of Roman and Greek cultures into the burgeoning cult, "christianizing" several useful and admirable aspects of ancient life. In particular, from the Greek philosophical system called Stoicism he adopted notions such as the assumption that all people are fundamentally equal, that slavery is an abomination and that war does less good in the world than peace. Greek literature also clearly informed his upbringing, as is visible in the high quality of lyric expression he produces at times:
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we look through a mirror darkly, but later we will see him face to face. Now I understand only partly; then I will understand fully, just as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope and love live on, three things; but the greatest of them is love.While there's no external corroboration of the tradition that Paul died a martyr in the Roman arena, this apostle stands out from the others as a visionary, organizer and motivator who gave the religion he adopted a definite form, molding inspired teaching into a working belief system. Among his many titles, Paul ought also to be proclaimed Christianity's "Darius," its shopkeeper.
As it grew and prospered, Christianity came more and more into the public eye, and that ultimately brought its membership into conflict with Roman authority. In particular, the predilection of early believers in Christ to proclaim that the end of the world was imminent smacked to the Romans of insurrection, the sort of cabal that promoted general despair and hysteria and late payment of taxes. From the early Empire's perspective, doom-cults like Christiani did not contribute to Roman life the way good religions were expected to.
B. Rome and the Early Christians
Moreover, the Romans saw the Christians as a subset of Jews who had already been granted special privileges because of their unusual religion and, in return, delivered little more than a ragged promise of peaceful cooperation. Moreover, because of their non-conformist monotheistic notions, they had also received a general exemption from emperor-worship (see Chapter 12), which in the minds of many Romans amounted to tax-dodging. Worse still, this mercy imported the potential for setting other sects off which might petition for the same sort of licence. Thus, into an already noxious environment, Christianity was only pumping more poison.
But persecution was not the way Romans as a rule preferred to handle their civic and social responsibilities. To the contrary, open acceptance of new ideas was their default position, whenever feasible. From any polytheist's perspective, after all, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having a few more gods—the more the holier, in fact—ironically, then, the Christians' insistence on exclusivity branded them atheists in the eyes of many Romans, because not letting people worship freely seemed selfish and pointless, by the standards of the day. A Pantheon, a space consecrated to "all gods," is the type of temple the Romans and their coalition partners promoted.So, because the Christians riled the already irritable Jews and furthermore claimed their god was returning at any moment to end all time—which implied that serving the state or doing any work at all was pointless—the Romans felt they had to come down hard on these gloomy rebels who were so inexplicably ungrateful for the government's largesse. And so they did, several times in history, though never harder, it should be noted, than they did on the Jews themselves or, for that matter, other barbarian groups whom they slaughtered mercilessly and displaced in droves, always in the name of protecting Rome and the greater good. But that's mostly because there were large numbers of barbarians and even Jews compared to Christians, at least in the first few centuries of the modern age.
Later pro-Christian historians played up these random persecutions as some sort of organized devilry on the Romans' part. The fact is, decades often passed between assaults on Christian groups and, while it's true that several emperors did, in fact, go after Christians per se, most weren't persecuting them for their religion but their wealth. Especially in the great economic depression of the third century CE when it was becoming harder and harder for the Roman government to pay its armies and keep at bay the hordes of foreigners pounding on the gates of the frontier, emperors sought reasons to confiscate wealth anywhere they could and, because Christians lived in a tax-shelter of sorts, exempted from having to participate in certain forms of revenue collection, some of them had become quite well-off.Many more used their religious convictions to beg off serving in the army. If the emperors of Rome were wrong to attack Christians as such—and there's no question they were wrong!—it's not hard to see why they did. They feared for the Roman state's survival and they were right about that, at least.
Nevertheless, late third-century Rome finally found the savior it so desperately needed, not a divine one but a hard-nosed, working-class emperor named Diocletian. This no-nonsense general who had risen to pre-eminence out of the lowest caste of Roman society looked with suspicion upon those who appealed to ideology as a means of escaping any form of public service. When he fell seriously ill the next year (304 CE), Diocletian commanded everyone in the Empire, including Christian authorities, to sacrifice to the emperor's health.
Some Christians obeyed even though the Church was against it, others didn't, some died and that was the last systematic Roman assault on Christians in the West. In the East, on the other hand, it took a few more years, until 311 CE and the death of the Emperor Galerius who was a fierce opponent of Christianity, to end the persecutions finally. Rome would soon not only learn to tolerate this new belief-system but come to embrace it exclusively.
III. Constantine and the Triumph of Christianity
In the generation after Diocletian, Constantine (ca. 285-337 CE) came to power. He was the first Roman emperor to embrace Christianity—that much at least is clear, even if little else about Constantine is—as a man he's a historical enigma, and a great deal of conflicting information surrounds this imperial paradox, the primordial "Christian general."Constantine was born the illegitimate son of a Roman ruler but was later made his heir. A child who grew up in the Roman West, he preferred the Hellenized East and, in fact, moved the center of Roman government there, where he built a grand new capital named after himself, Constantinople ("Constantine's city"). Furthermore, during his tumultuous rise to power he fomented civil war on the pretext of re-uniting Rome and, even after he'd embraced Christianity, he continued to worship the sun the way many pagans did. Without doubt, one of history's most important transitional figures, this conundrum of a man seems to have been constantly transforming himself.
What matters to the issue at hand here is that he converted to some sort of Christianity at some point during his life. The story goes that he'd had a vision of the cross before one of the crucial battles in the civil wars that brought him to power, and on that cross was written in hoc signo vince, "With this ensign, conquer!" So, according to later legend, he'd appended it to his royal insignia and thus Christianity had at last won a winning emperor. But close examination of the historical evidence from the day muddies the waters considerably, suggesting this is an invented history since it's confirmed only long after the fact and then by sources with a direct interest in promoting the emperor's allegiance to Christian belief. The truth is, Constantine was only finally baptized on his deathbed, and his biography hardly constitutes a model of the good Christian life.Whatever the what-really-happened, this emperor's adoption of Christianity stopped once and for all the persecution of Christians in the West. If, in issuing the Edict of Milan in 313, Constantine did not go so far as to declare Rome a Christian state, he did enforce a policy of official neutrality in Christian affairs. Under his regime, Christians were free at last to speak as themselves in public without fear of reprisal or torture and, more important, to worship as they wished. It was surely his hope that the Edict of Milan and a general posture of tolerance would help restore order within the government and the state. Just the opposite happened.
By sanctioning Christianity, Constantine quickly learned that he had made himself an important figure in the Church and, like any influential "board member," he was now obliged to give his advice on matters of consequence which, as it turned out, were all there seemed to be in this religion. The Christian Church in his day was, in fact, boiling over with controversy, and Constantine—much to his surprise and, no doubt, dismay—found himself having to render judgment about complex theological issues. If anyone ever in history was poorly prepared or equipped to debate the nature of the Trinity, it was this lucky bastard.
IV. Early Christian Controversies
The evidence is unclear about Constantine's motivations for adopting the Christian religion. Part of him must have believed in it, part of him must have believed it would help bind together a fractured society, and part of him surely hoped from it would rise a new brand of soldier pledged to follow the Emperor's cross-encrusted signum into victory. If so, his conversion turned out to offer the mere mirage of peace and order, for not only did his investment in Christianity embroil Roman government in doctoral-dissertation-level religious disputes, but it seriously alienated the many who refused to join the Church, those traditional pagans who still constituted the majority of Romans, the conservatives of their day.
What's particularly compelling in all this is that, while the city of Rome and its urban counterparts across the late classical world were splintering into gangs and cults and various interest groups, life and religion in the countryside, where the vast majority of people under Roman sway lived throughout antiquity, changed remarkably little as far as we can tell. There, the worship of local gods and spirits persisted, even as countless armies marched by and revolutions revolved. Well past Roman times and into the Middle Ages, these so-called pagan beliefs carried on. Indeed, Charlemagne's Christ as late as the eighth century met more than one Thor on the battlefield. It's important, then, to note that most of the phenomena we think of as Roman, including Christianity, were features of life in municipal Rome, the life which urban, not rural Romans knew.
Furthermore, to many Christians in the day, especially Church administrators, there were "heathens" inside their ranks, too. Because much acrimonious debate surrounded the formation of the hierarchy which ultimately came to govern the early Church, this antagonism tended to center around what constituted being a "good upstanding Christian." That gave rise to terms like orthodoxy (literally in Greek, "straight opinion," constituting those views sanctioned by the officials of the Church) and heresy ("choice," implying the free choice to follow a doctrine of one's own devising). Fascinating, isn't it, that even back then "choice" was a word around which the winds of controversy swirled?
A. The GnosticsOne of the earliest and most prominent of the heretical groups denounced by Church officials was a class of believers called the Gnostics. In evidence as early as the second century CE, they represented not so much an organized sect as a motley collection of alternative Christians whose views on the nature of Jesus and the lessons of his ministry differed broadly, sometimes in direct disagreement with each other as much as the Church. To many of the bishops and saints who held the reins of the burgeoning Christian community at that time, these factions represented a real—if not the real—enemy.
Because of the diversity it embraced, it's impossible to sum up Gnostic theology quickly or simply. Even so, Elaine Pagels comes close in her brief but monumental work, The Gnostic Gospels (1979), a book which has made the world of early Christianity accessible to many non-historians today. It, in turn, was made possible by a random act of good fortune.In 1945, a fortuitous find of ancient texts later called the Nag Hammadi library—Nag Hammadi (or Naj ‘Hammadi) is the site in southern Egypt where these texts were discovered—increased enormously our awareness of the wide range of religious views early Christians embraced. This cache of scriptures included several works by Gnostic authors whose "gospels" were later censured and censored by the Church. Before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi trove, most of these writings had survived only in tattered fragments, several completely lost.
But with their resurrection came a whole new insight into the complexity of Christianity's early years and growth as a religion. As Pagels says (p. xxxv),
Yet even the fifty-two writings discovered at Nag Hammadi offer only a glimpse of the complexity of the early Christian movement. We now begin to see that what we call Christianity—and what we identify as Christian tradition—actually represents only a small selection of specific sources, chosen from among dozens of others. . . . Now, for the first time, we have the opportunity to find out about the earliest Christian heresy; for the first time, the heretics can speak for themselves.To give just a brief glimpse of the scope of this "heresy," most Gnostics spoke about Jesus in less literal terms than the orthodox Church. To them, the real world was evil, incapable of either containing or deriving from a true divinity. Thus, Jesus wasn't really among us, but just seemed to be. Gnostics subscribed to the notion that those who met this god in real life saw him only with the crude instruments of sensation humans possess—eyes and ears—and these crude tools of perception had misled them grossly. What they had really encountered was merely a specter of Jesus' actual presence, a shadow of his true luminous godhead.
This meant Jesus' suffering on the cross was not the point of his life and ministry, since he was not so ensconced in the material world that he could feel human pain. Such an attitude preempts wearing a crucifix, certainly waving it around in battle. Nor in this context does baptism make much sense. One Gnostic author remarks on how people "go down into the water and come up without having received anything"—that is, they just get wet—and with this, martyrdom cannot carry special meaning, either. "Anyone can do these things," according to another Gnostic.
But the heart of the controversy between the Gnostics and the Church centered around the value of having bishops and priests, or any clergy at all. To non-orthodox Christians, such things were "waterless canals," without any definitive basis in what Jesus was verified to have said. Rather, wholesome Christians must find their own way to heaven by exploring their personal feelings, not participating in empty rituals bearing no clear sanction from Christ. Or, in the words of the Gnostic teacher Theodotus, "each person recognizes the Lord in his own way, not all alike." Again, Pagels explicates (p. xxxvi):
[I]nvestigation of the newly discovered gnostic sources . . . suggests that these religious debates—questions of the nature of God, or of Christ—simultaneously bear social and political implications that are crucial to the development of Christianity as an institutional religion. In simplest terms, ideas which bear implications contrary to that development come to be labeled as "heresy"; ideas which implicitly support it become "orthodox."What Gnostics saw as the model for a better way to heaven were Jesus' miracles which to them hinted at his supernatural essence. They preached also that the knowledge of self was the knowledge of God, saying "When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will realize that you are the sons of the living Father." And, because gender is clearly not relevant to matters of spirit like these, some Gnostics spoke of men and women having equal footing before God and, thus, of sharing fully in the responsibilities of a Christian life. Referring to Mary Magdalene as one of Christ's disciples, the Gnostic Gospel of Mary envisions her as the foremost of the apostles and calls her the "woman who knew the All." Others went so far as to speak of "God the Mother."
All in all, it was a very different take on Christian thinking than that endorsed by the Church politic. Indeed, to more than one theological expert in the last century, the discovery of the Gnostic scriptures has proven nothing less than shocking, especially in how profoundly at odds the Gnostics were with what later evolved into the standard view. More confusing yet was that so complex and radically diverse a system of thought existed so early in the Christian tradition, and that was nowhere near the end of radical thinking in the first few centuries of the religion's evolution.
B. ArianismIn the later stages of the Roman Empire, neither pagans nor Gnostics proved the fiercest foe the early Church would face. Because in principle Gnostics refused to act collectively, they made an easy target for the clergy's growing intolerance toward internal diversity. This type of factionalism could be rooted out and isolated, silenced or eradicated with relative ease because its adherents had no overarching bureaucracy sheltering them from general onslaught. Even if the process took centuries, it was not all that difficult, certainly compared to the challenges that lay ahead. Little did the Christian officials suspect a far more dangerous foe was lurking within their very own ranks, a well-organized body of questioners who were prepared to challenge the orthodox vision of Christ.
The basic issue underlying this festering controversy stemmed from Jesus himself, who in the day represented a new type of divinity, both mortal and divine at the same time. While Dionysus was also depicted in Greek religion as having a two-fold nature—the myths detailing his "life-history" asserted that he was born from the union of Zeus and a mortal woman and only later became wholly divine—nevertheless, once Dionysus had assumed the status of god, he no longer suffered in human ways. Jesus, of course, was seen quite differently. As recorded in the four gospels accepted by the orthodox Church, his story gave rise to serious questions about the exact nature of his divinity, issues which kept cropping up because they were inherent in the narratives of his life, such as how a being could be both a deity and a non-deity at the same time.
That, in turn, led directly to another complication built into Christianity naturally, the relationship between God and Jesus. If Jesus is God's Son, to many that means he should be taken as subordinate to his father—good sons obey their fathers—the logical response is, then, to worship the Father principally, not the Son, which is in effect to return Christianity to its Jewish roots. If, instead, you choose to see Jesus as God incarnate, then you're left with the enigma that God is his own Son.
This perplexing conundrum fueled many a lively debate among the first few centuries of Christians, especially after their religion had assumed world prominence in the days following Constantine. Much as earnest deliberation can be a helpful and healthy exercise for a growing and evolving system like early Christianity, it can also make some aspects of organizing a working system hard to manage, such as spreading the good word. That is, when priests have a hard time explaining easily the nature and function of a deity—even something as simple as where he came from and who his parents are, or parent is—it can impede the process of recruiting converts, especially among the hordes of unschooled barbarians filtering through and around Rome in the fourth century.The result was a faction of churchmen led by a dynamic and well-educated priest Arius (ca. 250-336), who championed a more remedial version of Christ than the mystical, enigmatic vision offered by the orthodox Church. Seeing Jesus as a divine being and the offspring of God but not a god exactly like God—that is, essentially a very high-level, celestial messenger sent to earth—this heresy later called Arianism endorsed the position that, if Jesus is the Son of God, then he cannot be allowed to assume precedence over his Father in heaven or on earth. In essence, Arius' conclusion was that the orthodox interpretation of the Trinity made no sense, at least not in terms of power-sharing; rather, logic dictated the Father had to be primary and central and should be respected as such.
It was a difficult position to counter in the arena of argument and reason. Common sense dictates that sons should submit to their fathers, and common decency demands respect for elders. But Church authorities could not admit such a proposition without conceding Jesus' inferiority to God, so they had little choice but to step into the fray and attempt to squelch this controversy. Leading the opponents of Arianism was none other than Arius' own superior Athanasius—his boss, so to speak—the patriarch of Alexandria and a formidable power-broker in the Church. A savvy administrator, Athanasius made no real effort to counter the arguments of his trouble-making underling but, instead, insisted that Jesus was ultimately unknowable and the Trinity must be accepted as a mystical union. In simple terms, he told Arius to shut up.
But an issue that divisive does not die down so easily, and like so many other theological questions circulating in the day, Arianism, too, ultimately landed in Constantine's lap. Like any powerful, under-educated politician confronted with a real brain-teaser like this, the emperor called together his advisors, in this case, Christian clergy from all across the Empire to a synod, the Council of Nicaea (near Constantinople) in 325 CE. After some vigorous debate, the bishops ended up backing Athanasius and forged the famous Nicene Creed in which adherents and converts to Christianity were sworn to uphold the orthodox perception of Christ as "begotten not made" by God and "(who) was made flesh, was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day . . ."The credo did not stop there either. It continued on to an outright denial of the major tenets underlying Arianism and Gnosticism, in fact, any version of Christianity which challenged the Church's authority, forcing its membership to denounce such heresies publicly:
But those who say that there was once when he was not and before he was begotten he was not and he was made of things that were not or maintain that the Son of God is of a different essence or substance or created or subject to moral change or alteration—the Catholic and Apostolic Church condemn them to damnation.This constitutes the wholesale deprecation of all heresies which were at that time raising their voices in opposition to the policies and existence of an organized Church government.
But even such extreme measures did not forestall the growth of Arianism. Later synods reversed the decision of the Council of Nicaea and confirmed Arian views, which only acerbated divisions within the Christian world. More important, Arian proponents played well the advantages inherent in their vision of Christ, especially outside the Empire in areas where Church bureaucrats who lived for the most part in Roman metropolises had as yet little influence. The Arian Christians' simpler conception of Jesus as subordinate to and discrete from God allowed them to win many converts, especially among those unfamiliar with the complex theological history underlying Christian orthodox doctrine. In particular, the monk Ulfilas was able to attract many Germanic barbarian groups to his side, the Goths especially who became avid Arian Christians.
The result was that Church officials hardened their position on not only dissension within their ranks but also the interpretation of scripture and what to them constituted acceptable texts. The Gnostic gospels of Thomas, Mary and Philip, along with many other accounts of Jesus' life in wide circulation by that time, were branded heretical and stricken from the canon of the New Testament. Soon thereafter, clerical officials ordered the destruction of all copies of these texts, and it was probably amidst this censorship that some unknown Gnostic supporter buried those scriptures which were discovered many centuries later at Nag Hammadi. If so, just as with Akhetaten, a systematic attempt to erase history has provided us with our best access to what-really-happened-in-the-past.
C. The Growth of Church GovernmentAmong the administrators of the Church, the internal unrest precipitated by these heresies only intensified interest in formalizing holy services and offices of all sorts. Doctrine and ritual came to center around what is now known as the seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, marriage, ordination and final unction. Church leadership fell into the hands of bishops, each of whom oversaw a see, a religious "province" of sorts, in which, as it turned out, not all bishops were equal. Those situated in the great urban centers of the Empire became archbishops ("head-bishops") whose opinions carried more weight because of the large populations they represented. In particular, the Bishop of Rome stood out among his peers and hence came to be called the papa ("Father"). From this evolved the papacy and the office of Pope.
The justification advanced to lend credence to this bureaucracy sheds light on the psychological machinery of the early Church, all the more because the reasoning used is likely to rest on invented history. The bishoprics and sees of the Roman West grew up in places unassociated with Jesus himself, places it could not even be imagined he ever went in person. Thus, in order to ground their communities in Christ himself somehow, the bishops had no choice but to build bridges to the apostles of Jesus, but that was difficult, too. There was no clear or credible testimony about the lives of Jesus' apostles after his crucifixion—where did they go? what do they do? how did they die?—so amidst this yawning vacuum of data, the story arose that they had spread out across the Empire, seeding Christian cells and founding the sees which evolved later. In origin, this unconfirmed history probably served truth less than the western bishops' need to tie their authority directly to Jesus himself.
Through this elaborate reconstruction of the past—the transference of power from Jesus to the apostles and then to the bishops came to be called the apostolic succession—Church bureaucrats linked their authority to the seminal voices and events of the New Testament. But this path to empowerment, be it revisionist or not, also proved no smooth or easy road. Besides the continuing resistance of heretics who sought to undercut and discredit leaders like the Pope, the bishops themselves vied for real control of an increasingly wealthy and influential institution. In particular, the patriarch of Constantinople, who led a large and well-organized community of Christians in the greatest city of the eastern half of the Empire, was reluctant to take his marching orders from an occidental bishop inhabiting faraway Rome.Later, as the western end of the Empire began to fall apart, it made even less sense to Rome's eastern denizens to continue obeying some purported papa. By the early Middle Ages (ca. 600 CE), the Roman popes had become corrupt and ineffectual—often they were also the uneducated and illiterate kin of corrupt barbarians, the progeny of those whose fathers had sacked and pillaged holy seat—or so they seemed to Asian eyes. Eventually, the growing sense of estrangement between Church officials in Rome and Constantinople led to the division of Christianity into Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox factions. This, in turn, opened the door to military conflicts like the Crusades (see Chapter 15).
Thus, the early Church's efforts to promote unity within the Christian community by imposing uniform doctrine and firm governance only ended up fracturing it incurably in the long run. If there were any ancient Gnostics alive today, the irony and futility of orthodox governance would, no doubt, not be lost on them. Indeed, is that sound we hear from deep beneath the sands of Nag Hammadi the lamentation of an extinguished sect, or is it laughter and echoes of "I told you so"?
V. Conclusion: What Early Christianity Teaches
God the Mother, Mary Magdalene the Apostle, a Jesus subordinate to God or who never actually suffered on the cross—it all seems unimaginably foreign to the modern view of Christianity. Even to suggest these sorts of things in most corners of the Christian world today would be to open the door for widespread recrimination and scorn or, worse yet, the publication of a best-seller like Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. And yet ideas of this sort were not only advanced in Christianity's first centuries but also attracted many adherents and enjoyed considerable popularity, at least to judge from the vitriol with which their orthodox adversaries attacked the "heretics" who promulgated these notions.
To see such a wide range of beliefs attested so early in Christianity may seem odd to many today, not just on theological grounds but because, in general, we're taught to expect increasing differentiation as things expand over time. The widely used, so-called "Darwinian" model of evolution which is built around notions like survival-of-the-fittest and natural selection presumes that growth will be accompanied by rising variation—often presented as graphs that look like upside-down Christmas trees—in other words, we trained to look for greater complexity over time as things evolve. While that may be the way things work in paleontology, it's not the pattern of change which the historical study of Christianity presents.
Indeed, the great open frontier of primitive Christian religion has left behind a record of more creative and basically pioneering visions of Christ's message and divinity than all later ages combined. And as time passed, orthodox forces antagonistic to any ideology at odds with institutionized Christianity obliterated those conceptions of Jesus which ran against the growing mainstream. And once Christ came to be defined in certain ways, and on that perspective of his life and teaching depended a powerful and influential social structure like the Church, it was all but impossible to recast his image without changing what he stood for and, of more immediate consequence, what stood for him.
And that makes tracking down a historical Christ a very difficult endeavor, not so much because the what-really-happened of his life has been obscured in a void of verifiable data—it has been, but that's not the point!—but because it ended up mattering so much to so many people across such a long stretch of time. All in all, Jesus has proven an ideal target for invented history, which is not to say any particular narrative about him rests on lies, only that he was the sort of figure around which exaggeration and myth tend to accrue. In other words, as we see so often in history, when people care very much about something, the truth of history isn't likely to be what they serve first, or even second.
But it seems safe to say at least this much: out of so many possibilities, one perspective on Christ won out, the literal view of his life and resurrection. Yet we now know this was neither the only nor the most "historical" take on his life story—pursuing what-really-happened was not the sole or even foremost factor at work in the formation of early Christian doctrine—rather, it met the needs of an institution in ascendancy and was the version of the truth most feasible for a world needing comfort and stability amidst turmoil and savage upheaval. And on top of that, if it was the first time Christian orthodoxy went to war with heresy, it was certainly not the last.
In later ages, others followed the trail mapped out by the Gnostics and their heretical brethren and re-ignited the debate over what constituted a Christ and a God. I don't mean Protestants at the time of the Reformation (the early 1500's CE)—though they certainly fit this mold—but nearly a millennium before them, another group began to ask questions which challenged the central tenets of orthodoxy and through innovative insight and revelation structured a religion that was both revolutionary and at the same time rooted deeply in the theological traditions of the Near East. From this was created a new type of believer who would take the controversies of Christianity to different and unexpected heights. More important, their novel responses to classical Christian paradoxes like the nature of the Trinity and the role of an institutional Church would find expression in a different world, in a different language, in Arabic in fact. They were, of course, the Moslems.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Because sci is something that is shared by the human race, it is not possible that sci can hoodwink everyone if there exist ppl out there who know the truth is otherwise...
And to add on, evolution was nv proposed to go against christianity. If christianity, which is based on the bible, of which the bible isnt real, then sooner or later, the truth will be revealed by sci.
Zeus, God of lightning? So I guess the person who discover electrons and what lightning really is dislike zeus huh? That guy went to all extent to research about lighning until he can prove zeus is but a myth? Oh come on...
So face it. Christianity, which is also a religion, will not be the odd one out. Sci had never, and will never be locking in on specific religion to try and refute the religion. But when the day comes to the relevant stuffs, its either all the claims are fake, and the God you know becomes a myth, or the claims are proven true, and therefore it will be globally recognised.
So it can only be crazy fanatic followers against sci, never the other way round. For these ppl fear the reality that sci is capable of unveiling...
Sunday, November 15, 2009
When Jesus knocks at your door, His is knocking at your Hearts door. Will you please open your heart and let Him in? If he came to offer you something much better, a life with Him, will you leave ALL of your material Possessions behind and not have to think twice about any of them? Are you willing to give Him your soul in exchance for His Love and His Truth? Will you Love and treat others as you would if He were standing right in front of you...because it could actually be Him in human form. He doesn't try to trick people, only Satan would do that! God loves you and wants to know see how you treat others in your heart. He wants us ALL to come together as His family and Love Him , as well as one another...not just for a moment or a day, but for ALL of our lifetime on this earth. He wants to see people helping people and not turning anyone away, no matter what the reason!!! He wouldn't you!!!! Don't just think about it, KNOW IT IN YOUR HEART!!!!!!!!!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
if you kiss her, you are not a gentleman
if you dont , you are not a man
if you praise her, she tink you are lying
if you dont , you are good for nth
if you make a romance, you are an experienced man
if you dont, you are half a man
if you visit her too often,she tink its boring
if you dont, she accuses you of dbl crossing
if you are well dresses . she say you are a playboy
if you dont, you are a dullboy
if you JEALOUS, she say its bad
if you don , she think you don love her
if u attempt a romance, she say you don respect her
if you dont, she tink u don love her
if you are a mins late, she complains its hard to wait
if she is late,'' oh its a girl things''
if you visit by another, she accesses of being heel
if she visited by another, ;;oh its natural we are girls''
if you kiss her too many, she yells that u are taking advantage
if she talk, she want u to listen
if you listen , she want u to talk
OH GOD , you created those creature called GIRL!
So weak, yet powerful
so simple , yet complex
so confusing , yet desirable
OH LORD~ tell me wat to do ~~~~~
Monday, November 9, 2009
The ugly truth is, a lot of Singaporeans should wake up from the make-believe bed of roses your government/media gave you and start to look beyond this country.
A lot of Singaporeans always believe they are world's number one. OK, sorry but here's the ugly truth. No you are not.
Here's a few comparison to some fellow Asian countries:
Now when we mention Malaysia, many Singaporean will perceive it to be a backward country. First Malaysia has the Petronas Twin Tower, which was tallest building (until surpassed by Taipei 101), but currently, is the the world's tallest twin tower. Next, Singapore's main icon was its ports. Since the emergence of Port Klang of neighboring Malaysia, Singapore lost it's place as the busiest port in this region. On top of having Sepang F1 circuit and not some make-shift city street, Malaysia also offer tourists many choices, both urban and country. Malaysia Airline has also recently been voted Asia number one, replacing SIA. And if you're proud of your airport, take a trip down KL, you'll be in shock. Most importantly, Malaysia has a language they call their own, instead of speaking that of the colonial master.
Now China, Singaporeans simply hate China Chinese, though you guys are of the same heritage. When a White hates Chinese, he is a racist. When a Chinese hates another Chinese? I don't even know what's the term to describe idiots like that. Now, China is far from poor. They are currently one of the super powers in the world. Even big brother America in in China's debt, and to a very large extend, have to suck up to them. China has a ridiculous army, enough to annihilate half of the world. Take a look at Beijing or Shanghai, they are developed far beyond Singapore. Even your government have to play big papa China's little girl when it comes to world politics.
We don't even need to talk about a small country called Brunei, coz their can totally own your ass with their money, anytime.
While many rich Singaporean businessmen are dealing in big time businesses with Indonesians, average Singaporeans tend to be little country with a very similar flag. I tell you my friends, the rich Indonesians, can totally freak the **** out of you. When they decide to stay in NZ, Aussie, they don't buy just a house and car like most Singaporeans who retire there... They buy the whole damn street! They are in no way, backward or less intelligent.
Taiwan? Well your very capable government says we're not a country, coz they are playing China papa's little pet. But let me tell you, we have the highest building in the world that is indestructible by earthquake. We pay our garbage collectors an average salary of SGD 3000 equivalent per month. We are the most liberal and democratic country in Asia, if not the world. Yes we do not speak English, but do you speak French? English is of no relevant usage in Taiwan, so why do you expect us to speak it? Is French relevant in SG? No? That's why you don't speak it? Same works for us. BTW, do you know we are ranked 3rd highest in world for average IQ? And that's above SG.
North Korea. Communist, Tyrant Kim blah blah blah. They've got nuclear weapons... What do you have? On wait, sorry I forgot the government of shadow emperor LKY has a fleet of indestructible ninja robots ready to kick ass anytime...
Take a look around the world, ask them where Singapore is, most people, simply don't know...
Please take note, this is NOT a SG bashing thread. I have been stationed here for the past 7 years, though I still cannot adapt to SG food, I have made local friends and understood local culture.
As much as I would say that SG isn't the worst place around, I feel that it's also about time for Singaporeans to acknowledge the fact this country is no longer the Alantis of South East Asian, and for sure, SG is not number 1 in the world. However, you can advance forward, if you're willing to acknowledge your flaws and learn from others humbly, while improving your own country instead of saying your favorite lines "go back to your own country if you don't like it here" and "we are so and so and so, what about you?"
Peace out.
Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change
A popular cariacature of creationists is that we teach the fixity of species (i.e., species don’t change). And since species obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in the first place. Prior to the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species especially, some Christians did claim that species were immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did not mean the same thing then as it does now—nor was there ever any reason to assume fixity in the first place. Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know that species do change—but only within the original kinds God created roughly 6,000 years ago. Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not evolution—they remind us that God put enough information in the genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed world.
Myth 9: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
Although some evolutionists claim that the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) is a sort of Trojan horse for creationism to get into schools, those in the IDM are not necessarily even Christian, let alone creationists. Creationism begins with the belief that the Bible is God’s infallible Word to us. The Bible provides the framework by which we understand the world. Because the Bible teaches that there is a Creator and that the earth is young, creationists base all our research on this foundation. Conversely, the IDM holds that certain aspects of living things and the universe can best be explained by being the work of an intelligent designer. The identity of this creator and whether or not the Bible is true are non-factors. While creationists may agree with some aspects of intelligent design theory, those who do conflate IDM with creationism likely do not understand either.
Myth 8: The Bible Is Not a Science Textbook
The Bible isn’t a science textbook in the sense that it describes exactly how the laws of the universe function, but it does make a number of statements that touch upon scientific principles. And what it does touch on is factually accurate. Underneath this myth is the assumption by many scientists that only natural (and not supernatural) causes can explain reality. God could not have created, for example, because special creation is denied, not by fieldwork or research, but by biased presuppostions. If the Bible does contain the true history of the universe as inspired by the One who created it, then doing science without a biblical worldview often leads to false or imperfect conclusions. A scientist can make astounding discoveries and not believe God’s Word, but a full understanding of the universe begins with Genesis.
Myth 7: Creationists Have a Narrow/Literal View of the Bible
This is only partially true. Creationists believe that the Bible was written to be understood. And since we believe that God cannot lie and gave us the Bible to instruct us, we also assume that His Word is clear and accurate. In other words, there’s no reason to think that someone needs to “read into” what the words actually say. On the other hand, the Bible is not written in one particular style throughout. There are a variety of styles, including historical narratives and poetry. Beyond that, the people God inspired to record His words employed various figures of speech. Jesus Himself was adept at hyperbole and parables, for example. Thus, creationists approach the Bible in a straightforward fashion. We don’t take idioms or poetic descriptions literally; we see them for what they are. We also do not ignore the intent of the text to align with popular ideas or philosophies.
Myth 6: Creation Has Been Disproven
Instead of engaging in cordial debate, some evolutionists prefer to say that creation has been disproven and refuse to listen to any discussion. After all, creationism is an “old” idea that has been replaced—for the most part—by evolution in schools, universities, and the media. We would say, instead, that evolution was disproven long before Charles Darwin came on the scene. How? The One who spoke everything into existence told us how He created—and it wasn’t over billions of years though natural processes. The real issue here is not one of proof of disproof, but of spiritual ramifications. If God is the creator, He is also the judge. Evolution allows many people a way to deny God’s authority—seeing creation as being “disproven” helps them ignore the clear signs of a Creator (Romans 1:20).
Myth 5: Creationists Are Anti-Science
It’s much easier to villify those who disagree than to deal with their arguments. For this reason, many anti-creationists paint us as being against science or wanting to drive science back into the “Dark Ages.” The truth is that many creationists love science because they love God. Exploring the universe means getting a glimpse into the amazing things God created. There are creation geologists, botantists, astronomers, chemists, physicists, and more who all love the work they do. On the other hand, creationists do attack ideas and frameworks that deny God’s authority and place as Creator. Most of these ideas stem from the belief that nature is all there is, thus denying God from the outset. The Bible, in fact, commands us to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).
Myth 4: There’s No Evidence for Creation
There’s proof for creation right where you are while reading this. Your seeing eyes, your understanding brain, the air around you, all testify to the ingenuity of our God. Of course, evolutionists see those same features as pointing to the power of natural processes to sculpt the universe and life. To them, such forces are sufficient to explain how we came to be. Evidence itself is simply evidence. It isn’t an objective source of truth and must be fitted into the overall picture we have of how things work. Whereas evolutionists see the layers in the Grand Canyon as showing millions of years, for example, creationists see those same layers as a reminder of the recent global Flood. Some aspects of our universe, however, make much more sense in light of the creation account, including design features and reasons to think the earth must be young. They don’t “prove” what the Bible says is true, but they do line up with it.
Myth 3: Creationists Deny the Laws of Nature
We like gravity just the way it is—thank you very much. And we are grateful for the laws of physics and chemistry that make life possible. In fact, we see the laws of nature as evidence of God’s sustaining hand in the universe. Those laws operate consistently because He is unchanging. What we do deny, however, is that common descent via evolution is a “law” or “fact.” Natural selection, mutations, and genetic changes are all observable processes (that fit the creation model quite well), but descent from a common ancestor is a framework and not a law of nature. Ultimately, we expect the universe to be orderly and logical because we start from the Bible. The laws of nature are not sufficient in and of themselves to create the universe and life; instead, they point to the Creator.
Myth 2: Creationists Ignore the Evidence for Evolution
Among the many charges leveled against creationsts is the claim that we “cherry-pick” the data we like and ignore what we don’t. However, as mentioned earlier, the evidence is not the issue—it’s the conclusions that evolutionists make about that evidence. Answers in Genesis and other creationist organizations do our best to address the most recent news reports, scientific research, and controversial claims. For example, we deal with a number of important stories every Saturday in News to Note and throughout the week in other articles and blog posts. However, just because evolutionists tell us how we should interpret a particular find does not mean that their interpretation is the best one. Creationists pick out the hard facts and expose the parts that are opinion or based on assumptions. This is not ignoring what we don’t like; it’s separating the wheat from the chaff.
Myth 1: Creationists Want Creationism Taught in Public Schools and Evolution Out
Some evolutionists like to drum up support and outrage by claiming that creationists are out to ban evolution from public schools and anywhere else we can. The only problem is that it’s not true. While we can’t deny that some Christians would like to see Charles Darwin banished from academia, few creationist organizations are in that crowd. AiG would prefer, instead, that teachers have the freedom to present the creation view if they choose. We have no desire to force someone to teach what they don’t agree with. Many evolutionists have abused the court system in an effort to squelch debate and silence dissent; we have no desire to use the same tactics. Beyond this, we also think that every Christian should understand the basic tenets of evolution. While the Bible tells us that God created in six days, most people have been influenced by Darwin’s writings—even if they don’t realize it—because his ideas are ubiquitous in our culture. So, understanding evolution will help all of us be more effective in our witness.