Religion anyone?

nomeradona

plot - funny guy!!

Cornel - relax you are saved

Rick - still tangled in symantics

JuanV - you got the spirit!!

Tomasz - love will make it happen

Tim - other than the shots at Alan....I don't get it?

solo - chop liver

model head??????

nomeradona - appreciate this thread coz the more i understand the heart of the people around me.

in this forum the moment i open it, i dont go to the gallery, nor su discussion, nor other appli, but corner bar first. because i find this corner really interesting. other forum sits , its always the other way around.

Alan Fraser

Back off Tim. I both read and understand serious science...rather more than the populist introductory stuff you recommend. I'm also discussing this thread while working alongside my son...who happens to agree with me. His degree's in Astrophysics. Serious enough for you? Arrogance never is pretty...especially when coupled with ignorance. For instance, you scoff at the notion of wave/particle duality. Do YOU know anything about Quantum mechanics? The double slit experiment demonstrating wave/particle duality was performed decades ago. Richard Feynman seems unaware of the fact that is has been performed for real, rather than just in theory.
You, however, seem to reject the notion of wave/particle duality altogether, informing me that light is simply a stream of photons. If not, why quote me on it, as if it was gibberish instead of a central tenet of quantum mechanics?

@unknownuser said:

What? Where on earth do you get that idea from? Certainly not from any serious scientific source. There is no evidentiary or theoretical basis for expecting gravity to propagate faster than light.

I refer you to the last line in the Abstract at the top of this paper. It is not written by some religious nut. I'm not saying he is right, but then neither are you in your assertion that..."There is no evidentiary or theoretical basis for expecting gravity to propagate faster than light." Even after Kopeikin's 2002 experiment using Jupiter to validate Einstein's theory, there still seems to be a measure of controversy that refuses to go away.

You seem to be willfully misinterpeting what I wrote and making out it's semi-mystical mumbo-jumbo. It's nothing of the sort.

You're at liberty to dispute the science; professional scientists do that all the time to each other; that is the nature of scientific debate. However, mistaking science for a religious rant leads me to doubt your powers of comprehension.

You're disputing Entanglement? You'd better inform Stanford and other leading research facilities...and Schrodinger who came up with the concept...and the guys that have already proved it by laboratory controlled experiments in quantum cryptography. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
I assume you think superstring theory is just mystic hippy weirdness as well?

plot-paris

nomer, I have to agree with you. this thread is responsible for me spending hours of my time in the office reading instead of modelling (may that be the reason why I have been fired yesterday? ). it is a great discussion with faszinating points of view and (sometimes almost too) enthusiastic posts.

Tomasz, I like your idea of love being an elemental force in our world (I understand you talking about the love that makes a parent stand between the danger and his children to protect them rather than the love that makes two young people do naughty things on a sofa).
but instantly I have two questions, that I always have been uncomfortable with and that could break lose some new discussions:

my religion teacher once tried us to engage in a debate about love and stated the point, that love is absolutely selfish and that we only treat people arround us with love to recieve the same treatment in return - therefore: selfish!
(I allways refused this idea, because it is depressing. but I think to a certain extend he is right. on the other hand, when love goes beyond life, when someone is willing to take up punishment or pain to protect others (the "parents protecting children" thing again)... doesn't that go beyond selfish love?)
second question: if we assume, that love is the force that keeps our world together - doesn't that mean that, like with all forces of nature, there has to be a balance? like the fact that to cool a fridge down inside, you will produce a lot of heat. so if you create love at some point, does there have to be a balance somehwere, a creation of the opposite (hate, despair, frustration)?
one fact that supports this view is, that quite often love shows it's strongest form in difficult times. your love to someone will be most palpable (and even hurt you, create pain) when you are away from him/her.
or in times of great evil, like the third reich in Germany, such great examples of selfless love can be found (like German people, hiding jewish families, risking their own lifes to protect others).

and a last thought. can you describe love as a drug? because I am really high, when I am in love. when I break up with someone after a serious relationship, I suffer for a serious withdrawal syndrom for some time...

I know, very dark thoughts. and Tomasz, I still agree that love is the right way to go! but nevertheless these are question we should answer

RickW

@unknownuser said:

Rick - still tangled in symantics

Semantics? It's not semantics. People can't have a meaningful discussion on an issue if they're not discussing the same issue. Perhaps you thought I was being critical or derogatory - I assure you, that was not the case. I simply commented that we were not discussing the same point - no blame anywhere.

solo

Lets mix it up a little.

Miracles for sale?

[flash=425,355:3n5atrk3]http://www.youtube.com/v/P4_CYVGN15E[/flash:3n5atrk3]

[flash=425,355:3n5atrk3]http://www.youtube.com/v/Y2HbQ1JdZuA&feature=related[/flash:3n5atrk3]

pbacot

@plot-paris said:

and a last thought. can you describe love as a drug? because I am really high, when I am in love. when I break up with someone after a serious relationship, I suffer for a serious withdrawal syndrom for some time...

Been there too, plot. They've already isolated some of the peptides that course through your body while "in love". We have to separate the high and the addiction from the core of our devotion. It is hard to do, and I've said "never again" multiple times. Experience both the temporal and spiritual highs, but one endures.

pbacot

LOL

Wish the second video quality were better. I like the organ swell after they announce how much money he got. Then when they announce how he used the money, I thought they were going to talk about the "good works" he did, but no, he goes out and buys a car! That's entertainment.

plot-paris

wow! you really always manage to get these little gems, solo.

do you by any chance happen to know if they sell these "Miracle Manna" biscuits with chocolate coating?

solo

Here is another ... love the part where the guy counts money on his bed rejoicing "Jesus has been good to me tonight".

[flash=425,355:2b4iu3mz]http://www.youtube.com/v/wo0eqDcKY08&feature=related[/flash:2b4iu3mz]

RickW

@plot-paris said:

I have two questions, that I always have been uncomfortable with and that could break lose some new discussions:

my religion teacher once tried us to engage in a debate about love and stated the point, that love is absolutely selfish and that we only treat people arround us with love to recieve the same treatment in return - therefore: selfish!
(I allways refused this idea, because it is depressing. but I think to a certain extend he is right. on the other hand, when love goes beyond life, when someone is willing to take up punishment or pain to protect others (the "parents protecting children" thing again)... doesn't that go beyond selfish love?)

Selfish "love" isn't really love. So, what are the characteristics of true love? Love is patient and kind, not jealous or boastful or proud. Love is not self-seeking, nor easily angered, and it does not keep a record of wrongs. Love embraces truth. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. We sometimes put our trust in people, governments, economies, jobs, relationships, investments, speculations, and all kinds of things that will eventually let us down. But love remains. There may be pain in unrequited love, or love lost, but true love perseveres, conquering the selfish false-love that would become angry, bitter, or despondent.

(my paraphrase of the Apostle Paul's description of love)

Alan Fraser

Scary videos.

The flock getting fleeced.

plot-paris

well, I am afraid to really answer my own question of whether love is selfish or not we have to refer to the dear old greeks and their different variations of love (earlier mentioned Eros, Agape, Filia, Caritas...).

but another question (that I already answered for myself) jumps to my mind:

Do you distinguish between "I love you" and "I am in love with you"?

(I do. if I have a crush on someone, it is mostly defined by desire and perhaps curiosity. when things go further and you are like on drugs when with the other and absolutely devastated when without... thats what I call "being in love with someone.
finally, after months of a relationship, when you deeply know the other and when the first wave of "being in love" is not as strong and confusing anymore, you will know, if you love the other.
during a long relationship "being in love" may subside at some point and come back at another. but love is the deep feeling that is always there)

boofredlay

Pete, don't spend too much time searching for this junk or you might get sucked in.

Here is one I saw years ago. There are many more versions but this one is the first... the classic... the
FARTING PREACHER.

[flash=425,355:2ghgdky9]http://www.youtube.com/v/6waXPTSrGiA[/flash:2ghgdky9]

solo

LMFAO.

I thought something stinks.

anyone notice the telephone numbers? there are so many Dallas numbers, no wonder I am anti religion, it's everywhere you look.

JuanV.Soler

@plot-paris said:

my religion teacher once tried us to engage in a debate about love and stated the point, that love is absolutely selfish and that
we only treat people around us with love to recieve the same treatment in return - therefore: selfish!

%(#FF0000)[And because it is selfish it has then no value.
Because we have to be non selfish. ] I am familiar with that discourse.
IT IS A WAY TO DESTROY ONE´S SELF CONFIDENCE

Love occurs.

We treat people around us with love to receive the same treatment in return ?

How can we manage the Love ?
Love occurs, happens, it can not be guided.
There is no need to be worried about that

It does not belong to us

RickW

Just some observations:

I notice all the anti-Christian posts (not just here) and wonder that these are often the same people who claim to be tolerant and enlightened. Elsewhere in the Corner Bar, a politically-themed thread got temporarily locked down due to a "racist" image and some personal attacks. And I suspect that, had someone posted a video entitled "the farting negro", the outrage would likewise be flowing (and rightly so). But no mention of "hate-speech" when the game is Christian-bashing.

I also notice that no one has posted any anti-Muslim (or anti-Hindu, or anti-Buddhist, or anti-Semitic, etc, etc) content, so who will step up and be the first to engage in some equal-opportunity religion-bashing?

It's an interesting study in inconsistency - especially given the questions about love.

solo

Rick

I am not a religion hater, I am a religious, fundemental, dogmatic freak of any denomination or religion hater, (no discrimination between them) and you are not one. I tolerate religion and in some cases even approve if it means instilling morals to a person that common sense and upbringing did not provide, and as long as they do not impose their beliefs on me or my family.

cornel

“How can we manage the Love ?”

Being ‘correct’…!?!:

"Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:10)

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

Cornel

RickW

I guess I should refrain from overbroad generalizations, eh?

tim

@rickw said:

J But no mention of "hate-speech" when the game is Christian-bashing.

I also notice that no one has posted any anti-Muslim (or anti-Hindu, or anti-Buddhist, or anti-Semitic, etc, etc) content, so who will step up and be the first to engage in some equal-opportunity religion-bashing?

Ah, good old Fatwah Envy.