If you believed the world will finish tomorrow, what would you say and do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Welcome to the Trinity Lutheran College ‘blogging’ experience! This blog is a collaborative space, where items will be written on an ongoing basis. Topics will be posted for discussion, where you are invited to have your say. This blog is about sharing ideas. Your comments are not be rude, offensive or contain swearing. Have fun and enjoy the experience Bloggers!
47 comments:
i would wish that people who didnt get along could sit down and talk about it. i would thank God with all my heart that he gave me the chance to be here on earth. i would want to make peice with everyone i ahd ever fought with..
I would be like woah!!! i probaly wouldnt do anything coz i would be 2 shocked
i'd do everything that i have always wanted to do because no one can stop the end of the world but if it was all a big joke i'd make sure i'd have a back up plan in case i become poor or something
I would eat a cheeseburger and some ice-cream and listen some music, and go do all the stuff i always wanted to do
I would do all the craziest things and probably say some OUT THERE things. But hey, hopefully that would never happen!
I would:
1. thank everyone for everything
2.have heaps and heaps of fun the fun that no one has seen.
3.pray!lol
4.pack my bags
5.and head off to space hehehe
If the world were to end I would:
1. Spend time with my family and friends.
2. Punch the teachers down (haha)
3. Spend all the money that I have
4. Go scuba-diving
If the world was going to end tomorrow, I would pray and repent for all of the sins I had ever committed. I would pray for everyone that I love that they are safe and that Jesus takes us all in the rapture.
These are my spiritual beliefs, but, materialistically, on my last day on Earth, I would have a massive chocolate binge, play on the world's biggest Pearl drumkit and go to a day spa.
Then again, all that stuff is probably in heaven ;)
I'd wonder why none of the stuff that the Bible predicts will happen has happened. And then I'd laugh at everyone who spent their last day praying.
Then I'd probably listen to my iPod for the rest of the day.
really p vann?
i advise that you visit
http://www.100prophecies.org/
people have a right to believe in religion, whether or not you think that it's stupid.
oh, and im not sure what i'd do in the event of the world ending (or my belief that it would anyway) but im pretty sure it would involve buying a fender bass and several massive blocks of chocolate :-)
how would i react. Well i would like to no y the world was ending.
then i would think of what i would do.
1. pray lots and when im over that i would probely rade a shop for goodies
2. set up the most flammible objects and light them i would like to end my life with a bang.
Last i would hijack a car and go like smoke and ockem
To C Ferguson:
The only thing that was really made evident to me through your link is the fact that Jews were smart enough to not all bunch together after the attempted genocide of them.
People are free to have their religious beliefs and talk about them. Likewise, I also have a right to do so. A lot of people who have spoken on this topic have mentioned their religious beliefs, so I think I'm entitled to also speak about mine.
People do have a right to believe whatever they want. But, when people try to censor freedom of speech by trying to ban things that conflict with their beliefs, I see that as wrong. Observe exhibit A.
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=58406
Because of how Christians viewed a certain genre of music, one of the largest online selling outlets banned it, even though there are plenty of artists who make much worse music and have far worse messages. Also, some albums, especially Emperor's, fall into none of the categories of what is inappropriate, and, just because they are a black metal band and sang about Satanism a bit in the past, they get banned. I view that as discriminating against people's rights. Just a few days ago, Slayer's new album, Christ Illusion, was banned in India because it offended people. If people don't want to see controversial albums, then they should just stay out of the metal section of their music store.
I too, like P Vann, would be amused at people doing crazy things. http://www.evilbible.com/end_times.htm
Unfortunately I don't have an iPod, but I do have a Sansui and her screen is blue.
In my last comment PV, I did not oppose your right to express your personal beliefs. I merely stated that other people should be able to talk about their particular religion without being mocked.
Also, in regards to the link you posted, I can only see a slight amount of relevance. True, you speak of rights and religion but I have not attempted to ensure that your opinion is not heard and nor to my knowledge has anybody else.
By the way, please check out the history of Christianity concerning persecution. Do you really think black metal bands cop all that much discrimination? Christians faced physical danger and possibly death because of their beliefs in some parts of the world.
However I would like to agree with you on some points. Firstly, Christianity is a very popular religion and does dominate much of our world. Also, some people tend to forget that “anti-Christian” remarks are not necessarily “bad”, as was possibly believed by individuals about the pre-mentioned music.
But perhaps whatever religion was dominant in the world, those who did not believe in it would no doubt consider themselves persecuted in some way.
PS I’m sure the Jews would have stayed out of the metal section of their music store if it would have avoided the Holocaust.
P Vann, I am severely angered by your messages opposing the Christian faith!
Patrick, the things that the Bible predicts will happen HAVE already started and ARE happening. eg. the Bible predicts that
1: There will be wars and rumours of wars
2: Man will be corrupt and godless
3: Man will have the ability to destroy the world
4: There will be satanism and a demonic influence
5:The scripture will reach the whole Earth and guess what, the Bible has been translated into almost EVERY language.
So P Vann. Believe what you want to believe, preach what you want to preach but NEVER bag on such a mighty God.
and adding to what my sis has just said, this all proves that jesus is coming soon and the exact thing that this blog is about will come true!!! what will you do?? because the end is coming soon....
"By the way, please check out the history of Christianity concerning persecution."
Are you talking about how, in medieval times, people could be burnt at the stake for committing any act that even slightly went against the Bible? Great thinkers like Galileo were restricted by religion, as he was tried by the church, and had his writings forbidden, then placed under house arrest, with the threat of being killed constantly around. I'm just wondering if this is what you're talking about.
"1: There will be wars and rumours of wars"
By the time that most of the books of the Bible were written, there had already been wars. If I had said, thousands of years ago, that the sky will still exist in the future, would I have a right to be called a great prophet?
"2: Man will be corrupt and godless"
Firstly, coincidental, considering that I'm currently listening to "This Godless Endeavor", by Nevermore. Now, there was also corruption before most books of the Bible were written. According to Genesis, Adam was corrupted, and that is before there were any predictions of corruption ever occurring. Godless? According to the Bible, there were people who rejected God from early in the beginning. Again, a prediction that claims that something that is currently happening is going to happen in the future is pretty much either estimation or logic, not a prediction.
"3: Man will have the ability to destroy the world"
No, according to the Bible, we do not possess the ability to destroy the world. Revelation predicts that the world will end by the hands of God, at a time that he knows. Therefore, according to the Bible, we cannot destroy the world.
"4: There will be satanism and a demonic influence"
What on Earth does Satanism have to do with "A demonic influence"? LeVay's Satanism has nothing to do with demons (Except for inner demons), and full on Satanism is just believing in a figure who has, according to the Bible, never sinned, and fell from glory when attempting to give people choice and the ability to do what one wishes to do. I'm using the same point again, there was a demonic influence in Genesis, before the predictions were made.
"5:The scripture will reach the whole Earth and guess what, the Bible has been translated into almost EVERY language."
The Lord of the Rings has also been translated into heaps of languages. And, out of memory, I remember one character of the book series said something along the lines of "One day, people everywhere will read of our tales." Does that mean that The Lord of the Rings has as much credibility as the Bible?
"NEVER bag on such a mighty God."
Can God create a stone that even he cannot lift? If he can, then he cannot lift the stone, which means that he is not perfect and can't do everything. If he can't create the stone, then there is something that he cannot do, also meaning that he can't do anything. As I mentioned in another topic, God has committed murder. So, we have a non-perfect, murderous, hypocritical God. What might is it that you speak of?
yes L Giles, but in the Biblical times, the most horrific weapon was a burning arrow. No one would have thought of ever destroying the whole world other than GOd who knows all.
The other sign is there will be an increase in knowedge. In Biblical times, there was very low technology, and that continued until 1900s.
Now we live in a massive technological world.
WHO in Bible times would have known? No one could even have imagined these things except God alone.
You seem to be forgetting something S Jetson, the Ark of the Covenant. This important and powerful box supernaturally defeated all who fought the Israelites. I'm sure if I witnessed these amazing feats first hand I would believe the world could end.
To S Jetson:
We can't destroy the world. Only God can. So it doesn't matter whether someone thousands of years ago contemplated humanity ever possessing the ability to destroy the Earth, because, the Bible still says that we can't destroy the Earth. Unless the Bible is wrong, of course.
Just out of interest, which Bible passage is it that says that we will have advanced technology in the world? And, anyone could have figured that we will have advanced technology by observing the technological progress achieved in their life.
Who needs advanced technology when you have the Ark of the Covenant?
I intended not to write on this blog after my last post, but the comments which followed it have caused me to reconsider.
This argument has gone increasingly off the topic. When I made my previous posts I was not arguing for the sake of Christianity but for the right of free speech without receiving prejudice or judgment.
Now we have entered a religious debate. Flimsy “evidence” is put against unconvincing religious preaching, most of which could be interpreted in several ways. Both arguers seem equally convinced that they know the “truth”.
This is all very well, except for the fact that both arguments go unheard. Atheists automatically side with Mr. Vann’s argument and Christians support Miss. Jetson’s argument, regardless of the validity of either writer’s words. Those left in the middle of the debate appear to be the only ones who can notice how comical this really is. I find laughing to be unavoidable as I read some of the comments on this page.
Ms. S Jetson, please tell me exactly how every person who does not firmly believe in the existence of God can somehow be an insult to your religion. If your faith is so strong then why not practice it in a private manner, as God demands. For the Bible says:
“When you pray, go into your room. Close the door and pray to your Father, who can’t be seen. He will reward you. Your Father sees what is done secretly.”
- Matthew 6:6
Enlighten me, Mr. Vann. What is the difference between believing there is a God based on no evidence and believing there isn’t a God based on no evidence? Shouldn’t this still be considered as faith? If so, won’t your opinions be “clouded” by your own beliefs? Blind acceptance to religion is not nearly as bad as blind rejection.
So, believing that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence to support its existance is stupid? So everyone who doesn't believe in my invisible friend Bobby is ignorant and stupid? What about the magical pink flying hippopotamus that was the real cause of the September 11 attacks?
Faith is believing in something when there's no proof to support its existance. There is sufficient evidence to disprove the Christian God, or at the least, prove that if he does exist, he's a hypocrite who's not worthy of being worshipped. Therefore, not believing in a God because there is evidence that disproves the idea is not faith.
My opinions are based off of reality, not what some pastor on television says or what a book tells me to do. Care to tell me how facts cloud someone's judgement?
Blind rejection may be worse than blind acceptance, but rejection with purpose is certainly better than blind acceptance.
"Flimsy “evidence”"? Since when were the laws of physics "Flimsy evidence"? Since when was presenting contradictions from the book that is taken as entirely fact considered "Flimsy evidence"?
Firstly, to answer your questions Mr. Vann…
1. “So, believing that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence to support its existance is stupid?”
I never said that this is unintelligent: you made that assumption about my opinions. What I can’t stand are people who refuse the possibility of God so much that they are no longer able to even consider it.
2. “Care to tell me how facts cloud someone's judgement?”
Pure facts and information cannot cloud one’s opinions. The problem is that you are only considering evidence which suits your own philosophy. Is there any point in presenting proof that contradicts yours? You would only present some argument to defend yourself instead of considering what is presented. If you continue to ignore facts simply because they contradict your ideas then how are your judgements not clouded?
3. “Since when was presenting contradictions from the book that is taken as entirely fact considered "Flimsy evidence"?”
a) The Bible is not believed to be complete fact by many people (myself included).
b) While the Bible is supposed to be the Word of God, it was still written and interpreted by men and hence subject to human error.
c) Presenting contradictions from the Bible is insubstantial when exclusively used to declare that God does not exist. I believe this is a statement which requires a little more validation.
Now, moving on…
“Blind rejection may be worse than blind acceptance, but rejection with purpose is certainly better than blind acceptance.”
What is your great purpose? My purpose is to not be taken in by any belief that claims to have truth (theistic or non-theistic) without being entirely convinced of its validity.
“Therefore, not believing in a God because there is evidence that disproves the idea is not faith.”
Definitions:
• Faith: A strong belief in something, especially without proof
• Belief: A principle, etc., accepted as true, especially without proof
[The Collins Australian Dictionary]
You claim your beliefs are not faith, yet the above definitions are remarkably similar. If faith is a strong belief (“A lot of people who have spoken on this topic have mentioned their religious beliefs, so I think I'm entitled to also speak about mine”) then how exactly are yours not faith? You maintain that there is “sufficient evidence” to justify them, but this depends on your perception of evidence.
My idea of proof is often contradicted by arguments which attempt to disprove the existence of God. To argue means to attempt to persuade others to agree with the arguer’s point of view. If a belief has enough evidence to prove it as absolutely correct, then an argument (such as this debate) should not be needed.
The question of God’s existence is one which requires absolute knowledge before being answered. While there is still doubt I cannot believe in God, nor can I reject the possibility of his existence. Strongly believing in something (or not believing) in which there is room for doubt is still taking a leap of faith.
If evidence was found which proved beyond any reasonable doubt that God didn’t exist, I would believe it. If evidence was found which absolutely proved that God did exist, I would also believe it. Could you?
P.S. So how is Bobby these days? Say hi to him for me!
If the end of the world I would get all my family together and maybe sing a bit or something. Or I might go to England because I have always wanted to go there, but I doubt that I would get there in time so I would probably stay home and ring up all my friends and see if they wanted to come over. And eat a whole tub of ice-cream because that’s what I have always wanted to do! I would get out my Bible and read revelations!
"I never said that this is unintelligent: you made that assumption about my opinions. What I can’t stand are people who refuse the possibility of God so much that they are no longer able to even consider it."
You asked what the difference between not believing in something because there is no evidence to support it and believing in something when there is no evidence to support it is. I told you the difference, and explained it too. I stated how believing in something when there is no evidence to support its existence is stupid (As in the case of Billy and the hippopotamus, which seems to have been swiping peanuts from our pantry lately). You asked me what the difference is, meaning that you think that it's just as stupid to not believe in something due to there being no evidence to support its existence. Inform me why it's stupid to not believe in something when there is nothing to support its existance.
"Pure facts and information cannot cloud one’s opinions. The problem is that you are only considering evidence which suits your own philosophy. Is there any point in presenting proof that contradicts yours? You would only present some argument to defend yourself instead of considering what is presented. If you continue to ignore facts simply because they contradict your ideas then how are your judgments not clouded?"
I, as do other Atheist, do consider what theists say when they argue for the existence of their deity. However, if it is possible to disprove the idea, it's hardly worth considering after you've disproved it. Really, if you can prove that something is wrong, should you really consider the false information? If we should consider it, does that mean that, no matter what, we should always get full marks on tests and exams because, even if we are wrong and can be proven to be wrong, our opinions should be taken on board and hence not be thought of as wrong, even if we can't justify why they're right? If you can prove me wrong, I will consider what you're saying. Until then (If indeed, the time comes), I'll stick with my arguments, seeing as they haven't been proven wrong and have justification.
"a) The Bible is not believed to be complete fact by many people (myself included).
b) While the Bible is supposed to be the Word of God, it was still written and interpreted by men and hence subject to human error.
c) Presenting contradictions from the Bible is insubstantial when exclusively used to declare that God does not exist. I believe this is a statement which requires a little more validation."
a) Many contradictions are based on the foundations of the Bible, parts that, if taken to be false, collapse large parts of the Bible. Also, several parts are found where Jesus contradicts himself, and there are numerous accounts of the events in the Gospels, meaning that, despite the possibility of misinterpretation, it'd be massively improbable that all of the writers would be wrong about all of the contradictions.
b) If the Bible wasn't meant to be interpreted factually, surely Jesus would have mentioned something about it not being right while he was on Earth, instead of telling people that it was the path to God.
c) Ok, I shall elaborate. Jesus, while stating that all commandments should be followed, stated that one could not be his disciple unless they did not love their mother and their father, which means that if we want to follow Jesus, we have to break one of the ten commandments, which are still in effect, according to Jesus. Also, Satan is said to have fallen when he led a war against Heaven. Isn't Heaven supposed to be perfect and free from wars? These are just some of the contradictions that occur even if you don't think that the Bible is entirely fact.
"What is your great purpose? My purpose is to not be taken in by any belief that claims to have truth (theistic or non-theistic) without being entirely convinced of its validity."
You misunderstood my use of the word "Purpose". By "Blind", I meant following something, no matter what evidence is presented against it. Some Atheists just say, "God doesn't exist and I don't care about the evidence that disproves him. I shouldn't have to learn why I shouldn't believe in a god because I just know that he doesn't exist." Many theists do the same. By "Purpose", I meant knowing the reasons why you shouldn't believe in a god, knowing what proof there is that disproves the idea.
And I'm really confused at the moment, and am hoping that you could help me. You're saying that you don't believe that God exists, but at the same time believe that God exists? Could you enlighten me as to what you mean? And, I suppose, I haven't asked you yet, but, despite the fact that you're Agnostic, do you personally believe that there is or isn't a god?
"Definitions:
• Faith: A strong belief in something, especially without proof
• Belief: A principle, etc., accepted as true, especially without proof
[The Collins Australian Dictionary]
You claim your beliefs are not faith, yet the above definitions are remarkably similar. If faith is a strong belief (“A lot of people who have spoken on this topic have mentioned their religious beliefs, so I think I'm entitled to also speak about mine”) then how exactly are yours not faith? You maintain that there is “sufficient evidence” to justify them, but this depends on your perception of evidence."
"I have a belief that eating meat is wrong because it hurts animals." Does that sentence make sense? Surely it couldn't, because beliefs have to made out of faith, which means not being able to prove what you believe in. But what's this?! A sentence that makes sense in which a belief is justified? It is nothing but proof that beliefs can be justified by evidence. Having a belief in something can also mean just having a strong opinion on the topic, which is how I intended my usage of the word "Beliefs" to be interpreted. The perception of the evidence? It's apparent that getting slashed to pieces would hurt the animals. Surely it is not a difficult question as to whether you think that causing avoidable pain to another being is immoral and wrong. Much evidence, including that which disproves much of the Bible, is as easily perceived in a different manner as it is to think of causing meaningless pain in a way other than wrong.
"My idea of proof is often contradicted by arguments which attempt to disprove the existence of God. To argue means to attempt to persuade others to agree with the arguer’s point of view. If a belief has enough evidence to prove it as absolutely correct, then an argument (such as this debate) should not be needed."
Your arguments for the existence of a god are proven to be wrong? How is that relevant to... anything? Besides showing that a vast majority of theist arguments are disprovable, I don't see what the point of saying that is.
For many years, people stated that the world was flat. Evidence arose that showed that the world was not flat. Obviously, such evidence should have meant that an argument over the world being flat was entirely unnecessary. And yet, the idea wasn't accepted for many, many years.
"The question of God’s existence is one which requires absolute knowledge before being answered. While there is still doubt I cannot believe in God, nor can I reject the possibility of his existence. Strongly believing in something (or not believing) in which there is room for doubt is still taking a leap of faith."
Choosing to accept science as truth is far more practical than accepting that magical powers created and rule everything. When did Christian faith allow people to read things written by people around the world without them having to acquire a publisher? Well, science, despite the fact that it is obviously wrong and just a way for weak people to attempt to disprove the undeniable existence of the all knowing God who loves us all and is going to kill us all, has invented a method in which the mentioned is possible. It invented "The internet". It also invented planes, cars, ovens... Remind me what faith in magical powers created.
"If evidence was found which proved beyond any reasonable doubt that God didn’t exist, I would believe it. If evidence was found which absolutely proved that God did exist, I would also believe it. Could you?"
I most certainly could. Is there any proof of God's existence? If your response is "No, but there may be in the future", then you should certainly build yourself an underground bunker and live there for the rest of your life, because there might not be a war right now, but there may be in the future.
C. Ferguson and P.Vann -or is that vain
1.What do you think of this equation?
FAITH = knowledge + belief + action
I believe you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god if you start from the premise of 'God-fact or fiction'.
How about something that has historical validity... like... Jesus Christ actually was who he said he was. Start for example with research from non-christian authorities such as Josephus , who was the local historian of the times. Hmmmm what about that!
Mr. Vann,
Your message was very lengthy. It’s a pity that a third of the words were mine.
I recently came across this quote on which I would like to have your opinion:
“Theist and Atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” – Samuel Butler
Some people seem to be perplexed by my beliefs and I apologize for not clarifying them earlier. I’m not sure how you thought that I was “saying that [I] don’t believe that God exists, but at the same time believe that God exists” Mr. Vann but maybe you will explain what you thought I meant, again. Perhaps you were confused by one of my other comments which referred to me being a Christian in the past. I don’t believe that any particular god does exist or doesn’t exist – I believe that there may or may not be a god. Despite my search for proof of either atheism or theism I remain unconvinced.
Also I would like to apologize for misinterpreting certain sections of your comment. I would like to point out you have done the same thing with my messages.
Repeatedly.
…………………………………
The foundations for many atheism arguments are based in:
a) Logic
If my logic can defeat another’s logic, and vice versa, how can we use logical arguments to disprove God? Surely his logic would be far above anything that a human being could conceive. Logic is used as justification for a Christian’s argument just as easily as an atheist’s. For example:
“In the last fifteen years, scientists who study the make up of our solar system, and the stars in our galaxy, have come to the conclusion that unless conditions had been perfectly fine-tuned for us, life could never have arisen on planet Earth even by evolution…
Arno Penzias … later remarked that: ‘Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural') plan.’”
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/origuniv.html
b) Science
You are keen to use scientific reasons to justify disbelieve in God. Could you please explain why many scientists (some of whom probably understand all those lovely laws of physics much better than you do) are also theists?
"If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use." – Robert Griffiths (Professor of Physics, Ph.D)
Should science be used to claim that no gods exist when it merely seems a likely conclusion from a certain point of view? At the most science can only make the possibility of any god/s existing improbable rather than impossible.
…………………………………
The current alternative of a god deliberately creating the universe is the theory that everything simply “fell into place” from a rapid expansion of energy and matter. This theory of chance flouts one of the basics of science: the idea that everything has structure and there is a logical reason or law which causes every phenomenon. It is also scientifically proven that life cannot begin from nothing (i.e. spontaneous generation) and requires pre-existing life. The big bang was supposedly uncaused and undirected but it still managed to create life in the face of nearly impossible odds.
Why is an incomplete theory of a huge, uncaused explosion creating life and a perfectly balanced world (despite unimaginable odds) completely rational? Why are people not prepared to accept the mere possibility of another explanation? You may argue that this theory has plenty of supporting evidence and is currently the best scientific explanation for our existence - I wouldn't disagree with you. All I would say is that science is known to change over time and we may yet come up with a better theory.
RIL,
I’m afraid I don’t agree with your faith equation. I don’t think action is a necessity in faith (although perhaps I would better understand your meaning if you were to specify the kind of action you refer to). Also, I’m not sure what knowledge has to do with it. It’s not exactly a pre-requisite of faith, although it doesn’t necessarily defy it.
I took your advice and searched for information about Josephus. However, all I found was a site which quoted a short reference to Jesus by Josephus followed by several arguments which disputed the validity of his statement. It did not make for very persuasive evidence.
I wouldn't believe the world is ending i would find out for sure if it was ending!!! Simple.
===================================
Getting to the religious debate.
I did the sensible thing and went into Google and typed in 'Does God exist?' 9 million sites came up!
I roamed into the first site that i saw: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
and looked at what the owner had to say in a few reasons to believe in God.
After that i went into another site, this time searching that God isn't real; 6 million sites came up.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/proof.htm
Both these sites where convincing, but if you read both, the Christian site tells you that you can believe in whatever you want to believe; but the non-Christian site doesn't say that, it not only criticizes Christian faith it criticizes other faiths to!!!
Why may that be? Could it mean non- Christians don't understand the Christian faith?
Hmmm... Have a think
If the world would end tomorrow I would do things I would have wanted to do all my life like skydiving, driving a car and much more. I would have FUN!
If the world would end tomorrow I would spend all my time left with friends and family. I would do lots of fun things with them and spend quality time with them.
I would make the of my life enjoy it and byt i dont think god would do that till the time was right.
I would make the most of the rest of my life and spend time with my family and friends and have heaps and heaps of fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the world ended tomorrow i'd be relly freaked out and i'd probably spend the day crying!!
I would go down to the river and ski and tell nobody because they might steel our river spot.
I would make the most of my life + I dont think the world is going to end so i dont know what i will do.
RE: sgultekin
First of all, I would like to point out that basing your opinion on the first websites which appear on a Google search is hardly “sensible”. In fact, that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Google is merely a tool for finding words on the Internet - it cannot think for you.
Secondly, if “non-Christians” don’t understand other people’s beliefs they’re not alone. Believing in a deity obviously doesn’t give automatic insight into other religions, or else the past (and present) would be much less violent.
Thirdly, you just based most of your comment on only two websites which both offer narrow perspectives. But what could that mean? Could it mean that you need to broaden your mind? You should start by not dividing the world into Christians and non-Christians.
RE: C Ferguson
If Google isn't SENSIBLE please you tell me what site is sensible these days. Adult themes and drug references roam the internet on most sites. Google has sensible sites and not so sensible sites you just have to keep away from these kind of sites and hope for the best!
I actually did broaden my mind and look at other site they basically did say the same thing and i really couldn't be bothered posting 9million sites up on blog spot.
I never said that non-Christians aren't the only ones that don't understand Christian or other faiths there are other faiths but are we not just talking about the Christian faith in this topic if not please tell me and i will REWORD my sentences. P>S who said i divided the world into two i just made it easier to understand that we are talking about the christaian faith again if we are not PLEASE tell me and i will REWORD my sentences!.
Cheers! and Regards: SGultekin. =)
I’m not asking YOU to post 9 million sites, but it would HAVE BEEN nice if you had bothered to read MORE THAN two of them before using them as UNREASONABLE justification. Also, if you had paid some attention you would have realised that I didn’t say that Google itself isn’t sensible, but that your use of it wasn’t.
Go ahead and reword your sentences if you like, but when you lumped 77% of the world’s population together as “non-Christians” (which includes Scientologists, Islam extremists, atheists, Buddhist monks etc) I became under the impression that we had widened the topic to religion in general. Of course, I should have immediately realised that you just “made it easier to understand that we are talking about the [Christian] faith”. Also, in my ignorance I thought that when you said “religious debate” (13/02) we were talking about religion as a whole, rather than the “Christianity debate” which is obviously what you meant.
i would do everything i wont to do like mosh in a death metal concert and jump on stag and get caght by security gaurds it would have to be a metalica concert and i would make fun of the cops and i would run as fast as i could to get away i would go and jump out of a plane and land in a big pool of coke if that was posibul and a lote of other things.
i would hang out with my friends and family and then go to sea world!
C Ferguson
RE: Topic Change 'Christianity in general' and Google search
1. Going back to my 'non-sensible' Google search. You aid that Google websites where 'Hardly sensible' (12/03/2007 at 8.29pm) not my use of it.
2. I did read more than 2 websites but as i always say i am LAZY and didn't bother to post them up.
3. I never said you told me to post 9million sites up onto blogspot.
4. Plus the 'Wikipedia' aritcle named Major Religious Groups is excellent but may i point out and include that Wikipedia is a free encoclopedia and is open to anyone and anyone can post or edit any article on there without even having a clue what the topic is even about! So please if you are going to find out a decent website i wouldn't recommend Wikipedia!
5. And i think we should change the topic too Christianity in general if that's what you want?
P.S i think i have your pen. i'll give it to you on Monday if I'm at school by then. =]
I would spend all my money and do things i've always wanted to do.
e.g.
travel, eat lots of sugar and go hyper and run around screaming random things.
:)
I would go and shop.....but maybe stuff will be for free cause everybody else will be doing other things. I would also spend time with family. I would do things that i have always wanted to do..... eg. getting sugar drunk and screaming random things......oh and get a bf
If i got told it was the end of the would the next day i would go to the go-cart track and steal a go-cart and drive arownd in the street.
In the final minutes of the whole world, the only thing to do is stay close to your family and have a sandwich.
well it will come soon enough.
Post a Comment