The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This is just my opinion on some stuff. Which side do you favor - scientific or religious route? Foreword: This, which I am about to type isn’t science-fiction nonsense. Much of what is written is based on scientifically proven fact, and the rest is my opinion. Using a combination of the two, a reasonably non-contradictory explanation can hopefully be created. Right.
In the beginning there was the big bang, the creation of OUR universe. There, at the same time, were also an infinite number of other big bangs elsewhere in the multiverse. The multiverse is a fluid medium in which our, and many other universes float. Our universe is likely to be donut-shaped, but as we have no scientific proof, and never will have, this can never be proved. The multiverse cannot be defined; it is a place where “god” exists. Here he/she/it created all the universes, possibly simultaneously. He DID create everything we know, but in a random manner. Each universe is similar to at least one other universe, but with one single tiny difference in the laws of physics. For every possible outcome that could arise, there is a universe for each possibility (hence parallel universe. But this is actually lies because if it was a parallel universe then everything would be the same and it’s not, there is one difference in each one). Our universe is almost infinitely large, and is expanding, at an almost infinite rate. (Again not 100% scientific fact but this is what is generally believed to be happening)
The universe is several billion years old, this IS scientific fact and flatly contradicts the Bible, which claims the earth is a mere 5000 years old, but the earth is also several billion years old. It could be ¼ the age of the universe or perhaps even less. But still, that is substantially more than 5000 years. If the bible is wrong on such a scale, such a massive fact then surely other, more minor facts must also be incorrect. The bible clearly has a lot of truth. And it also has many valid points, and thus should be followed. But, in my opinion, whether you follow it or not, has no effect on the “afterlife”, more on this later.
The earth was formed in space over millions or billions of years, due to the accumulation of dust and particles in space, formed by a destroyed star or the creation of the universe itself. The gravity of all the little bits pulled together to form a large planet. There was extreme heat here because of all the forces acting upon the planet, during its creation. Here it sat and boiled for a while, until it got smacked by a super-massive asteroid, and this caused bits of it to fly off. These bits went into orbit around the earth and formed the moon. Earth now is kind of cooling down, and sort of becoming habitable. Life will soon form, but there are two possible ways in which this could happen.
1. Bits of stuff, proteins etc congealed in a pool, by chance formed an organism and this organism then decided it was a plant. And thus life on earth arose due to its own volition.
2. There was already life elsewhere in the universe, which is highly likely due to the place’s age, 5 billion years+ is likely to form life (as stated in 1.), and a meteor or whatever struck this planet. Some bacteria or plant material was transported through space in/on the asteroid. It landed on our humble planet, escaped and started up here.
If either of these are true, which they could well be, does it not occur to you that life is just a big bunch of random proteins and stuff congealed together, by luck/chance, and evolution have culminated, on this planet at any rate, in humans. Look at really basic life: an amoeba. It clearly has no intelligence; it simply isn’t capable of it. Don’t say it does, because it simply cant think, it lives, breeds etc on genetic instinct built into it. It has no choice, it has no ethics, and it has no ‘spirit’. Eat or not eat. Divide or not divide. That’s about the limit of its choices. Then look at us: are we any different? NO. Our brains are just 2 lbs of gray mush that has been formed over millions of years of natural selection. The brain is really great. It’s quite smashing. It can do millions of things per second; it’s faster than ANY computer. It controls electrical signals generated in our brain, generally by external stimuli. Sight, smell etc. these electrical signals go to glands or whatever, send out hormones, and stuff.
Personality is just a bonus, a side effect of the brain. Look at dolphins, or sharks, or snakes, or mice. Not stupid animals, they have personalities, just like any one of us. But would you say they have a “spirit”? Do they have a god? In the literal sense, yes they do as god is (potentially) an omnipotent being who created the universes. But do they go to heaven when they die? Do the dolphins go to a massive sea in the sky with as many hoops, balls and fish as they want? To the mice go to cheese-land? No. How? Because there is no such place, there is no such thing as “spirits,” or “your soul”. There is the person inside oneself, but that is primarily defined at conception, then later, after birth, formed through external influences. It may sound heartless but it is, in my opinion, the truth.
So, what happens when we die? Where do we go, what happens to our consciousness? It simply stops. There is nothing there; you simply don’t exist (other then your dead body). Whatever thoughts, feelings or whatever you had on your dying day will be stored there still, in your deceased brain, until it degrades, the memory cells die and THEN, you are gone. So in a way you do exist after death, if only briefly. But of course you are dead, there is no heart action, thus no brain function, therefore it is the end.
If you disagree with any of my points, feel free to criticize.
Thanks for reading,
LF
In the beginning there was the big bang, the creation of OUR universe. There, at the same time, were also an infinite number of other big bangs elsewhere in the multiverse. The multiverse is a fluid medium in which our, and many other universes float. Our universe is likely to be donut-shaped, but as we have no scientific proof, and never will have, this can never be proved. The multiverse cannot be defined; it is a place where “god” exists. Here he/she/it created all the universes, possibly simultaneously. He DID create everything we know, but in a random manner. Each universe is similar to at least one other universe, but with one single tiny difference in the laws of physics. For every possible outcome that could arise, there is a universe for each possibility (hence parallel universe. But this is actually lies because if it was a parallel universe then everything would be the same and it’s not, there is one difference in each one). Our universe is almost infinitely large, and is expanding, at an almost infinite rate. (Again not 100% scientific fact but this is what is generally believed to be happening)
The universe is several billion years old, this IS scientific fact and flatly contradicts the Bible, which claims the earth is a mere 5000 years old, but the earth is also several billion years old. It could be ¼ the age of the universe or perhaps even less. But still, that is substantially more than 5000 years. If the bible is wrong on such a scale, such a massive fact then surely other, more minor facts must also be incorrect. The bible clearly has a lot of truth. And it also has many valid points, and thus should be followed. But, in my opinion, whether you follow it or not, has no effect on the “afterlife”, more on this later.
The earth was formed in space over millions or billions of years, due to the accumulation of dust and particles in space, formed by a destroyed star or the creation of the universe itself. The gravity of all the little bits pulled together to form a large planet. There was extreme heat here because of all the forces acting upon the planet, during its creation. Here it sat and boiled for a while, until it got smacked by a super-massive asteroid, and this caused bits of it to fly off. These bits went into orbit around the earth and formed the moon. Earth now is kind of cooling down, and sort of becoming habitable. Life will soon form, but there are two possible ways in which this could happen.
1. Bits of stuff, proteins etc congealed in a pool, by chance formed an organism and this organism then decided it was a plant. And thus life on earth arose due to its own volition.
2. There was already life elsewhere in the universe, which is highly likely due to the place’s age, 5 billion years+ is likely to form life (as stated in 1.), and a meteor or whatever struck this planet. Some bacteria or plant material was transported through space in/on the asteroid. It landed on our humble planet, escaped and started up here.
If either of these are true, which they could well be, does it not occur to you that life is just a big bunch of random proteins and stuff congealed together, by luck/chance, and evolution have culminated, on this planet at any rate, in humans. Look at really basic life: an amoeba. It clearly has no intelligence; it simply isn’t capable of it. Don’t say it does, because it simply cant think, it lives, breeds etc on genetic instinct built into it. It has no choice, it has no ethics, and it has no ‘spirit’. Eat or not eat. Divide or not divide. That’s about the limit of its choices. Then look at us: are we any different? NO. Our brains are just 2 lbs of gray mush that has been formed over millions of years of natural selection. The brain is really great. It’s quite smashing. It can do millions of things per second; it’s faster than ANY computer. It controls electrical signals generated in our brain, generally by external stimuli. Sight, smell etc. these electrical signals go to glands or whatever, send out hormones, and stuff.
Personality is just a bonus, a side effect of the brain. Look at dolphins, or sharks, or snakes, or mice. Not stupid animals, they have personalities, just like any one of us. But would you say they have a “spirit”? Do they have a god? In the literal sense, yes they do as god is (potentially) an omnipotent being who created the universes. But do they go to heaven when they die? Do the dolphins go to a massive sea in the sky with as many hoops, balls and fish as they want? To the mice go to cheese-land? No. How? Because there is no such place, there is no such thing as “spirits,” or “your soul”. There is the person inside oneself, but that is primarily defined at conception, then later, after birth, formed through external influences. It may sound heartless but it is, in my opinion, the truth.
So, what happens when we die? Where do we go, what happens to our consciousness? It simply stops. There is nothing there; you simply don’t exist (other then your dead body). Whatever thoughts, feelings or whatever you had on your dying day will be stored there still, in your deceased brain, until it degrades, the memory cells die and THEN, you are gone. So in a way you do exist after death, if only briefly. But of course you are dead, there is no heart action, thus no brain function, therefore it is the end.
If you disagree with any of my points, feel free to criticize.
Thanks for reading,
LF
Page:
Oh dear - I have to agree with Sonic, you are just being arrogant here.
The Bible is not a work of fiction. That is such a shallow minded statement. Why don't you actually do some research into the subject and learn a little bit about what goes on and has gone on throughout history.
Christian beliefs do not centre on stories such as Noah's Ark, the old testament is the foundation yes but the answer lies in the word Christian. The trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit was not completed until the birth of Jesus Christ hence where the word Christian stems from, I know this might sound arrogant to you mojojojo but I'm not losing you here am I ?
If you want some lessons on theology so you can understand the Christian faith properly then let me know and I will do all I can to help but I am not here to try and shove my beliefs on anybody.
I find it very refreshing that somebody like Sonic who admits to not being religious has such an open mind on the subject. Mojojojo, you just need to be a bit more open minded yourself.
The Bible is not a work of fiction. That is such a shallow minded statement. Why don't you actually do some research into the subject and learn a little bit about what goes on and has gone on throughout history.
Christian beliefs do not centre on stories such as Noah's Ark, the old testament is the foundation yes but the answer lies in the word Christian. The trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit was not completed until the birth of Jesus Christ hence where the word Christian stems from, I know this might sound arrogant to you mojojojo but I'm not losing you here am I ?
If you want some lessons on theology so you can understand the Christian faith properly then let me know and I will do all I can to help but I am not here to try and shove my beliefs on anybody.
I find it very refreshing that somebody like Sonic who admits to not being religious has such an open mind on the subject. Mojojojo, you just need to be a bit more open minded yourself.
Sonic, when you talk about the "church" - do you mean the main church (Church of England) the other churches like Catholicism or the denominations like the Methodists etc? The term "church" is very vague.
Since you said bishop, I take it you mean the Catholic view, which is different from every other church and denomination. Therefore saying that the "church" doesn't take the stories literally is rubbish, as I'm sure some of them do
And, my point stands, the bible is a fictional book. Yes, they may be BASED on some events, but, going back to my earlier arguments, does that mean that an exagerated version is true? No, it's not. Thereby, you yourself have admitted the bible is ficticious. Just because a story is based on real events, doesn't mean it's true
Since you said bishop, I take it you mean the Catholic view, which is different from every other church and denomination. Therefore saying that the "church" doesn't take the stories literally is rubbish, as I'm sure some of them do
And, my point stands, the bible is a fictional book. Yes, they may be BASED on some events, but, going back to my earlier arguments, does that mean that an exagerated version is true? No, it's not. Thereby, you yourself have admitted the bible is ficticious. Just because a story is based on real events, doesn't mean it's true
Im for religion, as I was brought up Jewish.
Any other Jews here?
Any other Jews here?
Mojo, you are once again being arrogant.
The fact is that the Catholic church, in it's official doctrines, has said that the story of God creating the Earth in 6 days is symbolic- not a literal description of the way the Earth was made. It has said that the story of Noah and the flood is not literal, and that EVERY single other story needs you to admit a degree of poetic licence on the part of the writers. EXACTLY the same thing is true of any historical document! It has been written as a perception of an event, and must be taken as such! If you cannot believe the biblical stories because they are not exactly what happened, then you cannot possibly believe most of the pieces of historical writting out there!
The church's OFFICIAL stance is that the 6 days represent the 6 ages of creation, and that this would happily fit in with the big bang, or any other scientific creation theory. The church has OFFICIALLY said that the story of the flood is true at the basic level (FACT: a great flood did happen!), but that, like all stories and documents, you have to remember that it has been elaborated, exagerated or altered during its history.
Mojo said:
"I'm sorry, but when I was at church, the stories were told as though they were the truth."
The way the stories are told will change from bishop to bishop. In my own church the reverend is very liberal about the interpretation of the bible, and would happily admit that God didn't create the Universe in 6 days.
However, if you actually went and ASKED the bishop what he though of, say, the great flood, his answer would probably say that the story was not literal. Oh, and I believe I said:
"So, if you're going to argue with points of the bible, research the facts about the events as THE CHURCH perceives them- not as you wer told in RE when you were 7!"
So actually go out and ASK your ex-priest. Actually look up the church's official view from the Vatican's doctrines.
_________________________________________
Oh, and the really funny thing is that you have proved my point:
"So, again, I use my example. By your reckoning, every World War 2 film is accurate because WW2 actually happened"
WW2 films are not 100% hiostroically accurate, and people realise and accept this. People realise that stories are made to exagerate events (like the good guys doing no wrong, etc), and that the WW2 films are, at the basic level, true, but the actual details must be taken with a pinch of salt.
Likewise, the story of the great flood is undeniably true at a basic level. To say otherwise is stupid. However, like any other story, the details have been alterred. For example, the "every animal 2 by 2" is probably just an exageration of Noah taking a few animals from each of his herds.
Some people do take the story litterally. This has nothing to do with the official stance or reason. Some Americans think that Titanic (film) is a 100% true story of what happened (duie to the way it was marketted). Likewise, this is irrelevant of the official historical view and logic.
By YOUR reasoning, no film should be believed because it is not 100% correct. (After all, you seem to say religion is rubbish because it is not 100% correct!). But the fact is that both films and the bible, and any piece of historical evidence is only partly true- never 100% so.
Sonic
The fact is that the Catholic church, in it's official doctrines, has said that the story of God creating the Earth in 6 days is symbolic- not a literal description of the way the Earth was made. It has said that the story of Noah and the flood is not literal, and that EVERY single other story needs you to admit a degree of poetic licence on the part of the writers. EXACTLY the same thing is true of any historical document! It has been written as a perception of an event, and must be taken as such! If you cannot believe the biblical stories because they are not exactly what happened, then you cannot possibly believe most of the pieces of historical writting out there!
The church's OFFICIAL stance is that the 6 days represent the 6 ages of creation, and that this would happily fit in with the big bang, or any other scientific creation theory. The church has OFFICIALLY said that the story of the flood is true at the basic level (FACT: a great flood did happen!), but that, like all stories and documents, you have to remember that it has been elaborated, exagerated or altered during its history.
Mojo said:
"I'm sorry, but when I was at church, the stories were told as though they were the truth."
The way the stories are told will change from bishop to bishop. In my own church the reverend is very liberal about the interpretation of the bible, and would happily admit that God didn't create the Universe in 6 days.
However, if you actually went and ASKED the bishop what he though of, say, the great flood, his answer would probably say that the story was not literal. Oh, and I believe I said:
"So, if you're going to argue with points of the bible, research the facts about the events as THE CHURCH perceives them- not as you wer told in RE when you were 7!"
So actually go out and ASK your ex-priest. Actually look up the church's official view from the Vatican's doctrines.
_________________________________________
Oh, and the really funny thing is that you have proved my point:
"So, again, I use my example. By your reckoning, every World War 2 film is accurate because WW2 actually happened"
WW2 films are not 100% hiostroically accurate, and people realise and accept this. People realise that stories are made to exagerate events (like the good guys doing no wrong, etc), and that the WW2 films are, at the basic level, true, but the actual details must be taken with a pinch of salt.
Likewise, the story of the great flood is undeniably true at a basic level. To say otherwise is stupid. However, like any other story, the details have been alterred. For example, the "every animal 2 by 2" is probably just an exageration of Noah taking a few animals from each of his herds.
Some people do take the story litterally. This has nothing to do with the official stance or reason. Some Americans think that Titanic (film) is a 100% true story of what happened (duie to the way it was marketted). Likewise, this is irrelevant of the official historical view and logic.
By YOUR reasoning, no film should be believed because it is not 100% correct. (After all, you seem to say religion is rubbish because it is not 100% correct!). But the fact is that both films and the bible, and any piece of historical evidence is only partly true- never 100% so.
Sonic
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
not even Christians believe any of these things literally.
-------
I'm sorry, but when I was at church, the stories were told as though they were the truth. I have never, in all my years, heard a Christian say they don't believe the stories. If they don't believe them, then they don't believe in miracles (that's what most of the stories are) which means they don't believe in Jesus and God and all their wonderful things. And then they wouldn't be Christians.
Point made.
not even Christians believe any of these things literally.
-------
I'm sorry, but when I was at church, the stories were told as though they were the truth. I have never, in all my years, heard a Christian say they don't believe the stories. If they don't believe them, then they don't believe in miracles (that's what most of the stories are) which means they don't believe in Jesus and God and all their wonderful things. And then they wouldn't be Christians.
Point made.
Mojo said:
"So, one man managed to gather two of EVERY kind of animal in the world? He then managed to fit them ALL onto one boat. Then EVERYONE in the entire world died by drowning, then the entire world was re-populated by just Noah and his family? Suuuuuuuuure"
What don't you get? There was a flood, we agree. Now, do you honestlty think that the story of the bible is 100% true- that God created the world in 6 days, that Jesus fed 5000 people with some crumbs, or that 1 family suvived the great flood? If so then you are truely arrogant of the facts- not even Christians believe any of these things literally.
Since Christians don't believe the story of the flood literally then why are you using it as a fact to discredit Christianity? Your argument is flawed because you're arguing against something that no sane person believes!
So, if you're going to argue with points of the bible, research the facts about the events as THE CHURCH perceives them- not as you wer told in RE when you were 7!
Sonic
"So, one man managed to gather two of EVERY kind of animal in the world? He then managed to fit them ALL onto one boat. Then EVERYONE in the entire world died by drowning, then the entire world was re-populated by just Noah and his family? Suuuuuuuuure"
What don't you get? There was a flood, we agree. Now, do you honestlty think that the story of the bible is 100% true- that God created the world in 6 days, that Jesus fed 5000 people with some crumbs, or that 1 family suvived the great flood? If so then you are truely arrogant of the facts- not even Christians believe any of these things literally.
Since Christians don't believe the story of the flood literally then why are you using it as a fact to discredit Christianity? Your argument is flawed because you're arguing against something that no sane person believes!
So, if you're going to argue with points of the bible, research the facts about the events as THE CHURCH perceives them- not as you wer told in RE when you were 7!
Sonic
nh wrote:
> The flood happened.
-------
*sigh*
I didn't say the flood didn't happen, but I'm complaining about the whole Noah taking two of every animal bull plop
So, again, I use my example. By your reckoning, every World War 2 film is accurate because WW2 actually happened
> The flood happened.
-------
*sigh*
I didn't say the flood didn't happen, but I'm complaining about the whole Noah taking two of every animal bull plop
So, again, I use my example. By your reckoning, every World War 2 film is accurate because WW2 actually happened
You really do have a problem engaging your brain and actually reading these post's dont you Mojojojo.
As I stated and as Sonicrav also stated the evidence of the flood is irefutable. you can pick as many holes as like in the actual detail but you are wrong when you state that the Noah's ark story is fiction.
The flood happened.
As I stated and as Sonicrav also stated the evidence of the flood is irefutable. you can pick as many holes as like in the actual detail but you are wrong when you state that the Noah's ark story is fiction.
The flood happened.
"As to the accuracy of the actual story regarding Noah taking animals 2 x 2 etc this is likely to be the story tellers expanding on the original story."
So, as I said, it's fictional. A lot of world war 2 films are fictional, but by your thinking, because WW2 did happen, they're true. Hmm
So, as I said, it's fictional. A lot of world war 2 films are fictional, but by your thinking, because WW2 did happen, they're true. Hmm
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> So, wait... Let's say I was walking along one day, and found a pound
> coin. If someone wrote a book on it, and instead of a pound coin, they
> said I found a treasure chest full of gold, by your reckoning, what
> they wrote would be true. Hmm, yes, that's a flawless theory.
No - this is called exageration and is what generally happens when stories are told and retold.
>
> OK, another example from the bible, Jesus feeding 5,000 people. Now
> even you have to admit that that must be an exageration.
There is a major difference between the old and new testaments.
The old Testament spans 4000 - 5000 years and is largely historical as has been mentioned earlier.
The new Testament spans the time surrounding the life of Jesus - 30 something years - and a few years after - possibly up to about 60-70 years in all. Most of the new testament is about teaching and most of it is done by using stories / proverbs. The majority of the stories are told in a certain way and are regarded as being symbolic rather than accurate recreations.
The story of the feeding of the 5000 is generally regarded as being the spiritual feeding not the actual feeding with food.
> So, wait... Let's say I was walking along one day, and found a pound
> coin. If someone wrote a book on it, and instead of a pound coin, they
> said I found a treasure chest full of gold, by your reckoning, what
> they wrote would be true. Hmm, yes, that's a flawless theory.
No - this is called exageration and is what generally happens when stories are told and retold.
>
> OK, another example from the bible, Jesus feeding 5,000 people. Now
> even you have to admit that that must be an exageration.
There is a major difference between the old and new testaments.
The old Testament spans 4000 - 5000 years and is largely historical as has been mentioned earlier.
The new Testament spans the time surrounding the life of Jesus - 30 something years - and a few years after - possibly up to about 60-70 years in all. Most of the new testament is about teaching and most of it is done by using stories / proverbs. The majority of the stories are told in a certain way and are regarded as being symbolic rather than accurate recreations.
The story of the feeding of the 5000 is generally regarded as being the spiritual feeding not the actual feeding with food.
Page: