Is Internet Explorer the Modern Times Jesus?

By | August 16, 2010 | 123 Comments


Before we begin… If you are easily offended Christian, just skip this post.

Just a short observation, but anyway… Could Internet Explorer be a modern times Jesus Christ?

Is Internet Explorer a Modern Times Jesus?

Let’s just put it this way:
It was popular many years ago. However, as people acquired more knowledge and become aware of other things, Christianity/Internet Explorer lost its influence over the period of time and now, no one gives a damn about it anymore.

So, the real question is: will we see the second coming?

[digg-reddit-me]


About (Author Profile)


Vygantas is a former web designer whose projects are used by companies such as AMD, NVIDIA and departed Westood Studios. Being passionate about software, Vygantas began his journalism career back in 2007 when he founded FavBrowser.com. Having said that, he is also an adrenaline junkie who enjoys good books, fitness activities and Forex trading.

  • Daniel Hendrycks

    Fun thought.

  • fffffff

    Some people use IE6 and believe in sky wizards

  • Tiago Sá

    Well, the analogy stops there, to be honest. Internet Explorer’s principles are nothing like Christ’s, even in relative terms. Internet Explorer stands for everything that is oppressive, closed, bad, controlled, corporate, rotten and bad. Christ stood, when walked the Earth, and stands now in the minds of christians, for all that is liberating, free, good, true, loving and good.
     
    Internet Explorer is more like MySpace, to be honest.

    • ffffff

      What about smashing baby skulls to the stones, raping woman and killing homosexuals?

      Or when God asked other guy to kill his son and stopped in the last minute although the damage was already done and that kid wont ever trust his father again?

      • Tiago Sá

        Sorry man, I wasn’t there, I don’t know what happened in the past… And, unlike so many, I don’t have his number, so I can’t ask him.

    • SB

      @Tiago Sá

      Mathew 10
      34″Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
      ” ‘a man against his father,
      a daughter against her mother,
      a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law –
      36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
      I just don’t understand how modern people can believe in religions.

      • ffffff

        For “oh its old tesmatent it does not count, only new counts” people

        Mal.3:6 “I the Lord do not change.”

        • SB

          @ffffff (again)
          Actually, Jesus already said in the New Testament that he believes in the Old Testament :P so if they don’t believe in the Old Testament, they don’t believe in the New Testament, and they don’t believe in the Bible, so they are not Christians :)).

      • SB

        @ffffff
        Just.. you know. I don’t want to discriminate, but homosexuality is actually a disease. Why I think it is not a normal human behavior..? because it is not about diversity. If all humans would be homosexuals, all human beings will die in time, and there won’t be any children. Homosexuality is promoted too much for ‘human rights’ etc. but is a mental disease. I don’t think that a normal human being would become a homosexual if they don’t hear that word their entire life. Most people start “realizing” that they are homosexuals in teenage, when they are somewhat confused.

        • ffffff

          I agree!

          • ffffff

            Btw i dont think its a disease ans there is no cure. More like mental disfunction

          • SB

            I’m sure there is a cure.. there are some interests to keep the natality low so the human population will slowly decrease (I believe in theory of conspiracy..). I heard about some clinics in Europe where homosexuality is treated.

          • Foo

            I’ve also heard about clinics were diseases are “cured” using spiritual healing.

        • tar

          Wow, you guys are really creepy.
          Some heterosexuals dont’t want children, for example. Is it a disease? Should we cure them because they don’t do babies? No. So, what’s different with homosexuals? Don’t use those flawed arguments about procreation when you just don’t like homosexuality for some stupid reasons.

          • SB

            It is not a flawed argument. Those couples which don’t wish to have babies have some good reasons for this, but homosexuals don’t. As I said, I don’t want to discriminate, but some conceptions are too easily approved by people, such as the human right to choose your sexual orientation. This right is like the right of mad people to decide if they should be treated or not. Fortunately this right does not exist. This is just like we should ask our pets if we should treat them or not. Homosexuals will always think it’s normal to be homosexual.
            SFMBE

          • tar

            I know a lot of heterosexual couples who just don’t want babies because they makes noise, or because they just want to bother with a child.
            They don’t all have good reasons, far from that.

          • SB

            @tar
            OK, so, homosexuality is bad because confused teenagers just think what they see on TV is the ideal thing and.. so.. the teenager thinks something like this “huh, cool, i wanna be a homo” (I’m not a psychologist, but this seems to be the ‘natural’ way they multiply).
            Homosexuality is bad because homosexuals can’t have children (adoption is not an option – it doesn’t influence the growth of population).
            Homosexuality is bad because the children grown by homosexuals will tend towards homosexuality, and.. I believe being a child of such a couple is very.. disgusting (sorry, this is what I feel).
            Tell me why homosexuality is good? Diversity is not a reason.
            I hope I explained this well enough.
            We should end this discussion, because I don’t want to argue with some furious homosexual reacting just like an irrational religious extremist when in front of them is a free thinker (which probably, in their view, is a daemon, an evil spirit, antichrist or whatever).
            Sorry for my bad English.

          • SB

            @tar
            One more thing.. those screaming babies assure the continuous progress and evolution of humanity :)

          • tar

            - There are homosexuals in rural families who don’t even own a TV. What grows the way you describe it, is rather tolerance and comprehension from heterosexuals for homosexuals.
            - If you think a homosexual couple shouldn’t grown a child, right. I disagree but this is something you may argue on and you’d even be supported by some homosexuals who think the same way.
            - Homosexuality doesn’t have to be good. I didn’t say that was the last great thing and everybody should be homo. It’s just there, and it’s all about acceptance from the others.

          • SB

            @tar
            - I don’t know and understand all the ways they multiply, but I am sure they are not born to be homosexuals. It’s more like telepathic aggression (few people believe in this, as few believe in parapsychology.. but this is another discussion, anyway it is proved by science). Their number increases faster and faster, and through some sort of parades they make the majority of people believe it is normal.
            - When did I say that homosexuals shouldn’t have a child? I just said that being a child of such parents may be disgusting and may have effects on the psychology of the child, and I said that this is probably just the way I think.
            - Let me explain it again: Homosexuality isn’t good at anything (I think you agreed on this). Homosexuality is bad (I explained some reasons for this above, but there are people who can explain these things better than me). If it is bad, and it does nothing good, then why should we accept homosexuality? If we accept homosexuality, then we should accept all the bad, useless things in our world, shouldn’t we? I think you’re still not convinced that homosexuality is bad. I hope you’ll remember what I say now after 20 years, when their number will rise very fast if nobody does nothing.
            If you want to continue this discussion it is OK, but I just want to remind you that this is a website about web browsers.

          • Foo

            Or maybe it’s like atheism in the USA, as it becomes more accepted more people open up and say what they actually think and feel.

          • SB

            @Foo
            You believe what you want to, but I sincerely think that homosexuality is wrong. I know homosexuality already exists in nature, but should we imitate animals? I wish I could have understood them better. Still, there exists some clinics in which homosexuality is treated, through scientific methods.

          • Foo

            Imitate? We are really not better than animals. You accept evolution and yet you try to say that we have distanced ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom?
            “Scientific” says about as much as “organic food” does. Using electric shocks are scientific, waterboarding is scientific, lobotomy is scientific; and it’s still not something I would call a treatment or cure.
             
            By the by, speaking of alternate “treatments”, everyone should watch some talks by James Randi, such as this part:
            James Randi explains homeopathy
            And something more lighthearted for the religious :)
            Eric Mead: The magic of the placebo

          • SB

            @Foo
            Actually I don’t think evolution is the complete answer to our apparition on Earth. I am sure that aliens have colonized Earth. Believe what you want, but there are lots of archeological discoveries that are stunning and demonstrate that evolution theory does not apply to our specie (they are not popular.. but they should be), such as signs of humans and dinosaurs living in the same period of time, traces of some sort of shoes with an age of hundreds of millions of years, some sort of globes, found in some tribes, which work like some sort of light bulb, but it’s energy lasts hundreds of years. The ancient Egyptian people talked about some sort of creature (they described it somewhat like a diver) coming from the water and teaching them agriculture and how to grow animals, there can also be found hieroglyphs in pyramids, there was found a very old robotic brace etc.

          • SB

            sorry, not a robotic ‘brace’, but a robotic arm

          • Foo

            First time I’ve heard any such stories, any reference material?
             

            The ancient Egyptian people talked about some sort of creature (they described it somewhat like a diver) coming from the water and teaching them agriculture and how to grow animals

            Well, the same sort of tale have been said about one of their gods, Osiris.

          • SB

            It’s impossible! I have searched over an hour for about 10 links and references, and my hardware blocked just when I was about to click “submit comment”. You can search on the Internet ‘out of place artifacts’ and you find lots of them. Nanotechnology, robotic foots, .. I think I’ll look in my browser history to give you the links. I’ll post them in another comment.

          • SB

            I cannot post a comment with the links. I don’t understand why.. :(
            By the way you can read the following  articles on Wikipedia (until I will be able to post the reply with the links)

            Coso artifact
            Wolfsegg Iron

          • SB

            I don’t get it. Why the comment above is posted, and the comment with the link doesn’t show up?!

          • SB

            http://pastebin.com/4W9feCqV
            I hope this one link can be posted.

        • Foo

          Right… like there’s not enough redneck baby boomers in the world already.

          • SB

            In average, the human population decreases year by year. If you think the humanity must disappear, then.. you know.. I believe in progress so I do not agree with you.
            And, actually, the normal human behavior is to like children (you were one too, do you remember?). It is normal to treat children just like you would have liked to be treated when you were a child. Do you wish that your parents didn’t wish you to exist? I don’t think so.
            If you find difficult to raise children, then you shouldn’t blame the birth of children, but religion which has slowed down the evolution of humanity by more that 1000 years and killed billions of people. If we would be in year 3000, I am sure the science would have evolved so much that raising a child would be probably something like pressing a button. ;)

          • Foo

            I never said anything about disappearing, but we can definitely slow down the growth rate; which is decreasing, the actual population is still increasing. In some countries due to less people choosing to have children, but worldwide it’s mostly due to traffic accidents, diseases and poor living standards.
             
            Funny you say that as I would probably be considered a “child” in some countries, even more so if I were female. The “normal” human behaviour is to like children from the same “tribe” especially after you have been “infected” by children of your own.
             
            Children are treated differently depending on their parents. Some are spoiled, some are raped, some are beaten to the brink of death, some are spanked, some are sold, some are traded, etc.
             
            “Do you wish blah blah blah”
            The human mind is an egocentric one and trying to “sway my feelings” by getting me nostalgic or something won’t help you.
             
            Slowed down the development of society? Yes. Slowed down the evolution of humanity? No.
             
            Raising a child by pressing a button? Haven’t you heard about the TV? It’s the most used “parenting” device in todays society. Damn idiots if you ask me.

          • SB

            @Foo
            I mostly agree with your comment, but I didn’t wish to get you nostalgic. That really wasn’t my intention.
            Anyways, I disagree with your affirmation that religion didn’t slow down the evolution of humanity.. many scientists were killed because their discoveries were in contradiction with the religious doctrine. Inquisition is the perfect example. For me, the evolution of humanity also includes the social factors, so the development of society directly affects the evolution of humanity. When I talk about evolution, I talk about scientific, technological, social, moral and economic evolution, progress etc. I hope you understand what I mean.

          • Foo

            Ok, then we are talking about the same thing after all, when it’s about that. =)
             
            With society, I meant the institutions and interactions among humanity. That includes research and things like that.
            With humanity I meant the human species itself, on a genetic level if you will.
             
            I prefer to not use evolution for its actual meaning when there are religious people involved as they seem to get confused then. But I meant the same thing with development as you meant with evolution, I think.
             
            I would like to clarify that I don’t hate children, just often their parents. Which is why I talked about “redneck children”.
            As long as they inspire development and exploration in their children I don’t mind them having them. Now flooding the planet with dimwit humans on the other hand is something that simply disgusts me.

          • SB

            @Foo
            I agree with all you said here. :)
            I’ll just remind you that I am not so good at English :D So I use some wrong terms sometimes.

          • Foo

            Everyone makes mistakes. :)
            I’m starting to get tired, so sorry if there is an increase in mine.

        • Foo

          Most people start “realizing” that they are homosexuals in teenage, when they have sexually awakened.

          Fix’d.

          • SB

            Prove your affirmation.
            There is no ‘sexually awakened’ human being or animal.
            If X has been born female then she shall remain female. If X has been born male he shall remain male. This is the normality. Do you think nature does mistakes? I am not a great scientist to tell you this, but in the area of sexual orientation I don’t think it does any mistake. There are enough males and enough females on this planet. We don’t need to adjust things.

          • DeclinedDoomed

            @SB
            Yeah, there are sexually awakened humans.  It’s called puberty.

          • SB

            Just another random thought:
            Homosexuality is just like cutting one of your fingers just because you think you have been born to do this and you become finger-cutting awakened. :))

          • SB

            @DeclinedDoomed
            Sorry for that mistake :D English is not my primary language.
            Then it is normal to be sexually awakened. But puberty is not the process which decides if you are heterosexual or homosexual.

          • DeclinedDoomed

            @SB
            I don’t think a process “decides” anything.
            It’s simple.  If you find yourself attracted to the opposite sex, you’re heterosexual.  If you find yourself attracted to the same sex, you’re homosexual.  If you find yourself attracted to both, you’re bisexual.  It’s not a “decision,” you don’t wake up and say “Huh, I think I’ll be gay today.”  It’s just part of who you are.

          • SB

            @DeclinedDoomed
            This is also a psychological process, and our psychology and the way we think is influenced by the society in which we live. Also, puberty is not a period of great decisions in life, because you are not mature enough.

          • Foo

            @SB
            Sexual awakening is when you start to become attracted to other people in a sexual manner. Sexuality is a whole different matter.
            “Nature” doesn’t do things, it’s an abstract human invention much like religion and “organic food”.
             
            Enough? A single male is easily enough for several females in most parts of the animal kingdom, humanity is an oddity if anything.
             
            And there it comes, the “mature” keyword. You might as well join some religious group and run around calling people witches and whatnot.

          • SB

            @Foo
            Psychological maturity is a real thing. I think ‘witch’ is a mystical rank, not a maturity level. I am not talking about spiritual maturity because I don’t believe in that. Maturity is a set of good personality traits such as seriousness, ambition and more others accumulated while aging. It is true that there are old immature people and very mature teens, but most people become more mature as time goes on.
            I don’t view humanity as part of nature, as some view it, but I think that humans are much superior than animals. There are some things we should learn from the animal kingdom (see bionics) but there are some things which we should remove from our behavior (exacerbated sexuality, violence, etc.). This is one reason I am pretty much against homosexuality.

          • Foo

            Yes, but saying that someone is immature just from their age is not much better than witch hunting. How mature, for example, is it to use kids as an excuse for doing things such as witch hunting or censorship.

            seriousness, ambition and more others accumulated while aging

            Really? I’ve found the opposite to be true. As people grow older they give up their dreams and settle with simply what they have. Losing their ambitions.
            I can’t agree on seriousness being a part of maturity. Why shouldn’t a person be able to have fun living? I find myself too serious all too often, not daring to do even simple stuff like jumping over various obstacles in my path while in public.
            Unless you mean being serious in attaining ones goals, then yes I would like to see that more. That includes in myself. :P
             
            I do agree that we should strive for “ascension” or whatever one would like to choose to call it. But I don’t find us to be superior. Our only superior difference to other animals is, in my opinion, our “language”. More specifically, that we can document and thus pass on very much information without having to do it in person.
            If we’re going to achieve ascension within this millennium it would likely be with the help of some sort of technological singularity.
             
            Anyhow, homosexuality is really no problem towards that goal. The problem is our limited resources and our lack of ability to look far into the future. That some people have a tendency to get hung up on historical things is also quite a problem. I mean seriously, complaining about things that happened centuries ago is childish if anything.
             
            By the by, what do you mean by “spiritual maturity”? I’ve never heard that before.

          • SB

            @Foo
            Maybe “immature” is not the good word for this, but there are some neuro-chemical activities in the teenager’s brain that sometimes just confuse him (this is what I read).

            Really? I’ve found the opposite to be true. As people grow older they give up their dreams and settle with simply what they have. Losing their ambitions.

            This is mostly true in our society because there are many things that simply don’t let us do other things. My family, for example, is…. struggling with money. If you are stressed about tomorrow, you just cannot dream about things you’ll do the next year or later. But I was talking there about the ideal human behavior (what everybody should do).

            Unless you mean being serious in attaining ones goals, then yes I would like to see that more. That includes in myself. :P

            Seriousness does not actually exclude fun. :) And yes, I was taking about attaining ones goals (I name this “perseverance”).

            I do agree that we should strive for “ascension” or whatever one would like to choose to call it. But I don’t find us to be superior. Our only superior difference to other animals is, in my opinion, our “language”. More specifically, that we can document and thus pass on very much information without having to do it in person.

            If you don’t believe in what I said in my commend about our descent from aliens and monkeys, I think you should at least think yourself as a human superior to animals because of the chance you got to live in a more civilized way and to accumulate information over generations, and you should use your chance (through this ascension, or how you want to name it).

            Anyhow, homosexuality is really no problem towards that goal.

            Maybe it’s about tastes.. sorry to disappoint you.

            If we’re going to achieve ascension within this millennium it would likely be with the help of some sort of technological singularity.

            Technological singularity won’t happen too soon (this is what I believe), because as I said about our descent from aliens, geneticists discovered that we only use 10% of our brain’s power and 10% of our genes. This is pretty shocking, but is true.
            There are some people who say that children born from 1990 to present are more intellectually powerful and capable of remembering things a lot easier. I don’t know how true this is, but it is a sign of evolution at a.. genetic level (?). I don’t know. Anyways, there are lots of contacts with aliens all over the world, but only at individual levels, and they are not public. It is said that a public contact with the alien race that supervises us is imminent. This is why the Catholic cosmic observatory recognized the existence of aliens as “our brothers from other worlds”. Some say this will happen in the next decades. I hope this will put an end to this regressive religion.

            The problem is our limited resources and our lack of ability to look far into the future. That some people have a tendency to get hung up on historical things is also quite a problem. I mean seriously, complaining about things that happened centuries ago is childish if anything.

            I agree.

            By the by, what do you mean by “spiritual maturity”? I’ve never heard that before.

            Spiritual maturity in “becoming more like Jesus” and similar things in other religions.

          • Foo

            Maybe it’s about tastes.. sorry to disappoint you.

            I wouldn’t say I’m disappointed. What I write is, for the most part, simply my opinion after all. As long as you don’t do anything “rash”, think “witch hunt”, I’m not going to hold your beliefs against you.
             

            Maybe “immature” is not the good word for this, but there are some neuro-chemical activities in the teenager’s brain that sometimes just confuse him (this is what I read).

            From what I’ve seen and heard, this varies greatly from person to person. Some are barely even affected by the hormonal changes while others border on bipolar behaviour.
             

            geneticists discovered that we only use 10% of our brain’s power and 10% of our genes

            People who study brains are called neuroscientists and we do utilize our brain’s full power. Although one can certainly increase the “power” of ones brain by gaining new experience. We do have something of an uncanny ability to combine seemingly unrelated concepts after all, something I do think we are pretty unique to do.
            Are you talking about the so called Junk DNA?
             
            If you’re interested in some “new” findings in the area of cognition and neuroscience, I find this video to be very interesting:
            The Neural Circuitry of Perception & Genetic and Hormonal Influences on Cognition
             

            There are some people who say that children born from 1990 to present are more intellectually powerful and capable of remembering things a lot easier.

            I think this is mostly due to the brain adapting to the influx of information in todays society. The muscles and skin aren’t the only part of the body that adapts to its environment.
             

            It is said that a public contact with the alien race that supervises us is imminent.

            While I personally don’t believe that we have been visited by aliens during our species existence, except for potentially the occasional microbe riding on an asteroid, I would love to be proven wrong. An actual space-faring civilization coming here would certainly make me happy and excited.
             

            Spiritual maturity in “becoming more like Jesus” and similar things in other religions.

            Ok, I would personally call that idolatry or simply “having a role model”, depending on the severity of the idolization. There are, for example, christian atheists.
             
            I certainly do find our civilization to be superior to other species, although I find the hive-mind of certain species to be interesting. I were mostly talking about individual physical limitations in the human body itself, in how we are far from the fastest, strongest or sturdiest animal in the kingdom.

          • SB

            @Foo

            we do utilize our brain’s full power.

            A link. I think its the same situation with our brains. We don’t use all of it at the same time.

            An actual space-faring civilization coming here would certainly make me happy and excited.

            Me too.

            There are, for example, christian atheists.

            We don’t have anything useful to do, but to invent a new belief system. I didn’t hear about this until now.

            I certainly do find our civilization to be superior to other species, although I find the hive-mind of certain species to be interesting. I were mostly talking about individual physical limitations in the human body itself, in how we are far from the fastest, strongest or sturdiest animal in the kingdom.

            The ability to think and to accumulate knowledge is much more useful than to have physical power. With human intelligence we can invent weapons more powerful than any animals, but we can also implement the concepts used by some animals.

        • daddlo

          it’s gotta do with genes , if one twin is same sex there is more than 50% chance other one is same. just saying…

          • http://www.sumake.eu narzędzia pneumatyczne

            IMHO there is no one simple answer. There definitely are psychological, social and genetic causes. Maybe also others. That means that some of them can be cured, others not.
            Anyway I believe that homosexual behaviors are a part of our civilization, and there must be a cause why evolution decided to keep them. I have some theory, but I guess its not the place for such discussions.

          • Foo

            @narzedzia
            Probably to lessen the amount of fighting over “that one female” when the male/female population ratio gets too high.

          • SB

            @Foo
            The male/female population ratio is always well-balanced.

          • Foo

            ??
            “Nature” doesn’t kill of a couple of males when their chance of survival increases.
            On the other hand, fighting among the males might increase as the supply of females decreases, thus homosexuality might in part be a result of this as then there are more healthy males in the tribe to defend against attacks from other tribes, is what I meant.
            Remember, our society as it stands today hasn’t existed for such a long time.

          • SB

            I agree with your affirmation that “our society as it stands today hasn’t existed for such a long time”, but I don’t think females will disappear and men will fight for women :)) First of all this seems pretty stupid and horrible, and (sorry, I’m not a biologist) did this happen with animals? I know they are fighting for females, but I don’t think the situation is so horrible. I also thought that the female-male ratio is 1:1, am I right? If this is really a problem which decides the future of humanity, there is an answer: abortion and sex predetermination. I don’t think homosexuality would be a permanent answer (if it would be an answer at all).

          • Foo

            There are, like for most species, slightly more males born than females. But, there are also more deaths among males than females. Now the “problem” here is that we humans, in many cases, try to save as many of our kind as possible thus making this ratio hold true during a greater part of the “fertility span”.
            Of course this is all theories, but that’s the most likely explanation for the cultivation of homosexuality, despite that it should not be able to be selected for, that I can think of.
             
            Sorry if it sounded that bad. I certainly didn’t mean to imply any form of sudden bloodbath. I just meant that aggression always have a tendency to rear its ugly end when there’s a shortage of resources, be it lovers, food or territory. Then again, the humanity seem to become more docile as the generations go so there might be no risk at all there.
            But there are certainly instances today were tribes animals, including humans, fight each-other, killing the males and taking the females for breeding and in the case of humans use the kids as soldiers or in the case of other animals simply killing them.
             

            abortion and sex predetermination

            I would say birth control, by way of condoms, are preferable to abortion. As for choosing the sex… well, just look at China and India. There is most likely be an even worse ratio in that case.
            The only choice would be having a central organization handling the sex choice and that would probably be more control than people would be willing to cope with.
             
            The male/female ratio can also never be 1, without intervention, as that would require the fetus to know the current amount of male/females and how many would die/be born during its development.
             
            Do we really need an “answer”, aren’t there more important things to worry about than sexuality?

          • SB

            @Foo
            Yep, I agree with what you said.

            Do we really need an “answer”, aren’t there more important things to worry about than sexuality?

            No, we don’t need any answer. I keep this discussion alive because others give me answers and arguments. I’d be happy to end this discussion about sexual orientation and sexuality as soon as possible but I can’t do this of others still post answers and opinions..

    • Foo

      On the other hand the church, which most believers for some reason go to, utilize exactly those principles of IE.

    • bob

      you do know that this page says if you an easily offended christian you should skip it, and you are obviously an easily offended christian

  • Eric

    hahahahaha, great!

  • aavv

    Why did you interfere religion with other stuff
     
    the best thing in life came if you believe in something instead of what people said
    I am not Cristian nor using IE (actually I am Muslim and using Opera) but, your post is non sense to me or any other believers, so lets people live the way they like and gain the ideas and doctrine they thinks is right (without insulting other humans or others ideas).
     
    Regards
     
     

    • ffffff

      and religious peopel stupidity offends me but i live with that

    • http://www.sumake.eu narzędzia pneumatyczne

      Its ok to believe. But lets allow people to express themselves. Especially that there is nothing wrong with this particular “comparision”, and its funny.

      • SB

        Sometimes you just feel that you must do something in this world, that you wish progress, that you don’t wish to become just another passive guy living it’s useless life. Sometimes you have a belief proved by science that is simply true and you wish to share your belief with others. This is not true with religions because none of them are proved by science. If God wishes us to be religious He would simply force us through some huge hypnosis over the entire humanity. As we actually see, religions are in a global crisis, because more and more people realize that science is the tool with which we can progress, and actually reach God (I believe in a science-proven God, but not in those religions and their legends, but atheism is very good when compared to religions). This is the moment in history in which everybody, you and me can contribute to this transformation.
        You should not accuse anybody of imposing their beliefs until you demonstrate that their belief is false.

        • Ichann

          Maybe you should try Scientology.

          I heard they are doing wonders for the human population.

          • SB

            I realize now that very few people care about this. Go on with your ignorance.

          • SB

            If you don’t want to do anything, at least let others do something for this world and fight those false beliefs.

          • Ichann

            So you have looked into that sect?
             
            Do as you may. But writing in a forum wouldn’t really accomplish much.
             
            Actions speak louder than words.

          • SB

            @Ichann
            Scientology is just another religion. All religions have their own bugs. Our world doesn’t depend at all on religions, so, why should I take part to those religions?
            I see that there is a church of Scientology. This is ridiculous. I also read that you must give money to this sect. I’d better give my money to some good poor friend or do something profitable with them. I don’t have time at this moment to read more about this sect, but I will do this as soon as I can. For me, there is one single true belief, the one demonstrated by science. This belief is dynamic, and changes with the new scientific discoveries, not as those fixed religious beliefs. I am a free thinker (those atheists which think they are the free thinkers, are wrong because God exists, just look at those clinical death experiences – too many non-religious similarities).
            I agree, actions speak louder than words, but believe me, I take actions in the real world but sometimes I get a little sad when I see religious guys commenting stupid things.

          • Ichan

            Dont bother reading up on that.
             
            Well since you said science to understand God, Scientology popped into mind.
             
            So what you want is man to prove God’s existence through science? Although that is kind of an impossible thing to do, I wish you more power.
             
            In my mind you either believe Gods existence or you dont. You do not even need evidence of a deity existing to believe.
             
            BTW: Don’t spend too much time on such matters. It will be sad to see someone well read and yet lost at 80.

          • SB

            @Ichan
            Well it’s not that impossible. Not all scientific discoveries are public, so you shouldn’t think that this is all of it. God exists, and we can take those clinical death experiences as I already said. The experiences are not religious. They don’t see Jesus or saint Mary in there, but they see something. Some persons communicated with dead relatives and those dead relatives asked their living relatives to do something in the real world. These facts actually demonstrate the existence of God, because those world described by people which entered clinical death were organized worlds. Where is organization and discipline there is a leader. How should we call it? God, of course. There are many things about which I don’t wish to talk about because nobody will believe me, as very few people believe in parapsychology which is a real science and there are real discoveries. On Wikipedia parapsychology is described as a pseudoscience. I don’t agree with this.

    • Foo

      So you say you wouldn’t find it cute when the children think that a tomte will actually bring them presents on jul? Or silently laugh at a guy sitting there talking to a rock? “actually I am Muslim and using Opera“, oh wait, nevermind.
       

      the best thing in life came if you believe in something instead of what people said

      Oh, yes, it’s so much better if people believe that the ocean puts out the sun at the end of the day or that the Earth is the center of it all instead of listening to facts…

  • Shane

    It doesn’t look like a good idea to post this even though it is (weirdly) related to IE because of some holy war going on in the background. I guess that’s why comments should be disabled IMO (remember the Facebook incidents? Actually don’t).

  • http://my.opera.com/rafaelluik Rafael

    I thought you would call Internert Explorer immortal and stupid. :P

  • Foo

    Related.(?)

  • Mancho

    “Christianity/Internet Explorer lost its influence over the period of time and now, no one gives a damn about it anymore.”
    I don’t understand.  33% of the world identify themselves a Christian.  Are you saying 2 billion people are insignificant? This “article” makes no sense.

    • http://www.sumake.eu narzędzia pneumatyczne

      Yeah, 95% in Poland. But lets face it those are just “default” statistics. Even if they go to church they (at least here in Poland) go there from various reasons (because I have to, what will people say, to see friends etc) hardly because they want to get in touch with God. Besides from 95% Christians, at least 40% never goes to church (so called non-practice believers), about 30% goes twice a year  (pagan holiday – Christmas, or Easter), 20% goes occasionally, and 10% goes every Sunday.
      BESIDES you say 33% people of the world identify themselves as Christian? Then go and check Christianity in Wikipedia – it is no doubt most divided religion ever. You simply cannot refer to Christian as one religion. There are plenty of them (main 5 or 6 groups, and lots of sometimes very different sub-groups in each – they cannot agree even on the basics points of belief – like Trinity, Mary’s virginity, life after death etc.).

      • Mancho

        I wouldn’t think of calling Christianity one religion.  I only use it in that context, since that is how the author refers to it.  But even if you say only 10% of “Christians” in the world go to church every Sunday (which I doubt is very accurate), you still get roughly 200 million people.  Still not a small enough number to say “no one gives a damn about it.”

        • Mancho

          ugh.. wish there were an edit.
          I’m not sure that counting how often one goes to church would be a basis for determining how much one cares about their religion, anyway.

    • Foo

      Everyone I’ve met here in Sweden has entered the church due to the parties they throw for youths and because they get presents from friends and family when they do their various rituals, such as confirmation.
      Also just a couple of years ago, registration as a church member was obligatory and there are still people who don’t know that they actually are members. There’s even a website dedicated to helping people get out of the church.
       
      I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing goes for other countries.

      • SB

        You’re lucky. In my country, 90% of population is Christian (at least formally) and almost everywhere you go, you find one to tell you to pray because the end of the world is close :)). On some TV channels you can see witches telling some stupid things about 2012 and 666. Some people even tell me that they feel a great pleasure when they go to church. My country is pretty medieval…

        • Foo

          Ouch :(
          I think the worst we have are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But those consist of, from what I’ve experienced, only 70+ people who seem to have gotten desperate in the end and donating their money in hopes of getting one of the few spots.
          They are the sole reason that I find the Church of Sweden to be an, in ways, positive thing. They keep people away from the worse alternatives.
           
          I think I worded my previous comment a bit strangely. I have met, old, people who say they are believers. But that was out in the countryside were I grew up, with something like 8 people per square kilometer. :P

          We also have an influx of Muslims. But from people I’ve talked to and from conversations I’ve heard on buses, the young ones have for the most part thrown away the family tradition.
           
          There were something of an occult craze going on some years ago, but it seems to have subsided since. Though, I don’t watch TV myself so I’m not 100% on that.
           

          Some people even tell me that they feel a great pleasure when they go to church.

          I think most extroverts find pleasure in congregating, be it a sports club or a church, so it’s not that strange. I guess there’s something of a stress relief involved there too.
           
          From what I read on Wikipedia, it looks like you’re working on fixing that and that you have the growing economy to support an “upgrade” of the infrastructure. That other problem will probably recede, at least a bit, if the educational system is improved or a complementary is introduced and used.

          • SB

            …if I told you from the beginnings that I am 15 years old you laughed. Anyway, Our educational system is bad, very… extremely bad. We are forced to learn religion (we don’t learn all religions, but only one, Orthodox Christianity, and the lessons sound like a priest preaching) in school (it is optional.. but you must opt out, because you are opted in automatically :(). Even if you opt out you still have to participate to the religion hour because it is never the last our in the day. We have more churches than schools or hospitals and BOR (Romanian Orthodox Church) is not taxed as it should be. The priests don’t have to pay their taxes. They get donations from the deputies and senators…. I simply don’t understand this. On Wikipedia it says that they must “upgrade” the infrastructure. They had 20 years since the fall of communism in my country to do this, but actually they just want to take the money from us. Anyways, the fall of communism was the only fall of communism in Europe in which violence was required. The population was manipulated by TV and FSN (National Salvation Front) lead by Ion Iliescu, started the privatizations which ruined our country. Even our current president (Băsescu) said that “schools produce idiots”. It is true. Our physics teacher indoctrinated us one hour about how the holy spirit is our only hope :)). Our population had and still has many geniuses, but nobody helps them to get out of poverty and to apply their inventions to the real world.
            Sorry for this little story about my country, but every day I see the effects of those actions which destroy the society slowly but surely and I get.. nervous.

          • SB

            Some mistakes:
            “participate to the religion hour” -> “participate to the religion class”
            “never the last our in the day” -> “never the last class in the day”
             

          • Foo

            …if I told you from the beginnings that I am 15 years old you laughed.

            Why would I? What I’ve been trying to say is that someones age doesn’t have much to do with anything. What matters is whether you can partake and share information or not. Some of the smartest I’ve met have been ambitious teens the older ones have been teachers.
            Two relatively well known prodigies, of whom I’ve met none, that I can think of:
            Mozart, wrote several operas while still being a “child”.
            Adora Svitak, has written several stories and held several talks, I learned about her from her TEDTalk.
            While some may argue that this is all due to genetics, I personally think that it has more to do with their environment.
             
            Sucks about the infrastructure and school though. :(

            The priests don’t have to pay their taxes. They get donations from the deputies and senators

            That sounds very strange to me. I mean, I could sort of understand the church bribing politicians. But I can’t understand it the other way around. :-/
             
            Seeing how you’re a part of EU now, you might be able to study abroad in another EU country and possibly get study support/loan from both. If even university/high-school ends up being overtly religious and you’d prefer to avoid it.

          • SB

            @Foo

            Why would I?

            I always hope for the best and prepare for the worst :)

            While some may argue that this is all due to genetics, I personally think that it has more to do with their environment.

            There are lots of factors. For example.. some books changed my life.. almost completely. It is mostly about the family in which you grow. My family at least gives me the power to choose my future.

            That sounds very strange to me. I mean, I could sort of understand the church bribing politicians. But I can’t understand it the other way around. :-/

            It may sound weird, but it is all about electoral preaching. (seriously)

            Seeing how you’re a part of EU now, you might be able to study abroad in another EU country and possibly get study support/loan from both. If even university/high-school ends up being overtly religious and you’d prefer to avoid it.

            Its not that easy, I like my country, but not all of its population…
            We have 18300 churches, 4700 general schools and 425 hospitals.

  • Daniel Hendrycks

    “What about smashing baby skulls to the stones, raping woman and killing homosexuals?”
    LOL, given objective moral values cannot exist with God, you set of values is the result of your socio-cultural background, hardly a point. Unless, of course, you are to say something is wrong, but by doing so you would be saying there is a God.

    • fffffff

      What? How so? Morality does not come from god, if you dont do bad things because are affraid of wizard and not becuase you love humanity then you are a bad person.

      • Daniel Hendrycks

        You made the argument Christianity is bad, you saying that is just your opinion, since it is subjective, diminishing the arguments value to nothing.
        “then you are a bad person.”
        Another example, unless, something is actually evil (like Stalin), then a Deity would have to exist.
        “and killing homosexuals?”
        Old Jewish belief.
        “smashing baby skulls to the stones, raping woman”
        When was that, verse? (new testament only)

        • SB

          Moral values don’t come from God. They are behaviors and rules invented by humans to help them progress. Many facts written in Bible are immoral because they are against progress.
          Christianity is bad because the facts from Bible are horrible, violent, discriminatory and against the progress of humanity. I ask you why the christian god created humanity if he was against its progress from the beginnings?
          If you really want to discuss about how true is Christianity (and all other religions) then tell me how the existence of days was possible (the first day of genesis) if there was no Sun, Earth and Moon? How humanity evolved from Adam and Eva? Through incest? How the three main human races appeared on Earth? How it is possible that saint Mary is virgin if she had other children beside Jesus? I think you should read The Amusing Bible by Leo Taxil (you can find it on the Web). This book explains many strange things from the Old Testament.
          Also please explain this to me:
          Mathew 10, 34-36
          “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”
          Interpret this in whatever way you want. These are Jesus’ words. What does he want to say? Maybe I’m missing something.
          And I must not forget that Bible tells us that the Universe was created in year 3760 b.c. Science has demonstrated that this is false.
          If you want, I’ll show you lots of other arguments taken directly from the Old Testament. Jesus really believed in this Old Testament, then you should do this too, because you are a Christian. :))
          Also, how it is possible in the Old Testament, in genesis that light existed before the Sun?!
          Why Jesus didn’t invent anything useful for people, because if he was the son of God he knew that progress takes place through creation, invention and scientific discoveries?
          Why christian god talks in plural form in Genesis 1, 26? (“let us make man in our image”). This is not about the saint trinity because this concept was invented much later. Maybe this confirms the things explained by Leo Taxil in his book, The Amusing Bible: the Old Testament is not about God, but about more gods: Adonai, Shabaot, Yahweh etc. which are commonly being told Elohim (which translated means gods).
          I am very sad to see that this Bible really resisted so much just because of ignorance, but the future awaits anyway for those able to pass over those obstacles.

          • SB

            A little mistake: Eve, not Eva… we should be able to edit our comments.

          • Ichann

            Please refrain from bashing someones beliefs.
             
            I do not like it neither others.
             
            Preach you WOT (Wall of Text) somewhere else.

          • SB

            @Ichann
            I am not bashing someone’s belief. I give arguments. If you don’t have the time to judge them then please skip my comment.
            Also, you should see that I only give answers to other comments, I don’t write 10 comments continuously, just like talking with myself.

          • Manmohan Rajyana

            Why Jesus didn’t invent anything useful for people, because if he was the son of God he knew that progress takes place through creation, invention and scientific discoveries?
            I fully agree sir & symultaneously He gave us brain to chak out our own course of actions; we are experienced about good & bad; judge & make new world as He made that time. Now creation, invention and scientific discoveries & we are proceeding to discover, invent, and further goto other planets & fingout what is what. But we have to choose to proceed ahead not to know what was. you’re it is noticed more learned; I just peeped into some religions, got degrees. All  manifests in our outlook toward our behaviors & try to know the progress of humanity (not what was that wrong or right ???). Yes what is this great people are doing ?
            I am 70 yrs old, pardon me if wrong   

          • SB

            @Manmohan Rajyana
            I agree with you sir, but Jesus should have given us an example to follow (he should have invented something, or he should have followed more strict moral values than his contemporaries) if it truly was the son of God.

          • Mancho

            “then tell me how the existence of days was possible (the first day of genesis) if there was no Sun, Earth and Moon?”
            I don’t understand this question.  Do you thing Genesis was written at the time of the events of Genesis?  Even if you take it literally, a “day” would be equal to the amount of time in a day as we know it. A day on Saturn is different than a day on Earth.  Does that mean that a day has no meaning?
            “How humanity evolved from Adam and Ev[e]? Through incest?”
            The Adam and Eve story is just a simplified explanation of how we were created in His image and have sinned against Him.   That part of the bible also mentions nearby towns, so obviously there were other people.  I’m not sure why you’re trying to be so literal.
            “How the three main human races appeared on Earth? ”
            I’m not even sure what that means.
            “How it is possible that saint Mary is virgin if she had other children beside Jesus?”
            She didn’t have other children.  Close cousins and really close friends were often called brother back then, not to mention differences in translation.  You (and many others) just neglect to understand context and translation.  Did you know that that there are/were three words for love, all meaning something different, yet they all got translated as “love”?
            “Mathew 10, 34-36″ etc. etc.
            That part is always taken out of context.  Jesus is sending his disciples to preach His word.  He’s telling them to expect to be persecuted, and that those that follow them will likely be persecuted also, even by their own family.  He didn’t come to bring peace, he came to bring knowledge.
            “the Universe was created in year 3760 b.c.”
            I’ve seen numbers like this before, but I don’t know how people come to them.  As far as I understand, only those who take the Bible completely literally think this is true.
            “Why Jesus didn’t invent anything useful for people…?”
            Because He wasn’t sent to invent, He was sent to teach.  Are you suggesting knowledge is less valuable than invention?
            “Why christian god talks in plural form in Genesis 1, 26?”  etc. etc
            I’m not sure what you mean.  Just because the concept of the trinity was revealed to us much later doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a basis in the old testament.
            You may want to consider basing your arguments on more than this “Amusing Bible” you keep mentioning.
             

          • SB

            @Mancho
            - the biblical events should have been narrated at an universal time, if bible was really written by people inspired by god. If that was an universal time (first day of genesis), then there should be some linked with some planet.
            - I’m literal because God is literal too. If God really wanted to be easily understood by the people 2000 years ago he didn’t write novels with epithets and cool metaphors. If God really inspired the people who written the bible, then this bible should contain only true things. I don’t believe it was so hard to explain that “monkeys slowly metamorphosed in humans” or something like this, more appropriated to the scientific truth.
            - “How the three main human races appeared on Earth?” – I was talking about negroid, caucasoid, and mongoloid races.
            - Here a Christian written about this and explained why it is very clear that Jesus really had siblings.
            - “He’s telling them to expect to be persecuted” – so Jesus is in favor of the persecution of someone? (the context doesn’t matter). The son of God is in favor of killing someone? I don’t get it. So I should believe in a radical, killer God? No, thanks.
            “He didn’t come to bring peace, he came to bring knowledge.” – Knowledge cannot exist without peace (or not in its most gracious form). If the son of God (or simply God) is perfect, he has non-violent, non-radical, peaceful ways to resolve problems. He does not wish to persecute anybody, not even those who hate him.
            - The truth … must be taken literally, right? If we want to find out if Christianity is true or false, we must take Bible literally. Interpretation is not a sure thing. A text can be interpreted in lots of different ways. I’m sure God doesn’t wish his ‘children’ to be so confused about bible. I’ll also give you a link.
            - “He wasn’t sent to invent, He was sent to teach.  Are you suggesting knowledge is less valuable than invention?” – So, what did he teach? Some very cool scientific truth? Something more valuable? Moral values? Yes, some very basic, limited moral values, but the above argument (that with the sword) contradicts all those moral values. Also, Jesus already said in the New Testament that he believes in the Old Testament, so he believes all that nonsense, including the killing of innocent populations, the killing of lots of children and other horrible acts etc.
            I didn’t suggest that knowledge is less valuable than invention, because invention cannot take place without knowledge.
            - “I’m not sure what you mean.  Just because the concept of the trinity was revealed to us much later doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a basis in the old testament.” – Please, tell me how it was revealed to us. I hope you’re not talking about this ‘revelation’.
            - “You may want to consider basing your arguments on more than this “Amusing Bible” you keep mentioning.” – Leo Taxil was a Catholic priest before he began to write books such as The Amusing Bible I told you about. He had access to some controversial writings in Vatican. You can read more about him on Wikipedia and on other websites. In this book he explains much nonsense from the Old Testament (which can be verified) and also says that when bible was translated in Latin, the monk Ieronim replaced the names of four gods and the plural elohim with “Dominus Deus” which means God. For me this looks pretty credible, but for you, as a Christian, it may look completely false. You choose if you wish to believe in this argument or not.
            This is a long comment. If you find any mistakes, sorry.

          • Mancho

            @SB I’ll try to make this short. (wish me luck)
            1) Truth and literality are not equal. I can say the sky is blue, which may be true, but that’s not literally the case.  If the bible did say that humans came from monkeys, then that would just lead one to argue about where monkeys came from.  The bible is not an ad infinitum scientific text on the history of the universe.
            2) That first link is from someone with a poor understanding of translation and particularly of cultural norms of the era in question.
            3) The second link is from someone who is trying to read the bible literally.  As you can see, it shows Adam as living nearly 1000 years.  Doesn’t make much sense.
            4) Of course context matters. I think you are still misunderstanding that passage from Matthew.  You may want to read more of the passage than those specific lines.  He is not suggesting that people should be persecuted, but that the truth can be like a sword, and that by speaking the truth, enemies can be made.
            5)“How the three main human races appeared on Earth?” Evolution would be my guess.  Even the Catholic Church acknowledges that evolution is likely to be correct.
            6) According to the Leo Taxil Wikipedia entry you point me to, he was sent to a seminary at the age of 5.  This hardly makes him a priest.  And I find nothing at all about him having any sort of access to “controversial writings”, particularly in the Vatican.  He was an anti-catholic author, and it seems wasn’t above lying (there is plenty of info about his hoax) to further his agenda.  And you say he seems credible…. interesting.
             
            Ok, so not as short as I thought.

          • SB

            @Mancho
            1. You are interpreting too much. (Christianity is based on interpretation of legends, so I understand you)
            2. You are interpreting too much, in the way you want. You cannot be sure about your affirmation because you are just interpreting. Another link.
            3. “As you can see, it shows Adam as living nearly 1000 years.” – You’re right, it does not make sense. Bible does not make sense. You are again trying to prove that the only way to read Bible is through interpretation, but you will always interpret Bible only in the way you want.
            4. You’re again interpreting the way you want. This is your only “shield”. You cannot be sure that the way you interpret is good. I’ll copy those words again here:
            “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”
            I still don’t understand how you interpret those words to make Jesus innocent. Jesus says that he has come to earth to bring a sword, to turn a man against his father, a daughter against his mother etc. It doesn’t matter if he talks about X or Y. It matters that these words are horrible. How can you read this text and think “oh, Jesus loves humanity, loves everybody, forgives everybody” blah blah? I read the context but I still didn’t understand why it matters in our discussion.
            5. “Evolution would be my guess.  Even the Catholic Church acknowledges that evolution is likely to be correct.” – Evolution is just your guess. You’re wrong. Evolution does not produce such radical mutations in such a short time just because some people live in different zones on earth. Catholic Church realizes that the end of all religions is close and does everything to protect their religion as much time as they can. They even agree with scientific truths that are against the Bible.
            6. I have already stated that you do not have to believe in it. Wikipedia is not the ultimate source of information on the Web as some people use it and loose their capabilities to do research on their own. You should read about him on other websites as well.
            Finally, I’ll just tell you that knowledge and truth does not come from interpretation. I know you will not understand this, because this is how the psychology of Christians has evolved over time. I had lots of other arguments, but through interpretation you’ll never agree with me.

          • Mancho

            @SB  How do you mean interpreting too much?  My interpretation supports my arguments just as much as your interpretation supports yours.  I don’t pretend to think I’m going to convince you I’m right.
            You keep quoting Matthew and think this is some gotcha.  Jesus was not a peacenik.  Try Mark 11:15.
            “Evolution does not produce such radical mutations in such a short time”  If you think the differences are radical, and the period of time of change as “short” you may want to do a little more research.
            I certainly don’t think wikipedia is an ultimate source.  I merely looked there because that is what you referenced.  I did a simple Google search and the bulk of the results were about his hoax.  There was nothing to suggest he had any of the supposed knowledge you stated.
            You are right.  I won’t agree with you just as you won’t agree with me.  You say my interpretation prevents it, but you fail to understand that you are also interpreting.  The only difference is my interpretation is based on the studies of scholars for the last couple thousand years, whereas yours are based on the writings of someone who once went to seminary when he was a kid.

          • SB

            @Mancho

            How do you mean interpreting too much?  My interpretation supports my arguments just as much as your interpretation supports yours.  I don’t pretend to think I’m going to convince you I’m right.

            I did a mistake by interpreting the Bible in the discussion about ‘saint Mary is virgin’ argument. I won’t interpret Bible from now on.

            You keep quoting Matthew and think this is some gotcha.

            If you pretend that your god is the true God, then you should explain why Jesus is not peaceful and why he uses fear (a destructive feeling) to impose his belief.
            If he was perfect (this also means he was good) he wouldn’t say those horrible things. I am not interpreting those words. If you hear a man saying those things in front of a group of people, would you think he was a normal? I don’t think so. I’m taking things exactly as they are.

            Try Mark 11:15. Jesus was not a peacenik.

            So you agree that your god is not peaceful. Could you explain how can you still be a Christian? If we want a peaceful world, if we want progress, happiness for you and for everybody, we need peace, we need a peaceful God.

            If you think the differences are radical, and the period of time of change as “short” you may want to do a little more research.

            I was talking about the Adam and Eve story.

            You say my interpretation prevents it, but you fail to understand that you are also interpreting.

            I wonder what I interpreted apart from the ‘saint Mary is not virgin’ argument.
            I ask you again: If you heard a man saying those things (from Mathew 10) in front of a group of people, would you think he was a normal human being? You may want to say that those were other times and that he had to do this to be understood by his adepts, but fear is a horrible way to impose a belief. If he was the son of god, he had other peaceful ways to impose his belief to others. Tell me where I am wrong, if I am. Maybe I should also talk about the impossibility of God having a son.

            The only difference is my interpretation is based on the studies of scholars for the last couple thousand years, whereas yours are based on the writings of someone who once went to seminary when he was a kid.

            I didn’t interpret anything apart of that argument with saint Mary. I took the words as they were written in Bible. You can check the definitions of the words in a dictionary, if you still don’t understand how I was able to not interpret.
            And most of my arguments don’t come from that book written by Leo Taxil, most of the arguments are petty self-explaining if you read the bible very critically.

            studies of scholars for the last couple thousand years

            Maybe you should explain on what basis those scholars interpreted the Bible in such a ‘great’ way, to make people believe Jesus is peaceful and loves humanity. I would be glad to talk with one. (maybe we should also discuss why Jesus is dead, and resurrection is another legend).

          • Mancho

            @SB  You fail to realize that by reading, you are interpreting.  By reading words only as they appear on the page without understanding translation, context, or social norms, you are not only interpreting, but doing so incorrectly.  The passage in Matthew is not using fear “to impose his belief,” but merely stating that people, even one’s own family, can react violently to the truth.  He didn’t at all suggest that one should use violence or fear to push their beliefs.  If I heard someone saying things like that, I would not think they were particularly normal, but I don’t think anyone now or then would have described Jesus as normal.

          • SB

            @Mancho
            Well, I disagree with you, but I think this is how you learned to interpret Bible. Maybe I interpret it too, but I am very curious to understand why do you interpret Bible that way, and still think that you’re right?

            You fail to realize that by reading, you are interpreting.

            I’m reading this sentence: “I am a human being.”. This is an objective affirmation, it cannot be interpreted. I’m not a philosopher, but I am sure that those passages from Bible should be taken as they are written there.

            By reading words only as they appear on the page without understanding translation, context, or social norms, you are not only interpreting, but doing so incorrectly.

            You cannot interpret ‘correctly’ anyway. And if you think you’re right in what you say, please explain me the context, because you’re sure that the context of those passages demonstrates how my affirmations are wrong. God was not limited to the moral values and social norms of the human beings in that period, so this is not an argument against my argument. You’re also talking about translation. You can always blame translations, but this does not make Bible true.

          • SB

            @Mancho
            I forgot something..

            He didn’t at all suggest that one should use violence or fear to push their beliefs.

            Mathew 10, 33: “But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.”
            This promotes fear, right? Jesus used this to make people believe in him. It’s only one passage, I’m sure there are more.

        • Foo

          Does it matter what the texts say when people interpret them freely anyhow and use them to justify their actions?

          • SB

            The only difference is that I don’t interpret them.

          • Foo

            I do think some parts, at least, are very much open to subjective interpretion and cannot be read in any “definitive” way.
            Add to that the problem with people changing and making assumption when they transcribed or translated the material and there’s really no way you can put much weight in the current mythology to have much historic value left in it.
             
            By the by, I think “Dominus Deus” would be translated as “the lord god”. Wether that means “the one god” or “the ruling god”, such as Zeus or Odin I can’t know. More likely though, the scriptures probably spoke of Amun who I think is the original inspiration for the Abrahamic religions deities.

          • SB

            @Foo
            I am not very good at Latin, but yes.. If I translate ‘Dominus Deus’ to my primary language, Romanian, and then translate it from Romanian to English I get something like Mr. God.. so it can be translated as ‘the lord god’.
            And yes, you’re probably right about Amun.

          • SB

            @Foo
            I’ve also understood that in older versions of the bible, Shabaot (later translated to ‘God’) was described as a little old man with a long beard. He is drawn on the walls of some monasteries in my country.

          • Foo

            That’s interesting, sounds like a gnome or more specifically a variation on the domovoi. Perhaps it’s another example of the christian assimilation of local folklore.

          • SB

            @Foo
            I don’t think its so ugly :)

  • Ichann

    How did I miss this post.
     
    So funny.

  • http://www.favbrowser.com Vygantas Lipskas

    99 Responses to “Is Internet Explorer the Modern Times Jesus?”

    100th, all your base are belong to FavBrowser :-)

    Interesting discussion, by the way.

  • Daniel Hendrycks

    @SB
    I don’t believe moral values are objective, and the discussion was between fffff and I. I do not respond (something new I implemented, so I have time for other things) to other people’s negations if it was another person and I talking, if I do, much of my time is consumed, if you could, post your opinion in a different section, not where my discussion is was.

    • SB

      I didn’t know that the discussion was ‘private’, but I understand that time is important to you.

  • Daniel Hendrycks

    “They are behaviors and rules invented by humans to help them progress.”
    Agreed. Relative values.
    “Many facts written in Bible are immoral because they are against progress.”
    New Testament? Beside, even in the old, that is relative, and saying it is wrong is not really a good objection since it is just as strong as an aesthetic statement.
    “If you really want to discuss about how true is Christianity (and all other religions) then tell me how the existence of days was possible (the first day of genesis) if there was no Sun, Earth and Moon? How humanity evolved from Adam and Eva? Through incest? How the three main human races appeared on Earth? How it is possible that saint Mary is virgin if she had other children beside Jesus? I think you should read The Amusing Bible by Leo Taxil (you can find it on the Web). This book explains many strange things from the Old Testament.”
    My word, you certainly have never heard of different interpretations of Genesis, that I, with others, follow.
    “How it is possible that saint Mary is virgin if she had other children beside Jesus?”
    She was a virgin, Catholics still call her it, for some reason.
    “And I must not forget that Bible tells us that the Universe was created in year 3760 b.c.”
    They word “Yom” in the original Hebrew translation has 3 meanings, day, age, and era. When translated, translators picked “day” over the other two. This does not mean it is “day” when it could easily be the other two. That is something a literalist can use.
    “Also, how it is possible in the Old Testament, in genesis that light existed before the Sun?!” Photons were around from the Big Bang before stars were.
    “Why Jesus didn’t invent anything useful for people, because if he was the son of God he knew that progress takes place through creation, invention and scientific discoveries?”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d105FgGQgI
    “Maybe this confirms the things explained by Leo Taxil in his book, The Amusing Bible: the Old Testament”
    OMG, I should now read that book, (the trinity was implemented in 500 AD, however, that does not mean it is false),  I should also read that and finish the God Delusion. /sarcasm (except the parenthesis). Don’t get me wrong, I love Dawkins, but the God Delusion was a terrible book.
    Please don’t provide new arguments, only rebuttal, due to time.

    • SB

      Please don’t provide new arguments, only rebuttal, due to time.

      I don’t like to post fewer and simpler arguments just because my discussion partner does not have time. Excuse me, but you should make time for this discussion. Nobody hurries you up. You read and answer my comments whenever you have enough time. I’ll be alive until year 2125 and I’ll check my email daily.

      Agreed. Relative values.

      In the Old Testament people were killed because this was the will of the christian god. I know that in that period of time there were other moral standards, but god is not limited to the moral values of that time.
      Morality is relative to the value of the word ‘good’, but every modern person should understand that everything which is for progress (at individual and universal level) is good and every behavior against progress is bad. I don’t think God is against progress, so those horrible things in the Old Testament cannot be attributed to the true God.

      New Testament?

      I understand that you believe only in the New Testament. I’ll never understand why there are people which believe only in the New Testament but it’s OK. Mathew 10 is a very relevant chapter to our discussion.
      Mathew 10, 21: “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.”
      Mathew 10, 34-36: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”
      I say it again: the context of these passages doesn’t matter. Why? Because God is not violent, does not wish broken families, does not wish sword on earth, for nobody, not even for his enemies (he cannot have enemies, by the way) or for those who don’t believe in him.

      Beside, even in the old, that is relative, and saying it is wrong is not really a good objection since it is just as strong as an aesthetic statement.

      I am not talking about the aesthetics of Bible. I hope you don’t want to say that, for the christian god, killing children (and other things like this) is good or not important, because God is not against progress, and killing somebody is a behavior against progress.

      My word, you certainly have never heard of different interpretations of Genesis, that I, with others, follow.

      How can you be sure that the way you are interpreting genesis is the right one?

      She was a virgin, Catholics still call her it, for some reason.

      Bible is not clear enough to tell me that she was a virgin or not. You’re again interpreting like Mancho, and like most Christians. I realized that some things must be interpreted because they are not clear enough, but when you interpret something, don’t be so sure that you interpreted it in the right way.

      They word “Yom” in the original Hebrew translation has 3 meanings, day, age, and era. When translated, translators picked “day” over the other two. This does not mean it is “day” when it could easily be the other two. That is something a literalist can use.

      Interesting argument, but this does not convince me. It does not prove the validity of the Bible.

      Photons were around from the Big Bang before stars were.

      Big Bang is a false theory (just a theory, nothing more) invented by some scientists which wanted to prove this mystical conception from Bible. I’ll just ask you, how could Big Bang happen if there was no space? This is so simple. I cannot understand those physicists which agree on this. This pseudo-scientific theory is also composed of an end of the universe, just like the apocalypse from Bible. The Universe is not created, it cannot be destructed, and it will permanently exists. It is not limited in time and space, it is infinite in any direction. The expansion and contraction of the Universe is just a stupid theory.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d105FgGQgI

      This is just an excuse to Jesus’ ignorance. No proofs. He didn’t even use the inventions of his contemporaries. The Jesus’ divine nature is just a fairy tale. There are no things to demonstrate this. And also, you don’t need the divine nature to invent something. This YouTube video tells us that he did nothing because he was also a human being. I am a human being too, and I plan to become an inventor. What’s the difference? Maybe the christian god tells us to be lazy, to do nothing our entire lives and live like an animal, just like in those passages:
      Mathew 6
      25″Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
      28″And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
      Right, I’m a pagan, but I thing we are all pagans, because we need money to live, we need food, we need clothes. And this is the normal way we should live.

      the trinity was implemented in 500 AD, however, that does not mean it is false

      “Implemented” means what? On what basis the trinity concept was implemented?
      This is the ‘revelation’ you’re talking about, like Mancho? This is not a revelation, just a text written by some human beings, and there is no proof that they were inspired by God (I thought that you’d use this argument).

      I love Dawkins, but the God Delusion was a terrible book.

      I am not an atheist, I am a free thinker. I believe in God but not in religions (1. non-religious clinical death experiences connected to the real world; 2. we cannot demonstrate that God does not exist although lots of atheists wish they could). I don’t need a ‘saint’ legend to understand my role on Earth and to believe in God. I’ll always believe in science. Richard Dawkins does a great job in fighting with religions and promoting logical argumentation and thinking, but the atheist belief is not a very good idea. Anyways, God is not important to our evolution. Maybe, in the appropriate or more distant future we’ll understand our role, our apparition on Earth, and what is God from aliens.

      OMG, I should now read that book

      Haha. /sarcasm
      PS: This is a long comment, sorry for the mistakes.

      • Mancho

        @SB “Old Testament people were killed because this was the will of the christian god. “…. “God is not violent.”… “because God is not against progress, and killing somebody is a behavior against progress.”
        You have an interesting notion of what God is.  Let’s take a simple example.  Sodom and Gomorrah.  These cities were by all accounts full of sinners.  God destroyed them.  This shows that God is certainly violent.  It can also be argued that God furthered progress by destroying them.
        Re: Yom… “Interesting argument, but this does not convince me. It does not prove the validity of the Bible.”
        That translation doesn’t by itself prove the validity of the Bible, but it certainly does disprove the validity of your argument.
        Re: Big Bang… You yourself believe that God exists, yet disbelieve that the universe can be created and destroyed.  Interesting.  I’m not sure there’s a worthwhile argument to be had here.
        “He didn’t even use the inventions of his contemporaries.”
        I’m not sure why you’re so hung up on Jesus being an inventor or using inventions.  I’m don’t think it’s particularly relevant.
        “Maybe the christian god tells us to be lazy, to do nothing our entire lives and live like an animal,…”
        Matthew 6, particularly this part, is pretty good.  I’m not sure how you see this as telling you to do nothing.  It says don’t worry. “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”  I don’t see any suggestion there that you should do nothing.  Contrary to popular belief, you don’t have to have money to live.
        ““Implemented” means what? On what basis the trinity concept was implemented?
        This is the ‘revelation’ you’re talking about, like Mancho?”
        I’m not particularly enthusiastic about the word “implemented”.  I in no way pointed to any particular document when discussing the trinity.  You did.  I said the trinity was revealed.  The document you link to is not a revelation; it merely states the position of the Church on the trinity.  I’m not quite sure why you reference it.  The trinity was revealed to us through scripture.  There is only one God. If Jesus was the divine son of God, being divine he must also be God.  And what about the holy spirit?  Also being divine he/she/it must also be God.  Since there is only one God, then God must be three persons.  Seems simple enough, but I’m sure it gives theologists some headaches.
        I, too, believe in science.  The problem I have is with scientists who think they can prove or disprove God. (Please don’t take this to mean that this is what I think you are doing.)  Sometimes we take what we logically know and try to apply this to God.  That’s one of the tricky matters of faith.  God, if He is truly omniscient and omnipotent, is not bound by logic.  He can create a rock that cannot be lifted and lift it anyways.
         
        I appreciate the discourse.  I won’t ask you to believe as I do, but I do hope you’ll keep an open mind and consider the things I’ve said, just as I’ll consider yours.

      • Daniel Hendrycks

        It is late as I am reading this, so hopefully I’ll remember to respond tomorrow. I would like to respond to a few things I saw through skimming.
        “I believe in God but not in religions”
        Deist? I once was a Deist! :D
        “but the atheist belief is not a very good idea.”
        +1 By definition, they would have to give an argument against God. Nonreligious does not make you have to carry the burden of evidence.
        “Richard Dawkins does a great job in fighting with religions”
        +1, fundies, mostly
        “and promoting logical argumentation”
        -1 !!!
        “and there is no proof that they were inspired by God”
        “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.”- Dr. Alexander Vilenkin
        Although, I would have to look farther into things to find evidence.

      • SB

        @Mancho

        You have an interesting notion of what God is.

        My notion of God: God is a hyperconsciousness, demonstrable by science, and he is perfect through all means. I also don’t believe that God is active over the entire Universe, but rather only on our planet or solar system.

        Let’s take a simple example.  Sodom and Gomorrah.  These cities were by all accounts full of sinners.  God destroyed them.  This shows that God is certainly violent.  It can also be argued that God furthered progress by destroying them.

        I call the god which is talked about in Bible as the christian god, not simply God, because I don’t want to make confusions, so for me, your affirmations are not about God, but about christian god. (You use the word God with the sense of the christian god because this is your belief)

        That translation doesn’t by itself prove the validity of the Bible, but it certainly does disprove the validity of your argument.

        You’re right, at least in this moment. Maybe in the future I’ll research more and find out that I was right :P.. you never know..

        Re: Big Bang… You yourself believe that God exists, yet disbelieve that the universe can be created and destroyed.  Interesting.  I’m not sure there’s a worthwhile argument to be had here.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB1B42HYvZg
        5:29 – 6:00 is the interesting part. This may be true and may only be applied to the matter, not to space, but the current Big Bang theory is false. God doesn’t have to be the the creator the Universe to be God.

        I’m not sure why you’re so hung up on Jesus being an inventor or using inventions.  I’m don’t think it’s particularly relevant.

        He didn’t even used the inventions of his contemporaries. He didn’t teach us one little scientific truth. He didn’t do anything for the world. The moral values he teach were very insignificant and limited. This does not demonstrate that bible is false, but rather that Jesus was just a nationalist, nothing more. If we didn’t knew nothing about Jesus and we’d read Bible, we wouldn’t become Christians.

        Contrary to popular belief, you don’t have to have money to live.

        You can live without money, just like an animal. God doesn’t wish us to be animals.

        “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”

        God gave you food and clothes? Cool.

        The trinity was revealed to us through scripture. There is only one God. If Jesus was the divine son of God, being divine he must also be God.  And what about the holy spirit?  Also being divine he/she/it must also be God.  Since there is only one God, then God must be three persons.

        Has Jesus talked about trinity in his life, in Bible? Is that word anywhere in Bible? The Church invented this concept, probably to explain the plural forms used in the Genesis, for example.

        He is truly omniscient and omnipotent, is not bound by logic.

        If he is omniscient and omnipotent, he knows that he must become somewhat logic so he can be understood by people.

        I appreciate the discourse.  I won’t ask you to believe as I do, but I do hope you’ll keep an open mind and consider the things I’ve said, just as I’ll consider yours.

        I’ll always keep an open mind. This is why we are human beings, to progress and to be open to change. If there is enough proof, I’ll become a Christian, but I don’t think this will happen too soon.
        @Daniel

        Deist? I once was a Deist! :D

        Something like this, but I have more complex conceptions. I call me a free thinker.

        +1 By definition, they would have to give an argument against God

        The correct atheist say that most probably God does not exist.

        “and promoting logical argumentation”
        -1 !!!

        They promote science..

        “and there is no proof that they were inspired by God”
        “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.”- Dr. Alexander Vilenkin

        Then there is no argument for this. Sorry for the mistake.

        Although, I would have to look farther into things to find evidence.

        You’re right in this case, but I don’t believe in Bible because I see no argument to explain why Bible is true. There is no argument to demonstrate that the resurrection of Jesus was true and so on. When I interpret Bible I try to be as neutral as I can. I agree that Jesus really said some good things, but he also said some horrible things which I already talked about. I am sure that the moral values and standards of today don’t come from Bible, but rather from the psychologists and sociologists who know that the future of humanity depends on the moral education of children.
        PS: I hope this comment looks OK, because I had some problems with the comment editor. I’d like to be able to edit the HTML source of my comments.

    • SB

      PPS: If you really want, I’ll never use in our discussion the terms ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘wrong’ etc. but I’ll use ‘against progress’ and ‘for progress’ or ‘progressive behavior’. Just tell me. For any normal human being this should be easily understandable.
      For those who hate this argumentation on this web site about web browser:  A global discussion between religious leaders and those with other belief systems is not organized because there is the interest to keep the population confused. Don’t blame me, or those with which I discuss. These discussions are needed.

  • Adam

    well, IE6 did make IE the least popular browser to use….
    weird story, but yet true