Why Are People So Critical About Christian Beliefs

[Ceannairceach]

I get your point, I'm not sure if you get ours. Again I ask: Where did God come from?

He always was, always is, and always will be. Case and point. He was before everything else. He made everything, including us. He knew we would have this discussion, you wouldn't believe, and he sees the future. He sees the terrible things that will happen to unsaved sinners.

Really? The worst any sinner, believer or not, would get, he told me, is a few decades/centuries worth of service to the pure of heart and mind.

[Avenio]

How was that created?

Gravity. Clouds of molecular hydrogen were most likely present at the formation of the galaxies, and were drawn into them when they formed. Besides which, hydrogen, the primary component of molecular clouds, is the most common element in the universe, formed during the epoch of primordial nucleosynthesis. It's almost everywhere.

[Demen]

I get your point, I'm not sure if you get ours. Again I ask: Where did God come from?

He always was, always is, and always will be. Case and point. He was before everything else. He made everything, including us. He knew we would have this discussion, you wouldn't believe, and he sees the future. He sees the terrible things that will happen to unsaved sinners.

Of course, I was baptised.



Bitch.

[Norstal]

How was that created?

Gravity. Clouds of molecular hydrogen were most likely present at the formation of the galaxies, and were drawn into them when they formed. Besides which, hydrogen, the primary component of molecular clouds, is the most common element in the universe, formed during the epoch of primordial nucleosynthesis.

You realize they're not gonna stop right?

[Syvorji]

They are critical because of the fringe sects. If the fringe sects did not exist, then, we won't be so critical, and imperialism from the USA won't exist.

[Norstal]

He always was, always is, and always will be. Case and point. He was before everything else. He made everything, including us. He knew we would have this discussion, you wouldn't believe, and he sees the future. He sees the terrible things that will happen to unsaved sinners.

Did you just passed a judgement that only God can make?

Congrats, you're a hypocritical Christian!

[Bitchkitten]

By the way, what happened to open mindedness? Why does Christianity have to be questioned all the time?

How ironic.

[Ceannairceach]

They are critical because of the fringe sects. If the fringe sects did not exist, then, we won't be so critical, and imperialism from the USA won't exist.

Dear Leader! Long time no see. Sorry I couldn't get you all of Korea like you asked, but I assume Best Korea is enough?

[Ceannairceach]

He always was, always is, and always will be. Case and point. He was before everything else. He made everything, including us. He knew we would have this discussion, you wouldn't believe, and he sees the future. He sees the terrible things that will happen to unsaved sinners.

Did you just passed a judgement that only God can make?

Congrats, you're a hypocritical Christian!

To quote the amazing book, The Kite Runner, there is but one sin: The sin of thievery. And he has just stolen the judgement that is gifted to God and God alone.

[Syvorji]

They are critical because of the fringe sects. If the fringe sects did not exist, then, we won't be so critical, and imperialism from the USA won't exist.

Dear Leader! Long time no see. Sorry I couldn't get you all of Korea like you asked, but I assume Best Korea is enough?

Yes, but that is another topic for another thread, comrade. But still, imperialism exists due to fringe sects. After all, the USA was set up because it is a fringe Christian sect.

Congrats, you're a hypocritical Christian!

Sigged.

[Samuraikoku]

He always was, always is, and always will be. Case and point. He was before everything else. He made everything, including us. He knew we would have this discussion, you wouldn't believe, and he sees the future. He sees the terrible things that will happen to unsaved sinners.

I'm still not scared. It will take more than your Bible and your unholy zeal to make a Samurai flinch.

Anyway, I must bid you good night for today, but I shall return tomorrow if the battle rages on.

Sayonara!

[Distruzio]

I get your point, I'm not sure if you get ours. Again I ask: Where did God come from?

He always was, always is, and always will be. Case and point. He was before everything else. He made everything, including us. He knew we would have this discussion, you wouldn't believe, and he sees the future. He sees the terrible things that will happen to unsaved sinners.

I for one am pleased that you acknowledge that there are saved sinners, although I disagree that salvation is a one time event to have happened sometime in the past.

[Ceannairceach]

He always was, always is, and always will be. Case and point. He was before everything else. He made everything, including us. He knew we would have this discussion, you wouldn't believe, and he sees the future. He sees the terrible things that will happen to unsaved sinners.

I for one am pleased that you acknowledge that there are saved sinners, although I disagree that salvation is a one time event to have happened sometime in the past.

For sooth, all men are saved upon death, be them sinners or not; Whether they continued to sin despite my holy liberation or not, they shall all enter the Kingdom of Heaven. As guests or as servants, all shall sit at my right hand, as I sit at the right hand of the father.

[Dyakovo]

Fixed.

So do most people really.

I don't.

[Bluth Corporation]

I get your point, I'm not sure if you get ours. Again I ask: Where did God come from?

He always was, always is, and always will be. Case and point. He was before everything else. He made everything, including us. He knew we would have this discussion, you wouldn't believe, and he sees the future. He sees the terrible things that will happen to unsaved sinners.

Why are people talking about a non-existent deity? I thought this was a thread about Christianity; gods have nothing to do with Christianity.

[Orcoa]

I for one am pleased that you acknowledge that there are saved sinners, although I disagree that salvation is a one time event to have happened sometime in the past.

For sooth, all men are saved upon death, be them sinners or not; Whether they continued to sin despite my holy liberation or not, they shall all enter the Kingdom of Heaven. As guests or as servants, all shall sit at my right hand, as I sit at the right hand of the father.

Amen to this

[Dyakovo]

Agnosticism is Atheism without balls; its essentially the fancy way of saying WTF? IDK! I quit! I TAKE NO SIDES!

Are you trolling? Atheism isn't that intellectual of a position, it's almost as much of an assertion as theism is. Agnosticism is not making any assertions.

How is "lacking belief in a deity" as much of an assertion as theism?

[Ceannairceach]

He always was, always is, and always will be. Case and point. He was before everything else. He made everything, including us. He knew we would have this discussion, you wouldn't believe, and he sees the future. He sees the terrible things that will happen to unsaved sinners.

Why are people talking about a non-existent deity? I thought this was a thread about Christianity; gods have nothing to do with Christianity.

*Shrugs* It depends on who you ask.

[Dyakovo]

Then link to it.


Go look at Terra Agora's post.


What happened to academic honesty?


Because I can?


Line 1: NullPointerException

1. Find them yourself if you're so heavyset against it.
2. Still factually correct.
3. Honesty is the truth, which has been the only thing to come across my mouth.
4. I can question things too. What is your belief based on?
5. What?

1: You made the claim. It is your responsibility to back it up.
2: No, not factually correct.
3: Other than the lies you've posted...
4: And yet you apparently don't...
5:

When you declare a reference variable (i.e. an object) you are really creating a pointer to an object. Consider the following code where you declare a variable of primitive type int:

int x;
x = 10;
In this example the variable x is an integer and Java will initialize it to 0 for you. When you assign it to 10 in the second line your value 10 is written into the memory location pointed to by x.

But, when you try to declare a reference type something different happens. Take the following code:

Integer num;
num = new Integer(10);
The first line declare a variable named num, but, it does not contain a primitive value. Instead it contains a pointer (because the type is Integer which is a reference type). Since you did not say as yet what to point to Java sets it to null, meaning "I am pointing at nothing".

In the second line the new keyword is used to instantiate (or create) an object of type Integer and the pointer variable num is assigned this object. You can now reference the object using the dereferencing operator . (a dot).

The Exception that you asked about occurs when you declare a variable but did not create an object. If you attempt to dereference num BEFORE creating the object you get a NullPointerException. In the most trivial cases the compiler will catch the problem and let you know that "num may not have been initialized" but sometime you write code that does not directly create the object.

For instance you may have a method as follows:

public void doSomething(Integer num){
//do something to num
}
in which case you are not creating the object num, rather assuming that is was created before the doSomething method was called. Unfortunately it is possible to call the method like this:

doSomething(null);
In which case num is null. The best way to avoid this type of exception is to always check for null when you did not create the object yourself. So doSomething should be re-written as:

public void doSomething(Integer num){
if(num != null){
//do something to num
}
}

[AETEN II]

Meh, I always have just thought of God as an uber-complicated extra-dimensional being which is beyond understandting or thought, and since he likely heralds from something above the fourth dimension, he's just to fucking complicated to describe. Everytime we try to desccribe such a being we would likley fail. Would be like a creature from the second dimension trying to describe us.

[Distruzio]

I for one am pleased that you acknowledge that there are saved sinners, although I disagree that salvation is a one time event to have happened sometime in the past.

For sooth, all men are saved upon death, be them sinners or not; Whether they continued to sin despite my holy liberation or not, they shall all enter the Kingdom of Heaven. As guests or as servants, all shall sit at my right hand, as I sit at the right hand of the father.

I'm no universalist.

[Dododecapod]

I'm critical becuause so very many Christians keep shovng their religion in my face. I honestly do not give a damn what you or anyone believes; but when you or anyone else puts it where I can't ignore it (on my lawn, in the courthouse I have to go to to get papers filed, in my workplace or where I shop) then yeah, it's VERY FREAKING ANNOYING. Plus, if you shove it out in the public arena, then what you believe is fair game.
Almost as bad is the hypocrisy. Christians make many claims to the moral high ground, but when it comes to actually putting themselves out to do the right thing? I think a good example has just occurred. Take a look at this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/never_trust_a_christian.php

[Norstal]

5:

When you declare a reference variable (i.e. an object) you are really creating a pointer to an object. Consider the following code where you declare a variable of primitive type int:

int x;
x = 10;
In this example the variable x is an integer and Java will initialize it to 0 for you. When you assign it to 10 in the second line your value 10 is written into the memory location pointed to by x.

But, when you try to declare a reference type something different happens. Take the following code:

Integer num;
num = new Integer(10);
The first line declare a variable named num, but, it does not contain a primitive value. Instead it contains a pointer (because the type is Integer which is a reference type). Since you did not say as yet what to point to Java sets it to null, meaning "I am pointing at nothing".

In the second line the new keyword is used to instantiate (or create) an object of type Integer and the pointer variable num is assigned this object. You can now reference the object using the dereferencing operator . (a dot).

The Exception that you asked about occurs when you declare a variable but did not create an object. If you attempt to dereference num BEFORE creating the object you get a NullPointerException. In the most trivial cases the compiler will catch the problem and let you know that "num may not have been initialized" but sometime you write code that does not directly create the object.

For instance you may have a method as follows:

public void doSomething(Integer num){
//do something to num
}
in which case you are not creating the object num, rather assuming that is was created before the doSomething method was called. Unfortunately it is possible to call the method like this:

doSomething(null);
In which case num is null. The best way to avoid this type of exception is to always check for null when you did not create the object yourself. So doSomething should be re-written as:

public void doSomething(Integer num){
if(num != null){
//do something to num
}
}

Dyakovo is full of win. A cargo of cookies will be dropped at your location shortly.

[Dyakovo]

5:

When you declare a reference variable (i.e. an object) you are really creating a pointer to an object. Consider the following code where you declare a variable of primitive type int:

int x;
x = 10;
In this example the variable x is an integer and Java will initialize it to 0 for you. When you assign it to 10 in the second line your value 10 is written into the memory location pointed to by x.

But, when you try to declare a reference type something different happens. Take the following code:

Integer num;
num = new Integer(10);
The first line declare a variable named num, but, it does not contain a primitive value. Instead it contains a pointer (because the type is Integer which is a reference type). Since you did not say as yet what to point to Java sets it to null, meaning "I am pointing at nothing".

In the second line the new keyword is used to instantiate (or create) an object of type Integer and the pointer variable num is assigned this object. You can now reference the object using the dereferencing operator . (a dot).

The Exception that you asked about occurs when you declare a variable but did not create an object. If you attempt to dereference num BEFORE creating the object you get a NullPointerException. In the most trivial cases the compiler will catch the problem and let you know that "num may not have been initialized" but sometime you write code that does not directly create the object.

For instance you may have a method as follows:

public void doSomething(Integer num){
//do something to num
}
in which case you are not creating the object num, rather assuming that is was created before the doSomething method was called. Unfortunately it is possible to call the method like this:

doSomething(null);
In which case num is null. The best way to avoid this type of exception is to always check for null when you did not create the object yourself. So doSomething should be re-written as:

public void doSomething(Integer num){
if(num != null){
//do something to num
}
}

Dyakovo is full of win.

That's a given.
*nods*

A cargo of cookies will be dropped at your location shortly.

Oreos?

[The Imperial Shard]

Meh, I always have just thought of God as an uber-complicated extra-dimensional being which is beyond understandting or thought, and since he likely heralds from something above the fourth dimension, he's just to fucking complicated to describe. Everytime we try to desccribe such a being we would likley fail. Would be like a creature from the second dimension trying to describe us.

I've sorta always imagined that god to us is like comparing a human to an ant.

And how much do humans care about ants?