metadigital

Man I still remember I was even planning on flying the concord over the watch Episode 1 at the world premier in New York. Sure glad I thought twice about that. Sheesh -- can you imagine?

No hurry: I enjoy a meaningful exchange of ideas, as opposed to a violent exchange of expletives. "Drop you off"? Where does it -- The Force -- go? For a take-away and a beer? Catch a late movie? Or does it sit by and take notes, waiting to step in in case the individual screws up ... Think about it and get back to me when you've got more time. Cheers.

I agree up to the predetermined destination. It can only lead you to 'peaks', but then you must chose which mountain range to travel. It can, through your actions, lead you to an important point in time, and drop you off to choose. I suppose that it is just like a guiding hand in that aspect. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay, but to faciliate discussion you have to be clearer. What do you mean by "lead"? Is it choosing how to appear to an individual? Given two beings in the same situation, will The Force act differently (capriciously) according to some internal (to The Force) Will -- or whimsey, or compass of its own? And secondly, what do you mean by "drop you off"?

this has probably been mentioned .. but I'm too lazy to search 6 pages to see if that was the case.. [1] first of all, just because, or even if, the Force has a will doesn't mean it's ultimately evil or good .. it can be both or neither! [2] That argument is false .. since God may just as well not care, or ultimately let the decision belong to the human in question! if you choose to be evil you must face the consequence .. he still punishes you at the end, hence he is not without power to control you! you can't escape your ultimate destiny in Christianity .. it's either Heaven or Hell at the hand of God.. [3] unless you view it like, since God is all knowing everything must be predetermined .. hence there is no free will! but since every decision can have a multiple outcomes, you can also just say that God can see every outcome, and let's the ultimate decision be up to you .. hence you have a free will and God is still omniscient.. [4]I believe that the Force in SW is intented like the guiding hand .. the one that grants you the power to change your world .. and has a destiny for you that you can approach in different ways! so it's like a predetermined destination, that you can travel to by which ever road you like! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Some interesting points. 1. This is entirely valid, although an apathetic god seems banal. And it doesn't remove the possiblity of the super-being taking control whenever and however, for whatever reason. (This is a world-view similar to the capricious Ancient Greek pantheon.) 2. Not necessarily true. Rasputin believed, for one example -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- that one should commit heinous acts of defilement for God to forgive you (sort of celestial exercise workout: no pain no gain!). Also, one of the differences between the Anglican and Catholic dogma is that Catholics must actively repent; Anglicans are "automatically saved" for just believing in Jesus Christ. And the existence of Hell is theologically problematic, anyway: see the Epicurean Paradox. And what about this Forcce (capital "F") -- does it have feelings, desires, goals, aspirations (for self acutalisation, for example)? And how are they expressed? Are they compatible with ours, or even comprehensible to us? 3. Exactly! But if we allow for Free Will (for us mortals) then it is possible to oppose God (however foolish than might be...!) 4. This is more interesting ... please expand a bit. How does The Force guide you? Is it like a compass, that one refers to in order to travel to one's destination? Or is it a bit like, say, gravity -- even if you jump out of a plane at 15000 feet upside down, it will act on every particle of your body with uniform acceleration towards all bodies in a ratio with their mass and inversely with the square of their distance apart? (Such that you will travel at 9.8m/s/s towards planet Earth, which is rotating 1000km/k, and orbited/orbiting around the next most significant gravitational objects: the Moon and the Sun, etc.)

[1]Here is a nice short post for you. Once again, you show your ignorance. Only one authority in Judea had the right to order an excecution, the Romans. Also, if you were more informed, you would have be aware that the Jewish leaders plotted several times to kill Jesus, yet feared the people. Finally, they were able to convince the Romans to do it, albeit grudgingly. Evidence that I am right: Primary sources written by eyewitnesses. Evidence that you are right: ...? Your really just a cynic at heart. [2]I do find your fist shaking at God humorously intriguing, almost as much as your mocking tone. I doubt you will be swayed by reason, seeing as you are entrenched in your own delusion. I also doubt you will let me have the last word in this argument, but no matter. I have enjoyed the exchange, despite the hostility (on both our parts), and am thankful for the freedom to live peacefully alongside people who are quite convinced everything I stand for is either a lie or delusion! Have your last word if you will, and/or call my weariness for further debate a crushing defeat, I leave that to you. As for The Force, let the debate continue... Das Vydanya <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. You agree with me and contradict yourself in the same sentence. Are you seriously saying that the Jewish leadership couldn't have people stoned? (It is reasonable that the fear of the public backlash might have caused them pause for thought), but the fact remains that crucifixion was a Roman punishment ... but I'd be interested to know what the Egyption papyrus version of events is .... " 2. Quite right! "I disgree with what you say, but I defend, to the death, your right to say it," as Francois Marie Arouet VOLTAIRE said. And I never said you believe in a lie or that you are delusional ... I merely am stating (uncomfortable) evidence that I have found in my travels through this world. I welcome any clarity you can provide, but remember religion does not require proof (it wouldn't be religion, then: it would be science!) Oh, and you bet I'm a (cynical) skeptic (two Ancient Greek philosophers, co-incindentally). My method is to try to disprove a propostiion. If I fail, and fail to prove the converse, then logically the hypothesis stands. (I went to Moscow and Leningrad (as it was then, St Petersburg, now) before I went to university -- back before the 1980 Moscow Olympics, in fact.)

What's "nature," exactly? It has a will? Woah. Sounds bold. (rock analogy? Ah, found it, first page. Don't see what's up with "nature" and its "will" though.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> By this logic, gravity has a will: to attract all bodies according to their mass (an intrinsic qulity of all material things in our universe) and the inverse square of their distance apart. Do you see? I am not disagreeing with you, mind. I am just saying that your proposition rejects the notion that The Force (capital "F") has a Will (definition 1.a). By definition, to have a Will directly implies some sort of sentience. To exercise will means to exercise a choice: otherwise it is a reflex, Newtonian "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" phenomena. You are using "will" (small "w") as a synonym for the intrinsic, defining component of the force. In effect you are saying "The force (small "f") has a force that acts on things." You aren't really adding any clarity. If I understand Kreia correctly, she has identified that The Force makes choices about how it applies force (small or captial "f"!). That is what defines a will. (Think of willpower.) Perhaps some might choose, like her, to oppose that will.

So these Thetans (were they the big dudes in that terrible movieL Batlefield Earth?) are actually sentient beings? Large, multi-cellular organisms with their own politics and culture, their own moral compass and desires for the universe? And they control us? Have I got this right? I would just apply the old Occham's Razor to that over-complicated mess. Why is it necessary to invent another type of organism? And what is the difference between these beings and a generalistic polytheism, like Hinduism -- numbers? (Occham's razor tells us it is logically unsound to have a god, let alone lots of them. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist: it means you require faith to believe.) I also agree it is morally ambiguous ... but then again the same can be said for montheism in general: does evil exist as a consequence of free choice, for the greater good -- or is it a symptom of a malevolent super-being? I can't answer that. I do, however, much prefer the thought that The Force is just a force (small "f") that acts on every particle of matter (and therefore all energy) equally -- just like gravity.

Don't tell me ... you grew up watching "Ekok Adventure" cartoons and movies ...

What are you talking about? The forums have always looked like this. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's what I thought. The Ministry of Information is authoritative. Doubleplus good. :D

I believe "Shogun" features such puzzles. It's an oldish Infocom/Legend adventure (written by the author of the novel) that involves figuring out Japanese grammar. I never played it but www.theunderdogs.org gave it a very good review. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yep, a little better than the standard "Towers of Hanoi" -- I think I can do that in about ten seconds. If I had to, I would say Jawas. If only because they say what they say quickly, and don't bore me to death whilst I wait for them to finish (frantically pressing the space bar), like when the Selkath or Ithorians speak. <_<

Incredibly Childish? Hardly....succombed to the dark side of Internet slang from playing too much jka? Indeed. And I was not aware that I was apart of a "professional debate", so excuse me for using slang and apparently not understanding what I'm talking about. I merely saw a post, so I decided to jump in and contribute to the conversation. I was under the impression that this was a forum about videogames, not a place for you to re-live the debating days of your youth... And as to my knowledge of this subject matter, I don't specialise in it, not at all, but I have read books by, and met, a much more informed and intelligent man than you, on this subject. You may have heard of him, if you truly study this stuff out, maybe not. Douglas Jacoby. You should look him up and research some of his material. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Apology accepted.

Everyone that reads this thread. please read the above post about 8 or 9 times before posting. I mean, how many times must this be said? Chris Avellone himself has already said, the patch will only fix the bugs. That's it. The patch will only fix technical issues. The patch will only fix technical issues. The patch will only fix technical issues. The patch will only fix technical issues. The patch will only fix technical issues. Also, the patch will only fix technical issues. Edit: The patch will only fix technical issues. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not sure what you mean. I heard that the patch will be fixing the technical issues only. "

It is the third party's luxury to choose which of the two debaters he will side with. He was responding negatively to a very obvious flaw in your argument, which I will point out now. I was attempting to minimise the noise on this channel. I have no problem with third parties joining the debate -- for or against me -- I have a problem with people saying "Yeah! So there!", because it adds nothing to the debate. 1) Your "nearly a century" is closer to 50-60 years (c30 AD - c90 AD), and is while one of the 12 disciples is still alive. Not even to mention the other eyewitnesses who would be old, but still living. a. You are splitting hairs. Where are the acounts of the remainign 11 disciples? Are they missing? Or perhaps they couldn't write, hmm? Memory is totally subjective -- check any Cognitive Psychology textbook. And what about the time period up until Constantine I revoked the Death sentence for Christians (see f, below). And the contradictions in the Gospels. And the "unofficial" non-canonical Gospels that were conveniently edited out at the Nicaean Council. b. And what about Mary's Gospel? (The rivalry between Peter and Mary, and Peter's politcal ambition causing the entrenched sexism in the Church.) I assume you have read this in your Bible studies, yet most of the billion or so Christians are totally ignorant of it. Your argument requires that all of the conflicts of editors and authors be known and understood by the entire audience. Which is patently false nonsense. Because the Church is telling people what it wants them to hear. c. Are you ruling out the possibility of no hidden agenda? That to me seems more irrational than me suggesting it might be a possibility. I am building a deductive logic argument based on the established evidence to diagnose a pattern: i.e. keeping the "message" hidden so the Church can tell it. d. And I haven't even mentioned the actual historical (and political) underpinnings of the protagonist (Jesus Christ) as it related to the contemporary society (Jewish resistence to the Roman occupation of Judea), which is commonly understood by the clergy but again not divulged to the laity. Or the Roman bias that leads modern Christians to mistakenly believe the Jewish political leaders wanted Jesus killed, and Pontius Pilate was just fulfilling their wishes. (The Jewish Rabis could have anyone stoned: it was their rite. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, for politcal activists. Remember Spartacus?) This is, in fact, a deathblow to your point. Every citizen of the Roman Empire from Spain to Egypt spoke greek. All they would have needed was either the ability to read, or to hear someone reading it out if they could not. It was not in a foreign language, it was written in the trade-language of the Roman Empire. So collapses your entire argument. It was readily avaliable. No, it is not. e. Most people couldn't read. Who read it out? The preists: exactly what the Roman Cathoilc Church (which was the Western Christian orthodoxy: that's what "catholic" means) wanted them to hear. (If this was different in Eastern Churches, like Russian Orthodox, then I wouldn't know.) (Vide sub, points g, h & i.) That was part of Martin Luthur's point with his 95 Theses which spurred the Protestant Reformation. (He subsequently translated the complete Bible into German in 1534 so everyone could read it). f. If you want to talk about the Roman Empire, Christianity was outlawed until Constantine The Great convoked the Council of Nicaea (325CE). Not a lot of scripture reading at this time, then. Why would eyewitnesses readily believe the message of the Disciples if they knew it was false, convert to a lie, and then die for a lie? I was once a Communist, who believed that Stalin had not caused the deaths of 20 million Ukrainians by starving them to death in the 30's. In 2003, I was able to visit the country. Eyewitnesses reported that there had been a famine, and some of them even admitted to having been the ones who helped spread the famine. I was forced to change my view, because of the eyewitness acounts of dozens and dozens of people I met. When I returned home, the Party I was a member of refused to believe my report, and I was asked to leave the party. Who would you have believed? While I have obvious sympathies for the situation, I would give you a thought: you experienced first hand how an establishment is more interested in the political management of people than The Truth about the human costs of maintaining that system -- especially when it means they keep power. Truth is rarely convenient nor pleasant, especially where human politics is concerned. (Read Machiavelli's il Principe (The Prince) or even George Orwell's Animal Farm.) The Reformation was a rebellion against the established Empire (y'know, the Holy Roman Empire). Oh, btw, I have witnessed the Communist society first hand (before the Berlin Wall came down), which helped me understand why it is a marvelous philosophy in theory but completely fails to manage human frailties concerning (absolute) power and politics. It took between 200 and 400 years for the greek of 100AD to become archaic. Eventually, the bible was translated into medieval German and English among others, just as the Catholic Church began to become more exclusive in who had access to the bible. g. How many common people do you estimate could read? One of the largest libraries in Europe, before Gutenberg's printing press in 1450, had six books in it. How many years did peasant children attend school for? Do you know how many monks -- whose job was to hand copy the texts -- were illiterate? Exactly. That's why it was called the "Dark Ages". h. The Bible was translated into German in 1534 (The King James Bible in 1611 -- for which translation Tyndall was burned at the stake). That's over a thousand years of people being told what the Church wanted to tell them. Authoritarian Popes who made up their own interpretations: heck, some Popes were polygamous! That's why the earlier scrolls are so important, why you are so interested in reading them. Because it skips back to an earlier source, winnowing away yet more layers of "interpretation". And also, co-incidentally, why the Church is tightly controlling the access to the scrolls, letting very few of the many, many people who would like to read them actually see them. (More evidence of that pattern.) Whats your point? It was one translation. There were millions of people who never came into contact with the Latin, and kept the Bible in greek. i. The point is the pattern of instituionalised ignorance propounded by the Church on its laity in order to maintain control of the message (currently referred to as "spin" in politics) and therefore the audience. Which does not support your neat hypothesis that everyone throughout Chritendom's hsitory has always known exactly what happened two millenia ago. How would you explain the chasm of interpretation between conservative and progressive Christian thought? Who is interpreting the Bible incorrectly? If you can honestly answer that then you are brave. Why on earth would you think I had "forgotten" the Qumran Library? Hardly...being able to study those scrolls up close was one of the most memorable moments of my life...I didn't say anything about forgetting them, my friend. You mentioning them was a bit of a "rabbit trail". Vide supra. So did you read Hebrew, Ancient Greek or Aramaic? I must say I admire you language skills, I am restricted primarily to English and ordering coffee in a smattering of other languages. I am surprised you're allowed to talk about your research: I thought the Vatican Secret Service would be onto you! " I'll get to the Genesis part of your argument later. Or, if you prefer, I'll just send a PM. If you prefer the latter, say so. Otherwise I'll keep our discussion in the public eye. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So long as this thread doesn't just become about Christianity. Oh, and try to address only a couple of points in each post: I for one am tired of scrolling through hundreds of lines of text to rebut your mistakes.

You don't have to clone a Jedi. Just the midichlorians. Then use a hypodermic needle to dope the target -- like any medicinal augmentation (e.g. a course of antibiotics, antidepressants or even daily vitamins and cups of coffee for caffeine). They could even make 'em into a patch, like a quit-smoking nicotine one, or an implant. :D

Didn't Vandar bite the dust if you played DS for KoTOR? He was with the fleet right? Hmm, it would seem that with the exception of vrook, all the other old foggies from Dantooine croaked. Shame about Zhar though, I thought he was a better Jedi Master than Kavar. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shame that Vrook survived. He was as whiney as Carth. "

Ditto. I have no problem with subtle, complex or even hidden story components or truculent NPCs that have to be handled in careful ways to extract the most information from them (cf. that FPS where you torture villians with bandsaws to obtain information .... yeah, very compelling -- NOT). The problem was the ending: assuming it was due to the publishing deadline (and evidence seems to suggest this is the best assessment), a few more months to add the omitted material (found on the game discs) would have made all the difference. I really lost interest in replaying the game due to the long, linear beginning and end (which also suffered from quite poor direction). Then all the subtlies and complexities would have been a joy to find. (w00t) Contrary to some peoples' assertions on these boards, I thought KotOR (the original) was a brilliant game (one of the best); only the limited scope of the game eventually exhausted the replayability when I was beginning to know each and every dialogue tree and corresponding responses! I was waiting for the promised new, larger scope of KotOR2 to allow me to explore and replay and replay some more. :D What we got was not up to the task. And it so easily could have been. Which is the shame of it all.

First, the fish isn't in the droid factory, it is on the droid planet. Second, the Hurrikaine crystal can now be found as a normal item on a corpse if your level is high enough. It does damage +1-8 unstoppable. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So how do you get to the Droid Planet? Take a left at the Telos bunker and keep going until morning? " Oh, and it looks nothing like a Firaxis Shark, big or little. It looks like a Dodo sitting on a big egg. (Or maybe it's got hemorrhoids ...)

Existentialism was an example, not related to the "infinite universes", or "multiverse" philosophy. And I didn't say SW was a multiverse -- I said you can't rule it out because it has never even been discussed (and probably never will :D ). I know you subscribe to the traditional Force definition, as first espoused in the OT: a simple, one-dimensional force (small "f"). You don't have to keep re-iterating that. I got it. The first time. But, if we are to believe what Kreia / Atris in KotOR2, for arguments sake, then we must try to elucidate the NEW description of The Force and the universe/multiverse it requires to exist. As long as this new description doesn't contradict established SW laws, then it is acceptable. And as no specifics were discussed in the OT, we can safely create any construct without fear of contradiction! :D

Other: Me. I can knock together a couple of JPegs sandwiched between a few (hundred) pages of dialogue that you read through pressing "Next". And I'll do it for the lowest bid, AND I'll do it in less than twelve months.

AFAIK Scientology is popular amongst the celebrities due to the socialogical rigor imposed on the laity: no franternising! -- nothing to do with the theological components. It doesn't surprise me that Midichlorians (such a lame idea) are similar to Thetans. Isn't the whole doctrine of Scientology based on the theory that the population of the Earth are decendants of a penal colony from the outlawed members of some distant civilization, or some such nonsense?

I'll start with whats on topic. To your knowledge, is KOTOR 2 considered canonical (sp?) by Lucas? I honestly don't know. It seems that The Force changed drastically with the new trilogy. I don't think the OT made any mention of "the will of The Force, did it? I guess I'm a little confused as to what Lucas actually thinks the force is. Are you familiar with Scientology and their beliefs? If so, do you see a similarity between their understanding of Thetans and your opinion of how a "will of The Force" would operate? Just curious. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is KotOR2 canonical? I would have to assume it has to be. I believe the autheticity becomes less certain as you include material authored further from the source (a bit like the Bible ... sorry, couldn't resist). Yep, AFAIK in the OT The Force was just a cosmic force (small "f"). A lot changed in the new trilogy -- Ninja and occidental (single-handed/dual-wielding) combat styles -- and the identification of the genetic component of Force Sensitives(midichlorines -- a very bad idea IMO, what's to stop a Kamino from genetically engineering a "super-chosen-one"?). And yes, I would tend to agree it does appear that Lucas has -- erm -- "improved" his definition of The Force. I am only modestly familiar with the Scientology "religion". I have read a few L. Ron Hubbard novels (and a devotee once tried to psycho-analyse and conscript me into the cult). I can tell you that Hubbard hated Psychologists and co-opted a lot of their techniques to profile people and give them what they wanted as a religious experience. I also know that the "Holy Scriptures" are copyright and not for general discussion in the public domain, because of the court case made famous on the internet a few years ago between the Church and a disgruntled member. (What have they got to hide?) So, no, I don't know about Thetans. Do you?

Man you are incredibly childish. 1. I use internet hyperlinks to illustrate points because it is a little difficult to hyperlink the King James Bible. I, too, have read the Bible and completed many years of theological and philosophical studies (including at university level). I didn't think I'd have to display my credentials to have a philosophical debate about the ontological underpinnings of Star Wars, and nor would I expect others to do so, but I have to wonder what study you have completed, based on your suppositions and apparent grasp of logic, English and debating skills. 2. Attempting to gang up on me, saying "Yeah, What he said," doesn't intimidate me. Get a brain and join the debate, or stop embarrassing yourself and keep quiet. 3. To aid your reading comprehension, let me remind you that FaramirK just agreed with me that one of the earliest Gospel records was nearly a century after the stated events. And, of course this is all tangential to my original point, which was that very few of the audience could actually read first hand what the scriptures said, because it was in a foreign language and based on a idealised re-creation of the actual events. Not that many medieval europeans were conversant in ancient Greek, even if they had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls that were discovered in the early 20th Century. And as for the Gospels being written in Latin, the Roman Catholic Bible was latin until 1968. Oh, btw, you're forgeting the Qumran Library, which was written in Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic between 300-68BCE, which is a little more relevant to our Old Testament discussion. 4. Now, the two creation myths in Genesis. The first is given in Genesis 1: 1-2:4 while the second is given in Genesis 2: 4-24. These two stories are actually different (mutually exclusive accounts). According to the first creation story the whole universe was made in six days, while on the seventh day, God rested. The table below gives the order of creation as described in those verses: Day Relevant Verses Things CreatedOne Genesis 1:1-5 Light Two Genesis 1:6-8

I am accommodating your petty and pedicular attitude. If you bothered to follow the link, you would see that "Judeo-Christian" has been used by theologians to describe the Abrahamic faiths, in addition to the term "Abrahamic Faiths", but -- ironically -- various hard-line right wing conservative Christians have tried to sabotage all talk of commonalities between the faiths as pandering to Islamic fundamentalism. (Which, I believe is exactly opposite what you said.) The seven day cycle includes the rest day. Shorthand. So I didn't have to go into this level of detail. Call it a Six Day Creation and One Rest Day if you want. Or are you arguing that there were Six Days of Cretion and then an indeterminate period of days? No, I thought not. So it's a seven day cycle: the week. An analogy for the people to follow in the daily lives. I don't generally talk about the Six Day week, but maybe you do. /sarcasm Then again, you were arguing that Exodus was actually based on a historical event. (I'll put to the side that you were nit picking a subject that wasn't central to the thread because you had nothing to say about it.) Well, the approximate time the story was written, if you cross reference with Egyption political history, is about 1500BCE. As I stated briefly, a migration of tens of thousands of people across the desert would have left evidence that would still be visible today. (There is evidence from before this time in the same geographical area, from smaller groups people. Things like the remains of campfires.) There is no evidence to support the actual, physical migration. And as I have explained, the metaphor of Exodus was to give the people a contrast of why monotheism was better than the polytheism practised up until that point. Can you follow the analogy, or would you like me to explain it again for you? I was actually thinking English wasn't your first language, and that I should have cut you a bit more slack. I see, in fact, that you are just immature -- "I know you are, but what am I?" -- great comeback. What, exactly, are my misconceptions? I was referring to your seemingly endless re-iteration of the same question, even though I had explained it many times over. Remeber the whole Kreia thinking The Force had a Will. Remeber I eventually had to paste the quote that had been pasted three times, with a special highlight so that you could see what the thread was about. That misconception. Yes, the mid-eighties. When I was in University. Don't be foolish. I said I stopped arguing, not that I stopped thinking. I didn't go cold-turkey, I merely gave up trying to argue hypothesis-based-on-fact science with people who argued belief-based religion. I have been reading and talking and living since then, and part of my general discourse is philosphical. And, no, I won't ridicule you with cheap mockery -- what I write may be cruel, but its true. If this thread is an example of your reading comprehension, then I would imagine you have many more years of study before you pass for literate in English.

No, in fact if you read the Bible, you will see that there are in fact two (conflicting) versions of the creation myth. These stories are oral traditions meant to convey the collective wisdom of the Jewish people, covering such things as why women are subordinate to men, and why all creation is for man's discretionary use. To try to combine this with currently accepted Hubble theory of the Big Bang is ... brave .. but ultimately pointless. Just accept them as doing two different jobs: you don't use a map to to remember a friends birthday. Conservatives take it literally because of trust. If they read and accept what has been accepted since, say the King James Bible (17th Century), then they don't have to worry about someone they don't know interpreting it for them. Many other people are happy to have another person's interpretation, some to their detriment (you are probably too young to remember the Jonestown tragedy.) Of course this logic is more than a little flawed, if only because the Gospels were written between 100-300 CE, and then edited in the Nicene Council (around 4th Century CE). They were written in Latin, and it wsn't until the episcopal churches that the Bible was translated into the common English tongue, so that everyone could hear the transcript for themselves. And finally, yes it is ironic that Science and Religion are apposed, currently; they did indeed stem from the same root: the quest to understand our world. Science deals with the How?, and religion deals with the Why?, and whenever Science cannot answer a How? question, religious leaders pipe up and say "Ah! You cannot explain the mind of God." <_<