Space_Poet: NewHairGrowth: Us true Xians will ignore this "go green" crap, for we know that god created this earth for his true followers to use up entirely. We can ravage and destroy it to our hearts desire because we know that we will only need it until the rapture comes. Then you godless heathens can keep what little is left of it. And knowing god and his habit of doing things at just the right time, the rapture will come just as we are running out of earth.

9.2/10, not shabby at all!

Obvious sarcasm != trolling

strukt99: I appreciate the articles. I will state that one difference between us and Muslims are that the Bible does not condone such activities. I admit that I'm against gay marriage, but that's because the Bible discourages it. It doesn't say that inter-racial marriage is wrong and it definitely doesn't say to be hateful toward gays. Most Christians think Christianity is just believing that Jesus died for your sins. They throw the Bible out. Christianity is supposed to be about that, and love.

The Koran, on the other hand, encourages killing in the name of Allah.

I'm sorry on behalf of those who claim to be Christians but show no love like THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

/end rant

Where, exactly, does Jesus discourage gay marriage?

/srsly

strukt99: I appreciate the articles. I will state that one difference between us and Muslims are that the Bible does not condone such activities. I admit that I'm against gay marriage, but that's because the Bible discourages it. It doesn't say that inter-racial marriage is wrong and it definitely doesn't say to be hateful toward gays. Most Christians think Christianity is just believing that Jesus died for your sins. They throw the Bible out. Christianity is supposed to be about that, and love.

The Koran, on the other hand, encourages killing in the name of Allah.

I'm sorry on behalf of those who claim to be Christians but show no love like THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

Have you ever actually read the Koran? Or the Bible for that matter? But I knew there would be some cop-out (i.e., "well they aren't REAL Christians but those guys are REAL Muslims").

I love posts like this for when I discuss cognitive dissonance with students.

SynthLord: Now, God "works in mysterious ways", and is "in the gaps" of science.

I actually saw a religious physicist on TV talking about how there was evidence for God in the simplicity of the universe and our minds could understand a lot of what God had produced.

Yeah, nothing whatsoever to do with the best brains (the ones that could understand the universe) winning the gene race.

I appreciate the articles. I will state that one difference between us and Muslims are that the Bible does not condone such activities. I admit that I'm against gay marriage, but that's because the Bible discourages it. It doesn't say that inter-racial marriage is wrong and it definitely doesn't say to be hateful toward gays. Most Christians think Christianity is just believing that Jesus died for your sins. They throw the Bible out. Christianity is supposed to be about that, and love.

The Koran, on the other hand, encourages killing in the name of Allah.

I'm sorry on behalf of those who claim to be Christians but show no love like THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

/end rant

You base your decisions primarily around a 2000 year old religious fiction book?

I admit I've only read parts of the Koran. I have read the whole Bible though. Encourage may be a strong word; condones may be a better description.

Jesus says nothing about gay marriage. Leviticus mentions gayness, but not marriage. Like I said, I don't think gay marriage is right, but that doesn't mean you can't be a Christian and be gay. I don't care what anyone says. If you're gay, you can still be a Christian. All the Christians using hatred to intimidate gays aren't following Jesus' commands.

strukt99: I admit I've only read parts of the Koran. I have read the whole Bible though. Encourage may be a strong word; condones may be a better description.

Jesus says nothing about gay marriage. Leviticus mentions gayness, but not marriage. Like I said, I don't think gay marriage is right, but that doesn't mean you can't be a Christian and be gay. I don't care what anyone says. If you're gay, you can still be a Christian. All the Christians using hatred to intimidate gays aren't following Jesus' commands.

So you argue that Christians don't do bad things like OMG TEH EVUL MUSLIMS but then argue that anyone who does bad things can't be "true" Christians (i.e., following Jesus' commands). Nice.

Oh, and reread your Bible. There is a lot of condoning violence in it (especially in the Old Testament, but also in parts of the New Testament).

farkeruk: I actually saw a religious physicist on TV talking about how there was evidence for God in the simplicity of the universe and our minds could understand a lot of what God had produced.

Yeah, nothing whatsoever to do with the best brains (the ones that could understand the universe) winning the gene race.

That assumes that the universe is comprehensible to begin with. Many prominent physicists have said that they find it miraculous that the universe is structured in such a way that any mind can understand it. Really, why should the universe function according to mathematical principles in the first place?

Xetal2009-04-19 04:22:22 PM I appreciate the articles. I will state that one difference between us and Muslims are that the Bible does not condone such activities. I admit that I'm against gay marriage, but that's because the Bible discourages it. It doesn't say that inter-racial marriage is wrong and it definitely doesn't say to be hateful toward gays. Most Christians think Christianity is just believing that Jesus died for your sins. They throw the Bible out. Christianity is supposed to be about that, and love.The Koran, on the other hand, encourages killing in the name of Allah.I'm sorry on behalf of those who claim to be Christians but show no love like THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO./end rantYou base your decisions primarily around a 2000 year old religious fiction book?

Yes. Only I don't think it's fiction. I'm entitled to my beliefs as you are to yours.

tonesskin2009-04-19 04:24:33 PM strukt99: I admit I've only read parts of the Koran. I have read the whole Bible though. Encourage may be a strong word; condones may be a better description.Jesus says nothing about gay marriage. Leviticus mentions gayness, but not marriage. Like I said, I don't think gay marriage is right, but that doesn't mean you can't be a Christian and be gay. I don't care what anyone says. If you're gay, you can still be a Christian. All the Christians using hatred to intimidate gays aren't following Jesus' commands.So you argue that Christians don't do bad things like OMG TEH EVUL MUSLIMS but then argue that anyone who does bad things can't be "true" Christians (i.e., following Jesus' commands). Nice.

The definition of Christian is followers of Christ.

And note how I used the phrase "extremist Muslims" not Muslims in general. Most Muslims are peaceful, others aren't. The one's who aren't aren't "true Muslims"

strukt99: And note how I used the phrase "extremist Muslims" not Muslims in general. Most Muslims are peaceful, others aren't. The one's who aren't aren't "true Muslims"

Your goal posts have now moved from out of the stadium to out of the country. Nice.

Lemon-Lime Malthus: Lemon-Lime Malthus:
By the time enough people realize we have a serious f*cking problem on our hands, it will be too late, as the inertia of the human shiatpile will be too big to overcome.

You witnessed the election too?

strukt99: tonesskin2009-04-19 03:43:47 PM "not killed" either.

Aside from the crusades, name one time. Not cults, Christians. In the name of Christianity.



/hot like an oven

strukt99
Yes. Only I don't think it's fiction. I'm entitled to my beliefs as you are to yours.

I never said that you aren't entitled to your beliefs. I merely implied that looking at the opinion/commands/whatever of a 2000+ year old religious text might be inferior to actually thinking for yourself.

I mean, religion serves it's purpose as a crutch to people too weak to come up with their own moral and ethical standards... but to just blindly base your opinion off what the bible says without any further thought seems to place someone more as a "sheep" than a person.

Just my opinion though.


Cambo_
That assumes that the universe is comprehensible to begin with. Many prominent physicists have said that they find it miraculous that the universe is structured in such a way that any mind can understand it. Really, why should the universe function according to mathematical principles in the first place?

I think you have it backwards.

The universe doesn't conform to our view of math and our ability to comprehend.

Our ability to comprehend and our mathematical system conform to what we have witnessed from the universe.

Because of that, we can partially understand what is going on around us.

Godwin's law. Uncle Tractor loses in spectacular fasion.

Uncle Tractor: strukt99: tonesskin2009-04-19 03:43:47 PM "not killed" either.

Aside from the crusades, name one time. Not cults, Christians. In the name of Christianity.

/hot like an oven

....what? Are you retarded?

Xetal: The universe doesn't conform to our view of math and our ability to comprehend.

You say potaito, I say potahto. The distinction you just made is an epistemological one which is way too thorny to get into on a Fark thread. I'll just quote Einstein to show you what I'm getting at:

The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility...the fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.

Source: http://books.google.ca/books?id=cKbb0Zyp_7gC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=comprehensibili ty+of+the+universe&source=bl&ots=3sStVEox0-&sig=3IFIVP52dC2PROmL_fuBRaGBl1g&hl=e n&ei=K4zrSb-6J46UMpP48PMF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9

Oh, and:

Aside from the crusades, name one time. Not cults, Christians. In the name of Christianity.

That's a huge topic, so we'll only go with one example:

The Roman Catholic Inquisition in Spain from 1478 to 1834 where thousands were murdered by the church.

Cambo_: Godwin's law. Uncle Tractor loses in spectacular fasion.

Pft. He asked for an example and I gave him one. You don't like the example? Not my problem. The example is valid.

If you believe in God, why would you believe that God made an Earth that humans can break this easily? Heck, why don't you go look at the fossil record, which shows giant animals, plants, insects, etc. consistent with a hotter planet with a higher atmospheric pressure? Or ice core samples, which also indicate regular cycles of heating / increased carbon dioxide and cooling / reduced carbon dioxide - with an actual COOLING trend overall? Obviously, we shouldn't pollute in such a way as to harm other human beings, but the amount of "greenhouse gases" we produce have about as much effect as spitting into the wind.

You do know, incidently, that the oceans act as a huge carbon dioxide reservoir, sucking in carbon dioxide when they cool and exhaling it when they warm? It's far more likely that carbon dioxide fluctuations are an EFFECT of warming / cooling, not the primary cause.

strukt99: Aside from the crusades, name one time. Not cults, Christians. In the name of Christianity.

Exactly, what about all the good things Hitler did? You know aside from that whole Holocaust thing.

Billy Crystal Meth Lab: Uncle Tractor:
/hot like an oven
....what? Are you retarded?

You think Hitler woke up one morning and decided he hated Jews?

SynthLord:
"Now, God "works in mysterious ways", and is "in the gaps" of science."

God is science, in all it's disciplines.

Uncle Tractor:
Pft. He asked for an example and I gave him one. You don't like the example? Not my problem. The example is valid.

No it's not. The holocaust was a racial genocide, not a religious one. Really more a product of the second industrial revolution than of Christianity.

I've found that no matter what a person's political, economic or religious beliefs are, they're always (according to the person in question) the exact opposite of Hitler's beliefs. The man has become an amorphous persona onto which we project everything we disagree with.

farkin_Gary: SynthLord:
"Now, God "works in mysterious ways", and is "in the gaps" of science."

God is science, in all it's disciplines.

Science is the tool we use to understand the Cosmos and all it contains.

j0ndas: If you believe in God, why would you believe that God made an Earth that humans can break this easily?

Because the alternative would probably be an Earth that hurts us rather easily.

Cambo_: Basic game theory says that if people are left to their own devices, they will kill the planet.

Left to their own devices, people will exploit natural resources as a their only means to survive. Withhold those resources and you take a firm stand against human survival.

It's not a political thing, it's a homo sapiens thing. Survival isn't automatic in our species; we are required by our nature to transform our world to accommodate our survival. An important part of that survival is improving our living conditions. The means to do that most effectively is industrialization; the condition that ensures it most is freedom.

Try directly persuading someone who's polluting to clean up. If you prove that changing the way they do operate is in their best interests (do the math: decision makers foremost care about the bottom-line), you have a good shot at achieving your end.

No need to bring government (i.e. guns) into it.

You say potaito, I say potahto. The distinction you just made is an epistemological one which is way too thorny to get into on a Fark thread. I'll just quote Einstein to show you what I'm getting at:

The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility...the fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.

Source: http://books.google.ca/books?id=cKbb0Zyp_7gC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=comprehensibili ty+of+the+universe&source=bl&ots=3sStVEox0-&sig=3IFIVP52dC2PROmL_fuBRaGBl1g&hl=e n&ei=K4zrSb-6J46UMpP48PMF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9

I didn't get a valid address from that website.

And the assumption that we can indeed comprehend the universe in its entirety is a big assumption.

I'll use an example of a simple computer script that I think most people can understand:

1 - Start
2 - Enter value 0 or 1
3 - If value is 0, goto 5
4 - If value is 1, goto 7
5 - Display A
6 - End
7 - Display B
8 - End

Look at that script. It can take input (the 0 or 1) and then process it to different results based on the input that it is given.

I think we would all agree that the script does not understand the universe in it's entirety, but it understands it's role well enough to have a basic working function.

It seems overly simplistic, but is this really so different from humans? We understand our role well enough to have a basic working function. The accusation that we comprehend the universe only a bit better than the above script is probably not that far off base.

mamoru: If one assumes the existence of God, then logically one can only come to one of two conclusions: God is either powerful (possibly omnipotent) and unjust, or God is impotent and may as well not exist.


Your first statement makes me think you're a total moron who thinks he's intelligent. Your second statement is somewhat redeeming.

tonesskin2009-04-19 04:25:16 PM Oh, and reread your Bible. There is a lot of condoning violence in it (especially in the Old Testament, but also in parts of the New Testament).

Yeah. Give me an example of a person being rightfully violent in the nt. The OT does have lots of violence in it, but the nt says that Jesus fulfilled the law, which is the OT, and I'm not a Jew, so I use the OT more as a historical document. Not to say I shouldn't follow the laws laid out in the OT, but it's not my job to give the punishments the OT suggests, since Jesus already took the punishment for everyone.

ichiban: mamoru: If one assumes the existence of God, then logically one can only come to one of two conclusions: God is either powerful (possibly omnipotent) and unjust, or God is impotent and may as well not exist.


Your first statement makes me think you're a total moron who thinks he's intelligent. Your second statement is somewhat redeeming.

What? Saying "if one assumes the existence of God" makes someone a moran? That is amazing.

"If one assumes that x causes y." HA, YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY A MORAN FOR STARTING WITH ANY ASSUMPTION!

SynthLord: Cambo_:
Left to their own devices, people will exploit natural resources as a their only means to survive. Withhold those resources and you take a firm stand against human survival.

Or just a firm stand against SUVs. The wealthier portion of the human race consumes way more than they need to for basic survival.

It's not a political thing, it's a homo sapiens thing. Survival isn't automatic in our species; we are required by our nature to transform our world to accommodate our survival. An important part of that survival is improving our living conditions. The means to do that most effectively is industrialization; the condition that ensures it most is freedom.

Agreed. However, living conditions do not need to improve indefinitely. We need to learn when we have it good enough.

Try directly persuading someone who's polluting to clean up. If you prove that changing the way they do operate is in their best interests (do the math: decision makers foremost care about the bottom-line), you have a good shot at achieving your end.


The problem with this is that it is impossible to persuade one factory owner to take a cut out of his bottom line in order to preserve the environment if all the other factory owners aren't also doing the same thing. Tragedy of the commons. The only way to get all the factory owners to do the same thing is through legislation.

What? Saying "if one assumes the existence of God" makes someone a moran? That is amazing.

No more amazing than the suggestion that "if one assumes the existence of the tooth fairy" or "if one assumes the existence of the flying spaghetti monster" that they're a moron.

(May his noodly appendage not strike me down for my blasphemies, rAmen)

Xetal:
The Roman Catholic Inquisition in Spain from 1478 to 1834 where thousands were murdered by the church.

Certainly a time when Christians behaved badly. However, should the actions of a strongly nationalistic religious faction 200 years ago really have any bearing on one's opinion of worldwide Christianity today?

Xetal: No more amazing than the suggestion that "if one assumes the existence of the tooth fairy" or "if one assumes the existence of the flying spaghetti monster" that they're a moron.

I doubt that very many people have a personal relationship with the tooth fairy.

smeegle: SynthLord:

Science is the tool we use to understand the Cosmos and all it contains.

Agreed. So the pursuit of understanding then becomes God. God is science. Understanding all things is God.

All trolling aside, why do we always see the same side of the moon?

Cambo_: Uncle Tractor:
Pft. He asked for an example and I gave him one. You don't like the example? Not my problem. The example is valid.

No it's not. The holocaust was a racial genocide, not a religious one. Really more a product of the second industrial revolution than of Christianity.

So why pick on the Jews? Maybe, just maybe, it was because he grew up in a part of the world that had a thousand year old Christian tradition of persecuting Jews. Why else do you think the good Christians of Germany went along with his plans for the Jews? Back then, before 1945-48, hating Jews was a perfectly acceptable thing for Christians to do. Both in Europe and in the US.

I've found that no matter what a person's political, economic or religious beliefs are, they're always (according to the person in question) the exact opposite of Hitler's beliefs. The man has become an amorphous persona onto which we project everything we disagree with.

While anybody would want to distance themselves from him, not everybody will find it easy to do so:

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." (new window)

Xetal: No more amazing than the suggestion that "if one assumes the existence of the tooth fairy" or "if one assumes the existence of the flying spaghetti monster" that they're a moron.

Xetal: What? Saying "if one assumes the existence of God" makes someone a moran? That is amazing.

No more amazing than the suggestion that "if one assumes the existence of the tooth fairy" or "if one assumes the existence of the flying spaghetti monster" that they're a moron.

(May his noodly appendage not strike me down for my blasphemies, rAmen)

And they wouldn't be morans. It is a suggestion that if we assume A then B. It doesn't say, "God exists." It says, "If he did."

I start almost every study with the assumption that "if (these two variables interact) then x." That doesn't mean I believe in them, it just means that to start my scientific evaluation I need some a priori assumption.

For instance, "If Santa exists (and brings toys) then he would have to travel x miles an hour." Sometimes the absurdity of the relationship between A and B is all we need to demonstrate that A is likely false.

Cambo_
Certainly a time when Christians behaved badly. However, should the actions of a strongly nationalistic religious faction 200 years ago really have any bearing on one's opinion of worldwide Christianity today?

It depends. Are they still blindly following the same source material without thinking for themselves?

I doubt that very many people have a personal relationship with the tooth fairy.

Believing that a being exists and the being actually existing are independent of each other. Feeling that you have a "personal relationship" with a being that has no evidence of existence is not so different than feeling that you have a personal relationship with the FSM or tooth fairy. In fact, the only real difference is the quantity of people who believe.

I start almost every study with the assumption that "if (these two variables interact) then x." That doesn't mean I believe in them, it just means that to start my scientific evaluation I need some a priori assumption.

And that assumption is built upon by previous scientific evaluation. Assumption without anything to back it other than an old testimonial text is meaningless.

Cambo_: Xetal:
The Roman Catholic Inquisition in Spain from 1478 to 1834 where thousands were murdered by the church.

Certainly a time when Christians behaved badly. However, should the actions of a strongly nationalistic religious faction 200 years ago really have any bearing on one's opinion of worldwide Christianity today?

Eegads! Do people still discount the ways in which political extremists pervert religion as a means to accomplishing their own ends?

Virtually all the drastic and ugly things which have been done in the name(s) of religion have been forwarded upon political platforms or upon the selfish agendas of particularly evil individuals, yet people remain convinced that everything is "the church's" fault.

Some people really need to get a grip.

Cambo_: I doubt that very many people have a personal relationship with the tooth fairy.

I'd say anyone else that had an imaginary friend would say they had as much of a personal relationship with it as you do with yours.

strukt99: tonesskin2009-04-19 04:25:16 PM Oh, and reread your Bible. There is a lot of condoning violence in it (especially in the Old Testament, but also in parts of the New Testament).

Yeah. Give me an example of a person being rightfully violent in the nt. The OT does have lots of violence in it, but the nt says that Jesus fulfilled the law, which is the OT, and I'm not a Jew, so I use the OT more as a historical document. Not to say I shouldn't follow the laws laid out in the OT, but it's not my job to give the punishments the OT suggests, since Jesus already took the punishment for everyone.

No, not quite an example of somebody being "rightfully violent" in the NT:

John 15:
1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower.
2 He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit, and everyone that does he prunes so that it bears more fruit.
3 You are already pruned because of the word that I spoke to you.
4 Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me.
5 I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.
6 Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned."

Instead, it's an example of Jesus telling people what to do to people who don't believe in him. History shows how that was interpreted.

Where's my Manna?

6 Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned."

Sounds like jesus was right. He said it would happen, he didn't say to do it though.

Christians urged to go green for God.

Christians behaving like Christ? I'll believe it when I see it.

Uncle Tractor:
So why pick on the Jews? Maybe, just maybe, it was because he grew up in a part of the world that had a thousand year old Christian tradition of persecuting Jews. Why else do you think the good Christians of Germany went along with his plans for the Jews? Back then, before 1945-48, hating Jews was a perfectly acceptable thing for Christians to do. Both in Europe and in the US.

Economic reasons. The Jews were blamed-then as now-for controlling all the money in a depression. Surely you've seen the stereotypical depiction of the greedy Jewish banker.


While anybody would want to distance themselves from him, not everybody will find it easy to do so:

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." (new window)

Any politician is going to pay lip service to the dominant religion of his country. It's just good political strategy, even if you are supreme dictator. Hitler was indeed raised Catholic, but there is less evidence that the holocaust was a direct outgrowth of this belief.

Xetal: Believing that a being exists and the being actually existing are independent of each other. Feeling that you have a "personal relationship" with a being that has no evidence of existence is not so different than feeling that you have a personal relationship with the FSM or tooth fairy. In fact, the only real difference is the quantity of people who believe.

I can't respond to this using logic or science, because logic and science do not extend to this situation. If somebody believes that God has personally spoken to them, then there is no way they can possibly prove that it actually occurred. Nevertheless, it is sufficient for their individual belief. I see no reason not to respect this.

Do you want to know what's totally awe-some, gnar-ly, and tu-bu-lar...

Je-sus.