Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Pat Robertson: "Tornadoes wouldn't happen if enough people prayed." People, we've got this climate change thing beat   (rawstory.com) divider line 265
    More: Unlikely, Pat Robertson, tornadoes, climate change, transfer of heat  
•       •       •

4957 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Mar 2012 at 6:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



265 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-07 01:08:13 AM  

PsiChick: How do you see it as 'convenient'?


see the bolded parts

PsiChick: Pagans hold a wide variety of beliefs. Most neo-Pagans, like me, hold that the Divine is unknowable and inherently mysterious, so the gods we make up all hold traces of that Divine. So the same god as you, actually--we just have different names. :p If you're asking my matron Goddess\patron God, the made-up god\ess that I see the Divine in most, it's Cerridwyn, the Celtic goddess of rebirth. And overall, not much difference, but for my spiritual life? It was amazing. Neo-Pagans have very few rituals that Must Be Observed, and I feel personally far closer to the Divine, because my worship comes from my own heart. There is no emphasis on suffering or sacrifice; whatever sacrifices my sisters and brothers give is willing, and I don't have to hate myself or hurt something the Divine created in myself. The natural talents I have are seen as a blessing to the world independent of whether or not I use them for religion. And the emphasis on communication with the world around us and peace is fantastic. It's a cool religion.


i appreciate your candor and felt the need to respond in kind, i'm simply calling it as i see it

as you put it "not much difference" except more focus on stuff that eases your burden meanwhile avoiding anything that resembles 'sacrifice' or accountability, which is easily accomplished by making up whatever gods that please you

this doesn't sound like a search for Truth to me, rather a search for a more pleasant lifestyle

and as i said, convenient

this was understandable during the OT times when the gentiles did not have sufficient information to properly worship God, and simply resorted to their own devices (probably due to their desire to worship something), however in post-NT times we can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse

so it saddens me to see people still try
 
2012-03-07 02:59:03 AM  

I drunk what: this was understandable during the OT times when the gentiles did not have sufficient information to properly worship God


Okay, I saw this and had to say "What". Back in the time when God actually spoke to people and destroyed entire cities himself, they didn't have enough information on him to properly worship him? That's some Bizarro World-level stuff there.

/back out, just had to comment on that epic piece of WTF
 
2012-03-07 03:08:23 AM  
Ok, so if God makes tornadoes to 'take the heat out' and that's necessary, but we are to pray to stop tornadoes and it will work... God is very stupid or doesn't care about the world at large since that heat isn't being taken out, Pat!

Also, go to a 5th grade science class sometime. Please, that tornado explanation is just embarrassing.
 
2012-03-07 11:23:28 AM  

I drunk what: PsiChick: How do you see it as 'convenient'?

see the bolded parts

PsiChick: Pagans hold a wide variety of beliefs. Most neo-Pagans, like me, hold that the Divine is unknowable and inherently mysterious, so the gods we make up all hold traces of that Divine. So the same god as you, actually--we just have different names. :p If you're asking my matron Goddess\patron God, the made-up god\ess that I see the Divine in most, it's Cerridwyn, the Celtic goddess of rebirth. And overall, not much difference, but for my spiritual life? It was amazing. Neo-Pagans have very few rituals that Must Be Observed, and I feel personally far closer to the Divine, because my worship comes from my own heart. There is no emphasis on suffering or sacrifice; whatever sacrifices my sisters and brothers give is willing, and I don't have to hate myself or hurt something the Divine created in myself. The natural talents I have are seen as a blessing to the world independent of whether or not I use them for religion. And the emphasis on communication with the world around us and peace is fantastic. It's a cool religion.

i appreciate your candor and felt the need to respond in kind, i'm simply calling it as i see it

as you put it "not much difference" except more focus on stuff that eases your burden meanwhile avoiding anything that resembles 'sacrifice' or accountability, which is easily accomplished by making up whatever gods that please you

this doesn't sound like a search for Truth to me, rather a search for a more pleasant lifestyle

and as i said, convenient

this was understandable during the OT times when the gentiles did not have sufficient information to properly worship God, and simply resorted to their own devices (probably due to their desire to worship something), however in post-NT times we can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse

so it saddens me to see people still try


And why would you say it's 'true' that the Divine would create something, only to ask it to cause harm to itself? Would you ask your child to cut him\herself to prove they loved you? Of course not--so why would a Divine parent ask for suffering? And for that matter, why would a Divine being create a set of laws for a universe in which any given animal evolves pleasure from doing something that isn't a good idea? That's like handing a kid a rock and telling them you'll give them cake if they cause brain damage.
 
2012-03-07 11:55:26 AM  

PsiChick: And why would you say it's 'true' that the Divine would create something, only to ask it to cause harm to itself?


i don't recall such a claim

PsiChick: Would you ask your child to cut him\herself to prove they loved you?


well if their hand had become infected with gangrene and if they didn't cut it off they would die, is one case where i would make such a suggestion

sin has similar consequences

PsiChick: Of course not--so why would a Divine parent ask for suffering?


suffering is a part of life regardless of what a divine parent asked for, do you think the object of our test is to avoid suffering at all costs? including making choices that this divine parent knows is wrong

PsiChick: And for that matter, why would a Divine being create a set of laws for a universe in which any given animal evolves pleasure from doing something that isn't a good idea?


the laws of the universe are quite indifferent, it rains on the good just as it rains on the evil

we aren't concerned with the pleasures of animals, which are limited to sentience rather the whole point of testing our merit concerns the problem of sapience, which goes far beyond any programming or instincts that may influence our thoughts and decisions, part of free will involves the ability to shape our own fates and even counteract any undesirable instincts or desires

why is sin so tempting? because if only the good things were tempting to us physically, spiritually and mentally, then there would not be any test of our sincerity or integrity, we would simply be animals doing what we were predisposed to do

furthermore, some prefer to choose the path of least resistance, simply because it feels better even though they know it will lead to bad consequences, this is an unfortunate side effect of free will

however we are not animals, we are intellectual persons who make sapient choices, that can override any bias or programming to shape our own path, whether it be for good or evil
 
2012-03-07 12:25:44 PM  

I drunk what: PsiChick: And why would you say it's 'true' that the Divine would create something, only to ask it to cause harm to itself?

i don't recall such a claim


Your entire argument is based on the premise that 'sin', which is usually something that feels good, like sex, is so bad for you that you must suffer to cleanse yourself of it, as well as the premise that the Divine created us so that things which are bad for us feel good because we must be tested.

Your premise ignores evolution completely. We can agree that evolution exists, I assume; therefore we can also agree that the Divine created it. Now, as far as evolution goes, there is no way for any species to come into existence that will want to do something that causes harm to itself or to the group. We can also agree on this, because these are generally-known scientific facts.

Now, what is moral? Well, every religion seems to agree on some form of this: Be kind to other people, and you are doing the moral thing. Do you personally feel like you're suffering when you're being kind to other people? There are people like that--go look at Rush Limbaugh, who derives pleasure from causing pain to others and finds the act of apologizing inherently distasteful. Most of us take a look at him and think 'holy crap, something's wrong with this guy'. That's because normal human beings find morality pleasurable. Pleasure is, in most cases, actually a very good guide for what the Divine wants us to do, which makes complete sense. We are living things. No living thing survives without cooperation. Evolution, therefore, programs us to cooperate.

So when you deny yourself pleasure, what are you really denying? Sin? Or morality itself?
 
2012-03-07 12:54:29 PM  

PsiChick: Your entire argument is based on the premise that 'sin', which is usually something that feels good


you mean like murder, lies, stealing, etc..? yeah feels great

PsiChick: like sex


oh that icky stuff? so then which part of sex with your spouse is sinful? am i understanding your premise correctly? that only sex outside of marriage feels good, meanwhile sex within marriage is painful and causes suffering, and we evolved (against our wills) into animals that cannot stand the torment of being in a loyal monogamous relationship therefore God is a cruel and unjust being? or something like that

PsiChick: is so bad for you that you must suffer to cleanse yourself of it


if it is sin, then yes you must, otherwise you WILL suffer the consequences, God is Just after all, it's the only logical conclusion

whether or not his moral laws sync with your personal preferences and/or "evolutionary" rationalization

PsiChick: the Divine created us so that things which are bad for us feel good because we must be tested.


so then murder, lies, stealing, infidelity, etc.. feel good to all people? are you sure about that? i thought it was just some people

btw do those people have a choice? or were they also programmed by evolution to love those things?

PsiChick: Your premise ignores evolution completely.


i will consider evolution when it is pertinent to the conversation, do you feel that the mutation of our genes and physical bodies is an important factor when discussing morality and whether or not sin is good for us? because sometimes is might be pleasurable to some people?

PsiChick: We can agree that evolution exists, I assume


you assumed correctly. there is no doubt in my mind that living things change, and furthermore that God installed some sort of adaption coding into living organisms, however i'm still not seeing the correlation to what role those things play in our ability to reason with logic about our moral decisions nor our understanding of morality

are you sure "evolution" isn't being used as some kind of scape goat to excuse our indecent behavior? am i getting warmer?

PsiChick: therefore we can also agree that the Divine created it.


perhaps, but i wouldn't go so far as to blame Him for any and all twists and turns that path has taken since He originally set the code in place, you seem to keep overlooking the fact that Free Will affects much more than what kind of tie we plan on wearing to work that day, does it not also affect the course of evolution itself? perhaps you ought to ponder that for a bit, in context of our current conversation...
 
2012-03-07 01:10:10 PM  

PsiChick: Now, as far as evolution goes, there is no way for any species to come into existence that will want to do something that causes harm to itself or to the group.


um so there is no scientific data to contradict this claim? are you sure about that?

are you familiar with animals that eat their young? or with animals that have defective limbs, etc..?

PsiChick: We can also agree on this, because these are generally-known scientific facts.


keep researching

PsiChick: Now, what is moral?


we already know the answer:

I drunk what: Keizer_Ghidorah: Whatever He decides is "good".

precisely 101% correct!


and by 101%, i mean it would be impossible for him to be any more correct, this is absolutely the defintion, no argument. {--- period!

now what is most often up for debate are details such as:

1. Is there a God? which one? ,etc..
2. IF there is a God, has He given us His Law?
2b. Are all the parties involved interpreting things correctly?

and so on

now what you'll notice is that when people toe's start to get stepped on they will begin to undermine any level they can

person A says that person B is being immoral

person B simply claims that person A did not interpret holy text T correctly

even if person A can effectively defend his position, person B can continue to deny everything

or perhaps person B has large groups of people agreeing with person A and trying to show this to person B, so person B then claims that text T is bunk and there is just no point in debating the details, convenient

society then reminds person B that text T is legit and cannot be nay-say'd simply because they don't like the rules and regulations set forth by it

person B then says well there is no God cause Science can't prove it therefore all arguments are invalid, and goes on further to point out that their hair is a bird

person B then gets a fark account and joins the idiot brigade

The End

of course i could add all kinds of details about how person C, D, E, F, G also claim to have read and understood text T and came up with 5 different "interpretations" and conclusions about what Morality is, which just brings us back to the clusterfark known as Free Will, which involves personality conflicts, politics, lifestyles, psychological baggage, etc..

ain't it a biatch

whatcha gonna do? throw in the towel, and start making up your own gods...?

because seeking the Truth involves, too much... suffering...
 
2012-03-07 01:18:36 PM  

PsiChick: So when you deny yourself pleasure, what are you really denying?


pleasure

/really

PsiChick: Sin?


if it is a Sin, yes

if not, then no

correlation =/= causation

PsiChick: Or morality itself?


if you're trying to rationalize your personal ethical views as superior to God's Law, then yeah

otherwise, whether or not you've learned to experience sin as a pleasure, either self taught or from environmental factors, such as piers, evolution, whatever, all of this being completely irrelevant, you deny yourself immoral behavior, then no
 
2012-03-07 01:37:11 PM  

I drunk what: PsiChick: So when you deny yourself pleasure, what are you really denying?

pleasure

/really

PsiChick: Sin?

if it is a Sin, yes

if not, then no

correlation =/= causation

PsiChick: Or morality itself?

if you're trying to rationalize your personal ethical views as superior to God's Law, then yeah

otherwise, whether or not you've learned to experience sin as a pleasure, either self taught or from environmental factors, such as piers, evolution, whatever, all of this being completely irrelevant, you deny yourself immoral behavior, then no


...Look, I really appreciate the debate here, but you do realize that a) if your post was that long, email would have been better, and b) there is no way in hell you're going to convince me, because I simply do not and cannot believe that a truly ethical God would have created a world where suffering is a requirement for salvation, right?

/I do certainly agree that 'sins', or some actions, cause suffering, but your religion holds very firmly that suffering is in and of itself a good thing, and that is where I disagree.
 
2012-03-07 02:01:48 PM  

PsiChick: email would have been better


the others cannot benefit from an email

/sharing means caring
 
2012-03-07 02:03:04 PM  

PsiChick: but your religion holds very firmly that suffering is in and of itself a good thing


incorrect

PsiChick: and that is where I disagree


well then i'm glad we can agree about that
 
2012-03-07 02:44:58 PM  

PsiChick: Look, I really appreciate the debate here,


hmm, it almost felt like a discussion to me

i also appreciate your viewpoint and thanks for the conversation
 
2012-03-08 09:51:30 PM  
If God exists, and interacts with the world, such interaction would makes any event he influenced necessarily unpredictable to us. Thus, seemingly random events would actually seem to be the most favorable medium for God to exert influence. A storm is a classic, even textbook, example.
 
2012-03-09 09:10:57 PM  

eudemonist: A storm is a classic, even textbook, example.


So why would a loving God create a storm that causes people to suffer and die?
 
Displayed 15 of 265 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report