Churches Use Twitter To Reach a Wider Audience

In an attempt to reverse declining attendance figures, many American churches are starting to ask WWJD in 140 or fewer characters. Pastors at Westwinds Community Church in Michigan spent two weeks teaching their 900-member congregation how to use Twitter. 150 of them are now tweeting. Seattle's Mars Hill Church encourages its members to Twitter messages during services. The tweets appear on the church's official Twitter page. Kyle Firstenberg, the church's administrator, said,"It's a good way for them to tell their friends what church is about without their friends even coming in the building."

Comments

@jesus save me

[ifeelswine]

if you tweet from the bathroom are you really tooting?

Re:@jesus save me

[Neanderthal Ninny]

I means you need wash you device with alcohol.

Tweeting in church

[BitwiseX]

Bitwise *snore* half a minute ago from twitterfic.

Re:Tweeting in church

[Anonymous Coward]

RT @Bitwise *snore*

whoa...

[n1000]

Cyberpunk technotheology has been realized, apparently.

this is idiotic.

[nimbius]

its neither news for nerds or stuff that matters... car dealers, the president, software companies and buddhists use twitter.

if twitter had collaborated with jesus to produce an api through which church members could send prayers, that might be. or, if jesus intended to announce the rapture through tweet as stated in his microblog, i might care.

Re:this is idiotic.

[orkybash]

its neither news for nerds or stuff that matters...

Apparently you didn't notice the "idle" tag...

On the fence on this

[Taimat]

I'm a Christian, and I'm a tech. (I don't use twitter - I don't see a point to it). I do however, understand that this is another way to let people know what your particular church is about - on the other hand, I think this can be really distracting for those in the congregation that are trying to listen to the message for the day. I heard about this last week on K-Love (National Christian radio station) and will be interesting to see how it works out. (I don't see this lasting long)

Re:On the fence on this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Christian, and I'm a tech.

One of the principles of "coming out" as a xtian techy is the presumption of innocence -- that we are innocent of our own existence as programmers, that we did not make ourselves and we did not make the world, and that in revealing who we are and what we see, we simply reveal what is already there. We are not confessing to a crime. We are revealing our existence as Slashdotters. What we ask for in doing so is simple recognition: We desire to be seen. We put aside for the time being the question of our effect on others. We leave it up to others what they should do about who we are. That does not mean they will do what we want. If we have been sufficiently skillful in constructing our false self, those who love us may indeed love this false self, and may greet with consternation the arrival of what we consider to be our authentic self.

So in coming out we ask, Can you still love me, knowing who I am? A Rob Malda-loving programmer? Perhaps the answer is no. Perhaps our partner has fallen in love with the character of our creation. That is frightening, is it not? Not? So in discovering who we are and admitting it to ourselves, we must at the same time begin the hard process of finding love for this previously unloved-because-unrevealed self. We begin by loving ourselves. Now, of course, in a way your wife does love exactly who you are. I feel sure that there is something about your questioning nature, your rational mind, your courage, your clear-eyed vision, that she does love deeply. Nonetheless, when we reveal who we really are, it changes the nature of love. It changes how we are loved, and for what. She can no longer love you as a churchgoing man if you stop going to church.

And there is the frightening possibility hovering at the edges that our lover might not love us at all, but only the false self we have presented. We do love characters in movies and books that are not real. Why should we not fall in love with other invented characters? For that matter, how could anyone love our true self if we have kept our true self secret? So you risk a lot. But you risk it for the biggest prize of all: to be loved for who you really are. As to the effect your revelation may have on others, whether it is selfish: If you believe their beliefs are wrong, then in speaking out you are helping them. They can only benefit from hearing what you say. They can only benefit from the truth. If their beliefs are wrong, they are wasting their time in church and the sooner they stop wasting their time the better off they will be. Now, if they left the church, they might lose community standing and fellowship. But truth is our highest quest, is it not? But perhaps you secretly fear that they are right. Well, there too, by confessing your doubt you are doing them a favor: You are giving them the opportunity to save you. Let them try.

I appreciate that you have addressed your question not just to me, but to the many who give of themselves here, many with more relevant knowledge and experience than mine. I hope you will find much here of value as people weigh in, and I hope you will be able to take what you need and leave the rest. I also appreciate your concern for those in your life who might be upset by your revelation, and how you try to balance your own need to disclose your truth with the consternation it may cause them.

May I say one thing regarding my own perhaps crazy beliefs on the subject? I really believe it is possible that a grace exists in the universe that in caring for you and saving you does not care one whit whether you believe in it or not, and does not care what you think is true: a grace whose intelligence is so freely boundless and beyond us that whatever we think of it does not even occur to it, or occurs to it the way the consternation of a dog occurs to us when we bathe it. We take note of the consternation of the dog but we do not find it persuasive; we already know what we're going to do with the dog. We're going to bathe the dog. I just had to say that. Good luck with your loved ones.

Re:On the fence on this

[causality]

I'm a Christian, and I'm a tech. (I don't use twitter - I don't see a point to it). I do however, understand that this is another way to let people know what your particular church is about - on the other hand, I think this can be really distracting for those in the congregation that are trying to listen to the message for the day. I heard about this last week on K-Love (National Christian radio station) and will be interesting to see how it works out. (I don't see this lasting long)

Sorry I picked you for this one, but you were the first self-identified Christian I saw posting in here.

The moment I find one church where its members love one another, do not judge for any reason especially reasons based on appearance (i.e. the clothing you wear, etc.), do not form little exclusive cliques as though this were high school, do not gossip about one another and refuse to entertain gossip about anyone else, understand the folly of anger and frustration, and show genuine loving-kindness instead of merely being nice because they are weak for the approval of others and worry about what other people think of them ... then, and only then, would I consider joining that congregation. Extra points if at least some of the sessions include material that is difficult and challenging and represents an understanding higher than your own so that you can strive to reach for it, rather than the easily understood (and easily heard) platitudes which are designed to appeal to (i.e. pander to) the masses.

The words in the form of chapter and verse are a map. The map is not the territory. When I go into churches, what I find is a bunch of people who have memorized words and they think they understand them, but it does not show in their lives per my criteria above. They still think that the spiritual experience is an intellectual experience. They don't see how limited intellect and logic really are, how they are powerful yet useless for all but the most mundane of affairs.

The whole problem with the Bible is that you kinda already have to "get it" before you can really get much out of what it teaches. At that point where you start getting it, you realize that most of the religions started with a simple idea that is beyond all intellectual or logical apprehension and that great complications arose when the enlightened tried to teach that idea to others. Those enlightened folks had a severely difficult problem: how to use words to teach something for which there are no words. The best that they could do was to provide a description of what it looks like and hope that those who study it don't confuse the description for the real thing (i.e. religion instead of spirituality). That confusion is exactly what has happened to modern "Churchianity". It's a shame, really, because if you study various religions and have seen the real thing, you will find that the Christians have one of the most accurate descriptions available.

Re:On the fence on this

[CannonballHead]

OT part of my post: twittering during a service is stupid, and to me, implies that there isn't enough to think about (or be involved in) during the service. So much for Biblical commands to love God with your MIND, too....

Hm. You're right, Christians (nominal and true) are human, and at times do all those things.

But if you have never heard of or seen a church where its members are generally characterized but what you just mentioned.. well, I know they exist. I think they tend to, however, be on the strong side as far as preaching against sin, etc., as well. In other words, most people are not going to find the preaching all that nice - it's primarily convicting. Which makes sense, if you think about it... if the whole love one another, judging, gossip, etc., is what is "right"/Godly, then not doing that is sin... so conviction about it seems to be a primary goal of preaching the Bible. Which means it is rather uncomfortable for those that want their "ears tickled," which is what you appear to be referring to. And which is why, IMO, most really Biblical churches tend to be rather small. You don't come get convicted about the sin in your life for "fun."

If you're really interested... erg, I don't want to come across haughty or arrogant :P But if you're interested, I think I could probably give you a link to a pastor of a church that you said you want to find. Sermons are online, etc. I think you'd probably find the preaching to be somewhat abnormal as far as typical mainstream Christianity goes (and no, it's not like the Mars Hill Mark Driscoll either). Long (60+ minutes), Biblical, excitedly preached by someone who really believes it, who loves Christ, and whose "ambition" is to be more like Him. If you're interested, let me know... :)

Re:On the fence on this

[LWATCDR]

I love how you say they can not be judgmental and must be understanding of others faults and they say that you will not go to a church unless all the members meet your requirements.

The failings of the other people in the church shouldn't matter to you. People will tend to cluster a bit around people they get along well with. They will tend to be make mistakes. Church isn't a home for the perfect it is a halfway house for the imperfect.
It doesn't matter if it is a Christian church or a Buddhist temple.
Heck you will even see the same failings you mentioned at a Linux Users Group or Slashdot.

Re:On the fence on this

[JCSoRocks]

I agree that this is absolute nonsense. We've always worked to get people to turn their phones off and create fewer distractions, not more. What's the point of being there if you're just twittering the whole time? What's the point of twittering a tiny piece of the message if people can already get the full message online anyway?

Re:On the fence on this

[jcr]

then, and only then, would I consider joining that congregation.

But why would they want you? You sound like you hold most christians in contempt. When you see these congregations where bad things are happening, why don't you step up and try to set a good example instead of just bitching at the first christian you spot posting on /.?

-jcr

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

The moment I find one church where its members love one another, do not judge for any reason especially reasons based on appearance (i.e. the clothing you wear, etc.), do not form little exclusive cliques as though this were high school, do not gossip about one another and refuse to entertain gossip about anyone else, understand the folly of anger and frustration, and show genuine loving-kindness instead of merely being nice because they are weak for the approval of others and worry about what other people think of them ... then, and only then, would I consider joining that congregation. Extra points if at least some of the sessions include material that is difficult and challenging and represents an understanding higher than your own so that you can strive to reach for it, rather than the easily understood (and easily heard) platitudes which are designed to appeal to (i.e. pander to) the masses.

Good luck with that.

BTW, the bible is one of the worst pieces of hate literature extant. It condoned slavery, commanded genocide, looked the other way over killing for lust (King David and Basheba - "David was a man after God's heart" even after he had her husband killed), mysogeny, hatred towards gays and lesbians, and a long slew of other crap. Truly, it is "nothing new under the sun", fit more for the toilet (just in case you run out of TP) than for moral instruction.

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

The failings of the other people in the church shouldn't matter to you.

How about the many failings of the book they claim to believe in as "the truth"? And those who push that particular purple Flavor-Ade.

Otherwise, you're just treating the symptoms, not the problem.

And, more on-topic - if, after a couple of thousand years, they STILL haven't found a way to get their message out in a credible fashion, twittering ain't gonna help. It's just more "make us feel like we're doing something good for Jebus" feel-good crap for their own, because they're scared - atheism is the fastest-growing belief, and will ultimately eat their lunch, no matter how much they try to be angelic little Tweety-Pies.

Q: Jesus, The Virgin Mary, and Sarah Palin fall off a sky-scraper. Who hits the ground first?
A: Who gives a f*ck!
A2: Sarah Palin - she saw someone wearing a fur coat and decided to "take that wolf out!"
A3: The CEO of CountryWide Financial (we can dream).

Re:On the fence on this

[canistel]

Did you maybe ever think that what is wrong with the Bible is not the Bible, but your interpretation of it?

Just picking out one of the many errors in your recent posts: David was a man after God's heart, but God punished David for killing Uriah, contrary to what you imply. You need to read the Bible and understand what it says before you can criticize it (which of course applies to more then just the Bible).

And another one of your errors: The "hatred" against gays, murders etc is not against them personally, but the lifestyle itself; big difference as can be seen in how Jesus responds to the murderer that is crucified with him.

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

Some "punishment." Contemptible is what it is. Since when is killing off a blameless offspring "justice"? And the case of King David isn't the only one.

If you think that's justice, then maybe the bible should come with a warning sticker about how it warps your sense of right and wrong. Even a little kid understands you don't punish someone for somebody else's mistakes. Heck, recent studies show that even DOGS have a sense of what's fair - they know when one receives an unfair portion compared to another.

As for Jesus on the cross - his actions show he thought he'd be rescued before getting nailed. After all, if someone told YOU to carry your own cross, and you really believed that you would die on it, you'd say "Carry it yourself, motherfucker! Or explain to YOUR boss that you had to beat me to death rather than complete your job as ordered!" It's also the source of "My God, why have you forsaken me." He was just as deluded about the existence, never mind the interest, of god as his followers were.

Re:On the fence on this

[JeanPaulBob]

There's a saying. "If you ever find a perfect church, don't go there. As soon as you start, it won't be perfect anymore."

There's only one way to get a church like the one you're looking for: Don't let anyone in unless they're perfect.

Of course, the joke from the saying is that no one is perfect, so that won't work. But some people don't get the joke, and actually try to have "perfect congregations". And then you end up with a group of obnoxiously self-righteous twits--because that kind of person focuses on external pseudo-righteousness, and "the other guy's sin".

That confusion is exactly what has happened to modern "Churchianity". It's a shame, really, because if you study various religions and have seen the real thing, you will find that the Christians have one of the most accurate descriptions available.

Hmm... Your comments make me think that you basically get the vision that Jesus laid out, of goodness & humility & love & genuine holiness (as opposed to self-righteousness).

But, speaking as a Christian... the Gospel itself is entirely missing from what you're saying.

Jesus' teachings about life in the kingdom of God weren't particularly new, comparing with the Old Testament. Humility, service, care for the poor, transformed hearts... that was all there in the prophets.

The gospel is not, "Look at Jesus, he shows us a better way to live." (Though he does do that.) The gospel is about what God did for us in Christ, both to forgive and to transform us. It's not about what we accomplish, it's about what he accomplished. It's about being accepted in spite of not remotely deserving it, based on repentance & faith--which does then lead to transformation by the work of the Spirit, to be like Christ in the example he provided.

Part of my point is... I know that churches are filled with hypocrites. I'm one. But some of us know we're hypocrites, and desire transformation, and are being transformed. And there are churches with an atmosphere of grace, who are transformed enough to show credibility in their intellectual profession of faith. But none that are perfect like you want. Because they're full of people.

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

And another one of your errors: The "hatred" against gays, murders etc is not against them personally, but the lifestyle itself; big difference

No difference. Their "lifestyle" as you call it, is part and parcel of who they are. If bigots can't accept it, that's their problem, but there are hundreds of species of mammals that engage in same-sex relationships. It's normal. Get over it.

Try this: "the 'hatred' against blacks isn't against them personally, but against their skin colour: big difference". Nobody would buy it.

Or this "The 'hatred' against pedophiles and child molesters isn't against them personally, but the lifestyle itself; big difference". Nope, doesn't pass the smell test.

Let's try again. "The 'hatred' against Maddof isn't against him personally, but the scam he pulled; big difference." Major fail.

The "love the sinner, hate the sin" self-justification of some people when trying to white-wash their bigotry and ignorance is what's shameful. Gays and lesbians don't go around telling fundies that they have no right to have sex with each other. It's the bible-thumpers who need a lesson in tolerance and loving.

Then again, that would go against their "beliefs". Beliefs that have no basis in history (it's a bunch of regurgitated fables mixed with exaggerations - get over it), science, or ethics, and is bereft of any morality save its' own self-indulgent depravity.

Re:On the fence on this

[causality]

I love how you say they can not be judgmental and must be understanding of others faults and they say that you will not go to a church unless all the members meet your requirements.

Seeing the faults of others and honestly calling them what they are: discernment. Hating the person in any way because of what you see, whether that hatred expresses itself by means of anger, resentment, frustration, condemnation, or holier-than-thou: judgment. Declining to associate with people who don't understand what they preach and are unwilling to consider the possibility that they don't understand what they preach is merely wise decision-making. It is not a judgment on those people, it is a willingness to let them live their lives as they see fit while I do the same. It is also a recognition that their current state may be a necessary part of their path of development.

I think your objection was sincere yet misguided, otherwise I'd say that what you are doing there is quite twisted and seems designed to convince me that what I plainly see with my very eyes is somehow not what I plainly see with my very eyes. Beware, because many people will attempt to do that and most of them don't understand that this is what they're doing. The reason why ignorance is so compelling and often is not self-correcting (except in those whom you may call "true seekers", and even for them this requires much effort) is because it is self-reinforcing. That is, the beliefs that come from ignorance seem valid within the framework of the worldview that is willing to entertain them. In other words, these things are often subtle; if the effects of ignorance were obviously and undeniably wrong to anyone and everyone, then there would be no such thing as ignorance. That is clearly not the case.

The failings of the other people in the church shouldn't matter to you.

When someone can go to the same church for years without making progress towards losing those negative tendencies and replacing them with an overcoming love for humanity, then there is something wrong with that church. Something critical is missing. Note, I said making progress; I did not say "perfect absolute mastery". I would compare it to someone who attends a programming class for four years and after those four years, is still incapable of writing a "Hello World" program in the language of their choice. It indicates something is very wrong with the class.

The problem you have with churches is that it's almost impossible to find a counterexample that shows the shameful state of all of the others. For many people, the beginning of wisdom would be the realization of how fake and phony they are, of how many attitudes and beliefs and behavior patterns they have that somebody else put there, of how they can be this way while sincerely believing that they are living their own lives, of how even their kindness is fake and manipulative because it's designed to obtain a result, namely that of being liked. This, incidentally, is why the general population is such a sucker for any politician or leader who tells them what they want to hear. It's why they're such sheep. It's why they think mutual need is the same thing as love.

That's not exactly an easy realization. It does not draw a crowd. Anyone who preaches that, however accurate it may be, will quickly find that most people dearly love their mindless state and would rather silence the person who reminds them of it (because they perceive that person's message as painful) than seek freedom from it. Anyone who preaches that better be prepared to catch a lot of flak from a bunch of people who nod fervently when told that Jesus said we should love God and should love one another.

You think you're telling me something new when you say to me that people are imperfect? Do you sincerely believe that I did not notice that, or that this wasn't a core part of the point I am making? I say to you that this is a condi

Re:On the fence on this

[canistel]

I'm sorry, but your posts here show that you don't fully understand what you are talking about. Jesus WAS God, how can he be deluded about his own existence?

I'm still trying to figure out whether you believe the Bible to be true, and are just bitter about things you (I, we as a human race, for that matter) don't fully comprehend, or whether you're saying the Bible can't be true (because there are things you don't understand)...

In the case of David and his punishment, you really don't know what God's plan was, and why He did what He did. Think of how easy it is to question the reasons / decisions of people, spouses, businesses, governments etc. It's very easy to find fault with / rage against human beings without understanding the situation, now multiply that times positive infinity, and you may appreciate how difficult it is to understand God.

And just to further set the record straight, the death of his son was not the only punishment. Read 2 Samuel 12:11, and the account of Absalom etc.

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

I'm sorry, but your posts here show that you don't fully understand what you are talking about. Jesus WAS God, how can he be deluded about his own existence?

Got any proof for that? So far, all we've ever seen is "you have to believe" arguments. There is NO physical proof that Jesus was God, just as there's no proof that God exists. If you COULD prove it, you wouldn't need faith, would you? So, the requirement of having faith means that you already understand that there is no proof for either God's existence or Jesus being God.

And just to further set the record straight, the death of his son was not the only punishment. Read 2 Samuel 12:11, and the account of Absalom etc.

Doesn't negate the statement that, according to the Bible, God punished David by killing his child. God the Retroactive Abortionist. Killing the Innocent! Like I said, not a good example of justice or ethics.

Two wrongs don't make a right. And to say it's "Gods' way" is a cop-out, an abdication of reason, logic, morals, justice and ethics.

Mind you, the whole concept of "Gods' people" also smacks of the same injustice and "two weights, two measures", just writ large. A god who can't even deal fairly and equitably with his own creations is all to human - which is my point - it's just a story, by people, to exert control over other people.

Re:On the fence on this

[Darby]

Did you maybe ever think that what is wrong with the Bible is not the Bible, but your interpretation of it?

Sure, but what a stupid thing it would be to believe something that idiotic. It's called begging the question, and it's a logical fallacy.

You're saying that you have to believe that a book of ancient fairy tales is magically true (in spite of it being dead wrong in many places) and interpret it only in ways consistent with the conclusion you've already drawn...in order to reach the conclusion you've already drawn.

And another one of your errors: The "hatred" against gays, murders etc is not against them personally, but the lifestyle itself; big difference as can be seen in how Jesus responds to the murderer that is crucified with him.

The fact that you think it's possible to separate those things proves that you don't know shit about your religion, its history or its present incarnations. That's what happens when you insist on turning your critical thinking skills to mush by the demand that ancient fairy tales are true because you really really want them to be. There is nothing wrong with gay people or them living "a gay lifestyle". The fact that your evil hate based retard faith tells you there is just another reason you fucking scum should all go die. You are the principle enemy of moral progress, and your ignorant delusions cause real harm to real people.

Anyhow, you're not a Christian you're a liar. I can prove absolutely that you don't believe your bullshit:

Mark 16:18

Go drink poison, or admit you're a liar with no faith.

Re:On the fence on this

[LWATCDR]

"When someone can go to the same church for years without making progress towards losing those negative tendencies and replacing them with an overcoming love for humanity, then there is something wrong with that church. Something critical is missing. Note, I said making progress; I did not say "perfect absolute mastery". I would compare it to someone who attends a programming class for four years and after those four years, is still incapable of writing a "Hello World" program in the language of their choice. It indicates something is very wrong with the class. "
In a school you would be kicked out of the class long before that time. A church will keep let you trying well most of them.
If you don't want to go to a church and or don't believe in what they teach that is one thing. But again you are making a judgment as to that persons progress. Do you really know where that person started? Do you really know where that person is? How do you know what progress they made unless you are that person.
I find the obsession with all these other people to be the part I don't get. You even speak about what a Taoist would say but yet you still judge the value of a churches teaching from the most superficial and external signs possible.
If you have no desire to go to a church that is fine and dandy. Each person has to find their own way to the truth. I personally believe that almost nobody every figures out even the majority of the truth in their life time.
But I would say that you should do a little check on that judging other people thing.

Re:On the fence on this

[Stardate]

oh, if only i had mod points... this was a great, very insightful post. even more so if you read it high. :)

Re:On the fence on this

[canistel]

You need to climb down from your high horse; A) If your beliefs conflict with the Bible, then either you are wrong or the Bible is wrong; there is no "begging the question" or "logical fallacy" here; B) you know nothing about what I may or may not know about my faith; C) I really love this statement: "... your evil hate based retard faith... you fucking scum should all go die". You're a bigger hypocrite then most of the people you cut up; D) Read Mark 16 again, you seem to be doing some selective reading / interpretation there.

And finally... is the statement "a man may not sleep with another man" hating gays? How about "a man who sleeps with another man commits a sin"? How about "a man who sleeps with a women outside of marriage commits a sin?" Do Christians now hate both gays and straights? Calling a sin a sin is not hatred, regardless of what you want to think.

Re:On the fence on this

[canistel]

First, an admission: there has been much damage by so called "Christian's" who really should not be called Christian, but either consider themselves to be Christian or are simply labeled as such by the media or other people. And even among real Christian's, nobody is perfect and without sin. I'm not excusing their actions, but you cannot criticize something the Bible teaches (sex is for a married man and women) because so called Christian's like to preach something different / inaccurate. If I were to go around quoting you and getting it half wrong all the time, how is that your fault? So my point here is to separate the teaching from the people.

But, that is why in my previous post I put quotes around "hatred", because that is not accurate. When you hear the word hatred, does that not imply feelings of rage, revenge, bitterness, violence etc.? I could give names of people I know, that are gay in their desires, but are still in church, and are accepted just as much as any other sinner in church, because they are not... how do you say that... actively living with another man. There is no hatred of the man there, and cannot be; all of us in church understand that we all have our own weaknesses and sins, and none of us are better then the other.

Re:On the fence on this

[canistel]

Some people absolutely require proof before believing anything... but even some "simple" things cannot be proved, with 100% accuracy. If you're married, do you love your wife? Can you "prove" it scientifically, without any shadow of doubt?

Creation itself is proof of a supreme being, if only we open our eyes and want to see it.

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

All this presupposes that the bible is true, and that god exists. There is no proof of either. The claims made by christians (god and the bible) are extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but we aren't shown even a smidgen of proof. Not one piece of evidence.

And yet, we have lots of proof that same-sex behaviour is normal in other animals. Even cross-species behaviour. Look at dogs humping human legs.

Choice quotes:

No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue

and

An example of overlooking homosexual behavior is noted by Bruce Bagemihl describing mating giraffes where nine out of ten pairings occur between males.

"Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings."

Some researchers believe this behavior to have its origin in male social organization and social dominance, similar to the dominance traits shown in prison sexuality. Others, particularly Joan Roughgarden, Bruce Bagemihl, Thierry Lodé[18] and Paul Vasey suggest the social function of sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not necessarily connected to dominance, but serves to strengthen alliances and social ties within a flock. Others have argued that social organization theory is inadequate because it cannot account for some homosexual behaviors, for example, penguin species where same-sex individuals mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.[19] While reports on many such mating scenarios are still only anecdotal, a growing body of scientific work confirms that permanent homosexuality occurs in species with permanent pair bonds, but also in non-monogamous species like sheep.

One report on sheep cited below states:

Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes...[20]

In fact, apparent homosexual individuals are known from all of the traditional domestic species.

"All creatures great and small ... God made them so." So, god made them gay. It's part of nature. If you have a beef with that, take it up with your god. Dont' be like the ignorant pastor who preached from his pulpit the falsehood that it's only in humans that we see same-sex behaviour. It's EVERYWHERE! Even the birds and the bees do it!

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

We're not asking for absolute proof. Just show us "beyond a reasonable doubt." Or even the lower standard of "a preponderance of the evidence." Or SOMETHING!

After all these thousands of years, still no proof?

The statement "Creation itself is proof of a supreme being, if only we open our eyes and want to see it." is exactly the type of statement that is devoid of any proof - it presupposes that what we see was "created" by a "creator", then argues that it's "creation" is proof of a "creator".

The existence of the universe is not proof of creation. If you want to argue that the existence of the universe implies a creator, then who created the creator? Ask that question ad infinitum. Easier to posit that the universe is a natural phenomena, than to believe in an infinite chain of creators, none of who can be proven to exist. You can't have it both ways - "everything needs a creator" and "one ultimate creator". Who created that "ultimate creator" if "everything needs a creator"? It just doesn't work. Ergo, there is no god of the bible, no creator, no creation.

Makes more sense to say I am god. I at least can be proven to exist. AND I can create things - look at what I've created in this thread. Your god hasn't said a word. Maybe he's busy on the crapper ... or to quote George Carlin - "Yeah, you say jesus died for me 2,000 years ago ... but what's he done for me lately?"

Remember: You can't have it both ways - arguing "everything needs a creator" and "one ultimate creator". Who created that "ultimate creator" if "everything needs a creator"?

Re:On the fence on this

[Darby]

You need to climb down from your high horse; A) If your beliefs conflict with the Bible, then either you are wrong or the Bible is wrong;

There is no high horse.
The bible is wrong. In many particulars.
That is a basic fact. There is no debate or ambiguity on that topic.

you know nothing about what I may or may not know about my faith

Actually, I do.

You're not claiming to be a Scientologist or similar. Your beliefs are part of the public sphere. You claim to be a Christian, reality dictates that you are nothing more than a delusional fuck entirely divorced from reality.
Claim copyright on your belief system and you're left with a prayer of defending them based on ignorance as you're trying to do as your last defense. As your bible is part of the public domain, you're fucked Bucko. Any mystical parts of it are known to be bullshit. Grow up. Imaginary friends are for idiotic children.

I really love this statement: "... your evil hate based retard faith... you fucking scum should all go die". You're a bigger hypocrite then most of the people you cut up;

No, that's again, just another delusional bit of nuttery with no basis in reality. Your scumbag brethren tortured and murdered anybody who wouldn't ut into their bullshit. Nobody anything like me has ever murdered anyone for the heresey of merely disagreeing. That's you evil shitbag's entire history. Please pull your head out of your ass and take one sing;e breath of free air divorced from the evil you've been raised on before you dare to question basic sanity once again. Keep in mind *you* are the one supporting burning people alive because they are "witches". I'm not a deeply stupid idiot. Your faith demands that you support such idiotic nonsense. If you deny that then you don't actually get it.

So hypocrisy is alien to my worldview, it is necessary to yours.

Do Christians now hate both gays and straights? Calling a sin a sin is not hatred, regardless of what you want to think.

No, arbitrary idiotic declarations of moral absolutism based entirely on what was deemed "right" by sick fuckers intent upon building up armies with which to commit genocide (which *your* god's chosen people (necessarily demanding that he hated some of the people he made and therefore made just so that he could hate them) upon do not constitute morals, or even anything upon which a moral or ethical system could be based.

Re:On the fence on this

[Darby]

Anyhow, you're not a Christian you're a liar. I can prove absolutely that you don't believe your bullshit:

Mark 16:18

Go drink poison, or admit you're a liar with no faith.

You forgot (yes, I'm being *very* charitable), to address that most overpoweringly important of all possible points a "Christian" (which you and I both know you aren't) could possibly have to offer.

That's the sign "He" gave you, you cowardly, whining, lying, little fuck.

If he exists *and* you truly believe then that is all that you (a believer..well if you were which we both know you aren't, liar) have to show to prove to me ( a sane person who doesn't believe idiotic nonsense because I'm a not a cowardly, evil, douche like you've chosen to be) to prove that "He" is real.

That is the one power that he has granted to you. Out of the entire fucking bible, that's it. Given how often your god has been proven not just wrong, but *stupid* and unethical, it's really far and away the most important point in the entire text. Drink a glass of poison, and live, and I'll believe both that you believe ( which your refusal *at any time* to do, it's not just once, will prove absolutely false ), and that your "god" actually is more than you being an idiot and refusing to think.

Seriously, no middle ground possible from the text unless you want your ass raped hard by priests. And even then, as a part of Canon ,that really only makes you a Catholic.

Now, go drink a *big* glass of poison and die the painful death of an idiotic fool, or don't drink it and prove yourself 100% *faithless*. Jesus himself, went way the fuck out of his way, to make sure that your evil sinning ass, knew that that was your sign, yet when it's shoved in your face you deny it. Seriously, you weak willed, cowardly, lying straight into Jesus's face, satanic little fuck. Drink poison or admit you've forsaken him completely.

Or well, in the interest of honesty (you know, the thing you piss in the face of every time you talk about the "faith" you're too cowardly to represent), you could well, drink a big juicy glass of poison and live. As Jesus *promised* you. He never managed to come up with anything more compelling, so if you actually did believe in him as we all know you don't, you lying little bitch, you would be eager to demonstrate his power.
As there never was such a person, and as you know that for a fact, you'll continue down your unfaithful, cowardly lying path of denying *your* savior while demanding that the good people of the world be murdered for not complying with the delusions you're too weak willed and cowardly to subscribe to.

In short, one glance at the history of the evil you're pimping on decent people in a society defined upon secular, Liberalism makes you a traitor, a douche and an evil idiot lacking in even the basis of a moral system. There is no morality possible from your evil genocidal god. You only have to read the bible *and* have a conscience to know that. It's really not complicated if you're a real human. If you're a subhuman monster as you're arguing that *you* are, then really, what's the argument that your sick, evil, ass should be allowed to live?

Heck, *I'd* argue you should be should be kept in a lab or something. "How is it that decent people can survive under the control of such sickening, unadulterated evil". That's an interesting question with ties to reality. "How is it that evil, given full control over decency, and with with free reign to torture and murder any person with the sense of ethics that *required* us to evolve above grubs is allowed to live? Now that question would be interesting if it weren't the struggle of humanity against you sickening monsters since *WE*,the fucking sane people, dragged your cowardly, evil. delusional dumbfuck asses out of the dark ages, into the enlightenment, past that into Liberalism and therefore the founding of America. That was a rejection of being deeply stupid ( Your pathetically and demonstra

Re:On the fence on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Their "lifestyle" as you call it, is part and parcel of who they are. If bigots can't accept it, that's their problem, but there are hundreds of species of mammals that engage in same-sex relationships. It's normal. Get over it.

*sigh* No, it is only that way because the predominant social pressures say that that is how you behave. Animal and pre-modern human homosexuality is mostly a utilitarian thing or an oc casional dip. It is only bitter identity politics that creates the modern "homosexual"

Re:On the fence on this

[Silicon Jedi]

Yes, the world is broken. That's why we have entropy, and all sorts of other stuff. I believe in God. I'm sorry you choose not to. Can you point me to your proof that the universe's physical laws are consistent everywhere in time and space? Science requires faith. I choose to have faith in something else and acknowledge science as having gotten the mechanics worked out real well.

Is it rational? For me it is. Is it based on an evidence chain that starts with assuming uniformitarian principle as truth? No. But that doesn't make you right. It doesn't give you the right to bully pulpit your ideas on me.

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

Their "lifestyle" as you call it, is part and parcel of who they are. If bigots can't accept it, that's their problem, but there are hundreds of species of mammals that engage in same-sex relationships. It's normal. Get over it.

*sigh* No, it is only that way because the predominant social pressures say that that is how you behave. Animal and pre-modern human homosexuality is mostly a utilitarian thing or an oc casional dip. It is only bitter identity politics that creates the modern "homosexual"

Got any proof for that? Many animals engage in same-sex behaviour as more than "a utilitarian thing" or an "occasional dip" - they'll pair-bond for life.

Besides, your argument, even if it were valid, fails to show how that people engaging in same-sex activities is "wrong" or "abnormal". Even if it's a "utilitarian thing" - which you really need to define it and explain WHY it's wrong if it's innate. For example, if you want to claim it's in response to high densities of population, you'd have to explain why it's been "normal" when the human population was 1/500 what it is now, and also why, if it IS in response to high population densities, that it is somehow wrong if that's an innate response.

But your argument isn't valid even to that extent, since, if you bothered to follow the link, you'd see more than just the quote "No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue" You'd see examples of other animals where same-sex pair-bonding doesn't even interfere with raising the young (penguins).

It is only bitter identity politics that creates the modern "homosexual"

It is only shriveled-up xians who are so insecure with their own sexuality that they feel threatened by anything different, and so needing to impose it on others lest they wake up one day and realize that what they believe has no basis in reality, that have created the modern politics of hate.

There, fixed it for you.

Really, the world would be a better place if god existed and he decided that today was the day to do the rapture and take away all the religious people, of all faiths - the resulting peace on earth would be heaven.

Re:On the fence on this

[canistel]

So now we're using nature as our moral compass? ... I guess that means I (if I were a father) could have sex with my 10 year old daughter, after all, the male cats in my back yard will try and mate with kittens, and they don't care that the kitten is one of their offspring. Oh, and I guess that means I can murder anybody walking onto my property; many animals in the wild are "protective" of their property, they kill just because they are being harassed (see some BBC documentaries about Lions for example) ... The simple answer to that is, two males having sex, sex without marriage etc., is wrong because God says it's wrong, not because you may or may not find proof out in the wild.

Re:On the fence on this

[canistel]

You're asking for proof, beyond reasonable doubt, for the existence of God; Let's take a look at the big bang theory. Where did the first material, matter or whatever it's called, come from? How does the big bang theory explain the "there is absolutely nothing" to "now we have something" stage?

The very nature of a supreme being is that it isn't created; it boggles the mind, doesn't it? But that's the point you and every other evolutionist fall over; at some point, human logic is going to be in adequate to fully explain / understand the supreme being. What makes you think that humans are capable now, or ever will be, to understand everything in this universe? Saying "God does not exist because I can't find proof of his existance" is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand: "I can't see you, you don't exist."

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

So now we're using nature as our moral compass? ... I guess that means I (if I were a father) could have sex with my 10 year old daughter, after all, the male cats in my back yard will try and mate with kittens, and they don't care that the kitten is one of their offspring. Oh, and I guess that means I can murder anybody walking onto my property; many animals in the wild are "protective" of their property, they kill just because they are being harassed (see some BBC documentaries about Lions for example) ... The simple answer to that is, two males having sex, sex without marriage etc., is wrong because God says it's wrong, not because you may or may not find proof out in the wild.

All the things you mention are actually shit that goes on in the bible - people raping their sisters, having sex with their daughters, being ordered by god to kill their own children, commit genocide and enslavement, forcing the wives of their enemies to be their own, etc. So, how is "god" any better than nature?

"God" doesn't say all that shit is wrong. If you believe the bible, he actually ORDERED most of it! So I'm underwhelmed by any argument that a "god" who you can't even offer one piece of evidence even exists, says in some fairy-tale book that contains a lot of conduct that is universally condemned nowadays, saying something is "wrong".

You have no proof that either god exists, or that the bible is in any way authoritative. Until you can do both, what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is their own business. As for the "sex without marriage" supposedly being wrong - look at the purported adam and eve's descendants (or noah's) - how could they NOT be the most incestuous bunch of inbred hillbillies?

The bible is neither holy nor particularly moral. There is no proof ANY god exists. Jesus was a self-deluded nutbar, one of many. Too bad, so sad, but there is no evidence to support your claims. You have no right imposing your "belief" that people should be married before they can have sex; neither that people of the same sex can't have sex; nor, for that matter, that people of the same sex can't get married, same as anyone else.

You don't see the people who decide to raise families w/o getting married going around saying YOU can't get married. You don't see the people who are involved in same-sex relationships saying YOU can't have sex with the opposite sex. You don't see people in same-sex marriages saying YOU can't marry someone of the opposite sex. Show the same respect for their rights that they show you. Stop being a busy-body, a gossip, and a hypocrite. Take the mote out of your eye.

As a former fundie, I can tell you that there IS life after Jebus and the Holy Rollers. And it's better. MUCH better. So much better that it's too bad jesus isn't coming back - I'd like to spit in his eye for helping propagate all this ignorance in the name of a fictitious god. I'll just have to settle for the fact that justice was ultimately served when they nailed him to the cross.

Re:On the fence on this

[iamhassi]

"I do however, understand that this is another way to let people know what your particular church is about"

I think this is the natural evolution of the newsletter, from paper mailers to emails to twitters, but encouraging your congregation to do this during service is just tacky.

I love the photo accompanying this article. Think the lady with the laptop is twittering or playing WoW?

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

Can you point me to your proof that the universe's physical laws are consistent everywhere in time and space?

...

Is it based on an evidence chain that starts with assuming uniformitarian principle as truth? No.

I have NEVER said that the universe's physical laws are the same everywhere in time and space. Why would I assume that - I haven't been everywhere in time and space - at least not yet. That doesn't mean shit in relation to whether there is a god or not. If they are ultimately proven to vary depending on location and time, so what? That's not any sort of "proof" that a "god" exists.

But that doesn't make you right. It doesn't give you the right to bully pulpit your ideas on me.

Aw, since you can't give ANY proof for the existence of your fairy-tale god, you now resort to whining. Look, it's very simple. If everything requires a creator, then who created god? You can follow the logical chain and end up with an infinitude of creators. Or you can look at the alternative - that the universe does NOT require that infinitude of creators, or any creator - it just is. It's better than the assumption of an ultimate creator who "just is", because at least we have physical evidence of the existence of the universe. There's none for the existence of any of the thousands of gods that we humans have dreamed up.

There is no god, jesus was a self-deluded freak who, considering all the crap we've undergone "in his name", got what he deserved in the end, and religion is just superstition with a tax deduction.

Re:On the fence on this

[canistel]

Ah, now I see... as a former fundie, you've had a / many bad experience(es) in dealing with "Christians", so therefore the Bible cannot be true. Your logic is so confusing; You don't believe in the Bible, yet you say "Jesus was a self-deluded nutbar". The information / account of Jesus comes from the Bible, so if you don't believe the Bible, then you shouldn't believe that Jesus exists(ed).

I can't deny any experience you may or may not have had with "Christians", but don't assume that all people who label themselves as Christian are the same. I'm assuming that you're American (I'm not), but there are Christians living throughout the world who are much different then you are describing. In other words, don't toss out the message simply because the messengers are sinful, or because the messengers are not bringing the real message.

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

You're asking for proof, beyond reasonable doubt, for the existence of God; Let's take a look at the big bang theory. Where did the first material, matter or whatever it's called, come from? How does the big bang theory explain the "there is absolutely nothing" to "now we have something" stage?

You misunderstand the big bang theory. It doesn't state what you claim it does. Please do at least a bit of research.

Also, I have not asked for "proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, for the existence of God" (the criminal standard of proof). I'm not even holding believers to the civil standard of proof - the "preponderance of the evidence." I've asked for ANY proof. None has been shown. Not one artifact, not one test, not one shred of evidence of the existence of any one of the thousands of gods that mankind has worshiped.

Saying "God does not exist because I can't find proof of his existance" is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand: "I can't see you, you don't exist."

Don't be silly. You can devise tests to prove or disprove my existence to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. You haven't offered any proof of the existence of ANY god to ANY standard. Your case boils down to "I believe because I believe." Hardly compelling. There's more evidence that I am god than your biblical god - you can devise a test to see if I at least exist (even to the much higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"), which gives me a leg up on your god, who you can't show, to even a subset of the "balance of the probabilities", exists.

Or you could admit that there is no proof whatsoever, and that "sin" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and therefore, that believers have no inherent right to try to impose their morality on others, and that society has a right, for example, to pass laws allowing same-sex marriage.

After all, since you have no proof, the only difference between your religious beliefs and other superstitions is a tax deduction.

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

There are records of a rabble-rouser who was executed around that time who fits the description, and was executed. What's the problem with that? It doesn't prove that jesus was the son of god or any other crap, any more than Jim Jones and his cults' mass suicide proves that their beliefs were true, or the Solar Temple, or the Raliens, or whatever.

Or are you now going to argue that, because John Travolta and Tom Cruise exist, that scientology must be true?

Christianity is just the latest cultural abnormality in a long history. And no, I'm not from the US. A well-intentioned belief in the bible is ultimately not defensible - it eventually boils down to intellectual dishonesty, and that's a serious problem, at least from my point of view. When I have to make excuses, gloss over the bad stuff, etc., then it's time to say "this is a load of crap", whether it's the bible or work or anything else. The bible simply doesn't hold up under honest scrutiny. That its' purveyors don't either is only a secondary issue.

You know the saying - "You shall know the truth, and it shall set you free." Knowing that the god of the bible is not true is freedom indeed. I like it. Not because I'm now "free to do whatever I want", but because I no longer have to waste any time or energy trying to deal with the cognitive dissonance that results from having to believe something that is simply not credible.

Try it. You'll sleep better at night, you'll have a wider circle of friends, and you won't run the fisk of people thinking you're a self-righteous prig who wants to impose your moral standards on them.

Re:On the fence on this

[canistel]

I'm not claiming the big bang theory states anything at all, I'm asking, how does it or any other scientific theory give you any proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that first there was nothing, and then there was something (i.e. creation)? You have trouble accepting that a supreme being who has always existed, created the universe, because in your mind a previous creator needs to create the latter creator etc.... don't you see the irony here? You throw out the Bible because the existence of God cannot be proved, but your quite content to accept scientific theories that have holes in them and cannot explain how we got here.

Re:On the fence on this

[canistel]

... and as for "devising tests", you're still assuming that human logic and testing is sufficient to understand a supreme being. If God exists (and I believe he does), then by definition he will be beyond our human understanding.

Re:On the fence on this

[canistel]

So basically what you're saying is you feel free / liberated because you no longer have to expend energy understanding the Bible. And you also have more friends now etc., etc. Basically, the "head in sand" approach. "I can't understand it therefore it is false / doesn't exist etc."

Speaking of wasting time, I'm obviously doing just that in arguing with you, so I will stop.

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

... and as for "devising tests", you're still assuming that human logic and testing is sufficient to understand a supreme being. If God exists (and I believe he does), then by definition he will be beyond our human understanding.

You don't have to understand something to be able to test for its' existence. People didn't understand how the sun gave off light and heat, but they could test as to whether the sun existed by simply looking. People didn't understand how fire worked to be able to harness it.

Also, you admit that your belief has zero proof. It's just a belief, with no evidence to back it up. Like I said, there's more proof that I am god (because it can be proven that I at least exist) than the god of the bible. That my position is beyond your understanding could be seen as more evidence :-)

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

I'm not claiming the big bang theory states anything at all, I'm asking, how does it or any other scientific theory give you any proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that first there was nothing, and then there was something (i.e. creation)?

Like I said - do your research. The Big Bang theory does NOT say that "first there was nothing, and then there was something". Whoever told you that was talking out their arse. This is the sort of argument from ignorance that religious apologists make all the time, and it's a good indicator of the total paucity of proof on their side.

So, once again, why should ANYONE believe a superstition that has absolutely no evidence to back it up? Why should anyone believe a bible that commands genocide and slavery of ones' enemies, rape of their women, the killing of your own child to prove you're obedient to god (sounds like a cult to me), mysgoeny, bashing the GLBTs, slaughtering children en masse, a god who so lacks a sense of proportion or self-confidence that he gets bears to rip apart kids who made fun of someone's bald head (even kids understand "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"), punishes the innocent to "teach his people a lesson", etc?

That's just fucked up.

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

Quite the contrary - what I'm saying is that, on further investigation, the bible turned out to be so much bullshit that it wasn't possible to defend it.

Have you even read it in its' entirety? (And I'm not saying "read 3 chapters a day and get through it in a year" - I mean - sit down and read it cover to cover in a week and see if, on the whole it makes sense).

No "head in the sand" approach here. I've still got my interlinear hebrew/english (OT) and greek/english (NT) texts, and no matter how you try to explain it away, it's still a fairy tale, not the truth.

Re:On the fence on this

[stdarg]

Got any proof for that? Many animals engage in same-sex behaviour as more than "a utilitarian thing" or an "occasional dip" [wikipedia.org] - they'll pair-bond for life.

MANY animals? I've never seen a single homosexual animal myself but I've seen plenty of heterosexual animals. I'd say calling it anything but extremely rare except in humans is rather disingenuous.

It is only shriveled-up xians who are so insecure with their own sexuality that they feel threatened by anything different, and so needing to impose it on others lest they wake up one day and realize that what they believe has no basis in reality, that have created the modern politics of hate.

Really, you think that ONLY Christians created the modern politics of hate? Are gay issues the only ones that matter to you or something? Because there's plenty of hate to go around -- many people seem to hate corporations, plenty of non-Christians hate pro-lifers, many people hate illegal immigration, teachers hate anybody who proposes merit pay, etc.

Re:On the fence on this

[michaewlewis]

Would the proof you're looking for include miracles? Anyone who's been a Christian for any amount of time can give examples of miracles that they themselves have experienced or know someone else who has experienced. I've experienced some real miracles that cannot be explained by conventional wisdom and can't really be attributed to chance.

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

You've obviously not raised too many mammals as pets. Same-sex activity is quite common mammals. So is inter-species sexual activity with the same sex - which the following joke references:

Q: What do you do when a chihuahua humps your leg?
A: You kick it!
Q: What do you do when a pit bull humps your leg?
A: Pretend you're enjoying it, bitch!

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

and can't really be attributed to chance.

... sounds like you're hedging it a bit there.

Chance can explain a lot more than we give it credit for, because we don't have an intuitive grasp of how probabilities work.

Re:On the fence on this

[causality]

"When someone can go to the same church for years without making progress towards losing those negative tendencies and replacing them with an overcoming love for humanity, then there is something wrong with that church. Something critical is missing. Note, I said making progress; I did not say "perfect absolute mastery". I would compare it to someone who attends a programming class for four years and after those four years, is still incapable of writing a "Hello World" program in the language of their choice. It indicates something is very wrong with the class. " In a school you would be kicked out of the class long before that time. A church will keep let you trying well most of them. If you don't want to go to a church and or don't believe in what they teach that is one thing. But again you are making a judgment as to that persons progress. Do you really know where that person started? Do you really know where that person is? How do you know what progress they made unless you are that person. I find the obsession with all these other people to be the part I don't get. You even speak about what a Taoist would say but yet you still judge the value of a churches teaching from the most superficial and external signs possible. If you have no desire to go to a church that is fine and dandy. Each person has to find their own way to the truth. I personally believe that almost nobody every figures out even the majority of the truth in their life time. But I would say that you should do a little check on that judging other people thing.

That's neat and sounds good and it has that "who can disagree with that" quality, right? Except that when I join any organization there is a question of whether I will be a contributing member or whether I am merely there to socialize. Personally, I don't want to merely socialize in a place that is supposed to be about wisdom and spiritual growth. There are lots of places to merely socialize which have no such goals if that's what I want to do.

If my message, that is what I would contribute, is accurate yet unwanted then why would I wish to be where I am not wanted? It seems to me that the only correct way to deal with that would be to respect their wishes. I'd love to see you refute that. My bet is that you cannot. If you respond to me again and pretend again that you somehow didn't see me saying this, that will be your implicit admission that you are unable to refute it. I prefer not to be this way but you aren't giving me much to work with here.

I also wonder one thing. There is one alternative to choosing not to go where my genuine heartfelt beliefs are not wanted, but it's an ugly one. I will pose it to you in the form of a question. Do you think I would be genuine and honest if I kept my mouth shut and never contributed anything to a church, or worse, contributed what I don't really believe, in order to be esteemed by its members? Personally I think that would be dishonest and manipulative. It would amount to putting on a mask in order to fit in which would make me a phony, just like most other people. If you think there is ever a good reason to do that, that being phony can lead to the truth and honesty that is needed in order to genuinely explore spirituality, then again I'd love to see your argument.

You have presumed to call me judgmental for refusing to be phony in this way. You have never adequately explained why you insist on doing so when I have given non-judgmental reasons for why I make this choice. Whether that's a position of hypocrisy I will leave for you to decide.

I highlighted the difference between discernment and judgment for a reason. That's because your response was quite predictable, which frankly should tell you something about its usefulness. You have failed to address that difference. What I presented to you was a whole line of reasoning and you have cherry-picked a specific part of it to formulate your response. That's alright, except that you ignored what I wrote that w

Re:On the fence on this

[Taimat]

I don't mind that you used my post :) I took quite a while to find a church in my area that I fit well into. It's tough, because I have certain 'faults and failures' that I find myself going back to that I don't really want to do, but yet get discouraged when I see this in others. What I like about the Church my wife and I are at, is that the majority of everyone there, including the pastor, is very open about this process. (ie - there is a Men's group that meets that is all about pornography addiction, and they work as an accountability group for each other - this is because a lot of these men have found it hard to get away from viewing that material online, and are finding it is hard on their marriage because their wives feel that they aren't enough for thier husband). I like that this church is open about things like that - and not just saying "Porn is bad - don't look at it." and move on like it's all that needs to be said about it. What I realized when looking for a congregation to join, is that it is a lot like my marriage, but with a lot more people - you are trying to mesh multiple lives together to form a "family" of people that share the same beliefs and convictions, but everyone's is just a little different, or they have more or less emotional baggage than you.

Re:On the fence on this

[stdarg]

I've raised a few and never thought any of them were gay. I've seen occasional same sex sexual activity, but is that enough to say the animal is gay? For instance, I'd say you're setting the bar way too low if you think a male dog who humps a man's leg is gay.

Originally you said 'Many animals engage in same-sex behaviour as more than "a utilitarian thing" or an "occasional dip" - they'll pair-bond for life.' So I think you acknowledge that behavior like occasional humping doesn't qualify as making the animal gay.

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

Nothing of the sort, but just out of curiosity, how many cocks does a guy have to suck before they're considered at least bi? In our psych courses, we set the bar at 6. Nowadays, of course, we'd say "6, but 3 if you owned a mac."

Look, it's simple - religions should not be telling people who want nothing to do with their superstitions how to run their lives, and they certainly shouldn't be doing it by making claims that are lies, such as "only humans engage in same-sex activities - it's unnatural." This is easily disproven. Just get a bunch of white mice, and let them breed. As succeeding generations get more crowded for space, their behaviour changes, with more and more same-sex encounters. Or, instead of doing this yourself, you can read more about the effects of crowding in this pdf. (page 68)

Still other types of deviant behavior found in crowded rodent populations include inappropriate sexual behavior, often misdirected in regard to sex and age, and social withdrawal, in which some individuals avoid contact and fail to display normal activity. Thus, Calhoun's study of wild Norway rat populations (1962a) showed deviant sexual behavior by some individuals which he called "pansexuals." Their sexual behavior was indiscriminate in regard to the sex and age of the other individuals which they approached and mounted. He also observed the withdrawn individual or "social dropout"--one who entered a state of inactivity and depression and went into a spiral of deteriorating health.

Far from being "unnatural", they're hard-wired to channel at least some of their reproductive energy to non-reproductive ends when reproducing would threaten the survival of the colony. That's hardly "unnatural". So, if you believe in "god the creator", then you have to admit that "god made them that way."

Re:On the fence on this

[Anonymous Coward]

You reference God killing but show him as though he is a HUMAN killing, but he is not he created you he can end you. That is the point with suicide, murder, abortion etc God created you he and he ALONE chooses the time of your death, no human has the power to end his or another's life you do not 'own' you life God your creator does NOT you.

Re:On the fence on this

[tomhudson]

You reference God killing but show him as though he is a HUMAN killing, but he is not he created you he can end you. That is the point with suicide, murder, abortion etc God created you he and he ALONE chooses the time of your death, no human has the power to end his or another's life you do not 'own' you life God your creator does NOT you.

No wonder god is such a jerk - look at the people he hangs around with.

Seriously, get your head out of your god's crotch. Acts of cruelty "in god's name", as depicted in the bible, are never justifiable. Fortunately, it's all just superstition - heaven wouldn't be heaven with asshats like you and your master in it.

Re:On the fence on this

[stdarg]

Sorry I didn't respond. I'm experiencing weird behavior with the comments section in slashdot. Sometimes it displays as a list of topics, showing the score and number of replies for each one. Other times it appears as a list of articles but doesn't show the number of replies. I don't know what's going on. But when the latter happens I tend to lose track of comments.

Nothing of the sort, but just out of curiosity, how many cocks does a guy have to suck before they're considered at least bi? In our psych courses, we set the bar at 6. Nowadays, of course, we'd say "6, but 3 if you owned a mac."

Hmm I really don't know. Also, is it possible to "turn" gay and then "turn" back? Like if you suck 50 cocks in one summer, but afterwards you're never interested in guys again, are you gay/bi?

There are other situations too where it's not clear. Are men who abuse male children gay? Personally I don't think they are necessarily gay/bi since small children are almost sexless. I think it's an important issue because it's a big reason for some people to discriminate against gays (i.e. priests, boy scout leaders, gym teachers, any area where they are in contact with children).

Are men who have sex with male animals gay? I don't think so since male animals don't have human male personalities (and I think there has to be an emotional component to sexual orientation, which I separate from pure sexual actions).

I think you have to self-identify as gay to be gay, pretty much no matter what physical actions you engage in.

Far from being "unnatural", they're hard-wired to channel at least some of their reproductive energy to non-reproductive ends when reproducing would threaten the survival of the colony. That's hardly "unnatural". So, if you believe in "god the creator", then you have to admit that "god made them that way."

Anyway, I have heard of the crowding thing before and it's really interesting. However, rats kept artificially crowded in lab conditions (where they still have enough food, waste is managed, etc) are not natural. In real life if there were so many rats in one place that they had to turn gay in order to survive -- well they'd just leave. They'd probably starve before it even happened. This is just supposition on my part, but again, all I'm saying is that in relatively natural conditions it seems to be very rare. In the wilderness I would say it's incredibly rare (for instance, have you ever heard of wild male lions in Africa having sex with each other?), in relatively natural conditions it's more common but still rare (thousands of sheep on one farm, sure maybe you get the occasional homosexual incident), and possibly common in very contrived situations (a hundred male rats trapped in a small box).

I could put 20 rams in a pen, tie one of them and cover him with ewe pheremones, and probably get a significant amount of "homosexual" action. But I would not call that homosexual. It's entirely contrived. To me that's obvious but people still quote these experiments as "proof" that homosexuality is natural.

I could take 20 straight guys (self-identified) and trick them into jacking off to trap porn where they think it's a girl but in the last scene, oops there's a cock! I wouldn't call them gay or open to homosexuality though.

*not* Mars Hill again...

[salimma]

Been to Mars Hill once -- it's a discomforting combination of slick stage presentation and right-wing Christian fundamentalism.

Re:*not* Mars Hill again...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Isn't that the basic description of 6th generation American Protestantism in general? After all, you can't fill the megachurch with actual *SUBSTANCE* or *ORTHODOXY*- or even suggesting maybe being poor *might* be the fault of certain other groups taking more than they need.

Re:*not* Mars Hill again...

[ChinggisK]

right-wing Christian fundamentalism.

Kinda. The pastor Mark Driscoll is very controversial, even among Christians. He's also extremely intelligent, and is very capable of defending the things he says (I'd pay money to see anyone on here debate him). Christian or not, he's a good thing for everyone, simply because he's not just another fundamentalist idiot that just spouts stuff off without it making any sense or being able to support it.

Re:*not* Mars Hill again...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's also extremely intelligent, and is very capable of defending the things he says...

Well, maybe for definitions of "defend" that are substantially less than "prove scientifically".

Re:*not* Mars Hill again...

[Jason O'Neil]

After all, you can't fill the megachurch with actual *SUBSTANCE* or *ORTHODOXY*

I actually download some of Mark Driscoll's podcasts, agree with some of his thinking, disagree with other bits.

It's interesting though that his church seems to be thriving precisely because it tries to keep its substance and stick to old-school orthodox beliefs. Driscoll is known for his in your face this-is-what-the-bible-says-and-if-you-disagree-you're-wrong style... and it's one of the only megachurches I know of that really holds to conservative beliefs and is happy to let everyone else know what they think - no dumbing it down to please the lowest common denominator.

Regardless of how much I agree or disagree with his teaching, I admire the way he holds to his beliefs and isn't afraid to teach them just because it mightn't go down so well with the crowd.

Re:*not* Mars Hill again...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

this-is-what-the-bible-says-and-if-you-disagree-you're-wrong style
 
Ah, but you see, as a Catholic who rejects Sola Scriptura, that's not Orthodoxy to me, or substance. Orthodoxy would mean having an actual liturgical service that teaches from action as well as words, substance would mean being deeper than just Scripture.
 
  Regardless of how much I agree or disagree with his teaching, I admire the way he holds to his beliefs and isn't afraid to teach them just because it mightn't go down so well with the crowd.
 
And yet he's keeping with the Reformation, which is exactly what goes so well with American Individualism.

Oh, good

[cml4524]

I used to get dragged to church as a child, but our church was a dinky little thing in a podunk town of no consequence full of geriatric hillbillies. Sunday school rarely consisted of more than a gripe session, lead by the head hillbilly who worked in the "big city" (of about 120,000) over the mountain. The sessions generally revolved around the most recent topic Agnes had heard on the nightly news, which usually meant I sat their for an hour listening to people with multiple missing teeth bash immigrants, gays, liberals, and basically anybody - other than the group leader - who had been more than 10 feet past the county line in any direction in the past 30 years.

I guess what I'm saying is, my church-going experience was largely shaped by ill-informed, shrill idiots with minimal exposure to the outside world and strong opinions on things they had no capability to understand, so I really can't think of a more fitting place to send them than the Internet.

Mars Hill

[x_IamSpartacus_x]

Mars Hill has been known for its controversy and new ways of doing things. Mark Driscoll (the pastor) has alienated a lot of mainstream conservative pastors out there. It's not surprising that he encourages his congregation to use new trends to expand his influence. He is drawing in a lot of younger audiences than most more established churches. We will see how long that lasts and if it some day implodes on itself like most of these trendy ministries kinda do.

Re:Mars Hill

[MightyMartian]

Mars Hill has been known for its controversy and new ways of doing things. Mark Driscoll (the pastor) has alienated a lot of mainstream conservative pastors out there. It's not surprising that he encourages his congregation to use new trends to expand his influence. He is drawing in a lot of younger audiences than most more established churches. We will see how long that lasts and if it some day implodes on itself like most of these trendy ministries kinda do.

Usually in revelations of financial misdeeds or bizarre sexual perversions, or sometimes both! I just love it when one of these Holy Joes gets nailed with tax evasion AND indecent acts against bark mulch dispensers.

OK....

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

I'm aware most of the people here probably don't practice a religion. I do. Troll on.

That said, this is ridiculous; just because a technology exists for something, you don't have to use it for everything. If you're truly interested in bringing your friends to (your) religion, Twitter's not gonna do it. You have to actually bring them into the building and break that ice by showing them that, no, you're not snake-handlers speaking in tongues or crazy terrorists preaching jihad or whatever. Besides, the reduction of religious beliefs to sound bytes by believers and non-believers alike is one of the most damaging processes to those who are religious. This will just end up backfiring on them and making them look like fools.

Re:OK....

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I fear it already does. Tony Jones, one of the "bright young minds" behind this, is currently twittering the Didache to his facebook page, and ended up having to ask me in a private e-mail "not to respond so fast".

Re:OK....

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking in tongues isn't anymore ridiculous than what you actually believe.

Re:OK....

[brian0918]

Nice name. CWRU took all my money. Oh, and you're supposed to called it Case now. :)

Re:OK....

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

Nah, I identify more with the WRU side anyway (I'm a social scientist, but don't tell anyone here!).

Re:OK....

[Nesgar]

As a church pastor, I'd be a tad mortified to see half the congregation with heads down, tapping away during the sermon. Would I be twittered into attending a church where someone has the idle-time to send me a text, mid-service? "Church" is already far too synonymous with "boredom". On the other hand, in a wired world where people want to interact and ask questions and give opinions, I can see the value in tweets being big-screened and addressed post-sermon by the preacher. Cheaper than a mobile jammer, anyway.

Re:OK....

[tomhudson]

Besides, the reduction of religious beliefs to sound bytes by believers and non-believers alike is one of the most damaging processes to those who are religious.

Actually, reading the whole bible, instead of cherry-picking, is one of the most damaging processes for those who are religious.

It's just fucked up.

Re:OK....

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I'm aware most of the people here probably don't practice a religion. I do.

Hey, me too. Except that my religion's rites involve two crack whores, all the booze that I can shoplift, and a bathtub full of cottage cheese.

Troll on.

No, troll, but I would tend to disagree with you. I don't use Twitter, but in my opinion, religions have always been adept at adopting new technologies to "spread their word." Look at the "televangelists" in the US for an example.

And I could imagine that some folks who feel isolated by their faith, might take comfort in being able to send and receive quick messages to someone in their church. Just so they don't feel so alone. Unless they are Luddites, of course.

My faith is very taxing, as the cottage cheese tends to smell like something the cat dragged in after a couple of days.

Re:OK....

[Phroggy]

Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? ...Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.

So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? ...If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

1 Corinthians 14:6,9,23,28 (NIV)

Re:OK....

[Kizor]

I'm in the same situation as you and long considered Twitter an utter waste of time. That was until a journalist covering a demonstration in Egypt managed to do this and was released without charge while his photographer disappeared. I can't deny that Twitter can be used to do good. We're by and large unaware of the potential of our new tools, so this kind of experimentation may reveal valuable new things or at least get rid of the nagging feeling that they might be here.

This is the dawn of the Information Age. We do things. Occasionally they even work.

Whether this is on Slashdot for more reasons than being sneered at is a more difficult question.

Re:OK....

[wazzzup]

I'll go further and say the building doesn't matter. It will just be filled with people that cognitively acknowledge Jesus but have nothing to show for it but their weekly attendance to said building. Worthless.

Simply show them a life of someone that practices Jesus' teachings and they might see that it's more than an antiquated fairy tale. Love those that are hard to love. If you've been blessed with abundance (in whatever wealth, love, etc.) then share it with the poor (in wealth, love, etc.). Recognize that you're certainly no better than the drunk lying in the gutter and quite possibly a worse person than he or she is. Recognize that there are no "degrees" of sins - homosexuals are your equals and that their lifestyle is no worse than your cheating on taxes/wife lifestyle. Know that listening to crappy Christian music does not make you a better Christian any more than being at a certain building one day a week does. It's just another expression of Christians segregating themselves from people that aren't like them. Stop "tithing" to yourselves by building lavish, beautiful "worship-campuses" and ignoring the homeless person starving in front of it. You can't be both pro-life and support capital punishment. You can't say "peace be with you" at church and support war. You can't be Republican/Democrat first, Christian second.

If people actually listened to Jesus and what he had to say rather than observing so-called Christians then they might not be so quick to write Christianity off. I don't blame the world for its judgement of us though because today's Christian church and the people that fill it are artificial, ineffective and lame.

Its a shame

[moniker127]

We godless heathens dominate the internet. They're walking into a battle they cannot win.

*Maniacal laughter*

Re:Its a shame

[singingjim1]

Amen brother. Education is the key to unblindfolding the sheep and helping people to free their minds. The more information people consume the less likely they are to be fooled by hypocritical TV preachers and ultra charismatics. Let's pray that they run across Christopher Hitchens writings at some point in their widening internet experiences.

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And what is left, when you take away the godless heathens, are orthodox people who can actually think and whose religion isn't opposed to rationality and science at every turn.

Re:Its a shame

[moniker127]

I believe that religion is inherently opposed to the scientific process. There is no mixing the two unless you make some pretty major concessions.

For example, how can someone who believes in a creator of all things accept the law of conservation of mass? Some things are just incompatible.

Re:Its a shame

[Darkness404]

Well, someone can think of it this way, the universe is just a gigantic game of Conway's game of life, but the laws were programmed by someone or something (an intelligent designer), who can alter the variables in the game when they see fit. Most of the time the game goes on, people live, people die, but occasional the creator kills off a few cells, or creates a few more, that alters the game.

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

For example, how can someone who believes in a creator of all things accept the law of conservation of mass?
 
As an inadequate human attempt to explain a rule set up by the given creator? And that without that rule, the universe would be quite different?

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I go one step further and put a limit on God. He can't alter the variables as he sees fit, they MUST fit the rules and causality consistently (even if, perhaps, we theorize a God that is outside of OUR time, and therefore isn't limited by time flowing the same direction we experience it in). I believe in a deterministic universe- but also that human beings preserve their own sense of free will because of their finite brain size that can't see all the variables all at once.

Re:Its a shame

[canistel]

Bingo. The 100% belief in science as the end-all-and-be-all explanation of who / what / how we exist is basically just like saying: "I can't fully understand the concept of God (by using science or other means), therefore, God doesn't exist." Talk about sticking your head in the sand and making like an ostrich.

Re:Its a shame

[TheGratefulNet]

ALL religion is opposed to rationality.

which religion does not claim some supernatural being that, well, has NEVER shown himself?

if you are a religion, you have a deity (or plural). and I don't think there has been the tiniest shred of actual evidence to support ANY one's view of their god.

therefore, to believe in things you can't possibly prove - by definition - is to be irrational.

scientists who tend to believe in god have this weird duality to their mind. seems to be a flaw that lets them 'forgive' some bizarre unprovable things that they just won't give up.

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Goes one step further if you talk to the quantum physics/mechanics guys. They're convinced that their own inability to move beyond probabilistic answers is a *universal* inability to move beyond probabilistic answers, and thus we live in an indeterministic universe. They can't even admit to some other species somewhere in the universe knowing more than we do, let alone an all powerful God able to know more than we do.

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

which religion does not claim some supernatural being that, well, has NEVER shown himself?
 
No religion I'm aware of claims that. They all have either written or oral traditional claims of a God who *did* show himself.
 
  ALL religion is opposed to rationality.
 
Incorrect- in fact, the current Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, gave a rather interesting speech on the topic right after he was elected Pope. You ought to remember, it was the one where he condemned certain sects of Islam for being irrational.
 
  if you are a religion, you have a deity (or plural). and I don't think there has been the tiniest shred of actual evidence to support ANY one's view of their god.
 
Now that depends on your definition of "actual evidence" and how irrational or rational you are in accepting evidence. I can define objective evidence so narrowly that nothing I haven't experienced personally exists, or so broadly that I actually accept eyewitness testimony, and both are correct as far as the word "actual" goes.
 
  therefore, to believe in things you can't possibly prove - by definition - is to be irrational.
 
Equally, to disbelieve in things I've experienced in my own life, would likewise be irrational, no?
 
  scientists who tend to believe in god have this weird duality to their mind. seems to be a flaw that lets them 'forgive' some bizarre unprovable things that they just won't give up.
 
Or rather, they've been presented with evidence through personal experience that you refuse to admit is evidence. I think the second, that your personal definition of "actual evidence" is too narrow, is far more likely.

Re:Its a shame

[TheGratefulNet]

the fact that you are deluded to think any god 'did' show himself means you already are beyond thinking critically about the subject.

you are hooked and can't get out of that trap.

sorry to be you. otoh, ignorance is bliss and you may actually be happier in your delusion than I am in the knowledge that its all a lie.

it is all a lie. you just have been brainwashed into thinking the fairy tale is really true. sorry mate, but its not true. as much as we'd all want it to be, it just not. get over it.

Re:Its a shame

[TheGratefulNet]

Or rather, they've been presented with evidence through personal experience that you refuse to admit is evidence.

so, I'm either unable to 'receive' god's message or witness his existence or I'm refusing to?

(laughing)

typical avoidance reply. no, dude, I'm NOT trying to 'reject god'. if he's out there, he's been silent to me and that seems to make no sense at all (why would he be selective in how he 'talks' to?)

this reasoning is a joke. its a twisted bit of thinking to try to make the other person feel 'unworthy' and that's why he has not experienced god.

here's the real explanation: there is no god and no human has EVER experienced him. its no one's fault for not hearing from god - god does not exist so no one CAN hear from him.

anyone who says they've experienced god is basically, well, a nutcase. it does not pass the modern smell test on critical thinking.

Re:Its a shame

[mokus000]

Bizarre unprovable things like the notion that the universe follows laws? Or the notion that nothing (or perhaps only nothing we should care about) exists which cannot be observed? Or that truth can be reliably approximated by generalization from observed phenomena?

These concepts are fundamental to the modern notion of science, but are themselves every bit as irrational as Flying-Spaghetti-Monster-ism. The only thing they have going for them is that they have worked so far - or at least, we believe that we remember that they have.

Re:Its a shame

[mokus000]

I'm glad to see you've got the ultimate reality thing all wrapped up. Mind lending me a bit of your apparently transcendental wisdom?

Which colour should I paint the bedroom? I'm currently considering "Universal Umber" and "Café Miel", though I'd be open to any other suggestions (edicts?) such an amazing individual as yourself might make.

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

the fact that you are deluded to think any god 'did' show himself means you already are beyond thinking critically about the subject.
 
And the fact that you don't at least read and test written documentation mans that you are already accepting too narrow a definition of evidence.
 
  you are hooked and can't get out of that trap.
 
I can say the same about you
 
  sorry to be you. otoh, ignorance is bliss and you may actually be happier in your delusion than I am in the knowledge that its all a lie.
 
Knowledge is arrogance. The most rational thing any scientist, philosopher, or theologian can be is humble enough to admit they don't have all the answers.
 
  it is all a lie. you just have been brainwashed into thinking the fairy tale is really true. sorry mate, but its not true. as much as we'd all want it to be, it just not. get over it.
 
Well, I've got my own subjective experience that says otherwise- and I've been forced to either admit I don't know everything, or believe based on that evidence. The fact that it isn't evidence to you says more about you than about me, as is the fact of your apparent inability to find the [shift] key.

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

so, I'm either unable to 'receive' god's message or witness his existence or I'm refusing to?
 
No, that's not what I said. I said so far your definition of objective evidence is too narrow to admit the mounds of written documentation from thousands of different cultures. There's a difference. Being "unable to 'receive' god's message or witness his existence or I'm refusing to?" is being irrational. Having too narrow a definition of objective evidence is merely being too skeptical.
 
  typical avoidance reply. no, dude, I'm NOT trying to 'reject god'. if he's out there, he's been silent to me and that seems to make no sense at all (why would he be selective in how he 'talks' to?)
 
Well, gee, you're selective in who you talk to, aren't you? But no, I'm not even claiming that he's been silent in your life, only that your definition of objective evidence is too narrow to allow in evidence of his existence.
 
  here's the real explanation: there is no god and no human has EVER experienced him.
 
That explanation is dismissed by the hundreds of thousands of pages of written documentation from disparate cultures around the globe. You are claiming that the experience of literally *billions* of people doesn't exist merely because you have too narrow a definition of objective evidence. I take it back, you're irrational and the very nutcase that you claim believers are.

Re:Its a shame

[Kerrigann]

I'm not an physicist or an expert on quantum mechanics... but I don't think physicists are as convinced about things as you make them sound :)

This wikipedia page lists something like 17 different models of what quantum uncertainty *might* conceptually imply... the math works without us being comfortable with a sane conceptual interpretation.

And science carries on without this arguably very fundamental question being answered, because *it's not science*, it's philosophy. There are people here that have gone down this philosophical road before MUCH better than I ever will, but basically science as it is defined is only concerned with testable conclusions.

To address the GP, that doesn't mean that questions about reason and purpose aren't important, or don't exist... FAR from it. These sorts of questions are arguably *more* important... just not verifiable in any way we have so far conceived.

Scientists also tend (like all humans) to dabble in philosophy or religion occasionally, and it's easy to get *philosophical discussions about science* and *science* mixed up. You'll hear some scientists make bold claims about multiple universes or causality or free will... but it's mostly philosophical wankering (not that there's anything WRONG with that :).

Anyway, the point is that I think most people who understand science don't think that science *replaces* philosophy or spirituality... quite the opposite. It is *woefully inadequate* to handle a whole class of very important questions about the nature of our universe... which is where religion and spirituality take over.

I'm not going to get into a deep discussion of "the nature of science" vs concepts like intelligent design... because others here have done it much better. Just know that when scientist types heavy-handedly discount religion in scientific discussions, it's not supposed to discount religion itself, or the utility of such a thing... just to keep it separate. They're not sticking their heads in the sand or anything... it's just that when you start letting more... fluid... things like belief structures enter into scientific discussion, you tend to arrive at good conclusions much slower.

The reason I felt the need to respond is that I used to be pretty anti-religious... until I met a lot of people which I have a great deal of respect for who are also quite religious. I'm still not personally religious, but I understand why people are. Even science itself has to have a minimum of philosophical aims... like the idea that the universe is understandable at all, or the idea that it would be governed by rules at all, and that these rules might be obtainable through observation and testing. It's like Godel's incompleteness theorem: science cannot be completely described using only science.

Anyway, philosophy is important... science is important... maybe near the end the two will meet... but for now they're kept separate.

I don't know where I'm going with this... I guess I just wanted to let you know that there are some "crazy sciency types" that don't hate religion.

By the way, there should be a Goodwin's Law for philosophical discussions except replace Nazis with mentioning Godel's incompleteness theorem or engaging in any sort of meta-philosophy, except it would probably end every philosophical discussion that has ever occurred.

Re:Its a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be non-deterministic, religion boy.

It makes sense that we are living in a non-deterministic universe because experiments at the quantum level show results consistent with that.

I never heard of any "quantum physics/mechanics guys" who claim that we're the most knowledgeable species in the universe ... in fact it's usually the religious types who claim that there aren't any extraterrestrials or that mankind is on top because we were "made in God's image".

Re:Its a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

here's the real explanation: there is no god and no human has EVER experienced him.

That explanation is dismissed by the hundreds of thousands of pages of written documentation from disparate cultures around the globe.

A superficial problem is that the "documentation", taken as a whole, is rife with massive contradictions. There's a more subtle and fundamental issue here though and that's the principle of parsimony / Occam's Razor.

Imagine I drop a penny in a can, shake the can up, and (without looking) assert that the penny is in the "heads" orientation. Well, it's 50/50 that I might be wrong and that I might be right. Now, imagine that I drop another penny in the can, give another good shake and assert (again, without looking) that both pennies are in the "heads" orientation. Well, now I'm down to a 1/4 chance of being right. So then I keep dumping in pennies until I eventually get 100 pennies in the can and I'm claiming all 100 pennies are in the "heads" orientation. Well, now my probability of being correct is one in two to the 100th power - not really great odds.

So, what does this have to do with religion? Well, claiming that there is some kind of "god" entity (maybe just the collective consciousness of an advanced civilization) is like having one penny in the can. Then claiming that this god entity has some relationship with a "Jesus" entity - well that's another few pennies in the can. Then claiming that this god entity doesn't like gay marriage - well that's a few more pennies in the can. Then claiming that this god entity was in favor of the Iraq war - well that's a whole handful of pennies right there.

By the time you work up to a full fledged religion, you've got yourself an entire 55 gallon drum full of pennies and you're claiming they're all heads. Anyone who claims to believe an entire religion in its entirety is looking at astronomically low odds of being correct.

Re:Its a shame

[Kerrigann]

Never mind my previous reply... I read the rest of this article's discussion (and all your other posts) and realized that my adorable attempt at diplomacy was like bringing a pillow to a "nuke from orbit" fight.

Re:Its a shame

[Majik Sheff]

I believed exactly the same thing as you, in fact I could have written your post. I was 15 then and was convinced that I had everything figured out.

I have since lived another 16 years; believe me son, when you grow up a little bit you'll realize that there are a LOT of shades between black and white and not only do you not know everything, but you will NEVER know even a tiny fraction of anything.

There are things in this world that are beyond the comprehension of the human mind. Are they the work of God? I have no idea. Neither do you.

Re:Its a shame

[TheGratefulNet]

you're still very young. I have over 15 years on you, still.

its a shame the mass delusion runs so deep.

it is a form of mental impairment, to believe in spirits, ghosts and gods.

but I do realize that its 'comforting' to believe in fairy tales. that's the main reason why talking about religion is usually off-limits; it invades peoples' comfort levels by challenging the very fabric that they've build their whole view of reality on.

its very disturbing to learn that santa clause, easter bunny and the myth of jesus being something more than a man - is just fantasy to keep order within the very-afraid masses.

people have a need for answers. sometimes is so strong, they'll accept made-up ones if its said with 'authority' and by someone in silk and pointy hats.

I'm 100% convinced, due to sheer logic and observation, that the myth of gods is just that, a pure man-made myth. there can be no other conclusion based on what we can observe and experiment with. all such experiments show the same conclusion: no god exists.

"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me." -The Quotable Einstein

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -Seneca the Younger

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -Epicurus Quotes

there are simply too many GOOD MINDS that don't believe and have shown the folly of 'believing'. modern intelligent man would do well to learn from these giants and not fall back to thousand year old FUD stories meant to scare and control primitive man.

Re:Its a shame

[TheGratefulNet]

written documentation, as in written by men meant to control other men?

is that what you submit as proof?

wow.

'documents' that have internal inconsistencies? like these, perhaps?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html

now that we are a bit more advanced than we were a few thousand years ago, we can STUDY the bible and realize it for what it is- a flawed document created by a team of MEN, over centuries, to control and scare fellow primitive man.

there are sections in 'the bible' that the committees (yes!) decided to not include in the canon.

is this indicative of a 'god inspired' set of words? some words would be omitted??

flaws all over the friggin place. bible is full of contradictions and blatant errors.

only a clouded mind would be able to ignore such blatant errors once they are shown. go read the bible errancy pages and see if you can still 'believe' after being SHOWN overwhelming evidence that the 'word of god' is just the word of a bunch of power-hungry men, thousands of years ago.

Re:Its a shame

[TheGratefulNet]

as is the fact of your apparent inability to find the [shift] key.

ah, you run out of actual arguments so you attack the person.

therefore, you have just lost the argument. and everyone can see that, too.

have a nice day ;)

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

written documentation, as in written by men meant to control other men?
 
No, written documentation as in "I wrote what I experienced and you can either believe it or not as you please". Later on, some other men DID choose to use such writings to control other men- but usually, that was not the intent of the original author.
 
  is that what you submit as proof?
 
How is it any different than taking down a set of observations during an experiment in a laboratory and submitting THAT as proof?
 
  'documents' that have internal inconsistencies? like these, perhaps?
 
Or for that matter, like the recommendation to the American Medical Association to use Thalidomide to reduce morning sickness?
 
Having said that- I'm sorry, I've never believed *any* scripture to be inerrant. As far as the Bible goes, the one sect that edited it 1700 years ago doesn't call it inerrant, so I don't see why you should insist on in errancy being a requirement. It's just a record of what people experienced themselves, nothing more.
 
  now that we are a bit more advanced than we were a few thousand years ago, we can STUDY the bible and realize it for what it is- a flawed document created by a team of MEN, over centuries
 
Only members of irrational religions ever claimed otherwise. The Catholic Church, before the split between Rome and Orthodoxy, created the Bible at the Synod of Hippo and didn't claim any different.
 
  to control and scare fellow primitive man.
 
This is a conclusion unsupported by the evidence, however, and so I'd ask you to prove it.
 
  there are sections in 'the bible' that the committees (yes!) decided to not include in the canon.
 
Yes, and there are sections of scientific history that a committee (YES!) decided not to include in your physics book, so what?
 
  is this indicative of a 'god inspired' set of words?
 
Yes, in the same way a woman who recently gave birth inspired the Mona Lisa.
 
  some words would be omitted??
 
Some eyewitnesses are indeed more credible than others, but personally I don't take that view. I find as much value in the Didache or the Gospel of Thomas or the Hindu Vedas or the Tibetan Book of the Dead or the Writings of the Sixth Patriarch of Zen Buddhism as I do the Bible. Some are more credible than others, but as Thomas Aquinas said and Vatican II agreed, the final arbiter is personal conscience.
 
  flaws all over the friggin place. bible is full of contradictions and blatant errors.
 
So are most physics books, sad to say. Should we throw out physics as well?
 
  only a clouded mind would be able to ignore such blatant errors once they are shown.
 
Or one that actually bothered to read the history and find out that most of those "errors" were invented in the 1700s and 1800s by so-called fundamentalist preachers who couldn't name more than 30 verses of the Bible by sight.
 
  go read the bible errancy pages and see if you can still 'believe' after being SHOWN overwhelming evidence that the 'word of god' is just the word of a bunch of power-hungry men, thousands of years ago.
 
I see no evidence in any of these "errors" being about "power hungry men"- and I see at least THREE errors just in the titles of the page in comparison to modern archeology (hint, the dead sea scrolls have a copy of Daniel that has been carbon dated to 500 BC- 700 years before your stupid "errors" page dates it, though anybody who would believe the book of Daniel or any other book written by man is "prophetic" is a brain-dead idiot). Yes, I just said there is no useful prophecy in the Bible. At all.

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

as is the fact of your apparent inability to find the [shift] key.

ah, you run out of actual arguments so you attack the person.

therefore, you have just lost the argument. and everyone can see that, too.

have a nice day ;)

Yeah, thanks for giving me some actual substance to attack in your other message, like the idea that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century AD when we have a Qumran manuscript that has been carbon dated to 500 BCE with the same text.

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I can't even find your previous reply. Must have been someplace else.

Yeah, I have a tendency to do that...my belief in rational religion isn't limited to either my own religion or even my own beliefs, and in my common-to-cradle-catholics college years of apostasy, my 1500 WPM reading speed meant I learned a LOT about alternate philosophies and religions. I just love the "biblical athiest" elsewhere in this thread who seems to believe all of Christianity can be contained in the 15,000 denominations of American Evangelical Fundamentalism, who brought up that old saw about errancy of the Bible being proof that there is no God, coming to a Catholic who happens to have equal respect for the Tibetan Book of the Dead as the Bible.

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

A superficial problem is that the "documentation", taken as a whole, is rife with massive contradictions.
 
Yes, but that's a pretty superficial problem; two descriptions of blind men meeting an elephant will be rife with massive contradictions also, as will the description of a high energy physics experiment by two physicists standing at opposite ends of the CERN Collider.
 
  There's a more subtle and fundamental issue here though and that's the principle of parsimony / Occam's Razor.
 
The problem with Occam's razor is that it's pretty good for *small* problems, not so good for the big complicated universal stuff. It's also not very good when all the data isn't available, which whether you believe in a deterministic quantum universe or an indeterministic quantum universe, the one reality is that we as human beings are simply INCAPABLE of being able to know the difference between the two, God is Random.
 
  Imagine I drop a penny in a can, shake the can up, and (without looking) assert that the penny is in the "heads" orientation. Well, it's 50/50 that I might be wrong and that I might be right. Now, imagine that I drop another penny in the can, give another good shake and assert (again, without looking) that both pennies are in the "heads" orientation. Well, now I'm down to a 1/4 chance of being right. So then I keep dumping in pennies until I eventually get 100 pennies in the can and I'm claiming all 100 pennies are in the "heads" orientation. Well, now my probability of being correct is one in two to the 100th power - not really great odds.
 
Only if you believe in an indeterministic universe. In a deterministic universe, some being someplace absolutely has enough information to tell you the exact orientation of *each* penny in the can. But that being ain't human, because we're stuck behind Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
 
  So, what does this have to do with religion? Well, claiming that there is some kind of "god" entity (maybe just the collective consciousness of an advanced civilization) is like having one penny in the can.
 
Actually, given the ratio of atheists to theists over the last 2 million years of human evolution, it's more like having 89 pennies in a can of 100, but go on.
 
  Then claiming that this god entity has some relationship with a "Jesus" entity - well that's another few pennies in the can.
 
Actually, now you're down to about 16 pennies in the can.
 
  Then claiming that this god entity doesn't like gay marriage - well that's a few more pennies in the can.
 
Well, that would actually include a few atheists- because there's no difference between the God entity and the quantum random nature of the universe, but what we can know from biology is that human beings have two, and only two, genders except in cases of mutation away from the species, but I'll agree, maybe only 4 people out of 100 understand that, and a bunch of Christians are pro-gay marriage, so let's say we're down to 12 pennies in the can.
 
  Then claiming that this god entity was in favor of the Iraq war - well that's a whole handful of pennies right there.
 
No, that's only like about 10 pennies overall, and they're 10 DIFFERENT pennies than the 12 previous.
 
  By the time you work up to a full fledged religion, you've got yourself an entire 55 gallon drum full of pennies and you're claiming they're all heads.
 
No, that's an *irrational* religion. There's also rational religions out there, most have been around a lot longer than the mere 200 years the United States has or even the 500 years since the Reformation, that already know this- and none of them claim all the pennies came up heads.
 
  Anyone who claims to believe an entire religion in its entirety is looking at astronomically low odds of being correct.
 
But what about those religions that are rational, that is, change on new evidence?

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I'm not an physicist or an expert on quantum mechanics... but I don't think physicists are as convinced about things as you make them sound :)

Most aren't. It's a very few quantum physicist atheists who will claim that Hiesenberg's Uncertainty Principle means that NOBODY in the universe can measure both a position of an electron and it's velocity, and that means God's existence is impossible (because he'd be able to do this, being omniscient. Actually, any species able to do this could, with the help of computers, be omniscient.).

This wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] lists something like 17 different models of what quantum uncertainty *might* conceptually imply... the math works without us being comfortable with a sane conceptual interpretation.

First of all, this is one of the better wikipedia pages I've seen- but it has left out the 18th model that I'm talking about- the humility model. Probably because it's more philosophical, and because it provides an *equal* explanation to the other 17 (and the other 17 still work with it).

And science carries on without this arguably very fundamental question being answered, because *it's not science*, it's philosophy. There are people here that have gone down this philosophical road before MUCH better than I ever will, but basically science as it is defined is only concerned with testable conclusions.

I'll agree with that one. Rational religion is influenced by science, but is not science.

Scientists also tend (like all humans) to dabble in philosophy or religion occasionally, and it's easy to get *philosophical discussions about science* and *science* mixed up. You'll hear some scientists make bold claims about multiple universes or causality or free will... but it's mostly philosophical wankering (not that there's anything WRONG with that :).

Except when it leads to error. But to tell the truth- I don't see any way for us human beings to figure out if the universe is indeterministic or deterministic given the math we have. You either believe it's deterministic, in which case God becomes not only possible, but probable, or you believe it is indeterministic, in which case the very laws of physics we depend on in a macro world, are dependent themselves on random waveforms in a quantum world.

Anyway, the point is that I think most people who understand science don't think that science *replaces* philosophy or spirituality... quite the opposite. It is *woefully inadequate* to handle a whole class of very important questions about the nature of our universe... which is where religion and spirituality take over.

I'll gladly agree with that one. The grand majority are not atheists.

I'm not going to get into a deep discussion of "the nature of science" vs concepts like intelligent design... because others here have done it much better. Just know that when scientist types heavy-handedly discount religion in scientific discussions, it's not supposed to discount religion itself, or the utility of such a thing... just to keep it separate. They're not sticking their heads in the sand or anything... it's just that when you start letting more... fluid... things like belief structures enter into scientific discussion, you tend to arrive at good conclusions much slower.

I'd say slowing down good conclusions is a good thing in and of itself towards making sure good conclusions are truly good (and there have been some doozies in both science and theology in the past for anti-examples), but I'll be posting more on that on my personal blog soon as a rebuttal to both science and emergence evangelical theology.

The reason I felt the need to respond is that I used to be pretty anti-religious... until I met a lot of people which I have a great deal of respect for who are also quite rel

Re:Its a shame

[TheGratefulNet]

and you somehow think:

age == wisdom

??

refute this, then, if the bible is 'so wise' beign so old.

the bible thinks the earth is flat:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:8&version=9;

the bible says that giants (??) were once on the earth:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:4&version=9;

Those who believe are able to handle snakes and drink any deadly poison without suffering harm.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:17-18&version=9;

shall I REALLY go on and on with all the fucked up errors in the bible?

(how much of an ostrich can you really be?)

there is zero evidence about god but plenty about the PISS POOR JOB the bible did.

if this is the word of god, he's no god.

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

and you somehow think:

age == wisdom
 
Partially. To be more accurate, repeated experiments and additional observations bring more data and allow us to refine our theories and models to be closer to the truth.
 
  refute this, then, if the bible is 'so wise' beign so old.
 
Nope, the Bible is a book, and therefore isn't wise. Wisdom requires thinking, which can only be accomplished by human beings. Books can only provide data, they can't interpret that data.
 
  the bible says that giants (??) were once on the earth:
 
yeah, and the last one of that size that became famous Died in 1993 and was a famous TV, movie, and professional wrestling star. This mutation of humanity, while perhaps miraculous to an ignorant savage as you'd put it, is surprisingly quite common. There's also a young lady in China right now dealing with the same genetic defect.
 
  Those who believe are able to handle snakes and drink any deadly poison without suffering harm.
 
Yeah, and a sugar pill can get 50% of the people who believe it is a painkiller through the night without harm. So what? This is just the placebo effect, applied a little differently, but it's basically the same thing.
 
  shall I REALLY go on and on with all the fucked up errors in the bible?
 
Go on all you like, but I wish you'd concentrate on the ones that are *really* errors if you try to test them from a scientific only point of view. I believe there's a passage in Isaiah that if you take it out of context talks about the four corners of the earth- in context it's just poetry.
 
  (how much of an ostrich can you really be?)
 
A lot less than you if you think giganticism, though rare, doesn't exist, or if you think that the human mind can't affect biology within the body it is connected to. Come on, give me something HARD.
 
  there is zero evidence about god
 
Once again, you've yet to prove that- you've yet to even touch the other scriptures I've mentioned, or the other cultures that you also have to consider if you're going to disprove the concept of a God.
 
  but plenty about the PISS POOR JOB the bible did.
 
You're also going to have to work a lot harder than merely taking verses out of context and fundamentalist prooftexting to prove that one, since the Bible never claimed to be a science book OR the Word of God.
 
  if this is the word of god
 
And it isn't. Gospel of John, Chapter 1, Verse 1 talks about "The Word of God" and that author ain't talking about a book that wouldn't even have a table of contents for another three centuries after that Gospel was written.
 
  he's no god.
 
A wrong conclusion, since your if statment is false, your then we don't even get to, to put it in terms any slashdot geek who can code should understand. The Bible isn't the Word of God.

Re:Its a shame

[TheGratefulNet]

the bible MOST CERTAINLY does claim to be the word of god.

ok, I'm done here. you won't change your views and I won't change mine. that was an assumed conclusion, anyway.

my final thought: the motivations of those in the religious field is a historical concept. one only has to look at the power structure of all religions to see that they were designed to control and scare primitive man.

some of us have seen thru this and 'won't be fooled again' ;)

I really wish you were right and there WAS/IS a god. how comforting to think of some watchful kind guy taking care of me? sadly, its a child's story and bears no resemblance to actual reality.

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

you're still very young. I have over 15 years on you, still.
 
Too bad you've wasted those 46 years on fundamentalist Biblical atheism. Though I will give you this- you're more consistent in your beliefs than most fundamentalist Christians I deal with regularly.
 
  it is a form of mental impairment, to believe in spirits, ghosts and gods.
 
And yet, well over 90% of humanity throughout history has done so. Why do you think THAT is?
 
  but I do realize that its 'comforting' to believe in fairy tales. that's the main reason why talking about religion is usually off-limits; it invades peoples' comfort levels by challenging the very fabric that they've build their whole view of reality on.
 
I LOVE challenging people's view of reality- only the uncomfortable ever grow. You seem to draw a great deal of comfort from being arrogant and superior, for instance, yet you didn't even know giganticism is a common human mutation or that it would be possible, given the interbreeding and isolation of certain communities of the time, for there to be a race of "giants" in a nearby town in living memory for King David, and thus written down in the Book of Genesis.
 
  its very disturbing to learn that santa clause, easter bunny and the myth of jesus being something more than a man - is just fantasy to keep order within the very-afraid masses.
 
Well, actually, not all of those are 100% fantasy either, but you're too damn arrogant and superior to admit that there might have once been a real Saint Nicholas, aren't you?
 
  I'm 100% convinced, due to sheer logic and observation, that the myth of gods is just that, a pure man-made myth.
 
Whose observations? YOURS? Why should we believe you over our own eyes?
 
  there can be no other conclusion based on what we can observe and experiment with.
 
100,000 books of scripture from disparate cultures around the world disagree with that conclusion, but you've only read the Bible as a Physics Textbook, so how would you know that?
 
As to your quotes, I don't find Einstien to be smart enough to make me doubt my own eyes, and the problem of evil is one for babies and toddlers to play with.
 
  there are simply too many GOOD MINDS
 
There are no "GOOD MINDS" among human beings. At all.

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

MOD PARENT UP! Especially for this line:

" The only thing they have going for them is that they have worked so far - or at least, we believe that we remember that they have."

Re:Its a shame

[Marxist Hacker 42]

the bible MOST CERTAINLY does claim to be the word of god.
 
Prove it. I gave you the quote where the Bible claims gives the title "The Word of God" to some sort of spiritual being, and you still claim that the Bible is the Word of God?
 
  ok, I'm done here. you won't change your views and I won't change mine. that was an assumed conclusion, anyway.
 
Not by me it wasn't. In fact, I assumed you'd come up with something new at some point to challenge my world view- for only the uncomfortable are able to change.
 
  my final thought: the motivations of those in the religious field is a historical concept.
 
Which you've also completely failed to prove for Christianity, let alone any other religion. You haven't even covered 1/6th of humanity for that.
 
  one only has to look at the power structure of all religions to see that they were designed to control and scare primitive man.
 
Control you've got at least a half an argument for- Civilization itself is about controlling human beings, and religion is nothing if not the protector and builder of Civilization. But "scare"? You've got to actually have fear to be scared, and being autistic I don't experience that emotion.
 
  some of us have seen thru this and 'won't be fooled again' ;)
 
I have to wonder though- how have you made it through 45 years and NOT figured out that there is more to the world than what you can personally see or experience?
 
  I really wish you were right and there WAS/IS a god. how comforting to think of some watchful kind guy taking care of me?
 
That's not a god either. The only definition of God that makes sense to me is "That process or being which created the scientific laws of the universe and is omniscient enough to measure both the position and velocity of an electron". Oh, sure, some people might interpret the actions such a being causes as "watchful" and "kind", but in reality, it's just about the clockwork.
 
  sadly, its a child's story and bears no resemblance to actual reality.
 
Well, that's something we can agree on. But just because you have wrong definitions influenced by a minority sect of a minority religion in a single culture (see post on probability where I extrapolated for all of human history, and came up with only MAYBE 10% for the belief system you've described), is no reason to give up on the concept of God given the wealth of *other* evidence out there. Especially since, that set of sects is rather irrational to begin with.

Mars Hill loons

[TiggertheMad]

You have to actually bring them into the building and break that ice by showing them that, no, you're not snake-handlers speaking in tongues or crazy terrorists preaching jihad or whatever.

Funny you should mention that, since the above blurb mentions Seattle's Mars Hill Church, who are a pack of far right fundie whack jobs trying to pose as 'Hip' to lure in the youngsters.

Snake handlers, indeed...

Does that mean

[Cro Magnon]

that I don't have to feel guilty for tweeting in church?

What the churches don't want you to know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus was spiritual, but not religious. One need only look at the Roman Catholic persecution of the Protestant Reformation and those trying to spread the Bible in languages the common people could read for themselves. "Get your free indulgence here! One gold coin only!"

simple messages

[fermion]

The best religions seem to have the simplest messages, messages that simple people can grasp and easily understand. So in this way short messages might be the ideal thing. And if a person sees that many of thier friends are having fun tweeting at church, they may want to go as well.

But church is also about creating a sacred space, where people are together in a single faith. I think it is this that is hurting the traditional church. If we broadcast the service, and make the TV or radio an extension of the sacred space, even though there is no real community, we degrade the value of the space. If we hold secular functions in the sacred space, and make it just another room or another clearing, we devalue the value of the space. If everyone is busy tweeting to entertain an outside secular world instead of helping to build the sacred space, then what is left. We might as well just be wherever we are, and have the minister or whatever tweet the service.

This reminds me of the move 'Back to school' where the classroom was increasing filled with tape recorders, and then the professor was replaced with a recorded lecture. There is an arrogance that somehow the church is so implicitly necessary that we can brazenly corrupt it with no fear of negative consequences. It is not that there is anything wrong with tweeting, except that it is a continuation of a path where the church is just another firm, with profits, losses, and bushiness plans, and while a few respond to such things, I think the decline in most church attendance show that many of the faithful are not amused.

Re:simple messages

[MightyMartian]

The best religions seem to have the simplest messages, messages that simple people can grasp and easily understand.

Like "DO EXACTLY WHAT I TELL YOU, OR YOU'LL BURN!!!!!!"

Beyond that, could you define "best". Hinduism and Catholicism have a rather large number of adherents, for instance, and I'd hardly call them simple.

Re:simple messages

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr

I once twittered in church

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Then an old lady was ushered down to my pew and she sat right IN IT!

Things i love about things

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch - fancy combination of two of my least favorite things. Yay future!

WWJT

[Quiet_Desperation]

What would Jesus tweet?

Re:WWJT

[mcnellis]

"DYING ON THE CROSS. BBL!"

Re:WWJT

[FrankDrebin]

"My iPhone gets wicked good reception up here"

2 Weeks

[endianx]

OMG LOL WTF?! IT TOOK THEM 2 WEEKS 2 LRN TO TWEET. WTF IS THAT? ONE DAY 2 LERN TWITTER AND THE REST TO LERN TO MAKE POASTS LIKE THIS ONE?!?!?!?1

Re:2 Weeks

[Taimat]

2 weeks, = 2 sundays = 2 days. 2 days to learn, and they probably assumed that not every single member was there on the first sunday.

Re:2 Weeks

[endianx]

Oh, two Sundays. That makes more sense. In true Twitter fashion, my post was hastily constructed and poorly considered.

Atheism & Consistency

[geoffrobinson]

I believe the scientific process and theism go hand in hand. On the other hand, atheists have to be inconsistent with the outworking of their atheism. To use your language, the atheist not only has to make concessions but has to capitulate.

If you believe God orders and sustains the universe, what would be inconsistent with theism and science? Now inconsistent with science-ism? Yes.

Now an atheist who assumes that we weren't put here for any particular reason should assume that we weren't designed for any particular reason. We weren't designed to apprehend truth. The thoughts in our heads are just atoms bouncing around in our heads in accordance with the laws of physics & chemistry. The best you could say is that our mind is designed to pick up chicks.

So if we have no basis for assuming the truth of our thoughts, how is atheism consistent with science?

And it doesn't stop there. You have laws of physics hanging in mid-air not supported by anything. No reason to assume they will stay the same (see David Hume atheist philosopher if you disagree). You have immaterial laws of logic that a materialist tries to use.

And even worse you have people like Dennett who try to be consistent with their atheism and then go on to say that the concept of self is an illusion. But go the whole way and ask who is arguing what.

Frankly, I've never run into an atheist who operates completely consistently with his own atheism. It's an impossible task.

Re:Atheism & Consistency

[Chris_Jefferson]

I don't believe we were designed for any particular reason. However, I wish to investigate how the universe works, both for my own interest, and because experience shows that learning more about how the universe works lets us make more cool things.

I have no reason to believe the laws of physics will stay the same. However, they seem to be staying the same, so I'll assume they will until I have a reason to think otherwise.

I'm nice to people and help them, because experience tells me that tends to lead to people being nice to me, and helping me, which is useful.

I don't see what part of my atheism I'm not consistent with?

Re:Atheism & Consistency

[Atzanteol]

Which gods is it you said must exist? Thor? Zeus? Ra?

Being internally consistent is not the same as being "correct." Just because the universe doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean your made-up reasons for how it works are the right ones. Remember, having answers is not the same as having *good* answers.

Re:Atheism & Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of crap. Firstly, "we weren't designed to apprehend truth" is a subset of "we weren't designed", and does not lead to "we have no basis for assuming the truth of our thoughts".

Secondly, science works. Religion doesn't. Atheism works as an effective description of reality.

Third, regarding "laws of physics hanging in mid-air not supported by anything" you assume incorrectly that the laws of physics must be supported by something. That's like assuming the luminiferous aether exists, and refusing to believe the evidence from the experiments that shows it doesn't. There's no reason not to assume they won't stay the same, in fact there's evidence from the early universe to say that these laws have been the same for the last 13+ billion years. And I'm not sure why you think that uncertainty about the permanence of physical laws means that God has to exist.

Finally, the "laws of logic" are irrefutable. Your God, if he exists, can't make 1+1=3 any more than I can.

The rest of your post doesn't make any sense either. Folks, this is your brain on religion. Don't try to justify your faith with "but atheists are inconsistent".

Re:Atheism & Consistency

[geoffrobinson]

According to atheistic presuppositions do you believe what you wrote because it is true or because the atoms are bouncing around in your head a certain way?

In regards to the laws of physics: if you do not assume they are grounded and sustained by God, you have no reason to assume they won't change in the future. Again, you need to read David Hume on this point.

And you miss the point about laws of logic. Materialists use them. They are immaterial.

Re:Atheism & Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

... more content-free waffling.

God isn't real, but where does religion come from?

[A beautiful mind]

Since I don't believe in any god and it's particularly sad to see churches trying to spread misinformation more effectively, I'd like to approach this topic constructively and point towards and interesting lecture I've seen lately that explains how and why religion evolved.

Re:God isn't real, but where does religion come fr

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I don't believe in any god and it's particularly sad to see churches trying to spread misinformation more effectively, I'd like to approach this topic constructively and point towards and interesting lecture I've seen lately that explains how and why religion evolved.

Since I believe in God and it's particularly sad to see secular humanists trying to spread misinformation more effectively, I'd like to approach this topic constructively and point towards actual people who will have a conversation with you in person about what they believe and why.

Jesus 2.0

[thetoadwarrior]

Does church now involve setting up torrents for The Passion of Christ?

Get them early!

[JochenBedersdorfer]

Ah, the old early indoctrination tactic again.
Well, not really that early to be effective, but still a nice try.

Organized religion is a scam

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Twits in church? No news here

Two simple conclusions

[tomhudson]

• Twitter is dying.
• "Churches Use Twitter To Reach a Wider Audience" - sitting in a pew makes you fat - or they're looking for more fat people to attend, so their pastors don't look like they were the #1 cause of the Irish Potato Famine.

I mean. really, what is it with all these overweight and obese preacher types? Compensating for lack of sex? Compensating for guilt over sex with little boys? Compensating for failing to be masters of their body, as their bible commands?

Re:Two simple conclusions

[MichaelSmith]

Compensating for lack of sex? Compensating for guilt over sex with little boys?

Can't be both!

What would Jesus do?

[jcr]

As I recall, he would get tortured to death and then have his philosophy distorted for the purposes of power seekers for thousands of years afterwards.

-jcr

Combat it with WWBND

[mrmeval]

http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TO&Product_Code=RB-WWBD&Category_Code=ALLSHIRTS

Sure, use science when

[geekoid]

it helps you.

Oh Good Lord?!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it. All I got.

Theist Belief vs. Scientific Inquiry

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe God orders and sustains the universe, what would be inconsistent with theism and science?

If your beliefs are formed without any experimental or rational basis then you will have trouble with science. If your beliefs are held only as a result of disciplined reasoning and experimentation then you're not a theist, are you?

The only way out is to become an atheist in how you treat reality. You can still be a theist in the realm of spirituality, but you have got to let the natural world be what it is.

Re:Theist Belief vs. Scientific Inquiry

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If your beliefs are held only as a result of disciplined reasoning and experimentation then you're not a theist, are you?
 
See my argument further down- that in fact, given the overwhelming amount of theist literature and experimentation on the subject, anybody truly disciplined should at least be agnostic if not an outright theist. What I find a distinct lack of evidence for is the concept that there is no God.
 
  The only way out is to become an atheist in how you treat reality.
 
You mean I have to bang my head against a brick wall until I forget the past 1.5 million years of experimentation with theism and all of the data that was collected?
 
  You can still be a theist in the realm of spirituality, but you have got to let the natural world be what it is.
 
Not terribly hard, when you consider that most theism stems from observations taken from the natural world.

Ah, Salesmanship

[BJ_Covert_Action]

It's funny for me to see this posted. When I used to consider myself a practicing Christian, I pledged myself to the faith in an attempt to understand the idea, theme, and entity called God. After all, that's what most religions claim to be authorities on. However, after much frustration, I finally gave it all up because churches don't care about God. They don't have any interest in trying to better understand concepts like an infinite deity, omnipresence, or timeless existence. Any attempt to approach these concepts with curiosity and questioning in mind was always met with either harsh criticism or an intense urging to accept naivete and ignorance instead. Very few churches I ever attended were willing to discuss the indescribable nature of what the word God was originally meant to address. It seemed to me, that the only goal of churches was to mindlessly and zealously turn people to their belief system in the name of a savior. They had little care for anything regarding the complex nature of the subject matter. Churches just wanted more followers as quickly and easily as possible.

If trying to describe to someone the beauty of an idea like timeless, infinite existence (God) in 140 characters or less isn't a perfect representation of that theme, I don't know what is.

"Let's recruit people with catch phrases, zingers, and one-liners about God!"
"Yeah, its not like the entire idea behind a God entity is worth thinking about or discussing in depth or anything."
"Yay!"

It's sad, really that church has become synonymous with recruiting ground and not a place for intelligent, philosophical exploration. /sigh

Heathen Harry

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd think a typical Christian Church would encourage its parishioners to shed the cellphone habit and donate the savings to feed the poor.

My cellphone costs me $2.25 a month, and I'd rather do without it, if we only still had these things called "payphones".

But oh, that's right, they're using twitter for marketing, even though they're not a business, so they aren't supposed to pay taxes.

I get it.

Re:Heathen Harry

[Anonymous Coward]

So they should be required to pay taxes, but just cook the books to avoid paying those taxes and ask for bailout money like other "businesses" do?

Attendance declining...

[JDLazarus]

Is there a problem with attendance declining in churches? This isn't an anti-religion post... I'm fine with religion - I'm just not sure there's a purpose behind organizations which exist to tell you how to practice something that should be deeply personal. Decline in church attendance should be a sign that we're moving past the need for them and in to a new state of personal spirituality.

As for what would jesus do in 140 characters... wow.

If God Tweeted

[russlar]

@Humans

Knock it off, all of you! Srlsy, WTF?

Prove that I am not God.

[tomhudson]

He has a point. You're guilty of using your assumptions to "prove" the validity of your assumptions.

You cannot use the bible's claim that it is true as proof that the bible is true. Prove that I am not God. I hereby claim to be. Prove I'm not. Unlike YOUR god, I exist. You have proof of it in this thread. You have my claim that I am. That's as good (or as flawed) as the bible's claim that it speaks for God. Or apply Pascals' Wager ... if I'm not God, and you believe I am, you haven't lost anything ... but if I AM God, and you're wrong ... eternal damnation!

And finally... is the statement "a man may not sleep with another man" hating gays? How about "a man who sleeps with another man commits a sin"? How about "a man who sleeps with a women outside of marriage commits a sin?" Do Christians now hate both gays and straights? Calling a sin a sin is not hatred, regardless of what you want to think.

Labeling someone a sinner is inflammatory. Using the bible to justify it is just stupid, unless you have SOME proof that the bible is authoritative. What are the "wages of sin?" Come on, you know the answer - "The wages of sin is death." So, by calling gays sinners, you're saying that what they are doing is worthy of death. The bible even says that they should be stoned to death. Well, maybe I should write my own bible that says christians should be stoned to death for being nosy busybodies and gossips, pandering to ignorance, and failing to prove any of their assertions. After all, who's to say that MY version is any less authoritative than yours? After all, I'm God (prove otherwise).

I don't buy your gay-bashing. They are not "sinning" when they get it on with each other, despite what you choose to believe. It's entirely natural for them, same as other mammals. Or have you never had a dog hump your leg? Like I said, show some OBJECTIVE proof that god exists, some OBJECTIVE proof that what they do is "sinning", or admit that it's just your opinion based on a book you have chosen to believe without any proof. The problem is in your eye. Your perception. Feel free to contradict me by proving I'm not God, and proving that YOUR god exists.

Also:

How about "a man who sleeps with a women outside of marriage commits a sin?"

There's nothing wrong with two people deciding to set up house without going through a marriage ceremony. If it offends your sensitivities, that's your problem - you have no right to tell others who they should and should not have sex with, and no right to say one form is right but another form is a sin. Gays and lesbians don't pass judgment on what christians do with each other in the privacy of their bedrooms - christians should learn the same respect. God hates 2 weights, 2 measures - one for straight people, and one for the GLBTs. I declare that it's okay - prove that I am wrong by either proving that I am not God, or that your god exists. While you're at it, prove that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - there's some serious coin - a million bucks - to be had if you do. Come on, think of all the good things you could do in Jesus' name with a million bucks.

Here's another one for you - since Eve was supposedly created from Adam's rib, wasn't she a clone? And if she was a clone, wasn't she really a guy? Or, if "god" tweaked that y chromosome into an x, wasn't that his genetic sister? So, Adam and Eve were in an incestuous relationship, as were their children (after all, there was nobody else around to "marry"). Sounds like a bunch of inbred hillbillies to me (cue "Dueling Banjos" and "Squeal like a Pig" from "Deliverance"). Would explain a few things ...

And what's up with all the polygamy?

Re:Prove that I am not God.

[ustolemyname]

Note: A posting in an internet forum cannot be construed as proof of existence. Theoretically, the above (and current) post could be the product of a random electronic disturbance.

And for the record, assertions != argument.

Re:Prove that I am not God.

[tomhudson]

And for the record, assertions != argument.

Here, let me make that more accessible to readers:

"And for the record, assertions != proof"

This is the problem with the existence of the god of the bible - no proof, just assertions.

However:

Note: A posting in an internet forum cannot be construed as proof of existence. Theoretically, the above (and current) post could be the product of a random electronic disturbance.

Would you like to play a game? How about a game of Nuclear Warfare?

Seriously, while there's no way to prove absolutely that I exist, there's more proof that I exist than the god of the bible. You post, I reply. I have excellent karma. Speaking of which, maybe the bible god has crappy karma, since he isn't posting. Either way, there's more proof to any claim that I am God than there is to the god of the bible, since I at least have SOME proof that I exist. Therefore, anyone who wants to benefit from Pascals' wager should believe in me instead of the god of the bible.

(is that "random" enough for you :-)

Re:Prove that I am not God.

[ustolemyname]

(is that "random" enough for you :-)

Yes, actually. The merits of the grandparent are supported by the examples of the parent.

Re:Prove that I am not God.

[Darby]

Note: A posting in an internet forum cannot be construed as proof of existence. Theoretically, the above (and current) post could be the product of a random electronic disturbance.

Fair enough, as far as it goes, but there does not exist in the entirety of history any attestation of any supernatural entity with the reciprocal of your favorite very large number of any chance of existing.

I believe through the *determined* electrical fluctuations that good old Tom chose to create, that he exists in some form or another.

Maybe there is no real, actual person (and/or Canadian ) named Tom Hudson, but, worst case scenario there's a real person pretending to be such. That makes him far and away superior to any other god ever created in the history of humanity in almost* every possible way.

* Final resolution will be determined upon *my* determination that your best beer is superior to my best. "Your" and "my" will be arbitrary and nationalistic, your use of hockey sticks in the arbitration will likely be to my detriment.

"You" ain't "you" and some relatively "ok" facsimile of an actual Tom Hudson will be required for payment.
Your hockey stick upside my head and subsequent problems there to associated will probably suck.

Final analysis: both Tom Hudson and ustolemyname owe me a fucking donut if I'm ever lost in Canada. Worst case, one of you motherfuckers will pay up. Worst case for you all? I know fuckers in Vancouver *and* Toronto That's like most of the ones with polar bears to ride, right?

I see the light

[benjamin.haley]

Parishioner: "I just had my lord and savior for breakfast!"

Re:God isn't real, but where does religion come fr

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you don't have proof that you are right (and neither do deists), could you at least maintain a modicum of intellectual honesty when making posts on Slashdot? I see this happen so often on many issues - they get reduced to simple us vs them false dichotomies.

I'm probably asking for too much here, but it is worth a shot.

Twits

[darkgumby]

My God! It's full of twits!

2nd reply

[Marxist Hacker 42]

http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/2009/05/slow-and-steady-makes-right.html is a discussion that split off of my reply to this post.