Slashdot Mirror


Unique ID In India Causes 'Fear of the Beast'

bhagwad writes "India's attempts to tag everyone with an ID number has run into a roadblock is some Christian villages. Apparently the villagers fear they will be associated with the devil since according to the Bible, everyone having the 'mark of the beast' will go to hell. These people are not afraid of punishment. They relish this opportunity to prove their faith because the Bible also proclaims that they will be persecuted."

88 of 725 comments (clear)

  1. Blah by religious+freak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Always good to see uneducated crazies are all over the world. I was worried that it was just the USA. Phew! /sarcasm

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:Blah by ragefan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>>Always good to see uneducated crazies are all over the world.

      Always good to see people who are intolerant of Christians. If you can be tolerant of gays, and tolerant of people speaking ideas you disagree with, why can't you be tolerant of Muslims, Jews, and Christians too? They have as much right to "pursue happiness" as anybody else, even if you disagree with their religious philosophy.

      Maybe it's because gays just want to enjoy the same rights that you enjoy; whereas Muslims, Jews and Christians want to remove the rights they feel disagree with their beliefs.

      Their right to "pursue happiness" stops when they try to impinges on the rights to pursue happiness by others.

    2. Re:Blah by Creedo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would I be tolerant of someone who does not repay the favor? The gays aren't knocking at my door, telling my children that they are going to burn in hell forever. They aren't shooting abortion doctors. They aren't launching suicide attacks on my neighborhood. They aren't polluting science with their fictional delusions. When the theists abandon their irrational bigotry, grow up and stop trying to control their neighbors, they'll be worthy of tolerance.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    3. Re:Blah by ElliotLee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Bible predicts that people will be intolerant of Christians. It also predicts that the 'mark of the beast' will come about, no matter what we do to try to stop it. If the 'mark of the beast' becomes a reality, the Bible will be proven correct.

    4. Re:Blah by e2d2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So let me get this straight. You want to be treated with respect but you refuse to treat others of faith with respect because someone else did something that offended you and they just happened to be theists also?

      You're probably a logical thinker, but sir that's illogical and pretty much the definition of intolerant.

    5. Re:Blah by Winckle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Marriage (unless you are in one of the few places that allows same sex marriage).

    6. Re:Blah by Creedo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't give a flying shit if they agree with me or not. They can privately believe I'm going to hell or anything else. And I don't even care if they don't want to do business with me(within the boundaries of the law). But the moment they try to rewrite society to incorporate their irrational bigotry, they need to get slapped down. I'll do everything in my power legally to deny them that ability.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    7. Re:Blah by Creedo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I do treat individual theists with basic human respect. Their ideas and beliefs, not even a little bit. Their theistic organizations? No fucking way. If you are one of those rare theists who aren't members of organizations trying to control society, then kudos, I wasn't referring to you anyway. Otherwise, no, I'm not going to tolerate your activities, and I'll fight them with every legal tool I have at my disposal, including public ridicule.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    8. Re:Blah by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can without a doubt easily prove that the world is older than 4,000 years, yet there are many Christians that will tell you otherwise.

      This should be good. How do you intend to prove that the world actually is older than 4,000 years (shouldn't that be 6,000?), as opposed to simply appearing older? The appearance of age is inevitable, and proves nothing. These Christians are not claiming that the world came about by natural causes within the last few thousand years, you know. There is no way to disprove creation ex nihilo, whether it be four billion years ago, four millennia, or four minutes.

      That, of course, is the whole problem—once you start believing in things which cannot be disproved you've pretty much given up on any lingering pretense of rationality. Fortunately, tolerance doesn't mean you have to internalize other people's beliefs; it just means that you won't reject someone as a person simply because you disagree with them. It is perfectly possible to tolerate religious individuals without accepting the truth of their worldviews or endorsing their actions.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    9. Re:Blah by David+Chappell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you can be tolerant of gays, and tolerant of people speaking ideas you disagree with, why can't you be tolerant of Muslims, Jews, and Christians too? They have as much right to "pursue happiness" as anybody else, even if you disagree with their religious philosophy.

      Maybe it's because gays just want to enjoy the same rights that you enjoy; whereas Muslims, Jews and Christians want to remove the rights they feel disagree with their beliefs.

      I for one welcome our rabbinic overlords...

      Seriously though, we all would _like_ to remove those rights which disagree with our beliefs. Some of us realize that if we did that then others could remove our rights which disagree with their beliefs. I think it is a mistake to generalize and suggest that there is something special here about religious beliefs.

      This does not mean that no religious person will ever express an idea which you dislike. Nor does it mean that he will never petition for the redress of what he (possibly mistakenly) sees as a wrong. A person's philosophy (whether religious or not) will influence his ethical judgments and may cause him to view something you call a right as a crime.

      For example, in almost all ethical systems it is considered wrong to end the life of another person in order to advance one's own interests. Thus, I may not murder my grandfather even if I need his money to pay off my debts. But what if a pregnant woman wants to end the life of her unborn child because caring for a child would interfere with her education? Is it wrong because she is depriving another human being of life for personal advantage or is it acceptable because he is still in a sense a part of her body and she has a right to decide what will be done to her body? This is a question on which reasonable persons may disagree. It all depends on the relative weights which one's ethical framework assigns to these two competing interests.

      To describe religious persons as "crazies" or tramplers on rights just because they say something should be against the law is an example of intolerance.

    10. Re:Blah by Draek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You assume the GP has it. He doesn't, for instance, if the person he loves is a minor, an octopi or his own sister.

      And before you reply "but that'd be disgusting!" be aware that the same can be (and has been) said of homosexuality as well.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    11. Re:Blah by Tom · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did you think I'm using the royal "we" for fun?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    12. Re:Blah by Creedo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You realize that your statements have put you far outside of both historical Christianity and the dominant Christian denominations in this country, right? Speaking of just my corner of the US, I do a lot of business with Christians and Christian churches(I am the only PC repair-person who makes house calls), and thus I am privy to a lot of private information, such as emails. They also have some irrational desire to open up and tell me about their beliefs while I'm removing yet another round of malware(I don't have a scarlet A tattooed on my forehead, so they assume I'm some brand of Christian, too). Aside from a couple of elderly pastors from California and a family of unobservant Lutherans(note that both examples are not native to this area), I haven't met a single practicing Christian or a single denomination that didn't preach Creationism, anti-homosexual bigotry, weird end of the world AntiChrist beliefs or forms of Christian Triumphalism(sometimes intermixed with militant militia beliefs). Or some bizarre mish-mash of all of the above. And these irrational beliefs are quite vocally the basis for their votes.

      I encourage you to attend some midwest political meetings and canvas them for religious beliefs. It will open your eyes to what your fellow theists believe and are trying to push onto the rest of the population.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    13. Re:Blah by Chardish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're in here stereotyping theists as irrational, delusional, bigoted murderers and suicide bombers, and at the same time decrying their supposed intolerance?

      Do you honestly not see the irony of this?

    14. Re:Blah by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uh there have been many married gay people. Married to the "opposite" sex.

      If legal perks are what you want from marriage, just find a suitable partners and there you go.

      The lesbians could marry the gay guys (consummation optional). Then they could have their gay affairs with permission from their "spouses". So far they aren't convicting the heterosexuals for adultery.

      If the legal perks aren't important, isn't this marriage stuff considered "old fashioned" and anachronistic by all the "modern thinking" bunch? ;)

      --
  2. That's silly... by painandgreed · · Score: 5, Funny

    How could they possibly believe that is actually the mark of the beast? Everybody knows those grocery store "loyalty cards" are the real Mark of the Beast!

    1. Re:That's silly... by boristdog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Everybody knows those grocery store "loyalty cards" are the real Mark of the Beast!

      I've always wondered: If you have more than one "loyalty card", does that make you a traitor or just a whore?

    2. Re:That's silly... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 5, Informative

      The parent isn't kidding. The official user number of Anonymous Coward is 666. Log in and click here for proof:

      http://yro.slashdot.org/zoo.pl?op=check&type=friend&uid=666

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    3. Re:That's silly... by EdIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's why years ago I started using loyalty cards with other people. By my count now we have probably a hundred different people on one card alone.

      Other than the supposed savings (they're are an illusion just like you pointed out) you maybe get some savings on Gas. However, there are usually 1 or 2 places in a 100 mile radius that you can get the gas from. So you waste all the time driving there, wear and tear on the vehicle, just to save a few cents on gas that usually does not offset what you lost getting there. Unless you live less than 5 miles away from the super special gas station you can cash in your rewards on, it is just stupid.

      In some stores you don't even need your loyalty card either. Enough people complain that they won't purchase the items unless they get the "discount" price that cashiers will just give you a new card on the spot or swipe a card they have with them. I have seen that a lot.

      Personally, I enjoy my method a heck of a lot more. The original information on the account is bogus and the demographic information they glean from it must be hilarious.

    4. Re:That's silly... by natehoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, I always love seeing my favorite items under a "loyalty card" discount.

      Monday: normal price $2.
      Tuesday: normal price $5, "ONLY $2.50 with your LOYALTY CARD! WOW!!!! YOU SAVE TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS!!! AREN'T YOU THE SMARTEST HUMAN SINCE EINSTEIN!!!!!"
      Wednesday: normal price $2.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  3. Good! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really don't care what arbitrary reason they picked. I'm just glad to hear of someone - anyone - standing up and saying that they refuse to be tagged like cattle. Good for you, Indians!

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Good! by quietwalker · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait, it's india. Wouldn't they relish the chance to be treated like cattle?

    2. Re:Good! by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Agreed, but it is noteworthy that for once religious paranoia, and especially that LSD-induced last part of the bible, has a good effect on the world See "Jesus Camp" for plenty of examples of it being much more annoying and dangerous.

    3. Re:Good! by corbettw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These are Christians in India, not Hindus. There's a difference: one believes a magical zombie died so they can live forever but that if they don't follow the zombie's teachings very closely, they'll burn in a lake of fire forever; the other one thinks the stupidest creature on four legs (and also one of the tastiest) is a magical creature that we should all aspire to become in a future life, but in the meantime we should give rats milk and bath in the most polluted river in the world so that when we die we can finally be happy...until we get reborn into a new body and have to be unhappy again.

      Bah, bunch of nutters, the lot of them. Why anyone bothers with religion is a mystery to me.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    4. Re:Good! by dugjohnson · · Score: 2, Funny

      You insensitive clod! That's Native Amer....oops. Sorry, My Bad.

      --
      My brain is overly lubricated
    5. Re:Good! by wtbname · · Score: 4, Funny

      We do it for the chicks.

    6. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These are Christians in India, not Hindus. There's a difference: one believes a magical zombie died so they can live forever but that if they don't follow the zombie's teachings very closely, they'll burn in a lake of fire forever; the other one thinks the stupidest creature on four legs (and also one of the tastiest) is a magical creature that we should all aspire to become in a future life, but in the meantime we should give rats milk and bath in the most polluted river in the world so that when we die we can finally be happy...until we get reborn into a new body and have to be unhappy again.

      Bah, bunch of nutters, the lot of them. Why anyone bothers with religion is a mystery to me.

      I'm an atheist, but this is by far the most stupidest comment I've ever read of Slashdot. LOL.

    7. Re:Good! by David+Chappell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These are Christians in India, not Hindus. There's a difference: one believes a magical zombie died so they can live forever but that if they don't follow the zombie's teachings very closely, they'll burn in a lake of fire forever...

      This is supposed to be a description of Christianity, right? At least it fits more than the one about cows. What I would like to know is why people on Slashdot keep referring to Jesus of Nazareth as a "zombie". Is this a reference to those church paintings in which he appears to be drugged? I can't think of anything else since the Jesus of the Gospels is not zombie-like at all.

      So, who started the Zombie thing and what is it all about?

  4. Uneducated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you meant that it takes years of indoctrination before a normal human being is willing to let other human beings tag him like an animal, then yes, I suppose these people need more "educating".

    They may be wrong about WHY consolidated power is dangerous, but they are absolutely correct that it IS dangerous.

    1. Re:Uneducated by JAZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And regardless of who wrote these religious texts (divine inspiration, folk story, philosophers or old fashioned kooks), it is really interesting that someone as acknowledged and feared the idea of someone taking authority over and tagging the population for literally thousands of years.

      --


      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -- Homer Simpson
    2. Re:Uneducated by IICV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just FYI, the guy who wrote that was most likely on some Middle Ages equivalent of LSD. It's a single throwaway line in a book full of random shit; the fact that what he said just barely manages to be relevant right now is more coincidence than anything else.

      If you throw enough shit at a wall, at least some of it will stick. That doesn't mean it's glue.

    3. Re:Uneducated by David+Chappell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That those objecting to the assignment of unique IDs are uneducated is simple speculation. Fear of being too easily tracked by the government is common among persons of all education backgrounds.

      The belief that the number of the beast is a unique ID number or an injected RFID tag is not uncommon among Christians. However, I find it unpersuasive. It simply does not fit well with the context.

      First of all, the beast is pretty clearly an international political organization. (The beast is not Satan himself because in this context he is "the dragon" and in 13:2 it says that the dragon gave the beast its power.) The beast wears multiple crowns (verse one) symbolizing political power.

      Second, the number of the beast is not a set of numbers identifying persons, it is a single stated integer: 666 (verse 18). It cannot distinguish the wearers one from another as a national identification number would. Instead, it identifies the wearers collectively as the slaves of the political beast.

      The whole chapter is about events on the world political stage. A reasonable interpretation of verse 17 is that those who refuse to acknowledge the authority of an international political organization will be subject to trade sanctions.

       

    4. Re:Uneducated by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 3, Informative

      Kind of. It was political allegory pointed at the Romans, and unsurprisingly, some of it has slight social relevance today.

      Oh, and it was written far before the Middle Ages. References in then-contemporary writing place it at least before 200 AD, and it might be as old as the Gospels.

      --
      ~ C.
    5. Re:Uneducated by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It wasn't intented to be a fantasy trip, but an obvious metaphor for people and governments around in the time of the author, warning of things he expected to happen in his lifetime *and many of them did). Of course, if you make your prophesy obscure enough, it will keep matching random events, but the intended timeframe for the predictions is long past.

      The only reason is seems mysterious is that almost no one understands the referents. If I made an allusion to "the Beast of Redmond" it would be obvious to many /. readers, but it would seem very odd 1000 years from now.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Uneducated by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's equally reasonable that the Beast was an idea shared by 7 rulers (an idea like communism, or some other great evil). The "number" is almost certainly 616, not 666, and IIRC it's the "number of his name", the once-secret trick of assigning numbers to each letter of a name and adding them up in a certain way (kabbalism that used to be seen as real magic, but was commonly done in my highschool to see if lovers' names matched). Your key point, of course, was that everyone would wear the same mark, not a different mark for each, which makes this worry a bit silly.

      But of course the book was about the political stage at the time it was written, and the events described came to pass (or not), shortly thereafter. Time turns prophecy into history.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  5. Two things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a long-time minister I can tell you two things that are commonly misinterpreted by the nominal Christian crowd.

    1. Revelation is almost entirely using symbolic language (it says so in the first paragraph).

    2. Nearly everyone goes to hell. Hell is just the state of being dead, nothing more. Even Jesus is spoken of as being in 'hell' when he died.

    The 'mark of the beast; is not a literal, physical mark. Rather, it is some kind of behavior or trait associating one with the Devils machinations (i.e. participating (or tacitly approving of) in genocide)

    1. Re:Two things... by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Informative

      The day I wish I had mod points for an AC - Hell must be frozen over!

      But seriously, that particular (mis)interpretation of the Bible, and Revelation in particular, can easily be traced to John Nelson Darby and Cyrus Scofield. If you want to really understand Christian fundamentalist nuttiness in the US, the Scofield Reference Bible is your source.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Two things... by moz25 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting. Can you explain further? I looked up the first paragraph and it's this:

      "Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:"

      It doesn't say anything about using symbolic language. Also not in subsequent paragraphs.

      Secondly, you are confusing Hell with Sheol, the place where all the souls of the dead go. However amusing the idea may be, the Bible most definitely does not claim that Jesus went to Hell.

      Thirdly, your claim that the mark is not a physical mark is easily refuted by Rev. 13:16, which even mentions the *location* of this mark.

      "Revelation 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:"

    3. Re:Two things... by Itninja · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some Bibles say 'signify' others more plainly say 'in signs'. Look up the word 'signify' and you will see what he meant:

      Main Entry: signified
      Function: noun
      : a concept or meaning as distinguished from the sign through which it is communicated

      So the mark represents what a person does (the hand) and what a person thinks (the forehead).

      In the original Greek and Hebrew Hell=Sheol=Hades=Gehenna=Tartarus. They all mean 'grave' not 'place where God tortures people for eternity'.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    4. Re:Two things... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Problem: Not all versions of the bible use the work "signify":
      NIV:

      The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies to everything he saw--that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

      NAS:

      The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

      The Message:

      A revealing of Jesus, the Messiah. God gave it to make plain to his servants what is about to happen. He published and delivered it by Angel to his servant John. And John told everything he saw: God's Word-- the witness of Jesus Christ!

      NCV:

      This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show his servants what must soon happen. And Jesus sent his angel to show it to his servant John, who has told everything he has seen.

      What makes your version any more correct than these?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    5. Re:Two things... by moz25 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, to be fair: given that the Bible is a collection of translations of translations, etc... pretty much everything is a "version".

      My point here is that if the meaning of a single ambiguous word in the whole translation chain can change the entire meaning of one of the most important sections of the Bible, then how seriously can we take the Bible in the first place?

      If it's a guide to something, then to what exactly? Our pre-conceived notions perhaps? Then the Bible is nothing more than an enabler for the intellectually lazy.

      Unfortunately, the so-called "Christians" seem to prefer persecuting the messenger... typical of false wannabee Christians.

      I think we're in general agreement though :-)

  6. Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I believe I am well educated with some extensive study in Eschatology.

    The Mark of the Beast is interesting and whether you are Premillennial or Amillennial you can find issues with the Mark of the Beast.

    I, personally, am mostly indifferent. Mostly.

    Here's where the concern is and will continue to be: buying and selling goods. I must make a living. I must pay my taxes. I'm okay with this. What happens when I won't accept an ID chip in my hand or cell phone?

    As a citizen I am no longer "free". I pay my taxes but I can't buy or sell without these shackles?

    Once a government is able to completely restrict the buying and selling, the means in which I survive, they have become oppressive and abusive. They must be overthrown.

    If you think it doesn't matter or this is an unimportant step then we can Godwin this discussion.

    And no, I'm not afraid. I won't bow down to another god or man. If the next President says we must bow down to him or his god(s) I will refuse.

    Personally I think Christians (practicing their faith in "loving others") are the best kind of citizen one can have. They follow the just laws, they pay taxes and help their fellow men.

    1. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by Creedo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny. Where I live(the US Midwest, FYI), the Christians are at the forefront of attacking human rights, demanding that non-believers kowtow to their deranged fantasies and attacking science when they aren't flailing about in fear of the devil driven liberal conspiracy. That's not what I would call being a good citizen.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    2. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by pluther · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally I think Christians (practicing their faith in "loving others") are the best kind of citizen one can have. They follow the just laws, they pay taxes and help their fellow men.

      Except that they don't. At least, no more than anybody else. Possibly less, actually.

      In the US, Christians are about 80% of the population, but over 90% of convicted criminals.

      And churches pay no taxes. Those who give money to churches get tax breaks for doing so. Assuming Christians also give to actual charities as much as everybody else does, that would mean they actually pay less taxes.

      As for the "Mark of the Beast", we've had this in the US for a very long time now. Every citizen of the U.S. is given a unique ID number at birth. A number which you need in order to get a passport, or drivers license, or credit card. So we're already regulating the buying and selling of property without it. And have been since before most of us here were born.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    3. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by armanox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nor is it being Christian.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    4. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by Creedo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tell it to the Christians. Or is this yet another stab at the "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    5. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am en atheist, but I don't see the Christian right as being the greatest danger to our rights in the USA. For all the noise they make, the wall of separation of church and state is strong enough and if anything getting stronger. If I had to pick one, I think the greatest danger is the (entirely secular) utilitarian morality, accepted without question by the "progressive" left, that does not accept any absolutes when it comes to individual rights. What right do you have to eat/drink/smoke whatever you like when other people are obliged by law to pay for your health care? What right do you have to trade in a way that you see as beneficial for yourself when such methods of trading are not beneficial to the economy? etc etc When the standard for deciding whether a particular individual action is acceptable or not is not whether it infringes on other people's rights, but whether it is beneficial to the "society" in some way, you can say goodbye to liberty.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    6. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by Dalambertian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm rather fond of Scotsmen, not to mention Ghandi when he said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

    7. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's inherently so. Ever notice how the Fundamentalists try to reshape the face of their religion so that they can conveniently decry those that disagree with them for not being true believers? The problem is that while a lot of these views are genuinely minority views, since the rest of the religious devotees let it pass without comment, since those other ones aren't true believers, you end up in a situation where it just stews and nobody knows what's up.

    8. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the Christians were more like Christ, there wouldn't be any Christians around anymore:

      But I [Christ] tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    9. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by JAZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      more like a noisy and obnoxious minority of a community.

      ...All christians are assholes who try to make everyone conform to they're way of life.
      ...All muslims are terrorists.
      ...All jews are stingy.
      ...All mexicans are illegal immigrants.
      ...All blacks are in gangs.
      ...All canadians are nice.
      ...All slashdot users are nerds who can't find girlfriends.

      anytime you try to associate a trait with a group you're probably oversimplifying the truth.

      --


      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -- Homer Simpson
    10. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most Buddhists are like Christ, and there are a bunch of those around.

    11. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by Nethead · · Score: 4, Funny

      In the US, Christians are about 80% of the population, but over 90% of convicted criminals.

      That's because everyone seems to find Jesus in prison. (ergo, he must be in there too.)

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    12. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by gmack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hate it when people say this because it justifies the most annoying fears of technology when the Bible doesn't actually say that technology is bad. You make the classic mistake of failing to consider the old testament when analyzing something written to people who would have considered the Torah as central to their lives.

      Specifically:
      Deuteronomy 6-8 (NAS)
            6"(A)These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart.

            7"(B)You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.

            8"(C)You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead.

      If writing God's words on your hand and forehead is following God then writing the Beast's mark is following the Beast.

      If you consider that the mark of the beast is an opposing religion than it is very logical that members if the beast's religion would not want to do business with anyone not like them and so you suddenly can't buy or sell with the people of the dominant religion of the area with no computerized tracking necessary. This sort of exclusion has been happening for thousands of years and still happens today. At most the mark would be a religious symbol of some sort but more likely it is a literary reference to following the beast (forehead = mind, hand = action) .

      Tyranny has never required technology.

    13. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by Creedo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps you have reading comprehension problems. I never said that all Christians do that, even in my community. I said that Christians are at the forefront of those movements. And that's absolutely true. I can't think of a single non-Christian, in fact, who is even visible in the state or local political scenes. I can't think of a single non-Christian in my area fighting for Creationism. No non-Christians have been fighting gay rights here. No non-Christians running nonsensical attack ads. Hell, we even have threatening road signs on the highways! http://www.flyoverpeople.net/images/RegretItForever.jpg So, tell me again, who are these invisible "others" who are leading these irrational movements in the midwest?

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    14. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by diablovision · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that they don't. At least, no more than anybody else. Possibly less, actually.
      In the US, Christians are about 80% of the population, but over 90% of convicted criminals.

      Could it be that Christians are very active in prisons, and that convicts (who have little to lose) are more than happy to "turn to God" to make early parole?

      --
      120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
    15. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by Vasheron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like a reasonable experiment. Why not try it?

    16. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by hierofalcon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll save the AC the trouble...

      14:9-11 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

      It isn't just the mark. It is the worship of the beast as opposed to God that is the primary offense, and I think that the general assumption is that getting the mark will require worship of the beast at least at the time of receiving the mark - hence don't get the mark if you want to avoid hell. The choice will be execution (for failure to worship the beast) or receiving the mark and worshiping the beast. The angels are sent throughout the earth speaking from the sky in each person's native language warning about what is to come and the consequences. The choice will be clear.

      Remember that Salvation is not a once and forever thing. You have to choose to keep doing right and stop doing what the Bible or the Holy Spirit tells you is wrong. Worshiping Satan would be a fail, regardless of whether it is done today or at the time of the mark of the beast. God's grace is big. I'm not sure how big His net of mercy is with us today when we have accepted Christ as Savior and still go on failing Him. I believe it extends to some point. But He sends His angels out to specifically say He has had enough and this limit will not be covered by His grace if passed.

      Those who have accepted Christ as Savior and repented of sin will be caught up with Jesus in the sky long before this point in time, so there is no risk of their salvation being "undone" by it.

    17. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by bit9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      anytime you try to associate a trait with a group you're probably oversimplifying the truth.

      Yes, and this applies equally well to the comment by the AC who said:

      Personally I think Christians (practicing their faith in "loving others") are the best kind of citizen one can have. They follow the just laws, they pay taxes and help their fellow men.

    18. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by Entropius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The trouble with religion is that only God can say who's being a true Christian, and he's not saying.

    19. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by Entropius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I lived in Alabama for a long time, and I can say that yes -- a majority of Christians there *do* metaphorically beat down the doors to science classrooms. The Baptist megachurch in my neighborhood showed up to my high school with pamphlets supporting young-earth creationism. I was thrown out of a Methodist Sunday School for inquiring about how Big Bang cosmology fit into Genesis (hey, I was six, and yes I was an odd little kid). I worked at a Presbyterian church for a long time that fired their pastor and changed Presbyterian sub-denominations because the Presbyterian Church (USA) wasn't homophobic enough.

      The only major groups of Christians I encountered in Alabama that weren't the sorts of nutters you describe were the United Church of Christ (but not many of those) and the Episcopalians. I didn't have much contact with the Lutherans (there weren't many of them) so I can't speak for them.

      At least in numbers, a plurality of Christians in the South are Southern Baptists, and they're nutters.

      It's not the same elsewhere. But down in the crotch of the Bible Belt, it's scary.

    20. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      China rolled into Tibet, slapped the Dali Llama in the face, stole his country and kicked his ass out, and he hasn't gone all Che Guevara to get it back. Or those Vietnamese monks that burned themselves alive to protest the war. Although, if you were to walk up to a Rinzai master, he'd probably cold-clock you with a stick, laugh, and tell you when you understand only then will you be enlightened.

    21. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by Zantac69 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You would probably get the Shaolin buddhist beatdown.

      $5 on the monk.

      --
      1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
    22. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by Rasperin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about in Kansas, where those who vote against gay rights and harm others in the name of God. I believe it was 83% vote, so I'm going to say 83% of those people are exactly what you are looking for.

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    23. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If that is your definition of liberty you lost your liberty a long time ago. In case you were not familiar, you cannot eat whatever you like (your offspring, tigers), you cannot drink whatever you like (moonshine), you cannot smoke whatever you like (cannabis). You cannot trade in ways beneficial to yourself (cocaine).

      Yes I would agree with you that we lost liberty a long time ago but there are degrees of liberty and there is no reason to keep going in the wrong direction. As for your examples, yes I disagree with all the prohibitions you mentioned except obviously eating your offspring (which doesn't involve my rights but my offspring's rights) and arguably eating tigers but animal rights are a bit more complex issue.

      The faster you acknowledge that it makes sense to have rules in society and accepting these, the faster will you be able to convince others to modify these. If you start out by stating that rules that have been in place for centuries or decades trample on your liberty, people will take you for a crackpot.

      Are there still people around who confuse liberty and anarchy? I guess there are and judging by your inclusion of eating babies as an example of an infringement of liberty you are one of them.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    24. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by Golddess · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really the same thing. "No True Scotsman" aims to denounce Scotsman who would otherwise fit the definition of being a Scotsman by adding some arbitrary condition to the definition. This is denouncing so-called "Christians" who don't even fit the base definition of being a Christian as defined by their book.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    25. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by Unkyjar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Religion has nothing to do with it. Everywhere you go, the sky is the sky and people are people.

    26. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where'd you get that from? Baidu?

    27. Re:Educated, not crazy and not afraid. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is denouncing so-called "Christians" who don't even fit the base definition of being a Christian as defined by their book

      Well, those guys say that their book has a definition that doesn't match yours. Why should I believe you over them?

      And, yes, I've read that book. It's so vague and self-contradicting that, with a bit of a stretch (which both sides - Bible-thumping fire-and-brimstoners, and God-loves-everyone turn-the-other-cheek hippies - are guilty of) can be made to fit either way.

      This is even leaving aside the issue of who defined the book (which is really a collection of texts, and we know full well that not all of them made it in there)...

  7. POSIX operating systems are sinful by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had a sysadmin who refused to chmod files to 666 because it was the number of the beast. We didn't have the permission-letter version of the command back then.

    1. Re:POSIX operating systems are sinful by bkpark · · Score: 2

      That sounds completely reasonable, especially the havoc you can expect if you chmod files to 666 in a real multi-user environment.

      If you wanted to share files, you would chmod the directory to 1777 (which is good, 7 being a good number).

    2. Re:POSIX operating systems are sinful by mangu · · Score: 4, Informative

      I had a sysadmin who refused to chmod files to 666 because it was the number of the beast

      Anyhow, you have to agree that he was right, for the wrong reason. Giving read/write permissions to everybody is the number of the stupid, not the number of the beast.

    3. Re:POSIX operating systems are sinful by Quirkz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had a debate with a girl once who insisted that the Visa cards with your picture on them represented the mark of the beast because "VISA" was Roman Numerals for 666. In the heat of the argument I didn't get past the VI being 6, and it was only days later that I realized S isn't even a Roman numeral, and their system would require six letters to add up to 666 anyway -- one for each 5's place and one for each of the 1's.

      Another time had a crazy man in Indianapolis hand me a flyer explaining that the year, 1992, was when armageddon was going to come because 1992 was 666 times 3. That time I was smart enough to do the math and realize no, it's 1998. So I laughed at him and threw away his ranting flyer ... until 1998, of course, when the world actually did come to an end. Wait, what?

  8. enjoy the show by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am just sitting back, enjoying the show: religion versus state, no matter who loses, I win.

    1. Re:enjoy the show by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two forms of oppression are fighting over who gets the right to oppress you more and you think you will win?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  9. Oh boy by Aboroth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Great, another story where the discussion will be flooded with anti-religious posts, with everyone practically foaming at the mouth to condemn people who don't think like they do. Like any of it matters. You are all just yelling into the void for no reason, and doing a big anti-religious circle-jerk as you all congratulate yourselves on how much smarter you are than these people.

    At lest that's the picture that I get in my head when I read all of these comments.

    1. Re:Oh boy by Jawnn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I see your point. Really, I do, but I must say that I see a distinction here, in most of the posts I've read. I will stand up for anyone's right to believe as they choose, no matter how silly I may consider those beliefs to be. I will furthermore defend those believers' right to live by their beliefs... right up to point where their actions have an undesirable impact on others. Failing to take part in the census counts as such an action. At that point, the believers become instantly deserving of all the derision that can be heaped upon them because now their silly and irrational superstitions actually matter. It is the right, nay, the duty of rational persons to point this out, loudly and repeatedly, for as long as it takes for all of us to finally fucking get it.

  10. Re:So... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, a government issued ID card sounds exactly like a Social Security Card, something we've had here in the States since 1936. Generally people don't refuse them because you can't get a frickin' job without one.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  11. WOW by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Personally I think Christians (practicing their faith in "loving others") are the best kind of citizen one can have. They follow the just laws, they pay taxes and help their fellow men.

    History class: apparently you never showed up. Ever.

  12. Yes, but uneducated in a way you not thinking of by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I caught this quote from the first post:

    "Always good to see uneducated crazies are all over the world.

    Yes, uneducated, but not in the way you are thinking of.

    Christians are persecuted all over the world. In India, there are some fanatical groups of Hindus and Muslims that are especially violent towards Christians, with murders and burning whole villages not uncommon. Lesser persecution occurs all over the world, however, and is to be expected. In fact, this is probably not exclusive to Christians, though some religions tend to suffer less. I suspect because they fight back. Christians are not called to do so, but to love their persecutors and put their faith in God. Seeking persecution is not necessary - it will seek you as a Christian.

    I'm currently studying Revelation, and have been getting very different insights into the imagery and visions depicted there. The 'mark of the Beast' need not be a literal mark, but it could be just as apparent. If, as a Christian, you spend your time watching celebrity news shows and, as Don Imus says, 'revelling in the agony of others', you are participating in the less-Christian aspects of our culture. This is more the domain of the Beast (Satan) than it is of God. You are marked by this. If you spend your time talking about things of the world, you are marked as one more interested in the world. Am I guilty of this? Yup. We can change, though.

    The quote about 'buying or selling' is indeed, however, looking more literal than figurative. This is more interesting. But of course, if you wish to buy or sell that which is being offered by the prevailing culture, well, yes, avoiding the mark of the Beast will distance you from that culture. In TFA, it seems India is instituting the UID system to better identify individuals. I think, as a Christian, I could tolerate having a UID as a means to entirely acceptable ends, ie property ownership.

    I think these Mizoramans are misguided, but they are also under constant threat. Who knows.

    Hopefully some of the pastors I know of in India will reach out to them and give them some useful insights. You have to fight the real fight, not be distracted by the enemy.

    ps- I do not advocate Christians isolating themselves from the world. We are called to be in the world, but not of it. If you don't understand this, try to evaluate your investment in current events. Are you tossed to and fro by the latest political debate, or do you take it as an event, and keep your focus on the issues and real progress?

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  13. India(na) by hondo77 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are we sure this story isn't from Indiana?

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  14. Break It Down by Chagatai · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Hold on. You're doing two things wrong here. First, you're changing the definition of, "tolerant," to, "acceptance," or, "agreement." Second, you're lumping together totally different groups of people.

    The gays aren't knocking at my door, telling my children that they are going to burn in hell forever.

    Okay, define how this is intolerant. Are they killing your kids if they do not convert? You always have the option of shutting the door if you don't like it.

    They aren't shooting abortion doctors.

    How many abortion doctors have been shot by self-described Christians? Less than a dozen (which I would say is still too much). And true Christians condemn these acts (that whole Sixth Commandment and all).

    They aren't launching suicide attacks on my neighborhood.

    Ah, now you're talking about Muslims, which is a totally different religious group. Fundamentalist Muslims will try to blow you up. Fundamentalist Christians just pray for your soul and witness to you.

    They aren't polluting science with their fictional delusions.

    To turn this around, aren't you being a little intolerant in the way you're presenting their beliefs?

    When the theists abandon their irrational bigotry, grow up and stop trying to control their neighbors, they'll be worthy of tolerance.

    That also doesn't sound very tolerant.

    --
    --Chag
    1. Re:Break It Down by Creedo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hold on. You're doing two things wrong here. First, you're changing the definition of, "tolerant," to, "acceptance," or, "agreement." Second, you're lumping together totally different groups of people.

      Nope, I'm not. I don't care what they believe in private.

      The gays aren't knocking at my door, telling my children that they are going to burn in hell forever.

      Okay, define how this is intolerant. Are they killing your kids if they do not convert? You always have the option of shutting the door if you don't like it.

      No, they are applying social pressure to my kids. They are attempting to impose irrational fears of punishment in order to sway my childrens' beliefs. And I can't "shut the door" when the pressure is coming from authority figures like teachers(66% of the teachers in my children's school are practicing Christian preachers, and I have video-taped them pushing religious dogma in school).

      They aren't shooting abortion doctors.

      How many abortion doctors have been shot by self-described Christians? Less than a dozen (which I would say is still too much). And true Christians condemn these acts (that whole Sixth Commandment and all).

      How many have been shot by non-Christians in this country? How many non-Christian groups are actively promoting such activities?

      They aren't launching suicide attacks on my neighborhood.

      Ah, now you're talking about Muslims, which is a totally different religious group. Fundamentalist Muslims will try to blow you up. Fundamentalist Christians just pray for your soul and witness to you.

      Did you skip over the term "theist" that I keep using?

      They aren't polluting science with their fictional delusions.

      To turn this around, aren't you being a little intolerant in the way you're presenting their beliefs?

      Nope. I'm not in their Sunday school classes, trying to inject rational thought into their religious dogma.

      When the theists abandon their irrational bigotry, grow up and stop trying to control their neighbors, they'll be worthy of tolerance.

      That also doesn't sound very tolerant.

      Absolutely correct. I don't tolerate that behavior.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
  15. Re:Yes, but uneducated in a way you not thinking o by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Informative
  16. Got news for you... by VirginMary · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...human beings are animals, no more and no less!

    --
    When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
  17. Re:Gimme that ol' time religion... by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I always wondered what society would be like if people didn't experience fear.

    I'm not talking ignorant of danger, rather immune the unreasoning response to imagined threats.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  18. Re:Context Fail by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And what, in your expert opinion, was the context of the similar commands to offer someone your cloak as well if they demanded your tunic or to carry bags two miles if they demanded you carry them one?

    Ok, I’ll just tell you.

    A tunic was a lightweight, loose garment; a cloak was heavier. In Jewish law & tradition, you were permitted to take someone’s tunic as security for a debt. You could not, however, take their cloak and keep it beyond nightfall as it would be cold and they would need it. (This was based on rabbinical interpretation of Deut. 24:12-13.)

    Similarly under Roman law the occupying soldiers could recruit any non-citizen of Rome and demand that the person carry their bags. However this was limited to a distance of only one mile, after which the person was free to go; they could not legally demand two miles from the person.

    Now how do those situations jive with your claim that turning the other cheek was a taunt?

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  19. Re: Boy are you confused by lbates_35476 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You either have to believe that humans are eternal beings or that we live, then die, and that's the end. If Christians are correct in accepting the Gospel (that Jesus sacrificed His life for their sins), they spend eternity in Heaven. If they are wrong, it doesn't matter. If you are wrong, you spend eternity in Hell. There are no merits that will get you judged "Holy". Everyone has sinned and sin is incompatible with Heaven. That was the reason that a perfect sacrifice was necessary. If we could do it on our own, we wouldn't have required a savior. God loves you so much that He will allow you to choose NOT to spend eternity with Him. He also provided you with a way TO spend eternity with him (accepting his Son as your personal savior). Ultimately the choice is yours. You owe it to yourself to take a closer look at what Christianity REALLY means.