You are promoting a very popular urban legend -- that Jesus would not have spoken against homosexual practices. In fact, Jesus was both a student and teacher of the Mosaic law. There is an important grain of truth in your urban legend, in that Jesus was a "friend of sinners". In that, he was radically different from the religious establishment. However, there are many Christians today who are friends with their peers in the secular world (including gays, atheists, Muslims, etc.) and yet still believe and practice the moral code of the scriptures (as they honestly read it, which is pretty clearly a heck of a lot more honestly than you read it). I suspect that you equate teaching this moral code with "preaching hate". But Jesus also taught the Bible's moral code, so really, Jesus was "preaching hate" as well in your view.
The problem isn't that Christians tell Jesus what to do, the problem is that people like you are trying to retroactively redefine Christianity in modern terms. Why don't you just say that you hate Christianity? Why try to redefine Christianity in such a dishonest way?
I don't assume that any two posts are by the same AC.
But regardless, my original challenge up the reply chain was to substantiate a claim of having one's day ruined "too many times to count" because of Christianity. And I suspect that original AC was exaggerating.
I agree that gays have been treated nastily for a long time, and that people have tried to get them fired and so forth. The winds have definitely shifted, though, and from what I can see, today the most visible lets-try-to-get-this-guy-fired action appears to be by gays against those who express disagreement with gay marriage or a moral objection to the gay lifestyle. For example, the whole Duck Dynasty flap.
One clarification though, disagreement with gay marriage does not equate to the influence of the Christian religion. The whole idea in general of "gay marriage" wasn't even "a thing" until recently, so most human cultures are not on board with it (yet?). It is entirely possible and completely normal to not be a conservative Christian, and yet be against gay marriage. For example, see Obama's position in 2008. Just wanted to clarify that.
You may be right. But so was I. Unfortunately, anonymous, unspecified grievances are pretty much worthless to mention, even if they are (secretly) very legit and there are good reasons not to disclose the details. This AC's burden must be borne alone. We cannot share the load. This trail of tears is his/hers to walk.
See, that's the most rational response yet to how living in a Christian-influenced culture can routinely ruin one's day. That's all I was looking for. Thank you.
However I can't begin the count the number of times that ridiculous xian bullshit has ruined my day.
Really? Is your day that easy to ruin? I suspect you are exaggerating. Or if you truly do have psychological issues such that just being exposed to other people's religious belief disturbs you that greatly... then maybe you should get help for your own psychological issues. But please share more, don't leave us hanging.
Seems like a blinding flash of the obvious, in a lot of ways
You haven't read their follow up paper, wherein we learn that spending all your time stoned on pot and alcohol correlates with low achievement in life.
The Iron Curtain kept people from escaping from oppressive regimes. This article is just talking about prosecuting people who have been fighting for terrorists, and scrutinizing those suspected of hanging around with terrorists. It has auras of creepy surveillance, but definitely is not an Iron Curtain.
I see where you're coming from, and wanted to say thanks for the exchange. Sorry for lying down on the skepticism job, royally sick with GI bug right now. Cheers!
You are so wrong it's hilarious -- an incredible amount of curve fitting goes into this stuff. Just take my word for it. Also, google "define: extrapolate" and you will find that it clearly encompasses this situation, i.e. more than just continuance of a single curve.
Chickens may not be a great example, as they are pretty dumb. We're in the same branch of animals as cows; but chickens are over there with the T-Rex's. Which raises another good reason to eat birds -- payback for early reptile/mammal relations.
As you can see, it is not an extrapolated curve fit, but an imitation of the global atmosphere, ocean and biosphere, based on physics.
That is a true clarification, but my point was basically valid, if simplistically stated. Their models are based on fitting many curves, not a single curve. And due to the chaotic nature of the environment being modeled, the extrapolation they do is very, very far from being as useful as a model you could put together from measuring let's say F=ma in the real world and using your model to predict simple kinetics.
I would suggest that you are mistaken about cows. (I grew up on a farm and live in farm country.) When cows are very old or sick or are in a small pen, they just stand around, because they don't have much choice. But when they are young and have access to wider pasture, they wander around and explore their world. It's true they spend a bunch of time grazing, but they also don't miss a chance to ogle anything unusual. For example, a turtle walking through a cow field will often capture the attention of the herd, which will follow it (cautiously, it might be dangerous!) on its way through.
Cows and especially pigs are highly intelligent animals. And they are totally delicious. Let's change our minds about those before we beat up the Japanese too badly, shall we?
Pointing out that absurdity was the whole point of the exercise. The most sophisticated models being trotted out by AGW alarmists are essentially little more than extrapolated curve fits to a chaotic data set. And when something in the real world shifts and they are all wrong, they get fitted to the latest historical data and are suddenly right again. It doesn't really _mean_ much, if anything.
I don't think you quite have grasped the idea of "skepticism". Skepticism isn't about promoting a grand unified theory, it's about questioning somebody else's. Skeptical treatment of the medieval warm period would include questions like:
1. If climates were similarly warm in the MWP, why is it such a disaster for it to be warm again now?
2. Do we know what caused the MWP? If not, then could the same cause underly some of today's warming trends, rather than solely greenhouse gases?
3. What was the deal with "hide the decline", anyway?
(I added that last one in just to honor the important cargo cult science contributions of Michael Mann and his colleagues.)
Slashdot Mirror
You are promoting a very popular urban legend -- that Jesus would not have spoken against homosexual practices. In fact, Jesus was both a student and teacher of the Mosaic law. There is an important grain of truth in your urban legend, in that Jesus was a "friend of sinners". In that, he was radically different from the religious establishment. However, there are many Christians today who are friends with their peers in the secular world (including gays, atheists, Muslims, etc.) and yet still believe and practice the moral code of the scriptures (as they honestly read it, which is pretty clearly a heck of a lot more honestly than you read it). I suspect that you equate teaching this moral code with "preaching hate". But Jesus also taught the Bible's moral code, so really, Jesus was "preaching hate" as well in your view.
The problem isn't that Christians tell Jesus what to do, the problem is that people like you are trying to retroactively redefine Christianity in modern terms. Why don't you just say that you hate Christianity? Why try to redefine Christianity in such a dishonest way?
Yeah, but Occam's Razor says it's just somebody running his mouth on Slashdot. :)
I cannot say what this particular AC faces
I don't assume that any two posts are by the same AC.
But regardless, my original challenge up the reply chain was to substantiate a claim of having one's day ruined "too many times to count" because of Christianity. And I suspect that original AC was exaggerating.
I agree that gays have been treated nastily for a long time, and that people have tried to get them fired and so forth. The winds have definitely shifted, though, and from what I can see, today the most visible lets-try-to-get-this-guy-fired action appears to be by gays against those who express disagreement with gay marriage or a moral objection to the gay lifestyle. For example, the whole Duck Dynasty flap.
One clarification though, disagreement with gay marriage does not equate to the influence of the Christian religion. The whole idea in general of "gay marriage" wasn't even "a thing" until recently, so most human cultures are not on board with it (yet?). It is entirely possible and completely normal to not be a conservative Christian, and yet be against gay marriage. For example, see Obama's position in 2008. Just wanted to clarify that.
You may be right. But so was I. Unfortunately, anonymous, unspecified grievances are pretty much worthless to mention, even if they are (secretly) very legit and there are good reasons not to disclose the details. This AC's burden must be borne alone. We cannot share the load. This trail of tears is his/hers to walk.
Etc. etc.
See, that's the most rational response yet to how living in a Christian-influenced culture can routinely ruin one's day. That's all I was looking for. Thank you.
Testimonials from AC's claiming (unspecified) grievances are pretty much worthless. Be specific or go home.
For example, what "equal treatment" did you lack that ruined your day, every single day?
I weap for thee...
Hey, you misspelled "weep" while calling other people dumb and uninformed. What a maroon!
However I can't begin the count the number of times that ridiculous xian bullshit has ruined my day.
Really? Is your day that easy to ruin? I suspect you are exaggerating. Or if you truly do have psychological issues such that just being exposed to other people's religious belief disturbs you that greatly... then maybe you should get help for your own psychological issues. But please share more, don't leave us hanging.
Seems like a blinding flash of the obvious, in a lot of ways
You haven't read their follow up paper, wherein we learn that spending all your time stoned on pot and alcohol correlates with low achievement in life.
Both?
The Iron Curtain kept people from escaping from oppressive regimes. This article is just talking about prosecuting people who have been fighting for terrorists, and scrutinizing those suspected of hanging around with terrorists. It has auras of creepy surveillance, but definitely is not an Iron Curtain.
Obama who is working very hard to end this
[citation needed]
I see where you're coming from, and wanted to say thanks for the exchange. Sorry for lying down on the skepticism job, royally sick with GI bug right now. Cheers!
And when there's an auto accident it makes the national news. That sounds pretty good to me.
Like race, perhaps? Even if it works out to race by other proxy characteristics, this has a lot of potential to blow up in the merchants' faces.
You are so wrong it's hilarious -- an incredible amount of curve fitting goes into this stuff. Just take my word for it. Also, google "define: extrapolate" and you will find that it clearly encompasses this situation, i.e. more than just continuance of a single curve.
Chickens may not be a great example, as they are pretty dumb. We're in the same branch of animals as cows; but chickens are over there with the T-Rex's. Which raises another good reason to eat birds -- payback for early reptile/mammal relations.
As you can see, it is not an extrapolated curve fit, but an imitation of the global atmosphere, ocean and biosphere, based on physics.
That is a true clarification, but my point was basically valid, if simplistically stated. Their models are based on fitting many curves, not a single curve. And due to the chaotic nature of the environment being modeled, the extrapolation they do is very, very far from being as useful as a model you could put together from measuring let's say F=ma in the real world and using your model to predict simple kinetics.
So just so we are clear, you think it is okay to assert something you personally believe is incorrect and a fallacy
No, I don't think that, and I am not sure where you got the idea.
Maybe I'm a herd animal. :) Not enough people have changed their minds yet for me to follow.
I would suggest that you are mistaken about cows. (I grew up on a farm and live in farm country.) When cows are very old or sick or are in a small pen, they just stand around, because they don't have much choice. But when they are young and have access to wider pasture, they wander around and explore their world. It's true they spend a bunch of time grazing, but they also don't miss a chance to ogle anything unusual. For example, a turtle walking through a cow field will often capture the attention of the herd, which will follow it (cautiously, it might be dangerous!) on its way through.
Cows and especially pigs are highly intelligent animals. And they are totally delicious. Let's change our minds about those before we beat up the Japanese too badly, shall we?
Pointing out that absurdity was the whole point of the exercise. The most sophisticated models being trotted out by AGW alarmists are essentially little more than extrapolated curve fits to a chaotic data set. And when something in the real world shifts and they are all wrong, they get fitted to the latest historical data and are suddenly right again. It doesn't really _mean_ much, if anything.
I don't think you quite have grasped the idea of "skepticism". Skepticism isn't about promoting a grand unified theory, it's about questioning somebody else's. Skeptical treatment of the medieval warm period would include questions like:
1. If climates were similarly warm in the MWP, why is it such a disaster for it to be warm again now?
2. Do we know what caused the MWP? If not, then could the same cause underly some of today's warming trends, rather than solely greenhouse gases?
3. What was the deal with "hide the decline", anyway?
(I added that last one in just to honor the important cargo cult science contributions of Michael Mann and his colleagues.)