Actually, I read the headline as "Forget Bathing, it's Considered Harmful". Considering it was published by kdawson I assume he was just announcing to the world something we all already suspected.
If you honestly think there weren't opposing groups as violent and idiotic fighting against racial integration in the 40s as there are now fighting against equal rights for gays, you're deluding yourself (or just ignorant of history). Regardless, Obama is the President. Presidents are supposed to lead, not worry about whether some fringe group will like them or not. Instead he'd rather cower before the anti-gay hate than do the right thing.
If he signed an executive order today, ordering full integration for gays and lesbians in the military, he'd still have two years in office to show it didn't cause the end of civilization. But he's just not willing to stake his political future on it because at the end of the day he doesn't care about gays or lesbians. At least with Bush he was honest about his opinion (as troglodytish as it was).
I remember the good old days, when Congress would appropriate money for projects. When, exactly, did Presidents get signing authority on the national checkbook?
Nevermind that Spain's experiment with subsidizing solar power is one of the causes of their looming fiscal insolvency. Let's follow them down the path to ruin. Yay!
I'll grant that the correct balance between grace and walking the straight and narrow path is a deep and long theological discussion; one which has been debated for 2000 years. What you're advocating is a kind of Antinomianism, which was denounced as a heresy by the early Christian church when the Gnostics first suggested it. It lay dormant for 1500 years until Martin Luther resurrected it. It's still a bitter point of debate and arguably the main cause of the schism in the Western Christian church (the supremacy of the Pope was a secondary cause for much of the Protestant Reformation outside of England).
Before you go around insisting that your view of the bible is the "one true way", you should have a better understanding of the debate you're entering into. In no way can it be said categorically that Christians are saved through their faith alone, simply because the text can be read in two different ways.
Which of course strikes at another matter: if the text of "god's inspired word" is so vague on such an important matter, why should it be trusted to give an accurate portrayal of any kind of afterlife, or the means by which to achieve said afterlife? Simply speaking, it cannot. It is an untrustworthy guide at the best of times and outright dangerous at the worst.
By your understanding of the bible one could go about murdering with impunity and yet still go to heaven because they believe in Jesus. Perhaps you should go read James' epistle before spouting such nonsense.
In no way can someone maintain a life of sin and be considered a Christian. If you have a problem with this, stop being a Christian and embrace the "sin". It's a lot more fun!
None of those sins, or any of the other more "serious" sins like theft, rape, murder, etc. will exclude someone from being a Christian. Far from it.
I guess "go and sin no more" means something else to you than anyone else who reads that sentence.
You can't live a life of "sin" and be a Christian. It's completely anathema to what the religion teaches and was founded upon. While all men (and women) fail to live a perfect life, any preacher will tell you you can't purposefully keep doing the things your god say you shouldn't and expect to get into heaven.
Inigo Montoya frowns on your shenanigans. Enthymemes, like my statement about what religion teaches, are not illogical; they just skip a lot of steps in showcasing the logical progression.
Religion, any religion, preaches that you must believe in something without any evidence of that thing existing. That is the height of illogical thought. For you to chastise me while embracing your delusions as though they're real means you're either insane or disingenuous. Which is it? Are you crazy, or a liar? There really is no third option in this debate. (For myself, I was a liar when I was religious; I was so good at it I lied to myself and believed every word of it.)
It would likewise include your own pro-atheist statements, would it not?
My central argument is that there is no evidence for a god, therefore all religion is a human construct, therefore all religion is flawed. You seem to think that "atheism" is a religion. It is not. It's not even a philosophy. It's just a way to label someone who has no delusions about the fact that there is no evidence to support the concept of a deity. That's all.
Human fallibility is a given, and since even atheists are human, cannot itself be a basis for atheism, can it?
Know how I can tell you're religious? You love circular arguments.
I'm not wasting any more of my valuable time on you. Go learn what real logic is, learn you can't prove a negative, then maybe we'll talk. Because at that point, you'll have renounced any faith in a deity and will be an atheist yourself.
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 can see no logical reason why the presence of human corruption in religion automatically means that there is no basis for it.
That would be true if we were talking about something that wasn't a construct of humans. Because there is no outside force creating religion, you can only look at humans for validation of religious beliefs. Since all humans are fallible, I see no reason to take what one person says about the nature of the universe at face value. Anyone making such claims has to be able to back them up with something more than "God said so".
Unless you have some evidence for the existence of a god(s) that doesn't involve:
1: Subjective feelings (God's real because I can feel his presence in my life) 2: Tautologies (The bible is true because the bible says it's true) or 3: Relying on coincidence (I prayed for a job, then I got a job; God must have helped me, not those 50 resumes I emailed out)
Something like that can become self-fulfilling. If enough people think Palin will become the 2012 nominee, then the party bosses may act on the assumption that those same people want her to become the nominee, and eventually the president.
In any event, if wisdom of crowds had any accuracy then all of the American Idol winners would be chart topping successes. Instead, only two (Clarkson & Underwood) are, plus a few runners up (Aiken, Daughtry, Hudson) did alright.
I recently had a friend argue with me that he opposes gay marriage because "marriage is supposed to be about having kids", and that homosexuality is "immoral". Nevermind that he and his wife have been together for 10 years, have no children, and have no intentions of having children. What's more, they're swingers who swap partners with other couples on a regular basis. He's now officially the Biggest Fucking Hypocrite I know (and yes, I told him that to his face, in front of other friends, but because we both respect that we're willing to stand up for our beliefs we're still friends).
To support your position, you'd have to show that gay couples historically adopted orphans at greater frequency than hetero couples. I don't think you can show that conclusively.
However, I did see an article several years ago that showed a link between gay men and their straight sisters having more children than average. The net result is that the grandparents ended up with more grandchildren than they would have if the son had married and had children of his own. Since there's a net positive in offspring, the gene involved (which is theorized to cause not just the homosexuality in the son but the extreme fecundity in the daughter) would continue to be passed down the female line.
I don't think you appreciate what a huge step forward that was, in and of itself. The idea that human value came innately to all men regardless of privilege of birth was earth shattering in its time. Yes, it took a while to get people on board with the idea that other races had the same rights; and a while longer for women to join the club. But not knock the importance of what the Founders started just because they didn't go all the way.
Why stop only at same-sex couples? The rest of us pay the same tax.:-)
Because you have the option of getting married to avoid the tax; they don't. Don't try to compare your brief inconvenience with their lifetime of state-sanctioned bigotry.
So I have to get married because its an economic decision?
Historically, that's all it was, anyway: a way to ensure inheritance, which is a kind of economic decision (estate planning and all that). So really, what's the big deal?
The New Testament has some pretty choice words for gay behavior, too. And early Christian writers were unanimous in their condemnation of homosexual sex. You really can't be gay and be a Christian, they're incompatible.
The easiest thing is for gays to wake up to this fact and abandon Christianity en masse and join a more tolerant religion. Or better yet, none at all.
(I say this as a former Christian who's now an avowed atheist. Once you really understand what religion preaches, there's really no point in continuing the charade; you just need to dump it completely.)
Slashdot Mirror
giving you a ring or donut shaped view of the world.
So not unlike the vision normally enjoyed by new brides and cops?
Yeah but cattle prods work pretty much everywhere.
Actually, I read the headline as "Forget Bathing, it's Considered Harmful". Considering it was published by kdawson I assume he was just announcing to the world something we all already suspected.
1.
I thought the divisions were based on nations, not populations. Or are you suggesting China should get three teams?
If you honestly think there weren't opposing groups as violent and idiotic fighting against racial integration in the 40s as there are now fighting against equal rights for gays, you're deluding yourself (or just ignorant of history). Regardless, Obama is the President. Presidents are supposed to lead, not worry about whether some fringe group will like them or not. Instead he'd rather cower before the anti-gay hate than do the right thing.
If he signed an executive order today, ordering full integration for gays and lesbians in the military, he'd still have two years in office to show it didn't cause the end of civilization. But he's just not willing to stake his political future on it because at the end of the day he doesn't care about gays or lesbians. At least with Bush he was honest about his opinion (as troglodytish as it was).
You're saying that Congress essentially gave him a blank check to spend how he likes. Not exactly the kind of checks and balances that we should have.
My point stands: executive power has gone way, way beyond what it should be.
Short answer: you're an idiot (in the classical-Greek sense).
Long answer: you're a fucking idiot. The President is not authorized to make loans without Congressional approval, either.
I remember the good old days, when Congress would appropriate money for projects. When, exactly, did Presidents get signing authority on the national checkbook?
Nevermind that Spain's experiment with subsidizing solar power is one of the causes of their looming fiscal insolvency. Let's follow them down the path to ruin. Yay!
I'll grant that the correct balance between grace and walking the straight and narrow path is a deep and long theological discussion; one which has been debated for 2000 years. What you're advocating is a kind of Antinomianism, which was denounced as a heresy by the early Christian church when the Gnostics first suggested it. It lay dormant for 1500 years until Martin Luther resurrected it. It's still a bitter point of debate and arguably the main cause of the schism in the Western Christian church (the supremacy of the Pope was a secondary cause for much of the Protestant Reformation outside of England).
Before you go around insisting that your view of the bible is the "one true way", you should have a better understanding of the debate you're entering into. In no way can it be said categorically that Christians are saved through their faith alone, simply because the text can be read in two different ways.
Which of course strikes at another matter: if the text of "god's inspired word" is so vague on such an important matter, why should it be trusted to give an accurate portrayal of any kind of afterlife, or the means by which to achieve said afterlife? Simply speaking, it cannot. It is an untrustworthy guide at the best of times and outright dangerous at the worst.
By your understanding of the bible one could go about murdering with impunity and yet still go to heaven because they believe in Jesus. Perhaps you should go read James' epistle before spouting such nonsense.
In no way can someone maintain a life of sin and be considered a Christian. If you have a problem with this, stop being a Christian and embrace the "sin". It's a lot more fun!
None of those sins, or any of the other more "serious" sins like theft, rape, murder, etc. will exclude someone from being a Christian. Far from it.
I guess "go and sin no more" means something else to you than anyone else who reads that sentence.
You can't live a life of "sin" and be a Christian. It's completely anathema to what the religion teaches and was founded upon. While all men (and women) fail to live a perfect life, any preacher will tell you you can't purposefully keep doing the things your god say you shouldn't and expect to get into heaven.
Like what?
Wicca, maybe. They seem like a tolerant bunch.
Anyway, like most Atheists, you are illogical.
Inigo Montoya frowns on your shenanigans. Enthymemes, like my statement about what religion teaches, are not illogical; they just skip a lot of steps in showcasing the logical progression.
Religion, any religion, preaches that you must believe in something without any evidence of that thing existing. That is the height of illogical thought. For you to chastise me while embracing your delusions as though they're real means you're either insane or disingenuous. Which is it? Are you crazy, or a liar? There really is no third option in this debate. (For myself, I was a liar when I was religious; I was so good at it I lied to myself and believed every word of it.)
It would likewise include your own pro-atheist statements, would it not?
My central argument is that there is no evidence for a god, therefore all religion is a human construct, therefore all religion is flawed. You seem to think that "atheism" is a religion. It is not. It's not even a philosophy. It's just a way to label someone who has no delusions about the fact that there is no evidence to support the concept of a deity. That's all.
Human fallibility is a given, and since even atheists are human, cannot itself be a basis for atheism, can it?
Know how I can tell you're religious? You love circular arguments.
I'm not wasting any more of my valuable time on you. Go learn what real logic is, learn you can't prove a negative, then maybe we'll talk. Because at that point, you'll have renounced any faith in a deity and will be an atheist yourself.
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 can see no logical reason why the presence of human corruption in religion automatically means that there is no basis for it.
That would be true if we were talking about something that wasn't a construct of humans. Because there is no outside force creating religion, you can only look at humans for validation of religious beliefs. Since all humans are fallible, I see no reason to take what one person says about the nature of the universe at face value. Anyone making such claims has to be able to back them up with something more than "God said so".
Unless you have some evidence for the existence of a god(s) that doesn't involve:
1: Subjective feelings (God's real because I can feel his presence in my life)
2: Tautologies (The bible is true because the bible says it's true)
or 3: Relying on coincidence (I prayed for a job, then I got a job; God must have helped me, not those 50 resumes I emailed out)
Something like that can become self-fulfilling. If enough people think Palin will become the 2012 nominee, then the party bosses may act on the assumption that those same people want her to become the nominee, and eventually the president.
In any event, if wisdom of crowds had any accuracy then all of the American Idol winners would be chart topping successes. Instead, only two (Clarkson & Underwood) are, plus a few runners up (Aiken, Daughtry, Hudson) did alright.
Whine bitch moan. If you don't like it, go get married. Gay couples don't have that option, so Google is trying to help them out.
Quit your bitching and go put a ring on it.
I recently had a friend argue with me that he opposes gay marriage because "marriage is supposed to be about having kids", and that homosexuality is "immoral". Nevermind that he and his wife have been together for 10 years, have no children, and have no intentions of having children. What's more, they're swingers who swap partners with other couples on a regular basis. He's now officially the Biggest Fucking Hypocrite I know (and yes, I told him that to his face, in front of other friends, but because we both respect that we're willing to stand up for our beliefs we're still friends).
To support your position, you'd have to show that gay couples historically adopted orphans at greater frequency than hetero couples. I don't think you can show that conclusively.
However, I did see an article several years ago that showed a link between gay men and their straight sisters having more children than average. The net result is that the grandparents ended up with more grandchildren than they would have if the son had married and had children of his own. Since there's a net positive in offspring, the gene involved (which is theorized to cause not just the homosexuality in the son but the extreme fecundity in the daughter) would continue to be passed down the female line.
I don't think you appreciate what a huge step forward that was, in and of itself. The idea that human value came innately to all men regardless of privilege of birth was earth shattering in its time. Yes, it took a while to get people on board with the idea that other races had the same rights; and a while longer for women to join the club. But not knock the importance of what the Founders started just because they didn't go all the way.
Why stop only at same-sex couples? The rest of us pay the same tax. :-)
Because you have the option of getting married to avoid the tax; they don't. Don't try to compare your brief inconvenience with their lifetime of state-sanctioned bigotry.
So I have to get married because its an economic decision?
Historically, that's all it was, anyway: a way to ensure inheritance, which is a kind of economic decision (estate planning and all that). So really, what's the big deal?
The New Testament has some pretty choice words for gay behavior, too. And early Christian writers were unanimous in their condemnation of homosexual sex. You really can't be gay and be a Christian, they're incompatible.
The easiest thing is for gays to wake up to this fact and abandon Christianity en masse and join a more tolerant religion. Or better yet, none at all.
(I say this as a former Christian who's now an avowed atheist. Once you really understand what religion preaches, there's really no point in continuing the charade; you just need to dump it completely.)
Please see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1698504&cid=32692870