The acts of many churches that call themselves Christian are inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible, which they claim as their source.
In what way? The bible certainly contains many instances of intolerance, injustice and cruelty. Since the work is claimed to be the word of god, there is no human who can decide that certain parts of it are invalid. There's certainly no basis to claim that christianity specifically promotes a libertarian attitude.
Anyone can claim to be Christian, and anyone can claim to speak for God. A lot of people do one or both. God knows who his true servants are. God does not allow me to speak for him, so I cannot tell you who they are. I can (if we wanted to get into it) spend a lot of time going over a lot of scripture and you can make some strong statements based on that scripture in some cases. Still a lot of borderline cases, not in the least because of all the forgiveness cases where someone fits many/all the signs of the unsaved, but are...
Anyone who believes that jesus is the saviour and that they have accepted him as such is a christian. It's the only definition that has any meaning in the real world. The good christians don't like that this definition includes the evil ones, but as long as the evil ones claim jesus as their saviour and can back their actions up with bible verses there's not much to be done about it.
The bottom line, IMHO, is that just like everyone else some christians are good, some are evil, and most are average. A person has to be judged as an individual, be they atheist, christian, muslim, hindu, none of the above or all of the above.
Yielding to God's authority and imposing self-control makes it much easier to create a libertarian nation. If control isn't imposed from within, it must be imposed from without, and that way likes authoritarianism.
This is a nice theory, but it ignores christianity's long history of oppression. Imposing self-control (which is certainly helpful for a free society) is entirely unrelated to religion.
2) becoming a Christian (accepting Christ as savior) must be a free choice and not forced conversion
This claim is inconsistent with the practices (such as the Inquisition) of christian churches in the past.
3) a high respect for human life (as its created in the image of God)
Also inconsistent with christianity's past history.
4) "love your neighbor"/"do unto others..." means that Christianity is very close to the libertarian "live and let live in peace". That's what I was getting at.
Unfortunately, while Libertarianism involves a true attitude of living and letting live, christianity (in practice) does not. Just look at the current hatred and bigotry coming from christian organizations these days over the subject of gay marriage.
Re:I thought I would do this...
on
WB Cancels Angel
·
· Score: 1
Just an FYI -- you mention watching season 1, but not season 2. Babylon 5 has an ongoing storyline that suffers if you watch the episodes out of order. I would recommend watching season 2 before season 3.
The point still remains that I was right. You say "he...claims that's what he meant"? How are you (and the person to whom I originally replied) more reliable indicators of the OP's intentions than the OP himself? Sorry, the OP has spoken. What part of "You are 100% correct!" didn't you understand?
I understand that he's claiming that's what he meant. His original message does not indicate this, however. Maybe that is what he meant and you happened to be right. Maybe he didn't mean that at all but thought it sounded good when you said it. The point is that there was absolutely nothing in his message to even begin to suggest this.
My inference (not assumption, inference) was correct. That makes me right, and it does make fean (the person to whom I replied) dumb for not seeing the inference that I saw. Here's why:
Wrong. The incidental correctness of your inference does not excuse you from the stupidity of calling a person who did not make the same inference dumb.
To use a legal analogy, "the reasonable man" would have read the OP's post exactly as I did, since it would be unreasonable to use a browser in a web development setting for no other reason than visual "prettiness."
Wrong. It's very reasonable for a Mac user to use a browser in a development setting for not other reason than visual "prettiness". Mac users are typically concerned about visual prettiness; it's one of the advantages of the platform.
In the lack of other evidence, the only reason fean assumed this unreasonable notion was so that he could portray Michael.Forman as a "Mac fanboy."
Assumes facts not in evidence.
If Forman had been speaking of an obscure browser for Windows, fean would likely not have initiated the name-calling.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Yeah, I've done plenty of name calling in this thread, too. And I often do so when dumb people set themselves up to be knocked down a few pegs.
You should learn to differentiate between a different interpretation and a dumb one before you start calling names.
I'm not a fanboy. You're just jealous because I read his mind.
Learn to read. I pointed out that the original poster replied to you admitting that he hadn't made those points in his original post. What part of his "While I wasn't clear in my original post" line confused you?
Did I attribute motives which were not stated explicitly? Yes.
Glad you see you admit that you were completely wrong for criticizing someone for the way they reacted to points that were not actually made in the original post.
Was I right? Yes.
About the original poster's meaning? Maybe. He certainly claims that that is what he meant. Were you right to criticize the person who replied to him? No. That was stupid.
Does it bug you? Obviously.
Actually, you're the one who's bugged by this, as conclusively proven by your pathetic decision to mark me foe. You'll note that I have not changed my relationship to you, as I attach no special significance to these messages.
His point was that he used to code for Mozilla, because Moz is very standards-compliant. Now he uses Safari to preview things in, since Safari/KHTML pretty much renders things just like Mozilla does (namely, according to standards)--that's why they made Safari User Agent string:
The grandparent post never said this, as the poster admits. You unjustifiably inferred this, presumably because you're also a Mac fanboy.
He's not trying to cater to one browser--he's using standards-compliant browsers like the excellent Mozilla and Safari to make sure all browsers can render his pages. Just because MSIE has the best market share doesn't mean catering toward it would be a good idea.
Fean never said anything about catering to MSIE. You're trying unsuccessfully to put words in his mouth. If you ever tried thinking before you post you would never have said this.
Show me a website that renders properly in Safari that doesn't render useably in MSIE, and I'll consider removing your dunce cap.
You should be more concerned about trying to do something to remove your own.
Except that, obviously, if an organization acts according to the whims of every minor contributor it has, it will be too schizophrenic to accomplish anything useful.
No, I don't imply it, I infer it... They were NOT involved in this case, there must be some reason why. If they are so good at multitasking, then why weren't they involved in this case?
It is foolish to infer that since they are not involved in every civil rights case in the entire United States that they are not doing their jobs.
Besides that, I don't claim they can't multitask, what I claim is that they are wasting money on less-important issuse.
And again, it's not for the likes of you to decide what's important.
There are several legitimate reasons for such a prohibition.
You claim there are reasons; the burden of proof is on you to provide them. In the absence of proof, my statement stands.
It's not a matter of what I care about, it's a matter of priorities. I can guarantee that practically every (well-informed) homosexual in the USA cares much more about being falsely arrested, imprisoned, exported, tortured, and/or executed, than they do about wether or not they will be able to visit their significant other in the hospitial.
You imply that the ACLU can only work on one problem at a time; this is moronic. You also trivialize the important of marriage rights for all, but that is unsurprising.
It's just a matter of priorities. Everyone agrees that life-or-death issuse are more important than questions of civil contracts.
No, it's a matter of multitasking, something that organizations like the ACLU are able to do.
But I suspect you don't care about that... You just want to push your political views.
You suspect incorrectly; getting the PATRIOT act ruled unconstitutional is extremely important. You are foolish to believe that the ACLU is only capable on concentrating one one issue, however.
You know, I was about to go and cite a bunch of news stories about it, but why bother? Go to ACLU.org and the first thing you see, in big bold type is: Keep Abortion Safe, Legal and Nobody's Business But Your Own.
You must have misread the original poster, who talked about killing babies. Abortion refers to the legal medical practice of terminating pregnancy before the fetus develops into a baby.
[Regarding the existence of a reason to prohibit gay marriage]
Well there certainly is, but that's besides the point.
There are no legitimate reasons for such a prohibition. Sure, many christian fundamentalists don't like the idea, but their superstitious objections are irrelevant.
The point was that I don't want my money spent on trivial "fad" issues like that, when incredibly important issues, like this, aren't getting ACLU support.
Your position that the issues you care about are more important than other issues that other people care about is unsupported. If you want an organization that only deals with issues you care about, start your own.
Glad to know my money isn't being wasted on those pesky civil rights, so it can be spent where it's really needed; making sure it's legal to secretly kill babies,
Cite?
and leagl for homosexuals to get married.
You speak as though there were even the slightest reason to prohibit homosexuals from getting married.
I rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy. Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
How wonderful that there are morons who don't learn from history. You'd make a great fascist if you had enough influence to matter at all.
If you're stupid enough to think we attacked Iraq because of their (complete lack of any) role in 9/11 you are beyond help. Just go back to listening to Rush and watching Fox News and yelling "Sieg Heil!" whenever they show a photo of GWB.
Better that 100 times as many people die in future terrorist attacks (and if I'm one of them, so be it) than that we lose the freedoms that make America great. Of course, I expect the reality will be somewhere in the middle. More people will die, and some freedoms will be lost, but we won't hit either extreme.
I thought murderers were supposed to be tried and sentenced, not slaughtered to sate your rather frightening desire for bloody revenge (what kind of God-fearing Christain are you?)
Why do people have that right? Where does it come from? If it's simply a good idea someone thought up once, what's to stop someone else from having the idea that you don't have that "right"?
It comes from us, the people. As for what's to stop someone, well, as they say, "as long as there's a Second Amendment there will always be a First Amendment".
The concept that there is a Higher Authority that believes in justice gives us an absolute standard from which to derive our rights.
Nonsense. Without evidence of the existence of this "Higher Authority" (and there isn't any) there is no basis for any "absolute standard". Christians can't agree on how their holy book should be interpreted, and they don't agree with the equally (in)valid holy books of other religions. Religion is not a basis for anything.
Without this, might makes right, for what reason would anyone have for not gaining as much to himself as he could?
You are honestly incapable of understanding the concept of respecting the rights of others, of showing kindness for others, just because it is the right thing to do? That's sad.
No one is going to take you to account for your actions, because no one in this world has enough power to stop you, and there is nothing after this world.
No one in the world has the power to stop me? Where did I get these super powers? How do I access them? Get real. Society stops people who steal, who murder, who harm others. It's the police, courts and prisons that stop criminals, not your imaginary god.
The existence of God who has laws for us to follow radically alters the scenario.
Too bad for you that there is no such existence. The "laws" that christians claim come from god actually come from people who have written, translated, and interpreted the bible. There is no extra-biblical basis for any it.
First, I'm not saying that I would. But knowing what I do of human nature, I know there are many, many people that would.
I see. So other people are bad by nature, but you aren't. Right. Get over yourself; you're not morally superior to the average person.
People are not perfect: we lie, cheat, steal, are impatient, rude, callous, and uncaring. We do it unintentionally, without even thinking.
And religion does not affect this in any way.
Children aren't taught to do these things, they happen naturally. It seems to be part of who we are.
Yes. And, again, religion does not affect this in any way.
In Christianity, we call this the "sinful nature" we are born with. Even if you don't agree with the "spiritual-ese" language, you can agree that no one is perfect. Simply calling it "sin" is shorthand, if you will.
"Sin" is defined as a crime against a god. As no such entity exists, sin does not exist. There are perfectly valid words to describe the very real effect that you mention here; no need to make up new ones.
Second, I didn't say I was afraid of hell. If you define hell as separation from God, then I'd agree it's something I don't desire. I love God, and desire to be with Him.
Please describe the manner in which your position differs from being afraid of hell.
I didn't say it was protection. It's cliche but true: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. At least I know the moral goals a Christian aspires to. With an atheist, I don't know what the goals are, or even if there are any at all.
The behavior of many christians proves that the "moral goals" associated with the religion cannot be counted on to affect the christian's behavior. In fact, since christians consider themselves automatically forgiven for anything they do, they have no incentive whatsoever to behave in an ethical manner. Witness the large number of famous christians (particularly politicians and televangelists) who have been caught out in unethical beha
If I want to teach my kids at home, how dare you force me to pay some sort of tax to a school I'm not using.
I certainly agree with this, as well as the idea of non-parents not paying school taxes.
Just because someone wants to run government by principles driven home by religious belief does not make them promoters of theocracy. The belief that we are answerable to something higher than human government is one of the strongest reasons for having a limited government in the first place.
The strongest reason for having a limited government in the first place is that people have a right to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else. Religion has nothing to do with it.
What check does a non-religious person have from abusing power he is entrusted with?
Well, I'm an atheist and I don't abuse what power I've been entrusted with. You appear to be saying you would if you weren't afraid of hell. I guess that's just a moral difference between us.
The behavior of christian political leaders in the past and present as well as that of televangelists and certain catholic priests conclusively proves that religion is not a protection against abuse of power.
Believe me, atheists are much safer in a nation run by Christians than Christians in a nation run by atheists. Christians have a higher calling to do good by everyone; with an atheist you have no such guarantee.
History disproves this. You won't see atheists launching crusades and burning witches. Even recently you have christian morons like George Bush Sr. saying that atheists "shouldn't be considered citizens". No, christians are no more or less trustworthy than anyone else.
There was a time when Europe was ruled by christianity. We call this period the Dark Ages.
Even though Christians are fallible, I'd rather take my chances with them than the likes of Stalin or Mao.
Christians like Hitler or Torquemada? No thanks. There may be atheists who have committed evil, but none of them committed evil in the name of atheism.
You had a nice point going; not sure why you decided to digress into pointless, erroneous atheism bashing.
You seem to have a stereotypical christian misconception about the source of morality, particularly as it applies to atheists. Here's a link to help you get educated on the subject.
Now who's running away from the peer-reviewed papers - you or me?
Your accusation is unjust. I have not disputed any scientific findings; I am disputing that they in any way support the bible. I explained this in my posting but it does not suprise me that you dishonestly misrepresent my position.
I appreciate your parable is nonsense.
Do you also appreciate that your parable was nonsense and should not even have been included in your original message?
Let me concur by saying that believing in Jesus is not likely to kill you physically (at least not in the country you live in). It will be the death knell for your current sinful nature though.
That's an interesting claim. Most christians believe that only god is without sin, yet you claim that humans can reach that standard of perfection in this life. What branch of christianity teaches human perfection?
Someone once said, those who believe are born twice, but only die once. If you disbelieve, you are born once, but die twice.
Pithy, but it doesn't rhyme. You should make it rhyme; rhyming sayings seem to have more effect on the simple-minded. You know, something like "jesus is the reason for the season" (despite the fact that christmas is a pagan holiday that christianity co-opted).
If you followed the link, you would see evidence for how we know Ninevah exists. (So follow the link).
As I explained in my previous post, my dispute is not over whether or not Ninevah exists, but over whether or not that is signficant. It isn't. Much of the fiction written today takes place in areas that actually exist. It is unsurprising that fiction written long ago takes place in areas that existed then. You did not address this point because you know that it utterly demolishes the idea that this finding is signficant.
The predictions were of the future when they were made (how did the Bible writers know there was a supercontinent?).
No, they were of the past. The prediction was not "in the future people will hypothesize that there was a supercontinent".
Unfortunately your personal predictions aren't impressive (doesn't compare to the ones in the Bible).
Your dodge here does not surprise me.
So you can do your own washing.
No problem; you'd probably try to "faith-clean" the clothes anyway.
Note, its the *theory* of evolution, but the *law* of gravity. Evolution that adds information to a genome has not been observed. The answersingenesis.org site elaborate more on this.
If you have contradictory information, state your links.
Note that scientific theories do not have to be instantly completely correct the first time they are offered, and note that you claimed to agree with this. Your continued attempts to belabor this point are dishonest in light of your previous claims to understand this point.
Your poor attempt to classify my statement as Pascal's wager is quite inappropriate. The wager states "...if you lose, you lose nothing." As a Christian, we are expected to lose a lot - money, pride, comfort - that the world values. But that loss counts as gain in the life to come. So no, Pascal's wager was not being discussed, unless Pascal redefined loss in a way that is unfamiliar to you.
Your statement was that I should become a christian to avoid hell. This is the essence of Pascal's Wager, and shares the same inarguable refutation. Your attempt to blur the issue by arguing semantics is dishonest. Your claim that any level of loss in this finite life is comparable to eternal torment is cretinous.
You aren't a Christian until you've got God's spirit (and this isn't an arbitrary definition - read the Bible, which you are obviously not familiar with enough). You cannot be born or raised as a Christian - it is a *choice* you make. So no, it's unlikely you were ever Christian. (again - this is no arbitrary d
Embryos and fetuses aren't just clumps of cells. Note how this fetus behaves when you kill it:
(snip quoted text)
I don't see anything about embryos in this text. You continue to dishonestly blur the issue.
The plural of fetus is not fetii, it is fetuses.
I've avoided pointing out your spelling and grammatical errors (except in one case where the error actually changed the meaning of your sentence) because the actual issues are what is important. It's unfortunate that you don't agree, but then if I were in your position I'd probably have the same problem.
I wrote above how evidence (see below for more evidence) will strongly suggest God's existence, but the final leap is one of faith.
You keep saying this. Your mere saying it doesn't make it true.
A man is in a building that is on fire.
A firefighter sets out a jump net, and yells for him to jump.
Even though the evidence strongly suggests he will be saved he does not jump.
"Not enough evidence" he says. Besides, I like it here.
The man burns to death.
What kind of idiot parable is this? This does not relate to your argument at all, as you are the one who is ignoring evidence, not me. A more reasonable analogy for your argument would be something like this:
A man is sitting in his fourth-story apartment when he hears people yelling to them through his window. He goes to the window and hears them say the building is on fire. There's no smoke, no heat, no visible fire, the fire alarms aren't going off and when he calls the fire department for verification they tell him no one has called in an emergency. He explains this to the people on the street and they tell him that has to believe the building is on fire before he'll see the evidence. They hold out their hands and claim they are stretching out a net for him to jump into, and when he protests that he can't see the net they tell him that it's an invisible net and he has to have faith that he will be saved. The man does have faith, so even though he can't see the "net" or the "fire" he jumps down... and dies. That's religion for you.
See? It's real easy to make up dumb stories that would never happen. Doesn't support your point though.
In the previous century, critics of the Bible had great fun mocking the story of Jonah and his preaching trip to Ninevah. They knew, of course, that Ninevah never existed,
Now we know it does.
Wow. I suppose that Gone With The Wind is non-fiction as well because it takes place in an area that actually exists. Why would you even present such a ridiculous argument? It's like you're not even trying.
No - I just put that there to headoff the common misconception that the Bible
describes the world as flat (BTW it is the Catholic church that made that silly claim - *not* the Bible. Use the source Luke, use the source!). By looking at the horizon that the earth is a sphere. Some ancients knew this.
The bible claims that satan took jesus up to the top of a mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth. Can't do that on a sphere.
Yes, a book that makes the claims that all land masses were one landmass to begin with, and make that claim 3000 years ago, before geology and cartography could discover it, deserves your attention.
You make the mistake of thinking that I've never read the bible or studied christianity. I have. I was raised as a christian. It just didn't take.
Also; not only were claims made in the past about the past, the Bible also makes claims about the future. It claims that "towards the time of the end" , "knowledge will increase" and people will travel much more (as we do now), Israel will be regathered (now, who'd have imagined *that*), and mockers will abound (you would agree especially to the last statement:)
Wow... these are some amazing predictions. Gee, we'll learn more and travel more as time goes on? Who would have thought that! Amazing! Israel will be reunited? Not much of a prediction considering that the current nation of Israel was created by people who were trying to fulfill what they believed to be a prophecy. And as for that amazing last one, yes, if you claim a bunch of silly stuff that contradicts reality, you will be mocked. That doesn't mean the writers of the bible were prescient, just that they had met other people before.
Now when something correctly predicts the past and the future, i
Bah. You can't concede a lost point gracefully, can you? One last time...
I haven't lost a point. Declaring victory doesn't make it true.
No - I was talking to another poster, pointing out the *absurdity* of his beliefs, when you stepped in.
You weren't doing a very good job. As for me stepping in, if you can't handle a forum where multiple people can post, stick to email.
BUT there is objective evidence that supports the accuracy
of the person who made that claim. See my other posts if you are interested.
If the posts to which you refer are in reply to mine, I'm sure I will. Otherwise you'll be expected to provide that evidence in this discussion.
Fetus, embryos, and children are:
- *human*
- individual beings, seperate in genetic makeup from their parents
Hence they should be treated should be *treated* as such.
That is my position.
Embryos and fetii are clumps of cells -- human cells, sure, but so is a fingernail clipping. And for the second (or third) time, no one is talking about children. Your repeated reference to them is a strawman.
Let me first say - you need faith to please God - that is how he sorts out the wheat from the chaff.
This is putting the cart before the horse. There's no point in discussing methods of pleasing an entity for which there is no evidence of existence.
Firstly, read about the Bible - how it describes history, read how, in the past few hundred years, multiple scholar were proven wrong and the Bible was proven right as archological evidence was gathered. How the Book of Job describes the earth as a sphere. How Genesis describes a supercontinent.
Which scholars? Which peer-reviewed journal describes these archeological finds? Why would think that a book that describes the world as a sphere or describes a supercontinent in earlier times would automatically be non-fiction? Are you honestly claiming that you believe that any book that describes the world as a sphere is non-fiction or are you simply being disingenuous and hoping I was too stupid too notice?
Next look up at creation.
Describing everything as "creation" before you've proven that it was created is an error.
See yourself - see how you're put together. See a worm. Note, we still have been able to create even a worm.
I assume you meant we have not been able to create a worm. Five hundred years ago we couldn't fly. Only an idiot would think that this meant that it required divine intervention for a human to fly.
Note that theories of evolution are in constant flux, trying to account for new information - how bats, birds, and one more species evolved flight separately.
Scientific theories are constantly refined; this is nothing new. What is it about bible-thumpers that makes them think that scientific theories are required to be absolutely correct in every detail the first time they are proposed in order to be correct? Newton's laws have been discovered not to be completely correct at the quantum level or at high (near light) speed. No one with a brain calls them wrong; they're just recognized for what they are: an accurate description of physics in a subset of all cases.
How many species evolved various body parts simultaneously. How there is a genetic bottleneck - all of us trace back to one man and one woman (as in "one") - see how this is the position of mainstream evolutionary geneticists.
Geneticists claim to have found the earliest known ancestors of humanity. They do not claim that these are the first humans; merely that they are the earliest ancestors we've found. Nice try though.
Does this remind you of Noah and his progeny after the flood?
See the sun. See the moon. See how the mooon perfectly covers the sun during a full solar eclipse. Ever wondered about the exactness in apparent size? The Bible says God gave the sun and moon for signs and seasons.
The bible says a lot of dumb things for which there is no evidence. Why are you claiming that the seasons involve solar eclipses?
But all this is evidence isn't directly personal.
None of what you've posted is objective evidence.
The most important step is when you, having noticed the evidence does not contradict God, take a leap of faith, and pray to him to help you out. You'll see how a *lot* of very very *personal* evidence accumulates and how that helps you.
Slashdot Mirror
So, true. If people were swayed by facts, things like Haldane's Dilemna and irreducible complexity wouldn't be swept under the rug.
Haldane's Dilemma and irreducable complexity aren't so much swept under the rug as they are put back on the toy shelf next to geocentrism and the flat earth.
The acts of many churches that call themselves Christian are inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible, which they claim as their source.
In what way? The bible certainly contains many instances of intolerance, injustice and cruelty. Since the work is claimed to be the word of god, there is no human who can decide that certain parts of it are invalid. There's certainly no basis to claim that christianity specifically promotes a libertarian attitude.
Anyone can claim to be Christian, and anyone can claim to speak for God. A lot of people do one or both. God knows who his true servants are. God does not allow me to speak for him, so I cannot tell you who they are. I can (if we wanted to get into it) spend a lot of time going over a lot of scripture and you can make some strong statements based on that scripture in some cases. Still a lot of borderline cases, not in the least because of all the forgiveness cases where someone fits many/all the signs of the unsaved, but are...
Anyone who believes that jesus is the saviour and that they have accepted him as such is a christian. It's the only definition that has any meaning in the real world. The good christians don't like that this definition includes the evil ones, but as long as the evil ones claim jesus as their saviour and can back their actions up with bible verses there's not much to be done about it.
The bottom line, IMHO, is that just like everyone else some christians are good, some are evil, and most are average. A person has to be judged as an individual, be they atheist, christian, muslim, hindu, none of the above or all of the above.
Name those passages.
I'm not the person you replied to, but I recommend the Skeptic's Annotated Bible as a starting point.
Yielding to God's authority and imposing self-control makes it much easier to create a libertarian nation. If control isn't imposed from within, it must be imposed from without, and that way likes authoritarianism.
This is a nice theory, but it ignores christianity's long history of oppression. Imposing self-control (which is certainly helpful for a free society) is entirely unrelated to religion.
2) becoming a Christian (accepting Christ as savior) must be a free choice and not forced conversion
This claim is inconsistent with the practices (such as the Inquisition) of christian churches in the past.
3) a high respect for human life (as its created in the image of God)
Also inconsistent with christianity's past history.
4) "love your neighbor"/"do unto others..." means that Christianity is very close to the libertarian "live and let live in peace". That's what I was getting at.
Unfortunately, while Libertarianism involves a true attitude of living and letting live, christianity (in practice) does not. Just look at the current hatred and bigotry coming from christian organizations these days over the subject of gay marriage.
Just an FYI -- you mention watching season 1, but not season 2. Babylon 5 has an ongoing storyline that suffers if you watch the episodes out of order. I would recommend watching season 2 before season 3.
The point still remains that I was right. You say "he...claims that's what he meant"? How are you (and the person to whom I originally replied) more reliable indicators of the OP's intentions than the OP himself? Sorry, the OP has spoken. What part of "You are 100% correct!" didn't you understand?
I understand that he's claiming that's what he meant. His original message does not indicate this, however. Maybe that is what he meant and you happened to be right. Maybe he didn't mean that at all but thought it sounded good when you said it. The point is that there was absolutely nothing in his message to even begin to suggest this.
My inference (not assumption, inference) was correct. That makes me right, and it does make fean (the person to whom I replied) dumb for not seeing the inference that I saw. Here's why:
Wrong. The incidental correctness of your inference does not excuse you from the stupidity of calling a person who did not make the same inference dumb.
To use a legal analogy, "the reasonable man" would have read the OP's post exactly as I did, since it would be unreasonable to use a browser in a web development setting for no other reason than visual "prettiness."
Wrong. It's very reasonable for a Mac user to use a browser in a development setting for not other reason than visual "prettiness". Mac users are typically concerned about visual prettiness; it's one of the advantages of the platform.
In the lack of other evidence, the only reason fean assumed this unreasonable notion was so that he could portray Michael.Forman as a "Mac fanboy."
Assumes facts not in evidence.
If Forman had been speaking of an obscure browser for Windows, fean would likely not have initiated the name-calling.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Yeah, I've done plenty of name calling in this thread, too. And I often do so when dumb people set themselves up to be knocked down a few pegs.
You should learn to differentiate between a different interpretation and a dumb one before you start calling names.
I'm not a fanboy. You're just jealous because I read his mind.
Learn to read. I pointed out that the original poster replied to you admitting that he hadn't made those points in his original post. What part of his "While I wasn't clear in my original post" line confused you?
Did I attribute motives which were not stated explicitly? Yes.
Glad you see you admit that you were completely wrong for criticizing someone for the way they reacted to points that were not actually made in the original post.
Was I right? Yes.
About the original poster's meaning? Maybe. He certainly claims that that is what he meant. Were you right to criticize the person who replied to him? No. That was stupid.
Does it bug you? Obviously.
Actually, you're the one who's bugged by this, as conclusively proven by your pathetic decision to mark me foe. You'll note that I have not changed my relationship to you, as I attach no special significance to these messages.
His point was that he used to code for Mozilla, because Moz is very standards-compliant. Now he uses Safari to preview things in, since Safari/KHTML pretty much renders things just like Mozilla does (namely, according to standards)--that's why they made Safari User Agent string:
The grandparent post never said this, as the poster admits. You unjustifiably inferred this, presumably because you're also a Mac fanboy.
He's not trying to cater to one browser--he's using standards-compliant browsers like the excellent Mozilla and Safari to make sure all browsers can render his pages. Just because MSIE has the best market share doesn't mean catering toward it would be a good idea.
Fean never said anything about catering to MSIE. You're trying unsuccessfully to put words in his mouth. If you ever tried thinking before you post you would never have said this.
Show me a website that renders properly in Safari that doesn't render useably in MSIE, and I'll consider removing your dunce cap.
You should be more concerned about trying to do something to remove your own.
Einstein certainly never believed in the christian god or any other personal god.
And again, as a contributor, I believe it is.
Except that, obviously, if an organization acts according to the whims of every minor contributor it has, it will be too schizophrenic to accomplish anything useful.
No, I don't imply it, I infer it... They were NOT involved in this case, there must be some reason why. If they are so good at multitasking, then why weren't they involved in this case?
It is foolish to infer that since they are not involved in every civil rights case in the entire United States that they are not doing their jobs.
Besides that, I don't claim they can't multitask, what I claim is that they are wasting money on less-important issuse.
And again, it's not for the likes of you to decide what's important.
Meaning?
I was unaware that my meaning was unclear. I used "Typical" in its typical way. Oh wait, you don't know what the word means. Here you go.
Just to clarify, I was pointing out that his attitude is extremely common among "God-fearing christians".
There are several legitimate reasons for such a prohibition.
You claim there are reasons; the burden of proof is on you to provide them. In the absence of proof, my statement stands.
It's not a matter of what I care about, it's a matter of priorities. I can guarantee that practically every (well-informed) homosexual in the USA cares much more about being falsely arrested, imprisoned, exported, tortured, and/or executed, than they do about wether or not they will be able to visit their significant other in the hospitial.
You imply that the ACLU can only work on one problem at a time; this is moronic. You also trivialize the important of marriage rights for all, but that is unsurprising.
It's just a matter of priorities. Everyone agrees that life-or-death issuse are more important than questions of civil contracts.
No, it's a matter of multitasking, something that organizations like the ACLU are able to do.
But I suspect you don't care about that... You just want to push your political views.
You suspect incorrectly; getting the PATRIOT act ruled unconstitutional is extremely important. You are foolish to believe that the ACLU is only capable on concentrating one one issue, however.
You know, I was about to go and cite a bunch of news stories about it, but why bother? Go to ACLU.org and the first thing you see, in big bold type is: Keep Abortion Safe, Legal and Nobody's Business But Your Own.
You must have misread the original poster, who talked about killing babies. Abortion refers to the legal medical practice of terminating pregnancy before the fetus develops into a baby.
[Regarding the existence of a reason to prohibit gay marriage]
Well there certainly is, but that's besides the point.
There are no legitimate reasons for such a prohibition. Sure, many christian fundamentalists don't like the idea, but their superstitious objections are irrelevant.
The point was that I don't want my money spent on trivial "fad" issues like that, when incredibly important issues, like this, aren't getting ACLU support.
Your position that the issues you care about are more important than other issues that other people care about is unsupported. If you want an organization that only deals with issues you care about, start your own.
Glad to know my money isn't being wasted on those pesky civil rights, so it can be spent where it's really needed; making sure it's legal to secretly kill babies,
Cite?
and leagl for homosexuals to get married.
You speak as though there were even the slightest reason to prohibit homosexuals from getting married.
Isn't it ironic, that if these terrorists really do hate our 'Freedom,' that is precisely what we are giving up to fight them?
They benefit from the fact that Bush and Ashcroft hate our Freedom too.
Sounds like they win, in that case.
Yep. Maybe they can start losing in 2005. Then again, maybe not.
I rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy. Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
How wonderful that there are morons who don't learn from history. You'd make a great fascist if you had enough influence to matter at all.
If you're stupid enough to think we attacked Iraq because of their (complete lack of any) role in 9/11 you are beyond help. Just go back to listening to Rush and watching Fox News and yelling "Sieg Heil!" whenever they show a photo of GWB.
Better that 100 times as many people die in future terrorist attacks (and if I'm one of them, so be it) than that we lose the freedoms that make America great. Of course, I expect the reality will be somewhere in the middle. More people will die, and some freedoms will be lost, but we won't hit either extreme.
I thought murderers were supposed to be tried and sentenced, not slaughtered to sate your rather frightening desire for bloody revenge (what kind of God-fearing Christain are you?)
He's a typical "God-fearing Christian".
Why do people have that right? Where does it come from? If it's simply a good idea someone thought up once, what's to stop someone else from having the idea that you don't have that "right"?
It comes from us, the people. As for what's to stop someone, well, as they say, "as long as there's a Second Amendment there will always be a First Amendment".
The concept that there is a Higher Authority that believes in justice gives us an absolute standard from which to derive our rights.
Nonsense. Without evidence of the existence of this "Higher Authority" (and there isn't any) there is no basis for any "absolute standard". Christians can't agree on how their holy book should be interpreted, and they don't agree with the equally (in)valid holy books of other religions. Religion is not a basis for anything.
Without this, might makes right, for what reason would anyone have for not gaining as much to himself as he could?
You are honestly incapable of understanding the concept of respecting the rights of others, of showing kindness for others, just because it is the right thing to do? That's sad.
No one is going to take you to account for your actions, because no one in this world has enough power to stop you, and there is nothing after this world.
No one in the world has the power to stop me? Where did I get these super powers? How do I access them? Get real. Society stops people who steal, who murder, who harm others. It's the police, courts and prisons that stop criminals, not your imaginary god.
The existence of God who has laws for us to follow radically alters the scenario.
Too bad for you that there is no such existence. The "laws" that christians claim come from god actually come from people who have written, translated, and interpreted the bible. There is no extra-biblical basis for any it.
First, I'm not saying that I would. But knowing what I do of human nature, I know there are many, many people that would.
I see. So other people are bad by nature, but you aren't. Right. Get over yourself; you're not morally superior to the average person.
People are not perfect: we lie, cheat, steal, are impatient, rude, callous, and uncaring. We do it unintentionally, without even thinking.
And religion does not affect this in any way.
Children aren't taught to do these things, they happen naturally. It seems to be part of who we are.
Yes. And, again, religion does not affect this in any way.
In Christianity, we call this the "sinful nature" we are born with. Even if you don't agree with the "spiritual-ese" language, you can agree that no one is perfect. Simply calling it "sin" is shorthand, if you will.
"Sin" is defined as a crime against a god. As no such entity exists, sin does not exist. There are perfectly valid words to describe the very real effect that you mention here; no need to make up new ones.
Second, I didn't say I was afraid of hell. If you define hell as separation from God, then I'd agree it's something I don't desire. I love God, and desire to be with Him.
Please describe the manner in which your position differs from being afraid of hell.
I didn't say it was protection. It's cliche but true: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. At least I know the moral goals a Christian aspires to. With an atheist, I don't know what the goals are, or even if there are any at all.
The behavior of many christians proves that the "moral goals" associated with the religion cannot be counted on to affect the christian's behavior. In fact, since christians consider themselves automatically forgiven for anything they do, they have no incentive whatsoever to behave in an ethical manner. Witness the large number of famous christians (particularly politicians and televangelists) who have been caught out in unethical beha
If I want to teach my kids at home, how dare you force me to pay some sort of tax to a school I'm not using.
I certainly agree with this, as well as the idea of non-parents not paying school taxes.
Just because someone wants to run government by principles driven home by religious belief does not make them promoters of theocracy. The belief that we are answerable to something higher than human government is one of the strongest reasons for having a limited government in the first place.
The strongest reason for having a limited government in the first place is that people have a right to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else. Religion has nothing to do with it.
What check does a non-religious person have from abusing power he is entrusted with?
Well, I'm an atheist and I don't abuse what power I've been entrusted with. You appear to be saying you would if you weren't afraid of hell. I guess that's just a moral difference between us.
The behavior of christian political leaders in the past and present as well as that of televangelists and certain catholic priests conclusively proves that religion is not a protection against abuse of power.
Believe me, atheists are much safer in a nation run by Christians than Christians in a nation run by atheists. Christians have a higher calling to do good by everyone; with an atheist you have no such guarantee.
History disproves this. You won't see atheists launching crusades and burning witches. Even recently you have christian morons like George Bush Sr. saying that atheists "shouldn't be considered citizens". No, christians are no more or less trustworthy than anyone else.
There was a time when Europe was ruled by christianity. We call this period the Dark Ages.
Even though Christians are fallible, I'd rather take my chances with them than the likes of Stalin or Mao.
Christians like Hitler or Torquemada? No thanks. There may be atheists who have committed evil, but none of them committed evil in the name of atheism.
You had a nice point going; not sure why you decided to digress into pointless, erroneous atheism bashing.
You seem to have a stereotypical christian misconception about the source of morality, particularly as it applies to atheists. Here's a link to help you get educated on the subject.
Now who's running away from the peer-reviewed papers - you or me?
Your accusation is unjust. I have not disputed any scientific findings; I am disputing that they in any way support the bible. I explained this in my posting but it does not suprise me that you dishonestly misrepresent my position.
I appreciate your parable is nonsense.
Do you also appreciate that your parable was nonsense and should not even have been included in your original message?
Let me concur by saying that believing in Jesus is not likely to kill you physically (at least not in the country you live in). It will be the death knell for your current sinful nature though.
That's an interesting claim. Most christians believe that only god is without sin, yet you claim that humans can reach that standard of perfection in this life. What branch of christianity teaches human perfection?
Someone once said, those who believe are born twice, but only die once. If you disbelieve, you are born once, but die twice.
Pithy, but it doesn't rhyme. You should make it rhyme; rhyming sayings seem to have more effect on the simple-minded. You know, something like "jesus is the reason for the season" (despite the fact that christmas is a pagan holiday that christianity co-opted).
If you followed the link, you would see evidence for how we know Ninevah exists. (So follow the link).
As I explained in my previous post, my dispute is not over whether or not Ninevah exists, but over whether or not that is signficant. It isn't. Much of the fiction written today takes place in areas that actually exist. It is unsurprising that fiction written long ago takes place in areas that existed then. You did not address this point because you know that it utterly demolishes the idea that this finding is signficant.
The predictions were of the future when they were made (how did the Bible writers know there was a supercontinent?).
No, they were of the past. The prediction was not "in the future people will hypothesize that there was a supercontinent".
Unfortunately your personal predictions aren't impressive (doesn't compare to the ones in the Bible).
Your dodge here does not surprise me.
So you can do your own washing.
No problem; you'd probably try to "faith-clean" the clothes anyway.
Note, its the *theory* of evolution, but the *law* of gravity. Evolution that adds information to a genome has not been observed. The answersingenesis.org site elaborate more on this. If you have contradictory information, state your links.
Note that scientific theories do not have to be instantly completely correct the first time they are offered, and note that you claimed to agree with this. Your continued attempts to belabor this point are dishonest in light of your previous claims to understand this point.
Your poor attempt to classify my statement as Pascal's wager is quite inappropriate. The wager states "...if you lose, you lose nothing." As a Christian, we are expected to lose a lot - money, pride, comfort - that the world values. But that loss counts as gain in the life to come. So no, Pascal's wager was not being discussed, unless Pascal redefined loss in a way that is unfamiliar to you.
Your statement was that I should become a christian to avoid hell. This is the essence of Pascal's Wager, and shares the same inarguable refutation. Your attempt to blur the issue by arguing semantics is dishonest. Your claim that any level of loss in this finite life is comparable to eternal torment is cretinous.
You aren't a Christian until you've got God's spirit (and this isn't an arbitrary definition - read the Bible, which you are obviously not familiar with enough). You cannot be born or raised as a Christian - it is a *choice* you make. So no, it's unlikely you were ever Christian. (again - this is no arbitrary d
Embryos and fetuses aren't just clumps of cells. Note how this fetus behaves when you kill it:
(snip quoted text)
I don't see anything about embryos in this text. You continue to dishonestly blur the issue.
The plural of fetus is not fetii, it is fetuses.
I've avoided pointing out your spelling and grammatical errors (except in one case where the error actually changed the meaning of your sentence) because the actual issues are what is important. It's unfortunate that you don't agree, but then if I were in your position I'd probably have the same problem.
I wrote above how evidence (see below for more evidence) will strongly suggest God's existence, but the final leap is one of faith.
:)
You keep saying this. Your mere saying it doesn't make it true.
A man is in a building that is on fire.
A firefighter sets out a jump net, and yells for him to jump.
Even though the evidence strongly suggests he will be saved he does not jump.
"Not enough evidence" he says. Besides, I like it here.
The man burns to death.
What kind of idiot parable is this? This does not relate to your argument at all, as you are the one who is ignoring evidence, not me. A more reasonable analogy for your argument would be something like this:
A man is sitting in his fourth-story apartment when he hears people yelling to them through his window. He goes to the window and hears them say the building is on fire. There's no smoke, no heat, no visible fire, the fire alarms aren't going off and when he calls the fire department for verification they tell him no one has called in an emergency. He explains this to the people on the street and they tell him that has to believe the building is on fire before he'll see the evidence. They hold out their hands and claim they are stretching out a net for him to jump into, and when he protests that he can't see the net they tell him that it's an invisible net and he has to have faith that he will be saved. The man does have faith, so even though he can't see the "net" or the "fire" he jumps down... and dies. That's religion for you.
See? It's real easy to make up dumb stories that would never happen. Doesn't support your point though.
In the previous century, critics of the Bible had great fun mocking the story of Jonah and his preaching trip to Ninevah. They knew, of course, that Ninevah never existed,
Now we know it does.
Wow. I suppose that Gone With The Wind is non-fiction as well because it takes place in an area that actually exists. Why would you even present such a ridiculous argument? It's like you're not even trying.
No - I just put that there to headoff the common misconception that the Bible describes the world as flat (BTW it is the Catholic church that made that silly claim - *not* the Bible. Use the source Luke, use the source!). By looking at the horizon that the earth is a sphere. Some ancients knew this.
The bible claims that satan took jesus up to the top of a mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth. Can't do that on a sphere.
Yes, a book that makes the claims that all land masses were one landmass to begin with, and make that claim 3000 years ago, before geology and cartography could discover it, deserves your attention.
You make the mistake of thinking that I've never read the bible or studied christianity. I have. I was raised as a christian. It just didn't take.
Also; not only were claims made in the past about the past, the Bible also makes claims about the future. It claims that "towards the time of the end" , "knowledge will increase" and people will travel much more (as we do now), Israel will be regathered (now, who'd have imagined *that*), and mockers will abound (you would agree especially to the last statement
Wow... these are some amazing predictions. Gee, we'll learn more and travel more as time goes on? Who would have thought that! Amazing! Israel will be reunited? Not much of a prediction considering that the current nation of Israel was created by people who were trying to fulfill what they believed to be a prophecy. And as for that amazing last one, yes, if you claim a bunch of silly stuff that contradicts reality, you will be mocked. That doesn't mean the writers of the bible were prescient, just that they had met other people before.
Now when something correctly predicts the past and the future, i
Bah. You can't concede a lost point gracefully, can you? One last time...
I haven't lost a point. Declaring victory doesn't make it true.
No - I was talking to another poster, pointing out the *absurdity* of his beliefs, when you stepped in.
You weren't doing a very good job. As for me stepping in, if you can't handle a forum where multiple people can post, stick to email.
BUT there is objective evidence that supports the accuracy of the person who made that claim. See my other posts if you are interested.
If the posts to which you refer are in reply to mine, I'm sure I will. Otherwise you'll be expected to provide that evidence in this discussion.
Fetus, embryos, and children are:
- *human*
- individual beings, seperate in genetic makeup from their parents
Hence they should be treated should be *treated* as such.
That is my position.
Embryos and fetii are clumps of cells -- human cells, sure, but so is a fingernail clipping. And for the second (or third) time, no one is talking about children. Your repeated reference to them is a strawman.
Hmm... I think you're asking for evidence.
Yes, you cracked the secret code in my message.
Let me first say - you need faith to please God - that is how he sorts out the wheat from the chaff.
This is putting the cart before the horse. There's no point in discussing methods of pleasing an entity for which there is no evidence of existence.
Firstly, read about the Bible - how it describes history, read how, in the past few hundred years, multiple scholar were proven wrong and the Bible was proven right as archological evidence was gathered. How the Book of Job describes the earth as a sphere. How Genesis describes a supercontinent.
Which scholars? Which peer-reviewed journal describes these archeological finds? Why would think that a book that describes the world as a sphere or describes a supercontinent in earlier times would automatically be non-fiction? Are you honestly claiming that you believe that any book that describes the world as a sphere is non-fiction or are you simply being disingenuous and hoping I was too stupid too notice?
Next look up at creation.
Describing everything as "creation" before you've proven that it was created is an error.
See yourself - see how you're put together. See a worm. Note, we still have been able to create even a worm.
I assume you meant we have not been able to create a worm. Five hundred years ago we couldn't fly. Only an idiot would think that this meant that it required divine intervention for a human to fly.
Note that theories of evolution are in constant flux, trying to account for new information - how bats, birds, and one more species evolved flight separately.
Scientific theories are constantly refined; this is nothing new. What is it about bible-thumpers that makes them think that scientific theories are required to be absolutely correct in every detail the first time they are proposed in order to be correct? Newton's laws have been discovered not to be completely correct at the quantum level or at high (near light) speed. No one with a brain calls them wrong; they're just recognized for what they are: an accurate description of physics in a subset of all cases.
Of course, you're defending a book that thinks bats are birds.
How many species evolved various body parts simultaneously. How there is a genetic bottleneck - all of us trace back to one man and one woman (as in "one") - see how this is the position of mainstream evolutionary geneticists.
Geneticists claim to have found the earliest known ancestors of humanity. They do not claim that these are the first humans; merely that they are the earliest ancestors we've found. Nice try though.
Does this remind you of Noah and his progeny after the flood?
You mean the flood that didn't happen?
See the sun. See the moon. See how the mooon perfectly covers the sun during a full solar eclipse. Ever wondered about the exactness in apparent size? The Bible says God gave the sun and moon for signs and seasons.
The bible says a lot of dumb things for which there is no evidence. Why are you claiming that the seasons involve solar eclipses?
But all this is evidence isn't directly personal.
None of what you've posted is objective evidence.
The most important step is when you, having noticed the evidence does not contradict God, take a leap of faith, and pray to him to help you out. You'll see how a *lot* of very very *personal* evidence accumulates and how that helps you.
Actual, the universe repeatedly contradicts