@ Gryphon: But I do feel that a Christian must be able to apply some e.g. scepticism and feminism when reading the Bible, or else they would be forced to conclude that the fossil record is a cheat, that rape victims are to be forced to marry their rapists, and that the sky is a solid firmament keeping out a cosmic ocean (complete with floodgates that open when it rains). To the best of my knowledge, I've met very few Christians who believe the first of those things, and none who believe the latter two.
In the interest of honesty and openness, I'm fully aware that I'm most likely a heretic of some description and I'm certainly not out to tell Christians what they believe here. The above is a statement of my perceptions of Christian beliefs, and should not be taken as prescriptive.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
Oh, one more point: unless you read Greek, it's important to defer to clergy on this gender in the New Testament stuff. Even a good, literal English translation is stuck using "man" to render both anthropos (a Homo sapiens) and andros (an adult male).
The authorship of the book is dated very close to Christ's time, and as far as religious value goes it's not recognized by Judaism at all. I've never really read through it but from what I understand it's like a fanciful account of Enoch's acension to heaven with messianic prophecy that's just a bit too much for where such a book that should run current with Genesis.
*shrug*
I have never been a "good Christian" so I can't really speak on any religious value it may or may not hold.
Though I do know that Enoch and his odd death (he is mentioned as "walking with god" rather than dying) is in The Bible, though I couldn't tell you what book.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
Enoch didn't die, technically. He and Elijah (IIRC) were the only two mortal men who walked the Earth to get a free ride to heaven without having to deal with the whole business of dying.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
@Fouria: "rape victims are to be forced to marry their rapists" ever having been Divine law is a hard pill to swallow, but the orthodox Christian belief is that it was abrogated with Christ. As for the other stuff:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (J.H. Taylor trans. 1982)
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"Infallible? No. Even the most hardcore fundamentalists are aware of the Epistle of Jude referencing one of the sillier apocryphal texts, the Book of Enoch. "
Booooo! The Book of Enoch is awesome...aside from all the stuff about the proper way to count the passage of time. Those parts are kidna lame...and they say a year is 364 days (it's not clear why they didn't go with 365. Some theorize they wanted a number divisible by 7).
"The authorship of the book is dated very close to Christ's time, and as far as religious value goes it's not recognized by Judaism at all. I've never really read through it but from what I understand it's like a fanciful account of Enoch's acension to heaven with messianic prophecy that's just a bit too much for where such a book that should run current with Genesis."
It is dated about 100 years before Christ. Though, it is canon by one Jewish sect (making it canon to a little under %2 of Jews).
The content of the watchers deals closely to several arch-Angels and some fallen Angels. It sort of looks like Dante might have had some inspiration from the content, because Enoch traveled to Heaven and "Hell" before it was cool. There's probably a stealth pun in that...
"Hell" in this case seems to be for fallen angels, though. Not really to house all the people the writers of the book didn't like.
The Messianic prophecies, though clearly having nothing to do with Genesis, are interesting in that they talk about the Messiah in detail not really found in the OT. They even use the title "Son of man" to describe him.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"We actually spent a surprising amount of time on Enoch in my religion class. Our teacher quite liked him."
The book of Enoch is widely regarded as one of the most important pieces of Apocrypha for Christianity. Though authors certainly weren't afraid to go into a bit more detail into the "otherworldly planes" then we get to see in The Bible.
"I'm fully aware that I'm most likely a heretic of some description "
Eh...everyone here is probably a heretic of some description, don't let it get to you.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Well, your girlfriend is a Jew and you're basically "living in sin" by some hardliner's definition. I'm sure there's some group of ultra-ultra-conservative Christians that wouldn't think twice of branding you a heretic.
And it's not like all Christians are down with universal reconciliation.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I have some pretty serious doubts explaining that to the sort of Christians that seriously, SERIOUSLY disprove of such things would change their minds.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
Well I know the Roman Catholic Church lets priests perform interfaith marriages as long as you vow to raise the children Catholic, and a Protestant saying dating a Jew sends you to Hell would be a heretic for denying sola fide.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I'm sure there's quite a few Protestants who don't viewsola fidein such a way. It doesn't exactly allow people to act however they please as long as they have faith in Christ.
Obviously, you have a different view-point, and don't consider yourself doing something heretical, but as I said, I kinda doubt that matters to these people.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
I don't think "Is Jewdatingism a heresy?" is going to get anywhere...
Anyway, one thing I find fascinating about the Roman Catholic Church is that it still defines its teachings using Aristotelian philosophy. What are the consequences of this, and the alternatives?
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"I don't think "Is Jewdatingism a heresy?" is going to get anywhere..."
I wasn't entertaining the idea of making it an actual topic for debate, merely pointing out that there are Christians out there who certainly wouldn't approve.
It's no secret on the forums that I'm an atheist and that I think religion is on the whole a negative thing, but it hasn't been until recently that I've decided to reveal this on Facebook, where my very Catholic relatives and classmates from a (I assume) majority Christian town have access to the information.
I've decided I was sick of non-faith being treated as a shameful thing in terms of mainstream culture, and that I shouldn't be afraid to be able to express this perspective of mine, especially since it's the most defensible one.
I got some likes from a few people I didn't expect, and a few comments in support of that that I didn't suspect, which was nice. I also got a comment from a Catholic cousin which was negative in a way I did expect from that side of the family.
Careful how you speak cousin, faith is not blind when guided by truth and providence. Truly walk a mile in the shoes of a Christian (preferably Catholic) before you past judgement on their beliefs. Don't assume to be wiser then you appear, for we all seek a deeper meaning and purpose in this life. This ideal may take form in many different concepts, but the end goals are always the same: it is to understand what it truly means to be "human". Love you buddy. Get some sleep, I know I need to!
It's a sort of quaint condescension that deserves condescension.
I've also been watching some videos about what famous scientists and the like have to say about the influence of religion. Ones like Dawkins, Tyson, Kaku, etc. It should go without saying that they don't. I'd like to link some, but there are so many good ones. I'd urge people to go on a YouTube walk like I did.
Now, there's going to be some more liberal religious people, agnostics that err on the side of religion getting it right, and atheists who support the cultural impacts of some of these religions. These sorts of people are a little more tolerant and tend to say that religion and science can be reconciled. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that, well, it's not quite so. There's entirely too much credit that our cultures (American especially, but Western culture as a whole) give to the radical followers of religion, and their contribution is I think too damaging to tolerate.
I used to be more shy about expressing publicly this view. I don't know if I want to be anymore. Religion in a any developed and educated sphere should be treated with the same disdain that a practitioner of "witchcraft" receives.
I think I've decided on a video. Tyson's a lot less barbed than some of these other people, so I suppose it will be more palatable.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"It's a sort of quaint condescension that deserves condescension."
Erm, if you actually did use the whole "faith is blind" shtick. His defensiveness is understandable. Though, the second sentence is a bit odd in what he posted.
"Religion in a any developed and educated sphere should be treated with the same disdain that a practitioner of "witchcraft" receives."
Reacting to extremes with an equally extreme view isn't a great approach to things.
Firstly, I did. I didn't say that all faith was blind, just that there was some that was.
Maybe not. I know there's a value of being diplomatic, but I'm tired of too many concessions being given to the religious sections of culture. I think ideally, religion would either vanish or it would be limited only to those people who have minimal to no political and cultural power and who would be happier with the illusion. Doesn't mean that I'm going to burn with hatred for everyone that resists that.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
"There's entirely too much credit that our cultures (American especially, but Western culture as a whole) give to the radical followers of religion, and their contribution is I think too damaging to tolerate."
So if we're too damaging to tolerate, what do you think should be done to us?
"I think ideally, religion would either vanish or it would be limited only to those people who have minimal to no political and cultural power and who would be happier with the illusion."
Vanish how? Limited how? Whoever wills the end wills the means.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Well, is it really that surprising that you caught some flak? If the last few post are any indication of what you wrote, your cousin should be commended. You've compared religions belief to witchcraft and called it an "illusion". Of course people aren't going to be happy with your point of view, you're not showing any respect to theirs.
Anyhow, I've heard several "Religion should disappear" arguments. Putting aside how unlikely that is, I feel they're all bit short sited and assume we can fill in the voids left by such an absence, and they tend to attribute a lot of damage done people just assume would not have happened if religion weren't involved.
^^Being realistic, hopefully that you go away after successive generations develop in terms of philosophy, science, and cultural education.
It's already happening, and has been throughout history. I just wish it would go faster and with less resistance.
I don't hate the people, I hate the ideas. Killing people for religious beliefs is something that religious people already do quite well, and I'd like for that to stop.
^I don't care if people are unhappy with what's true, and I don't especially feel like being more diplomatic than religious people when presenting my idea of what is.
I will concede that there are some things that religions do that are good. I think secular institutions could replace them, and there was a presentation given that I found rather convincing.
While there are more atheists than ever before as global population continually increases, the atheist percentage of the total population seem to be declining. This may be because birth rates in religious societies are much higher.
"I don't hate the people, I hate the ideas. Killing people for religious beliefs is something that religious people already do quite well, and I'd like for that to stop."
You do realize atheist states, both past and present, have a habit of killing the religious as well.
And it's pretty unlikely people are going to stop killing each other over differences, even if religion is no longer one of those differences.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
I find it hard to see how religion is worse than atheism and its expression should be banned from all public places when the French Revolution and all Marxist governments were attempts to achieve that very thing.
Joseph de Maistre postulated, among other things, that humans have an innate tendency to kill and religion is a series of revelations about how to canalize bloodshed. With no religion, there are no limits. Pretty good model of the 20th century for a philosopher who died in 1821, no?
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Technically, you could possibly justify good behavior through one or more philosophies. Though, I don't see how those would reach any scientifically proven status or why people with differing philosophies wouldn't find ways to be pissed off at each other.
The Derived Energy thread is probably a really good example of showing why they wouldn't.
^^^I may have got that bit wrong, but there are statistics showing that more educated people and people in developed countries have a stronger tendency to be atheists. I'm hoping that as humanity continues, there will be greater opportunities for education and general improvements to quality of life.
I'm not advocating religious people being made into martyrs. I just don't think religion should be given credence.
Well it stands in the way of science and has people basing their philosophy on something that doesn't exist. Solving that seems to me to be a step in the right direction. World peace would be nice, but I never said that would be the result.
I'm not talking about bans on religion, I simply want it to be something that people collectively grow out of. No one to my knowledge is trying to ban the belief that the world is flat, but we don't treat it as valid, either.
Hey, I gotta leave the thread for a while so I can take care of some things.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
"Being realistic, hopefully that you go away after successive generations develop in terms of philosophy, science, and cultural education."
Speaking of generation, what are the Total Fertility Rate for atheists and members of different religions? If a religion tends to cause women to have more children, it's favored by natural selection.
Of course you can eliminate such an advantage with compulsory schooling with atheist propaganda in the curriculum like the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, etc... but do you will the means?
"Well it stands in the way of science and has people basing their philosophy on something that doesn't exist."
You're begging the question: the existence of God is what's in dispute.
I'm sure Gregor Mendel would be amazed to discover that he couldn't advance biology because he was Catholic. Ditto Georges Lemaitre and cosmology. And just who do you think invented the university, anyway?
And you know what stands in the way of science? Ethics. You can get more data on human physiology if you're allowed to damage subjects.
You need to stop conflating science with good. It's just a remarkably effective method for accumulating knowledge of material things. It can be used for either good or evil, so to be a good society, we must subordinate it to the Good.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
"I don't care if people are unhappy with what's true, and I don't especially feel like being more diplomatic than religious people when presenting my ideaof what is."
Emphasis mine. And, even setting aside the contradiction. You're convienently rolling people into a category and passing judgement. I'm surprised you can complain about your cousins "quaint condescension" and spin out stereo typical condescension of your own.
"I may have got that bit wrong, but there are statistics showing that more educated people and people in developed countries have a stronger tendency to be atheists. I'm hoping that as humanity continues, there will be greater opportunities for education and general improvements to quality of life."
It's not as clear cut as that. It's growing in some places, and shrinking in others. Especially, the current and former Communist states. Which are also improving their quality of life. Atheism is also pretty low in some developed nations (The US, Italy, Poland). Even with quality of life and education improving over the global front, I wouldn't say all the data points to atheism definitely heading in either direction at the moment.
Some of the polls are pretty unreliable, too. With many sort of grouping the irreligious together, which often includes agnostics, and even some theists.
"Well it stands in the way of science and has people basing their philosophy on something that doesn't exist"
You make it sound like people who try to base their philosophies on science manage to come up with things that don't look utterly ridiculous.
My last post implied that I was going to return to participate in this topic. I think I've since changed my mind about doing so. This sort of debate hasn't been very productive for me in the past, I've never seen much success convincing anyone, and it tends to just depress me whenever I come back to it.
There are some parts about my position that I haven't made clear enough judging by how it's characterized in rebuttal, but I don't really have the ego to care right now very much whether I'm misrepresented in this.
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
I think the reason why these debates turn so heated is because both sides play this particular card:
"Explain to me why you believe why you do, with an explanation that suits me." Which, as we all know, is about as productive as fly fishing in the middle of the Sahara. On my side of the coin, it usually amounts to being challenged to explain an illogical omnipotent power with logic -- or my favorite, the "how do you know your religion is true and other's aren't?" gambit which just shows the one asking the question has no idea how religion works at all but is challenging it anyway.
For the opposing side, there's no reason to defend how a complete lack of religion would better humanity. Its disappearance would probably have an immediate positive effect on the Middle East, for instance, that was until they found other reasons to kill each other over.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Well the can be sort of broken down to more macro arguments, and possible look at the logic behind those arguments, but those are rarely any more productive. Occasionally a good topic can come out of it, but often times the two sides aren't exactly operating in good faith as it where.
Which is why OTC from TV Tropes became somewhat insufferable to me, but that's neither here nor there.
On the topic of looking at things in a macro level. Seeing, say, Islam disappear from the Middle East would be interesting in that we wouldn't have the Sunni and the Shia going at it like the Bloods and Crips, however, as far as I know, the majority (and by that, It could be a majority of 100%) of the countries operate under Sharia law even if the laws where on the books, without religion the laws don't have any reason to be followed or enforced as they're set up over there.
So, in the hypothetical situation mentioned above, no religion for the Middle East means less reason to fight, but less reason to follow any rules of any sort... I have no idea how that situation would just sort of "manifest" over there, but I doubt the end results would be much of a net positive...
Doctor Who reference in Pokemon B2W2? Headcanon accepted.
I respect people, not their points of view. From a Christian perspective, if you were doorknob-worshipper, I wouldn't give a second's thought to what your beliefs are or how they came about. That doesn't mean I'm being disrespectful to you directly, it doesn't mean I'm going to mistreat you, and it doesn't mean I think any lesser of you for it. I also have to realize this line of thought is a two-way street.
I respect people, not their points of view. From a Christian perspective, if you were doorknob-worshipper, I wouldn't give a second's thought to what your beliefs are or how they came about. That doesn't mean I'm being disrespectful to you directly, it doesn't mean I'm going to mistreat you, and it doesn't mean I think any lesser of you for it. I also have to realize this line of thought is a two-way street.
I don't think it's necessarily disrespectful to think someone's beliefs are stupid (I have plenty of friends who have beliefs that I consider flat-out moronic), but I do kind of consider it disrespectful to tell them such with no real provocation.
I don't think it's necessarily disrespectful to think someone's beliefs are stupid (I have plenty of friends who have beliefs that I consider flat-out moronic), but I do kind of consider it disrespectful to tell them such with no real provocation.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Huh...
Wooden Bling and Diamond Encrusted Mexican Heaters
27 MAY 2010
We’ve all been there. You get signed to your first major deal with a record company. You get a fat advance, cash your check at the nearest check cashing van and get your ass to the jewelers so you can spend it all on a diamond encrusted box of Frosted Flakes.
Luckily this trend seems to be breaking at the bend thanks to Good Wood NYC. This Brooklyn based company is the brainchild of Kerri O’Connell and is starting to catch some traction. They offer a collection of affordable pendants, necklaces, bracelets and earrings that are created from exotic woods and often replicate the gaudy and obnoxious Jesus-pieces that have been sported by our favorite rappers over the years. I mean, when Jesus trashed the marketplace at the Temple I am sure he intended for people to praise his sacrifice via diamonds, gold and arrogance. Whoa, anyways! Check out what they have to offer and see what you think.
I figure a more appropriate item to be luxuriously adorned with precious metals and rare gemstone would be high-powered weaponry for the Mexican drug cartel. Check out what the Mexican Attorney General’s officescooped up in a raid earlier this month.
This cache belonged to Oscar Nava Valencia—one of the leaders of the Milenio Cartel. Given his classy taste in weaponry, it was not a surprise to hear they also seized “a portrait of Valencia riding a black horse, wearing a cowboy shirt and white sombrero and gazing out toward the horizon.” Anybody else smelling an MTV Cribs spin-off? Mexican Ganglord Home Seizure Cribs, yo.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
"Well Jesus was a pretty decent guy regardless of whether or not you're a Christian, I think."
No, not really. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, formed a cult around himself, lived in the homes of followers, and made members of his inner circle give away all their wealth and dedicate their lives to following him. This is not self-evidently ethical for someone who's not God.
No, not really. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, formed a cult around himself, lived in the homes of followers, and made members of his inner circle give away all their wealth and dedicate their lives to following him. This is not self-evidently ethical for someone who's not God.
Still better than all his contemporaries living in the western world I can think of off the top of my head.
No, not really. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, formed a cult around himself, lived in the homes of followers, and made members of his inner circle give away all their wealth and dedicate their lives to following him. This is not self-evidently ethical for someone who's not God.
Quite a lot of people were doing that at the time, really.
In any case.
I suppose I should have said, that I think his teachings are at least partially relevant regardless of one's faith.
Comments
In the interest of honesty and openness, I'm fully aware that I'm most likely a heretic of some description and I'm certainly not out to tell Christians what they believe here. The above is a statement of my perceptions of Christian beliefs, and should not be taken as prescriptive.
*shrug*
I have never been a "good Christian" so I can't really speak on any religious value it may or may not hold.
Though I do know that Enoch and his odd death (he is mentioned as "walking with god" rather than dying) is in The Bible, though I couldn't tell you what book.
having been Divine law is a hard pill to swallow, but the orthodox
Christian belief is that it was abrogated with Christ. As for the other
stuff:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth,
the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the
motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative
positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the
cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals,
shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as
being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture,
talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to
prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up
vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." -- St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (J.H. Taylor trans. 1982)
I was aware of that (should've put "death" in quotations, I suppose. My bad)
We actually spent a surprising amount of time on Enoch in my religion class. Our teacher quite liked him.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Anyway, one thing I find fascinating about the Roman Catholic Church is that it still defines its teachings using Aristotelian philosophy. What are the consequences of this, and the alternatives?
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I wasn't entertaining the idea of making it an actual topic for debate, merely pointing out that there are Christians out there who certainly wouldn't approve.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
entirely too much credit that our cultures (American especially, but
Western culture as a whole) give to the radical followers of religion,
and their contribution is I think too damaging to tolerate."
So if we're too damaging to tolerate, what do you think should be done to us?
"I think ideally, religion would either vanish or it would be limited
only to those people who have minimal to no political and cultural power
and who would be happier with the illusion."
Vanish how? Limited how? Whoever wills the end wills the means.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Joseph de Maistre postulated, among other things, that humans have an innate tendency to kill and religion is a series of revelations about how to canalize bloodshed. With no religion, there are no limits. Pretty good model of the 20th century for a philosopher who died in 1821, no?
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
develop in terms of philosophy, science, and cultural education."
Speaking of generation, what are the Total Fertility Rate for atheists
and members of different religions? If a religion tends to cause women to have more
children, it's favored by natural selection.
Of course you can eliminate such an advantage with compulsory schooling
with atheist propaganda in the curriculum like the Soviet Union,
People's Republic of China, etc... but do you will the means?
"Well it stands in the way of science and has people basing their philosophy on something that doesn't exist."
You're begging the question: the existence of God is what's in dispute.
I'm sure Gregor Mendel would be amazed to discover that he couldn't advance biology because he was Catholic. Ditto Georges Lemaitre and cosmology. And just who do you think invented the university, anyway?
And you know what stands in the way of science? Ethics. You can get more data on human physiology if you're allowed to damage subjects.
You need to stop conflating science with good. It's just a remarkably effective method for accumulating knowledge of material things. It can be used for either good or evil, so to be a good society, we must subordinate it to the Good.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I think the reason why these debates turn so heated is because both sides play this particular card:
"Explain to me why you believe why you do, with an explanation that suits me." Which, as we all know, is about as productive as fly fishing in the middle of the Sahara. On my side of the coin, it usually amounts to being challenged to explain an illogical omnipotent power with logic -- or my favorite, the "how do you know your religion is true and other's aren't?" gambit which just shows the one asking the question has no idea how religion works at all but is challenging it anyway.
For the opposing side, there's no reason to defend how a complete lack of religion would better humanity. Its disappearance would probably have an immediate positive effect on the Middle East, for instance, that was until they found other reasons to kill each other over.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I feel so special.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Wooden Bling and Diamond Encrusted Mexican Heaters
Luckily this trend seems to be breaking at the bend thanks to Good Wood NYC. This Brooklyn based company is the brainchild of Kerri O’Connell and is starting to catch some traction. They offer a collection of affordable pendants, necklaces, bracelets and earrings that are created from exotic woods and often replicate the gaudy and obnoxious Jesus-pieces that have been sported by our favorite rappers over the years. I mean, when Jesus trashed the marketplace at the Temple I am sure he intended for people to praise his sacrifice via diamonds, gold and arrogance. Whoa, anyways! Check out what they have to offer and see what you think.
I figure a more appropriate item to be luxuriously adorned with precious metals and rare gemstone would be high-powered weaponry for the Mexican drug cartel. Check out what the Mexican Attorney General’s officescooped up in a raid earlier this month.
This cache belonged to Oscar Nava Valencia—one of the leaders of the Milenio Cartel. Given his classy taste in weaponry, it was not a surprise to hear they also seized “a portrait of Valencia riding a black horse, wearing a cowboy shirt and white sombrero and gazing out toward the horizon.” Anybody else smelling an MTV Cribs spin-off? Mexican Ganglord Home Seizure Cribs, yo.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
No, not really. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, formed a cult around himself, lived in the homes of followers, and made members of his inner circle give away all their wealth and dedicate their lives to following him. This is not self-evidently ethical for someone who's not God.
Quite a lot of people were doing that at the time, really.
In any case.
I suppose I should have said, that I think his teachings are at least partially relevant regardless of one's faith.
True. But given that western culture has been heavily Christianized, it's a chicken-or-egg thing.