| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/23 |
| 2006/2/9-10 [Reference/Religion] UID:41780 Activity:nil 92%like:41764 |
2/8 The three fake images used to inflame Muslims against Denmark:
http://tinyurl.com/coudo (gatewaypundit.blogspot.com)
\_ Is this site similar to http://www.theonion.com
\_ No, it's just a blog. Somehow, though, they manage to blame
evil liberals by the first comment.
\_ I didn't see the comments, it was just the easiest link I found
to the three fake images. -op
\_ Does anyone have links to the real images that the Danish
printed? |
| 2006/2/8-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:41764 Activity:nil 92%like:41780 |
2/8 The three fake images used to inflame Muslims against Denmark:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/islamic-society-of-denmark-used-fake.html
\_ Is this site similar to http://www.theonion.com
\_ No, it's just a blog. Somehow, though, they manage to blame
evil liberals by the first comment.
\_ I didn't see the comments, it was just the easiest link I found
to the three fake images. -op
\_ Does anyone have links to the real images that the Danish
printed? |
| 2006/2/7-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:41754 Activity:nil |
2/7 Interesting article on the genral affects of literacy
and globalisation on faith, with particular emphisis on Muslim
countries.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB07Ak02.html
\_ My mom once said humor is a sign of knowledge and intelligence.
If that were true, the Muslims must be dumb.
\_ 1) effects, not affects
2) This is a correlation study. The word "effect" doesn't appear.
\_ and "general". Also, "globalization" in the U.S. is spelled
with a z. |
| 2006/2/7-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:41749 Activity:nil |
2/7 Origin of the "pig head Mohammed" picture found. Interesting
http://www.neandernews.com/?p=54 |
| 2006/2/6-7 [Reference/Religion] UID:41729 Activity:nil |
2/6 Muslim Complaint Box
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=3565 |
| 11/23 |
| 2006/2/3-7 [Reference/Religion] UID:41695 Activity:low |
2/3 Some nice messages of religious tolerance
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13501917,00.html
\_ So that God Hates Fags guy is representative of most Christians?
Or maybe you prefer Jerry Falwell and the 700 Club?
\_ "guy"? These are large demonstrations, all around europe and
in the middle east.
\_ Every day should be "offend a religious nutjob day." -John
\_ Hear, hear.
\_ It's not like you have to work hard to offend them.
\_ Exactly. Maybe Hallmark can print up cards or something
like that. -John
\_ actually, it's the anti-religious people who are most
easily offended. just say "gay is bad", "evolution
is just a theory", or "I support school prayers" and
they get all riled up. |
| 2006/2/3 [Reference/Religion] UID:41693 Activity:high |
2/3 muslims are intollerant.. solution: threaten to nuke mecca..
maybe they'll stop
\_ Sodans can't spell worth a shit. Solution: threaten to nuke motd.
Maybe they'll stop.
\_ Note that this would make the tolerant muslims somewhat lest
tolerant. Or rather, they wouldn't (and shouldn't) tolerate
that. |
| 2006/2/2-4 [Reference/Religion] UID:41667 Activity:nil |
2/2 Where can I get a preview of this damaging Mohammed cartoon?
\_ http://Drudgereport.com
\_ http://www.technorati.com/search/Muhammad%20cartoon
===> http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146 |
| 2006/2/1-3 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41654 Activity:nil |
2/1 The 12 Muhammad pictures the religion of peace is declaring war on
Denmark for:
http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm
\_ I'm sure Pat Robertson wouldn't mind declaring war on Islam.
\_ Pat Robertson isn't actually attacking people right now.
\_ Wow, those are pretty tame.
\_ Cool, other newspapers have reprinted them out of principle.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1700224,00.html |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Reference/Religion] UID:41617 Activity:kinda low |
1/31 OK, so this is trolling but I'm half-serious:
With regard to the "Muhammad cartoon" controversy, are the Muslims
insane? I can understand being mad that someone is making fun of your
main religous figure. But leaders if Muslim countries are closing
their Danish embassies and demanding the Danish gov't punish Danish
cartoonists in Denmark. They are calling it hate-speach when it is at
worst a disrespectful political caricature. While the Muslims
obviously have no concept of freedom-of-speech, don't that at least
understand that a foreign country has the right to apply its own laws
to its own citizens? How much of this is just grandstanding and how
much is actually intolerance of free speech?
\_ This is one reason the demographic trends in Europe are kind of
disturbing.
\_ The US and Europe have felt free to tell Muslim countries how to
run themselves for centuries...
\_ True, but in situations like say 'honor killings' and religious
repression, western societies generally say "stop that", not
"we demand you punish the perpetrators"
\_ It has nothing to do with "felt". It has to do with "the strong
always rule the weak". It is the nature of things. For this
reason, you should hope the West never falls to Islam during
your lifetime. You'll have a lot more to bitch about and a lot
less freedom to bitch about it.
\_ I agree. The West wiped a whole continent clean of its
original inhabitants. That's how they "rule the weak".
Don't believe in their bullshit about freedom, etc.
They don't really give a shit about your freedom. When
it comes to their self interest and your freedom, you
can be sure that your freedom will be flushed down
the toilet. That's why I like Putin a lot. He knows
how to say "fuck you" to the face of the Western
hypocrites.
\_ *laugh* Yes, ex-Soviet Russia under Putin is such a nice
place to live compared to *any* Western nation. You had
a good start with the genocide thing to which there is
a response which could have turned into an interesting
debate, but once you held up Putin as some kind of hero,
you went over the edge and became Yet Another Lame Troll.
The Young Troll Ratings board rates this troll as: WEAK!
\_ A lot of it is for appearances, especially to their constituents
and the rest of the Islamic world. Libya, mind you, is wacky
enough that they might just be doing it on principle (that
principle being that anything the Colonel doesn't like is evil).
OTOH, imagine how the Catholic world would react to political
cartoons of the Pope buggering an altar boy; I doubt they'd close
embassies, but there would certainly be an outcry.
\_ I'm not sure anyone would even notice such a cartoon. There
are pleanty of anti-catholic cartoons around. You're
attempt at equivelency doesn't work.
\_ http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/382
"Meanwhile in Brussels a young Muslim immigrant published a
poster depicting the Virgin Mary with naked breasts. Though
the picture has drawn some protest from Catholics (though not
from Western embassies, nor from the bishops), this artist need
not fear being murdered in the street. On the contrary, he is
being subsidised by the Ministry for Culture."
\_ I submit to you that a cartoon equivalating the Pope with a
child molester is somewhat more specific and offensive than
a picture of the VM baring her breasts or even a cross in
a jar of urine.
\_ I'm not really up on my Catholic doctrine, but I'm
pretty sure Virgin Mary >> pope, by orders of magnitude.
\_ Either way, I don't think you'd see rioting in Rome
and Western or Catholic countries threatening to
close embassies. The "moral equivalency" crowd should
take note of this and a lot of other things coming
from the middle east. Some elements of other cultures
are not worthy of respect. Some elements of other
cultures are inferior to the Western cultural model.
\_ You're right, VM is greater than Pope in magnitude.
However, what I'm saying is that by picturing Mohammed
as a terrorist, the cartoonist is labeling all Muslims
as terrorists, much as depicting the Pope bugger an
altar boy labels all Catholic priests as pedophiles.
This is a much more specific charge than depicting VM
as a whore, and I think it would engender more outcry.
that said, I'm not applauding or excusing the reaction
of the governments who closed their embassies over a
rather silly political cartoon. Really, these people
cannot take a joke.
\_ Now, there are plenty of cartoon and art pieces with
Jesus (who as son of god probably outranks Mohammed
theologically) in compromising situations. You
mentioned Piss Christ, which was just a crucifix.
How about Madonna and Child II, also by Serrano?
Would that be more offensive than Mohammed as a
terrorist? MaC2 oddly attracted less controversy
than Piss Christ. (N.B. MaC2 is similar to Piss
Christ, excedt with VM and baby Jesus instead of
a crucifix.)
\_ Not all that odd. It's not like people were
fascinated by Serrano. Falwell found Piss Christ
and publicized it. You wouldn't even know his
name if it wasn't for Falwell.
\_ I saw the Pope ask for 5 year old boys to
molest and then get fed to a giant dinasaur
which spurted blood all over the mosh pit
at a GWAR concert, and as far as I can tell
no one cared and it got no publicity(except
in death metal circles where all the publicity
was positive because GWAR rulez.)
\_ So if I draw a cartoon mocking the Flying Spaghetti Monster, do I
get pulled before the European Court of Human Rights (or whatever)?
Or is it only when your free speech steps on the toes of billions
that it's actually a Human Rights issue?
\_ You need to make that billions who take their religion and
themselves too seriously.
\_ And are engaging in a long term war to push their religion
on the rest of the world by force and numbers.
\_ Courts of human rights are western thing. The Muslim reaction
is violence.
\_ Though calling back diplomats is in another category of idiotic,
if you need to convincing that freedom of speech is interpreted
capriciously in the west too, google for then Mayor Giuliani's
reaction to Chris Ofili's art work or read about how a rep. of
the Green Party to the European Parliment called for the entire
nation of Iran to be banned from the World Cup because of
Ahmadinedscad's anti-Semitic comments.
\_ But you didn't see Israelis rioting in the streets or
threatening Iranians over that. And those are just a couple of
low-level politicians. Why do you have to equate everything?
Maybe those cartoons could fall under the "fire in a crowded
theater" category though, given how fucked up the Muslim
population is. The concept of personal expression must
be alien to them.
\_ There is a difference between the response of an individual
(Guiliani or that Green Party rep.) and the response of a
nation or multi-national group. There is also a difference
between threatening to withold funding or deny entrance into
the World Cup and threatening to bomb a newspaper or kill a
cartoonist. |
| 2006/1/23-24 [Reference/Religion] UID:41489 Activity:very high |
1/23 Wacky Bible quote of the day:
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go
out as the menservants do."
--Exodus 21:7
\_ ... and?
\_ This is hardly wacky when you take it in context. It basically
just states that female slaves will be treated differently from
male slaves. The surrounding text has various laws on how slaves
will be treated, etc. Apparently under Judaic law if you purchase
a jewish servant they're bound to you for seven years. I wonder
if this applies if you buy a non-jewish slave. I suppose the
term "slave" isn't necessarily appropriate in this context, more
like "indentured servant."
\_ Yes, slavery? good! nipples? BAD!!!
\_ So "God" is okay with slavery and selling of daughters? Now I
see why some people are so eager to promote Christianity in our
country.
\_ This sort of "point" makes me feel like I'm a freshman in the
dorms again.
\_ Then what is the above quote really talking about, if
daughter is not daugher and selling is not selling?
\_ Hello, I would like the use of your daughter as
maidservant for 7 years.
\_ You can't be serious. It's slavery. The daughter
has no say in the matter. And no, she doesn't
go free in 7 years, that's what the bible says.
\_ You're not going to get anywhere trying to convince
religious people that the Bible is inconsistent;
they already know and have accepted that fact. -tom
\_ Really? They why do they still say things like
"Foo is wrong because the Bible says so."?
\_ Because they want to. Humans are
rationalizing creatures, not rational ones. -tom
\_ Got it. Thx.
\_ I prefer the one about stoning to death anyone who tries to convert
a Christian to another religion. Deutoronomy (sp?) 1.
\_ You're missing the point. Jesus completely cancelled out the
whole goofy OT... except the parts modern Christians still like,
like the 10 Commandments. He didn't cancel those out. Or the
stuff about gays. But all the silly, obviously evil stuff is
nullified. Duh.
\_ I like the one about stoning to death any bull that happens to
kill a human. No you can't just kill it. Assemble the villagers
and STONE that evil bull! Make it /SUFFER/!! Ahahahah! |
| 2006/1/12-17 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Religion] UID:41361 Activity:nil |
1/12 Gotta love protesters out in support of releasing wanna-be mass
murders.
http://csua.org/u/eld |
| 2006/1/9-12 [Reference/Religion] UID:41307 Activity:kinda low |
1/9 I think all good Christians should have long hair. Every depiction
of Jesus I've ever seen has long hair, and Christians are meant to
aspire to be like Jesus. That is all. Oh and they should also wear
beards. Most Mormons I've seen are the opposite. So they must be
in league with the devil.
\_ I've seen guys who agree with you hanging around on Sproul before.
They also make their own clothes. It doesn't make any less sense to\
me than anythingn else Christians do.
They also make their own clothes. It doesn't make any less sense
to me than anythingn else Christians do.
\_ Yes, my child. --dbushong
\_ Err, wow. By that logic, petty much all Christians are in league
with the devil -- especially the clean cut ones.
\_ I know, sad isn't it? Get with the program Christians. Ok the
devil part was half in jest.
\_ I can honestly say I don't believe anyone is in league with the
devil.
\_ Uhhhh, I don't think Satan does videos, Beavis, unless it's
like for Danzig or something.
\_ link:csua.org/u/ekg (wear headphones)
\_ I also walk around in sandals. Even in winter.
\_ I think all Christians should get heads.
http://www.jesuspenis.com/testament/jesus_blowjob.html |
| 2006/1/6-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:41261 Activity:moderate 76%like:41260 |
1/6 Since several threads touched upon this, for a Christian perspective
on loss and suffering, I suggest starting with the Book of Job.
Also, for those who've heard the beautiful hymn "It is Well With My
Soul", written in the 1870s by a Chicago businessman after
he lost all five of his children, here's a link to the story:
http://www.geocities.com/cott1388/spafford.html
Here's the lyrics for the song:
http://my.homewithgod.com/heavenlymidis2/soul.html
http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh377.sht
Another related hymn is "God Hath Not Promised":
http://members.warpnet.net/karin/images/zgodprom.html
http://my.homewithgod.com/heavenlymidis/godhathnotpromised.mid
A Chinese hymn:
http://christianstudy.com/data/hymns/text/c1423.html
\_ The story of Job is a somewhat ironic starting place. Job's loss
and suffering were brought about by God in an act of what can only
be termed vanity.
\_ The moral I got is that while being Job sucks at least you're
alive. Being #2 to Job from the POV of g-d meant you're just
so much fodder.
\_ When a person suffers from inconsolable suffering and loss,
he may believe in one of the following:
(1) It is all blind chance and he just had bad luck.
(2) God is punishing him (even if he was righteous?), or the
person brought it upon himself.
(3) God allowed this to happen, and God sees his suffering.
The suffering is temporary (either in this life, or
in heaven). It is for a purpose, even if we may not
see it now.
Another related chapter is John 9.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%209;&version=31;
\_ I go with the former director of the National Mine Academy:
(4) The Dubya administration's relaxed enforcement of mine
safety led to the mine not being closed (which had many
citations), and those miners' deaths were unnecessary.
\_ And, pending further investigation, I would agree with
you on this specific case. Mine safety is also a big
issue in China, where the safety records of the coal
mines are just appalling. Being irresponsible with
regard to the safety of others is a direct violation of
what Jesus teaches: "To love others as one loves thyself."
\_ So you'll masturbate me, too? -tom
\_ "Do not grant the evil their desires" Psalm 140:8
\_ What logical people should see is that if the end result is
the same, it doesn't matter if there's a God. It doesn't
matter if He's capricious, apathetic, you're part of His
inconceivable master plan, or He doesn't exist. If in every
possible tangible way the outcome is the same, then His
existence is irrelevant. And since reality behaves in a manner
which does not correspond to an unfiltered reading of the
Bible, there is no reason to use the Bible as an accurate
description of God. Therefore if we've got no reliable
description and no evidence of action, there's really no reason
to believe in an ancient, politically motivated fabrication
like God.
\_ This is not what the Bible says or teaches, nor should
it be the experience of someone who walks with God.
\_ The Bible doesn't teach that it's irrelevant and so is
God? Surprise?
\_ You don't read the bible nor follow what the
bible teaches, and you claim that you cannot see
any "evidence".
\_ I have read the Bible cover to cover probably
four times. It is full of bad advice,
inconsistencies, and paints God as a very "do as
I say, don't do as I do" sort of fellow. Modern
moderate Christians only come up with a bearable
moral code by ignoring an awful lot of badness
littered all throughout the Bible. This is what
moral code by cherry-picking what they like from
the whole of the Bible. This is what
I meant about an "unfiltered reading".
\_ Tell me an instance of what Jesus did or said
that you disagreed with. Or where he did not
do what he said.
\_ Jesus' views on slavery: Luke 12:47
off the top of my head. And why are we
limiting ourselves to the NT? Christians
quote morality from the OT all the time.
Hell, this whole thing started with Job.
\_ The verse is about a servant who beats
other servants (see 12:45) and hence
deserves to be punished. Are you
saying it's okay for him to beat other
servants? Let's talk about Jesus
first.
\_ English translations of the Bible
dishonestly use the term "servant".
They were slaves. This is a parable
context (and 12:48 calls for "just
a little beating" for the others), the
point is that something that is a
clear moral evil is not commented on by
the omniscient son of God.
\_ Clearly it's not a moral evil! The
South was right.
\_ I disagree. The parable is
about watchfulness, and the point
is that we should not be
complacent with God's teachings
and commit evil thinking that
judgement and punishment will not
come. The servant who knows "the
master's will" (i.e. the word of
God) and yet commits evil will be
punished with "many blows". The
servant who does not know the
master's will (presumably not following
his own conscience?) will be
punished with "few blows". As for
slavery, the Bible says we are all
under the slavery of sin, and God
wants to free us from its power
through Christ.
As for servant vs slave. I don't
think it's as clearly defined
historically as you imply.
master's will (presumably not
following his own conscience?) will
be punished with "few blows". As
for slavery, the Bible says we are
all under the slavery of sin, and
God wants to free us from its power
through Christ. As for servant vs
slave. I don't think it's as
clearly defined historically as you
imply. I mentioned before that I
don't believe Jesus is omniscient,
not when he is on this world. One
I mentioned before that I don't
believe Jesus is omniscient, not
when he is on this world. One
does not have to be omniscient to
lead a life without sin.
\_ Does it bother you that the
Bible not only condones but
seems to support slavery?
\_ Wasn't Exodus about how
God led the Israelites
out of slavery in Egypt?
Have you heard of the
Quaker movement to abolish
slavery, or the Society for
the Abolition of the Slave
Trade?
\_ But Quakers do it in spite
of the Bible, not because
of.
\_ I think you got it
reversed. |
| 2006/1/6 [Computer/SW/Apps/Media, Reference/Religion] UID:41260 Activity:nil 76%like:41261 |
1/6 For a Christian perspective on loss and suffering, I suggest reading
the Book of Job.
For those who've heard the beautiful hymn "It is Well With My
Soul", written last century by a Chicago businessman after
he lost all five of his children, here's a link to the story:
http://www.geocities.com/cott1388/spafford.html
Here's the lyrics for the song:
http://my.homewithgod.com/heavenlymidis2/soul.html
http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh377.sht |
| 2006/1/5-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:41254 Activity:kinda low |
1/5 How can people be this stupid?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/05/robertson.sharon/index.html
\_ With the "woe unto" comment, one could interpret Robertson as
wishing strokes, death etc. on these people. Lovely.
\_ No, you couldn't unless you have no context and are an idiot.
\_ Yeah, we've done that below.
\_ here is my question of the day. according to my limited knowledge,
the size of the Promised Land is about 4 times of what Israel is
today. Does Robertson support invation of Syria, and rest of
neighboring Arab nations to restore the rest of the Promised Land?
\_ Umm... I wouldn't put it past him.
\_ Me neither. Which would put Pat Robertson right up there
with the prez of Iran and bin Laden, as people who don't see
a problem killing & taking land away from people of the other
'evil' religion(s).
\_ you gotta becareful here. Taking land away from infidels
are fundamental building block of USA and Israel.
\_ Sorry to pop your cherry, son -- but most countries
gained land in wars with other countries or people.
(even China). There's this thing that's commonly
referred to as 'History'. People even write books
about it. Maybe someone here will even recommend a
good book about this 'History'.
\_ no one can match the scale of what USA have done,
though.
\_ Garbage! The Great Chinese Civilization grew
mostly from the voluntary adoption of our superior
culture and way of life by people around us
who later voluluntarily decided to become part of
us. When our great admiral Cheng Ho (aka Zheng
He), he did not invade anyone even though he had
an overwhelming military advantage. This is
unlike the western pirates who lusted for gold
He) sailed the seven seas, he did not invade
anyone even though he had overwhelming
military advantages. This is unlike the
western pirates who lusted for gold
and riches, and slaves. Please do not project
the pirate mentality of your evil ancestors onto
the Great Chinese Civilization.
the Great Chinese Civilization. We are not the
same as you evil monkeys. -gcc
\_ US yes, but Israel..... I mean, they gained
land in wars against other countries. Whereas the
US just decimated the Indians almost to the point
of extermination.
\_ I am talking about what happened in 1948, not
1967.
\_ It's pretty much best not to listen to Robertson. -emarkp
\_ ...or anyone else who quotes the ugly sections of the Bible.
\_ Christians do seem to be turning against him:
http://tammybruce.com/archives/2006/01/pat_robertson_i.php
http://wingercomics.com/blog/?p=39 |
| 2006/1/5 [Reference/Religion] UID:41244 Activity:nil |
1/5 Pat Robertson says God struck down Ariel Sharon for "dividing God's
land"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601050004 (video clip) |
| 2006/1/5-7 [Reference/Religion] UID:41243 Activity:moderate |
1/5 Pat Robertson.. Always good for a (nervous) laugh
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=770
\_ bahahaha. what a nutjob.
\_ How can even moderate religious types not see that giving credit to
God for good things and not crediting him for having any hand in the
bad is intellectually bankrupt? (Mostly thinking of the WVA coal
mine thing, but this reminded me of it)
\- ages ago religion explained the natural world, was a source
\_ It still does for much of the electorate. -John
of values and had an element on creating communities. i suppose
resonable people can cleave to the community aspect. it's ok
i suppose as a source of values but people should grant it
doesnt have a monopoly on that. but people who believe religion
has a role in explaining the natural world are dumbasses. it's
better to ignore/mock/pray to the flying sphagetti monster for
their demise than try to understand or engage with them. --psb
their demise than try to understand or engage with them.
\_ Because Christians believe that God gives us everything, and we
should be thankful for everything. Even the difficult
experiences in life. Furthermore, pride is dangerous and so we
try not to take excessive credit for our successes.
\_ "God gives us everything" denies all acts of man and nature.
God is not routinely thanked for "initiating the system of
the universe"; He's thanked for doing very specific things
(saving little Timmy, rescuing mine workers, saving that one
hour in New Orleans, etc). That's what I'm saying is
house in New Orleans, etc). That's what I'm saying is
intellectually bankrupt.
\_ you forgot free throws. -tom
\_ Oh, on that I agree. To claim that God did specific things
without claiming a gift of prophecy is indeed ridiculous.
Oh, and that includes Pat Robertson. -emarkp
\_ Ok I'll bite: so claiming the gift of prophecy would
make it not ridiculous?
\_ It does make it consistent. And then the claim of
prophecy might be testable. -emarkp
prophecy might be testable. Now that I reread the
article, Robertson didn't say what the headline said.
He did not say that God did something. -emarkp
\_ Indeed. But then it might be the case that the
gift was due to a pact with Lucifer, or
Witchcraft. So we should apply the principles
of http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org. I
think we should start with Robertson.
(re: your last point, he said God is punishing
Sharon. so... what?)
\_ No, he didn't say that.
\_ He said: "God says, 'This land belongs to
me. You better leave it alone.'" How's that?
(He also said "[Sharon] was dividing...
Woe unto..." which == "God punished him"
to non-idiots.)
\_ On these questions, I suggest reading the Book of Job.
For those who've heard the beautiful hymn "It is Well With My
Soul", written last century by a Chicago businessman after
he lost all five of his children, here's a link to the story:
http://www.christianity.ca/church/worship/2004/02.000.html
Here's the song:
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/i/t/i/itiswell.htm
http://www.geocities.com/cott1388/spafford.html
Here's the lyrics for the song:
http://my.homewithgod.com/heavenlymidis2/soul.html
http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh377.sht |
| 2006/1/4-6 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41230 Activity:nil |
1/4 12 miners reported alive actually dead. God works in mysterious ways...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551516/posts
\_ And coal mining deregulation works in pretty damn mysterious ways
too.
\_ I like how the LA Times reported today the Clinton-era guy
saying mine citations were way down in the Dubya era, yet that
particular mine had citations up the wazoo recently. The logic
here is that the mine owner must have really neglected safety
issues to do so poorly with even relaxed inspections.
\_ That's beautiful. god, God, GOD did it! He's all powerful, he
controls everything he... oh, wait, what? <no more mention of God
being involved in, you know, death> It's media-bashing time!
\_ The media is obviously a tool of the devil!
\_ The best part was back when there was a mine flood, but the 9
trapped miners were rescued. Bush vowed to himself never to let
mining companies be burdened by survivors, and promptly cut
funding for enforcing mine safety laws. Pro-life!! |
| 2006/1/2-4 [Reference/Religion] UID:41195 Activity:nil |
1/2 Rose Parade to have first rain in more than 50 years. Thank God.
Rose Parade is slow and boring and is a tradition that prides
itself on growing and killing plants for the sole purpose of
endulgement. It represents the worst of capitalism, it's
wastefulness. It's a tradition that should have been abandoned
long time ago. Thank God the Rose Parade popularity has
been going down since the late 80s.
\_ pathetic attempt at a troll. (Among other things, you don't kill
roses when you cut their flowers). -tom
\_ OP had reporductive organs cut off. Dead inside. Feels need
spread the hate. Yummy, yummy hate.
\_ wtf is endulgement?
\_ there is no shortage of roses the year after.. actually
there are the same amount of roses year after year.. |
| 2005/12/23-28 [Reference/Religion] UID:41133 Activity:nil |
12/23 worst Bad Religion link ever
http://tinyurl.com/ds6rj - danh
\_ Oh, sweet mercy, I think I'm going to cry. I hate you, linkman dan. |
| 2005/12/21-22 [Reference/Religion, Recreation/Media] UID:41106 Activity:high |
12/21 emarkp, did you ever see the South Park episode about the Mormons?
They make the Joseph Smith story look pretty ridiculous. Are they
misrepresenting it in any major way? If so, how?
\_ Didn't see it--don't watch South Park. jrleek gave a short review
of it a while back:
http://csua.com/?entry=36159
[addendum: I typically don't turn to comedy cartoons for historical/
factual insight.] -emarkp
-emarkp
\_ Ok thanks. By the way I thought you hate kchang's guts and
you're boycotting his crappy web site, why are you using
it now?
\_ I wasn't boycotting it, nor do I hate his guts. I find the
archive quite useful, but the "guessing the identity" feature
to be a serious problem (which is part of the "diff" part, not
the archive proper).
\_ I find no distinction between his crappy products. If
one part of his program is poorly written, how can you
trust other parts of the program, such as the archiver?
\_ Thanks for the link. Do you have a URL to an accurate summary
of the Mormon take on historical events that the tablets/BoM/
whatever talked about?
\_ I can point you to historical overviews of the LDS church from
the LDS perspective. Critics will say that we're hiding the
ugly parts of history, but I've never seen an even-handed
handling of the religion and history. I've heard good reviews
of a new book called "Rough Stone Rolling" which is supposed
to be precisely that, but I haven't read it yet. -emarkp |
| 2005/12/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Religion] UID:41075 Activity:nil |
12/19 This hadn't been foremost in my mind recently, so I'd forgotten
about it, but this article reminded me of some of the things
to be angry about. (The Strange Case of Chaplain Yee)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18550
\- not to be confused with the Celebrated Case of Judge Dee |
| 2005/12/15-16 [Reference/Religion] UID:41029 Activity:very high |
12/14 emarkp, how do you reconcile the supposed authority of the various
and sundry versions of the Bible with the glosses and errors made
by the various scribes who contributed to the current version of
the KJB? Also, what do you think of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting
Jesus"? See:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156
\_ I assume you mean KJV (which is the common acronym for the King
James Version of the Bible). Beyond that I'd be happy to discuss it
with anyone who signs his name. -emarkp
\_ Sorry, it didn't really fit on the line. --erikred
\_ Okay. I understand the process by which we have the Bible.
That is, while I believe the authors were inspired by God,
they were still mortal and fallible. Hence I don't claim that
the Bible is inerrant. Also, there are many conflicts in
manuscripts, so I don't think there's an objective way to
determine which translation is superior. I disagree with
Wescott and Hort's rules for disambiguation. That's the point
of the Book of Mormon and modern revelation--the more
witnesses of truth you have, the better shot you have of
understanding it. I haven't listened to the npr story, but
I'm downloading the audio and will listen to it later. -emarkp
[addendum: I prefer the KJV because of the language--I find
NASB and NIV boring.]
\_ Cool, I hope you enjoy it. So, would you consider yourself
less of a strict interpretationist (sorry, I lack the
proper Biblical scholarship lexicon) and more of a,
I dunno, Gnostic? Or Bible as philosophy sort? --erikred
\_ I don't know if I could pigeonhole myself so easily.
Educated believer? I believe that Christ is my Savior
and performed miracles. I don't believe the earth is
only 6000 years old, but Adam and Eve did exist as
individuals. I believe that there was a great flood and
Noah built an ark, but it may have been localized
(that's more and more likely IMO) instead of worldwide.
I believe we're children of God, but that Evolution is
fact. -emarkp
\_ Fair enough. Thank you. --erikred
\_ Quite honestly, emarkp has never been nearly as
radicalized as been expressed by some on the motd.
\_ Did Adam have a navel?
\_ Does it matter?
\_ YMWTR "The Natural History of Nonsense" by
Bergen Evans.
\_ hmm... i would subscribe to Christianity if I knew
any churches that would actually support this
particular, and if I may say so, enlightened view
of the Bible.
\_ Well, we're called Mormons. Feel free to ask
more. -emarkp
[Addendum: I'm sure there are people in other
faiths that address the Bible similarly.]
\_ Is riding around on bicycles a matter of policy
or of convenience? Does your religion have
any official position on cars vs. bikes?
When I find a religion that believes cars are
as evil as I believe they are, I might just
join.
\_ Uhm, cars are nonsentient -- they can't be
evil. That's like believing wrenches are
evil, or lollipops are devilspawn. The sad,
sad thing is that you were admitted to
Berkeley. I guess they'll take anybody
these days.
\_ Do you want to fight?
\_ Over what? That you're clinically
deranged or that cars aren't evil?
\_ either. both. sticks. whatever.
maybe I'll just kick my chairs
ass again.
\_ GUN DUEL!!!!!
\_ Are you scared?
\_ Are nuclear weapons evil? How about
a rack on which hundreds had been
tortured? I don't think the definition
is as simple as you do, but then again
I don't believe in God, so "evil" is
kind of a strange concept to me.
\_ Objects are not evil. People are.
You find this a difficult concept?
Why would a rack or a weapon or a
whatever object be evil? So without
a concept of good and evil your moral
sense is based on what? The laws men
make? So there can be no bad laws?
Or it just comes magically from
within?
\_ Actually, evil applied to nouns
is an accepted usage. It's not
the same meaning as morally evil
but it's a meaning all the same.
\_ It's a useless meaning in the
context of a conversation about
good/evil in a religious
context. Context counts.
\_ Utility mostly. The most utility
for the most people. I find nuclear
weapons odious because of their
capacity to cause great suffering
for so many so easily. I concede
that they may have collectivly
kept WWIII from happening.
\_ Nuclear power doesn't cause
suffering. People do. Nuclear
science/engineer can be used to
kill people. It can be used as
a power source. So can fire. I
wouldn't get rid of fire because
arsonists burn down orphanages
or claim fire is evil or odious.
Don't blame the tool, blame the
wielder. Smart people invent
a lot of cool stuff for us. It
is unfortunate that some people
will always find an evil way to
put any technology to use.
\_ What's the significance of the miracles? Would you
still have believed if he didn't do miracles? How
does this fit into the faith concept and telling
people not to expect proof? Why did Jesus rise up
from the dead, what was the point? Why do you
believe he even did miracles or rose when we have
no reliable sources? Why did dying on a cross have
any significance, especially since he didn't die?
\_ The greatest miracle was the suffering he went
through in the garden and on the cross which paves
the way for our forgiveness, and his physical
resurrection afterwards. That gives us all hope
of resurrection and Eternal Life. And yes, he
really did die. -emarkp
\_ How/why did it "pave the way" to anything?
Many people have suffered as much or more than
someone being crucified. Hell, even in the
story he has a couple other nobodies suffering
along with him. We also have no reliable source
for verifying his death or resurrection so it's
pointless even if it had a point to begin with.
\_ That's why the Garden of Gethsemane and the
resurrection are part of the story. -emarkp
\_ You're not really answering. (1st q,
and I don't see why the garden was
much of a suffering either.) And for the
"rez", again it seems pointless to
come back and just basically say "hay
look at me! lol" to a few people and then
"ascend". There's more evidence of Elvis
resurrecting.
\_ How can you pick and choose and still call yourself a
resurrecting. (btw: My point is less that
*you* shouldn't believe, but that it is
reasonable and logical for me not to
believe. Would you accept that?)
\_ Certainly, it's impossible to
objectively prove the efficacy of
Christ's sacrifice, or the validity of
his claims. They can only be verified
by being sampled and the proof is
inherently subjective. It's not
rational in the strictest sense. My
proof of Christ's sacrifice is the
spiritual witness I've received.
Period. -emarkp
\_ In regard to miracles, a few things we see from
the bible:
(1) God is sovereign, and God decides when and
where to perform miracles.
(2) Miracles often did not lead to faith. The
Israelites had seen many miracles when led
out of slavery in Egypt, yet their faith
was constantly lacking, and that prevented
them from entering Canaan, the promised land.
(3) A display of faith by a person often
prompted Jesus to perform a miracle for
said person.
(4) Pharisee witnessed many of Jesus's miracles
but claimed that Jesus's was in league with
demons and that that was Jesus's source of
power to perform miracles.
(5) Miracles does not solve the problem of sin.
(5) Miracles do not solve the problem of sin.
(6) While faith includes some elements of
belief, it is more than that. In James,
in discussing faith and deeds, the bible
says that "Even the demons believe [God] -
and shudder." "Faith without deeds is
dead." "Show me your faith without deeds,
and I will show you my faith by what I do."
In regard to Jesus giving his life on the cross,
the two important things are:
(1) He has led a sinless life, and only a
sinless life has the power of redemption.
(2) He died for all mankind, but at the same
time he died for each one of us. I have
heard one school of thought that says
that during the three days between his
death and resurrection, Jesus endured the
combined sufferings caused by the sin of
each and everyone of us.
that during the three days (and time may
have different meaning in the spiritual
realm) between his death and resurrection,
Jesus endured the combined sufferings
caused by the sin of each and everyone of us.
\_ I always thought this was the gist of the
passion in the garden. It's not that our
sins nailed him up. It's that he took our
sins upon him, willingly. Are you a
Calvinist?
\_ Both are true, in my mind. I do
not know what a Calvinist mean.
(note: I removed the part about
each one of us nailing Jesus to
the cross because of our sin,
which was what the above poster
was responding to. I removed
it because I had wanted to keep
things simpler, but above poster
already responded to it.)
\_ Do you believe in ghosts? Spirits?
Evil as an entity?
\_ Cars!
\_ Yes, I believe in the existence
of a spiritual realm.
\_ How does a death have "power of redemption"?
What is that anyway? What does his death
save, and from what, and by what/whom?
I don't see the relevance of his suffering.
The fundamental concept of "dying for us"
is meaningless to me. And afterwards he
comes back fine anyway. That controverts
the whole notion of sacrifice, which
involves loss. If I, as an atheist, were
to sacrifice my life to save others while
believing that I'm throwing away the only
thing I've got in the universe, well I
think that would mean a lot more than
someone who believes he's gonna float
to heaven.
Re: miracles, I guess we can say they
had no significance of themselves, and
were not any form of proof.
BTW: I applaud you for getting into this
because many would not and it really helps
understand what is going on in your heads.
\_ You raise many deep questions. In
regard to miracles, I've said all I
wanted to say, so you are free to
draw your conclusion. In regard to
your other questions, I think we
should not think too abstractly such
that we are no longer grounded in
this world. This life is not a game
where one score points to get into
heaven. It has meaning in and of itself.
What does redemption mean in this
world? How is it tied to guilt and
sin? How is it tied to justice? How
is it tied to love and faith and hope?
One other thing to ponder is that Jesus,
as Christ, was not omnipotent or
omniscient. He has emotions, sorrows
and joys. He cried. He loved. He was
a flesh and blood person. Not
all Christians will agree with me on
this, but I believe his divine power
and divine self knowledge comes from
his oneness with the Father through
following the word of the Father, love
of the Father, and faith in the plans
of the Father.
following the word of the God, love
of the Father and of us, and faith
in the plans of the Father.
-----------------------\
Adding to the above,
I really appreciate your question regarding redemption,
because it led me to examine things and discover new
revelations.
"For God so LOVED the world that he GAVE his one and only
Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have
eternal life." John 3:16
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,
but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a
clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy,
and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and
though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,
but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all
my goods to feed the poor, and though I GIVE MY BODY TO
BE BURNED, but have not love, it profits me nothing."
Corinthians 13
"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers
over a multitude of sins." 1Peter 4
I think the above passages would help us understand
redemption. With justice and retribution, you injured
or caused someone a loss, you pay for it, you murdered
a man, you pay with your life. This country's laws are
still very much based on that. Redemption, on the
other hand, both in the scripture and in our world,
cannot be seperated from love and sacrifice, both of
which are necessary. When you love someone, you can
forgive the person; when you forgive the person, you
renounce the justice and redress you were due. The
Les Miserable story of the bandit beating up and robbing
the father to steal his silverware, and when he was
caught, the father telling the police that he gave the
bandit the silverware. And of course there are countless
real life examples.
LDS? If you let people ignore the inconvenient bits of
the Bible, people can make it say anything they want.
What's the point of pointing to it as a source of truth
at all?
\_ I don't pick and choose. The LDS church has no
position on the age of the Earth or Evolution. I
don't ignore "inconvenient" parts of the Bible, etc.
-emarkp
\_ I wasn't talking about specifically age or evo.
You said you believe the Bible is divinely
inspired, but inaccurately transcribed. So you
get to say to any of the OT stuff you don't agree
with "that's superceded" and any of the NT stuff
that contradicts itself "that's human error" You
don't find that remarkably convenient? -pp
\_ But that's exactly the point! The Bible pretty
clearly describes creation. If you're going to
say "oh, it was just symbolic, it was really
evolution.. see 'days' really meant..." and so on,
then what's to stop doing that to any part of the
Bible? And if, as you already said, you believe
it has human-introduced mistakes... it really
doesn't feel like a useful text.
\_ You realize the stories of Adam and Eve and
Noah are quite obviously not real, right? -tom
\_ you're just pissed off that you don't have
a navel.
\_ I realize that much of them is not literal.
"not real" is not a terribly precise statement.
-emarkp
\_ OK, how's this for precise. The human race
is not descended from two individuals.
(Verifiable by DNA analysis). The rest of
the Adam and Eve story (and the idea of
original sin) makes no sense in that
context. Also, there was not a guy named
Noah who gathered up all the animals by
twos because the world (or even a region)
was flooded. (Also verifiable by DNA
analysis and fossil/sedimentary records).
-tom
\_ DNA has been traced back through women
to a trivial number of individuals in
Africa. I'd like to see a URL that
shows DNA or fossil/sediment record
evidence showing that "not even a region"
could have had a flood that limited the
animal population to a trivial number of
each species. I'm certain you won't find
this. Also, there is actually sediment
evidence showing that there likely was a
flood of some sort on a large scale in
the distant past although not necessarily
in the last 6000+ years.
\_ I disagree with your statement out the
DNA evidence of a single couple as
parents of all humans. In the case of
Noah, that's why I'm open to the "local
flood" idea. -emarkp
\_ The local flood idea requires zero
leap of faith. Floods large enough
to destroy a tribal civilization's
whole world are common enough that
it seems reasonable that many
civilizations will have stories about
it which are based on fact.
\_ The history of religious dogma is
an evolution from claims which
became easy to disprove (such as
heliocentricity) to claims which
are more difficult to disprove.
Once a piece of dogma has been
proved incorrect beyond a reasonable
doubt, it seems fanciful in the
extreme to weaken the same piece
of dogma to make it less disprovable.
Unless you're just believing what
you want to believe. -tom
\_ EMarkP: Do you think William Cosby
has accurately told the story ofNoah?
has accurately told the story of Noah?
\_ "When you forgive the person, you renounce the
justice and redress you were due."
This is the part of the Bible I find most compelling
too, but the part that many people who call themselves
Christians don't put into practice. I'm curious if you,
whoever you are (emarkp?), supported the war on Iraq.
- quaker
\_ I accepted the Afghanistan war, but I did not like
the war on Iraq from the start. The administration
was too eager to go to war, too flippant in regard
to the potential consequences, suffering and loss
of lives, both American and Iraqi, too arrogant in
our capabilities, which I believe was the cause
of many of the mistakes we made. The purpose of
the war was unclear, the motives questionable.
My current church is a small Chinese church
affliated with ELCA. I went to a Baptist church
affliated with ELCA. I went to a baptist church
while in grad school. I didn't go to church
regularly while in Berkeley, but when I went, I
went to 1st Presby, or the Chinese for Christ.
church. Before college, I go to a Presby church.
Before college, I go to a presby church.
My girlfriend went to a quaker church while in
college in taipei, where she accepted christ.
\_ I see no conflict between saying to Osama Bin Laden, "I
love you as a person and forgive you of your crimes" while
shooting him between the eyes. It is up to me to forgive
all men. But while I can forgive, I will still protect my
family. [BTW, I can't find that verse anywhere--you want
to give chapter and verse?] -emarkp
\_Everyone should shut the hell up and just read the Jefferson
Bible or the Gospel Of St Thomas.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Jesus-Without-Miracles1dec05.htm
- danh |
| 2005/12/14-16 [Reference/Religion] UID:41013 Activity:high |
12/14 Interesting maps of US religious distributions. I guess the
stereotypes are true.
http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/geo/courses/geo200/religion.html
\_ I didn't realize the South was so Baptist. and so un-Catholic
too. The Mormon map was entertaining.
\_ You know, with the proper demogoguery, perhaps we could get
some regional religious strife going on, like between the
Southern Baptists and the Utah Mormons...
\_ There's been historic friction between precisely those two groups
for quite a while. It's in the last few years that it's been
decreasing. -emarkp
\_ Btw can you attempt to explain the Mormon view of Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost? Is it polytheism?
\_ We don't believe it's polytheism. We reject the "homoousia"
of the Nicene Creed though. And we don't get caught up in
the "filioque" issue that divides Western and Orthodox
churches. -emarkp
\_ You're too busy using your own Bible (BoM) and
inventing your own story of Jesus to worry about
minute details. If MAJOR issues like that exist
then why split hairs?
\_ /My/ Bible is the King James Version. The Book of
Mormon is an additional document, not a replacement.
I also like to use the NASB for study, and I've
learned a bit of Greek for NT reference--my personal
greek copy is a Nestle intralinear. -emarkp
\_ Not a replacement but, correct me if I am
wrong, considered authoritive when there are
conflicts. In that aspect it is a replacement in
the same way the New Testament replaces the Old
Testament. No one else accepts the BofM except
Mormons, which is *THE* issue. What does arguing
minutiae matter at that point? It's like
comparing the Muslim Christ with the Christian
one. The bigger issue is that Mohammed guy.
\_ Consider yourself corrected. Where the BoM
disagrees with extra-Biblical tradition, it is
authoritative. The Bible has passages that
contradict itself, yet that doesn't nullify the
Bible. Yes, only LDS and its offshoots accept
the BoM as scripture--so what? Your claim of
the BoM being "our own" Bible is false. Thanks
for playing. -emarkp
\_ So what about the last part in
Revelation where it claims the Bible to be
final and complete? How does BoM fit into
that? Here are some others:
http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAR002.htm
http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAROO2.htm
\_ "This page cannot be found." Hahaha!
\_ Fixed.
\_ Wow, a whole list of canards. I'll go
ahead and respond to the one you list.
You know revelation was written BEFORE
John's gospel and his epistles? Not
only that, but you know the Bible
wasn't compiled for > 200 years after
John wrote that? Obviously it doesn't
mean what you think it means, or half
the bible would be invalid too.
\_ I'm so moving to Oregon.
\_ You know, religion != scary.
\_ Try telling that to <fill-in-the-victims>.
\_ Yeah, that's as profound and insightful as a bumper
sticker. In other words, not.
\_ Yeah, that's as profound and insightful as a bumper
sticker. In other words, not.
\_ Being surrounded by people who believe that their fate rests
in the hands of an imaginary all-powerful being, consider it
their duty to make sure you believe in the exact same version
of this entity, and for whom this belief dictates their
choice of who should run this country and how... yes, it is
scary.
\_ Well, you're talking about Iran, not the US. 1) your
assertion that the being is imaginary is not indisputed
fact, 2) it's pretty much only Islam that feels it's their
duty to "make sure you believe" exactly the same thing.
Most Christians believe it's important to share what they
believe and urge you to consider it, but not force you to
agree. -emarkp
\_ Replace "Most" with "Some" and you're right. --PM
\_ No, I think it's "most". -emarkp
\_ Yeah, I think this is probably correct. In my
(admittedly limited and biased) experience, most
of the religious people I've met rarely mention
god unless I've brought up the topic. That doesn't
mean there aren't some truly scary christian
freaknuts in every denomination who tend to really
squick out non-religious people disproportionately
to their numbers.... -mice
\_ The Evangelical faction of Christianity holds power at
the moment. You understand what "Evangelical" means,
right? Hint: definition #4 in dict. And as for
"disputed" Uh, everything's disputed. 5-year-olds
will dispute the non-existence of the Easter Bunny.
\_ Yes, it means evangelize. Which means sharing their
beliefs and urging others to accept them. It doesn't
mean forcing, etc. -emarkp
\_ So changing local laws to make things in the 10
commandments illegal isn't forcing? The huge
pro-life lobby isn't forcing the rest of
America to share its views?
\_ bad troll. no cookie.
\_ Why is that a troll? The guy actually
raises a valid example of religious people
attacking rights from a perspective
almost strictly based on their religious
beliefs. (perhaps better exmples could
have been fielded, but the point
exemplified is still valid). -mice
\_ The 10 Commandments are a big part of the
foundation of western civilization.
\_ yeah, that's why you never see
graven images around here.
(You have no clue.) -tom
\_ They are no part of it. Western
civilization goes back to the
Greeks and Romans. They somehow
managed to get things done without
those commandments.
\_ Where's ilyas to tell us they had
"Christian values"?
\_ Please cite examples of anyone trying
to force the 10 commandments into law.
I've never heard of anyone trying to put
1-5,10 into modern law. 6,8, and 9, ARE in
modern law (for good reason). The only
case I can see an argument on is 7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
\_ I'm trying to track exactly who first said
"forcing", oh right. That was you.
\_ I responded to "their duty to /make sure/ you
believe..." -- sounds like forcing to me.
-emarkp
\_ IMO, there's a problem when "sharing and
urging" drifts into "legislating" and
"religiously motivated legislation". At
that point, religion becomes intrusive and
not very respectful of rights and differing
belief systems. -mice (!pp)
\_ I have yet to see that drift, with the
possible exception of ID. -emarkp
\_ How about Reagan's Secretary of the
Interior, whose policies were based
around the idea that we didn't need
to protect the environment because
the rapture was coming. Delusions
endorsed by religion _are_ dangerous
to political policy.
\_ According to him, that's not true.
See http://csua.org/u/eba
-emarkp
\_ "'Voice of God' revealed to be
Cheney on the oval office
intercom"
\_ You don't think a belief that invading
Iraq is a realization of passages
from Revelations played into the
extreme right-wing agenda for the
middle-east?
\_ Nope. -emarkp
\_ Christians to this day persecute and harass gays.
Until very recently, gays were imprisoned for
being gay. This is religious persecution.
\_ emarkp. just a friendly reminder that Muslim only
turned radical when we created Israel. Don't tell
me our unlaterial, unconditional support of Israel
has nothing to do with religion. In this regard,
radical islamic movement is a result, not cause of
US/UK policies.
\_ whoa! someone desperately needs a history of islam
book for christmas!
\_ I disagree with your assessment of history. Radical
(kill all who disagree) Islam has existed for over
1000 years. -emarkp
\_ i.e. half as long as Radical (kill all who disagree)
Christianity.
\_ i.e. half as long as Radical (kill all who
disagree) Christianity.
\_ Most of Christianity has become civilized
in the last century or so.
\_ ^century^800 years
\_ When did the 30 years war end?
\_ Germany was a Christian nation during WW2
\_ So were America and UK. OTOH Hitler
preferred Nordic tribal religions.
\_ Nah, they have been violent since the foundation
of Islam. They just didn't bother the US until
we started meddling in their business.
we started meddling in their business. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1536289/posts -jblack |
| 2005/12/13 [Reference/Religion] UID:41006 Activity:nil 80%like:40968 |
12/11 Ok, I got a kick out of this. Potter and Aslan:
http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20051212sticks.png
\_ http://www.robandelliot.cycomics.com/archive.php?id=180
\_ the really jacked up part is that local Christian group
here in Taiwan is boycotting Harry Potter for this reason,
they are arguing that film like this (and Lord of the Ring)
promote evil.
\_ Hmm ... I haven't heard of any Christian organization
opposing Lord of the Rings. This is probably because
Tolkien is a good friend of C.S. Lewis who wrote "Mere
Christianity", the Narnia books, and many others.
\_ Tolkien wasn't just a friend of Lewis, he was a very
devot catholic himself.
\- i may have put this on the motd before, but here it is
again. the first paragraph is pretty funny. --psb
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n22/turn03_.html |
| 2005/12/12-14 [Reference/Religion] UID:40975 Activity:nil |
12/12 Members of the Religion of Peace helping to keep the peace. Kudos from
a Christian: http://csua.org/u/e9s |
| 2005/12/12-14 [Reference/Religion] UID:40968 Activity:high 80%like:41006 |
12/11 Ok, I got a kick out of this. Potter and Aslan:
http://www.shortpacked.com
(for the logs: )
http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20051212sticks.png
\_ heh, nice. Thanks for posting. -mice
\_ You = dumb
\_ I thought it was funny. -emarkp
\_ http://www.robandelliot.cycomics.com/archive.php?id=180
\_ the really jacked up part is that local Christian group
here in Taiwan is boycotting Harry Potter for this reason,
they are arguing that film like this (and Lord of the Ring)
promote evil.
\_ Hmm ... I haven't heard of any Christian organization
opposing Lord of the Rings. This is probably because
Tolkien is a good friend of C.S. Lewis who wrote "Mere
Christianity", the Narnia books, and many others.
\_ Tolkien wasn't just a friend of Lewis, he was a very
devoted catholic himself.
devot catholic himself.
\- i may have put this on the motd before, but here it is
again. the first paragraph is pretty funny. --psb
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n22/turn03_.html |
| 2005/12/8-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:40923 Activity:very high |
12/7 Iran sympathizes the Nazis.
http://csua.org/u/e7z (Yahoo! News)
"Official Iranian media frequently carry sympathetic interviews with
Holocaust revisionist historians -- who attempt to establish that the
number of Jews killed by the Nazis was wildly exaggerated."
\_ I just want to point out that if Godwin's law weren't bullshit,
this thread would already be dead.
\_ That is not fair. A lot of people were sympathetic with Nazi for a
very simple reason: a lot of people has suffered greatly under
British imperial rule. Nazi being enemy of Britian, many people
are sympathetic toward them as result. Moral of story: there is
a history before WW-2.
\_ This has nothing to do with "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
This has everything to do with agreeing with people saying "oh,
wiping out xyz wasn't so bad." -John
\_ That's pretty bizarre. Why wouldn't they be interviewing the people
who brag that they killed lots of Jews? Isn't Jew-killing a good
thing to most Arab nations?
\_ But that would confirm that Jew are victims, which would lead to
"Jews deserve more", which is a bad thing to Arab nations. I
think "Jews screaming 'victims' to deceive world" is a better
thing to most Arab nations.
\_ Remember, to Muslim Arabs, Jews don't count. Deaths of jewish
children don't even register. So maybe 6 million Jews were
killed, but they're not really people, so....
\_ you have no sense of history. Jews traditionaly seek
refuge in Arab countries because Arabs were much more
tolerante of Jews than Christian Europeans. This is why
you find Jewish temple in Bagdad.
\_ Not because any of the caliphates or their client states
had any particular love for jews or christians -- they
were just more pragmatic about tolerating certain groups
of infidels and not whacking them out of principle. -John
\_ You have no sense of the present. Muslim Arabs blame
everything on the Jews today, and extremists like Iran's
president don't think twice about killing Jews.
\_ I think he knew that. No one replied because it was
a troll.
\_ Dude, there's no Jewish temple in Baghdad. There's a
synagog...
\_ How do you know it wasn't exagerrated?
\_ Because if you knew anything about it, you'd know the Nazis kept
meticulous records about all of it. Thank you for playing.
\_ Not really. Not about x people gassed etc. I've looked into
this some. If you look at estimates they vary quite a bit, and
have changed over time, even from sympathetic sources so it's
nothing new. Where would you put the number?
\_ Quite really. Where would your sources put the number?
And frankly, does it matter exactly how many millions once
you get into counting millions anyway? It's stupid to
attempt to say that whatever the number was it was too low
to be important which is what the Iranians and others are
trying to claim for their own political motives, not
because they have an academic interest in WWII era history.
\_ I was going to put something here but you said it. It
does not matter if it's 6 million or 6.5 million. It's
a shitload according to all but the most determined
revisionist sources with an agenda. -John
\_ Well I'm not attempting to say that. And that's not what
was mentioned by the op's blurb. Is there a difference
between 2 and 6 mil? I think it is relevant to study
the actual circumstances because it helps understand
how it happened. Ok yeah the Iranians have an agenda
here. I'm not arguing about that. But actually
sympathizing with revisionist historians is not
identical to sympathizing with Nazis. Shrug.
\_ most revisionist historians are nazi white
supremacist shitheads. |
| 2005/12/6-7 [Reference/Religion, Recreation/Humor] UID:40872 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto |
12/6 http://shockingfun.zoovy.com/product/POOPOOSNOWMAN And Christians get upset about a "holiday tree"? God I love capitalism! |
| 2005/12/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Religion] UID:40847 Activity:nil 72%like:40834 |
12/2 The Womyn of the Democratic Party Calendar
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1533214/posts?page=15#15 |
| 2005/12/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Religion] UID:40834 Activity:nil 80%like:40829 72%like:40847 |
12/2 The Womyn of the Democrat Party Calendar
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1533214/posts?page=15#15 -jblack |
| 2005/12/3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Reference/Religion] UID:40829 Activity:nil 80%like:40834 |
12/2 The Womyn of the Democrat Party Calendar
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1533214/posts?page=15#15 -jblack |
| 2005/12/1-4 [Reference/Religion] UID:40798 Activity:high |
12/1 "Theologians to ask Pope to suspend limbo?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051130/od_nm/pope_limbo_dc
Once again in history, the Church is changing the unchangable truth.
\_ Well, it beats the Protestant answer.
\_ Which is? Thx.
\_ It depends on how fundie you go. Hardcore: If you don't
believe, go to directly to Hell. Do not pass GO! Includes
dead babies, everyone born after Christ who isn't a
a Christian. Liberal: Hell is just a state of mind. Eternal
punishment is not the work of a just god. Average: Live
as a "good" person, you're in. Babies get in free. Get
free upgrades if you're Christian, bonus points for picking
the right sect.
as a "good" person, you're in. Babies get in free.
\_ I had this chat with a fundie coworker. Earth is 6000
years old, everyone who hasn't accepted Jesus into their
heart/doesn't have a personal relationship with Christ is
going to Hell, etc. I didn't ask about dead babies, but
definitely post-Christ non-Christians -> Hell. He couldn't
answer for pre-Christ people which is what I really wanted
to hear about because he simply didn't know church
doctrine that well, which surprised me a bit.
\_ Google for "answers in genesis". -John
\_ Most take the line that those who believe in the One
True God before Christ were given the choice to believe
in Christ either before going to heaven or while in
heaven. Those who didn't, took the quick trip to Hell.
\_ I think if I got run over by some pro-goat zealot
and was standing at the pearly gates and had to
decide if this whole Christ thing was working for
me or not, it wouldn't be a hard call.
\_ Maybe. The New Testament was a massive religious
re-org for the thing now called Christianity.
\_ You're assuming you'd know that it was Christ
asking you. What if there was some long
period of time before judgement where things
are pretty much the same as here, with the
same religious confusion? How could you tell
who was right between the muslim and fundie
missionaries? The Hindis might tell you this
is the waiting room to reincarnation!
\_ Well maybe that's what this world is. Maybe
the moon is made of cheese! And goats! And
little grey men making goat and cheese soup!
Maybe they are the true creators and we are
all just soup ingredients! You're assuming
the Christians, Muslims, Hindis or anyone
else is more likely correct than the FSM people
or those of us who believe in the Great Ladle!
\_ Wow, that was an easy discussion to win.
\_ It was? You look mocked. Sinner, you're
going to Hell!
\_ Not surprising. Most Americans don't think about their
religion that hard either due to ignorance or by design.
Ah, faith.
\_ Most /people/ don't think about /anything they
believe/ irrespective of topic. -emarkp
\_ Ah, but /goats/...now that's a different story. ;P
\_ Yep. Not surprising at all... I've often tried
talking to Christians about the history of
Christianity and they usually are clueless. One might
think that this religion they base their entire faith
in as the ultimate answer in the universe and base
behavior on would be important enough to want to
learn as much as they possibly could about it. But
no. Isn't it a coincidence that almost all the
Muslims happen to be children of Muslims? Christians
the children of Christians? This is pretty much proof
that religions are just a cultural indoctrination and
it's all a load of goat shit.
\_ Goats seem to be playing an amazingly important
role in this thread.
\_ Again, you could say that about just about any
topic. To be fair, most Christians are interested
in living their daily lives according to the
values of Christianity, and don't have an interest
in the history (though I find it fascinating).
-emarkp
\_ Not really. Like what other topic? There isn't
anything else quite like religion. There may be
various health-related info I guess that could
compare, like people sort of accept doctor
advice without researching the history of
biology. However, I still think it doesn't
compare because the consequences of accepting
this info is really minor. People aren't
getting offended and starting wars about
health advice, and the possibility of error and
change is always acknowledged.
But whatever. I'm curious: what explanation
could most Christians give for why God leaves
such a confusing mess of information on which
to base one's faith? If one can go to hell
based on believing the wrong group then how
does that make any sense? And if not, and all
the "good" people will be fine, then why not
acknowledge that explicitly?
\_ The answer is, of course, that man is not
perfect. The sourcebook of Christian faith
is the Bible, "the Word of God" as presented
by men. The core of your question relies on
your faith in on how accurately men wrote
down the bible, translated it, and interpret
its stories now. The true believer relies on
faith in the Christian god in the face of
doubt. A bible of pure exactitude would be
an anathema of faith and lead you use it as
a crutch as opposed to an inspiration and
guide to what a Christian life is. Or
something like that.
\_ It could be absolutely clear what it
means, and I could disbelieve. So
obfuscation isn't necessary for faith.
Most Christian authorities I'm aware of
are far more demanding than what some
"liberal" Christians try to say (getting
touchy-feely and de-emphasizing church
doctrines).
\_ God looks at the heart rather than
outward appearance. The Pharisees
kept the laws, some of it at least,
but were rotten to the core. When
the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus
by asking him whether people should
pay taxes to Caesar, Jesus said,
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's,
and to God, what is God's." What
exactly does Jesus mean, and would
exactly does Jesus mean? Would
you consider that as obfuscation?
\_ Nobody knows exactly what he
might mean. But nobody even knows
if he really said that, which is
the more important issue. Who
wrote that story? (in any case
I feel you are missing my broader
point. My point extends beyond
Christian internals.)
point, probably intentionally.
my point extends beyond Christian
internals.)
\_ Jesus is simple.
You need to recognize and acknowledge that
you are a sinner. And you need to be
reconciled with God through Christ.
Then you need to love others as you love
yourself, and also make disciples of all
nations.
\_ That's not what I asked.
\_ You said it is a "confusing mess".
It isn't.
\_ There are 7+ major world religions
and each one has major subgroups
who claim to be important and
historically fight each other.
I'm not personally confused. But
obviously people don't know what
to believe. Or rather they all
believe different stuff. Besides
whether to believe Christianity
as written in a certain version of
the Bible, there are subgroups such
as the Mormons. Any of the major
beliefs are "reasonable". It sounds
like you are saying that all of the
various Christian denominations are
irrelevant (is that their official
position?) You also appear to think
any non-Christian belief is not
reasonable which is absurd. And if
they are reasonable why would God
allow this unless it doesn't matter
in which case Christ is irrelevant.
---------------------\
You ask many good questions, and I have asked these
questions myself. One thing I disagree with is when
you asked "Why will God allow this?" Will you also
question why God would allow for instance, Communism,
which I might point out, many idealistic people
passionately believed in? Here is a link on "What
if they haven't heard?":
http://tinyurl.com/c2bsw
\_ "allow"... I mean basically that e.g.
even Christians have a hard time
figuring out exactly what stuff means
in the Bible, the authority of various
people like the Pope, etc., the veracity
of "younger" faiths like Islam or Mormons,
so it would appear God didn't do a good
job about giving us "the word".
\_ Not really. Only Catholics listen
to the Pope and Christians do not
consider Islam or LDS to be part
of their faith. Yes, LDS considers
themselves Christian, but no one
else does.
\_ I do. You're all the same to me.
\_ You're just misinformed.
\_ Your internal doctrinal
disputes about Jesus vs the
Trinity, Mary, Smith and
other details are unimportant.
Your core beliefs in God,
Satan, Heaven, Hell, etc are
the same. As a non-christian
of any sort you all look the
same to me even if your
trivial internal differences
make you feel very different
from a Christian who prefers
a different set of doctrine.
\_ The differences between
these are far more than
simple doctrinal
differences. You are
misinformed if you think
otherwise.
\_ Until you add something
more than "you are
wrong", you still look
the same to me. A
baptist=catholic=mormon=
methodist=whatever from
out here in non-christ
land. I'm looking at
the forest, not a
branch on one tree.
\_ All of the above
are denominations
and are basically
the same, EXCEPT
Mormons. Earlier
you mentioned Islam,
too, which shows you
have very little
clue. We're not
discussing Catholics
vs. Episcopalians.
See? There you go trying to say one denominations, Mormons, are _/
somehow magically different than other denominations. I never said
anything about Islam in this thread so don't try to use that to show
my clue level. I *very* clearly said, as a non-christian, all you
christian types look alike to me. Yes, even the Mormons. If you'd
like to explain how exactly you're different from the Mormons,
Catholics, Baptists, or anyone else, you're welcome to, but all you've
had to say so far is, "you're clueless!@!@!111" which is not adding
value to the discussion. Details and specifics or go away. If you
don't know enough your own or the other denominations to say how
don't know enough of your own or the other denominations to say how
they're different then it is you who is clueless.
\_ Mormons are *NOT* a denomination of the Christian Church. Period.
If you want to know why, do your own research. If you want to
remain clueless then continue to do so. If you didn't mention
Islam, then someone else did. Mormons are as different from
Christians as Jews or Muslims are from Christians. Yes, there
are some of the same elements but the religions are quite
distinct if you know anything about them.
\_ Someone else mentioned Islam, not me. Deal with them on that.
As far as the Mormons or whoever, I have done research and
discussed it with my fundie baptist friend, my mormon friend
and did some reading online. I don't know or care what you
are but Mormon=Christian=Baptist=Catholic=whatever to me.
You *still* have added absolutely nothing to this. I don't
think you know the first thing about the Mormons or likely
any other religion including your own. You haven't even
gotten up to the level of "yes I am, no you're not!" yet. Add
some facts or just give up and go away. Yes, I know you're a
Cal student and *reaaaaaalllly* smart so you don't have to
explain yourself to lesser mortals like uhm, other people from
Cal. Yeah.... You can't even explain how you're different
from the Mormons you seem to despise so much yet you'll take
the time to say over and over again how clueless I am. Silly.
\_ I mentioned Islam for a reason which you still don't understand
and I don't feel like doing this today. But it was interesting.
\_ I understand completely. You're an underinformed idiot.
\_ Perhaps I can use the belief in
democracy (or liberty) as an
analogy. Two persons may both
believe in democracy but they may
disagree with how a democratic
government should be implemented.
You may a
\_ Either this implementation is
relevant/important from a spiritual
point of view (point of view of God)
or it isn't. Traditionally the
Church is vital to Christianity
and heretics were damned. Your
attempts to avoid the issue don't
really work.
\_ The church is a group of
Christians worshipping God
together. God looks at the
heart, not the form.
\_ That would be, if the "God"
that you personally envision
actually existed. He
doesn't. You have even less
"evidence" than the fundies;
at least they have a book
they can claim represents
"truth." -tom
\_ actually, everything I
said is by the book.
\_ according to your lib.
interpretation.
\_ Try reading it.
Start with the Gospels, Psalm
and Isaiah.
and Isaiah. Isaiah 58 (on
fasting) could be a start. You
can use http://www.biblegateway.com
\_ Health care, food, politics (just look at
the Balkans, India/Pakistan, etc.). I'm not
most Christians, but most of the ones I've
talked to haven't thought much about people
other than themselves and the people they
know directly, and so haven't confronted the
"ignorant == damned" problem. Most people
who do some sort of missionary work face it
and resolve it somehow. My theology (LDS)
explicitly points out that we're not damned
for ignorance. Your eternal state depends
on what you choose given what you know.
-emarkp
\_ Nobody "knows". That's the point. Do you
find it easy to convert other Christians
to Mormonism? Why should this be?
\_ For whatever reason, it is certainly
working. Last I knew, the Mormons
were still the fastest growing
religion in the world for the last
umpteen years. Other than FSM and
Soupism, of course.
\_ I wouldn't be too surprised based
on the missionary work that Mormons
do probably more than most. But are
they really growing more than the
birth rate of say Muslims?
\_ So where did the 50 million Christians in the PRC
come from? Or the 20 million in S.Korea?
\_ Proselytized. Insignificant to my point.
\_ why don't you just pick up the bible and read the gospels.
\_ I'll assume your indenting is off rather than answer.
\_ didn't South Park say that the Mormons got it right?
\_ Dum dum dum dum dum.
\_ So, Limbo is in limbo?
\_ The easy part is changing it. The hard part is spinning the
change in such a way that the teeming masses won't wise up to
the fact that they are just making it up as they go along. |
| 2005/11/18-21 [Reference/Religion] UID:40653 Activity:nil |
11/18 Vatican comes out against ID:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution
\_ You expect US fundamentalists to listen to a Jesuit astronomer?
Don't fundamentalists hold Catholics in about the same regard as
they do Satanists?
\_ Remember, Atheists worship Satan. I'm pretty sure Pat Robertson
said so.
\_ No, Atheists aren't citizens of the U.S. George Bush Sr. said
so. (No, really)
\_ See, some day someone will find incontrovertible proof that God
cannot exist or act in any form remotely similar to the God of the
Bible. On that day, Catholicism will have diluted itself to the
point where it can say "eh? what? oh, we're just a social and
cultural organization... we've always been. God is within us, but
that's just a philosophy!" |
| 2005/11/15 [Reference/Religion] UID:40594 Activity:nil |
11/15 Here's one for all you Christian haters out there:
http://csua.org/u/e0k
"Religious teen" shoots girlfriend's parents in the head an runs
off with her. |
| 2005/11/14-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Religion] UID:40573 Activity:moderate |
11/14 trick to weed out radical muslims in bay area..
what if someone just rips apart the koran in front
of a mosque... would that bring out the outrage and rioting
from radical muslims in the bay area or will this person
be put in prison for a hate crime?
\_ If you did the same thing with a bible in front of a
church, you'll get a lot of protest but I don't think
you will out anyone radical.
\- the logging motd is actually a trick to get idiots
to reveal themselves.
\_ i am not a radical muslim, but i would consider beating the
shit out of you for being an idiot.
\_ If I saw you beating the shit out of OP for ripping up a koran,
I'd jump in and beat the shit out of you. So now you know how
to bring radical atheists who believe in freedom of speech out
in the open. Oh yeah, I almost forgot--fuck you!
\_ I'd help OP beat the shit out of you, just for shits and
giggles and because it's the cool thing to do. -John
\_ I can take any three of you with my knife, which is
*always* at the ready. I'm suprised you would side with the
jesus-nazis.
\_ I think you have become confused. In the hypothetical
brawl, I'm on the same side as OP. I'll side with pretty
much anyone who pisses off a Christian or a Muslim. I'm
guessing mr. "beat the shit out of" is a Christian.
\_ Oh, I lost track of who was for or against what a few
posts ago. I just think it would be fun to get in a
fight with a bunch of morons beating on each other
while yelling religious profanities. -John
\_ sure you're not....
\_ and you would go to prison.
\_ Not necessarily, actually. If you provoke someone into
fighting you, the cops may actually opt to give the other
a fight, the cops may actually opt to give the other
guy a lesser charge or perhaps charge you both with something.
\_ Don't be an idiot. I can destroy a Koran if I like as an
expression of freedom of speech. -mrauser
expression of freedom of speech. -mrauser, noted
constitutional scholar.
\_ I'm not being an idiot -- you're not understanding my
point (which is perhaps my fault for being vague). Just
because you didn't throw the first punch doesn't mean
can't and won't be held accountable for your
you can't and won't be held accountable for your
participation in a physical altercation. I'll readily
acknowledge that this is OT, though - since the OP has
has made it clear that his intention is to 'rip up a
koran and magically summon muslim terrorist 20-ft
radius' or something. Sorry for the confusion.
\- you may be interested in Beauharnais v. Illinois
and more directly relevantly Chaplinsky v. NH.
i dont remember the exact details of Terminilello
but that may be on point too. ok tnx. --psb
\_ Huh -- interesting reading. There is some mention
of 'fighting words' in the Chaplinsky case, which
is what I was attempting to point out in my above
post. If I have the time, I'd dig up the exact
California Penal codes refer deal with this case.
Thanks for posting.
post. If I have the time, I'll dig up the exact
California Penal codes which deal with this
situation. Thanks for posting.
\- just as obscenity or symbolic speech or
advocacy of illegal action or libel are
subtopics of 1st amd jurisprudence/free
speech doctrine, "fighting words" is too,
although not as important an area.
these are sort of old cases however, so it
is unclear what their current status is.
there are lots of lower ct decisions about
yelling "fuck you" or "unhand me you nazi"
or "you have a fruitcake relig" type things
but much of this is probably not settled by
the USSC.
\_ 1. Cal. Penal Code may make this a crime, but
the 1st is incorporated so state law cannot
abridge the protection provided by the 1st.
(See Duncan, 391 US 145).
\- i thought CA const had higher protections
than 1st+incorp. i believe that came up
in pruneyard v. robins. although the
particular areas of greater protection
may not be relevant to this context.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
2. The 9th Cir's Barnett (667 F2d 835) theory
(also 4th Cir in Rice, 128 F3d 233) is prob.
not applicable here IF the law directly
regulates speech.
3. Chaplinsky is probably no longer good law
b/c of Brandenburg (395 US 444), Hess (414
US 105) and Claiborne Hardware (458 US 886).
Under the current std to show that the
speech is not protected, it must be shown
that the speech was intended (subjectively)
to produce "imminent lawless conduct" and
did or was likely to produce such conduct.
Seeing as the USSC has NEVER found such
conduct (Hess made a "threat" in front of
cops, and the ppl in Claiborne Hardware
said they would beat up anyone who crossed
the picket line), ripping up a koran or
a bible infront of a mosque/church wouldn't
qualify.
\_ I agree with your interpretation of speech
here but respectfully submit that the action
proposed is much more significant. That
said, perhaps still not enough to warrant
revocation of protection. Would love to
see a case where a flag burner was assaulted
for more relevant comparison.
4. I am not sure who the bigger idiot is here;
the person who wants to rip up the koran,
or the person who thinks that the free
exercise of one's 1st amend. right must be
deterred w/ physical violence. If your ideas
are superior to this fool's ideas, they why
don't you compete w/ him and win in the
marketplace of ideas?
[ Perhaps I am the biggest idiot of all for
even responding ]
\_ It sounds like you have no clue what a 'radical muslim' is.
I don't think picking a fight with a guy proves anything
other than how stupid and misguided you are. sorry.
\_ "... but I would consider beating the shit out of
you..." would result in you going to prison. What part
of that don't you understand?
\_ The part where that proves he's a 'radical muslim'.
\_ It sounds antagonistic for no particular reason. If the best way
we have to find radical muslim terrorists is making an art show out
of ripping up a Koran, we're doomed and should just start praying
east 3 times a day and save the hassle.
\_ Who's your favorite prayer carpet vendor?
\_ Omar's Carpetorium down on 8th street. He's working on his
website but you can just go down there.
\_ Wouldn't it be easier just to setup a suicide bomber recruitment
center and arrest those who are willing to strap bombs to
themselves?
\_ Arrest them? There's a simpler solution.
\_ One might even say a 'Final Solution'? |
| 2005/10/29-31 [Reference/Religion] UID:40337 Activity:nil |
10/29 Marshall Brain vs. God.
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god1.htm
\_ god doesn't regenerate amputated limbs, but he does help with
artificial limb research. so there.
\_ that's actually addressed |
| 2005/10/28 [Reference/Religion] UID:40311 Activity:nil |
10/17 More people killed by natural disasters in non-Christian countries.
http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Earthquake.htm |
| 2005/10/20-22 [Reference/Religion] UID:40197 Activity:nil |
10/20 Why we need to increase the number of Arab students (and encourage
more of our students to go to Arab countries)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051020/cm_usatoday/seeingusaaltershistory
\_ Why did the Soviets send Yakovlev to study in the US at the time
when both the Soviet govt and Yakovlev were anti-US? |
| 2005/10/20-22 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Reference/Religion] UID:40196 Activity:nil |
10/20 Are Jews Smarter? Proof and disproof:
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/1478 |
| 2005/10/16-19 [Reference/Religion] UID:40133 Activity:nil |
10/16 The Slacker's New Bible: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5698558 |
| 2005/10/14-15 [Recreation/Media, Reference/Religion] UID:40086 Activity:nil |
10/14 I can't make this stuff up: http://tinyurl.com/bmrfj Arab version of Simpsons (Homer Simpson -> Omar Shamshoon) not as funny as the original. |
| 2005/10/14 [Reference/Religion] UID:40084 Activity:high |
10/14 Question for MOTD Lawyers [not related to CSUA stuff]:
Say I were to start a legal [so not legally obscene] ass p0rn
site. Clearly, I would not be allowed to say "brought to you
by IBM". However, could I say, "this site endorsed by The
Catholic Church"? What about just "The Church" or "by Rome"?
If not allowed, who has standing to sue me? Anybody who is
offended? Any Catholic? Any Church bishop or higher? What about
"this site endorsed by Protestants" or "by Hindu priests".
Let's rule out any kind of parody or political point/art type
defenses.
\_ What does Rome have to do with the Church's authority?
And, btw, if you're trying to make a joke with it, try
to be funny.
\_ 2 sec answer (assuming you are serious, which you prob.
aren't):
1. "The Catholic Church" - sounds like misrep and defmation
to me, and they might even be able to show NY Times
malice. The Church itself would have to sue.
2. "The Church" - this is harder b/c there are so many
churches who claim to be "The Church." Best is if
you find a "church" that backs you up or you make your
own church, say "The Church of Pr0n."
3. "Rome" - the municipality may have standing in fed.
ct to sue you for misrep and defamation. Note that
the Vatican, a separate city, may not have standing.
4. "Protestants" - Find two protestants who will give
endorsements and you should be okay.
5. "Hindu Priests" - same as protestants. Though it
will be harder to find hindu priests who will support
you. Personally I'd change it to hindus and find two
hindus to support you and you should be okay. BTW,
we hindus think that everyone is a hindu regardless
of how you classify yourself, so all you need is one
person other than yourself. Furthermore, there is no
authoritative version of hinduism so if you adopt the
view that everyone is a hindu regardless of their
professed religion, there isn't a good argument against
that.
\_ Can you say "brought to you by IBM" if you're on IBM hardware?
I imagine you can say "brought to you on IBM hardware", and
that's almost as good for the unwashed masses.
\_ Actually, in order to use their name (IBM), you
will likely need their permission.
\_ What about "this site runs on an IBM Pornserver model 69"
or something like that? -John
\_ If it is on the main page and is prominently
featured, I think they have a false light
claim and probably some sort of misappropri-
ation claim. If just have it on some other
page and its not really that prominent, you
are probably okay. |
| 2005/10/12-13 [Reference/Religion] UID:40055 Activity:nil |
10/12 The full translated text of Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri's
letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:
http://www.centcom.mil/english_version.htm
(http://www.centcom.mil/extremistssay.asp |
| 2005/10/6-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:40004 Activity:nil |
10/7 Score one for religious freedom -- Ancient mandean religion on verge
of extinction in Iraq thanks to post-invasian chaos.
http://tinyurl.com/79n52 (forgot URL last time) |
| 2005/10/6-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:39999 Activity:nil |
10/6 "nobody seriously thinks what happened in Bali has anything to do with
Iraq. There are, in the end, no root causes, or anyway not ones that
can be negotiated by troop withdrawals or a Palestinian state. There is
only a metastasising cancer that preys on whatever local conditions are
to hand. Five days before the slaughter in Bali, nine Islamists were
arrested in Paris for reportedly plotting to attack the Metro. Must be
all those French troops in Iraq, right?"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16801982%255E7583,00.html
\_ I agree with everything he sais about Islam, but the claim that
Christianity is not also guilty of this mentality is absurd.
American religious right leaders have publicly stated exactly the
same objectives as these islamists. They may not have have power
right now, but they're still just as much a threat to the survival
of our civilization. No one should ever forget that Jerry Falwell
sided with the terrorists on 9/11, and that he continued to be a
VIP guest at the Bush whitehouse after that time.
\_ Oh for crying out loud, not this again. Falwell did /not/ side
with the terrorists. If you want to debate that point yet again,
start a thread, but your revisionist history is pathetic. And
sign your name. -emarkp
\_ You're both right/wrong: http://csua.org/u/dna
\_ Um, no. Your link doesn't say that Falwell sided with the
terrorists. I'm aware of the content your link has, which
is why I know that Falwell didn't side with the terrorists.
How am I wrong on this? -emarkp
\_ Because you're bothering to argue with an obviously
inflammatory remark. --erikred
\_ You're both right/wrong:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm
\_ Yeah, Christians haven't done a large scale massacre of members
of a different religion for almost 10 years. Why can't those
Islamists be more like that?
\_ Are you refering to Bosnia? I think if it's Christians v
Muslims it still fits the framework. It's not that all
the other parties are totally innocent, just that it seems
to be much more universal with Muslims.
\_ And the US helped the Muslims there against the Christinas.
Of course the Muslim world don't want to remember this.
\_ Nor did we ever want to mention that they were Muslim.
We called them "Albanians" and "Serbs". Not "Islamists"
and "Christianistas"
\_ And white Christians were doing the killing so it can't
REALLY be about religion. Must be nationalistic. Yeah...
\_ And white Christians were doing the killing so it
can't REALLY be about religion. Must be nationalistic.
Yeah...
\_ What's wrong with that? Are you saying that if we were
helping Muslims without calling them Muslims, we were
not helping Muslims; while if we are attacking Muslims
without calling them Muslims, we are still attacking
Muslims? This is double standard.
\_ Er, no, I'm not saying that. I'm suggesting that
the word choices are interesting. good muslim ==
"albanians" imo because "muslim" has a negative
connotation with a large portion of the american
public.
of our civilization.
We called them "Albanians" |
| 2005/10/3-5 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java, Reference/Religion] UID:39968 Activity:nil |
10/3 Even in jest, you probably shouldn't threaten to burn your prof at
the stake.
http://90percenttrue.com/index.php?p=41
\_ Cody Cobb : humor :: Condi : Iraq WMDs |
| 2005/9/27-28 [Reference/Religion] UID:39892 Activity:low |
9/27 Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
http://tinyurl.com/buhsw
\_ I'm not fan of creationism or organized religion, but this study
sounds pretty damn dubious.
\_ can they break it down by State and see the red/blue state stats?
\_ Um, I think they really need to break it down to "religious
people" vs. "non-religious people". CA has a lot of religious
people.
\_ The irony of this is that this "study" sounds about as scientific
as the concept of creationism... |
| 2005/9/19-21 [Science/GlobalWarming, Reference/Religion] UID:39751 Activity:nil 77%like:39736 |
9/17 Interesting article re the Dolly Llama's take the relationship btwn
\_ Dalai Lama, maybe?
\_ Someone keeps changing it.
Science and Religion:
http://www.nysun.com/article/19969?access=278096 |
| 2005/9/17-19 [Science/GlobalWarming, Reference/Religion] UID:39736 Activity:nil 77%like:39751 |
9/17 Interesting article re the Dalia Lama's take the relationship btwn
Science and Religion:
http://www.nysun.com/article/19969?access=278096 |
| 2005/9/14-17 [Reference/Religion] UID:39679 Activity:low |
9/14 Here we go again: (Pledge Is Unconstitutional)
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK6SOO2.html
\_ I feel a bit nostalgic for those lazy carefree days when people's
passion might have been aroused by this question. Now, between
passion might have been aroused by this question. Now, after
Iraq and Katrina, doesn't it seem self-indulgent and just a bit
silly to argue over the pledge?
\_ Here is one thing I don't understand. Now that the cold war
is over, shouldn't we just remove the word "under god" from the
Pledge hence remove any controversies? Afterall, we've
pledge without "under god" for hundred+ years.
\_ No because we are nation founded on Christianity ... If
you say that often enough like a robot it becomes true.
\_ Check your timeline. The pledge was written by a Christian
Socialist who had been forced out of his ministry for his
politics. He wrote it in 1892. The "under God" line was added
in 1954.
\_ So 60 years max without God, 50 or so with God.
\_ that is my point. If we can do it without, then,
why don't we just leave it out? If "under god" is so
imporant, why the pledge left it out at first place?
\_ haha, good riddance to a stupid elementary school morning ritual
\_ An atheist had a good point ... If the pledge was "under no God"
instead of "under God" there would be lots of noise from the
religious right.
or "under a nonexistent God" instead of "under God" there would
be lots of noise from the religious right -- I doubt they would
just say "what's the big deal"
\_ that guy is cool. He presented his case by himself at front
of Supreme Court! |
| 2005/8/27-28 [Reference/Religion] UID:39310 Activity:nil |
8/27 Poll. c=caucasian, a=asian, j=jews, b=black, X=christian,
m=muslim, A=arab, Aj for arab jew, .=anonymous, what do you
think the effect of Gaza and West Bank pullout will be:
more peace: c
more conflict because Pallies are now
emboldened and want more: .
same: .
\- i think the palestianian leadership conducted themselves
faily poorly during the pull out. they would have looked a
lot more civilized if they had issued a statement along the
lines of "as persons deprived of our right to our land ourselves
we udnerstand what a visceral issue this is for the settlers and
the state of israel [ok maybe you cant say that] and even thought
it is mandatory to move forward to restore our patrimony, we
recogize this is a traumatic time" etc. --no supporter of israel
\_ You know, there might be a reason the Palestinians didn't issue
a statement that would make them appear a lot more civilized.
-- ilyas
\_ I guess it depends on how you define peace. I think that Hamas
has certainly been emboldened and wants more. They have
clearly stated as much publicly. On the other hand, the
internal Palestinians strife is escalating, which could lead to
real civil war. I think the Isrealis will see more peace
simply because they are now totally seperated from the
Palestinians and the Palestinians have now lost they main
methods of attack. The Isrealis can simply put up their wall
and say, "screw you Palestine." |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Religion] UID:39282 Activity:nil |
8/25 Former Creed lead singer engaging in decidedly un-Christian activity:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomluv/13923.html
Photographic evidence:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56197582@N00
\_ Wow, this is just fucked up in a lame kind of way. |
| 2005/8/18-22 [Reference/Religion] UID:39166 Activity:low |
8/18 More students take religious and political studies, up 9.8%
Take that you intolerant liberals!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4160594.stm
\_ Huh? It doesn't say Christian Studies. Religious studies
sounds more like "World Religions" type stuff. Traditionally
very liberal.
\_ Are you forgetting that conservatives on soda like to mis-
represent facts to suit their needs?
represent facts to suit their needs? For example, when an
article on evolution which mentions X is referenced, those sodan
would go to great lengths to essentially say "The article
concludes Y from X. Since it's bad science to conclude Y from X,
evolution is flawed.", while in reality the article never
concludes Y, let alone concluding Y from X.
\_ Pot. Kettle. Black.
\_ Religious and political studies are liberal.
\_ Way to go USA! Because having more PolSci and Religious studies
majors will certainly give us a strong competitive advantage
over East Asia and the rest of the world.
\_ dude, religious studies is totally full of hot babes.
\_ Babes, maybe. Hot, I dunno. Wouldn't they be frigid babes?
\_ I think you're confusing the Wymyn's Studies chicks with
\_ I think you're confusing the Womyn's Studies chicks with
with the Religious/Political Studies chicks. |
| 2005/8/14-15 [Reference/Religion] UID:39119 Activity:low |
8/14 Now for something totally frivolous. I was reading about the
Knights Templar and how they were betrayed and murdered by
the Pope and Philip the Fair and I thought wow that sounds
a lot like Eps. 3 (Pope == Emperor, Philip == Vader). Anyone
else see a parallel btwn the Jedi and the Knights Templar?
\_ The were in general persecuted for sodomy. Didn't catch that
overtone in Ep. 3... but maybe I didn't look hard enough.
\_ http://wso.williams.edu/~rfoxwell/starwars/SWPants.htm -John
\- the analogy to philip le bel doesnt work. if you are interested
in in this period, you may wish to read Les Rois Maudits, a
7 book series by Maurice Druon, which is probably the best
historical fic. series I have read. n.b. unless you read French,
it may be a little hard to find in english [ucb lib has it].--psb |
| 2005/8/11-15 [Reference/Religion] UID:39098 Activity:nil |
8/11 http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050811_scientists_god.html Do you NOT believe in God? 10% Americans at large (90% believe) 24% Doctors (76% believe) 31% Faculty members at top research universities (social sciences) 38% Faculty members at top research universities (natural sciences) \_ Why is this so interesting? I mean, yeah -- this country was founded around heavy Christian underpinnings (cf Pilgrims, etc) -- so why would it be a jaw dropper to learn that many Americans believe in god (on some form or another)....? \_ Erm, you read the results wrong. 31% "do not", 38% "do not". I don't understand why "The opposite had been expected".. Oh, perhaps because they're comparing "biologists" and "political scientists"... What a bogglingly stupid article. \_ Oops, corrected Anyway, the "opposite had been expected" is regarding: "Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said. What happened was: (1) Ooh, early research (not specified) shows common sense wrong! (2) Wait, new research shows common sense was right! (3) Oh, we also see that the MAJORITY of faculty members at top research universities also believe in God -- they're not all atheists! Anyways, yeah, article is confusing. \_ I'm guessing this is the same Ecklund. http://www.chestertonhouse.org/ecklundbio.html I'm also guessing, in psb-speak, she's TOO SHORT. \_ Where does the 90% number come from? \_ Harris poll 2003. Fox News says 92%. \_ Liar. The Harris poll said 79%. The same poll said 90% of Protestants (which is fucking hilarious) believe in God. \_ http://csua.org/u/d0n http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html I'm waiting for your apology \_ None will be forthcoming http://csua.org/u/d0o (harrisinteractive.com) I will retract "liar" in favor of "bad researcher" \_ http://csua.org/u/d0p (harrisinteractive.com) I still await your apology. Did it occur to you that there may have been more than one Harris poll in 2003? \_ Okay, I apologize to you, and fall back on my longstanding opinion that harris is one of the worst polling firms ever. \_ I'm not going to comment on the latter, but I will say the reason for the difference between 79% and 90% polls is that the 90% poll was binary (yes / no), and the 79% poll was (yes / not sure / no). Shrug. The best poll would be (yes / yes not sure / not sure / no not sure / no), probably / not sure / probably not / no), and it wouldn't be conducted online. \_ "The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." \_ Ever worked with Harris? \_ The not sure lack conviction. The sure have conviction. \_ "Liar" -> "bad researcher" -> "Okay, I apologize." "The worst are full of passionate intensity." \_ In three motd posts he showed me I was wrong, and I admitted it. In motd terms, that's practically impassionate. \_ That doesn't happen often on motd, man. More power to ya! \_ Is it 90% general American believing, or 90% not believing? \_ Former. \_ What do you think? \_ Forget about the ID debate. This, from the same web site, is more interesting: "Surprise! 1-in-25 Dads Not the Real Father" http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050810_whose_child.html I'd think this means the ratio of cheating women is higher than 1 in 25. Perhaps we should spend more time on tracking our wives/gfs rather than on God/no-God debate. \_ or maybe you should find out if your father is your real father. hehe. \_ But I care much less about having a cheating mom (except being proof that she's a lier) than a cheating wife. \_ The smarter you are, the less you believe in fairy tales. Does this surprise you? \_ Why does this survey ask "Do you not believe in God?" instead of "Do you believe in God?" \_ They don't give the methodology in this report. Another reason it's a STUPID article. \_ to give a false impression that the opposite is 100% - n. That's not true. 90% doesn't believe doesn't mean 10% does. There is probably some percentage of don't cares or couldn't decide. \_ to give a false impression that the opposite is 100% - n. That's not true. 90% doesn't believe doesn't mean 10% does. There is probably some percentage of don't cares or couldn't decide. [ reformatted ] \_ Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. -Seneca \_ Rulers in Communist China think it's dangerous. \_ communist think just killing them off is more easier than using religion to control the common people. |
| 2005/8/9-11 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:39074 Activity:low |
8/9 Conservative Christian group pickets military funerals:
http://csua.org/u/cz3
\_ They're not conservative Christians. They're nuts. These are the
"God hates fags" people. They protested on 9/18/2001 saying that
\_ They can be all 3.
not enough people died, and that if any rescue workers found anyone
alive they should be left to die. They're just plain nuts.
\_ Amazing. Your contortions remind me of the communists who
try to both justify Stalin and distance themselves from him
because they can't face the connection between their belief
system and pure evil. Are you going to claim that Jerry
Falwell is not a leader in the American Christian conservative
movement? Are you going to deny that the Bush whitehouse still
treats him as a friend after he came out in support of the
terrorists after 9/11? I'm not saying that all or even most
conservative christians are evil, but if you deny that there
are *some* among you who support terrorism and genocide you
are a liar and a hyporcrite.
\_ Is Jerry Falwell one of those TVangelists?
- conservative christian
\_ "And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But,
throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal
court system, throwing God out of the public square, out
of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some
burden or this because God will not be mocked. And when we
destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God
mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the
abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the
lesbians who are actively trying to make that an
alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American
Way, all of them who have tried to secularize
America, I point the finger in their face and say
'you helped this happen.'" -Falwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell
I don't care that he apologized later to cover his ass.
The man literally sided with the terrorists *right* after
9/11, and I've actually seen him on cspan as a VIP guest
at the Bush white house since then.
\_ You don't seem to understand this quote. He's not
"siding with the terrorists" here. He's saying
something which is a long tradition in Christianity,
which is that wickedness rejects the protection of God.
He didn't say the terrorism was God's will.
\_ "Don't you associate some of those above with liberals.
We don't want them on our team." -- ilyas
\_ Who are you quoting here, yourself?
\_ I am quoting Liberal Team Management. I guess it was
a little ambiguous.
\_ You do realize that was a very silly joke, right?
\_ There is this old jungle saying in Russia:
"In every joke there is a grain of a joke."
-- ilyas
\_ There is this old saying in America:
"We are here to help ilyas, because in every
russkie, there is an American trying to get
out." |
| 2005/8/3-5 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:38979 Activity:nil |
8/3 Another nutty Palestinian:
http://csua.org/u/cx5 (sfgate) |
| 2005/7/28-29 [Reference/Religion] UID:38869 Activity:nil |
7/28 http://www.reandev.com/taliban |
| 2005/7/28-29 [Reference/Religion, Recreation/Dating] UID:38861 Activity:kinda low |
7/28 Apropos of the current video games scare, can anyone else think of
past overblown hysterias about media forms or substances that were
"corrupting the youth" and "ending civilization as we know it?"
I can think of:
Marijuana
Jazz
Dancing (especially to jazz)
Comic books
Alchohol
Violence in the movies
Sex in the movies
Rock music
Long hair
Elvis and his hips (kinda goes with Rock, but special mention of this
seems appropriate)
Pre-marital sex (personally I'm still against it, but it's commonly
accepted now.)
\_ Why are you against it, if it hasn't led to the downfall of the
youth?
\_ Maybe we could have "temporary marriages" like in Muslim societies
so everyone's happy: No pre-marital sex, but you can still go
screw anyone you want (just not more than 4 at the same time)
\_ I think it only works one way in Islam - a woman can't go
and marry four men.
Contraception
\_ Abortion, Teaching Evolution
\_ I guess I was trying to pick more cut and dried cases that
aren't subject to current controversy, but I guess motd drones
can't help trying to start flamewars.
\_ How is contraception or pre-marital sex any more cut&dry than
abortion? -pp
\_ So you're equating contraception with killing babies?
\_ You know how birth control pills work, right?
\_ Do you?
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0663.html
\_ Zygote, embryo, or fetus != baby. Besides, the Catholics
still are against contraception so it's still
"controversial". By the way, if you use a condom, aren't
you preventing a new life from possibly being born? If
you hadn't used that condom the next Einstein might
have been born!
\_ Just because the Pope is a moron doesn't mean a
shitload of Catholics don't use contraception
regularly.
\_ IMO they are not actually Catholics.
\_ Have you ever told one that to their face?
\_ No, but I'd like to. Especially if they
call their pope a moron. Why call yourself
a Catholic if you selectively ignore the
teachings of the Catholic Church?
\_ The one thing this discussion is making
increasingly clear is that you are most
likely not Catholic.
\_ You are absolutely the cutest thing
EVER. Come over here, purty thang.
\_ Because those teachings are out of
touch with the reality of the vast
majority of your followers?
\_ What?
\_ I'll just call myself a Jew then.
That actual stuff they do is out
of touch with my reality.
\_ Wow. So I guess confession and forgiveness and
God's love DO have limits...
\_ Duh.. how else do you explain fags?
\_ Islam -Chris
\_ Christianity -Mohammed
\_ Islam and Christinaity were not considered predominately youth
problems.
\_ motd |
| 2005/7/27-29 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38843 Activity:nil |
7/27 I think this is the most interesting blog I've ever read. It's
written by a journalist about his tooling around Iraq. He spends
a lot of time with a unit in Mosul, but the section on the
Yezidis is also really interesting.
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com
Yezidis:
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/06/lost-in-translation.html |
| 2005/7/26 [Reference/Religion] UID:38824 Activity:nil |
7/25 I have a novel approach to finding and getting rid of suicide
bombers, please tell me what you think, and if it's doable.
You [government] hire a bunch of patriotic Muslims to recruit
people who are anti-government and want to blow themselves up.
You give them backbacks filled with dud-bombs that do nothing
but give off smoke. You then arrest them while they are smoking
in the vicinity of a lot of people. What do you think?
\_ That's nice here you can have a cookie before naptime.
\_ patriotic muslims == infidel
\_ That's similar to how we trick drug dealers. |
| 2005/7/25-28 [Reference/Religion] UID:38811 Activity:nil |
7/25 Back off Muslims, imam warns Ottawa:
http://csua.org/u/cu0 |
| 2005/7/18 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:38690 Activity:kinda low |
7/18 I used to have a lot of rachmones, bubbala for ilyas because I
thought he was a maven Russian Jew. Then I found out that he was
just a Russian, WTF? Oy yoy yoy, hok a chainik. How kvetch. I feel
fermisht, fershlugina. Meeskait ilyas fershtinkiner faygala gonif
momzer, gai avek nebbish nudnik.
\_ I think it's the Heil German John guy.
\_ http://www.sbjf.org/sbjco/schmaltz/yiddish_phrases.htm
\_ Ya i nye russkiy tozhe, mudak ty nye rezaniy. -- ilyas
\_ what location in Russia re you from? |
| 2005/7/15-18 [Reference/Military, Reference/Religion] UID:38634 Activity:nil |
7/15 Okay, this is old, but good:
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/dawkins.html
Dawkins on suicide bombers.
\_ This article contains religion-bashing. Where o where are the
flames?
\_ Note the date on the article.
\_ gee, such dry wit: "How about using humans as on-board guidance
systems, instead of pigeons? Humans are at least as numerous as
pigeons, their brains are not significantly costlier than pigeon
brains, and for many tasks they are actually superior."
\_ Good essay. -- ilyas |
| 2005/7/14-15 [Reference/Religion] UID:38626 Activity:very high |
7/14 Support for bin Laden falls in Muslim countries - Yahoo! News:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050714/wl_nm/muslims_binladen_dc
BTW, it says: "In Lebanon, 100 percent of Muslims and 99 percent of
Christians said they had a very unfavorable view of Jews, while 99
percent of Jordanians also viewed Jews very unfavorably."
\_ Still waiting for a single fatwa against Bin Laden, al Zawahiri,
Abu Hamsa, Zarkawi or similar, from any muslim cleric with
recognized spiritual, temporal or popular authority. Pls. correct
me if I've been living in a media cave. -John
\_ Re bin Laden support falling: Except Jordan (55% -> 60% support),
and Pakistan (45 -> 51%)
\_ What the hell? Are Lebanese and Jordinians stupid? Jews are the
best race in the world. They are smart, well educated, for the
most part liberal, and funny and are best suited to run the
country. The Jewish community preaches education and compassion
for their own community, and if they were to run the country the
country would be liberated from self-righteous religious fanatic
red necks controlling our lives and screwing up the country.
Fuck religious right fanatics, fuck them all. GO JEWS.
-not a Jew (but totally worship them and would vote for any
Jews candidate in a heart beat)
\_ You need a new angle, troll.
\_ You know, I am told a lot of neocons are Jewish. -- ilyas
\_ What are you saying, that people of similar ethnic/religious
background may not share the same core beliefs? How shocking!
\_ I have not doubt that they have compassion for their own
community. One question is that how do they treat the other
communities. |
| 2005/7/11-12 [Reference/Religion] UID:38517 Activity:low |
7/11 Which Berkeley prof said religion was good to keep poor people
nice and happy (like the nice Black grandmother who goes to Church)
and poor people who are not religious grow up to be like animals
(like some punks and whores in Oakland). This was only about
the United States, so it doesnt apply to suicide bombers, also
it was about manners and politeness, not about politics.
\_ Do you mean Margaret Singer? http://tinyurl.com/clxml - danh
\_ This idea is probably a lot older than Marx. -- ilyas
\_ Religions are for the weak minded.
\_ I find your lack of faith disturbing.
\_ Do you mean Margaret Singer? |
| 2005/7/7-10 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Religion] UID:38478 Activity:nil |
7/7 About time American Muslims made statements like this:
http://www.ing.org/latestnews/default.asp?num=23
\_ From the same site: "(San Francisco Bay Area, 9/11/01) - Joining
Muslims around the country, the San Francisco Bay Area based Islamic
Networks Group is appalled by and strongly condemns the terrorist
attacks in New York and Washington." The American Muslim community
is simply not the problem. As Thomas Friedman pointed out yesterday,
however, we're still waiting for a fatwa from any international
muslim leader condemning Bin Laden.
\_ Further proof that even a broken clock (i.e., Friedman) can be
right twice a day. |
| 2005/6/25-27 [Reference/Religion, Recreation/Dating] UID:38296 Activity:nil |
6/24 Hmm, even Christians over there are doing "honor killing".
http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=7133 |
| 2005/6/23-25 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Reference/Religion] UID:38271 Activity:kinda low |
6/23 Enough Mormon baiting. What about Scientologists?
\_ Why do you have to bait anyone? Why can't you just leave people
alone to do their own thing? At what point in your life has a
Mormon, Scientologist or anyone else ever hurt you?
\_ You need a clue-by-four if you think those two are even in the same
league. -- ilyas
\_ Why do you think Joseph Smith was any more credible than ol' L
Ron?
\_ His first name wasn't "LaFayette" for starters.
\_ That's not what I said. -- ilyas
\_ I don't think there are any Scientologists on the motd.
\_ where's the challenge in that?
\_ I should point out that Scientologists are REALLY aggressive when
it comes to people mocking them. Any online archive of the motd
containing Scientology bashing, like say, Kevins, might receive
a polite lawyerly kind of notice at some point. -- ilyas
\_ They have lost several court cases regarding this. Look on
http://www.clambake.org for links. Or host your page in
Germany. -John
\_ what's different or special about hosting in Germany?
Political immunity? Or lack of enforcement?
\_ German Verfassungsschutz ("constitution protection",
there's a nice orwellian name) is very very tough on
Scientology. They have come down very hard on their
"we're a church not a business" bullshit. In general,
the Germans do not like radical groups (nazis, commies,
increasingly islamists), so your protection from libel
and slander claims as a critic of these is fairly
strong. Actually I think that most of the German-
speaking countries have enacted pretty harsh laws
restricting Scientology from "religious" activity until
they become more transparent (fat chance.) -John
\_ If they're intolerant of radical groups like the
Nazis, then aren't they just like Nazis? NaziNazis?
\_ Debatable. They crack down on anyone who
advocates destruction of the constitution and
overthrow of the democratic system, preaches
"hate" (whatever that is), denies the holocaust
or just plain breaks the law. Remember also that
European churches are more institutionalized than
in the US (many countries still have a church tax
that you pay if you're a registered member of an
officially recognized church--this goes back to
the churches) and probably don't take kindly to
scientology abusing the idea of "church" to make
money. -John
\_ Those motherfuckers already have my name on file as an
anti-scientologist, and I'd like to personally go on record
as telling them all to go fuck themselves for the nth time.
If anyone wants to know why, email me. -lafe
\_ aren't they Rich/powerful? Tom Cruise like?
\_ Don't you just have to say the word fnord and it
scares them away, like a cross to a vampire?
\_ Xenu, not fnord
\_Scientologists are scary and own tom cruise, but come on,
there are literally millions of Mormons, they have their own
state and economic system.
\_ Does the Mormon church officially sanction kidnapping and
brainwashing? Do they sanction Mormon-owned businesses firing
anyone who refuses to join, and forcing all their employees to
spend their spare time going to mormon indoctrination seminars?
Do they have an official policy of using civil lawsuits to
harass and intimidate anyone who criticizes them?
\_ I don't know, you tell me. |
| 2005/6/21-25 [Science/Space, Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:38234 Activity:kinda low |
6/21 What is the most overrated book you have read?
The #1 overrated book of ALL TIME is: ZatAoMM
\- BTW, many of the 1star AMAZONG reviews are enjoyable
to read and are small compnesation for this ass book.
Notice the two themes: 1. the author is *actually*
insane 2. feel sorry for the son.
\_ anything by Jack Welch
\_ The Bible. Delete this again and the thread dies.
\_ Beloved by Morrison
\_ The Bible. I still don't understand why, given that the whole thing
is translated anyway, the English versions always have to have such
awkward language and style.
\_ Beloved by Morrison
\_ I really enjoyed it. --scotsman
\_ Cyptonomicon. God that book sucked. -aspo
\_ Yeah, I'm glad I'm not the only one who hated that book. Is
everything by Stepherson that bad? A friend thinks I should
read Snow Crash. -jrleek
\_ I think everyone who went to Cal should read The Big U.
It's a satire of American college life. I think Stephenson
went to BU, but a lot of the stuff is amazingly familiar.
\_ snow crash wasn't too bad.
\_ seconded
\_ snow crash is good. Zodiac is short and
amusing.
\_ Zodiac's his only book with an acutal ending.
\_ The Name of the (stinking) Rose. Blah blah blah blah blah -- SHUT
UP ALREADY AND TELL A STORY. Whew. Glad to get that off my chest.
\_ What, you don't like vicissitudes?
\_ Atlas Shrugged
\_ Anything by Ann Coulter
\_ The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Heinlein
\_ The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
\_ SICP. (ok, just kidding)
\_ Dianetics.
\_ The New Testament. But the old testament is wicked cool.
\_ Design Patterns
\_ Abelson & Sussman. Ugh. -John
\_ E_TOOSHORT
\_ Design Patterns
\_ The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. Look, fuckhead who keeps deleting
this, I am entitled to my opinion. If you don't agree then say
why, don't just censor me.
\_ Trouble with the motd is you are interacting with some
serious idiots. Either you get censored repeatedly or you
can't even delete some 4-day old dead threads without them
getting restored. Maybe by the same idiot.
\_ The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
\_ Stupid additions were deleted. You do not understand the
question, although not as badly as the people answering
"The Bible" or "Anne Coulter". I had hoped you would have
realized that after a couple of selective deletions, but
it looks like you are beyond being reached. |
| 2005/6/16-18 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:38147 Activity:kinda low |
6/16 Happy Bloomsday ... unhappily apparently uncelebrated by GOOG.
"How sick, sick, sick I am of sloda! It is the
machine of failure, of rancor and of unhappiness."
\_ If the GOOG icons indicate what they like or don't give a damn about
then it's clear that they really give a damn about Christians and
don't give a damn about Muslims.
\- come to think about it, i think they did do an icon
last year ... i guess BLOOM100 was worth it but BLOOM101
doesnt cut the mustard.
\- actually come to think about it, i think they did do an icon
last year ... i guess BLOOM100 was worth it but BLOOM101 doesnt
cut the mustard.
\_ It might in muslim countries. They don't do an icon for
Korean independance day in the states, but they do in Korea.
\_ Are you sure? I swear I saw the main banner modified to have
Korea's yin-yang with the i-ching doohickeys this one time.
-- ulysses
\_ No, I'm not really sure. Korean independence is 8-15,
I don't recall seeing anything last year, but i could
be wrong. Of course, it could've been a different
holiday too, chusuk or solal.
\- aug 15 is india's indep day too.
\_ That's interesting. That's actually "Korean
independence from Japan" day, ie V-J day. I
assume India's is from the British?
\- well the day is slightly artifical. the indians
were negotiating with the british when to do the
handover and after consulting with some religious/
astrology types, they picked aug 15 as an
auspicious day. then the pakistanis picked
aug 14, just to be different, but the moment of
indep, was midnight and the same for both
countries. FYI: this is where phrase "freedom
at midnight" or S. RUSHDIE's title "midnight's
children" comes from. although if you are asking
from whom this indep came, this may not especially
resonate with you. functionally Dae Han Min Gook=
Vande Matram.
\_ Do Koreans also celebrate the split of North and South
on V-J day? Do they even remember how they got split
up in two? I don't see any koreans who resentment USA
for this.
\_ Ummm... no, why would they celebrate the split?
They don't like it. And there are plently of
They don't like it. And there are pleantly of
Koreans who resent the US for it, but given the
choice between being split and being all one big
NK or a province of China, I think most are see
it as better than the alternitives. Don't know
many koreans, do ya'? |
| 2005/6/9-10 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:38067 Activity:high |
6/9 John Green of U. Akron in Ohio says 80% of Christians are Republicans
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8131907
\_ and I've read around 80% of Americans consider themselves Christian
\_ Both Gore and Kerry are Christian. I am not sure what the
OP's point is.
\_ I imagine the op is trying to support Dean's claim that the
Republican party is the "white Christian party".
\_ So does that make the Democratic Party the "blaxploitation
party"? |
| 2005/6/9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Religion] UID:38055 Activity:very high 76%like:38044 |
6/9 [re-posted after motd censor deleted it (2x)]
motd demographic/political poll, d-dem, r-repub, i-independent:
white & christian:
\_ Actively christian? raised christian?
\_ active (you self-identify as christian, now)
non-white OR non-christian: dd
non-white OR non-christian: ddr
\_ I'm torn. I'd love to be I, but then I'd lose my ability to vote in
primaries. I see little value left in R (at least here in CA).
-emarkp
\_ What's so special about CA?
\_ Entirely dominated by D. -emarkp
\_ Have you ever considered moving to R friendly states, like
say... Utah? Everyone there looks happy, unlike pissed off
protesting satanic Liberal here.
\_ Hi anonymous troll! -emarkp
\_ Seriously though, do you really like California?
We have the most number of gays and lesbians. We
also have the most druggies, criminals, jails, and
welfare & project leeches. In addition we have the
biggest minority population in the entire U.S., and
many people simply hate Jesus Christ. Put it another
way, if it were not for your career, wife, or
friends, would you stay in California? If I were a
Christian, I'd probably move out as well. |
| 2005/6/9-12 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign] UID:38054 Activity:nil |
6/9 Okay, I'm thinking now that it's okay to throw people out of the
country: http://www.islamicthinkers.com
\_ Hmm, they sound just like some Christians.
\_ If some Christians are inciting violence against the US, throw
those people out too.
\_ I thought Gitlow vs. New York established that calling for
the overthrow of the US government was a crime? -John
\_ No, just the violent overthrow. You can call for a
peaceful overthrow all you want.
\_ What does "calling for a violent overthrow" entail? Is
there some formal legal definition, or is it just done
per common sense? (In which case yeah, throw out said
anybodies inciting violence--just throw them somewhere
else, we don't want 'em here.) -John |
| 2005/6/8-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:38044 Activity:high 76%like:38055 |
6/8 motd demographic/political poll, d-dem, r-repub, i-independent:
white & christian:
non-white OR non-christian: d
\_ Actively christian? raised christian?
\_ active (you self-identify as christian, now)
non-white OR non-christian: d
non-white OR non-christian: ddr
\_ I'm torn. I'd love to be I, but then I'd lose my ability to vote in
primaries. I see little value left in R (at least here in CA).
-emarkp
\_ What's so special about CA?
\_ Entirely dominated by D. -emarkp
\_ Have you ever considered moving to R friendly states, like
say... Utah? Everyone there looks happy, unlike pissed off
protesting satanic Liberal here.
\_ Hi anonymous troll! -emarkp |
| 2005/6/8 [Reference/Religion, Recreation/Media] UID:38038 Activity:high |
6/8 Dear Motd Mormons and Christians, have you stopped boycotting
Disney? Disneyland, Disney World, and Disney products in general?
Why and why not?
\_ Have you stopped beating your wife? -emarkp
[For those who don't understand, I'll put it plainer: "what
boycott"?]
\_ Are you going to cry? Please don't report out hate speech!
\_ I don't think Mormons ever got the edict to boycott from AFA
because most Xtians do not consider Mormons as real Xtians.
\_ there are some groups that boycott disney for being
in their eyes gay friendly, i don't think they post to the motd.
\_ This was the Southern Baptist Convention, IIRC. I'd wager
we have at least one person from a church in the SBC on soda.
I don't recall the SBC trying to make common cause with
the CoJCoLDS. -- ulysses
\_ Disney offers employee benefits for gays and lesbians and
AFA gets pissed and asks all Christians to boycott Disney:
http://tinyurl.com/cxaew (cnn.com)
A Christian group boycotts Ford and Disney:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158232,00.html
Maybe they should boycott Microsoft as well because M$ offers
equal benefits to domestic partners.
\_ They should boycott the Internet because many of the
founders were gays or lesbians or at least gay or
lesbian tolerant. Then they should boycott electricity
because Edison never spoke out against gay people. Next
they should boycott modern plumbing because Mr. Crapper
was a pervert. Also, they should boycott using the
English langauge because it can be used to convey
impure thoughts.
\_ They should boycott food because food sustains
gays and lesbians.
\_ Not to mention oxygen and water.
\_ Edison invented electricity? I thought it was Franklin.
\_ Someone invented electricity?
\_ Edison invented electricity? |
| 2005/6/1-2 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Religion] UID:37933 Activity:kinda low |
6/1 I'm trying to come up with a new joke. So far I have the following:
Jews who changed the way we see the world:
Moses: "the Law is everything."
Jesus: "Love is everything."
Marx: "Money is everything."
Freud: "Sex is everything."
Now what?
\_ Yermom: "Sex and Love for Money outside the Law is everything."
\_ Your mom is not a male. And is she a jew?
\_ woody allen: "I'm everything."
\_ Einstein: "Everything is relative."
\_ I think jokes are supposed to be funny.
\_ Seinfeld: "Everything is funny."
\_ some old song: "You're my eve-ry-thing." (la - ti - do - - me me)
\_ set theory guy: "Nothing is everything."
\_ Karl Marx is Jewish? |
| 2005/5/17-18 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37724 Activity:very high |
5/17 "I don't care much about world perception of the US. The right
thing to do is sometimes unpopular." says emarkp. Mr. Ping,
can you please explain to me what is right and what is wrong?
Who is the arbiter of righteousness? People? God? If God, then
which God? And if Bible, which version? How about Koran,
is that right or wrong?
\_ Restored. If you don't feel like answering, don't.
\_ No Mr. Anonymous Troll. -emarkp
\_ It's a valid question. Knowing who wrote it is not relevant to
the core of the question. The fact that you need to know who
wrote it says a lot about your character and belief.
And good job for nuking responses.
\_ Oh, I thought the question was for me. So I nuked the one
parodying me and the rest for completeness. I don't answer
questions from anonymous trolls. -emarkp
\_ Restored. If you don't feel like answering, don't.
\_ those who are agree with me and share the same values are right.
those who are not are wrong. simple.
\- hello, this is too big a topic to try and lay out something
\- hello, this is too big a topic to try to lay out something
comprehensive, but one thought: without being a full-blown
relativist or a hardcore "might makes right" adherant [both of
whom are to some extent begging the question, sometimes con-
sciously doing so], it is not unreasonable to believe different
standards apply in "society" and in the "state of nature".
if you are looking out for yourself in the Stag Hunt scenario
than is different from stealing from your neighbor in berkeley,
ca. you can certainly debate to what extent is the international
system like the anarchic [meaning non-hierarchical with no
ruler who can "lay down the law", not meaning it is chaotic]
international system vs a "community" with norms and standards.
\- this may be a little hard to follow if you dont have some
knowledge of the framework/tradition i am coming from.
a concrete example of this difference in standards is how
you assess the question "is lying bad?" is different
in the context of friends, companies and soverign states.
ok tnx.
you assess the question "is lying bad?" in the context of
friends, companies and soverign states. ok tnx.
\_ While there is no "absolute right", there are time when it's
pretty clear. One hopes that one's leadership would be wise and
differentiated enough to know when this is the case. -John
\_ In discussion right and wrong, the concept of right does not
necessarily flow from the notion of divinity. Assume for the
sake of argument that the big bad universe doesn't give a damn
about what a bunch of overgrown hair-less apes are doing on
this minor world. These same apes can have relative notions
of right and wrong that help to maximize their long-term
survival and order their affairs.
The conflict is thus based purely on the choices that a subset
subset of the species feels maximizes the overall survival.
A choice may be right, in that it maximizes overall long-term
survival, but unpopular, in that it creates short-term barriers
to survival for many.
\_ Almost correct, but wrong. You need to rephrase your last part
to "A choice may be considered right in that it is BELIEVED
to maximize..." The point is, 1) you don't know the future
and 2) past does not always predict the future because life
has too many variables to consider. Either you're a dumb ass
or I've been trolled.
\_ I guess this wasn't clear. Whether the choice was right
or wrong can only be judged in retrospect. In the present
it is unknowable whether the choice was right.
it is unknowable whether the choice was right. The belief
that something is right in the present is based on the
notion that your mind has been able to predict the outcome
based on the information that is available.
\_ Yes this is again aligned in conservative point of view. How
do you know with certainty that the money you spent on war
will in the future improve Iraq? There are lots of other things
you can spend your 300 billion on to improve other parts of the
world, and you think that a regime change (resulting in massive
Arab humiliation and resentment) is good in the long term?
I hope there is God, so that you'd go to hell.
\_ No Mr. Anonymous Troll. -emarkp
\_ I never said the Iraq war was right. I said that it could
be right. For example, the argument you have made was made
by many re Revolutionary War, Civil War, Desegregation, &c.
The idea that freedom maximizes suvival of the species was
the basis for entering into those conflicts and may be
considered the basis for entering into the present conflict.
As this idea has served our species well in the past, one
cannot be faulted for believing that it will serve us in
this and future conflicts.
\_ BTW, I have an email address. -emarkp
\_ Why does this keep getting deleted? |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Religion] UID:37653 Activity:nil |
5/11 I am kind of a weird jam. My friend; who is Lutheran, wants my
wife and I to godparents to his son. It seems the fact that neither my
wife nor me are Lutheran is not a problem. I was just wondering what
if you are supposed to buy something for the boy, who is
6. Are you supposed to get the kid a religious gift of some
sort? --puzzled agnostic
\_ It would have been much more interesting if you said
My friend; who is Lutheran, wants my wife.
\_ Yeah my interest level was going up until I saw the godparent
thing and it was like, sigh. This post is unworthy.
\_ Um, common sense would suggest you ask your friend, you putz.
-- Sometimes presents are not expect/required but you
look like a putz when you are the only one not giving
something. Sort of like being the only kid not to get your
parents an Xmas present eventhough they told everyone not to.
\_ Traditionally it means you're supposed to take care of the kid if
the parents buy the farm, and kind of "sponsor" him/her. So yeah,
you should buy him things. -John
-- Then its up to the giver and there is nothing
standard like giving a gold cross or something?
\_ Originally you're supposed to be like a witness at the kid's
christening, but that's mainly a catholic thing. There is no
"standard", it's like gm says, "honorary uncle." Anyway, what's
the big deal? It's usually considered an honor, and you don't
have any religious or legal obligations. -John
\_ It's sort of like being an honorary uncle. -gm
\- maybe there is a different matter for religious people
but assuming this is a close friend and you dont feel
weird about the whole thing [otherwise, i am not sure
how you would get out of it] i think you just get the
kid something "good for him" ... like an educational book
or a subscription to a mangazine or some such. you dont
have to buy him an ipod or something overtly religious.
\_ In which case presents are expected, even though someone told you
they weren't, so ask another guest if you consider your friends'
answer suspect. I still stand by my original statement that this
can be solved with common sense. Putz. |
| 2005/5/11 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Reference/Religion] UID:37617 Activity:moderate |
5/10 "A Baptist preacher accused of running out nine congregants who
refused to support President Bush resigned Tuesday" Amen.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7769149
\_ atheists kill hundreds of millions in 20th century.
\_ So did Christians.
\_ no, mass genocide was perpetrated by atheists.
\_ Here's a great site that has a lot of evidence against the
lie perpetrated by fucks like you that Hitler was anything
but a Christian.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
Fuck you. Hitler was a Chrisitan, and Nazi Germany was a
Christian nation.
\_ Yup, and Hitler always said he was doing it for
God.
\_ Was that why the Church was reluctant to save the Jews
from the Nazis?
\_ Come on! Hitler was a Buddhist. Don't you see the
swastika on the Nazi flags? He killed the Jews to send
them to the west heaven to meet the Buddha god.
\_ Where are you thinking?
\_ Hitler was immersed in the occult and he believed
he was the antichrist. The notion that this
makes him a Christian is absurd. A few photos
on the net really means nothing. Let's consider
and quotes taken out of contect from the net
really means nothing. Let's consider
what the real historians think:
link:csua.org/u/c0j
Besides the Jews, another 6 million, mostly Polish
and mostly Christian, also died in the death
camps. To characterize Hitler as an atheist may
be unfair, in which case he is a pagan.
This reminds me of the notion that Hitler was
not a Socialist.
\_ Religious right extremists lack basic reading skills in early
21st c.
\_ Lefties campaign in churches. |
| 2005/5/9-11 [Reference/Religion, Recreation/Humor] UID:37588 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto Edit_by:auto |
5/9 http://www.thebricktestament.com Something both Athiests and Religious right wing nuts can enjoy \_ one fugly baby: .../exodus/too_many_hebrews/ex01_17.html \_ Keywords: lego legos bible bibles jesus funny |
| 2005/5/9-11 [Reference/Religion] UID:37575 Activity:nil |
5/8 Just saw Kingdom of Heaven. I'm not religious and I don't know
much history to say much about it, except that it is very visually
pleasing. Now I'm curious. How much of it was historically
accurate? Did Muslims/Christians really get alone well back then,
and were the events and provocations accurate, agreed upon by
historians and confirmed by archeologists? I'd like to hear from
HISTORIANS first. However, if you are Muslim/Christian/Jew and you
must respond to this thread, do so but indicate your religion first.
\_ Sometimes, sort of. Jews and Muslims were sometimes tolerated
in Europe, often persecuted and killed, and despite what you
hear from a lot of blue-eyed utopian historians, infidels were
second-class citizens in pretty much all of the muslim world as
well, with the major difference that many of the muslim rulers had
better things to do (think harems.) -John
\_ Yeah, that's a pretty good summary. Note that I sat through
some of the most left-biased history classes available and
even they never said anything other than that non-Muslims were
second class citizens in Dar al-Islam. They just emphasized that
being non-Christian in Christendom often got you killed and in
pretty amazing and creative ways. There is a very readable
version of this history in Larry Gonick's "Cartoon History of the
World" volumes II and III. No, really! -- ulysses (okay,
maybe I'm not a historian but I did get a degree in it)
\_ The movie showed that some Christians were evil, and that Salahadim
(sp?) the ugly looking Muslim was honest and kept his words, unlike
previous barbaric Christians. I bet that confused a lot of Average
Joes who were expecting a typical Hollywood GOOD/EVIL movie, or
Xians=good/Muslims=bad movie. I liked the movie, not as a historian,
but as someone who prefers seeing perspectives from both sides which
the movie did pretty well. On the other hand, the loves scenes were
the movie did pretty well. On the other hand, the love scenes were
cheezy and I doubt the authenticity in them.
\_ Saladin/Salahuddin/Salawhatever was a skilled tacician and
strategist, and a reasonably decent and enlightened ruler, but
it's always useful to look at these things in the context of
the times. -John |
| 2005/5/5-6 [Reference/Religion] UID:37534 Activity:high |
5/5 Pretty much sums it up on Evolution vs. "Intelligent Design"
Bob Novak: Why don't we teach evolution and intelligent design and let
students figure it out on their own?
Unknown scientist: Fine. Why don't we teach students the South won the
civil war and let them figure it out on their own? Why don't we teach
students that the moon is made of green cheese and let the students
figure it out on their own?
http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/005059.html
\_ It's clear that evolution + religion are sensitive topics that
should perhaps not be taught in high schools. Let them learn
chemistry, biology, algebra, calculus, etc, and stop at evolution.
Leave evolution as advanced topics in college.
\_ cuz fact is the north won, fact is moon is made of rock..
evolution is an observation but can't be proven
\_ Sigh...
\_ moon is made of rock is an observation but can't be proven
\_ You know, the role of the schools is to teach science. It is not
to lord science over religion, but it also shouldn't back down on
teaching scientific principles when they conflict with someone's
religion. Evolution predicts a number of things, such as common
ancestry which have led to discoveries in genetics and
pharmaceuticals. It's a tested theory that has passed the tests
that have been thrown at it. Believers need to learn not to fear
science, and atheists need to stop trying to disprove religion.
-emarkp
\_ because it's too easy to disprove religion? -tom
\_ To the degree that religious claims can be tested, they
should be.
\- proof has nothing to do with religion. it's like talking
about what is a fair voting system to pick my favorite
color. --psb
\_ It is difficult to disprove the statement:
"I believe God has a plan"
For this, you need to prove God does not exist, or
prove God exists and does not have a plan. God is
unfortunately not able to consult.
\_ Sorry, you guys have it all backwards. Try "proving
religion" first in an empirical fashion, then we'll
talk about "disproving religion".
\- you are still missing the point. religion isnt about
empirical evidence. do you have empirical evidence
of the infinitude of primes? "was jesus a real person"
is an empircal question. what is the speed of grace
in the ether is not. --psb
\_ No, you are missing the point. Religion is fine
if it merely an abstract study of thoughts. However,
it is not fine when people attempt to utilize it to
legislate or condone certaint types of real world
actions. When you bring religion into the real world,
then there is a requisite that it be empirically
sound. You don't build a bridge based on pure math,
that would be stupid. You build bridges according
to structural engineering, which is applied mathematics
based on firm empirical footings. We don't legislate
or mandate according to fiction, why should we
give a free pass to religion?
\- Once again: you can ask something like "if the
govt worriess less about distributional consequences
does that help spur growth" and look for empirical
evidence by looking at say the change in gini
coeficients vs gdp growth rates. However, what does
society owe poor people is not an empirical
question. It's not about an enginering optium and
arguments about it dont involve Lagrange multi-
pliers. Not all *important* questions are empirical.
I suppose there is an elevated discussion to be
had about what is called "logical positivism" but
I dont think that is what you are after. Yes we
can all agree bridges falling down on their own is
bad and an empirical theory of bridge design is
better than buidling bridges through prayer, but
to take a locally relevant example: how much money
should a society spend on bridges to look cool,
how should bridges be funded, what should be the
system to decide these question ... those are not
empirical questions. is slavery wrong because
of empirical reasons or abstract ones? how about
free speech? or are these not important questions.
i'd hate to think the only thing wrong with
racist hiring practices was it may not be an
optimal capitalist strategy [see e.g. richard
epstein: forbidden grounds].
\_ I think you're confusing religion with
philosophy. Or rather the behavioral guidance
of religion with the factual guidance such as
"King David lived in 171482 BC and sired 12824
sons". The evolution argument isn't about
behavior; it's about history and scientific fact
versus "what does religion say is fact".
\_ On the contrary, you are arguing that there
is no empirical foundation to the concept of
morality, but there is, i.e. sociology and
psychology. Granted, these areas of study
are amorphous, they deal with exceedingly
complex questions not easily broken down,
but to argue that society itself is not
empirical by nature is simply false. We
have already established that behavior
itself is highly empirical, as is concepts
of general asthetics. In fact, one may
argue that the concept of religion should
be studied in a pure empirical fashion as
a sociological question, i.e. why do religions
exist and on what basis? One could even argue
that religions are merely promulgated worldviews
and that society has developed them due to a
lack of technology before the advent of
science. As for justification of moral values,
i.e. should slavery exist or not, there are
empirical underpinnings in the sense that humans
have this concept of mirroring of minds, and as
such we have an emotional basis for not wanting
to enslave humans in general, (which is probably
why it's easier to enslave africans vs. europeans
because africans are different visually to
other europeans causing this emotional bond
to be weaker). Is nature inherently efficient?
Absolutely not. This is mirrored in our society.
Is its inefficiency a justification for clouding
the issues in the guise of religion? Probably
not.
\_ Who (except maybe tom) is trying to disprove religion? Is
this just another one of your straw men?
\_ I see it all the time. Tom is just one of them. -emarkp
\_ I don't see many web sites disproving religion. I think
most scientists are bright enough to not want to get
into circuitous and pointless conversation with you
ultra-right Christian fundamentalists. I do however
I see far more web sites promoting religious solutions
over scientific methods (Scientology, voodoo, etc).
What do you have to say about that?
\- In my experience in a place like berkeley, you see
a lot of hostility toward religion or mocking of
religion [church is hypocritical, religion people
are naive etc] rather than a specific desire to
assert it is false, god doesnt exist etc. Of course
there are people like Holube, and it is pointless to
speculate on their agenda and motivations, although
at some point with aaron/holube-ping I'd say it got
personal rather than issue directed. As with the
anti-SUV camp, there are specific issues worth talking
about [like proslytism] but the vague hostility seems
pretty intolerant, given that the majority of religous
people *around here* are pretty much the live and let
live type and the people doing the condemning are
selectively tolerant liberal hedonists.
\_ However, is it not true that religions themselves
are generally intolerant of other religions? Is
it not true that there has been much blood spilled
in the name of religion? If there is intolerance
against religion in general, perhaps it is because
religion itself is generally intolerant.
\- I think it is a lot more reasonable
to suppose voting for BUSHCO2004 is
giving tacit support to Abu Graib than
going to Easter Mass is an endorsement
of T. Torquemada. ok tnx.
\- is msft intolerant toward linux? how about
the mfgrs of cialis toward the mfgrs of viagra?
yes, i think we can agree intolerance is
often bad. we can agree the problem of
relativism is a tough or for societies to
relativism is a tough for societies to
grapple with. are you intolerant of bestiality?
well to be a little less glib: i believe there
is much conflict among societies for structural
reasons [see e.g. Man, the State and War], and
since religion is an important element in
societies it's likely to be a proximate
explation for a lot of stuff. with the rise of
capitalism/imperialism/colonialism/totalit-
arianism in the 20th cent, is it a surprise
they play a role in the story of ww1/ww2?
the muslim invaders of india and europe didnt
specifically want to pick a fight with hinduism
or xtianity, they just wanted stuff. athens and
sparta or the greeks and trojans didnt fight
over gods or souls but for more material and
security reasons. i think material concerns
are a big part of the 30yrs war, but i have
to think about that and check some things
before weighting in on this standard case
of a relig war. |
| 2005/4/26-27 [Reference/Religion] UID:37367 Activity:high |
4/26 Washington Post / ABC News poll
How important is religion in your everyday life:
The most important thing in your life; extremely important, but not
the most important thing, very important, somewhat important, or not
important at all?
Most important: 21% Somewhat: 22%
Extremely impt: 20% Not at all: 10%
Very important: 26% No opinion: -
\_ See I'm atheist but if I wasn't I'd have to think religion should
be the most important thing. If you really believe it then what
could be more important? And if you don't believe it why is it
important at all?
\_ Religion doesn't put the food on the table. Religion doesn't
keep you from getting mugged.
\_ That's the point... if you believe it, it DOES put food on
the mugged blah blah and if it doesn't, then it doesn't
matter. With religion, you're "set for eternity" and whether
you got your cheerios this morning doesn't matter. For
Christians, the cosmic omnipotent master of the universe
is personally watching out for ya. How can true believers
not be in supreme awe of that?
\_ You clearly don't understand non-fundamentalist
Christianity.
\_ The faith gradient is much more gradual than you think.
\_ I used to think there were a lot of people who weren't really
sure about whether there's a god or not, but they apply benefit
of the doubt. They don't think too much about it, but think the
framework is beneficial to raising kids / the society at large
(kids as well as people need structure, and religion is a
convenient one to use). These are the "religion is somewhat
pre-existing structure!). These are the "religion is somewhat
important to me" people, I guess.
\_ as if God can't figure out that people don't have faith...
\_ Satan will have them all!1$!666
\-has anybody heard people called the US the "most
religious country" ... that is just so on it's ipso
\-has anybody heard people call the US the "most
religious country" ... that is just so off it's ipso
facto absurd and irritating (it seems to imply usa most
moral). this includes some bright and otherwise somewhat
moral). this includes bright and otherwise somewhat
\_ Religious != moral. -John
credible people saying this (google for "most religious
country", united states). i wonder if they really
believe this ... more relig than SA, mexico, iran,
nepal, india, pakistan?
\_ No, it just implies that the US is the most pious
and perhaps the most hypocritical.
\_ "Jesse, honey, you really shouldn't be using
words that you don't know the meaning of."
\_ I can assure you that my knowledge of the
English language is superior to yours. Go
look up the multiple meanings for the word
pious and realize why you should check
the dictionary before making a fool of
yourself.
\_ Perhaps you should take your 'superior'
command of the language and look up the
word 'troll', fool; as in 'you got trolled,
but were too intent on proving your
intellect to a skeptical audience that you
didn't notice'.
\_ Methinks the troll is too proud of
his ability to troll. Trolling requires
no ability, just mendacity.
\_ Trolling is not something to be proud of.
\_ Why in god's name would you think it
is? |
| 2005/4/20-21 [Reference/Religion] UID:37289 Activity:nil |
4/20 In A.D. 2005
Papacy was beginning.
Priest: What happen ?
Altar Boy: Somebody set up us the pope.
Altar Boy: We get white smoke.
Priest: What !
Altar Boy: Main balcony doors open.
Priest: It's you !!
Pope Benedict XVI: How are you congregants !!
Pope Benedict XVI: All your saint are belong to us.
Pope Benedict XVI: You are on the way to salvation.
Priest: What you say !!
Pope Benedict XVI: You have no chance to convert make your time.
Pope Benedict XVI: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
Altar Boy: Father !!
Priest: Exit square every 'Zig'!!
Priest: You know what you doing.
Priest: Move 'Zig'.
Priest: For great holiness. |
| 2005/4/20-21 [Reference/Religion] UID:37276 Activity:moderate |
4/20 Stupid question: Why there isn't a demand for Pope to be elected?
\- There was the Protestant
Reformation instead. See e.g.
Luther "Thesis" #51, #79, #82,
#86etc. --cardinal psb
or, why people are content with the existing process of selecting
leader of 1 billion catholics?
\_ Hi, you are obviously out of touch with the whole religious
concept... religion is not a democracy. Popemastah is chose
basically by the big G, yo. Why ain't there a demand for the
10 commandments to be amended?
\_ They were. People of Israel, I bring you these fifteen..
...CRASH...ten! Ten commandments!
\_ Mel Brooks movie?
\_ History of the World Part 1. I'm still waiting for
Part 2 w/ Jews in Space!
\_ I always wondered if there was a Part 2. I would
have liked to see it.
\_ Vote for wrong pope == 1 way ticket to hell. Would you risk it
(assuming you really believed in all this heaven/hell Ebenezer
scrooge stuff)?
\_ To them, it is a democracy; Just like our founding
fathers thought when they left out women and minorities.
\_ To them, it is a democracy; Just like our founding fathers
thought when they left out women and minorities. |
| 2005/4/19-20 [Reference/Religion] UID:37257 Activity:nil |
4/19 Thank GOd! I was feeling popeless for a few days..
\_ Get yer hands out of your pants - you'll go BLIND.
\_ with all the Catholic molestations, i was hoping they
would come out with Pope on a Rope this time.. |
| 2005/4/19-20 [Reference/Religion] UID:37255 Activity:high |
4/19 Germany's Ratzinger is the new pope. Too bad. I was hoping we'd get
a black or oriental pope. Damn (*@#$ Catholic racists.
\_ Uhm, we prefer "Asian".
\_ you're the racist. look in the mirror
\_ Racism against whites is not racism! It's affirmative action!
-- PC joe
\_ yea, but they say the secret cardinal could be a chinese.
\_ If we get an oriental pope, what if he picked a name like
Pope Chingchung XVII?!
\_ The only Asian western media will accept is idiots like
William Hung, look, that's an Asian and that's what they
are good for!
\_ Wouldn't that be Pope Chingchung I?
\_ I smell a "Rat"
\_ Don't worrry. In a couple years, we'll go through this circus
again and we'll have another chance for a black or asian pope.
\_ I don't think there are any more racist countries in the world
than those in asia.
\_ speaking like a true racist.
\_ how do you figure? I doubt he is suggesting that racism
is genetic (whether or not he believes it and whether or
not it is true). And the countries in asia ARE more
racist. (yes, *all* of them.)
\_ There was a black Pope before the U.S. was discovered by Columbus.
\_ http://www.ipoaa.com/black_popes_in_italy_pope_victor.htm
\_ there were three black Popes before the year 1000
\_ Who cares about a St. Victor, St Militades or a St. Gelsius?
Wait till we have a St. Mugambi.
\_ That's St. Mugabe to you! -John
\_ the three popes mentioned above are black popes. Way
before many countries had a black leader.
\_ But they adopted European names, so they betrayed their
African heritage.
\_ Ah, the young German:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1572667,00.html |
| 2005/4/19-20 [Reference/Religion] UID:37253 Activity:kinda low |
4/19 New Pope has been selected (don't know who it is yet though):
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/19/pope.tuesday/index.html
\_ We have a new member of the deadpool - Pope Benedictine XVI
(formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger [age: 77]). Gentlemen,
\_ We have a new member of the deadpool - Pope Benedict XVI
(formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger [age: 78]). Gentlemen,
adjust your bets.
\_ How do you know? He hasn't been announced yet.
\_ He's 78. Of course, they'll add him to the deadpool, unless
he dies before then... (Insert conspiracy here)
\_ Conservative enough to keep the hard-liners happy and to
let them save face, old enough to die soon and let them
pick a good long-term solution. -John
\_ Oh, Yahoo! News wasn't up-to-the-minute, even though I did
a force-reload.
\_ BTW, can the cardinals talk to the public about the voting after a
new pope is elected?
\_ They can, but if they do and are found out, they would be
excommunicated.
\_ During the vote, but after?
\_ You're not serious are you? Giving details about
the election of a pope is punishable by eternal
damnation?
\_ You can usually be un-excommunicated if you recant what
ever it was you did. For higher-ups it would probably
mean a major demotion though.
\_ How many "tell-all" books are there about the Holy See?
Damn near none.
\_ Some news cast says it has become a tradition that the
first round of voting has become a round of courtesy
voting, where cardinals just vote for their close
colleagues respectively or whomever that have been
working hard to give them recognition, rather than
\- Yes, this is known as the "Big Up Yourself" round.
voting for whom they think should become the next pope.
Then the real voting starts at the secound round. Now
how do we outside people know about this if no cardinals
ever talk about the voting even after it's over?
\_ The same way we know about CIA agents. Anonymous
sources to connected newspeople who keep their
mouths shut. They are excommunicated if FOUND OUT.
\_ Well, as holy as cardinals, they are just ordinary
people after all.
\_ Well I guess I was wrong. Some of the
Cardinals are talking about the conclave
despite their oaths of secrecy. Some vague
generalities, but still....
\_ Okay, no same-sex marriage, no female priests, no pills, no condoms.
I hope he at least continues to reach out to Islam. -- !religious
\_ No way. Remember, "dictatorship of relativism",
The islams are heretics and heathens in the
eyes of God
\_ Concur. He's hard core Western Orthodox.
\_ he's orthodox, but not necessarily
Western Orthodox.
\_ No married priests. Continued centralization of Catholic
power towards the Vatican. Less reaching out to younger
generation. Future of the Church is unclear.
\_ One bright spot is he apparently knows how to tell people
they're going to hell in 10 different languages.
\_ I wonder if Galileo is packing to go back to Hell.
\_ without Ratzinger, the church would become a democracy
and would follow every latest fad without any anchor
in God, Jesus Christ and the truth.
\_ With Ratzinger, the world will end with overpopulation.
\_ Somehow his face looks like he's an evil Enron or MCI executive.
\_ Good German stock.
\_ Last odds were 7-2. |
| 2005/4/7-8 [Reference/Religion] UID:37104 Activity:nil |
4/7 What's the Muslim world's attitude towards the Pope's death? I don't
see anything in the news.
\_ http://news.google.com/news?q=muslim+pope&btnG=Search+News |
| 2005/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Reference/Religion] UID:37083 Activity:high |
4/5 Terri's funeral was last night. Her family wasn't allowed to have any
of the ashes, or even a lock of her hair. Michael of course cremated
her immediately and didn't allow a Catholic funeral or burial.
[I'll keep reposting as you keep deleting]
\_ No, no bias here! Nossir! None at all! TOTALLY OBJECTIVE!
\_ The only thing not objective is the "of course".
\_ Yep, he truly "loved" her.
\_ What does love have to do with those decisions?
\_ Why is this any of your business?
\_ Why is anything any of your business? -!pp
\_ Lots of things affect me directly or indirectly. These
things are my business. This is a personal and private
issue between family members and the people who are
intruding are rude and morbid, imnsho.
\_ "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a
piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be
washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if
a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's
or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never
send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."
\- ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for terri.
\_ The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth.
\_ If they're not Catholic, why should they have a catholic funeral?
\_ Terri was Catholic.
\_ So was I. People change, swear off organized religion
entirely.
\_ What is the evidence that she did this?
\_ Uhm, she married an undevout Lutheran, maybe?
\_ If I die, I rather be cremated. I dont want put myself in box and
have the bugs eaten my body.
\_ Your English needs work. but, why do you care if bugs eat your
corpse? You're dead! I guess it means future anthropologists
can't dig up your old bones or fossils. Personally, assuming
I live to old age I'll look into the cryogenic shit. Why not.
I KEEP MOVING THIS INTO THE PROPER PLACE IT BELONGS UP HERE
\_ Smart choice. Now he won't have to go through all the bullshit
in the future when her family and Congress decide the doctor
performing the autopsy was liberal, or gay, or pro-choice or had
the wrong color hair or who knows and they need to exhume the body
to prove she actually had an IQ of 210 right before they pulled
the feeding tube. If I was in his shoes I would do anything to
bring closure to 15 years of this garbage.
\_ Your English needs work. but, why do you care if bugs eat your
corpse? You're dead! I guess it means future anthropologists
can't dig up your old bones or fossils. Personally, assuming
I live to old age I'll look into the cryogenic shit. Why not.
\_ Is she brain dead now? No, not yet, run more tests, file suits.
\_ If you thought Terri's parents have been total assholes, especially
in the last couple months, maybe you'd do the same thing. |
| 2005/4/5 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37071 Activity:insanely high |
4/5 I need some URL to forward to co-workers to cheer them up.
Please help, offer suggestions.
\_ http://csua.berkeley.edu/motd
\_ http://csua.com/Recreation/Humor
http://csua.com/Recreation/Stripclub
\_ http://www.prettyhotbabes.com
\_ GODAMNIT. This is NOT work safe. -pissed
\_ This may be considered an intelligence test. You failed it.
\_ Doesn't everyone at soda work for a porn site or sex shop
by now? That means that http://foxnews.com may no longer be work
safe but porn sites will be.
\_ Funny, since foxnews seems to maximize the hot babes as
often as possible (stories, female reporters, etc.).
\_ http://www.partiallyclips.com
\_ http://www.finalexit.org
\_ http://www.asianthumbs.org/main.php
\_ None of these site cheered them up. Furthermore, they all
think I have bad taste, though my manager has not said anything.
Please come up with better links and I will forward them manana.
\_ http://www.prozac.com it REALLY WORKS!
\_ http://www.hanzismatter.com |
| 2005/4/4-5 [Reference/Religion] UID:37065 Activity:insanely high |
4/4 Pope Poll (.=anon, c=christian, m=muslim, b=bhuddist, a=atheist, +=agnostic):
His death:
makes me sad: .aa+
make me happy: a.b
don't care: baca+.a
\_ None of the above. I think the world isn't as good without
him in it. I think he's also finished his work and will be
well-received in the hereafter. Hopefully his successor will be
more aggressive dealing with pedophile priests, can get rid of the
birth-control ban and allow priests to marry.
\_ i would get slightly sad in the sense that death in general
is sad, if i sat there and got myself into that mood, but it would
be tough given his old age. nope, don't care. if i was religious
i wouldn't care either, since he's either in heaven or hell or
what-have-you, as the gods see fit, and all is well regardless.
\_ You misspelled Buddhist.
\_ Not if he's from Bhutan.
\- Indians think it is funny how Americans say Buddha ... when
they say "Boo Duh". It is hard to write this correctly in
english because english doesnt have a consonant for the
"bh" or "dh" sound. In fact in sanskrit, Buddha is probably
just written with two letters: B + "oo operator" + the D+DH
consonants combined into one. If the two consonants were not
combined but written sequentially, the word would have been
pronounced "Bu Daw Dhaw" [3 syl]. ok dhanyabad.
\_ Do you laugh at the Japanese version (="bu-tsu"), too?
\_ We think it's funny how Indians say pretty much
anything else. -John
\- Well, when you have to learn a state language, hindi,
english and sanskrit in school at a minimum, i suppose
it comes at a cost.
\- i'm not a big fan of JPII for his "easy for me to say" policies
on things like birth control -> mortal sin [in the technical
sense], but he was as pretty smart guy [in terms of number of
languages and such], and he seems to have borne his suffering
during the "end of days" pretty well, and i was sadden to see
him suffer, although i dont like the decadence of te catholic
church. he's in a different category from people like prince
[sic] charles or his ex-wife princess landmine, who i am
pleased to see suffer and would like to see fed to a wood
chipper. --psb
\_ It's not their fault the English are to retarded to get rid
of the idiotic anachronism of royalty. I lay the blame at the
feet of every citizen of the commonwealth, including Canada,
who fails to speak out against their existence.
\_ Ah, and the Americans are not retarded to get rid of the
ruling Dynasty class of the United States? Where the super
rich are in fact getting proportionally richer than everyone
else and that they actually have a lot more influence on the
government than say, in the 40s or 50s?
\_ Charles and Diana are/were not Catholic. Any why do you hate
Diana? Hating Charles I can understand, but Diana seemed to be
liked by everyone.
\- yes, i know they are not cathloic. charles i was beheaded
in 1649, so some people share your hatred. re: diana liked
by everyone, well most people dont reflect much on who they
respect and such. think qe ii is actually held in greater
regard. --psb
\_ He deserves some credit in standing up to communism and bringing
it down. - christian democrat
\_ Liberal liar. Reagan brought down communism.
\_ The labor union in Poland did.
\_ Please keep your hands and minds inside the vehicle at
all times while riding in the faith-based community.
\_ yea, it's almost as ridiculous as "Reagan brought
down communism".
\_ Even though JPII's beliefs were almost opposite of mine (especially
on issues of abortion, women's rights, stem cell research, right to
die, contraception, gays, etc.) -- I have respect for the man
because he truly had conviction -- and even though I think many of
his policies and beliefs harmed the world in some ways -- at least
he was consistent -- against abortion AND the death penalty --
against euthanasia AND the war in Iraq. Unlike the hypocritical
bastard weasels we currently have in charge like DeLay, Cheney and
Bush. And he deserves a lot of credit for helping to bring down
Communism non-violently in Poland and reconciling and connecting
to other faiths. His attention to the disparity between the rich
and poor was something to be admired, although of course that is
muted because of his archaic position on birth control. I cannot
deny that he was an extraordinary person. -eric
Communism non-violently in Poland and reconciling with and
connecting to other faiths. His attention to the disparity between
the rich and poor was something to be admired, although of course
that is muted because of his archaic position on birth control. I
cannot deny that he was an extraordinary person. -eric |
| 2005/4/2-5 [Reference/Religion] UID:37050 Activity:high |
4/2 Can someone explain why popes select a new name, and don't use
their own name? Thanks.
\- I think it's to mark a transition from "regular guy" to
Pope ... in some cases i suppose they may pick a name
to hint an some inclination or tribute to somebody they
like [john paul ii was ostensibly a tribute to jp i, who
lasted like a month]. i think it is similar to nun's taking
a name after taking vows. Some hindu fellows pick a new name
after becoming sadhus, so this is not an uncommon thing.
If the new pope picks the name Pope Ali G, I will apply to
convert to Catholicism. Big up yourself. --psb
\_ JP II named himself after the two previous popes (Pope John and Pope Paul
whos administrations he agreed with and wanted to continue their ideas.
\_ JP II named himself after the two previous popes (Pope John and
Pope Paul whos administrations he agreed with and wanted to
continue their ideas.
\_ Remember; there was a JP I. So your argument is w/o merit.
\_ JP I named himself after J XXIII who he admired, and P VI who
was an early supporter. JP II named himself after JP I.
\_ psb for pope!!!
\- is the pope catholic? --psb i
\_ I thought it was because he was a huge fan of John Paul
Jones. Yaaaarhhh!
\_ Nope. It's because he was a Beatles impersonator in his
pasttime.
\_ Pope Alexander VI!!!1!! BEST! POPE! EVARR!!!!!11!!
c.f. "Ballet of the Chestnuts"
\_ No way! Pope Formosus rocked! Only pope to by put on trial
as an embalmed cadaver.
\_ Dude. Pope Hilarius. You can't beat a name like that.
\_ Dude, Alexander Pope rocked them all!
"Fondly we think we honor merit then,
When we but praise ourselves in other men."
\_ I believe it started because there was a Pope named Mercurius and
he thought it was unseemmly to remain named after a pagan god while
he's the pope. It gradually became a tradition. I think there
was a span of like 700 years from first renaming to last non-rename.
\_ Why dont you just post the google link?
\_ Goto wikipedia.
\_ not every bit of trivia/knowledge is the result of a
google search --!op
\_ If you know this, you know this, and you dont need the
"I believe" and "I think".
\_ Yes, Mrs. Grammarian.
\_ That's Ms. Grammarian to YOU. |
| 2005/4/2-5 [Reference/Religion] UID:37046 Activity:high 60%like:37922 |
4/2 Ding dong the Pope is dead!
\-Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Came down upon his head.
Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Made sure that he was dead.
Sic transit gloria mundi. --psb
\-Sic transit gloria mundi
\_ Dude, this doesn't exactly rally people to our cause.
\_ Cause?
\_ That makes three: Terri, Johnny and JP
\_ Yep, only three people died this week.
\_ Well, only 3 craven 24-hour news channel Exciting Death
Watches! (tm)
\_ Has the next pope already been selected, or does that process
begin now?
\_ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4310789.stm
\_ 6 days official mourning, after 10 days the cardinals elect
another pope. College of cardinals isn't allowed to make any
changes to laws/rules made by the pope during that time. Burial
is usually after 3-4 days. -John
\_ Elect? Isn't the pope supposed to be chosen by god?
\_ The cardinals are chosen by the pope and the pope is
god's only one true representative on earth, you muslim
homosexual commie heretic, you. BURN! -John
\_ The cardinals are chosen by the pope and the pope is
chosen by the cardinals. So god doesn't actually get to
choose who represents him on earth. I see.
\_ I don't quite know how to put this to you, but you
are trying to introduce rational arguments into a
discussion about an organization which believes in
saints and devils, transsubstantiation (or at least
influential parts of it do), and which only
grudgingly apologized for the inquisition a few
years ago. -John
\_ God speaks through his holiness so, nominally, god
does pick the cardinals, within that frame of logic.
\_ Then how do you explain the 18 year old pope pimp?
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0130.htm
\_ Sure he does, by their dogma. You are assuming free
will.
\_ But it's not a chicken and egg... the succession of
popes goes back to some apostle or whatever who was
chosen personally by The Christ. -atheist
\_ Peter.
\_ You've got some issues John. ;)
\_ (Bad) joke. But I take serious issue with the
stupidities of all organized religion, so nothing
new there. -John
\_ Yes, I love unorganized religions too. |
| 2005/3/30-31 [Reference/Religion] UID:36976 Activity:nil |
3/30 Hey, the pope is being fed via tubes! Let's remove the tube!!
\_ If and when he or his duly appointed guardian says to, sure thing.
\_ Yeah, that would be this whole conscious and aware thing getting in
the way of that.
\_ Better question: Would you like to live like that?
Is he being kept alive artificially?
\_ Does a bear shit in The Pope's hat, Dan?
\_ Many who oppose pulling the tube from Terry would support it in
the case of the pope, just 'cause they don't like Catholics.
Hypocritical bastards. |
| 2005/3/28 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Religion] UID:36909 Activity:high |
3/27 I have a proposal for you Christians and Pro-Lifers. Instead of
bitching and whining, how about setting up a "Save Terri Fund", where
you donate a large portion of your church money to the Terri fund so
that you can 1) bribe Michael and 2) pay for medical expenses? I mean,
this whole thing is about MONEY right? Stop building really nice super
mega churches, spend some of that money on Terri.
\_ Um, people *have* tried to give Michael money. By his count it's
over $15M.
\_ I'm neither a Christian nor a pro-lifer, but this is a completely
nonsensical statement. This whole thing is NOT about money. If
you honestly believed that then you're a moron. This whole thing
is about a whacky belief system that insists a brain-dead shell
of a human should be allowed to be artificially maintained
ad nauseum. I'm not quite sure why this is "christian" since
if you believe in god, you'd figure that this is basically god's
way of telling you that your time is up. Keeping people on earth
indefinitely through life support sure as hell doesn't sound
very christian, ethical, or humane. In fact, it's rather ironic
that it isn't the atheists who insist on letting Terri continue
on, since if there's no god, there's no after life, and keeping
Terri alive indefinitely theoretically improves her chances of
getting some sort of future miracle treatment that would cure
her. Chances of that are obviously virtually nil, but it's an
illustration on how whacky reasoning can get you to any conclusion
you want.
\_ anti-Christian troll alert. I hope to see a good rebutal from
our good mannered Christian/Mormon friend(s) on motd.
\_ Any result is in God's plan, right?
\_ many if not most of Terri's advocates only want her to receive
due process, which she obviously has not. There are too many
conflicts of interest between the only judge who actually
reviewed the case, the lawyer Felos, and Michael. I don't
understand how after all of the publicity given to this case
you can't see the glaring inconsistencies in the order of
her execution. When the only witness to her wish to die
contradicts himself repeatedly, one might expect a more
thorough investigation.
\_ I can't think of ANYONE who has received more due process than
Terri Schiavo. THIRTY court decisions, state and federal, EVERY
one of them ruling
for Michael Schiavo, and against the parents. This is unusual
since usually this many court cases will have at least ONE
ruling that goes against the others. The "due process" the
"Culture of Life" supporters want is for her to be hooked up to
machines until she dies of old age. And of course, no mention
is made by them of the DOZENS of people who could have been
helped with the tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and
medical care, resources and time wasted on keeping this brain
stem functioning. People who could actually get better and
live a meaningful life because of being healed.
one of them ruling for Michael Schiavo, and against the
parents. This is unusual since usually this many court cases
will have at least ONE ruling that goes against the others.
The "due process" the "Culture of Life" supporters want is for
her to be hooked up to machines until she dies of old age.
And of course, no mention is made by them of the DOZENS of
people who could have been helped with the tens of millions of
dollars in legal fees and medical care, resources and time
wasted on keeping this brain stem functioning. People who
could actually get better and live a meaningful life because
of being healed.
\_ her case was only reviewed in full once, by one judge.
This judge received campaign contributions from Felos.
This judge is legally blind.
All of the others were decided in 90 minutes, not de novo.
How can a judge review the evidence from a 15 year case
in 90 minutes when it is a life and death matter?
I think you are blissfully ignorant about the facts
surrounding her sentence. David Boeis
and Derschowitz support a de novo review, doesn't that
tell you something. Clearly you understand the
significance and precedent setting nature of this case,
which is why you've become so upset. All that most are asking
is a full vetting of the facts.
surrounding her sentence. David Boeis and Derschowitz
support a de novo review, doesn't that tell you something.
Clearly you understand the significance and precedent
setting nature of this case, which is why you've become so
upset. All that most are asking is a full vetting of the
facts.
\_ Upon what basis do you call this precedent setting? This
sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. Thousands of families
have to make this decision every year. I'm sure in
hundreds of those cases, there are disputes which end up
in the courts. The only precedent set here is the level
of hypocrisy in our federal legislature.
\_ The majority of America does not agree with your assessment
\_ Bullshit.
\_ No, really.
\_ No, bullshit. You're are misrepresenting polls,
etc.
\_ Even evangelical Christians think the
courts have it right. The polls are
not being misrepresented, the courts did not
screw up -- you are just wrong -- but I
know no FACTS will convince you of this.
Her cerebral cortex is just spinal fluid
but fundies want to claim she is "minimally
conscious" thanks to 4+ hours of footage
edited Oliver Stone-style into 4 minutes
of propaganda. At least in a few
days this will be all over, an autopsy
will show her brain was just mush, and
the fundies can find the next illogical
position to take and rant about.
\_ Actually what was decided in 90 mins is whether a
TRO should be granted or not. A TRO is designed to
maintain/change the status quo so that one party
is not unduly damaged while the case proceeds. In
deciding whether a TRO can be granted the judge
needs to see whether the party seeking the TRO
has a strong change of winning at trial. In this
case, there was basically no chance of winning at
trial based on the record presented to the judge
(which is all the judge can use at this stage to
determine if a TRO can be granted), thus refusal
of the TRO was appropriate.
There is also some ambiguity about what exactly
the judge is authorized to do by the act of
congress. The act does not specify de novo trial.
It simply specifies de novo. This could be de
novo review which means that the judge cannot
consider new evidence but must rely only on the
record as presented. Also keep in mind that every
fed judge in the middle dist of FL and all of
their law clerks, &c. have probably been reviewing
the record for some time since it looked like
congress was going to do something dumb, thus
they probably had a good idea about how to rule
on various motions, such as a TRO. |
| 2005/3/26-28 [Reference/Religion] UID:36894 Activity:low |
3/26 This dilbert comic really reminds me of the motd. If you point
out a flaw in someone's reasoning, you're immediately an evil
religious right-winger, or a left-wing moonbat, depending.
link:csua.org/u/bi3
\_ Rationally considered, I don't think you have a very good argument,
you fascist homosexual activist.
\_ Bite me, you fanatical uber-religious socialist.
\_ Why do you hate America? |
| 2005/3/24-25 [Reference/Religion, Recreation/Humor] UID:36857 Activity:kinda low Cat_by:auto |
3/24 The Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair!
http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html
Winners include "My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)",
"Women Were Designed For Homemaking", and "Using Prayer To Microevolve
Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria".
\_ Wow. That last one made me laugh out loud. Until I went to the
link and saw that it was real. -emarkp
\_ It's not.
\_ It's not. Main evidence: the
non-existence of "Fellowship University",
where their various "experts" are
supposedly professors.
\_ You missed such jems as: "Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False"
and "Rocks Can't Evolve, Where Did They Come From Mr. Darwin?"
-jrleek
\_ Jesus Christ is getting stronger every single day, and will finally
come back to rule the earth! In another news, Christians are
building a space ship, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE, YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED
\_ there's a space ship behind the comet
\_ Unfortunately this site is satire. Check out the Landover Baptist
site that they link to: http://www.landoverbaptist.org
\_ No, I don't think so. It is getting harder and harder to
tell parody from seriousness from these guys, but they
comdemn Landover Baptist Church:
http://objective.jesussave.us/shutdown.html
Okay, this convinces me:
http://www.cafepress.com/objectivemin.11596947
They have *got* to be kidding. |
| 2005/3/21-22 [Reference/Religion] UID:36802 Activity:kinda low 80%like:36800 |
3/21 Dear Morons, what do you think about assisted suicide? Curious.
\_ -5 Flamebait
\_ no, seriously, I want to know how jrleek and emarkp think if
they're trapped in their own body without any freedom to do
what they want. Do they agree with "Give me freedom or give
me death", or do they agree with "Jesus trapped me in my own
body for a reason, god bless"?
\_ I almost never agree with jrleek or emarkp, but honestly.
Anonymous trolling of them, just because they are Mormons,
is pure-grade 100% lame.
\_ Obviously, you could just send an email. |
| 2005/3/21 [Reference/Religion] UID:36800 Activity:nil 80%like:36802 |
3/21 Dear Mormons, what do you think about assisted suicide? Curious.
\_ -5 Flamebait
\_ no, seriously, I want to know how jrleek and emarkp think if
they're trapped in their own body without any freedom to do
what they want. Do they agree with "Give me freedom or give
me death", or do they agree with "Jesus trapped me in my own
body for a reason, god bless"?
\_ Do what they want? Vegetable people don't "want" anything.
Their primitive life functions just tick away without
an active consciousness. The whole fact of people's
personalities and consciousness being altered by physical
brain changes isn't really compatible with religious
notions of the soul, I think. One could argue the woman's
soul is gone. But what if in a different case she merely
became a retard? How would that be interpreted... perhaps
the soul is there but the body too damaged to express the
soul's desires? But some people are born retarded. Or
merely become a bit thick from eating lead paint chips
as a child. |
| 2005/3/11 [Reference/Religion] UID:36646 Activity:high |
3/11 Can a Christian enter a mosque or a temple? Is it a breach of his/her
faith?
\_ No! Christians are only allowed to use colorsafe bleach on
their faith!
\_ Oops. "breach".
\-Uh no. In the case of Hindu temples, the depends on local rules.
Some say "hindus only", some just want to you remove shoes/leather
items before coming in. In some cases you cant bring in bags and
cameras and such, but that is for security reasons [like at the
important Kashi Viswanath Mandir], not relig. In a few very orthodox
places in south india, men must wear a dhuti [and possibly tied in
the south india as opposed to bengali fashion]. In the case of some
\_ In Kerla, at least one temple is duthi only (no shirt).
\- i assume you can wear a shawl or "namaboli" type thing.
the rule is probably not "no shirt" but "nothing stitched"
[hence pant -> dhuti] and sari is ok. --psb
"hindu only" temples, i suspect that it is not a strictly relig
thing ... they just dont want clueless white people taking pictures
and disrupting things and taking wearing shoes in the wrong places
and all that. at a place like pashipatinath in kathmandu, i dont
and all that. at a place like pashupatinath in kathmandu, i dont
know what they will do if a white person says he is a hindu. you can
probably BS or pay your way in. A non-muslim cant just hang along
on the hajj ... but that is "their rule", not the Church's rule.
\_ When I was there we were not allowed to wear a
shawl, &c (different story for women). It was
pretty lame b/c this was for general attendence
not for a special enterance such as for Sri
Vaishnava's at Thirupathi.
\- did you pay $1million to go into the Thirupathi
temple? at the kolkata kalighat kali mandir, it is
more or less anything goes. in puri/bhubaneswar,
it was no leather/hindus only i think. --psb
The main masjid in Kolkata allows non-hindu one day a year, but
i dont know if you can make a special arrangement. As with churches
where you are supposed to dip or fingers and cross yourself or
whatever, some of these places have "rules" about what you are
supposed to do when you come in ... you will probably screw that
up and be obvious.
\_ I think he's asking about whether or not it would compromise his
own faith. Most major religions will let you "visit", although
I believe the Kabaa is off-limits to heathen. -John
\- although occasionally infiltrated, e.g. famously by
richard burton who dressed up as an afgan to get in.
[richard burton, the victorian, not the actor] --psb
\_ What's the Hindu perspective on American Hari[sp?] Krishnas?
\_ There is no such thing as a non-hindu. But those
people are freaks.
\- i think the view is something like the ramkrishna mission
is more respectable than ISKCON. --psb
\_ I think the op was asking if it was a breach of the Christian
faith to enter a place of worship of another religion, not
if the place of worship would allow the Christian to enter. -!op
\- yes i understand that. and i did address that. i thought the
rest may be of interest to people with more "catholic"
interests than you.
\_ You immediately catch fire and die. |
| 2005/3/5-7 [Reference/Religion] UID:36539 Activity:high |
3/5 Looks like the big thread on Mormonism got smoked. I just want to
reiterate that if you're looking for non-biased research on the LDS
religion, goto http://www.equip.org They helped me dig up the complete
passages that make up the Pearl of Great Price, Book of Mormon, etc.
It's a tough cult to get out of once you're in it. If you're
doubting the religion and want to talk to someone who's left it after
being part of many generations of Mormons, please feel free to
email me at egwall@csua.berkeley.edu.
\_ Fuck your christian brainwash site. If you think that site is a
source of real information, it is you who need help getting out
of your jesus cult.
\_ You had to "dig up" passages of the Book of Mormon and such?
Ummm... they're availible completely for free here:
http://scriptures.lds.org
\_ That's what the LDS church wants others to see. Try digging
a little harder. -egwall
\_ Just an observation, but you should probably differentiate
between their official bible-type stuff and the various
"the truth behind mormonism" sites--it may be a sham, or at
least based on one, but if one of them says the online
bits you found match his scriptures, I'd probably take that
from the horse's mouth. -John
\_ It matches my printed LDS scriptures, and I routinely use it
to prep classes, etc. How's that tinfoil hat fitting? -emarkp
\_ Check this out http://www.irr.org/mit/jsfalpro.html -- documented
false prophecies from the founder of the Mormon church.
Enough said. The LDS church is a sham. Sad but true.
\_ Check this out: http://www.irr.org/yoga&christianity.html
-- documented evidence that your wingnut "institute"
declares that Christians should not do yoga. Sad but
true.
\_ You need to improve your reading comprehension (read
those "prophesies" carefully and look up the original
sources. Then note that your comment has nothing to do
with the above comment. Oh, and sign your name you
wimp. -emarkp
\_ This is hilarious. If it's so hard to get out of, why have I spent
so much time trying to figure out if people who are on the
membership rolls still live in the area? Hint: you're a crackpot.
-emarkp
\_ Whatever, and uh, thanks for the insult. -egwall
\_ Hey, you called my religion a 'cult'. Cry me a river. -emarkp
\_ Hee hee. From http://www.equip.org/free/CP0301.htm
"First of all, Mormons are taught that the Bible has been corrupted
through the years and is no longer reliable"
Yeah, we're not Bible literalists or believe the Bible is inerrant.
Oh no. Shoot me now. -emarkp
\_ Who is "we're"? -egwall
\_ We LDS. -emarkp
\_ Do you believe the Book of Mormon/Pearl of Great
Price/whatever is inerrant?
\_ Sorry, didn't see this until today (3/7). No. -emarkp
\_ So if you believe there are errors in it how do you
know what those are? What can you really believe and
who determines that?
\_ Sorry, there's no checklist. -emarkp
\_ Just curious then, because it seems one can pick
and choose what is accurate and what is a
mistake.
\_ There's been a /lot/ of work trying to figure out
which (of the many) manuscripts are best for the
Bible. That's simplified in the LDS case because
there were only two manuscripts for the Book of
Mormon (one by the scribe, which was copied to
take to the printer). I've never seen a flat-out
contradiction except where the Bible has poetic or
allegorical accounts. -emarkp
\_ So, the church is actually putting together
a "critical text" of the Book of Mormon (on copmuter) that will
include all the various versions of the Book of Mormon that have
existed and diff functions to show what has changed. There were a
number of minor differences in different versions. Chapter
divisions changed, as well as a lot of punctionation and some
grammar. JS edited the original printed version for grammatical
errors. The current version is the edited one. Furthermore, when
they found part of the original manuscipt, some copying errors
were discovered. Nothing important, just stuff like "as powerful
as the (s)word of the Lord." The 's' was omitted in the copy.
Anyway, none of the differences really changed the meaning of
anything, and none of this is "secret." -jrleek
\_ I would argue to cult of atheism is harder to get out of once
ensnared, and has done far more damage to vastly greater numbers
of people.
\_ Fuck you.
\_ Examples?
\_ Don't encourage the wanker. You know without having to hear
his drooling horseshit that he's refering to communism.
Rather than hear this particular red herring for the thousanth
time, better to keep the message simple: "fuck you" seems
right to me.
\_ There is nothing inherently atheist about communism. In
fact, the cult-of-personality phenomena of many
totalitarian regimes with a communist ideology have a
decidedly religious vibe to them. If anything, 'communism'
seeks to supplant religion while taking advantage of
religious feelings, whatever the ideology might say.
-- ilyas
\_ I agree with you 100%. *I* was not equating
communism with athiesm, I was just trying to guess what
mr. "cult of athiesm" was going to say if he got the
chance to start rambling. -pp
\_ this statement is so blatantly apocryphal and
historically ignorant it really doesn't
even deserve a serious response.
\_ Marx does not 'own' communism. Just because he said
something about masses and opium does not
automatically link religions, and the ideological
conception of economics/history that a card-carrying
communist might have. -- ilyas
\_ Do you know anything about the Russian and Spanish
civil wars, for example?
\_ Gee, why would I know something about the
Russian civil war? Next thing you know you
might accuse me of knowing Russian. -- ilyas
\_ But don't accuse him of _being_ Russian,
he might ilyas the motd!
\_ Omg! Hi Rob!
\_ nope, I haven't posted much in awhile.
Better work on your scripts. -meyers
\_ don't you speak/read/write Russian?
\_ Someone's sarcasm detector is busted.
\_ and what makes you think you have a
monopoly on slavic genes?
\_ I think my argument is buttressed by these manifestations
of your psychoses.
\_ How do you know the 's' was omitted and the word wasn't 'word'?
\_ As emarkp stated, there were 2 'original' Book of
Mormon manuscripts. The real original, which was written by
a number of different scribes as JS dictated, and a copy,
which was sent to the printer. The orginal had been lost,
but part was recovered. I understand about half it had
deteriorated. Anyway, the phrase in question appears
multiple times in the Book or Mormon, all of which say
'sword,' save the one instance. Upon examination of the
original manuscript, it was discovered that the scribe that
wrote that portion of the manuscript wrote funny 's's. In
this case, the s had kind of merged with the following 'w,'
so it just looked like 1 'w.' It was easy to misread, and
the copying scribe had misread it. -jrleek |
| 2005/3/4-5 [Reference/Religion] UID:36535 Activity:high |
3/4 Dear fellow Christians, why even bother talking to these anonymous
cowards, gays, lesbians, liberals, hippies, and pagans who obviously
will not change their minds about Christianity?
\_ Dear fucktard, why does anyone talk to anyone they disagree with
ever? I'm not likely to abandon my athiest ways any time soon,
but I sure apreciate hearing what some of the religious people here
have to say, and so do a lot of other people. Hearing other people's
points of view is *interesting*.
\_ Have you ever been to temple square in Salt Lake City? You have
to beat them off with a shovel. It's like phishing, you only need
to find one stupid chump, so you blanket your message as widely
as possible. -tom
\_ The above content cannot possibly be written by a Christian because
it's written on a Friday night when they go to church.
\_ i do wonder about that. i mean if i honestly had faith that magic
angels would live with me in paradise when i die, i would not
give a shit about anything. would not give a shit when loved ones
die, or anyone dies for that matter. whee they're with god! etc.
i would not go on living the normal mundane life that i see all
the religious folks do.
\_ Don't be so sure:
Edmund: No, you see, the thing about Heaven, is that Heaven
is for people who like the sort of things that go on in
Heaven, like, uh, well, singing, talking to God, watering
pot plants... Whereas Hell, on the other hand, is for
people who like the other sorts of things: adultery,
pillage, torture -- those areas. |
| 2005/3/4-5 [Reference/Religion] UID:36532 Activity:high |
3/4 LDS people: How would you respond to: "Are you saved?"
- wants to learn more about Mormonism.
\_ I guess it would depend on who's asking. If it was a baptist
preacher I would say, "Y-uh-esssss! I'm suh-AVED!."
Because, in the way they mean it, I am. If it was
someone asking a deeper question, like, what exactly that
means, I would probably explain. Really, that's a prety random
question. -jrleek
\_ To Evangelicals and other Christians, this is very important.
How are people Saved? In Mormonism, how are people "saved"?
\_ Mormons, in general, don't use the word "saved," although
it does apply. One becomes saved when one repents, is
baptized, and turns their life to God. They continue to
be saved as long as they are faithful and try to keep the
commandments. (That is, as long as they are making
efforts to progress towards becoming more like Christ.)
One can lose this status by turning away from God, either
purposely or through inaction. (Although, it is usually
not our place to judge who is saved and who isn't, that
is between one and God.) One obtains "salvation" after
death when they are judged. If they have kept their
covenants then they obtain salvation. At least, that's
how I understand the terms. emarkp might have more
to say. -jrleek
Addendum: Part of the reason there's a divergence in
terms betwen most Christians and Mormons on this is
because most Christian faiths think of becoming saved as
an event. Mormons think of it as a process. Our purpose
on earth is to become more like God, not just to get
into heaven. Although that's a nice bonus. :)
\_ If I thought my purpose in life was to be more like God, I
would definitely pursue a career in math.
\_ Heh, that's a good line. Thanks. -jrleek
\_ I was only half joking. Do you know any mormon
mathematicians? It seems logical enough to me.
I've always been an athiest, but the only time
I get to thinking a god might make sense is when
I'm studying higher math.
\_ Evangelicals would say that if you fully accept
Christ you are saved. Sounds like Mormons say that that
is not enough. Catholics say that fully accepting Christ
is not enough either.
\_ Yes, this and the trinity are the 2 two basic
elements that make up most "Mormons aren't
Christians" arguments. Although this particular one
is a very old argument, usually summed up as
"Faith vs. Works." Prodestants say Faith,
Catholics say works, Mormons say both. -jrleek
\_ Do you mean Protestant instead of Prodestant?
\_ That's an oversimplistic way of looking at it.
The more correct way is that Protestants say
one is saved by Faith, and the proof of Faith
is Good Works. So it's not an either/or proposition,
the fact that you are saved means that you will
do Good Works. I don't know about Catholics, but
AFAIK the concept of being saved in Catholicism
is much more ritualistic, i.e. one is saved by
acknowledging the rites such as confession.
\_ Those "rites" such as confession are the ones set
up by Jesus Christ himself. So those who
practice confessionare following what Jesus has
set up:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Confession.asp
\_ Bull-Shit. There is (at best) only indirect
evidence that Jesus Christ performed
confession to anyone. The only thing that
is semi-concrete is within the Pauline
letters. The concept of confession within
the Catholic church is purely a Romanesque
invention. If confession as we know it
was in fact part of JC's actions it sure
isn't contained in the four gospels.
It is definitely NOT up to the scale like
baptism or holy communion.
\_ If I ever start a religion, putting a hyphen
in the middle of the word "bullshit" will be
a sin.
\_ After his resurrection, Jesus passed on
his mission to forgive sins to his
ministers, telling them, "As the Father
has sent me, even so I send you. . . .
Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive
the sins of any, they are forgiven; if
you retain the sins of any, they are
retained" (John 20:21-22)
\_ The word we LDS use for "rites" is ordinances.
Baptism for instance. -emarkp
\_ Catholics say both: Faith and Works.
\_ To both of the above: Yeah, it was meant as
an oversimplification. I didn't want to go
into it. Sorry. -jrleek
\_ Well, there's that whole "Book of Mormon" thing.
I wonder how many Mormons used to be Protestant
or Catholic. Do Mormons tend to know those
doctrines? It seems not, because to most of the
rest of us Mormonism is VERY VERY different.
\_ Huh? A lot of Mormons used to be Protestant
or Catholic, the membersip is growing much
faster by conversion than by birth. As for
the second sentence, are you accusing me of
not knowing the doctrines, or most mormons?
I was just making a generality about the
class of "Mormons aren't Christians"
arguments. These are peculiar because they
have to concern fundemental differences
between the religions, in areas that are
agreed on my all other 'Christian' sects to
create the desired division. -jrleek
\_ This is an honest question. Converts can
be coming from Islam or agnostics or
whatever - not necessarily Catholics. Of
the ones who were Catholic and who knew
the doctrine (i.e. not Catholic in name
only) why would they switch to Mormonism?
I do not think most Mormons know the
doctrines of other Christian Churches
well, because if they did they would know
the differences are not small (for better
or for worse).
\_ I admit that I cannot help you
immediately on the Catholics turn
Mormon problem, since I was never
Catholic. Email me, and I can get
back to you with someone who was
later. (I know pleanty of converts
from Catholicism) Just for the
record, I never claimed the
differences were small, so I'm really
not sure what you're getting at.
At this point, please just
email me. -jrleek
\_ To quote "Oedipus the King":
"Don't think for a moment that you can call anybody
happy until you know for sure exactly what is going to
happen to him right up till the end--that is, until he
goes down into the grave without having tasted misery."
I think most LDS would say, "well, not yet". We tend to
think of salvation as the end product. Even after
accepting Christ as Savior, it is possible to "fall from
grace". Some evangelicals believe "once saved, always
saved", which doesn't make sense to me. -emarkp |
| 2005/3/3-6 [Reference/Religion] UID:36518 Activity:high |
3/3 A while ago, I complimented a religion right wing person for standing
up to his principles against overwhelming number of stubborn
left wing anti-religious idiots looking for frivolous issues to
fight about. Today, that right wing person slashed back against
these idiots and brought everyone to a new low. I have lost
all respect for this person and I'm taking back my compliment. -op
\_ who actually complimented emarkp?
\_ Idiots like mice and ilyas. Proof in entry KM 36369:3:2
\_ You're a weirdo.
\_ Wasn't that a coupla days ago?
\_ Wait-a-minute, everyone who complemented him posted by name,
but you are not posting by name right now. Curious.
\_ who actually complimented emarkp?
\_ If I don't believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the easter
bunny, and internally inconsistent Christian dogma that makes me
an idiot?
\_ no, it has nothing to do with belief. You're an idiot for
attacking brainwashed Christians. Have more sympathy for them
for crying out loud.
\_ You're a weirdo. Why would anyone care about your anonymous
retraction? I mean wtf? I'm the guy who went back and forth
with emarkp in the long thread the other day and I do respect
that he's willing to do that... he actually listens to criticism
and participates in dialogue, and stands up for what he believes.
I think that deserves respect even if I think he's wrong. He's
opened himself up to flak from doofuses like you. |
| 2005/3/3-4 [Science/Biology, Reference/Religion] UID:36501 Activity:moderate |
3/2 To the person defending LDS, where's your Mormon Christain wingman
like jrleek? Don't you guys always work in a pair? Why isn't he
helping you out? I'm asking because the motd today reminds me of
my undergrad experience. Everyday, I'd walk alone to/from Dwinelle,
Wheeler, and Le Conte and I'm always approached by two well groomed,
happy and occasionally attractive looking people asking me if I
would be interested in joining them, and it always turns out to be
something related to God, Church and Bible Study.
Secretly I've always had this dream of pairing up with an athiest
wingman in say, Jesuit School School of Theology. We would walk
around and ask students if they'd be interested in joining our
organization, and we would tell them that it's something related to
Science, University, and Evolutionary Study. I wonder how many
students would actually join us. Maybe we can even get enough
people to fund a church where devouts can worship Science and maybe
even start missionaries abroad.
\_ If I ever move back to the bay area, I'll be a wingman for that.
\_ jrleek is changing his own baby's diapers right now, just like
BY had to do. long live jrleek. -vallard
\_ Oh, I'm pretty lazy. I'll post a response when some one states
something untrue about the church, but emarkp started that
argument and he can keep it. -jrleek |
| 2005/3/2-3 [Reference/Religion] UID:36499 Activity:insanely high |
3/2 I just took the Christianity test on Worldview http://Weekend.com - a sort of barometer that determines how Christian you are - and in my case, evidently, given my liberal background, I thought I'd be classified as a pagan, but in fact, I scored -26 out of a possible 170 points, which classifies me as a: "Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker" http://www.worldviewweekend.com/test/register.php How about you guys, what did you get? \_ Loaded, incorrectly phrased and combined questions. Test is invalid. Next? -John \_ They also tell you what the correct answers are at the end, so you can study to do better next time. -- ilyas \_ obviously, you're a bad Christian and you're going to hell. \_ Thank god for that. -John \_ John is a Heil Nazi German, he's going to hell regardless \_ Well, yeah, obviously. What a fucking waste of my time. After reading emarkp debate, I was just starting to think co-existing with religious conservatives might actually be possible, since he seems like a reasonable guy. Thanks for bringing me back to earth. I got a -47, and if I'm a Communist/Marxist, well, I just don't know what to say--that's beyond stupid. \_ well, it's a Christian site. You're either a Christian, or not in which case they categorize as "Communist/Socialist/Secular" I'm sure you've heard this before-- You're either good, or evil. You're either with us/them, or against us/them. That's the mentality of many religious folks. \_ I only got a 95/170, and I got pretty irritated at the questions. -emarkp \_ But Mormons aren't really Christian, so that's okay. \_ That was the funny part. I got irritated about the focus on the Bible and politics and was thinking "where's the focus on God?". -emarkp \_ That thing is a complete waste of time. "George W. Bush is the president" ? :rolleyes: I got -21. \_ He stole the presidency. \_ In 2004? \_ Rolling your eyes: -10 \_ Your classification is: Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker Heehee. I am a godless communist! -- ilyas \_ how many points? \_ -15. I left a lot of things at 'No Opinion' (agnostic view). I agreed with the fundies the most on social issues and education, not surprisingly. We want the same things for different reasons. -- ilyas \_ ilyas wants to kill the homos? \_ dear religious person, I got a -10, which means that I'm either 5 points more Christian or 5 points less pagan than Mr. Libertarian ilyas. Does that mean probabilistically, I'm going to a slightly lesser hell than ilyas? \_ Is Hell a Graduated concept? Answer is in "God For Dummies", page 2532 3rd paragraph \_ Dante seemed to think so. \_ -20 \_ Damn. I got the highest score so far out of anyone who's not emarkp. 0. That's scary. Too much yoga. -nivra \_ I got a -170 but then again I didn't answer a single question. I guess I must be going to hell because I have no opinion whatsoever. By the way I like how they give you all the correct answers. Now I can study for it in case I ever need to infiltrate into the Christian ring to check out hot chicks. \_ I got a 27 or 17%. I am a Socialist Worldview Thinker! You can rest easy now nivra. -ausman \_ woot. I'm no longer the only socialist worldview thinker. -nivra \_ -31 (-18%). I think CAL and a childhood in Soviet Russia got to me \_ ilyas, is that you? \_ Reading comprehension >>> you. -- ilyas <<<<<<< Other Changes Below ======= \_ I got 69, which makes me "Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker" --dim |
| 2005/3/2-3 [Reference/Religion] UID:36484 Activity:very high |
3/2 I just found out Knuth is a Lutheran. So do the anti-religion folks
here now think Knuth doesn't use his brains? -emarkp
\_ For such a smart guy, why are you so eager to resurrect this
ad hominem trollish conversation? If the tone starts out so
hostile, do you really think you're going to change his mind? Did
his sophomoric arguments really get to you that badly? I'd think
that a deeply religious person would have developed much thicker
skin than that going to an institution like UCB.
\_ I am "anti-religion". Does Knuth use his brains? Obviously he does.
So what? This is the "appeal to authority" fallacy. A lot of famous
\_ No it isn't (it would be an appeal to authority if I
said "sine Knuth believes, so should you"). It is a
counterexample to the claim that religious people don't
use their brains. -emarkp
\_ Obviously what's meant is in the context of religion.
We have no way to know how Knuth thinks about
religion and no reason to even care.
\_ Then how is this "appeal to authority"? -emarkp
\_ you're holding up someone known for brains in
CS as an example of using brains on religion
\_ Well, he /has/ used his brains on religion.
His lectures show precisely how. -emarkp
\_ Ok I know nothing about this. But in
general his CS studies don't give any
weight to whatever religious ideas he
might have.
\_ (sigh) I /know/ that. I wasn't
claiming they did. The point isn't
that anyone should believe exactly
what Knuth believes. The point is
that you can't dismiss (say) all
Christians as not using their brains.
-emarkp
\_ But you can dismiss them as having
faulty reasoning.
\_ Why is everyone on motd so
fucking binary?
\_ Why? You're begging the
question. -emarkp
Why not? I haven't seen his reasoning. _/
Every other attempt to reason belief in Christianity
I've seen has been flawed IMO so I doubt he's
different. Anyway I'm not the one who made the
"don't use brain" assertion and I'm not willing to
defend it on its face.
\_ "reasoning belief" is practically a contradiction
in terms. some people are fine with this
contradiction. some are not. some people find
solace in faith. as long as they don't impose on
others, i'm just fine with it.
people were (at least ostensibly) religious. They may be
distinguished in their own field of study but they have no more
insight than anyone else when it comes to religion. And not long ago
it wasn't wise to admit atheism or even non-Christianity. Actually
I still don't feel comfortable admitting that as a rule, I still
come across a person occasionally who will find that shocking and
think I'm corrupted by Satan or whatever. Or for example politics
which requires all candidates to assert faith in God repeatedly.
I believe many churches are "evil" entities, in that they are greedy
and out to increase their power. This was clearly the case with the
Catholic church. Even today the Catholic church is obscenely rich.
\_ It's "clearly the case" with the Catholics? Yeah, that greedy
bastard the Pope...surely you can back that up? -emarkp
\_ Look, just do some research into the gory details of the
Catholic Church. It's a long history and far too much for the
motd. That doesn't mean the current Pope is some greedy evil
bastard. But they still extract a LOT of money from their
worldwide membership. Who controls this power? It's pretty
complex now. But if you look at the early roots of all these
religions you can see how priesthoods directly profited.
The priests described in the bible were the masters of their
tribe, receiving cuts of the holy sacrifices, delegating
power to the kings etc.
\_ Oh, I know the Catholic church has a sordid history. We're
talking about here and now though. -emarkp
power to the kings etc.
\_ Priests in the bible? The only priests described in the
bible are Jewish priests, not Catholic ones. Are some of
these Jewish priests corrupted. Yes, one is involved in
putting Jesus on the cross.
\_ I was talking about the general setup. The priest class,
regardless if it was corrupt, ran the show.
\_ Yes, that was why Jesus was against the Pharisees,
and why Martin Luther was against the Catholic
Church. However, Jesus did not reject having a
church (i.e. "organized religion"). Just because
some churches get corrupted doesn't mean we should
not have a church, which, in its purest sense, just
means a group of Christians worshipping together.
church (i.e. "organized religion").
\_ You really don't know if he did. What you think
you know about Jesus is what's provided by the
church. There's no real record of what he said.
Bible stuff was written long after he died, if
he ever existed. Martin Luther has no authority..
how could the Catholic Church be wrong? It was
a product of the apostolic succession etc.
\_ Everything Jesus said is so obviously from
the viewpoint of Heaven, that I am convinced
it is true. No mortal could have come up
with what Jesus said in the Gospels. Also,
it's not as easy as you think for your
supposed corrupt church to fake everything.
There are multiple sources, many manuscripts,
etc. Don't forget during the early years
Christians were fed to lions. For a long
period of time, there isn't a centralized,
powerful church, and I don't think they can
easily erase and fake things later on. If
the bible is edited by people bent on greed,
it wouldn't be as it is today, which reminds
me of an Abe Lincoln quote:
"If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this
one?"
\_ right. multiple sources that conflict,
sources that appeared hundreds of years
later, etc. Let's look at your other
assertions: no mortal could come up with?
Why not? There are plenty of other examples
to draw from. What about Buddha? He's not
considered holy by Xtians yet some of Jesus
stuff sounds like Buddha. There's also the
previous scripture for them to draw from,
that sets the tone. All I can say is, try
to study the early Christian history from
unbiased sources and you'll find that it
is absolutely possible.
\_ If you wish to think of it as one big
conspiracy theory, that's your choice.
I am going to go eat dinner, and then
read the bible before I go to bed.
Good night.
\_ Siddhartha does have some good stuff,
but he isn't Jesus. There is a book
called Lotus and the Cross by Ravi
Zacharias written as a dialogue between
Jesus and Buddha. It's not a bad read.
\_ Obviously he's talking about "as far as we
know". Also, IIRC Clement of Rome was a
contemporary of Peter and historical accounts
leave little doubt that Jesus /existed/. The
question is how accurate the Gospel accounts
are. -emarkp
\_ There is plenty of doubt that Jesus existed
as one person. There were a number of holy
guys running around and stories of miracle
workers etc. We /still/ have stories about
miracle workers. Nobody says they're Jesus.
There were lots of religious cults, the
Christ cult grew up as just one of many, and
many years after the supposed events.
The LDS church follows the same path. Thankfully due to long
\_ Please show how the LDS church is "greedy and out to increase"
it's power. And of course show how an organization has a will of
its own. -emarkp
\_ organisations can't have a will? the nature of organised
churches is they have authority figures dictating things.
all organisations have leaders who direct the organisation.
As for LDS, it's designed to extract money from membership
and members are directed to proselytize. Mormons are supposed
to do those conversion missions. LDS church is very wealthy.
\_ How is it designed to extract money? Who benefits from it?
Yes, members are directed to proselytize, but we believe
the teachings to be true, so why wouldn't we? -emarkp
\_ Obviously, the clergy benefit from it. Brigham Young
had 27 wives. Haha.
\_ How do they benefit? You think having 27 wives is
only a benefit? Having many women to sleep with
might sound great to you now, but keep in mind he had
over 40 children. Furthermore, polygamy in early
Utah was not restricted to the leadership. -emarkp
\_ They get money and power and respect. Young
wasn't working 9-5 and changing 50 diapers.
\_ Well, he was farming his land, which wasn't
exactly a cakewalk. -emarkp
struggle, resisting the church now doesn't mean severe hardship
or death. But if you live in a religious community then you'd still
feel "cut off" from the club and so forth. Religions take advantage
of this sense of belonging, and comforting tales of the afterlife,
to perpetuate themselves.
\_ Non sequitur. If the LDS (say) church really is true, they're
not taking advantage of anything.
\_ What? They take advantage regardless if it's true.
\_ So I'm taking advantage of you by telling you not to jump
off a cliff? -emarkp
\_ i said "take advantage of xx to perpetuate themselves".
not sure what you're trying to argue about.
\_ The consequence of jumping off a cliff is that you
get injured or killed. The consequence of sin is
spiritual death. -emarkp
\_ So they take advantage of people's fear of death.
They're not just standing there saying not to
jump off cliffs. There's a whole apparatus set
up.. they're saying unless you are part of their
organisation you're doomed. That's quite different
from merely telling someone not to jump.
\_ So now it's just "fear of death"? If the
resurrection /will/ happen, then telling people
to prepare for it isn't "taking avantage" of a
fear, but simply giving people good
information. If the spiritual consequences of
sin are in fact as dire spiritually as jumping
off a cliff is physically, then there's no
difference. -emarkp
\_ The difference is the organizations like LDS
or the CC that are run more like powerful
corporations.
\_ What does this even mean? And what does
this have to do with the above? -emarkp
\_ I'm saying you don't need a powerful
organisation to tell people not to
jump off cliffs. They aren't "telling"
people to prepare. They are saying you
have to join the group.
\_ But if it's true that you have to
join the group, then they're not
lying or levereging, etc. And was
does it even mean "to be run like a
corporation"? -emarkp
\_ It's obviously not true. Jesus
never said you have to join some
church. His supposed apostles
who started Jesus, Inc. said it.
Jesus said whoever believes in
him will have everlasting life.
This has never panned out.
Everybody kicked the bucket.
\_ Oh, it's obvious. Glad
that's settled. So you
reject the biblical account
of the apostles, but accept
the biblical account of what
Jesus said? That really
doesn't make much sense.
-emarkp
\_ Matthew 16:18 and Matthew
18:17: Jesus talking about the
church. Jesus also goes to
the synagogue to preach, and
chase merchants out of the
temple, saying they have made
the house of his Father a den
of thieves.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/HTML%20pages/peter.htm _/
\_ I've read some similar sites. If
someone wants to view things
through cynical lenses, I am sure
they can come up with a lot of
theories. But the message of the
bible speaks for itself.
\_ Just remember that the bible didn't
drop out of heaven in a miracle. It
was written by human hands in human
languages over centuries and had
revisions and additions.
\_ We believe that the bible was
written by many hands but all
under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit.
\_ Before becoming a pastor, our church's
pastor was a derivative trader making
a 6 figure salary. Now he is making around
pastor was a derivative trader making a 6
figure salary. Now he is making around
$30k per year. He is the only person
receiving a salary at our church. Please
tell me how my church is run like a
powerful corporation.
\_ I never claimed every church is.
\_ You didn't even define it. -emarkp
\_ You really don't get it, do you? I can't speak for the other
"anti-religion" people on the motd, but I have nothing against
religion or religious people as long as they don't try to force
a religious-based morality on the rest of society through law.
Also, when I see a politically conservative religious person trying
to enforce their beliefe system on the rest of us, I don't think
they're "not using their brain", I think they're evil. That's
different.
\_ You're not "anti-religion" then. I'm referring to people who say
that anyone who is religious is stupid. I knew a number of them
when I was in school. And someone posted just below:
"the same reason that people believe in organized religion:
because they don't use their brains."
-emarkp
\_ Ah, see now you're adding the word "organized" to religion.
I'm not strictly anti-organized religion either, but I
certainly view it with a lot more skepticism than pure
religion in the sense of a personal belief system. The
"not using their brains" part seems like bullshit to me
as far as that goes. I've known too many religiously devout
scientists who were as smart or smarter than me to buy that
one anymore. That sounds like pompous sysadmins blowing off
steam.
\_ What is your objection to organization? -emarkp
\_ In principle? Nothing. In practice, I think organized
religions are generally forces of evil in the world,
particularly when coupled with political power.
When Islam just means praying towards Mecca, eating
Halal food, reading the Koran, and claiming that
Muhammad was a prophet, I have no objection...but
throw in a few Clerics who claim Allah wants people
to kill Americans and Jews, and you have one of the
greatest forces of evil in todays world. Western
Christians are no longer as evil as that because of
several hundred years of struggle by liberals against
the power of established churches, but qualitatively,
they all lead toward the same evil.
\_ Interestingly, Islam is a problem precisely because
it /isn't/ organized. There's no central authority
to say "hey guys, killing innocents isn't ok".
-emarkp
\_ Sorry, not to engage in emarkp bashing, but
you're only partially correct--there may not be
any "central authority" in islam, but there is
quite a bit of decentralized authority in the
form of imams and muftis, some of whom are more
respected than others based on reputation or
family background. Obviously an imam of a huge
mosque will carry more weight than another one.
Al-Azhar and al-Quds also lay claim to strong
academic "authority". And shi'ism has a concept
of ranks among ayatollahs--if a grand ayatollah
yells about martyrs, that's some pretty central
authority there. -John
\_ Yes, I know this (and I don't consider
disagreeing with me civilly to be bashing),
but if there was a single central authority,
he could denounce the behavior. Alternatively
if he supported it, we'd know it was a holy
war, period. -emarkp
\_ There doesn't have to be a single central
authority for it to be a holy war--this
would also not insure the absence thereof,
as with bishops objecting to the crusades,
or even sects of christianity who do not
recognize, say, the pope. -John
\_ Good point. I think it would help
though, and that Islams largely
decentralized leadership is a detriment,
not a benefit. -emarkp
\_ Mmh...think "pope Ahmed Yassin", or
"pope Khomeini". Consider the
consequences. John Paul II is a
tired old mysogynist who's got some
strong convictions and has done some
good and some bad things, but he'd
be largely ignored if he told the
world's catholics to go start a holy
war. -John
\_ Uh...right. You mean like how Christian leaders
used their leadership to stop the hollocaust in
Europe when Christian Germany was trying to take
over the world for the master race? How about
the moral authority of the perpetrators of the
Inquisition? I'll say it again: that level
of evil has been largely eradicated from the
Christian world largely in *spite* of, not
*because* of church leadership.
\_ Martin Luther was a liberal?
\_ Um, the Inquisition was several centuries ago,
and the anonyomous poster said that organized
religions ARE (as in currently, not several
centuries ago) forces of evil. You'll note
that the Holocaust was organized by Hitler,
not any church. -emarkp
\_ Nice double standard. You claimed that
a problem with Islam today is the lack
of some central moral authority who could
stand up and say "terrorism is against God,
so you have to stop." My point was that
the organized church did nothing to stop
a Christian nation from commiting
crimes against humanity in the recent
past.
\_ The Holocaust wasn't done /in the name
of religion/. Islam terrorists are.
You don't see the difference? Also, you
said that they ARE forces of evil. Not
that they failed to stop forces of evil.
[reinserted after someone removed it]
-emarkp
I'll go further and say that you are
exactly wrong about Islam today. I know
American Muslims who go about their
business as good, moral people in spite of
the idiocy perpetrated by their fellows in
the middle east, in my opinion *because*
they don't have to listen to some
hatemonger from Saudi Arabia to be a
Muslim.
\_ I know some too. I also know Saudi,
Lebanese, and Egyptian muslims who do
the same. Most of my muslim friends,
though, are far more likely to fly into
a frothing rage than my non-muslim
friends over sensitive religious topics
and these are educated people. -John
\_ You have no way of knowing that. It is
just as likely that the leader of Islam
would rebuke them and tell the
equally valid to assert that the leader
of Islam would rebuke them and tell the
membership to shun terrorists. -emarkp
\_ Martin Luther was a liberal?
\_ Do you know MLK is a pastor?
\_ Abe Lincoln. Nuff said.
\_ Many of the top universities and hospitals in
asia (and elsewhere?) today were founded by
christian organizations.
\_ missionaries in England spearheaded the
movement that stopped opium trade in China.
\_ News flash, Einstein was a Jew, a JEW!
\_ The Germans claim he was German, and the French claim he was a
citizen of the world. -- ilyas
\_ But AFAIK he didn't believe in a personal God. He used the term
"God" to refer to the universe. -emarkp
\_ Actually, Einstein supposedly wanted to become a rabbi
when he was young. That obviously changed latter. I doubt
you can attribute to Einstein's personal religious beliefs
or his own personal beliefs of God (nobody can). Anyway,
how devout is Knuth as compared to Einstein? Did you now
that Darwin was and remained an Anglican?
\_ I found this out because of the book "Things a Computer
Scientist Rarely Talks About", which is his 6 lectures he
gave at MIT in 1999 about God and CS. He did a personal
project in 1985-6 called "3:16" which was an analysis of
translations of the Bible, which came from his teaching a
Bible class in his church. I'd guess he's as devout in his
faith as I am in mine. -emarkp
\_ people aren't perfectly rational, even smart ones. but i'd be
interested in seeing how many science/math/eng people adopt
religion later in life rather than being born into it.
\_ my personal guess: plenty, easier than say people in the
humanities and social sciences.
\_ I'm not anti-religion, as long as I can hang out with THESE
people:
http://www.eros-london.com/articles/2003-07-22/libchrist |
| 2005/2/22-23 [Reference/Religion, Recreation/Humor] UID:36369 Activity:moderate Cat_by:auto |
2/22 emarkp, does your baby have mad book?
http://www.users.muohio.edu/miyamadm/babygotbook512.mov
\_ That was pretty awesome.
\_ FUNNY! Best hilarious site of the year. I wonder how many death
threats this guy got from religious right fundamentalists though.
\_ Ummm... presumably none. Most fundies like this sort of
stuff.
\_ Yeah, I don't think this would offend many Christians.
\_ I don't go to URL's without descriptions. Especially from the motd.
And I'm done answering anonymous questions. -emarkp
\_ And you've had your sense of humor surgically removed, I see.
\_ Not that I'm all that sympathetic to emarkp, but don't be
fucking stupid. I don't think having all the anti-religious
trolls beating on you can reasonably be likened to a 'joke'.
Dumbass.
\_ Thank you, leave him alone. He's usually wrong, but at
least he sticks by his opinions and signs his posts, which
is more than I can say for most of the third-rate
repressed schoolyard bully types. -John
\_ It's a parody of the music video "I Like Big Butt." The title is
"I Like Big Bible," and it encourages people to read the Bible.
And thanks for answering anon questions, you're a brave soul.
You have a lot of guts standing up for your belief knowing
that you'll be ridiculed over and over again. It takes a lot of
guts & faith to do that, and I respect that a lot in a man. Most
people wouldn't have done the same. Emarkp, you're one fine man
in my book, and you're cool -emarkp's agnostic admirer
\_ I'll second that. -mice
\_ thirded. -- ilyas
\_ Fourthed (and I think this applies to jrleek too,
for that matter). Though, to the PP, the title of
the video is "Baby Got Book" and it's a parody of the
Sir Mix-A-Lot song "Baby Got Back".
- anonymous motd agnostic socialist coward
\_ Read this post out loud in a Stuart Smalley voice for hours
of fun. |
| 2005/2/22-23 [Recreation/Humor, Reference/Religion, Science/Biology] UID:36366 Activity:very high Cat_by:auto |
2/22 Dear motd conservatives, what do you have to say about this:
http://tinyurl.com/45m4w (Scientific American on evolution).
We know who you are, please answer.
\_ Read this and then maybe you can start to reconsider some of
the assumptions implicit in your question:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20050106.shtml
\_ Einstein meant he wasn't an atheist in the crusading sense, but
he was an atheist in the essential, didn't believe in God sense:
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist ... I have repeatedly said that in
my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You
may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading
spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due
to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of
humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual
understanding of nature and of our being."
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do
not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be
called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the
structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
\_ Einstein is going to hell! -Christian
\_ People are dumb, they believe all sorts of weird crap. Even on
the MOTD, Berkeley, etc. I've encountered people who believe
that evolution isn't a proven theory, or that quantum mechanics
is wrong, or that classical mechanics is wrong and therefore
invalid, or that a so-called "red state" is completely republican
or a so-called "blue state" is completely democratic, or that
tsunamis shouldn't cause deaths because people should be able
to swim out of it, etc. etc. Trying to convince them otherwise
is just a futile exercise in frustration because after a certain
age people's minds just calcify. I mean, if you think about it
seriously, doesn't the concept of a guy who can tell what's going
on 24/7 on a planet with over six billion people seem a bit
ridiculous? Or the fact that a bunch of migrant Jews would know
better than anyone else that their version of god is the true
version vs. all the others? If you think about it, it's somewhat
ironic that a minor cultish sect of judaism took over the
Western world. I bet if you were living back then in Roman times
you'd bet the farm that we'd all still be praying to Jupiter in
the next couple of milleniums. Of course, if you were talking to
a Born Again Christian they'd say it proves their faith. What
it really proves is that you can fool a lot of people a lot of
the time, and we as a human species like to be fooled a lot.
\_ See, I am not religious but I have a lot of problems with
evolution. For one thing, some evolution 'defenders' (it's very
odd that a theory would need defenders in the first place) have
taken on decidedly militant tones lately. It's very misleading
to talk about evolution as a 'proven theory,' firstly because
evolution is an empirical claim and as such isn't something you
prove, and secondly because there is no single 'theory of
evolution.' The theory, like many mature theories, undergone
evolution.' The theory, like many mature theories, has undergone
several revisions because it disagreed with the data, and as
such had to be fixed. Evolution as a theory has a lot of problems
that need fixing. I wish people would stop wasting time with
the fundies, and similarly stopped treating evolution itself in a
fundy way, and started fixing problems with it. Or finding new
ways to hunt fossils. On a related topic, I am very interested
in the current state of the art on the origins of life question,
which is the big unsolved gorilla you need to tackle if you
accept the 'western secular' interpretation of life. I would
also like to add my extreme scepticism towards current
explanations for certain events in the Earth's past, like the
advent of multicellularity, and the Cambrian explosion. -- ilyas
\_ I postulate God created the Universe! and left all those
fossils to lead the heathens to Satan
\_ You seem to have confused "conservatives" with "young-earth
creationists". I'm the former, but not the latter. (And Scientific
American proved itself as a rag in its attack on "The Skeptical
Environmentalist") -emarkp
\_ I really don't understand why people (on both sides) think
evolution contradicts God/relligion. What if God desgined
the principle of evolution?
\_ because the Bible is the "word of god", and evolution
directly contradicts most of the Bible's creation story. -tom
\_ Some people (why, it's beyond me) interpret the Hebrew word
'yom' which was translated to English 'day' to mean a
literal 24-hour period in the highly symbolic account in
Genesis. -emarkp
\_ Even if you accept the idea that Genesis doesn't
represent literal days, it is still completely wrong.
And things like the Great Flood clearly never happened.
-tom
\_ There's no historical evidence of the exodus, yet I
accept that as history. Some people argue for a
limited geography flood (rather than global) which
I'm objecting to less than previously. I know that
the scientific evidence strongly contradicts the
flood--but then it also strongly contradicts the
resurrection, walking on water, etc. I don't know
where dinosaurs figure in (or early hominids) but I
don't reject the scientific evidence, nor do I
dismiss the teachings of scripture. -emarkp
\_ yes, we're well aware of your ability to believe
mutually contradictory things. My original point
was just that people who are not so good at that
find science to be threatening, since the
implication is that their "Word of God" is just
a bunch of made-up stories. -tom
\_ It shouldn't be surprising that people can feel
threatened when their beliefs are attacked
on a regular basis by fallacious logic. The
hard part is separating the reasonable
arguments (no scientific evidence for global
flood) vs. the fallacious assertions (Jesus
wasn't resurrected) vs. fallacious logic (God
can't create a rock too big to lift, so he must
not be omnipotent!). -emarkp
\_ Well, it's not that hard; you can do what
you just did, which is put two red
herrings out there to deflect from the
fact that you've already lost the
argument. -tom
\_ Hewbrew? Some fundies have problems accepting the idea
that the King James version isn't the pure translation.
\_ There are problematic issues when you accept evolution and try
to reconcile it with Adam and Eve. Like, who were the birth
parents of Adam & Eve? Did they have souls, etc.? -emarkp
\_ what if the birth parents of adam&eve had slightly
different mitochondrial dna and rna.. the mutation in
eve's mitochondrial dna and/or rna resulted in a new
species (since mitochondrial dna and rna is only passed
down maternally.) (of course, this is assuming that
it was not literally adam's rib that resulted in eve.)
\_ That's the trouble with religion. You never know which
bits of nonsense are 'highly symbolic' (i.e. 'yom') and
which are literal truth (i.e. Adam and Eve). It's fairly
obviously to me Adam and Eve were not literally first
obvious to me Adam and Eve were not literally first
humans. -- ilyas
\_ But they appear to have been real individuals who made
an important decision. But then I believe that prophets
today clairfy sticky issues like that. -emarkp
\_ Wow. That's really cool. In my religion, prophets
get like, nailed to crosses, or beheaded or end up
wandering aimlessly in deserts for 40 years. What's
your current prophet's name? I'd like to send him an
email and get some clarifications. thanks.
\_ What makes you think they were real? Just because
there's a legend about them? Don't you see how
fucking retarded that is?
\_ I accept the Bible as a record of revelations. I
don't claim it to be perfect/inerrant, etc.
Reading that record strongly indicates there were
two people named Adam and Eve in Genesis. -emarkp
\_ You don't address my question. I ask you why
accept that. There's no basis for accepting it.
\_ You asked if I believed that Adam and Eve
were real just because there's a legend
about them. Reparsing that, my answer is:
no. -emarkp
\_ Well my further question is why you
accept the bible as a record when there
are obvious problems with that. Just
taking the Mormon stuff separately, you
are basing a huge set of beliefs on the
mere assertion of one man. I find that
to be ridiculous. And absurd that God
would operate in such a feeble fashion.
(Although I believe the same basically
goes for Christ, at least the claim there
is that various miracles were witnessed
by multitudes.)
\_ Along this thread, i've wondered why
the Stargate series hasn't touched on
christianity. seems a logical plot
path.
\_ One man? How's that? There were 11
witnesses of the golden plates that
the BoM was translated from. -emarkp
\_ Oh 11? I wasn't aware of that. See,
God's not too good at getting His
message across. Since 11 people
saw it I'll believe it now.
\_ Glad I could help.
\_ What would you do if somehow
something came up that proved
Mormonism was untrue? Would
be willing to accept that or
just have faith that it's
true anyway? I guess I'm
thinking like a verifiable
diary of the dude admitting
he cooked it all up in order
to reap the benefits of
ruling a cult.
\_"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by
rulers as useful." -- Seneca
by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." -- Seneca
\_ Great quote, thanks. I also found this quote by the
same: "I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives".
Heh.
\_ http://www.skinnypanda.com/pastepisodes/2005/05-02-21.gif
\_ This is hilarious!!! Best jotd, thanks for sharing this.
\_ how many death threats did the author get from this?
\_ Crap I laughed my ass off -- One of the more brilliant things
I've seen on the internet so far -- much better than "tubgirl"
\_ 1. Conservative != Religious. I'm sure there are plenty of
atheist conservatives. 2. You cannot reason with religious people
about their religion, especially if it's Christianity/Islam/
Mormonism, etc., religions that say "This is the way the Universe
works exactly even if your own eyes say otherwise", as opposed to
other religions that don't try to tell you exactly how the Universe
works but just try to give people a moral framework and some
philosophical insight. Like Governor Jesse Ventura said, religion
is mostly for people who cannot deal with the philosophical
implications of what happens when you die, when did the Universe
begin/was it always here/how will it end, etc. If you cannot
figure it out yourself, life becomes hard because it makes reality
harder to cope with. So you turn to religion to give you answers.
Or, you've been brought up with it or your country/community
encourages/forces it.
But trying to "reason" with religious people is hopeless since they
have already accepted conflicting information in order to gain the
above answers to the difficult questions of life, even if it does
seem silly to some to base your understanding of reality on texts
writting 2000+ years ago. Would you trust a surgeon from 2000 years
ago to operate on you? |
| 2005/2/15 [Reference/Religion] UID:36185 Activity:moderate |
2/15 emarkp, jrleek, I don't know anything about Mormons, but after
watching South Park and talking to this Mormon dude at work,
I'm actually pretty jealous of Mormons. They always seem so happy,
positive, and cheerful about something and their families actually
do things together, which is something I never really had as a
child. As a liberal I'm always pissed about something because I
always see something wrong somewhere, but if I were a Mormon, I'd
have a lot to be thankful for, to feel blessed, and to bless the
less fortunate. And if I were less of a liberal, perhaps I'd feel
less pissed about all the things that go wrong around me, and I'd
feel less hate and less sad. God, I hate you Mormons.
\_ Nice try, troll. |
| 2005/2/15 [Reference/Religion] UID:36181 Activity:high |
2/15 So, I am really curious to see some Christian responses to this
question, emarkp, jrkleek? Do you actually believe men who can,
to put it bluntly, only get erections from other men exist? As in,
they don't remember ever being attracted to women since puberty?
If you believe such men exist, what is their theological status?
Are they sinners? Conversely, if you don't believe such men exist,
why not? -- ilyas
\_ uh oh, expect Republicans to censor this in about 5 minutes
\_ I'm sure that there are men who "don't remember ever being attracted
to women since puberty". The other claim is stronger and would
require longer discussion. Send me email if you're interested in
that conversation. As for theology, all sexual relations outside of
the bonds of marriage are sin (and serious sin at that). Those who
are tempted but don't act on it are under no condemnation. -emarkp
\_ So as long as you just _covet_ your neighbor's wife but don't
act on it, you're cool? Good to know. Thanks, emarkp!
\_ Could you please remind your audience exactly how long ago your
religion decided that black people are not an inferior race?
It was in the 80's, right? The *ninteen* eighties.
\_ When did you stop beating your wife? -emarkp
\_ I'd say this was aaron, but he still hasn't logged in.
That means we have ANOTHER clueless anti-mormon troll!
Alright!
\_ Answer the fucking question.
\_ Well, since the question is loaded chock full of
false infomation, it's impossible to answer as
is. I would have to answer the question you should
have asked. Would you like me to do so?
\_ See, I've read enough of John Krakauers work to have
an opinion of his level of honesty and I've read
enough of your posts to have an opinion about yours.
I'll take his word for this over yours. So I assume
you're going to claim that the LDS curch never
claimed that black people are inferior?
\_ The skim I did of Krakauer gave me the impression
that his book was mostly about splinter groups,
not the LDS church. But seeing his comments in
interviews made it clear he wasn't terribly
concerned with accuracy. -emarkp
\_ The church officially? No.
\_ Well, I simply am not willing to take your
word for it. I'm going to go look up the
references from Under the Banner of Heaven
tonight and I'll give you a chance to refute
those if you can later.
\_ Heck, post the references themselves.
I can at least tell you which ones
would be considered official.
\_ Ok, fine. Later. I have to actually
do some work.
\_ Here's a quote from Joseph Smith in 1842:
"Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied,
they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change
their situation with the whites, and they would be like them.
They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into
Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides
in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the
powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability.
The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high
places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those
they brush and wait on."
-emarkp
\_ Ok, fine, so maybe the founder was not a racist. That
doesn't mean the official church wasn't. I don't think
Jesus himself would have approved of most of the evil
bullshit his followers have done for the last 2000 years
either, but that does not excuse the christian church
for said evil.
\_ The question you posed begged the question. Those who
feld that blacks were inferior left in 1978 (and good
riddance). There is a complex history around the policy
you're talking about, and it's not easily covered on the
motd. -emarkp
\_ http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon107.html
-tom
\_ Ummm... I'm not sure what you're getting at.
\_ I'm merely providing context. The quotes by
Brigham Young are interesting. -tom
\_ Especially the ellipsis. Note the quote in the
article is: "any man having one drop of the seed of
Cain" could not gain priesthood. The full quote
is: "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in
him cannot receive the priesthood; but the day will
come when all that race will be redeemed and
possess all the blessings which we now have. I am
opposed to the present system of slavery"
-emarkp
\_ So it sounds like the early mormons were actually
progressive for their day. To bad you have now
chosen to be on the wrong side of today's biggest
civil rights issue. It doesn't sound to me like
the founders of your religion would aprove of
your bigotry.
\_ Hi troll!
\_ I'm glad you feel that you feel I'm on the
wrong side. Have you talked to Blacks who
take issue with your comparison? -emarkp
\_ where in the bible does it say pre-marital sex is a sin?
\_ Never read the bible, huh? First one on a search:
Matt 15:19
\_ It says "sexual immorality" not "pre-marital sex".
\_ Hint: it wasn't written in English. In the Textus
Receptus it's 'porneia' which is uniformly translated as
'fornication' in the KJV. I don't have my Nestle
intralinear with me so I don't know how Westcott
rendered it. -emarkp
intralinear with me so I don't know how other critical
editions rendered it. -emarkp
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4202
\_ The King James version says "fornication" which is
defined as sex between people who are not married.
\_ I'm LDS so I don't limit my answers to the Bible. -emarkp |
| 2005/2/13 [Reference/Religion] UID:36159 Activity:very high |
2/13 I just saw South Park's episode on Mormons and how Joseph Smith
translated the bible twice using two different translation plates,
that Adam&Eve came from Missouri, and that the native Americans
came from Jerusalem and God made them Red because they had sins.
I'm a bit bothered by the way South Park disses at other religions...
I don't know anything about religion and I'm wondering how much of
South Park's story is really true, and how much of it is made up for
entertainment value. Any religion expert who would comment on this?
\_ Disses at "other" religions? As opposed to what, christianity,
where Jesus has a talk radio show and screwed Cartman's mom?
Please identify the religion you think they're not making fun of
in South Park.
\_ don't forget that Cartman tried to eliminate Jews because they
killed Jesus. They haven't really made fun of Buddhism and
Shintoism yet...
\_ "Hey there, mister shintoist, merry fucking christmas..."
-Mr. Garrison
\_ I saw this episode about a year ago. As I recall, it was about
what you would expect out of SP. For the first 15 minutes,
from a 50,000 ft view, the big events were more or less
correct. ie, Joseph Smith was directed by an angel to a set of
gold plates containing the religious history of a people
formerly on the continent; which he translated by the power of
God. As much can be read in the introduction to the Book of
Mormon. The details, however, were all completely confused,
made up, or twisted beyond recognition. The history of the
church is recorded in a number of first hand accounts, if you
are interested. Currently I'm reading an account by Joseph
Smith's mother, which is a pretty good read. Unfortunatly,
the LDS church is a point of contention, and anything you find
on google would either be all for it, or all against it.
Usually the latter. -jrleek
\_ Religions don't easily lend themselves to objective analysis.
At some point you're always going to find something that you
will try to explain or discount using methods, either through
critical heuristics or unquestioning belief, which someone else
will take issue with. I'm not religious in any sense; I wish
that both people who aren't and those who are would just keep
it to themselves (and good fucking luck with that.) -John
\_ were you offended by South Park? |
| 2005/2/12-14 [Reference/Religion] UID:36154 Activity:kinda low |
2/11 Korn sells out completely, makes lame appearance on Monk (USA).
Seriously, what the hell happened?
\_ It almost brings a tear to my eye to think of someone who
went to Cal ever thinking Korn was not a corporate sellout crap
band from day one.
\_ 1: who is Korn (ksh)? 2: What is Monk (USA)?
\_ hey check out this cool site: http://google.com
\_ 1) I have no idea
2) One of the best shows on TV, airs on USA network. (It has
gone downhill a bit in the last few episodes.)
\_ Didn't they sell out with their lame appearance on South Park? |
| 2005/1/26 [Reference/Religion] UID:35904 Activity:kinda low |
1/26 Rolling Stone is going to put up the New Bible ad. TOLD YOU SO.
\_ But what does The Free Republic have to say about it?
\_ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1328485/posts |
| 2005/1/20-22 [Reference/Religion] UID:35826 Activity:high |
1/20 Dear muslim experts, how exactly did that huge black square
(Hajj/Ka'bah/Makkah) came about? I mean, someone, or some
authority must have spent a lot of money making it. Is it
concrete inside and marble outside? Who maintains it (you need
to clean, polish, patch crack)?
\_ Not an expert on Islam, just a humble web researcher:
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2003fall/anth/023/001/images/conti.htm
[The following URL was not submitted by the same person:]
http://tinyurl.com/5tl2w
\_ ow my eyes!
\_ 2nd link NSFW
Short answer: origins lost in the shrouds of history and legend.
Maintained (and reconstructed several times) by the rulers of Mecca.
\_ it would be REALLY funny if say an alien craft hovers on
top of that black stone, and then shoots a lazer beam at
it till it cracks or vaporizes. I wonder what that'll
do to the Muslim faith.
\_ LASER is Light Amplification by Simulated Emmission of
Radiation, so it wouldn't make sense to write it as lazer.
\_ yu0 = teh ghey.
\_ They'd just blame it on the Israelis, saying the UFO was
sent over from Tel Aviv.
\_ Did they do that in Mars Attacks? Or would that be too
un-PC? -John
\_ I think this was a minor plot in an Iain Banks (sp?) novel
except the qaaba was itself an alien artifact.
\_ The Business, and it's the plot of a movie one of the
flaky side-characters gets talked out of making.
\_ It would be funnier if the Pope shot death rays from his eyes.
Or how about a battle between the death-ray shooting Pope and
the lazer-beam UFO from Mecca?
\_ Man, I can totally see this as a StrongBad episode.
\_ Create more fanatics who are "true believers". |
| 2005/1/20 [Reference/Religion] UID:35815 Activity:nil |
1/20 http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/20/rollling.stone.ap/index.html Is it just me, or it seems like there are a lot more religious/ family first/church advertisements on cable TV and newspaper ads in the past year or so? |
| 2005/1/12 [Reference/Religion] UID:35675 Activity:high |
1/12 Hypothetical question. Suppose that an alien being visits earth
and greets everyone. How would this affect religion? Would
religious people claim that it is Jesus Christ/Mohamed/Allah
reborn? Or would they ditch their religion because they realize
they're not the only beings in the universe?
\_ There already is a religion like this, it's called the
Heaven's Gate. Apparently you'll need to become a web designer,
shave your head, get castrated, and commit suicide in a
San Diego suburb.
\_ More sodans should follow this career path.
\_ I would answer but I'd just be ridiculed.
\_ Why would other beings in the universe prompt people to ditch
religion? This is stupid.
\_ Which of the above religions claim that earth species are the only
beings in the universe?
\_ suppose it happened, then it would beg a lot of new questions
and ultimately question the completeness of religions. For
example people could claim that the powerful supernatural
events in the Bible/Koran were really caused by outer
beings. Another example would be how reincarnation works--
why we don't reincarnate into alien beings and vice
versa.
\_ Can you explain how, from a theological point of view, meeting
a new race of intelligent beings is different from discovering
a new race of intelligent creatures on Earth, such as a new
primate? So they would be from another planet. So what?
\_ Which of the above religions knows ANYTHING about earth, or
species?
\_ You meant "raise...questions", not "beg".
If people's beliefs don't exclude aliens, why do you think
this would change anything?
\_ If an alian visits earth, what then implies that we don't
reincarnate into alien and vice versa?
\_ What religion is the alien? If the alien professes belief in
Christianity, for instance, then what?
\_ It would depend on how the religions handled it. Clearly, most
religions would have difficulty brining an intelligent species
on another planet into their canon; they'd have to resort to even
more transparent rationalization than they do now, e.g. "Adam and
Eve are how life began on Earth, God did something completely
different on Planet X and didn't bother to tell us about it."
Of course, most religious people are "read-only", but such things
have an effect over time. -tom
\_ SATAN IS TRYING TO TRICK YOU! |
| 2004/12/18-20 [Reference/Religion] UID:35356 Activity:insanely high |
12/18 Nearly 1 in 2 Americans supports restricting the rights of Muslim-
Americans.
http://csua.org/u/afa
\_ Thanks for testing my faith in humanity. Just what I need before
singing christmas services. "I heard the bells on Christmas Day"
has been hitting pretty hard this year. And on a related note,
"I'll be home for Christmas" is our most requested song now.
--scotsman
\_ Wow, no definition at all of what that means. Let me hazard a
guess: most intelligent Americans think that allowing Mosques to
preach hatred of America or be a haven for organizing attacks is not
a good thing. Not that all or even many Mosques are doing this, but
if any one of them is doing it, it should be closed.
\_ The survey responses are at the bottom of the linked page.
What you say would make sense if the article author had
paraphrases "mosques meeting certain criteria" as "mosques" as
a whole. As it stands, it is scary. -John
\_ One of the restriction possibilities listed is "mosques
should be closely monitored by U.S. law enforcement
agencies." I don't see anything wrong with that.
\_ Maybe not, but then, out of fairness, you should also be
in favor of US law enforcement "close monitoring" of many
christian fundamentalist congregations for inciting
violence against abortionists, sodomists, and other
undesirable types. Of course I'm just taking this to its
absurd conclusion, but one of the reasons western nations
have such a problem with islamic fundamentalism and with
islamism is that we have rules restricting our ability
to deal with evil through law enforcement, the very
erosion of which laws would be a terrifying end in its own
right. "Those who give up a essential liberty" and all
that. I'm not saying imams (as with any preachers) who
order their obedient hordes to engage in mayhem shouldn't
be closely watched, just suggesting that you think very
very carefully about where this can lead. -John
\_ I hope you realize that lots of fundamentalist groups
that advocate violence against abortion doctors, &c.
are routinely monitored by the FBI and state law
enforcement agencies.
\_ That's ok, they voted for Bush.
\_ Nearly 1 in 1 Muslim countries restrict the rights of it's
non-Muslim citizens.
\_ If all your friends jumped off a bridge...
\_ Its more like nearly 1 in 1 Muslims favor restricting the
right to exist of a non-Muslim.
\_ That's absurd. I think more to the point is that 100%
of muslim countries restrict the rights of *all* their
citizens, including muslims.
\_ If you can't see the difference between a Muslim and a
Muslim-American, you're blind. Do you also think that
the Japanese americans should have been interned during
WWII?
\_ the Japanese Americans fought in the fields
I don't see any muslim americans fighting against
Al-Queda or fingerpointing the bad mosques?
\_ Key phrase: "I don't see..."
\_ show me a news report of a Muslim whistleblower
exposing a Mosque
\_ Actually that's a really good point. Perhaps the media
should do more stories on MAs in the armed forces in
Iraq or Afganistan. All we hear about are desertions
or people throwing grenades into tents. -- ilyas
\_ just to cloud this issue with facts, most of the
Japanese Americans who served in the US Army during
WWII served in Europe. A much smaller number served
in Asia with the US military intelligence services
as linguists.
as linguists. Their (MIS) involvement was not widely
known for decades after the end of WWII.
--Jon
\_ I don't think internment is the answer (then or now).
The Japanese-Americans were on the whole trustworthy
and dedicated to this country. Support for Japanese
expansion in Asia was limited among JA's living here.
This is not true of Muslim-Americans. There are plenty
of mosques, &c. that preach anti-Americanism and
militant resistance of American. The nature of this
enemy is different.
\_ I live in a town with a lot of muslims, and I know
quite a few muslims. Many of the local businesses
here are run by muslims. All of the muslims
I've met are American immigrants first, and muslims
second. They speak better English, work harder and
generally act in a way that I find to be more compatible
with the American way of life than their fellow
immigrants from a lot of other regions I won't name.
Yes, there is an international conspiracy of Muslims
that wants to destroy America, but I'm convinced that
the fraction of them among Muslim Americans is *really*
small. If it wasn't, we'd know by know.
\_ This is, of course, part of the irony. A lot of
the immigrants came here to get the hell out of
the Middle East.
\_ What's even more sad and ironic is the Sikhs who
come here to escape persecution by muslims only
to be persecuted for *being* muslims by
know-nothing ninnies because they wear turbans.
\_ The worst thing about this is that Sikhs
saved large sections of humanity from
subjugation by the Muslim hordes. For
these brave men to be treated like the
enemy is an outrage and a disgrace.
\_ You may be right or you may not. An acquaintance
knew a Muslim terrorist living in LA. He seemed
like a great guy, fun-loving and always willing
to lend a hand. Then one day he disappeared and
the FBI showed up looking for him. You never know.
It's like those serial killers where the neighbors
talk about how they seemed to be great guys.
\_ Doesn't Michelle Malkin say we should intern all the Arabs in
Concentration Camps? To save our civilization, natch. |
| 2004/12/13 [Reference/Religion] UID:35261 Activity:moderate |
12/13 there sure are a lot of mormons on the motd. how many?
\_ mormon: .
\_ I think there are only 2. emarkp and jrleek
\_ And I married jrleek's sister. -emarkp
\_ What about the # of morons on the motd?
\_ moron: .
\_ I think there are at least 2. emarkp and jrleek |
| 2004/11/26 [Reference/Religion] UID:35079 Activity:high |
11/26 Prayer cures advanced rabies case. Riiiiight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/25/national/25rabies.html
I'm just glad this idiot brought his kid to a hospital instead
of relying simply on prayer.
\_ Oh, come on. I'm an athiest, and I loathe religion in all its forms,
but I think you're being unduly harsh here. They're not claiming
it's faith healing, they're saying that after their kid survived
against massive odds using a totally experimental technique that
somehow their god intervened to push luck in their direction.
Would any religious person do differently?
\_ Oh come on yourself. He explicitly said that "prayer made the
crucial difference". I'm sorry, but that sounds really stupid
to me when no doubt many of the previous dead victims of rabies
have all died despite lots of praying,
but THIS one who got the new medical
treatment lived. Yeah, prayer was really the crucial
difference. If he had said, "thank God for inspiring this new
medical treatment" I would have nothing to say. Tolerating
religion is one thing, tolerating mind numbing stupidity is
something else.
\_ I am filled with Christ Love!
\_ attitude like this is the reason why the Reddies are taking over
\_ New meaning to the phrase "Red-shift."
\_ Have you ever read Memoirs Found In a Bathtub? You should.
\_ The Reds are coming! -- ilyas
\_ The Reds are coming! Above poster's right, btw. Memoirs
rocks. -- ilyas
\_ In Soviet Russian, they ilyas you! |
| 2004/11/14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Religion] UID:34881 Activity:nil |
11/14 Bin Laden given "religious approval" to use nukes against the US:
http://csua.org/u/9yp
Thanks, Saudi religious person! |
| 2004/11/12-13 [Reference/Religion] UID:34867 Activity:nil |
11/12 In William S. Burroughs' " 'The Priest', They Called Him", what does
the ending mean? Does 'The Priest' die? Here's an excerpt:
Then it hit him like heavy silent snow
All the grey junk yesterdays
He sat there and recieved the immaculate fix
And since he was himself a priest, there was no need to call one.
\_ Yes, the Priest dies. |
| 2004/11/12-14 [Reference/Religion] UID:34864 Activity:nil |
11/12 Accurate synopsis of the controversial 11 min Van Gogh film:
"Oooo, Allah, I bow to you. Allah, I am a woman and I get
beaten up by my husband. Allah, I get raped by my husband's
brother. Allah, I have his baby. Allah, I feel oppressed.
Allah, I am depressed. Allah, you suck."
\_ I only watched the film on-line without a speaker, but I enjoyed
the bra-less see-through clothing. |
| 2004/11/11-12 [Reference/Religion] UID:34848 Activity:very high |
11/11 I just watched Theo Van Gogh's controversial 11 min film. I'm
not a very religious guy, so here is what I have to say. It was
as good as watching The Passion of the Christ. In another word,
I was not impressed. The upside is that I didn't spend a dime
on it (got it from bittorrent) and only wasted 11 min
of my life, vs. 3 hours of The Passion crap.
\_ So what's wrong with Passion of the Christ? I thought it was
pretty good. I'm an atheist but I do know a bit about religion.
Perhaps you didn't understand the context? I obviously know
that Passion of the Christ is propoganda, but it's very good
propoganda like Leni Refinstahl. It is also by no means historical
although it makes pretenses to be such. However, on a cinematic
level it was certainly interesting and picture is quite beautiful
to look at. If you didn't like it due to the religious/political
controversy around it then say so.
\_ I don't disagree with the religion and I loved the setting
and language and props. However, 1/2 of the movie was about
the bloody whipping, which wasn't that graphic in the bible.
It was unnecessary and very insulting. You don't need violence
to scare people into believing Christianity. -christian
\_ So I read all about the scourging and the crowning with
thorns and then the cross veshch and all that cal, and I
viddied better that there was something in it. While the
stero played bits of lovely Bach I closed my Glazzies and
viddied myself helping in and even taking charge of the
tolchocking and nailing in, being dressed in a like toga
that was the heighth of Roman fashion. So being in Staja
84F was not all that wasted, and the Governor himself was
very pleased to hear that I had taken to like Religion, and
that was where I had my hopes.
\_ You are an idiot. Gibson is not an evangelical monkey in
your pocket. He isn't trying to recruit people into
Catholicism, he is paying a very personal tribute to Christ,
which happened to have done very well at the box office.
If you think violence on Christ is insulting, you should maybe
think a little more about that whole 'sacrificial lamb' thing.
\_ Roger Ebert called the movie "The most violent
I've ever seen" (he gave it 4 stars though). Why
would I want to sit through 2 hours of someone
getting beat to a pulp?
\_ So don't. But don't get all highminded about how
the violence is 'insulting' or 'unnecessary.'
\_ It "wasn't that graphic in the bible?" It was pretty
much exactly that graphic. It just that during biblical
times everyone knew what it meant to be crucified by the
romans, so they didn't need to describe it in detail.
Gibson was trying to give some context to the modern
viewer.
\_ I'm trying to watch it on ifilm and it keeps dying halfway
through. Does anybody have it in another format?
\_ I was able to watch it at 56k.
\_ you know if the film was more educating or entertaining
I'd feel sad for his murder. I don't.
\_ Is the woman telling her own story, or just fiction?
\_ I see, so since his little movie wasn't impressive it's ok to
murder him? If this guy just died in an accident or something
I don't think anyone would give a shit. What's sad is religious
fundamentalism.
\_ The cleavage is good. So is the curve of the one wearing a white
bra. |
| 2004/11/9 [Reference/Religion] UID:34790 Activity:nil |
11/9 God bless the Soda true believers. We might have lost the election
without their kind.
\_ God is love, but GOD HATES FAGS!!
\_ ...and SHRIMP!!
\_ DAMN! Beat me... |
| 2004/11/8 [Reference/Religion] UID:34753 Activity:high |
11/7 The Founding Fathers and Deism
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29
Of course Paine rejected Christianity in the later stages of
his life.
\_ Interesting, thanks.
\_ The author of the article gets the definition of "deist" completely
wrong. A deist is one who believes there is a (Christian) God, who
created the world, but left it alone after that. Most deists
believe in rational explanations for the miracles described in
the Bible.
The author would do much better just to use the term "agnostics",
"atheists", or separation of church-and-staters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=deist&x=0&y=0
http://www.bartleby.com/61/44/D0104400.html
\_ Amusingly, you got the definition of 'deist' wrong also.
-- ilyas
\_ And the right definition is?
\_ I think the salient feature of Deism is the claim that
the existence of God can be rationally deduced. Such a
God may or may not be Christian and may or may not
have left the world alone after Creation. I notice
some web definitions support your 'left it alone'
thing, but to me that's a pretty arbitrary distinction
to make for an 'ism.' -- ilyas
\_ Uh, I think all three links support what I wrote, and
I do think what I wrote is more accurate than what
you added.
Most deists also speak from a Christian heritage.
I wouldn't say what I wrote was the "wrong" definition,
but rather that it CAN be independent of Christianity.
The point was that the author of the article got
it nearly completely wrong, whereas I essentially
got it right.
\_ Maybe you should ask deists, rather than dictionaries
what they think deism means (for instance http://deism.com).
The author of the article may have meant
'non-atheists.' -- ilyas
\_ Frankly, I value Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and
the American Heritage Dictionary more in this
case.
\_ Seriously though, if you don't think http://deism.com
is a credible source, ask someone on campus
who studies deism. Dictionaries are often
a lame source for technical definitions.
-- ilyas
\_ You also need to get off your FUCKING HIGH
HORSE, ilyas. What the fuck is "Amusingly,
you got [it wrong] also" and then waiting
for me to ask you what the right one is?
You know you come off as a dick?
\_ Ok, dictionary boy. Btw, did you know
your beloved wikipedia claims Cheney is
a neocon? Heh. Honestly, dictionaries
are great for capturing common use, but
they get technical terms wrong ALL THE
TIME, which isn't surprising if you
consider how dictionaries get written.
-- ilyas
My favorite recent example was a
dictionary defining a 'byte' to be a
'collection of bits.' -- ilyas
\_ Tell us about simpson's paradox ilyas
\_ Yup, I was wrong about it applying
in that case. Do you feel better
now? -- ilyas
\_ But Cheney's a member of The Project
for the New American Century. So,
how is he *not* a neo-con?
\_ Hmm, ilyas didn't respond, I guess
this means he was wrong.
\_ My problem with the term
'neocon' is that the test for
membership in this elite group
seems to be everchanging. I
was called a neocon on the motd
once. You seem to think
membership in PNAC is the same
as being a neocon. Someone
else might think it's some sort
of ex liberal jew hawk. Maybe
you should all get together and
decide what, if anything, this
word means. As for my wrongness,
you hereby have an official
pass, signed by me, which
says you are right, and I am
wrong in this, all previous,
and all subsequent arguments
we ever have. Maybe then you
can find another fish to trawl.
If both me, and Cheney are
neocons, then the term is
meaningless. -- ilyas
\_ Are you Chinese? Do you
understand the effect the
opium trade had on China?
\_ How can you have a "Christian" God who leaves the world
alone after creation? That doesn't jibe with, well, Christ.
\_ Right. Jefferson, a deist, did not believe in the divinity
of Jesus Christ. It's not really a "Christian" God, in this
sense, as you've noted.
\_ But he owned slaves! Are you Chinese? Do you understand
the effect the opium trade had on China? |
| 2004/11/6-7 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:34722 Activity:high |
11/5 http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1286272004 I was going to make some sort of snarky comment but I think this one speaks for itself. Headline: "Van Gogh murder backlash begins" please leave this nuked, i want to get my message across the asshole who selectively ilyaed my message. \_ go fuck yourself. some poeple are actually trying to communicate using the motd. \_ someone should've done the same to Michael Moore. -liberal \_ Perhaps you could, then you could pretend to be a mouth breathing pig ****ing bible basher. \_ MM is a big fat idiot, but your comment can only be met with something along the lines of "U SUKC TEH COCK". Sad. -John \_ C0KC [ pick a better adjective, bitch. -- ilyas ] |
| 2004/11/3 [Reference/Religion] UID:34618 Activity:nil |
11/3 Sorry to say this but the Christians are just as much intolerant
as the other religions. The fact that they needed to convert
"pagans" in the middle ages, FOUR TIMES, in their failed
crusades, says a lot. They have this "You're either with us or
against us, I'm right you're wrong, you'll go to hell if you
don't believe in Jesus" type of attitude. For centuries, they
try to convert people, and when they fail, they go off
eradicating them. Now, Christians in the US support the
fifth Christian Crusade of "spreading good and eradicating
evil" (e.g. Bush doctrine of preemption). Things just
haven't changed much in the past 1000 years. I think Christians
are as much narrowminded and intolerant as the Muslims.
-logical agnostic
\_ the Jihads and islamic conquering of the western world
happened before the crusades..
\_ both religions are intolerant and stupid
\_ Desperately looking for something to justify your inane views,
huh? |
| 2004/11/3 [Reference/Religion] UID:34606 Activity:high |
11/3 You know, people say the country was divided along cultural, not
economic lines. The reasoning is that if only the poor
southerners weren't so damn christian they d see the economic
benefit to voting for Kerry. I am not sure this is true. I think
culture not so much overshadows economic considerations, but frames
the thoughts about economics. I really don't think the southern
christians are fans of the DNC economics, and this is BECAUSE they
are christians. -- ilyas
\_ why? what christian values make them hate "DNC economics"?
\_ Well, I don't think they _hate them_, but I think christianity,
especially more moderate christiniaty, meshes very well with
conservative economics. For instance, christianity has a
spirit of giving, rendering the state-sponsored income
redistribution to help the poor less necessary. A
moderate christian is a libertarian's best friend. -- ilyas
redistribution to help the poor less necessary. There is
a spirit of distrust of government in christianity --
"to the Caesar Caesar's", etc. A moderate christian is a
libertarian's best friend. Also, American christianity traces
its roots to, of course, british puritanism, with the whole
work ethic thing. -- ilyas
\_ Jesus said "to the Caesar Caesar's" in reply to the
Pharisees' attempt to trap him as either rebellious
against the Romans or traitorous to the Jews. It has
nothing to do with distrust of the government.
\_ Jesus did say that, but as with most Bible quotes,
you can take this quote in a larger context. For
instance you can take it as a call to live a life of
minimal engagement with the earthly government, and
devoting most of one's life to spiritual matters.
-- ilyas
\_ There is no such "larger context" in the bible
to support this interpretation. This would
be force fitting the bible to one's own view
as opposed to basing one's view according to the
bible, a dangerous practice if you ask any
Christian.
\_ I am not a christian, so I have no need to
fit the bible to anything. If you doubt
Christiniaty, especially in its beginnings
as a renegade religion, and subsequently in
the guise of persecuted sects like the
puritans who just wanted to be left alone to
worship as they pleased does not entail a
certain cultural distrust of government,
shrug. I think Christ himself had a very
anti-authoritarian message, and yes I
disagree with you about the quote, for this
reason. -- ilyas
\_ perhaps not you, but many supposed
Christians certainly are trying to
fit the bible to their political agenda.
No, Christ is not anti authority but
anti self-righteous hypocrites, be
they corrupt Jewish priests, or
certain politicians of today.
\_ So, have you been practising the Christian / Jewish
practice of giving 1/10 th of your income for doing
God's work?
\_ Now that we have a theocracy you can deduct federal taxes
from your tithe.
\_ I thought we already can do that?
\_ Actually, as an independent comment to what you are saying,
I think a lot of voters voted for the guy with the right attitude
- kill the terrorists first, and ask questions later.
Kerry would in their minds, on the other hand, hesitate and
think before killing terrorists.
\_ Why not take the same attitude and use it for law enforcement
in the US? I am ALL FOR IT, SERIOUSLY!
\_ You aren't paying attention, are you? The biggest issue turned
out to be "God, guns and gays."
\_ anytime you bring religion into an issue, all logic needs
to be thrown out. I mean, just look at the Christian vs.
Muslim thing. The whole idea behind both of them is that
"I'm right, you're wrong", you're going to hell, and I
must eradicate you. You know, Salman Rushdie wrote bad
things about Muslim, but in fact, Christianity isn't all
that much better. Fuck religion. -agnostic
\_ In some sense, I agree with you, but you must understand that
_all_ moral commitments are ultimately subjective in the same
sense religion is. Including liberal and conservative ones.
You can't 'prove' progressive taxation to someone, it reduces
to some moral axioms you choose to believe in. I think most
of political discourse isn't _really_ about logic anyways.
-- ilyas
\_ Uh, no. You cannot argue that we would not have chaos
without a government structure, police & laws. There are
some things that have been proven to be absolutely true
throughout the centuries, and they will always be true
unless mankind goes through some massive social shift
that has not happened in a hundred thousand years.
\_ Well, _I_ cannot argue this. An anarcho-capitalist would
happily argue this, and I can't a priori reject what
he says. And this is for a very non-controversial kind of
axiom, whether a central government is even necessary.
When we are talking about something more controversial,
like progressive taxation, there is clearly no objective
truth, just subjective opinion on human rights. -- ilyas |
| 2004/10/12 [Reference/Religion] UID:34049 Activity:high |
10/11 Why is it that some states insist on using public resources for
religious purposes and feel that they have the right to do so?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/12/10.commandments.ap/index.html
\_ Why does Senator Byrd (motto: if you're good enough for the Klan
you're good enough for the Dems) read the Bible on the Senate floor
in protest of working on Sunday? Where's the ACLU when you need
them?
\_ Dude, the man apologized for joining the Klan and denounced
them. Check out the Terry Gross/Fresh Air interview. If you're
going to bag on the man, bag on something real.
\_ you should read up NPR's story on how immigrant view the role
of religion in USA. As an immigrant myself, I can tell you the
pressure to conform to Christianity and/or accepting Christian
values is enormous. In many way, USA's tolerance toward other
religious value was less than Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire.
\_ Boo hoo. What exactly is wrong with Christian values? Is
is ok to murder people in your culture? Fuck your neighbor's
wife? Exactly what is your country of origin and what makes
your values superior to Judeo-Christian values? Do you know
*anything* about the Roman Empire? Their entire deal was all
about Romanizing conquered peoples so that only a few generations
later they saw themselves not as whatever they once were but as
Romans.
\_ "Christian Values" vary a great amount between Christian
groups. Some like humility, compassion to the poor, the
golden rule, etc are great. It's that some Christians choose
to emphasive things like wives submit to their husbands,
gays should be killed, premarital sex is evil, convert the
heathens...
\_ are you sure that pressure isn't coming from other members
of your immigrant community? i was born and raised in the
US as an athiest, and have never felt any pressure to
"conform" to christian religion or culture. there are about
30 million Americans who list their religion as "none" and
probably another three million or so jews, a couple million
muslims, and who knows how many in weird american cult
religions like scientology or mormonism. sure, there's a
christian majority, but i think it's an exageration to call
the US a christian country.
\_ As an immigrant you should've expected that since the US
is a Western country. Its socio-economics is deeply rooted
in protestant values, after all it was founded by extremist
protestants to start off with. You would feel the same had
you immigrated into any part of Europe. You can't expect to
immigrate and NOT have to adopt the customs of the country
you are immigrating to. The fact that the US has many
enclaves of minorities in which they can feel comfortable in
is almost unique in the world. If you had actually lived in
Europe or any other western country you would realize how
lucky we actually are. If you think it's bad here, you'd be
shocked in how unnaccepting other countries are (like France).
\_ Huh? Have we had Christians torn apart by lions in circuses
like in the Roman Empire? Ottoman Empire tolerant?! Is
that why they butchered all those Armenians?
\_ it's an NPR thing. i loathe NPR, but since some businesses
i like to go to insist on playing it, I'm familiar with
their "Ottoman Empire was a beacon of tolerance" meme.
\_ What in holy batshit are you smoking boy? I listen to NPR
every day and I've never heard anything like this. Maybe
you should stop snorting high-test ibogaine up your
nose, take those cotton balls out of your ears, and go
shoot a .44 magnum at a couple of jackrabbits. I swear
it will make you feel better.
\_ I suppose there is a finite probability that NPR only
plays pompous anti-american and anti-isreal propoganda
for about 15 minutes a week and it always just happens
to correspond to when I hear it...I just think it's
a pretty small probablity.
\_ Like I said, you really need to work off that
paranoia, good buddy. Turn off Rush Limbaugh and
go shoot some jackrabbits. If NPR is "anti-American"
propaganda, I guess you consider Patrick Buchanan
to be a "moderate," yes? Jackrabbits, son. .44
magnum. And when you've killed enough jackrabbits,
consider blowing your own head off so we don't have
to listen to your raving.
\_ Sorry, but regaurdless of what NPR does
or does not broadcast, you're an idiot. -!pp
\_ Nope, sorry, I'm an intelligent person
entertaining himself with thoughts of
the blazing Southwestern sky, frightened
jackrabbits, and Mr. Raving Winger's exploded
brains all over the concrete. You're an idiot
for taking something on the motd at face
value.
\_ Right, I never said I took it at face
value. Not all jokes are funny, some are
just dumb. Like the above.
\_ It won't do anything for the rabbits. Think of the
rabbits! |
| 2004/10/1 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Religion] UID:33872 Activity:kinda low |
10/1 "Olive Christian, 48, Steve Christians wife, told reporters:
"We all thought sex was like food on the table."
\_ http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/109111/1/.html
also on bbc
\_ the nice thing about pitcairn is that you can go to their web site
and they list all their inhabitants and their relations, so you
get a more personal feel for the story. -ali
\_ 50 inhabitants and they rape each other. Oh my... it is both
kinky and disturbing at the same time.
\_ So basically half the males on the island raped 13 of the
island's females starting from ages as young as 5? Is that
the gist? |
| 2004/9/29 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:33824 Activity:nil |
9/28 For extra fun, every time they say "Jew," substitute "homosexual"
and suddenly everyone sounds like Jimmy Swaggart!
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD79104
Oh, and if you're wondering what MEMRI's biases are, go here:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=MEMRI
\_ What do you sound like when you replace "Jew" with "whitey"? |
| 2004/9/24-27 [Reference/Religion] UID:33748 Activity:low |
9/24 The Rape Jihad
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15206
\_ And the Bible says you should do lots of horrible things too, but
he's not blaming Christians as a whole for things that are in the
Bible...
\_ The irony is atheists are responsible for over
100 million deaths in the 20th century, and still counting.
Liberal western democracies are entirely predicated
\_ And da damn Bible says ya' should do lots uh ho'rible wahtahmelluns
too, but he's not blamin' Christians as some whole fo' wahtahmelluns
dat are in de Bible. What it is, Mama!.
\_ De irony be adeists are responsible fo' over
100 million deads in de 20d century, and still countin'.
Liberal western democracies be entirely predicated
on Protestant and Judaic beliefs.
History, the bane of atheists.
\_ It sounds like your bane is critical thinking. --aaron
\_ No they aren't, and no they aren't.
'Sup, histo'y, de bane uh adeists.
\_ It sounds likes yo' bane be critical dinkin'. --aaron
\_ No dey ain't, and no dey ain't. |
| 2004/9/21 [Reference/Religion] UID:33655 Activity:high |
9/21 Muslims rule major Swedish city
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2004/09/003131print.html
\_ Haha!
\_ Haha! Sweden = pwned.
\_ Yeah, actually I heard the same kinda stuff from one of our
Danish exchange students. Getting in fights with Turks at bars
and the such like. He didn't like muslims.
\_ RACIST!! All countries should allow unlimited immigration to realize
the multicultural benefits. There's not enough Turkish culture in
Turkey or Turkmenistan you know, it needs to be part of every
country.
\_ ALL HAIL GREAT TURKMENBASHI!
\_ And if you say "You can't walk to Turkmenistan," I say
"Of course I can! Screw you!"
\_ If we're decoupling country and race/culture, why should we think
Jews and Palestinians have the right to have their own countries?
Just tell them to immigrate to wherever they want.
\_ I'll take the Jews, but the Palestinians can stay home.
\_ I'll take the Palestinian Christians. The rest can stay home.
\_ East Turkistein in China! |
| 2004/9/15 [Reference/Religion] UID:33540 Activity:nil |
9/15 Dear god no.
http://www.lifegem.com/secondary/whatisLG.asp |
| 2004/9/8 [Reference/Religion] UID:33415 Activity:very high |
9/7 Why is it that religious ideas are not a legitimate subject for
debate or questioning? It's as if all intellectual concepts are
open to criticism, but as soon as you say you believe something
"because of your faith," its beyond the pale to question it. This
seems particularly pertinent today, with Islamic fundamentalists
trying to kill us because of their beliefs, and Christian
fundamentalists at home trying to derail science.
\_ Check out 'The End of Faith' by Sam Harris --aaron
\_ Who said that religious ideas are not a legimitate subject
for debate?
\_ Here's an extreme example. If someone claims to be able to talk
to ghosts, we think they are crazy and they are marginalized. If,
however, someone believes that the Bible is the literal revealed
word of God, that we are ruled by a giant heavenly father in the
sky, etc. etc...then we elect them President.
\_ So Newton and Maxwell were crazy then? Anyway, not all
conservatives are bible thumping kooks:
http://tinyurl.com/67qsy (Washington Post, George Will)
BTW, I agree that many people are closed minded kooks,
but that doesn't stop long held religious beliefs from
being overturned: the birth of Buddhism in 500 BC Hindu
India, the conversion of Rome to Christianity, the
Protestant reformation, the reforms in Hinduism btw
700 and 1300 AD. Some consider the Enlightenment and
the restoration of the Greek ideals of Science and
Mathematics to the forefront of human thought as the
latest religious movement.
\_ Actually, yes Newton was crazy. His primary scientific
love was alchemy and the mercury appears to have done him
in.
\_ I think Newton is a good aguement for the "it doesn't
any practical difference to a scientist" point of
view. I am a scientist, and most of my friends are
scientists. I would say that about half or maybe
more than half of the people I work with are
religious. Some are catholic, some are protestant,
some are jews and some are muslims, and as far as
I can tell it makes *zero* difference in anything
they do as scientists. I would also point out that
kooky random beliefes like alchemy are pretty
common among scientists. A good scientist has
an open mind, but even the best sicentist can only
have a knowledge of a limited number of subjects, which
can lead to beliefs pretty far from the mainstream.
\_ Yeah, but do they believe in the bible as the
literal word of God or the inspired word? It
makes a big difference.
\_ If it's not literal, then it's imperfect. You
allow all sorts of things to be open to wide
interpretation. At what point does it fall into
the same category as Greek mythology?
\_ It wasn't meant to be an attack on the current President,
by the way - I was just pointing out that it is nearly a
requirement these days that a candidate mention "God"
in order to be elected. My point also wasn't that Newton
was crazy, but that religious beliefs and their relative
merits are not allowed as a subject for debate - any
sentence beginning, "I'm a Muslim, so..." automatically
makes any debate an "attack on their faith." If anything,
religion was MORE likely to be a subject for genuine
intellectual thought in Newton's day, or even around the
time of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Note that I do not consider
myself to be an atheist.
\_ I guess we were talking about different aspects.
Certainly I agree w/ you that the current use of
one's religion as a sheild against any arguments
is very disturbing.
The worst manifestation of that (imo) is the trend
in some courts to allow a defense of religion or
culture to serious crimes. (My religion said that
it was okay to rape that woman, &c.).
Personally, I'm mostly a deist. I think that there
might be an impersonal force (Einstein's God if
you will) whose intention is manifest as the laws
of physics, &c.
\_ I guess we aren't in disagreement about much then.
What's wrong, this is the motd!!! Anyway, I'd
put myself in a somewhat similar undecided camp,
although their are certain strains of Eastern thought
I've found very appealing - i.e., the Bhagavad Gita's
appeal to reason as a guide, rather than "because
the sky god said so."
\_ Impersonal force eh? What's the point of that? I mean
what's the practical difference between "some extra-
universal force designed everything" versus
"everything just happens to be as it is"? The story
with the deity doesn't explain the deity itself, so
you're not better off.
\_ These are very different ideas. Belief in an
impersonal force which refrains from direct
interaction with the universe admits for the
possible existence of other metaphysical
constructs, such as an afterlife. If you deny
the existence of anything metaphysical, you are
stuck with just the physical.
\_ It's like the zero-th commandment, the one implied but never
actually stated: "thou shalt not question"
\_ That actually reminds me of how I heard one priest interpret the
story of the garden of Eden. God doesn't punish man because he
disobeyed God or attained knowledge. God punishes man because
man took the word of someone else over the word of God.
\_ http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp?id=ns24631
Search down to "harsh on religion"
\_ Nice link, thanks. |
| 2004/9/8 [Science/Biology, Reference/Religion] UID:33411 Activity:high |
9/7 It is time for MOTD's monthly evolution vs creationism debate:
Serbia strikes blow against evolution,
Creationism put on equal footing with Darwinism.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5932128
\_ here's a challenge to you religious people. which is more
impressively godly, a god who has to construct everything in
the universe individually, or a god who can write down a simple
set of physical laws and then sit back and watch for several
billion years as intelligent life evolves according to His
plan? do you worship brute force?
\_ False dichotomy. The really big problem with this whole
discussion is that many religious people see their beliefs
threatened by agenda driven research, or anti-religion spin put
on science (and there is some truth to that--there are some
atheists who will do anything to spin research). Atheists cringe
at any effort to "prove" god, since in their opinion he obviously
doesn't exist and anyone who disagrees is just deluding himself.
*Real* scientists shouldn't care one way or another unless claims
(pro- or anti-religion) are testable and falsifiable. Then there
are believers who try to show other believers that science is not
a threat to *good* religion and wish both sides would stop
misrepresenting the other.
\_ false dichotomy! agenda-driven science! consensus science!
activist judges! liberal homosexual agenda! w00t!
\_ I would support it if only they would also give equal footing
to the study of witchcraft. No one has disproved witchcraft.
http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/part_I/mm01_toc.html |
| 2004/8/29-30 [Reference/Religion, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:33204 Activity:moderate |
8/29 Jesus goes GNU:
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/08/25/2220201
\_ Jesus is still dead. Sorry to disappoint.
\_ Your god plutonium will not save you. |
| 2004/8/18 [Reference/Religion] UID:32980 Activity:nil |
8/17 God you people are depressing.
\_ Depression is an internal state. Seek help. |
| 2004/8/13 [Reference/Religion] UID:32881 Activity:high |
8/12 Are there any Iraqis or Saudis on the motd? How about muslims in
general?
\_ I am an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church of
Modesto California. I believe that my impeccable mail-order
credentials as a man of the cloth permit me to authoritatively
say that I am not a muslim. -John
\_ Can you marry me and my box turtle?
\_ Yes, but you cannot consummate the marriage without violating
the law. |
| 2004/8/2 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:32631 Activity:nil 54%like:35188 |
8/2 Dear German John, are you a Jew? -John #1 Fan
\_ WTF? !john !jew |
| 2004/7/30 [Reference/Religion] UID:32597 Activity:very high |
7/30 RIP Francis Crick:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3937475.stm
\_ too bad Watson is still around
\_ Why? Is he evil or something?
\_ Nah, but he's a big dickhead apparently.
\_ Rosalind Franklin did all the work, and he took
all the credit and passed it off as his own. He
also had an affair with Crick's wife and has
done lots of other less than honorable stuff.
\_ Franklin did the initial x-ray crystallography showing
something strange, but she didn't see the double helix.
The Nature issue back then had a paper from Watson and
Crick, and the supporting paper by Franklin and Wilkins.
When the Nobel Prize was awarded, Franklin was dead,
and you can't award the prize posthumously -- Watson,
Crick, and Wilkins were awarded.
Crick's wife? urlP.
When the Nobel Prize was awarded, Franklin was dead from
radiation poisoning, and you can't award the prize
posthumously -- Watson, Crick, and Wilkins were awarded.
Crick's wife? Please provide URL.
\_ Waston is hated by know-nonthing cuz he is more out-spoken.
\_ Now this unrepentant atheist will discover the Truth.
\_ yermom showed me the true meaning of the "double helix"
\_ yermom won the Ho-bel prize for her work on recombinant TnA.
\_ Why do religious nuts hate science so much? Superstition,
not religion, conflicts with science. Oh, wait, most
religious people are really just superstitious nuts
pretending to be religious. So never mind.
\_ Here's your christian science: "Thy will be done"
What's left to study? Anything that deviates from
what isn't explicitly stated in the Bible is Satan
trying to tempt you!
\_ Did God tell you Bible reflects his views? Don't
confuse the master work of God, which is the nature
around us, from double helix to super nova, with the
confused words of a few clueless hacks.
\_ The one thing I've never understood (OK, one of
the things) is how people believe that the Bible
is The Word of God. They say it was written by
men who had God speak through them, but there's
no shred of evidence to suggest that they weren't
self-important people pushing their own
agendas, or maybe just spent a little too much
time out in the hot desert sun.
Ok, The Bible is the foundation of your faith.
But what's the foundation of your faith in The
Bible? [moved]
\_ there are tons of direct quotes of God
\_ No, there are tons of things written by
unknown men thousands of years ago that
said God spoke to them. Is there any
evidence God spoke to these people? A lot
of people think God speaks to them, but
that doesn't make it true. I mean Jim Jones
probably thought God told him to make
everyone drink the Kool-aid.
\_ Actually you don't know whether Jones
actually think so. Just his followers
think so. Similarly, Christians are not
people who believe in god. They are just
people who believe Bible contains "direct
quotes" because, well, some human being
told them so. They don't really believe
in God.
\_ This religious troll thread is a nice
change of pace from politics, but it's
not getting any bites. Not enough
evangelical Christians or Muslims on
the motd. Or else they're happy to
give up on saving our souls. Nice try
though.
\_ Some parts of the bible are about
events where there were thousands of
witnesses. Can we say that if the
old testament is a big hoax, the
Jewish people are all idiots?
\_ There were many witnesses to UFO,
ghosts, vampires, and Rev. Moon
levitate himself.
\_ PI IS EXACTLY 3!
\_ I have isolated the chemical which is emitted
by every geek, dork, and four-eyes. I call
it "poindextrose".
\_ Also, the Sun revolves around the earth, and
the earth is flat.
\_ That the failthfuls will go to hell? |
| 2004/7/14 [Reference/Religion] UID:32272 Activity:nil |
7/14 God rocks: a book approved by the National Park Service on the
creation of Grand Canyon:
http://www.harpers.org/GodRocks.html |
| 2004/7/2 [Reference/Religion] UID:31132 Activity:very high |
7/2 Even the Nigerians don't trust US. i.e., polio vaccines part of
U.S. plot to sterilize muslims: http://tinyurl.com/35qol
\_ you know what, I don't trust nigerians, at all.
\_ what about nigerian-born sodans? (there's at least one, probably
several)
\_ That's too bad, because you have been recommended to me as a
gentleman of outstanding character who might be able to help
me transfer this $37 million in gold bullion out of the
country.
\_ Hey dummy, there are born and raised white americans right here in
the US who don't get their children vaccinated because they think
there's something wrong with them and the risk is higher than going
unvaccinated. We have a name for those people: stupid. |
| 2004/6/14-15 [Reference/Religion] UID:30800 Activity:high |
6/14 If the Bible wasn't a religious text followed by a billion or so
people do you think it would still be printed and read by anyone
today? As a work of fiction, story telling quality, etc, would anyone
buy it?
\_ They'd buy the stuff left on the scribe room floor that the council
of Nicea left out.
\_ How could it not be "a religious text"? It's the word of God.
\_ Why not? I've read plenty of Greek mythology without slaying
any goats or tossing virgins off cliffs into the roaring ocean.
It's only the word of God if you take it as a religious text. -op
\_ Sorry folks, I'll troll harder next time.
\_ Oh, sorry. I didn't realise you were trolling. Next time
if you'll let me know in advance I'll get all hot n
bothered for you.
\_ it needs a good editor, but the story telling is top notch.
\_ Since similar mythology from that era is still read, yes. -tom
\_ What tom said, but it would obviously be read less often and
by fewer people.
\_ You mean if it hadn't existed and someone wrote up the whole shebang
today as a fantasy? I think the sheer quantity of stuff in there
would create a buzz at least, but as literature it's pretty lacking
in terms of fleshing out the characters. Some old testament stuff
could be re-written to make a dramatic story, leaving out the
tedious rules and lists and other dull parts. But such a creation
wouldn't be the Bible as it is. It's not very inviting reading,
what with the constant preaching and punishment. The meat of the
Jesus stuff is pretty short and not overly exciting. A lot of the
new testament is the dry "letters to whoever" and then the bizarre
Revelation stuff. There are a some literature-worthy themes
in there but mostly the writing itself is dull.
\_ Job, Ecclesiastes, Exodus are all pretty good stories.
\_ The Bible is not about characters, but archetypes. I think it's
very good for what it is -- archetypal literature. Kind of like
Shakespeare, actually. -- ilyas
\_ Some chapters would make great novellas on their own (and have,
actually, when recast with different characters). Some of it
would only ever get read in Classics classes. Cf. the Greek
Theogeny vs. the Iliad.
\_the random greek myths are read as stories but something like
the iliad is obviously a deep work of literature now more than
a story. the kjv bible is certainly considered a work of
literature and i suppose parts of it could be a good story.
the book of job certainly is raises interesting
questions outside a narrow xtain context, there is plenty
of poetry. i think the english depts at berkeley/'fraud/harvard
/michigan/UVa/yale will all of "bible as literature" classes.
you may want to see the somewhat recent book "good's secretaries"
you may want to see the somewhat recent book "god's secretaries"
on the KJV and other english bibles. the book of mormon on the
other hand ... --psb
\_ A hackneyed concept borrowed from Dr. Dee and transplanted to
America. A much better basis for religion is anything by
William Blake. More fun to read, too. |
| 2004/6/4 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30596 Activity:very high |
6/4 Bush gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom to the Pope?
I don't get it.
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE CIA?
\_ It's just a stupid PR stunt.
\- jesus told him to do it.
\_ Bush got the advice from the CIA?
\_ Answering my own post, I guess this is Bush's way of saying
"Sorry" to Europe, with the nice side effect of boosting
Latino and religious-minded support!
\_ Yeah, crazy that a government leader could show respect for a
religious leader.
\_ Bush gives Pope medal. Pope disses Bush on "deplorable events".
It's kind of absurd.
\_ Does The Pope hate our freedom?
\_ He also dissed same-sex marriage and abortion rights.
\_ It is absurd, because Bush isn't Catholic. Not being a
Catholic is heresy and in the old days they'd burn you
in heaps. This policy is currently "in abeyance". In any
case Bush is excommunicated.
\_ deplorable is in association with the Abu Prison.
Demos and Republicans both are upset with the incidents at
the prison.
\_ Bush gives Pope medal. Pope disses Bush on Abu Ghraib / War.
It's kind of absurd.
\_ Here is the actual statement by the Pope. It seems
balanced and reasonable:
http://tinyurl.com/252u4
\_ "a Vatican spokesman said the two were in agreement
about the situation in Iraq"
http://tinyurl.com/39zdw |
| 11/23 |