Gay and Christian

[Gagatron]

Why is that a problem?

It's essentially a mirror, with you seeing in it what you want to see (thus seeing yourself). As such I think that time when I could be reading the Bible to see what to do could actually be spent meditating and looking within myself.

It's like a mirror to the blind man.

Looking within yourself is gonna find you the answer YOU want, not necessarily the right one.

[Angleter]

Look, if "God" wanted to refer to DNA, why not have the person to whom he was giving the vision write something like, "And the Lord extracted some of the essence of the man, the tiny physical elements that gave him his substance, which are called the spiral ladder of existence, and the Lord replicated this essence, changing it in subtle ways to create a woman. And I, who am writing this, speak the words the Lord has given me to speak, while wondering at them nonetheless."

Because, I presume, his mouthpiece would've sounded like the TimeCube guy, and would've been treated as such.

[Indeos]

I understand that, but humans did go through several stages. I'm no expert on this subject, and it's more likely that the writer was incorrect. However, this doesn't make the Christian story of creation incompatible with evolution, it just means that the people writing it down made mistakes and didn't have the information we have today.

The Biblical story of the creation is incompatible with evolution precisely because the people writing it down made mistakes (a shitload of big ones), which were also specifically the result of them not having access to the information we have today.

I don't recall reading anywhere that the Bible couldn't be revised when needed, so the existence of mistakes doesn't automatically make it incorrect and incompatible.

[Georgism]

It's essentially a mirror, with you seeing in it what you want to see (thus seeing yourself). As such I think that time when I could be reading the Bible to see what to do could actually be spent meditating and looking within myself.

Isn't interpreting the Bible your own way exactly that? And I'm pretty sure your own interpretation beats what the Bible actually says.

That's what I'm saying. So it's basically useless to me.

[New Kereptica]

I don't recall reading anywhere that the Bible couldn't be revised when needed, so the existence of mistakes doesn't automatically make it incorrect and incompatible.

The fallibility of the Bible casts quite a bit of doubt on its more unbelievable aspects.

[Slainte Uisge Beatha]

Exerpt proving that Intelligent design, or rather Unintelligent design is the way we where created:

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

[Georgism]

Looking within yourself is gonna find you the answer YOU want, not necessarily the right one.

As will reading the Bible. Hence we have people who range from being very liberal to Fred Phelps and his ilk.

Besides, I'd trust myself over the Bible any day.

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't recall reading anywhere that the Bible couldn't be revised when needed, so the existence of mistakes doesn't automatically make it incorrect and incompatible.

Since the Bible is, in theory, the work of God, mistakes would be pretty damning. It also seems stupid that we have to frequently update the Bible to agree with the facts rather than the Bible giving us the facts--that makes it a pretty useless book as far as teaching goes, dontcha think?

[Farnhamia]

Look, if "God" wanted to refer to DNA, why not have the person to whom he was giving the vision write something like, "And the Lord extracted some of the essence of the man, the tiny physical elements that gave him his substance, which are called the spiral ladder of existence, and the Lord replicated this essence, changing it in subtle ways to create a woman. And I, who am writing this, speak the words the Lord has given me to speak, while wondering at them nonetheless."

Because, I presume, his mouthpiece would've sounded like the TimeCube guy, and would've been treated as such.

Not really, he'd have sounded like a prophet or like St. John who wrote Revelations. You're projecting, just like Gagatron.

[Indeos]

I don't recall reading anywhere that the Bible couldn't be revised when needed, so the existence of mistakes doesn't automatically make it incorrect and incompatible.

Since the Bible is, in theory, the work of God, mistakes would be pretty damning. It also seems stupid that we have to frequently update the Bible to agree with the facts rather than the Bible giving us the facts--that makes it a pretty useless book as far as teaching goes, dontcha think?

I don't think God intended to just give us all the answers, so the mistakes could be by design. Perhaps His intent is to give us reason to doubt and discover, and therefore succeed. Of course, I'm not completely in agreement with the Bible either way.

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't think God intended to just give us all the answers, so the mistakes could be by design. Perhaps His intent is to give us reason to doubt and discover, and therefore succeed. Of course, I'm not completely in agreement with the Bible either way.

Then he's a liar, and a God who is full of shit is not a God I respect.

[Georgism]

I don't think God intended to just give us all the answers, so the mistakes could be by design. Perhaps His intent is to give us reason to doubt and discover, and therefore succeed. Of course, I'm not completely in agreement with the Bible either way.

An interesting thread I read once.

[The Arcatect]

Hello every one, Well im Christion and buy as well however as i see it all people are buy in verrying dagrees. Persanuly i find wemon to be absolutly gorges and amazing but i will not deny that a man with femanen qualatys can tern me on in some ocasins. Atraction is an anamil thing, and not speritual. However i find that it is love for another that is speritual. You can love someone and not be atracted, and you can be atractid to someone but not feel enything for then.
This is the reson people mess up relationships. the feel lust and not love.

As for god and religion

How can we as a groop of mortals know the mind of that wich is imortal. Humans are as a animal dasetful and willing to do enything for persinal gain including preeching to a god that is false. It is sad but true. Look up corupt cherch in Nigeria on Youtube youll see what i mean.

[Neue Osterreich]

On the Sunday after the suicide of Tyler Clementi, the priest at my parish, a Jesuit priest, gave a sermon condemning homophobia. He condemned not just the action, but the thought of homophobia. According to the priest, homophobia even when not taken into action is a form of subtle violence and all Christians must stay away from such thinking.
Realistically, Vatican does speak out against homosexuality. But take the above sermon as an example, the Catholic world is very diverse. Saying Catholicism or Catholic people and Vatican are ONE is just pure ignorant. I am gay, I am a biology major in college - hence an evolutionist, I am also a Catholic. Are there any conflict among being gay, being science-minded, and being a Catholic? Yeah they may be some. But in my personal opinion (I am in no place to speak for other people, Catholic or non-Catholic, or pretend I know what other people think) those differences are minuscule and they certainly don't stand in the way I live and believe.
The problem that I have is when people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, understand little about other groups of people and the diversity that every groups possess, and start to stereotype and talk sh*t about them.

[Angleter]

Because, I presume, his mouthpiece would've sounded like the TimeCube guy, and would've been treated as such.

Not really, he'd have sounded like a prophet or like St. John who wrote Revelations. You're projecting, just like Gagatron.

Would he really? The Creation story originates right at the start of the development of a religion, as one of its fundamental tenets. It's much easier to make people accept something beyond their understanding and unlike anything similar when they have the backing of an established religion- Isaiah had Judaism behind him, St. John Christianity, and even Muhammad placed himself firmly in the grounding of Judeo-Christianity. To try and found a religion based on something confusing and difficult to understand (especially to children- these sorts of stories were initially passed down by word of mouth) would be considerably harder.

[Indeos]

I don't think God intended to just give us all the answers, so the mistakes could be by design. Perhaps His intent is to give us reason to doubt and discover, and therefore succeed. Of course, I'm not completely in agreement with the Bible either way.

An interesting thread I read once.

That is actually pretty interesting, and close enough to my own half-formed theory.

I don't think God intended to just give us all the answers, so the mistakes could be by design. Perhaps His intent is to give us reason to doubt and discover, and therefore succeed. Of course, I'm not completely in agreement with the Bible either way.

Then he's a liar, and a God who is full of shit is not a God I respect.

Read the above link, as it's a fairly good response.

[Gagatron]

Not really, he'd have sounded like a prophet or like St. John who wrote Revelations. You're projecting, just like Gagatron.

Would he really? The Creation story originates right at the start of the development of a religion, as one of its fundamental tenets. It's much easier to make people accept something beyond their understanding and unlike anything similar when they have the backing of an established religion- Isaiah had Judaism behind him, St. John Christianity, and even Muhammad placed himself firmly in the grounding of Judeo-Christianity. To try and found a religion based on something confusing and difficult to understand (especially to children- these sorts of stories were initially passed down by word of mouth) would be considerably harder.

The ancient Chinese philosphers rejected philosophies and knowledge that were more complex, and believed relevance had to do with simplicity. I agree with them.

[Slainte Uisge Beatha]

You guys completely looked over the empirical evidence, that proves that God is a Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Buffett and Colbert]

Would he really? The Creation story originates right at the start of the development of a religion, as one of its fundamental tenets. It's much easier to make people accept something beyond their understanding and unlike anything similar when they have the backing of an established religion- Isaiah had Judaism behind him, St. John Christianity, and even Muhammad placed himself firmly in the grounding of Judeo-Christianity. To try and found a religion based on something confusing and difficult to understand (especially to children- these sorts of stories were initially passed down by word of mouth) would be considerably harder.

The ancient Chinese philosphers rejected philosophies and knowledge that were more complex, and believed relevance had to do with simplicity. I agree with them.

Knowledge can't be complex. Knowledge is knowledge. And they did NOT believe relevance had to do with simplicity. Many eastern philosophies simply believe in truth lying within simplicity.

Not to mention that your version of "simplicity" seems to be an excuse for willful ignorance.

[Slainte Uisge Beatha]

The ancient Chinese philosphers rejected philosophies and knowledge that were more complex, and believed relevance had to do with simplicity. I agree with them.

Knowledge can't be complex. Knowledge is knowledge. And they did NOT believe relevance had to do with simplicity. Many eastern philosophies simply believe in truth lying within simplicity.

[/quote]
Knowledge is between Beliefs, and truths, at least from a epistemological stand point. Knowledge has to fall in the area that is between those, so it is rather simple, but it can also be complex. It depends on how one finds it a priori , or a posteriori

[The Parkus Empire]

Read the above link, as it's a fairly good response.

Great. Since I think God can go fuck himself, I'm obviously one of his best disciples.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Knowledge can't be complex. Knowledge is knowledge. And they did NOT believe relevance had to do with simplicity. Many eastern philosophies simply believe in truth lying within simplicity.

Knowledge is between Beliefs, and truths, at least from a epistemological stand point. Knowledge has to fall in the area that is between those, so it is rather simple, but it can also be complex. It depends on how one finds it a priori , or a posteriori[/quote]
Hey, I'm just talking about about what they believe.

[Indeos]

Read the above link, as it's a fairly good response.

Great. Since I think God can go fuck himself, I'm obviously one of his best disciples.

So God has to be completely straightforward, and can't test humanity or anything like that?

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Great. Since I think God can go fuck himself, I'm obviously one of his best disciples.

So God has to be completely straightforward, and can't test humanity or anything like that?

Yep. Would make things much easier.

[The Parkus Empire]

So God has to be completely straightforward, and can't test humanity or anything like that?

Lying isn't the best way to get me to have "faith" in him, anyway. But since he's deliberately trying to make me not trust him, I don't see what's so wrong with that.