Way to stay classy.
1. So?2. Partially your fault.
3. Good idea.
Compared to what I'd like to say to CWM and various others, that is classy.
And I'm not part of the community. I just stop by from time to time to see what's new.
Search Posts
1. So? 2. Partially your fault. 3. Good idea.
It's 4e, dude. You'll never die in the first place.
some good stuff Well said. Thanks.
... if you accept the notion that the world and life were created over a long period of time. However, I should mention that there are theories - backed up by serious science - that support the possibility of a literal 7-day creation. Yeah, the website's only got a little stuff on it. I recommend checking out some of the books in their store (you can get them in a library, of course, rather than buying them), and I also recommend the writings of Hugh Ross. For entertainment purposes (since he's a little kooky and because I don't agree with some of his assertions regarding cryptozoology, et al), you might want to check out Kent Hovind at drdino.com.
Back in town for a day or two, between business trips. Let me lay out what I'd think of as ideal:... I must admit I'm rather surprised by that incident (and sorry for it, too, by the way). My wife - at the time a lowly Specialist in the Army and a practicing Wiccan - had no trouble being allowed to stay out of religious services when she requested it.
Actually, no. The Constitution specifically decrees that the government shall make no law establishing a state religion - such as Secular Humanism or Atheism. It says nothing about "separation of church and state" or anything even remotely similar. You're somewhat misinterpreting my intentions: I'm not "declaring" religious neutrality to be anyting. However, if all expressions of all other religions are left out, then Secular Humanism becomes the default religion as a result. In other words, it becomes the only religion that can be legally expressed, and thus the only legal religion. Also, I would never argue that Secular Humanism "must go". Rather, I would argue that Secular Humanists should have the same rights as everyone else rather than legal supremacy over them. And I'd skip step 4 altogether. The point is, once you start restricting religious expression (and remember, I'm not talking about practices that infringe on the rights of others here) you are by default giving power to the opposing viewpoint. Rather than restricting either side at all, I propose that we grant all sides equal freedom so that no one religion/philosophy/belief system can gain power over another. You can bow to Buddha, I can pray to Jesus, an atheist can refrain from praying, our friends can join us, and we can all stand side-by-side in the public square at the same time.
Kind of a "Trample or Be Trampled" mentality?Back in town for a day or two, between business trips. Let me lay out what I'd think of as ideal... and some other stuff Sounds good. I'm in.
Some stuffThis was interesting. I have a question though and I am asking honestly -- doesn't one of the first few amendments to the Constitution specifically address the religious issue? I know I could look it up, but I'm feeling lazy right now. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Depends on what you mean by "figuratively"...and lots of other stuff. Just nitpicking here, but Genesis is not technically poetry; it is narrative in nature. While triple repetition of concepts is often used in Hebrew poetry, it is primarily a theological device rather than a poetic device. Concerning the dual creation accounts, you are quite correct. They are not separate accounts, but rather recount the same events but with a different emphasis and purpose. The first account describes how God made everything, while the second account effectively "zooms in" to to set the stage for the proceeding story. The theory that the accounts are separate was first seriously suggested by critics in the 19th century, and though it still gets a lot of play it has been largely discarded by most modern scholars, including those who are not Christian. At any rate, if you look at the Genesis 1 account of creation, it really doesn't make sense in the order that they are given. The first day you have light and dark but you don't have the sun until day 4. In fact plants don't come around until day 3 and not sure about how we got plants without the sun. It's true these statements don't make sense - if you accept the notion that the world and life were created over a long period of time. However, I should mention that there are theories - backed up by serious science - that support the possibility of a literal 7-day creation. And you're also correct that certain nuances can be lost through translation. Having studied the biblical languages (Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and even a bit of Chaldean - I missed out on Greek) at the collegiate and graduate level, I'm amazed at the details I find in the scriptures. However, with that said, I still contend that most English translations are more than adequate for anything short of the deepest studies. Not trying to start any arguments here; just trying to lend a hand. :-)
Nonetheless, I explained it. If you're not satisfied with the explanation, there's really not much I can do about it. I am still quite angry that you called me a savage. If you look a bit more closely, you'll see that I said "if you want to live like a savage". That is to say, if you want to live without the rules of civilized society, then feel free to do so - somewhere away from civilized society. And, by the way, that was intended as a general-address sort of statement and was not directed at you personally. I don't NEED ANYONE to tell me how to behave. Careful, you're getting close to making my point for me. I know how to behave, and my goal in life is not to fling feces on anyone. I respect the law, and I want to be a part of society... But there are plenty of people who don't know how to behave or don't want to behave, and that's where laws come in. ...but society is NOT allowed to force me to pay lip service to anything I don't believe in. And no one is trying to. We're only trying to get you to respect the rights of others just as you'd like us to respect your rights. Keeping all official power away from formal religion is the way it's been for ages now. Actually, no. The Constitution specifically decrees that the government shall make no law establishing a state religion - such as Secular Humanism or Atheism. It says nothing about "separation of church and state" or anything even remotely similar. By the way, that specific phrase "separation of church and state" was used in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of churches - it has no legal bearing whatsoever. Further, if one reads the letter itself, Jefferson specifies that the intent of the Constitution is to prevent the federal government from abridging religious freedom while allowing those with religious views to express them through public and private service as they see fit. He even makes a statement to the effect that government is doomed if religious people fail to get involved. It's a very interesting read, as are the Federalist Papers. I highly recommend them. Oh, and I am NOT tolerated by you. You want to send me into the jungle. Oh, brother. Get over yourself. Check the post - I never said I wanted to send you to the jungle. I only said you're welcome to leave if you don't like it here. And, again, it was only a generic "you" statement and was not directed at you personally. And concerning the (totally useless and pointless - as well as unenforceable) UN statement, isn't that a sort of blanket blasphemy law? What happens in you say, "I don't believe in God," in a Muslim country? Is the UN going to come shoot you?
It seems you do have a grasp of how democracy works, including the protection of the rights of minorities. Of course, this stands in contrast with the categorical statement you made before, that if the majority wants something, the minorities should always obey. And blaming me for various things doesn't change the fact that saying that atheists don't want anyone telling them they have to behave and that atheists want to act like savages is very offensive. As I said, it's a good example of why religious people should NOT be allowed to make policy despite protections that exist in various civil rights (blasphemy laws, for example, hurt freedom of speech, a law put into place to protect minorities from the majority). It is also a good example of the "tolerance" we can expect from an unchecked religious majority making policies. The "categorical statement" has already been explained. You haven't been blamed for anything other than being wrong. Exactly who do you want telling you how to behave, then? I've already explained that it's impossible to divorce policy from religion without destroying all religion, which is itself the establishment of a religion - secular humanism. Freedom of speech was instituted to protect both majorities and minorities from totalitarian authorities, not minorities from majorities. If you want to be tolerated, then why won't you tolerate in return?
Moff Rimmer, since you feel the need to keep bashing me even after I had left... But, umm... you haven't left.
The first was a broad, general statement, in effect using your own reasoning to show the absurdity of restricting religion. The second was a somewhat less broad, but still general, statement regarding the type of compromises sometimes necessary in order to maintain society. To combine the two statements: Each of us must in some way compromise our own personal freedom in order to get along. For example, (unless I live in a nudist colony) I can't run naked through the streets because it makes my neighbors uncomfortable and because many of them find it offensive. As a society we can come together to determine exactly what constitutes inappropriate behavior. Since we live in a representative republic, we have a mechanism called "the vote" that we use to discern majority opinion and we have another mechanism called "the rule of law" to enforce these societal decisions on dissenters. The concept of the representative republic (as opposed to pure democracy) is in place, as are various laws, to make sure that the rights of minority groups and individuals are not trampled upon. Sure, it's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got, and in principle (if not always in execution) I think it's a pretty good system. With that said, in matters where there is no definite law in place and in matters that do not infringe on others' rights, I should have the freedom to do as I please, as should you. Having read your past comments, it seems you have a different opinion of such matters. It seems to me - and I admit I could be wrong here - that in essence you want Christians to all stay away from you, to refrain from talking about Christian topics when you're around, and to abandon all their beliefs when such disagree with your beliefs. You, of course, are free to do as you like, to express your beliefs as you like, and to misrepresent or malign Christians as you like. You've stated several times that you don't care what others believe and that you don't know the answers yourself. You've also shared a number of strongly-phrased opinions on other matters. Further, you've exhibited a repeated disinterest or inability to answer critiques of several of your statements, and you've exhibited a high degree of ignorance concerning several topics. In sum, you've shown several times that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're willing to draw a conclusion anyway. Personally, I'm okay with that - if that's the way you want to think, it's your choice. But don't get mad at me because I do know some of the answers or because I know more about a given topic than you. And if you do find a need to address my beliefs, please get your facts straight before you go spouting off accusations. There's no need to be so uncivil about it.
That phrase - "for me" - is the kicker here. There are, in fact, very significant differences between religions that have very significant implications for societies collectively and individuals particularly. And no, these religions to NOT speak about the same god, though your personal belief system may consider them so. The biggest problem for me is discrimination. Because for good or bad there are people that can be easily manipulated and quite fanatic in their beliefs. This is why I have problems with publicly demostrating the religion that people believe. I too have a problem with discrimination. But there's a difficulty here when one attempts to draw the line. For example, if a Hare Krishnan wears an orange robe and sports a shaved head that's a public demonstration of his religion. If a Wiccan wears a pentagram it's a public display of religious belief. If a Catholic sits in a bar and talks about his Catholic faith with your buddies that's a public display of religion. If I advocate for tougher penalties for shoplifters it's a public expression of my beliefs. Should all religious speech, symbols, etc, be banned from public life? No, of course not - it's not even possible, much less practical. The implications of restricting public exhibition of one's religion - any religion - terrifies me. Shall we declare to fundamentalist Muslim women that they can't wear their burkhas in public? Shall we say that no police officer can believe in "Thou shalt not steal"? Shall we begin incarcerating Wiccans for wearing pentagrams? How about if we arrest Secular Humanists for protesting in favor of abortion? Or maybe we should begin shooting Christians who want to gather on the courthouse steps to pray for their country? The answer is not to restrict religious practice at all, provided that it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The answer is in learning to tolerate each other. Do local Christians like to pray at football games? Then tolerate them - but don't pray with them. Does your Buddhist friend have a shaved head and meditate regularly? Then don't make fun of him. Does your Wiccan friend dress all in black and dance naked in the forest? It's none of your business, and no one's telling you you have to participate. Are you an atheist who doesn't want to participate in any religious activity at all? Then feel free - but don't tell me how to live my life, publicly or otherwise. You tolerate me, and I'll tolerate you. And then maybe - just maybe - we'll be able to discuss differing religions, beliefs, and philosophies without getting mad at each other and without conflict. Ya never know - we might even learn something from each other.
Actually, I would say that BOTH are correct. The confusion, I think, is due to the legal definition of religion as opposed to the sociological/philosophical definition. Legally, virtually any group can declare itself a religion and gain certain advantages. Similarly, any individual or group promoting a particular belief system can declare itself NOT a religion to gain other advantages.
Further, one should have the freedom to promote one's beliefs. To suppress such freedom - for example, to decree that there shall be no public prayer - is to give one religion (Secular Humanism, in this case) "special consideration" over others, and that is wrong. For the record, I'm not in favor of "aggressive" proselyting either, nor am I in favor of pushiness.
And Bubbagump: You proved more or less my every point about organized religion when you defended blasphemy laws because they were necessary to make people behave. You then followed this up by saying that minorities should always obey majorities in all things, and that if people don't act religious they are savages and shouldn't be allowed to live in your society. Ummm, no. That's not what I said at all. At least, it's certainly not what I intended.
Merely taking from your examples, you cite Hitler and Stalin as being atheists. I am not saying they were, but they serve as a good example that you don't consider every belief system a religion. For the sake of clarity, Stalin was an avowed atheist and Hitler was a pagan (sort of).
So please, Bubbagump, tell me why a system of thought that says "giving special consideration to various groups because they are religious is a bad idea" consistutes a religion. It appears to me that you're changing your parameters a bit, but that's as may be. I agree that "giving special consideration to various groups because they are religious" is a bad idea. That's why I believe in freedom of religion. I also believe in the concept of the representative republic, that is, that the majority should have a limited ability to set the standard for public behavior. Where we differ is that I do not believe that religious activity should be repressed, provided that it does not restrict the similar rights of others. In other words, and by way of example, I believe that one should be allowed to pray in public - or to not pray at all - as one sees fit. One should also be allowed to organize with those of similar beliefs. Further, one should have the freedom to promote one's beliefs. To suppress such freedom - for example, to decree that there shall be no public prayer - is to give one religion (Secular Humanism, in this case) "special consideration" over others, and that is wrong. The common response to this is to suggest that "religious matters should be kept at home". I believe this is a distraction and a form of oppression in itself. If I'm not allowed to observe my beliefs in my public life then I'm not free to follow my religion at all. If I'm not allowed to promote my beliefs or to discuss them with others then effectively there is no freedom of religion. I believe that every religion should be allowed to express itself as it sees fit, provided that such expression does not interfere with another's freedoms. Oh, and I don't consider the statement that "I don't believe in/like [insert your most hated religion here] so I shouldn't have to be around it" is a valid example of having one's freedom of religion infringed upon. Lots of groups and individuals have attempted to get around this "freedom of religion" issue by declaring that their belief systems are "not a religion". IMO, this is pure bunk and misdirection. Just because one man's belief system involves a god and another's involves none doesn't make either belief system any less a religion - both involve a system of metaphysical beliefs. We could just as easily say that Hinduism isn't a religion because it has 300,000,000 gods rather than just one. We could just as easily contend that Wicca is not a religion because its primary deity is female rather than male. We could just as easily say that Buddhism is not a religion because it follows the teachings of an enlightened man rather than those of a divine being. All such arguments are entirely arbitrary, as are the arguments that secular humanism and atheism are not religions. So, for the sake of clarity, let's not use the word "religion" at all. In this and all previous posts, simply interpose the words "belief system" over the word "religion" each time it appears.
And, of course, it doesn't help that there's no formal authority to define either belief system. It's not like there's a "Holy Church of Atheism" out there to decide what atheism is or isn't. Both terms are descriptive rather than definitive.
Mr. Gump, sir... <:) Meaning no disrespect I must disagree...etc. Sorry for the confusion, but we don't really disagree as much as you might think. Concerning the "how do you back up..." thing, I'm well aware that one can't prove a negative. I was merely trying to point out a flaw in reasoning in the earlier statement. I wouldn't require anyone to "prove" that there is a god, since that would be foolish. Concerning the idea of whether or not atheism is a religion, we are merely differing on the definition of the term. You feel that it isn't, according to your definition, and I feel that it is, according to mine. Our opinions do not differ concerning the nature of atheism itself; they differ only in whether or not that constitutes a religion. In other words, it's a matter of semantics.
According to wikipedia: "A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature." That pretty well describes atheism, doesn't it? In essence, atheism is "the religion of having no religion." Get used to it, friend - if you're making statements about religion, God, or the nature of man and reality, you're making religious statements. Aside from that, exactly how does one "back up" the belief that there is no God?
Question for bubbagump: Why do see the big bang (a misnomer) and evolution as an attack on your religion (forgive me if I'm overstating)? While these explanations contradict the biblical accounts (both of them), they don't invalidate the possibility of a demiurge (scientists have little to say about what happened before the big bang). Actually, I don't view the big bang theory as an attack on my religion. It is merely one of several theories. My only contention is that there are other theories, each with supporting evidence, that are worthy of consideration. On the subject of evolution (and I may be repeating myself again): Evolution by natural selection is not just how we understand the history of life, its how we understand the history of everything, from cosmology to organisms to empires to technology both concrete and abstract. I've witnessed this process directly and indirectly in so many aspects of life that (combined with the fossil record and the DNA evidence) I can't believe it's not happening in biology. And if I may veer into realm of opinion, I much prefer a god who can create such an amazing and beautiful process than one who's solution to everything is 'magic'. Everyone believes in microevolution (for example, a bird evolving into a different kind of bird), including me. It's an established, observable scientific fact. What I and other creationists don't believe in is macroevolution (a bird turning into a lion). And concerning the "magic" thing, I tend to believe that the vast majority of God's miracles (and probably all of them) are merely examples of Him utilizing the natural laws He put in place. In other words, I submit that God, being "beyond" what we are able to perceive in the course of scientific examination, is able to apply laws and principles that we have yet to discover or define. This, in essence, defines why I don't believe in the big bang theory, in the old earth theory, or in macroevolution. While there is some science in support of each concept, it is only partial and fails to answer various questions. In essence, I believe that it is "bad science". You may be surprised to know that my belief in special creationism itself was initially sparked not by my religious beliefs but by various scientific observations. That is to say, the aforementioned questions that science thus far fails to answer can be answered neatly by the biblical account, can be supported by scientific observations, and therefore provide a better foundation for further scientific inquiry, IMO.
My bold. So what is it, bubbagump, is it only me that knows, or can others tell if it has really happened by what I do and believe? You can’t have both. Forgive me; I was unclear. What I meant was, while no one can prove or disprove conclusively whether or not you are indeed a Christian, it is possible to aid another in discovering the truth of the matter. Also, if the conversion was real there will be some evidence of it.
Apparently, I was unclear twice. I meant no judgment on the professor's faith; I was merely trying to explain that he did not attack creationism from outside the faith. And yes, it would be acceptable to tell others that "Bubbagump claims to be a Christian".
Your professor was either joking to make a point, or just wrong. Actually, my professor at the time was considered something of an authority in his field (I can't remember what he was working on - it's been a loooooong time). His name was Kitchen, or Kitchner, or something like that. Anyway, he was speaking in response to a speaker who had spoken in favor of Special Creationism. (This was at a Christian university, and the professor himself claimed to be a Christian, but he vehemently opposed any theory of creationism.) Since this professor was so upset, and since he made such a show of griping about the speaker, and since he spent more than a week trying to prove his (abovementioned) point, some of my fellow students asked him to participate in a debate with the speaker. My poor professor was soundly beaten, and I hear he later left the university.
I wouldn't dare to judge you this way personally. And it's also confusing when there are so many groups out there claiming to have the "real truth". It sounds simplistic, but when you're a true Christian you know it. I can tell you when your behavior is "unchristian" and I can tell you when your beliefs are "unchristian", but the only person who can say whether or not you've truly met Jesus is you. Believe it or not, neither behavior nor beliefs have much at all to do with determining whether or not one is truly Christian. It is a matter of whether or not one has encountered and become a disciple of the living Jesus Christ. Once that event has occurred, your behavior and beliefs will bear testimony to the fact that it happened. And "thousands of us die every year in China"? Where are you getting that? I live in China among Christians and we just aren't seeing Christians getting snuffed over here. Having freedom of religion limited, yes. Overzealous atheist authoritarianism, yes. As if that weren't enough. A good place to begin researching Christian persecution around the world is The Voice of the Martyrs. Also: saying that "given that neither it nor evolution (I'm speaking of macroevolution here, not microevolution) have any conclusive evidence to prove them true" is probably not a good idea. These two explanations of where everything comes from are not meant to stand on the same ground, and really cannot be compared. I beg to differ. Both purport to be descriptions of how our planet came to be, where life originates, how old our planet is, etc. They are conflicting accounts of the same events. There is considerable evidence in favor of both, yet neither can be conclusively proven because the creation of the universe is beyond the scope of scientific experimentation. Why shouldn't both be taught? A good place to begin research into the subject is The Institute for Creation Research.
With respect, it's hard to see when you're on the giving, rather than receiving, end. Have you served in the military? I was required to attend church, despite being non-Christian. How many public events (games, graduations, etc.) have you been to that involved big Christian prayers, in which everyone has to bow their heads while someone rambles on about "our Lord Jesus Christ"? It's no big deal if you're praying with them; you probably don't even think about it. But if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, it's a bit of an imposition -- you're a captive audience. Please understand, I have no problem with public prayer; I do have a problem with public prayers that I'm expected to participate in simply by virtue of attending a public function -- e.g., the Houston marathon a couple years ago. Yes, you could claim "that's what civilized people do -- we pray in public -- go live with the savages if you don't like it!" But that's beside the point. No one in the U.S. has ever required you to pray to Allah in public, I'll wager.And: Again, very few atheists have a problem with God and people's personal feelings about such a being. What atheists do have a problem with is organized religion shoving their faith down the throats of the atheists in all kinds of ways ("you WILL go to church").Again, in 2 decades of church service I've never seen this happen even once. Outside of certain medieval events perpetrated by Catholics, I've never even heard of such. My research on the subject finds such occurrences rare in the extreme. Being present when someone does something religious is not at all the same as being forced to participate. That's like saying that because I'm white and witnessed the Rodney King beating that I'm somehow responsible for it. Further, by your definition of "forced", I could argue that I'm forced to participate in or witness the activities of other religions on a daily basis. When I went to yeshiva (rabbi school) I had to endure hours of Jewish prayers/lessons/speeches every day. Did I complain? No, because I was there to get a specific portion of knowledge. Was I offended? Not at all. When I went to the temple mount in Jerusalem I had to remove my shoes to enter the mosque. It was an act of worship to them. Did it bother me? Of course not. Every day my children go to school and are forced to learn that the world was created by a big bang. This is a mere hypothesis, and one much argued about even in the scientific community, and yet there's nothing I can do about it. In my business I can't refuse to hire someone because his beliefs are antithetical to mine. In fact, I had to build a special room to allow for Muslim employees to pray, and I have to schedule meetings around the prayer times of the two Muslims who work for me - it's costing me time and money, but there's nothing I can do about that, either. Last year I was threatened with no less than 2 lawsuits because I had a Bible prominently displayed on the shelf behind my desk - I never mentioned it, it was just sitting there. Because of this I am forced to keep my Bible hidden IN MY OWN OFFICE. On a related note, I've been fired twice because of my religious beliefs - once because my wiccan boss (after hiring me only 4 hours before) said it was because "I'm just not comfortable having your type around", and once because I dared to have a Bible in my car (which was in the parking lot). In neither case did I mention a single word about my beliefs beyond what was written on my resume. Not a day goes by when I don't hear an unbeliever say "Jesus Christ" as a profanity, and there's nothing I can do about that, either. My children are taught numerous immoral things in school, my wife has to endure numerous abusive comments, I have to see my religion dragged through the mud repeatedly, and there's nothing I can do about any of it. Why not? Because I'm surrounded by millions of unbelievers who have no respect for or belief in my God. But do I claim that I'm being forced to behave as a secular humanist? No. That would just be silly. And you want to tell me you're being forced to "worship Jesus" because you occasionally have to be surrounded by Christians? Sorry, you're not getting much sympathy from me. Nobody is making you pray, nobody is making you believe anything, and there are regulations in place in the military to keep you out of church. If the society you live in has rules that you don't like you're free to not participate, you're free to work for change, and you're free to leave. Nobody's forcing you to do anything.
There is a LOT of history in Judaism. Every little ritual that they have has a reason. In fact, one could easily argue that it is science that has had to catch up with the Bible, not the other way around. People too often forget that the scientific method is only one of several systems used to discern truth. It is also a HUMAN method, which means it is subject to all kinds of human error. To say that something "isn't scientific" means nothing in many cases. In the words of my former biology professor, "science is what the majority of scientists define it to be". In other words, if the "bishops" of the scientific community say it's true, then we poor schmucks down here in the dirt have to believe it or else. This is why religious people sometimes have such a hard time getting our ideas included in the public debate - it's not that there's no reason to believe as we do, nor is it that our ideas have been proven not to work, it's just that the secularist scientific majority rejects our ideas out of hand because they haven't gotten around to investigating them yet.
Well, according to the discussion we've had above, it's pretty clear to me that organized religion more or less ALWAYS gives non-religious people a bad time, so I'd consider your question well answered to why it's so common that people become atheists due to bad-time-giving organized religion. While I cannot deny that certain groups and individuals have persecuted atheists, this statement is otherwise completely untrue. Unless you wish to define giving people a "bad time" as "holding an opposing viewpoint", there is very little occurrence of such persecution. However, there is plenty of documented evidence of the reverse - Stalin's persecution of the church, for example, or Hitler's similar persecution. And having been a churchman for decades, I've never once witnessed anyone giving an atheist a "hard time" by any means other than simple debate. If that's your definition of persecution, then the only way out is to hold no opinions whatsoever. And: Again, very few atheists have a problem with God and people's personal feelings about such a being. What atheists do have a problem with is organized religion shoving their faith down the throats of the atheists in all kinds of ways ("you WILL go to church"). Again, in 2 decades of church service I've never seen this happen even once. Outside of certain medieval events perpetrated by Catholics, I've never even heard of such. My research on the subject finds such occurrences rare in the extreme. Besides which, many atheists DO have a problem with God and religion. Even a brief perusal of legal cases dealing with the subject reveals that in most cases the non-believing party argues that religion (and Christianity in specific) are dangerous. It's also interesting to note that there is, in several studies, an inverse proportionality between percentage of religious people in a country and measured quality of life in that country. If you're speaking specifically about Christianity, I can show you just as many studies by equally-credentialed experts that show the reverse. My experience, too, has been that this statement is patently wrong. If, on the other hand, you want to include atheism, Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, and various primitive pagan faiths, then you are exactly correct.
There's another way to interpret this phenomenon: perhaps these unhappy people are becoming religious because they've found a cure. To say that churches must keep people unhappy in order to thrive is akin to saying that doctors must keep people sick. The truth is, there is no shortage of unhappy people and healthy churches exist to help them find true happiness. 2) People become unhappy because they live in a religious country. This is the one I consider most likely. In a very religious country, people can't live as they prefer, but have to adapt to someone else's interpretation of some religion or other. Religious people make the policy decisions, and base these on what would make their religion stronger rather than on what would make the people in the country happy. Again, I can offer tons of studies to show this is not the case. People become unhappy because of myriad reasons, and generally speaking true Christianity is not one of them. Aside from that, such statements as yours are misleading from the premise in that they suggest the greatest good is for happiness. It is not. And again, as I have stated before: If some atheists become vocal, it's very much NOTHING compared to what atheists have to take from religious people. Saying it's just as bad may be true, but it doesn't acknowledge the vast disparity in scale between the two phenomena. Again, I would argue that your statement is false. I've never seen a true Christian attack an atheist as you've described, I've never heard of such an event, and my research doesn't bear out your conclusion. Rather, the reverse is true. In my own experience, I've been attacked several times for my beliefs (several times physically), while neither I nor any of my colleagues have attacked another. Worldwide there have been more Christians killed for their faith in the 20th century than there were in all prior centuries combined. Thousands of us die every year in China, Sudan, Ghana, Viet Nam, and various other places. Check the news - it's usually atheists perpetrating this persecution. Islam only comes in second. By comparison, almost no atheists are being persecuted to this degree. Accusations like this are one of the primary reasons that many Christians have become so "vocal" (as you put it) in recent years. Oh, and concerning other statements regarding the teaching of intelligent design, given that neither it nor evolution (I'm speaking of macroevolution here, not microevolution) have any conclusive evidence to prove them true, we are only asking that both be considered worthy of examination. There is plenty of scientific evidence for both. If you shouldn't be forced to learn a "religious" view of the planet's origin, then stop trying to force us to learn your equally religious view. Concerning related statements concerning "blasphemy laws", I don't see why you have a problem with them. They are in effect asking people to behave decently and inoffensively in public. This is no different than anti-smoking laws, laws against public intoxication, or laws against lewd and lascivious behavior. If the majority wants these laws in place (whether a Christian majority or any other), then it is up to the minority to comply. It would seem to me that the reason so many atheists are upset with the rest of the world is that they don't want ANYONE telling them they have to behave. In other words, they seem to wish that there were no civilization at all and that they didn't have to treat the people around them with respect. If you want to act like a savage, move into the jungle. If you want to live in a civilized country, learn to recognize that civilized people have to follow rules to get along.
Sad, isn't it?The state of science education in the U.S. today is quite sad. But people for the most part don't want to learn things that are difficult (science, math), and if they have cultural stimuli telling them they don't have to learn it, they won't. Climate science, for example, is too complex to fit in a sound byte -- despite what Al Gore and ExxonMobile would both have you believe -- yet people happily argue it all day long, for and against anthropogenic changes, from a position of almost total ignorance, as if "common sense" trumps study and research. It's easy to forget that "common sense" tells us the earth is flat. Again, agreed.
Speaking as someone who has quite a bit of experience with people suffering from psychosis, I'd say you raise an interesting question. We are agreed that some religious experiences are due to mental or neurological illness. However, you say that when considering these things, the general mental health of the person must also be taken into account. I understand that view, at least partly, but it also seems that the other side of that coin is problematic. If we accept the existence of "real" religious experiences, i.e. ones truly caused by God, what says that a person currently psychotic can't have a real religious experience? What are your thoughts on this? It has been my experience that certain psychotic or neurotic individuals can have true experiences with God in spite of their illness. As mentioned before, though, such an experience tends to result in a greater degree of mental health (note that meeting Jesus doesn't necessarily cure mental illness completely - though such is possible). My earlier comment regarding examining a subject's mental health was intended as a broad guideline, meant to suggest that a true experience with God is far more profound than a mere hallucination or similar event. The conversion of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer may be one such case. Please note that I haven't studied his case history, so my facts may be off a bit on this one. I have a colleague who is much more familiar with Dahmer's case and who studied it extensively prior to Dahmer's death, and I'm forced by circumstances to rely on my memory of the conversations we had on the subject. Apparently, after conversion Dahmer's personality changed radically and he reputedly exhibited few, if any, signs of psychosis. I recall that when his death was investigated, one prison guard suggested Dahmer was a sitting duck for his murderer because of his new-found outlook on life. All this, of course, is what prompted one Christian commentator to define the Christian experience as a kind of "divine madness". The Bible even predicts the inability of non-believers to understand the experience when it says that "it is foolishness to those who are perishing, while to those who believe it is the salvation of God" (paraphrase mine). My own father reacted to me this way after my conversion and wanted to have me committed, and I've known others who've suffered similar treatment. Even Jesus and His disciples were thought to be mad by some of their detractors. Simply put, the Christian conversion experience defies logical explanation, but it's effects are nonetheless real. Unbelievers may not be able to understand it, but they must note that something has occurred.
Granted, but that doesn't stop anyone from claiming they are valid scientific theories or from teaching them to our children. Sad, isn't it?
Granted, but that doesn't stop anyone from claiming they are valid scientific theories or from teaching them to our children.What's also true is that many scientific proclamations are also based on personal opinion, flawed human interpretation, emotional preference, worldview, and political agenda as well.In which case they are, by definition, not "scientific" proclamations, but rather opinions, or political proclamations, etc. No disagreement from me.
Again, I used the catholic church because its practices were a good example of what I meant. It's also an organization with a fairly massive number of members. And, finally, it's the original form of christianity... One little nitpick: Catholicism wasn't the original form of Christianity - it didn't start until the 4th century and didn't reach its current form until much later. By its very nature, a religious experience is deeply personal. This makes it impossible for someone else to relate to it. Even two religious persons, who have both had such experiences, can't know they had the same experience, because there aren't words enough to describe it. Would you say that's a fair description? Actually, no, I wouldn't. I've met many who've had the same experience I've had, and helped many others to share it. While the experience itself does tend to defy verbal description, it is no less quite understandable and relatable to those who've experienced it. We also know that our brains are vulnerable to suggestion, for example if you really want something, your brain has a tendency to see everything that happens in the light of what you want. We know that religious experiences happen in the right temporal lobe of the brain, and that many who have for example epileptic symtoms in that area get various strongly religious experiences. Note that I am not saying that this proves anything about God not existing; I see it as entirely possible that if God exists, he put a hotline into our brains. The main question becomes: can those of us who have no religious experiences find any guidance in what... This is a difficulty for many, I must admit. It's hard to understand such an experience if one hasn't had such an experience, and it's sometimes hard to differentiate such an experience from other psychological phenomena. There are differences, however. For example, one must examine other aspects of the subject's mental health. Even in those rare (for example) epileptic or trauma-induced experiences that produce a relatively positive and lasting outcome, there are various signs - either physical, psychological, or both - to suggest whether such an event was real, imagined, or induced by physiological causes. A true conversion experience as I've described, however, invariably results in a lasting increase in mental and sometimes physical health, eventual injury or illness notwithstanding. In biblical terms, one becomes a "new person". This "newness" can be observed as a change in behavior and thought that transcends what would be expected as the result of a more mundane "life changing experience". One's fundamental nature changes instantaneously and pervasively, and continues to change as God continues to make further alterations. It may help to use the analogy of falling in love: If you've ever fallen in love (and I'm not talking about mere infatuation or attraction here, I'm talking about the real thing) it is exceedingly difficult to explain the feeling to one who hasn't fallen in love. Nonetheless, something very real has happened that results in a change in behavior and thought patterns. On the other hand, if you've never truly fallen in love it's practically impossible to understand what it's really like. Or perhaps it may help if I personalize the concept: As a Christian, at every moment I am aware that I'm not alone - I am constantly aware that God is with me. Obviously you couldn't see Him if you looked at me, but it is clear to me that He is there. When He speaks to me I hear His voice (if I'm listening, but that's another subject) - but you wouldn't hear a thing. Nonetheless, He speaks to me. I can also see God's influence in events and persons around me. Again, you might not detect His presence but it's quite clear to me. I've often used a simple test for new converts who have been misled into questioning what they've experienced - I simply challenge them to say "there is no God" and truly mean it. None has ever been able to pronounce the words. In a few cases I've even seen them burst into tears from the effort to mouth those syllables. To one who has truly met Jesus, it is impossible to deny Him. If that doesn't help, maybe a D&D analogy will help: Imagine you're in a maze filled with traps and monsters. It's completely dark, and you can't hear anything other than what's nearby. Some things sound pleasant, and other things sound dangerous, but you can't see so you can never be absolutely sure. Now imagine you have a companion who is equipped with goggles of darkvision and who is receiving directions via a sending spell. While you may be able to make it through the maze intact, you'll undoubtedly fall into several traps, and you'll likely encounter several monsters along the way. Your companion, however, will be able to avoid the worst of the traps and monsters. You still can't see your companion, and you have no idea how he knows which way to turn, but you can't deny that he seems to know where he's going. That's similar to what it's like for a non-believer to understand the Christian experience - it's not clear what's happening, but the effects are obvious. God explains why understanding the Christian experience is so difficult for non-believers in the Bible. In biblical terms He says that it's because these things are "spiritually discerned", meaning that they defy easy explanation through mundane terms. That is to say, a mortal person can never "find God". Rather, it is God who reveals Himself through His own supernatural methods and only when and if He deems it the right time. This explanation indirectly addresses your mention of such things occurring when the desire for them is strong enough. God does not reveal Himself because one wants Him to; He reveals Himself when HE wants to. I can understand this because, in my case, I was dragged kicking and screaming into Christianity. I didn't want to accept Christian morality, Christian dogma, or anything else to do with Christianity. Nonetheless, God called me, revealing Himself in various ways until I could not deny Him. I did what I could to resist His call (and still do at times), but He eventually wore me down. When my conversion experience finally came it was a matter of submission, not desire.
That is to say, I know I am a Christian because I met Jesus, submitted to His authority, allowed him to change my nature and character at a fundamental level, and became His discible just as did His disciples in the biblical account.Have you considered anti-psychotics? Ask your physician for details. This is precisely the kind of comment I was reacting to. And yes, I do insist on the fact that I met a real and living Jesus and I am not insane, nor was I hallucinating. I've also introduced many others to Him.
What's also true is that many scientific proclamations are also based on personal opinion, flawed human interpretation, emotional preference, worldview, and political agenda as well.In which case they are, by definition, not "scientific" proclamations, but rather opinions, or political proclamations, etc. Granted, but that doesn't stop anyone from claiming they are valid scientific theories or from teaching them to our children.
And yes, I know full well that there are going to be tons and tons of people who are offended by this. Many are going to be from other "faiths" and will insist that my view is only one way to look at it. Others are going to think how bigoted/closed-minded/intolerant/etc I am for saying such things. Others may be offended that I would even dare to suggest I know "the" truth of the matter. I don't care - fact is fact, truth is truth, and God is who He has revealed Himself to be. You are absolutely right - that did sound a bit trollish, and I apologize for the tone. By way of explanation - and please note that I am NOT trying to justify my trollish tone; I am merely trying to explain why I sometimes feel trollish about it - I was reacting to the angry and hateful comments that often come my way when I make such statements. I have spent years contesting with many so-called "Christian" groups, and I am tired of the idea/belief that there are "many" Christian faiths. In simple fact, there is only one - I am not saying that my faith is the only true faith, by the way; I am saying that there is only one true form of Christianity and that it is practiced by a whole slew of churches/organizations/faith communities. And while these groups do not necessarily agree on every detail, we do agree on the vast majority of them. And then there are lots and lots of other groups who follow a Christian-like tradition or draw from so-called Christian culture without truly being Christian. There are also tons and tons of individuals who mistakenly consider themselves Christians because they belong to a particular church, organization, culture, or other group. For example, there are people out there who assume that they are Christian because they were born in America. (I know this seems silly, but they're out there - I've met several in my time.) It is to these that I was reacting. You may be wondering how I can claim that these other groups and individuals are not truly Christian. After all, postmodern thought (which is the school to which most people currently belong) suggests that each individual is able to formulate a personal truth and that this truth need not be the same as another's. In other words, it is commonly believed that these others are well within their rights to believe that they are Christians and there's nothing anyone can say against it because they can define Christianity however they like. It is also commonly believed among non-Christians that what makes a group or individual "Christian" is simply a belief in God, a general following of Jesus' teachings (regardless of how they are interpreted), or adherence to a particular moral code (again, regardless of how such is interpreted). Nothing can be further from the truth. True Christianity can only be defined by its founder, Jesus Christ, and those to whom he delivered the message of the Gospel. According to His definition, in order to become a Christian one must be converted by having a "born again" experience as described in the Bible. By this definition, it is impossible to be physically born into the faith, to belong to it by belonging to an organization, or to become a Christian by undergoing a particular ritual or set of rituals. Becoming a Christian requires that one enters into a real, personal, one-on-one relationship with Jesus. That is to say, I know I am a Christian because I met Jesus, submitted to His authority, allowed him to change my nature and character at a fundamental level, and became His discible just as did His disciples in the biblical account. Nothing less than or other than this is capable of making one a true Christian. Moral beliefs, certain cultural standards, some religious practices, and various philosophical concepts tend to grow from this relationship, but they are not the definition of it, nor are they the most important part of being Christian. Or, to put it another way, learning to live a good and fulfilling life may result from true Christianity, but it is not the focus of or reason for it. My anger arose because I strongly object to those who have not had such an experience claiming to speak as a Christian. It is these who have given the rest of us a bad name, for the most part, and it is these who confuse the issue for so many. In my experience, honest religious debates and discussions often devolve into pointless arguments over doctrine, empty philosophical conversations, and mere gripe sessions precisely because these deluded and mistaken individuals step in to confound the real issue. Again, I apologize for the trollish tone of my previous post and humbly beg your forgiveness.
Science isn't all that interested in religiosity.Very true. Most religious proclomations are supernatural, so there's nothing for scientists to test. They'd just sit around twiddling their thumbs until some sort of physical question came up. What's also true is that many scientific proclamations are also based on personal opinion, flawed human interpretation, emotional preference, worldview, and political agenda as well.
I'm interested to know if you also feel that most Christians are that way because of upbringing, rather than because of "actual searching or figuring it out for themselves." I've definitely known a few that fit in that latter category... but I know even more of them in the former. In over a decade of ministry I have never met a single Christian who came to faith through upbringing - though several have had an upbringing that encouraged them to find faith. By definition one cannot BE a Christian through upbringing, citizenship, culture, or other affiliation. To quote the Master: "You must be born again." And yes, I know full well that there are going to be tons and tons of people who are offended by this. Many are going to be from other "faiths" and will insist that my view is only one way to look at it. Others are going to think how bigoted/closed-minded/intolerant/etc I am for saying such things. Others may be offended that I would even dare to suggest I know "the" truth of the matter. I don't care - fact is fact, truth is truth, and God is who He has revealed Himself to be.
...What would you have liked? I am asking honestly as I really don't think that you are alone in that. Let's not forget that one doesn't investigate religion based on what one "likes". Rather, a sincere investigation of religion involves searching for what is real and true, regardless of whether one likes it or not. A religion that one holds merely for the sake of comfort is mere self delusion. Only a religion that one holds because it has proven true and reliable is of any use at all. I don't want a religion that makes me feel better; I want a religion that I can count on for eternity. Then again, it's a bit of a misdirection to say that any religion at all is of use. Religions are manmade, after all. Rather, I want to find God and get to know Him better. It is only incidental that doing so tends to lead me into a religion.
You do realize that it wasn't in Wizard's best interest to keep the print magazines, right? I really don't understand why this got people so angry. I don't give a rat's backside what's in WotC's best interests. For that matter, I don't give a rat's backside what's in Paizo's best interests, either. Losing the print mags wasn't in MY best interests, and that's why I got angry. Besides which, the new mags suck. Hard. They're little more than 4e hype for the most part, and they can't even be downloaded in neat little self-contained units as we were promised. What little content they contain is inferior, too, and completely irrelevant to my game. Don't even try to suggest that "I can always pick out the good parts and adapt them to my campaign". If I wanted to waste my time that way I'd just glean what I needed from various messageboards. I want big, useful chunks of content that don't need to be adapted. I have a business, a family, and various other responsibilities. Who has time to pick through a magazine just on the off chance that there may be a sentence or two that I can use? Not every gamer is a single male with no real responsibilities or purpose in life.
Feh! Resurrection should be harder to obtain, not easier. And extra hit points aren't the answer, either, nor are hero points. A good DM will tailor each encounter for the skill of his players and for the relative power of their characters. Characters by definition are never too weak - but sometimes DMs are. If your PCs are dying too often and can't spend more than 15 minutes in the dungeon, then your encounters are too tough.
Your professor missed the point.
I never said finding more oil was the whole solution. The point is, we need oil for at least a while until something better comes along. And unless you know some way of recycling the crap that comes out of your exhaust pipe, that means we need more oil. Aside from that, the primary reason gas is so expensive is simple supply and demand. If you want to bring the price down, the only real way to do it is to increase the supply.But NOT drilling for that extra oil might hopefully speed up the search for alternative solutions. Yes, and it'll cause practically everything to cost lots more, including food. The poor will become far poorer, the middle class will become poor, businesses will grind to a halt (or at least slow down drastically), and many will lose their jobs. For the record, food supplies are already becoming alarmingly low and alarmingly high-priced throughout much of the world. Some companies are already taking steps to reduce costs. Lots of economic problems are already being caused by the high price of oil. Just letting it rise so "those mean, wasteful Americal capitalists" will have to pay more is ridiculous, foolish, and just wrong. It was already tried in the '70s and it screwed the whole country and most of the rest of the world royally. It's been done, and it doesn't work. Aside from all that, history shows that innovation tends to come fastest during periods of prosperity (and in war, but that's another subject). In order to innovate, one has to have resources, not just need.
I got the white box for Christmas when I was 9. But the first I ever bought myself was the blue boxed set a couple of months later. Don't even ask me what I've bought since then. I don't want to think about it.
Standard works well, and I don't think it should be changed. The options, though, should be in a sidebar. The real problem isn't hit points. Survivability at low levels, time spent in the dungeon between rests, availability of healing, and even the too-fast standard rate of level progression can all be handled merely by adjusting the CR system slightly.
I never said finding more oil was the whole solution. The point is, we need oil for at least a while until something better comes along. And unless you know some way of recycling the crap that comes out of your exhaust pipe, that means we need more oil. Aside from that, the primary reason gas is so expensive is simple supply and demand. If you want to bring the price down, the only real way to do it is to increase the supply.
Then again, no other class feature or feat allows you to make your own magic items.
But all this is getting away from the original idea under discussions: rogues are not supposed to be combat machines. The argument that various roguish characters from fantasy fiction can fight well is pointless, since one could just as easily suggest those characters have fighter levels. Additionally, while there should be some limited ability for certain classes to simulate the abilities of certain other classes, no class should completely steal the thunder of another. And the 20th level rogue vs. the CR20 creature concept is also flawed. The DMG itself says that the system is specifically designed for a balanced 4-PC party and breaks down for any other arrangement. So while you might argue that a 20th level rogue should eventually be able to beat a CR20 creature under the right circumstances, having one beat that creature in 2 rounds without breaking a sweat is proof of an imbalance. Adding things to other classes so that they outshine the broken rogue is also a bad idea. This is how power creep makes its way into the game.
Lots of people play ongoing campaigns like AoW, Savage Tides or the RotRl. The time investments already make it quite Impossible to craft stuff. You have to save the world and run from one encounter/spotlight to the next or it will be annihilated... A valid point, and one that I missed in my previous post. However, I think this is a flaw in the APs and not a flaw in the rules. And, while it makes sense to me to increase the amount of time needed to make items, I see no overwhelming need to change it from where it is.
|