Silly Prole: 2+2=5
I don't believe in 2+2=4. I know 2+2=4.
Given sufficient quantity of 2 yes.
2+2=chicken
|
And that worship would be pointless, since we aren't gods.[ It would be like fleas worshiping us, because we provide them food and warmth. Relative to them, we are "gods". But we certainly are not worthy of worship,and are incapable of providing rewards in another life.Aren't we? - As you wrote, we provide food and warmth, and a home for another generation of fleas - which may, if fleas believe in reincarnation, well be an afterlife - they might even hope to become (again reincarnation) like us,themselves. If they act carelessly, we act against them and destroy them, their families and their future.
To them that could be worthy of worship.
I marked a part of your quote.
Point of view does matter in your example.We are not gods to ourselfs (even there, some religions might differ).
We do not think of ourselfs as worthy of worship (even there, religions might differ)
Hey, two plus two equals--wait a second...
Two plus two equals whatever the party says it equals!
Vive le Galt!
|
Point of view does matter in your example.
We are not gods to ourselfs (even there, some religions might differ).
We do not think of ourselfs as worthy of worship (even there, religions might differ)
Quite to the contrary, what we ascribe to our "Gods" is exactly what matters.
Many very powerful people can have great effects on my life, but they are not gods.
Many used to worship the sun. And in a sense all life on earth existed because of the sun, so if you are picking something that has an impact on your life, the sun is a pretty good choice.
But worshiping the sun is as pointless as worshiping the ocean. And reasonable people would agree the sun is not a "God" or if you are monotheistic, the "God".
For prayer or worship to matter, it has to be able to have an effect
The flea worshiping the man is as foolish as the man worshiping the sun.
|
|
You have a very narrow view of 'religion', making it hard (at least for me) to show you why your assesments might be wrong. (prayer does not require an effect in all religions, worship does not aspire effects in all religions, not all religions have antropomorhic deities etc.)
Sorry. As I said before, I have no intention of spending the necessary amount of work to give you an overview over different religions and religious views. If you are interested in that, there are countless books (I am not taklking about religious books but books abou religions) and webpages dedicated to comparative religions and to to single religions.
There are religions out there that accept gays as being OK, so a gay person with free will can just follow one of those open minded faiths.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the foundation of science rests in a useful fiction?
That's a lot better than the alternative, which is resting on less useful fiction, or on totally useless fiction. Scientists don't peddle "The Truth(TM)" -- we leave that to the preachers. We deal with describing how things work, with as much predictability as possible, knowing in advance it won't be 100%.
So, along the same lines as "I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay"
I'm tolerant, unless you're stupid.
At least my "religion" actually has my back in my statement, whereas Jesus most certainly didn't stutter :)
Jesus is cool. His beliefs are wonderful. I love christians who actually follow the tenets of what he taught.
It is the old testament cherry pickers who piss me off.
Indeed.
Jesus is cool. His beliefs are wonderful. I love christians who actually follow the tenets of what he taught.
It is the old testament cherry pickers who piss me off.
More like cherry-pickers in general; religious or otherwise.
My relatives picked cherries in Door County* and it made them a GOOD LIVING. Now you're just discriminating! Bigot!
*not really.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jesus is cool. His beliefs are wonderful. I love christians who actually follow the tenets of what he taught.
It is the old testament cherry pickers who piss me off.
More like cherry-pickers in general; religious or otherwise.
My relatives picked cherries in Door County* and it made them a GOOD LIVING. Now you're just discriminating! Bigot!
*not really.
Pfft, the only pie worth eating is chocolate pie. Cherries are for losers.
Pfft, the only pie worth eating is chocolate pie. Cherries are for losers.Jesus is cool. His beliefs are wonderful. I love christians who actually follow the tenets of what he taught.
It is the old testament cherry pickers who piss me off.
More like cherry-pickers in general; religious or otherwise.
My relatives picked cherries in Door County* and it made them a GOOD LIVING. Now you're just discriminating! Bigot!
*not really.
Chocolate pie? You sir are a heretic! The one true pie is banana cream!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hey, we could go somewhere with this pie idea:
Lots of different people preaching different pies, some people using pies only as weapons to throw in people's faces, some people saying pies don't exist (with a subset saying they're willing to believe there's some sweetness in the universe that they haven't otherwise explained), some people eating pie only when their parents are around, etc etc etc...
;)
There's plenty of bad in the new testament as well. But yes, Jesus himself was a pretty cool dude. He and I could've been buds.
I don't think he and I would get along. However I do have a thing for nice Jewish boys so I could see maybe mutually agreed upon fun time sex.
|
|
I don't think he and I would get along. However I do have a thing for nice Jewish boys so I could see maybe mutually agreed upon fun time sex.
There's plenty of bad in the new testament as well. But yes, Jesus himself was a pretty cool dude. He and I could've been buds.
Yeah, don't think that'd happen :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, don't think that'd happen :PI don't think he and I would get along. However I do have a thing for nice Jewish boys so I could see maybe mutually agreed upon fun time sex.
There's plenty of bad in the new testament as well. But yes, Jesus himself was a pretty cool dude. He and I could've been buds.
Dude wandered around in the desert for YEARS with no one but 12 guys to keep him company.
Just sayin...
Plus, there was that Mary Magdalene chick...
Actually, that's not true. His ministry was 3-4 years and the majority of that time was spent teaching large numbers of people in various urban areas.
Let's see, 3-4 years don't count as years? Is that what you're saying?
Or are you saying that palestine doesn't count as a desert?Or that he didn't have apostles?
/boggle
Plus, there was that Mary Magdalene chick...
I wouldn't begrudge him a beard and/or would have happy fun time sex with a bisexual.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now please, quit trying to straw man.
Seriously, what straw man? What are you even talking about? I was making a joke. A JOKE. Let's nitpick factual inaccuracies in JOKES now.
Hey there mister, I don't think that chicken DID cross the road. And what you say about your friend from Nantucket defies reason!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any creature in nature that cannot reproduce is considered an evolutionary dead end.
Evolution works at the species level, in terms of allele frequencies. It's not an individual thing. Non-reproducing bee drones aren't dead ends, because they promote the survival (and thus propogation) of the genes of the rest of the hive.
The reference to bees is intentional, insofar as drones aren't genetically different; they're simply given a different diet while developing as larvae. Likewise, there doesn't seem to be a gene for homosexuality; rather, prenatal hormone exposure may be responsible, at least in large part.
Seriously, if you're going to claim that people don't know their science, it behooves you to learn some yourself.
Not to mention anyone with such a strong sex drive as to have sex with either gender may well out-reproduce a person who is attracted to only one gender; ZOMG, bi-sexuality is an evolutionary advantage!
|
|
Here's a logical fact that will piss off the gays (because the truth stings) and Christians (because they hate evolution):
A couple of points:
1) Not all Christians hate evolution. I don't hate evolution. Now (and I know this makes me sound like a bumpkin, but bear with me), I've never heard/seen conclusive evidence proving Abiogenesis or Macro-Evolution, but I definitely believe in Micro-Evolution, and would be more than happy to accept evidence proving the validity of the former 2 theories.
2) Comparing Homosexuality to a physical disorder or disease seems like a bit of a misconception. First, it assumes that Homosexuality is entirely biological which, to my knowledge, has never been proven. Second, it assumes that homosexuality, in some way negatively inhibits, or is caused by an inhibition of, normal bodily functions, which it does/is not.
However, the presence of sin/defect does not make a person "subpar" compared tot he rest of humanity, as every person has issues/defects.
Any creature in nature that cannot reproduce is considered an evolutionary dead end.Evolution works at the species level, in terms of allele frequencies. It's not an individual thing. Non-reproducing bee drones aren't dead ends, because they promote the survival (and thus propogation) of the genes of the rest of the hive.
If you're going to claim that people don't know their science, it behooves you to learn some yourself.
I get what he means, even if he doesn't explain himself well (or is borderline ignorant of evolutionary biology).
To me the important thing is that, since the neolithic revolution at the latest, the selective forces at play in human evolution are very different. People who would never be able to survive on the Serengeti (or whatever) find SOCIAL advantages. Our genetic evolution defies the observations of other species because of the things that make us unique.
While in other species, assuming that homosexuality is pre-determined by an individual's genetic code, homosexuality would not be an advantageous adaptation to the individual. However, in humans, it has little or no bearing due to our astoundingly advanced technology (among other things).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a logical fact that will piss off the gays (because the truth stings) and Christians (because they hate evolution):
Any creature in nature that cannot reproduce is considered an evolutionary dead end. So that means if you have erectile disfunction, low sperm count, or only copulate with members of the same sex; you are an evolutionary dead end.
So if you accept evolution, you pretty much have to admit that those who are incapable of reproduction are subpar, whether they be gay or straight. Once again for the mentally challenged who have trouble with scientific facts; in evolution anything that can't reproduce is a dead-end failure. Now, a Bi-sexual is not a dead end because even though they engage in some homosexual behaviors, they are not exclusively homosexual and therefor have a higher chance of reproduction.
And BTW, Im not against gay marriage and I don't believe you can "cure" it. You obviously can't control who you are attracted to, but homosexuality is an abnormality just like diabetes, autism, or high blood pressure. It happens to some people and we dont know for sure why, but its hardly ideal, and if that offends you tough crap. Gays should be able to lead happy lives like anyone else, but lets call a spade a spade and stop dancing around the facts for the sake of political correctness.
If you are all so damn enlightened and claim to be so more logical than the religous folk, then you need to accept what science tells you is undeniably true and stop cherry-picking the facts to protect your flawed worldview.
I can hear the "boo hoo" now.
Well thankfully an intelligent God would never design such a...Oh wait...
I guess you would like us to go Logan's run after menopause then? Sorry Mom, but you are no longer of value to society...
...assuming that homosexuality is pre-determined by an individual's genetic code...
This is another assumption I object to; see my edited post above. There's a reason I mentioned bees; queens aren't genetically different from drones; they're just fed a different diet as larvae, causing them to develop differently. Homosexuals don't appear to be genetically different from "straights" -- they just have different prenatal exposure levels to certain hormones, causing slightly different development in parts of the brain (Google "fraternal birth order effect").
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it quite amusing when "Christians" act as if Jesus never said anything about homosexuality being against God.
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)
On top of that he never condoned the practice. Why would the Son of God agree with anything that his Father had previously stated was in fact a sin? Did Jesus need to specifically say that murder and adultery were terrible things for them to be acts he stood against?
P.S. I have nothing against homosexuality and believe two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. Nor should the state have any power over their decision. But I do find it hilarious when people act as if homosexuality was "totally dandy" by Jesus.
Any creature in nature that cannot reproduce is considered an evolutionary dead end. So that means if you have erectile disfunction, low sperm count, or only copulate with members of the same sex; you are an evolutionary dead end.
I can assure you that my sexy parts operates as well as anyone else's. Not being interested in reproductive sex isn't the same thing as being unable.
Nor, for that matter, is it clear why we should care even if we are evolutionary dead ends. I know I don't base my self-worth on how many children I can father or how widely spread my genes are. In fact given all the serious maladies that run in my family, I derive a small amount of satisfaction from the fact that I haven't and do not intend to procreate.
...assuming that homosexuality is pre-determined by an individual's genetic code...This is another assumption I object to; see my edited post above. There's a reason I mentioned bees; queens aren't genetically different from drones; they're just fed a different diet as larvae, causing them to develop differently. Homosexuals don't appear to be genetically different from "straights" -- they just have different prenatal exposure levels to certain hormones, causing slightly different development in parts of the brain (Google "fraternal birth order effect").
I just meant even if that were the case. I also don't believe that's so.
|
|
What does Matthew 19 have to do with homosexuality??
Jesus is acknowledging that men and women become joined. But he does NOT say that only men and women are to be joined. In fact, he makes explicit reference to the Creation. Obviously, the first couple needed to be a man and a woman (if you're confused why, ask your parents), but that does not mean that later couples couldn't/shouldn't be gay.
Actually, I would say that Genesis 2:18-24 represent the referred to text. From the NIV:
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
I find it quite amusing when "Christians" act as if Jesus never said anything about homosexuality being against God.
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)
On top of that he never condoned the practice. Why would the Son of God agree with anything that his Father had previously stated was in fact a sin? Did Jesus need to specifically say that murder and adultery were terrible things for them to be acts he stood against?
P.S. I have nothing against homosexuality and believe two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. Nor should the state have any power over their decision. But I do find it hilarious when people act as if homosexuality was "totally dandy" by Jesus.
What does Matthew 19 have to do with homosexuality??
Jesus is acknowledging that men and women become joined. But he does NOT say that only men and women are to be joined. In fact, he makes explicit reference to the Creation. Obviously, the first couple needed to be a man and a woman (if you're confused why, ask your parents), but that does not mean that later couples couldn't/shouldn't be gay.
The point DW is that unless Jesus specifically states that a previous tenet of the Law from the Old Testament is canceled then it is very much in effect. All of the myriad of laws from the OT don't suddenly become null and void simply because Jesus came along. Are many of the old laws ridiculous and non-sensical by today's standards? Absolutely. But if you consider yourself a Biblical Christian they are still valid and part of God's Word.
P.S. I'm an atheist and find most of it ridiculous. But I grew up in a home of Biblical scholars so I was raised with this stuff drilled into me.