What is Digg?149 Comments
- ZenKai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+72?
$CreateDate = strtotime(0);
$SawThatItWas = (light == true) ? "Good" : "Bad";
include("seas");
include("heavens");
require_once("birds");
require_once("fish_in_sea");
$mammal => "Human";
rest(86400);
? - noxlunis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32LMAO @ZenKai
WARNING: Error on line 7. corrupt class. - tony23, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33GOD 2.0?
- lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14A big part of the "protestant revolution" if you will, was the idea that lay people should be able to read the bible in their own language instead of having it read to them by a priest in latin.
That sounds a lot like open source to me. - Avogadro65, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21Religious system?
You act like religion is a government program, like healthcare or education. Paranoid as you may be, it's not. - ZenKai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@quasipalm: forgot your ;
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Open source means you can add things to it, and fix the parts that are broken. Unless you're an eccumenical council, the Bible isn't really very much like open source. You're sort of stuck with the compiled version your particular leader hands you.
- quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17my money says that god.toString() throws a null pointer exception.
- BionicBeefpile, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"Wow, there's a really great idea. Let's base our lives on something someone made up last week."
For some reason I can't stop chuckling.
Most unintentionally funny comment ever?
I mean, whether you believe in Jesus or not, change "last week" to 2000 years ago", and the comment still applies, right? - subscribtion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Give me the source code so I can compile my own religion.
- AltDelete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Wouldn't Universal Unitarians be the Open Source Religion? I only ask because I'm dating one ^_^
- Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Many people have tended to gravitate towards stuff that was made up last week, because it's generally more sensible and consistent than stuff that was made up 2000 years ago.
- ldhertert, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8so i've seen (and done) a lot of nerdy things in my life. but I think this thread tops them all.
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7What religion are they referring to? Buddhism is the only one that resembles that philosophy.
- wattssw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Cambell's reformation movement (the church of Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Christ ) is essentially open source; each congregation is completely independent and each congregation worships in different ways. Churches split when there are problems, and it allows for growth and difference within the church as a whole without having to focus on the differences. The focus in each congregation is similar in the attempt at recreating first century Christianity.
- MadOgre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I prefer to pull it out of a hat every Sunday.
Last sunday was "Celtic Pagan". Week before that it was 7th Day adventist, but since I pulled that out on Sunday, I had already missed it... so we just went to the lake and read a Dan Brown book on religion.
Can't wait to see whats next! - dracula7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense." (Leviticus 20:9)
im guessing youre *****? - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"You act like religion is a government program, like healthcare or education. Paranoid as you may be, it's not."
Why is it an election issue then?
No seriously. What I am asking is not a rhetorical quesiton but a bewilderment about religion and politics?
Why is abortion, gay marriage, and other moral issues an election issue?
I would think this is a matter for the church and not government. - ZenKai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Great. I took that quiz and it told me I'm a Scientologist. I don't have that kind of money!
- jagger2097, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Another excellent Religion created entirely on the fly by the worshipers can be found at http://subgenius.com/
Praise BoB! - SIDSI, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Religion is for the weak.
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Actually, the church I was raised in is pretty similar.
There's no clergy. Pretty much anyone can give the sunday morning talk.
The only thing we really all agree on is that the bible is god's word. The interpretation is both individual, and open to discussion. There are many, many topics on which we "agree to disagree", from drinking, to homosexuality, to any number of things. Some members are ultra conservative, others liberal (for christians, at least). - rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Last login: Thu May 18 09:56:57 on console
Welcome to Darwin!
rasterbators-computer:~ rasterbator$ sudo make religion - CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Who does the healing in the raid if there is no priest class? Surely not the Paladins or Druids.
- d1mm3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7We already have open source religion. It's called "Science".
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4One downside though is that it's gotten a little too easy to split, and it's resulted in innumerable divisions. The history of the Churches of Christ is blotted with bickering and exclusivism. I have to say though, I really like the direction a lot of CoC's are moving in now. Seems the younger generation is fed up with bickering over instruments in worship and women's role in the church and is now moving on to focus on the deep moral transformation Christ was actually concerned about, doing things like ministering to the poor and just generally reaching out to people, while still holding to some of the sound, original ideas of the fellowship like upholding the authority of Scripture. Check out the blog of one of these newer generation ministers at http://www.preachermike.com. Makes me happy to be Church of Christ in this day and age.
- gregcotten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Technically, quasipalm, the dot operator applied to the "god" class would throw a NullPointerException.
- Boilerblues, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Wow, there's a really great idea. Let's base our lives on something someone made up last week. If there is a God, did he just now decide to exist in this made up religion? I guess that means everyone that came along before this are pretty much screwed.
I'll publically apologize and ask forgiveness for all the people who poorly represent those who follow Jesus Christ (including myself). Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson do not represent us, they represent the people that Jesus stood against. For those that truely follow Jesus there are no secrets, it's all right there in the Bible available to anyone. It's the cults that have secrets. - quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The talmud is open source I believe. You have to be a rabbi to get access to the source though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
"The Talmud (%u05EA%u05DC%u05DE%u05D5%u05D3) is a record of rabbinic discussions of Jewish law, ethics, customs, legends, and stories, which Jewish tradition considers authoritative. It is the fundamental source for rabbinic legislation and case law." - SambekZX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2SIDSI, as MacBigot pointed out, you've hit the nail on the head in regards to Christianity, although perhaps not in the way you intended. The point behind Christianity is that humans are waaay weaker than God, but have rebelled to their own destruction to the point that rebellion is ingrained from birth. They are even too weak to wake up from their rebellion. To stop the vicious cycle, God himself took the punishment for human rebellion on behalf of anyone who takes up the invitation to stop rebelling. The whole Jesus, death, resurrection thing is due to the legalities of God's laws, and the basic principle that a criminal cannot pardon himself, but must be pardoned by the executive of the law. And yet, the pardoned crime cannot go unpunished. Hence, Jesus (God incarnate) claimed responsibility and took God's punishment and lived through it in a way only God can. His perfect life lived on earth is imputed to our lives, while our sins are imputed into his sins. Somewhat confusing, but your statement really summed it up. A Christian hearing your statement would shout a hearty "Amen!"
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Religion is bad no matter how transparent you want to make it. Think for yourself, it's much more satisfying in the long run.
- MacBigot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jesus, by His own account, did not do away with the Law of Moses:
Matt. 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Darn it, ran out of edit time. Austinbond, what do you define as one church? We can hardly fit all of Christianity into one building, so surely you don't think it means one congregation. Even if churches are meeting under different roofs or different names (Church of Christ, Baptist, etc.), the Church can still be considered One if they're working together for the will of Christ rather than fighting with each other as they often historically have. The new blood in the Churches of Christ is very interested in ecumenism and uniting in purpose, if not in denominational name, with other churches that truly seek to obey the will of God.
Dracula, why exactly are you quoting Torah law? Although some of its rules were preserved in the transition to Christianity, the penalties certainly weren't. And I'm not even really sure how that verse applies in this case anyway. - djork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Wow, a religion where people are free to read and interpret the source of their beliefs, and there is no priest class that has exclusive "connections" with God or particular right to fogive/teach? Sounds amazing! It's called Protestant Christianity and it's been around a lot longer than Yoans have...
- jpwhitmore, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5digg just for the coments
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's a strange line of reasoning. If Jesus is perfect, then his Church his perfect. I'm curious as to how you draw that connection...it seems like a fairly great leap to me. The way I see it, the church is made up of humans, and humans are imperfect, therefore the church is imperfect. And I have to say, history certainly seems to discredit the notion of any denomination being perfect. I mentioned some of the problems in the Churches of Christ in my first post, although I still choose this group to call my own because I love the direction they're moving in now and find it to be very much in line with the teachings of Scripture. You're clearly arguing from a Catholic perspective, so I'm curious as to how you reconcile the idea of a perfect church with obvious mistakes such as the Galileo mess, or the medieval practice of burning heretics at the stake. I bring these up not to prove that the Catholic Church is evil - all groups have their mistakes, as well as the capacity to move away from them - but merely as evidence that it is not perfect as you claim it is.
- pussfeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I didn't read the article, but I have thought for awhile that the difference between what God wants to do and what is the norm now is much like the Diff between say, MS and Linux philosphies.
One the one hand, you have these churches where they do everything for you, they make it very convienent for you, but they retain control by this. They lock you into their churches by FUD and by stirring up petty controversies with people who have the exact same model, but with a few twists.
On the other, you have leaders, but they earned their position not thru tricks or marketing, but by demonstratable hard work and commitment. In fact, many of them, like the Apostle Paul thru much of his ministry, don't make their money off the work, its a labor of love in their spare time.
They are approachable and accessable to those who want to learn and are willing to demonstrate commitment and a little bit of effort, but don't suffer fools gladly. Kinda like an Old Testament Prophet, or a Sensai from an MA flick.
And what they do is right there for anyone to see and copy and learn from it, and make their own changes and maybe even improve on it.
God is getting ready to do something awesome in this world, and it will be participatory, not just sitting on yer duff watching the Professionals do it. People are going to get their hands dirty, or they will wither away and die. - TrevorBradley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yes, an open source religious text would allow you to take an existing religious text, modify it as much as you like, as long as you continue to claim that the new text was really God speaking through you.
Also, you'd be allowed to profit from the teaching of your altered text, as long as you made the modifications freely available to others.
Yup, sounds like religion to me.
(Imagine the forking on that project!) - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2>>"first, i am making fun of you all."
>You're making fun of WHO?
well, you at the moment. you're lobbing softballs.
>>"you see... i don't have to prove anything."
>Of course not. You are a Moonbat. You base your beliefs on emotion and dogma, rejecting
>all rational discourse.
at the moment you seem to be the one thats all emotional and dogmatic. calling me names.
you don't see me quoting fiction as if it was truth. in fact, i been just making ***** up
so... maybe i'm wrong but that might be the opposite of dogma. :D
>>"i don't follow people who claim to speak for god. any proofs need to come from your
>>side."
>MY side?
well, ya. you're defending religion and its dogma. you're very defensive about bush...
your side. ya.
>>"but absent any desire to write a few hundred pages demonstrating how religion is
>>effecting science, education and politics in america today... i'd say look around jerk."
>Again, you're going off topic. You said God hates smart people. I asked for evidence to
>support that assertion. You have provided none.
no. you ask for proofs. i just basically said... read up on current events. you can't
miss it. religion has spread out to politics now... with bush in the whitehouse and his
claims of god speaking to him and all. and it certainly wants to bump science. bush has
told scientists that they can't talk about things that piss him off. and... i live in
kansas the front lines of religion wanting to be education now that it claims that its
science. just playing dumb isn't a real good or honest defense for any of it. so don't
tell me about rational discourse. you ain't got any of that.
>>"i don't bring bush into everything."
>You just did. You do it ALL THE TIME. I know this, because you are on my friends list.
>I've been reading your comments for over a month now.
i give bush credit where credit is due. you want me to lie? make ***** up? you aren't
seriously denying bush has polluted america with anti intellectual religious drivel on the
pretext he is talking to god?... are you?
i think... they call that stalking. the following me around. its obvious we don't agree
on much. are you from the NSA? i do worry about speaking out against bush and religion.
history says some of us that do will get made example of.
>"but to answer the question with specifics...
>because he is... because he is.... because he is... because he claims... because..."
i see. you remove the specifics you don't agree with. then repeat like i didn't answer
you. you know what i said. you know what i meant. you "think" you are using some strategy
but it wouldn't get heard in jr. high debate.
>I thought you didn't bring Bush into everything? Here you've just provided seven reasons
>WHY you bring Bush into everything. That's contradictory.
so... everything is this. wow. that is philosphical. you should be religious. bush is
guilty of what bush does. if it doesn't have anything to do with bush then i don't bring
him up. these tactics really are amatuer.
>>"i'll buy this. i might even appreciate it if we'd treat it like any other work of
>>fiction."
>I wish you WOULD treat it like a work of fiction. That's what I do.
i wish everyone would. but people like you keep quoting it like its something more.
>>Your rambling response has nothing to do with the Holy Bible.
:D true.
>You are living in a fantasy world. "I'm having fun" is another way of saying, "I am
>trolling."
ok jerk. the troll is by some religious ***** who thinks because he can puts
"open source" in front of the word religion that it turns it into science. it doesn't.
that is the troll. but if you want to say im trolling then... fine. i'm trolling.
>>>If I asked you to prove that Huck Finn loves peanuts, I would expect you to reference
>>>HUCK >FINN--not ***** Jimmy Carter!
>>"ya. this is not rambling? and... why would i want to prove huck fin loves peanuts. but i
>>do see how the logic that would ask that question might also be the logic that creates
>>god."
>It's called an analogy. Look it up.
actually, its called saying something stupid in a way that attributes it to me. and
the truth is that you said it. not me. i told you it was stupid. you still wanted
it to be something i said.
>>See previous comments re: Bible-as-fiction. If you want to support an assertion about a
>>text, you must reference the text. You haven't referenced the text even once.
ok if you say so. but... i have to disagree.
you wrote among other things:
>(Isaiah 5:20-21)
>
>http://www.biblequestions.org/archives/BQAR129.htm
>>Moonbat!
>"*****!"
>Since you have not proven ANY statement of mine wrong, I fail to see how you could
>rationally arrive at that conclusion. I fail to see how you could rationally arrive at ANY
>conclusion, because you have not demonstrated any reasoning or reading comprehension
>ability whatsoever.
:D ok man. i been having fun at your expense. but its not all on me. there are many
people that could take me on in rational disagreement. but not you. you are full of
rage. full of amateur debate skills. confused about about the world. you ain't got
what it takes for me to take you seriously.
so.. with that. ***** off. quit stalking me. - Hydroxyl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@paedomorphic:
nerds and high school.
done and done. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2>See above comment. You are a Moonbat. You have no idea what you are talking about--ever.
i was about to compliment you on your knowledge and eloquence. but your i see now you're right.
>Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light
>for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
>Woe unto those who are wise in their own eyes, and intelligent before their own faces.
>(Isaiah 5:20-21)
freedom through survelleance. peace by killing them over there so they don't come here.
science interpreted by god. the world is 6000 years old and not a day more.
>http://www.biblequestions.org/archives/BQAR129.htm
i'll see your obnoxious drivel with some truth.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/05/17/human-chimp.html - tominator1983, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What is religion, anyway?
It's a set of rules that are used to control people by using fear of the unknown (i.e: death).
Keep in mind, the rules that are propagated by religion are not necessarily bad. In fact, many different religions have the same core beliefs and rules. These are rules such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Or, "thou shalt not kill". Rules such as these are learned through the course of history as being beneficial to mankind. They are then set up by the leaders as being "words from God".
My position is that all religion is man-made anyways. So why *not* have a wiki religion?
All human actions stem from two core behaviours: Seek pleasure and/or avoid pain.
Why did Mother Teresa donate her life to help others? Because she thought that she would be rewarded for her actions in the after-life (seek pleasure). However, at first glance, it looks like she's this self-less person and everything. But in reality, she just had a better imagination than many other people do. - ionbattle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@dracula
That's levitcal law which was fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. It is no longer necessary nor is it enforced. Copying and pasting without knowing context is silly. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Geez I never really thought of it that way.
I always just have a knee jerk reaction to bash the believers. - FAT_PIGGY, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Atheist = Reality
- Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - from Hamlet , Wm. Shakespeare; Act II, scene ii
Heck, I got nuthin'... - tominator1983, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For more matter of fact viewpoints on life and religion, see the online book by the Ragged Trousered Philosopher:
http://www.fullmoon.nu - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2well said. i see they are modding you down for questioning their correct interpretation of gods words.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2>>"the god that is wreaking havoc in the world today doesn't like science."
>
>Okay, that's an assertion.
>
>>"is anti intellectual top to bottom."
>
>That is also an assertion. On what evidence are you basing these assertions?
>
>>"bush our first theocratic president doesn't like to read too much."
first, i am making fun of you all. you see... i don't have to prove anything. i
don't follow people who claim to speak for god. any proofs need to come from your side.
but absent any desire to write a few hundred pages demonstrating how religion is effecting
science, education and politics in america today... i'd say look around jerk.
>Why do you have to bring Bush into everything?
i don't bring bush into everything. who told you i did? god? bush? :D
but to answer the question with specifics...
because he is trying to bend science to meet his religious expectations.
because he is demonstrating how to create more violence in the world.
because he is running the place on his "gut."
because he claims that god speaks to him.
because pretty much the only people that are still supporting him are the people
that want him to start wwIII because they think god is coming then?
>God is a fictional character who appears in a work of literature called the Holy Bible.
i'll buy this. i might even appreciate it if we'd treat it like any other work of fiction.
>Your rambling response has nothing to do with the Holy Bible.
and yours did? i'm having fun. you... are running scared from the truth.
>If I asked you to prove that Huck Finn loves peanuts, I would expect you to reference HUCK
>FINN--not ***** Jimmy Carter!
ya. this is not rambling? and... why would i want to prove huck fin loves peanuts. but
i do see how the logic that would ask that question might also be the logic that creates god.
>Moonbat!
*****! - obezyana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What?!?
2+2=5.
Honestly. Keep spouting this "four" stuff, and someone'll report you to the Thought Police for sure. -
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is