trends.newsforge.com — open source philosophy exists in religion too; a kind of collaborative spirituality in which there is no such thing as secrets known only to an inner circle, and participants work together to create a mutually acceptable and beneficial creed instead of passively receiving instruction from a priestly class.
May 17, 2006 View in Crawl 4
sambekzxMay 18, 2006
SIDSI, 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!"
tominator1983May 19, 2006
For more matter of fact viewpoints on life and religion, see the online book by the Ragged Trousered Philosopher:<a class="user" href="http://www.fullmoon.nu">http://www.fullmoon.nu</a>
starmanjonesMay 19, 2006
>>"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 s**t upso... 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'tmiss it. religion has spread out to politics now... with bush in the whitehouse and hisclaims of god speaking to him and all. and it certainly wants to bump science. bush hastold scientists that they can't talk about things that piss him off. and... i live inkansas the front lines of religion wanting to be education now that it claims that itsscience. 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 s**t up? you aren't seriously denying bush has polluted america with anti intellectual religious drivel on thepretext 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 answeryou. you know what i said. you know what i meant. you "think" you are using some strategybut 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 isguilty 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 assh**e 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 f**king 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. andthe 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)>><a class="user" href="http://www.biblequestions.org/archives/BQAR129.htm">http://www.biblequestions.org/archives/BQAR129.htm</a>>>Moonbat!>"dumbf**k!">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 manypeople that could take me on in rational disagreement. but not you. you are full ofrage. full of amateur debate skills. confused about about the world. you ain't gotwhat it takes for me to take you seriously. so.. with that. f**k off. quit stalking me.
Closed AccountMay 19, 2006
>>Again, where in the Bible does it say that God hates smart people?>you are the one that brings up the bible. that is just another amateur tactic.It's an "amateur tactic" to demand supporting evidence for your claims?Remember that you wrote: "maybe they'll create a kinder gentler god this time. the last one hated smart people and used weapons of mass destruction... kind a creepy really."If we are discussing an open source religion and its creation of a "kinder gentler god," then the "last one" to which you refer MUST be the God of the Holy Bible. So I asked you where, in the Bible, it says that God hates smart people.>smart people need more than faith. god requires absolute unquestioning faith or you>go burn in hell.If those people do in fact go to Hell, and the universe does in fact operate in the way God says it does, how then could they be termed "smart" for failing to comprehend the word of God?Since it is not written ANYWHERE in the Bible that God was not telling the truth, on what could you base such an interpretation?Could it be that your definition of "smart" has clouded your interpretation of the text?Consider an alternate fictional universe in which "God" is a computer programmer and "we" are simulated life forms in virtual reality. Just remove all the religious connotations and view it as a fictional story. If those simulated life forms fail to comprehend the reality of their existence--which was created by God--how can they be termed "smart"?>>>"i'll see your obnoxious drivel with some truth.">>My link and yours have NOTHING to do with one another. What you just did is called "non>>sequitur". Look it up.>don't need to. posting a link to a religious web site in a science web site is the>definition of non sequiturRead the thread. In context. With your thinking cap on.>i think most would agree with me that posting a page>about chimps and humans interbreeding was just the right web site to offer you. :DLOLSo you're all about Digg being a tech news website now? After all the leftwing political spam you've dugg?Seriously, you need to start posting links to support your assertions. That's what I did with the Bible link, and it's what you DIDN'T do with any of your comments.Let's not forget that you wrote: "i watched marilyn manson debate oreilly one day. MM is a legit genius as well as a visual and music genius"I know you're just a kid, and I'm wasting my time trying to reason with you, but I do wish people would educate themselves and try to argue rationally. 9/10ths of the societal problems we face today would be solved if people could learn to apply critical thinking to their own thought process.
Closed AccountMay 19, 2006
It's a subtle distinction, and I often find myself arguing alongside people who don't really "get" subtle distinctions, so I'll try to cover this from both sides.qert2 COULD believe that the Bible is absolute truth, and with that I would disagree, but that isn't what he wrote in this comment. I haven't read his previous comments, so the actual words written here are the only thing I have to go by.qert2 wrote:"Kinda sad. People don't realize that truth is truth, so they just make up their own religions. What's the point? 2 2 always equals 4, but no one argues about that."Truth IS truth.Religions DO deal in absolute truths, by definition. A religion is a system of belief centered around the existence of a supernatural being or beings. The world cannot have been created by BOTH the Christian God and the Hindu gods. Any "religion" that allows for the possibility that all other religions may be true is not a religion at all, but a philosophy.So it IS irrational for people to create a religion out of whole cloth. It is inconceivable that an open source religion could just happen to hit upon the exact nature and wishes of supernatural beings. The ONLY way a religion could do that is by supernatural intervention.
Closed AccountMay 20, 2006
>Do you realize that I chose this username precisely to out Moonbat f**ks like you?did you realize i gave you the link about chimps and humans making babies was precisely because humans are often said to be paedomorphic primates? oh, not that quick huh?
Closed AccountMay 20, 2006
"you don't show any ability to be able to interpret what said correctly."Please cite an example of my misinterpreting your comments.re: moderation patterns in this (old/dead) thread:I see you've registered additional usernames. I wonder how you rationalize that behavior.