namelesstavern.net

Narrock wrote:The way I define "God" is that God is the creator of the universe, and the driving force behind science, and is the only logical reason and explanation for the incalculable gaps in science. I'm pretty sure Einstein thought of it that way too. I never said Einstein was a bible-thumper or an Orthodox Jew. And furthermore, Vonkaar, I DON'T think that Mormons are heathens. I don't agree with "The Book of Mormon" but I'm also not castigating them for believing in it. And I also don't have a problem with Muslims, just radical Islamists who take a twisted spin on the religion, ALTHOUGH Muhammad was pretty clear with some of his statements which were anything BUT peaceful.

I want to poke holes in this but I think that this is the best religious post you have ever written on NT. Seriously. My first instinct was to dredge up posts where you knocked the Mormons and talked shit about all other religions, but... why? If this is truly how you believe and how you are NOW then holy shit and bravo.

You know the gaps in science are there because we haven't found them out yet, right? We don't know everything, and I’ll spoil this for you, we never will. That doesn't undermine the pursuit of knowledge. God did it is simply not an acceptable answer for any scientist and that is something Einstein would agree with me on, so in that respect, you are very wrong.

There has been no evidence of mysticism...ever. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Also, it's pretty clear that some of the bible is anything but peaceful as well.

vonkaar wrote:

Narrock wrote:The way I define "God" is that God is the creator of the universe, and the driving force behind science, and is the only logical reason and explanation for the incalculable gaps in science. I'm pretty sure Einstein thought of it that way too. I never said Einstein was a bible-thumper or an Orthodox Jew. And furthermore, Vonkaar, I DON'T think that Mormons are heathens. I don't agree with "The Book of Mormon" but I'm also not castigating them for believing in it. And I also don't have a problem with Muslims, just radical Islamists who take a twisted spin on the religion, ALTHOUGH Muhammad was pretty clear with some of his statements which were anything BUT peaceful.

I want to poke holes in this but I think that this is the best religious post you have ever written on NT. Seriously. My first instinct was to dredge up posts where you knocked the Mormons and talked shit about all other religions, but... why? If this is truly how you believe and how you are NOW then holy shit and bravo.

srsly, nice post.

vonkaar wrote:

Narrock wrote:The way I define "God" is that God is the creator of the universe, and the driving force behind science, and is the only logical reason and explanation for the incalculable gaps in science. I'm pretty sure Einstein thought of it that way too. I never said Einstein was a bible-thumper or an Orthodox Jew. And furthermore, Vonkaar, I DON'T think that Mormons are heathens. I don't agree with "The Book of Mormon" but I'm also not castigating them for believing in it. And I also don't have a problem with Muslims, just radical Islamists who take a twisted spin on the religion, ALTHOUGH Muhammad was pretty clear with some of his statements which were anything BUT peaceful.

I want to poke holes in this but I think that this is the best religious post you have ever written on NT. Seriously. My first instinct was to dredge up posts where you knocked the Mormons and talked shit about all other religions, but... why? If this is truly how you believe and how you are NOW then holy shit and bravo.

. I won't deny that I used to troll a LOT (most successful board troll ever?) but I have toned it down a LOT. I'm still conservative as all get out, and I do believe that liberalism is a... well you know. But I'm in a CHRISTmasy mood right now, listening to Burl Ives.

Zanchief wrote:You know the gaps in science are there because we haven't found them out yet, right? We don't know everything, and I’ll spoil this for you, we never will. That doesn't undermine the pursuit of knowledge. God did it is simply not an acceptable answer for any scientist and that is something Einstein would agree with me on, so in that respect, you are very wrong.

There has been no evidence of mysticism...ever. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Also, it's pretty clear that some of the bible is anything but peaceful as well.

Herpa derp derp

Mindia, give this book a read. I dare you.

http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Infinit ... 0713992743

Mind blowing.

Sounds interesting. I love physics and quantum physics, and astro physics.

okay first of all:

Narrock wrote:fact-based FAITH

there is literally no such thing. if there are facts, you don't need faith. faith is only required in the absence of facts.


but anyway back to the topic on page 1

it's not that i look around and see injustice and oppression and starvation and brutality and think "either god doesn't exist or he doesn't give a shit about us" - although that is a reasonable conclusion to reach. no, my issue with religion in general and christianity specifically is the gap i see between how christ himself spoke, acted, and treated others with the way his so-called "followers" speak, act, and treat others. in fact, i honestly believe that my LCMS upbringing as well as my religious inquiries (both collegiate and independent) have left me particularly well-equipped to notice that gap.

then there are the things i learned about various eastern religions - that there is a sort of all-encompassing balance in the kosmos, that the harmony of the universe compels us to do no harm, and possibly that we are obligated to offset at least our own "bad" or "harmful" actions or thoughts (and those of others, if we are able) in order to either maintain or simply respect that balance and harmony. i do not see how the ways and teachings of christ conflict with this principle in any way outside of terminology, though i'm sure many would disagree.

there is one important religious movement that, in my opinion, connects these two ideas of christ and universal balance: gnosticism. one of the most compelling claims of gnosticism is also probably the one that got the original gnostics hunted down and their scriptures destroyed: they believed that the old testament creator god was a twisted copy of a flawed copy of an emanation of the original source of all, and that as creations of such a bent being, we humans are irrevocably bent as well. jesus, then, was sent - NOT by the creator god of the old testament - but by the source, as a way for people to see PAST all the negative bullshit that the creator god brought with him when he made existence as we understand and experience it, and as a way to reconnect with that original source. THIS is why there's such a major difference between the old testament god (who is vengeful, angry, murderous, capricious, jealous, and violent) and the new testament god (who is distant, omni-[everything], and has universal acceptance for all). it's also why no one understood a fucking thing about jesus while he was alive - even his disciples kept missing the point. he was referring to a different god the entire time. no wonder they were so confused all the time.

anyway, that does a lot to explain one of the more persistent contradictions i see within modern christianity (the stark difference between old and new testament) but it still doesn't leave me with much to feel good about regarding the massive disconnect between what jesus taught and what christians do. perhaps it's caused by the attempt to reconcile OT god and NT god as the same being? preaching brotherly love and understanding, meanwhile destroying enemies and oppressing those not among the "chosen" (in the OT this means "of the jewish tribes" but nowadays i feel we've fully substituted "american" instead)? honestly i don't think many "christians" know a fucking thing about who jesus actually was.

My wife has a book or books about Gnosticism. Maybe I'll pick one up and check it out.

it's difficult to find really good information on gnosticism, precisely because their order suffered such suppression. by some stroke of luck, one of the foremost experts on the subject actually teaches at UNL, so i had all the best info when i took the class

Read my book first and then come back and tell me that "goddidit" is still a good explanation for anything.

Tossica wrote:Read my book first and then come back and tell me that "goddidit" is still a good explanation for anything.

Ok, then YOU read, "A Case For Christ" by Lee Stroebel. Then come back and let me know how the service was at your local church that you're gonna be compelled to go to.

Christianity and people who fight against "progressives" (ie progress) are to blame for why we aren't already exploring the galaxy and why we still die from cancer, etc.

Thanks, douche bags.

Tossica wrote:Christianity and people who fight against "progressives" (ie progress) are to blame for why we aren't already exploring the galaxy and why we still die from cancer, etc.

Thanks, douche bags.

That's the wackiest thing you've said in recent times, and you've said some doozies.

Saint Augustine, 405 AD wrote:Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

I think Saint Augustine's exhortation to not take the bible literally when it contradicts what people learn via reason to be more apropos today than it was when he wrote it 1700 years ago. Saying god created the universe is entirely reconcilable with the Big Bang theory, so is saying that god crated all life reconcilable with Evolution. It is the modern effort among much of the evangelical side to ignore Saint Augustine's advice, and claim that what we learn from science is wrong because they claim the bible says otherwise that they draw the most derision upon themselves, and a primary cause of why people would insult Christianity in general.

-Arlos

.

Tikker wrote:

Narrock wrote:

Tossica wrote:Christianity and people who fight against "progressives" (ie progress) are to blame for why we aren't already exploring the galaxy and why we still die from cancer, etc.

Thanks, douche bags.

That's the wackiest thing you've said in recent times, and you've said some doozies.

well, he's probably right tho


read up on the dark ages sometime and you'll see what he's saying

The only thing Christians don't like is embryonic stem cell research, and science has proven that you don't need to have an embryo to get stem cells.

.

Tikker wrote:/facepalm

Read up on stem cell research smartass.

/double facepalm

you just don't get it. ever

Drem wrote:/double facepalm

you just don't get it. ever

oh the irony...

the irony of what? the fact that you can't follow yet another conversation and just turn it into whatever you want while taking your imaginary high road? you are so fucking stupid

Drem wrote:the irony of what? the fact that you can't follow yet another conversation and just turn it into whatever you want while taking your imaginary high road? you are so fucking stupid

The irony is YOU accusing ME of something YOU'RE guilty of yourself, dumbfuck. Stick with cooking topics asshole.

gas thread

we've reached critical mass of Rubber vs Glue banter

And I emerged victorious (again). But I'm not gonna boast too loudly... Drem is too easy.