Churches Use Twitter To Reach a Wider Audience 169
In an attempt to reverse declining attendance figures, many American churches are starting to ask WWJD in 140 or fewer characters. Pastors at Westwinds Community Church in Michigan spent two weeks teaching their 900-member congregation how to use Twitter. 150 of them are now tweeting. Seattle's Mars Hill Church encourages its members to Twitter messages during services. The tweets appear on the church's official Twitter page. Kyle Firstenberg, the church's administrator, said,"It's a good way for them to tell their friends what church is about without their friends even coming in the building."
Tweeting in church (Score:1)
whoa... (Score:1)
Combat it with WWBND (Score:2)
http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TO&Product_Code=RB-WWBD&Category_Code=ALLSHIRTS [topatoco.com]
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
its neither news for nerds or stuff that matters...
Apparently you didn't notice the "idle" tag...
Re: (Score:2)
Compensating for lack of sex? Compensating for guilt over sex with little boys?
Can't be both!
On the fence on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is the natural evolution of the newsletter, from paper mailers to emails to twitters, but encouraging your congregation to do this during service is just tacky.
I love the photo accompanying this article. Think the lady with the laptop is twittering or playing WoW?
Re: (Score:2)
OT part of my post: twittering during a service is stupid, and to me, implies that there isn't enough to think about (or be involved in) during the service. So much for Biblical commands to love God with your MIND, too....
Hm. You're right, Christians (nominal and true) are human, and at times do all those things.
But if you have never heard of or seen a church where its members are generally characterized but what you just mentioned.. well, I know they exist. I think they tend to, however, be on the stron
Re:On the fence on this (Score:4, Insightful)
I love how you say they can not be judgmental and must be understanding of others faults and they say that you will not go to a church unless all the members meet your requirements.
The failings of the other people in the church shouldn't matter to you. People will tend to cluster a bit around people they get along well with. They will tend to be make mistakes. Church isn't a home for the perfect it is a halfway house for the imperfect.
It doesn't matter if it is a Christian church or a Buddhist temple.
Heck you will even see the same failings you mentioned at a Linux Users Group or Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing the faults of others and honestly calling them what they are: discernment. Hating the person in any way because of what you see, whether that hatred expresses itself by means of anger, resentment, frustration, condemnation, or holier-than-thou: judgment. Declining to associate with people who don't understand what the
Re:On the fence on this (Score:4, Insightful)
"When someone can go to the same church for years without making progress towards losing those negative tendencies and replacing them with an overcoming love for humanity, then there is something wrong with that church. Something critical is missing. Note, I said making progress; I did not say "perfect absolute mastery". I would compare it to someone who attends a programming class for four years and after those four years, is still incapable of writing a "Hello World" program in the language of their choice. It indicates something is very wrong with the class. "
In a school you would be kicked out of the class long before that time. A church will keep let you trying well most of them.
If you don't want to go to a church and or don't believe in what they teach that is one thing. But again you are making a judgment as to that persons progress. Do you really know where that person started? Do you really know where that person is? How do you know what progress they made unless you are that person.
I find the obsession with all these other people to be the part I don't get. You even speak about what a Taoist would say but yet you still judge the value of a churches teaching from the most superficial and external signs possible.
If you have no desire to go to a church that is fine and dandy. Each person has to find their own way to the truth. I personally believe that almost nobody every figures out even the majority of the truth in their life time.
But I would say that you should do a little check on that judging other people thing.
Re: (Score:2)
"When someone can go to the same church for years without making progress towards losing those negative tendencies and replacing them with an overcoming love for humanity, then there is something wrong with that church. Something critical is missing. Note, I said making progress; I did not say "perfect absolute mastery". I would compare it to someone who attends a programming class for four years and after those four years, is still incapable of writing a "Hello World" program in the language of their choice. It indicates something is very wrong with the class. " In a school you would be kicked out of the class long before that time. A church will keep let you trying well most of them. If you don't want to go to a church and or don't believe in what they teach that is one thing. But again you are making a judgment as to that persons progress. Do you really know where that person started? Do you really know where that person is? How do you know what progress they made unless you are that person. I find the obsession with all these other people to be the part I don't get. You even speak about what a Taoist would say but yet you still judge the value of a churches teaching from the most superficial and external signs possible. If you have no desire to go to a church that is fine and dandy. Each person has to find their own way to the truth. I personally believe that almost nobody every figures out even the majority of the truth in their life time. But I would say that you should do a little check on that judging other people thing.
That's neat and sounds good and it has that "who can disagree with that" quality, right? Except that when I join any organization there is a question of whether I will be a contributing member or whether I am merely there to socialize. Personally, I don't want to merely socialize in a place that is supposed to be about wisdom and spiritual growth. There are lots of places to merely socialize which have no such goals if that's what I want to do.
If my message, that is what I would contribute, is accurat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's only one way to get a church like the one you're looking for: Don't let anyone in unless they're perfect.
Of course, the joke from the saying is that no one is perfect, so that won't work. But some people don't get the joke, and actually try to have "perfect congregations". And then you end up with a group of obnoxiously self-righteous twits--because that kind of person fo
Re: (Score:2)
Some "punishment." Contemptible is what it is. Since when is killing off a blameless offspring "justice"? And the case of King David isn't the only one.
If you think that's justice, then maybe the bible should come with a warning sticker about how it warps your sense of right and wrong. Even a little kid understands you don't punish someone for somebody else's mistakes. Heck, recent studies show that even DOGS have a sense of what's fair - they know when one receives an unfair portion compared to another.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but your posts here show that you don't fully understand what you are talking about. Jesus WAS God, how can he be deluded about his own existence?
Got any proof for that? So far, all we've ever seen is "you have to believe" arguments. There is NO physical proof that Jesus was God, just as there's no proof that God exists. If you COULD prove it, you wouldn't need faith, would you? So, the requirement of having faith means that you already understand that there is no proof for either God's existence or Jesus being God.
And just to further set the record straight, the death of his son was not the only punishment. Read 2 Samuel 12:11, and the account of Absalom etc.
Doesn't negate the statement that, according to the Bible, God punished David by killing his child. God the Retroactive Abortionist. Kil
Re: (Score:2)
We're not asking for absolute proof. Just show us "beyond a reasonable doubt." Or even the lower standard of "a preponderance of the evidence." Or SOMETHING!
After all these thousands of years, still no proof?
The statement "Creation itself is proof of a supreme being, if only we open our eyes and want to see it." is exactly the type of statement that is devoid of any proof - it presupposes that what we see was "created" by a "creator", then argues that it's "creation" is proof of a "creator".
The exist
Re: (Score:2)
You're asking for proof, beyond reasonable doubt, for the existence of God; Let's take a look at the big bang theory. Where did the first material, matter or whatever it's called, come from? How does the big bang theory explain the "there is absolutely nothing" to "now we have something" stage?
You misunderstand the big bang theory. It doesn't state what you claim it does. Please do at least a bit of research.
Also, I have not asked for "proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, for the existence of God" (the criminal standard of proof). I'm not even holding believers to the civil standard of proof - the "preponderance of the evidence." I've asked for ANY proof. None has been shown. Not one artifact, not one test, not one shred of evidence of the existence of any one of the thousands of gods that mank
Re: (Score:2)
... and as for "devising tests", you're still assuming that human logic and testing is sufficient to understand a supreme being. If God exists (and I believe he does), then by definition he will be beyond our human understanding.
You don't have to understand something to be able to test for its' existence. People didn't understand how the sun gave off light and heat, but they could test as to whether the sun existed by simply looking. People didn't understand how fire worked to be able to harness it.
Also, you admit that your belief has zero proof. It's just a belief, with no evidence to back it up. Like I said, there's more proof that I am god (because it can be proven that I at least exist) than the god of the bible. That my po
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not claiming the big bang theory states anything at all, I'm asking, how does it or any other scientific theory give you any proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that first there was nothing, and then there was something (i.e. creation)?
Like I said - do your research. The Big Bang theory [wikipedia.org] does NOT say that "first there was nothing, and then there was something". Whoever told you that was talking out their arse. This is the sort of argument from ignorance that religious apologists make all the time, and it's a good indicator of the total paucity of proof on their side.
So, once again, why should ANYONE believe a superstition that has absolutely no evidence to back it up? Why should anyone believe a bible that commands genocide and slavery o
Re: (Score:2)
and can't really be attributed to chance.
... sounds like you're hedging it a bit there.
Chance can explain a lot more than we give it credit for, because we don't have an intuitive grasp of how probabilities work.
Re: (Score:2)
You reference God killing but show him as though he is a HUMAN killing, but he is not he created you he can end you. That is the point with suicide, murder, abortion etc God created you he and he ALONE chooses the time of your death, no human has the power to end his or another's life you do not 'own' you life God your creator does NOT you.
No wonder god is such a jerk - look at the people he hangs around with.
Seriously, get your head out of your god's crotch. Acts of cruelty "in god's name", as depicted in the bible, are never justifiable. Fortunately, it's all just superstition - heaven wouldn't be heaven with asshats like you and your master in it.
Prove that I am not God. (Score:2)
He has a point. You're guilty of using your assumptions to "prove" the validity of your assumptions.
You cannot use the bible's claim that it is true as proof that the bible is true. Prove that I am not God. I hereby claim to be. Prove I'm not. Unlike YOUR god, I exist. You have proof of it in this thread. You have my claim that I am. That's as good (or as flawed) as the bible's claim that it speaks for God. Or apply Pascals' Wager ... if I'm not God, and you believe I am, you haven't lost anything ... but
Re: (Score:2)
And for the record, assertions != argument.
Re: (Score:2)
And for the record, assertions != argument.
Here, let me make that more accessible to readers:
"And for the record, assertions != proof"
This is the problem with the existence of the god of the bible - no proof, just assertions.
However:
Note: A posting in an internet forum cannot be construed as proof of existence. Theoretically, the above (and current) post could be the product of a random electronic disturbance.
Would you like to play a game? How about a game of Nuclear Warfare?
Seriously, while there's no way to prove absolutely that I exist, there's more proof that I exist than the god of the bible. You post, I reply. I have excellent karma. Speaking of which, maybe the bible god has crappy karma, since he isn't posting
Re: (Score:2)
(is that "random" enough for you :-)
Yes, actually. The merits of the grandparent are supported by the examples of the parent.
Re: (Score:2)
All this presupposes that the bible is true, and that god exists. There is no proof of either. The claims made by christians (god and the bible) are extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but we aren't shown even a smidgen of proof. Not one piece of evidence.
And yet, we have lots of proof that same-sex behaviour is normal in other animals [wikipedia.org]. Even cross-species behaviour. Look at dogs humping human legs.
Choice quotes:
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue
and
An example of overlooking homosexual behavior is noted by Bruce Bagemihl describing mating giraffes where nine out of ten pairings occur between males.
"Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings."
Some researchers believe this behavior to have its origin in male social organization and social dominance, similar to the dominance traits shown in prison sexuality. Others, particularly Joan Roughgarden, Bruce Bagemihl, Thierry Lodé[18] and Paul Vasey suggest the social function of sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not necessarily connected to dominance, but serves to strengthen alliances and social ties within a flock. Others have argued that social organization theory is inadequate because it cannot account for some homosexual behaviors, for example, penguin species where same-sex individuals mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.[19] While reports on many such mating scenarios are still only anecdotal, a growing body of scientific work confirms that permanent homosexuality occurs in species with permanent pair bonds, but also in non-monogamous species like sheep.
One report on sheep cited below states:
Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes...[20]
In fact, apparent homosexual individuals are known from all of the traditional domestic species.
"All creatures great and small ... God made them so." So,
Re: (Score:2)
So now we're using nature as our moral compass? ... I guess that means I (if I were a father) could have sex with my 10 year old daughter, after all, the male cats in my back yard will try and mate with kittens, and they don't care that the kitten is one of their offspring. Oh, and I guess that means I can murder anybody walking onto my property; many animals in the wild are "protective" of their property, they kill just because they are being harassed (see some BBC documentaries about Lions for example) ... The simple answer to that is, two males having sex, sex without marriage etc., is wrong because God says it's wrong, not because you may or may not find proof out in the wild.
All the things you mention are actually shit that goes on in the bible - people raping their sisters, having sex with their daughters, being ordered by god to kill their own children, commit genocide and enslavement, forcing the wives of their enemies to be their own, etc. So, how is "god" any better than nature?
"God" doesn't say all that shit is wrong. If you believe the bible, he actually ORDERED most of it! So I'm underwhelmed by any argument that a "god" who you can't even offer one piece of evidence
Re: (Score:2)
There are records of a rabble-rouser who was executed around that time who fits the description, and was executed. What's the problem with that? It doesn't prove that jesus was the son of god or any other crap, any more than Jim Jones and his cults' mass suicide proves that their beliefs were true, or the Solar Temple, or the Raliens, or whatever.
Or are you now going to argue that, because John Travolta and Tom Cruise exist, that scientology must be true?
Christianity is just the latest cultural abnorma
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the contrary - what I'm saying is that, on further investigation, the bible turned out to be so much bullshit that it wasn't possible to defend it.
Have you even read it in its' entirety? (And I'm not saying "read 3 chapters a day and get through it in a year" - I mean - sit down and read it cover to cover in a week and see if, on the whole it makes sense).
No "head in the sand" approach here. I've still got my interlinear hebrew/english (OT) and greek/english (NT) texts, and no matter how you try
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point me to your proof that the universe's physical laws are consistent everywhere in time and space?
Is it based on an evidence chain that starts with assuming uniformitarian principle as truth? No.
I have NEVER said that the universe's physical laws are the same everywhere in time and space. Why would I assume that - I haven't been everywhere in time and space - at least not yet. That doesn't mean shit in relation to whether there is a god or not. If they are ultimately proven to vary depending on location and time, so what? That's not any sort of "proof" that a "god" exists.
But that doesn't make you right. It doesn't give you the right to bully pulpit your ideas on me.
Aw, since you can't give ANY proof for the existence of your fairy-tale god, you now resort to whining. Look, it's very simpl
Re: (Score:2)
Their "lifestyle" as you call it, is part and parcel of who they are. If bigots can't accept it, that's their problem, but there are hundreds of species of mammals that engage in same-sex relationships. It's normal. Get over it.
*sigh* No, it is only that way because the predominant social pressures say that that is how you behave. Animal and pre-modern human homosexuality is mostly a utilitarian thing or an oc casional dip. It is only bitter identity politics that creates the modern "homosexual"
Got any proof for that? Many animals engage in same-sex behaviour as more than "a utilitarian thing" or an "occasional dip" [wikipedia.org] - they'll pair-bond for life.
Besides, your argument, even if it were valid, fails to show how that people engaging in same-sex activities is "wrong" or "abnormal". Even if it's a "utilitarian thing" - which you really need to define it and explain WHY it's wrong if it's innate. For example, if you want to claim it's in response to high densities of population, you'd have to explain w
Re: (Score:2)
Got any proof for that? Many animals engage in same-sex behaviour as more than "a utilitarian thing" or an "occasional dip" [wikipedia.org] - they'll pair-bond for life.
MANY animals? I've never seen a single homosexual animal myself but I've seen plenty of heterosexual animals. I'd say calling it anything but extremely rare except in humans is rather disingenuous.
It is only shriveled-up xians who are so insecure with their own sexuality that they feel threatened by anything different, and so needing to impose it on others lest they wake up one day and realize that what they believe has no basis in reality, that have created the modern politics of hate.
Really, you think that ONLY Christians created the modern politics of hate? Are gay issues the only ones that matter to you or something? Because there's plenty of hate to go around -- many people seem to hate corporations, plenty of non-Christians hate pro-lifers, many people hate illegal immigration, teachers ha
Re: (Score:2)
You've obviously not raised too many mammals as pets. Same-sex activity is quite common mammals. So is inter-species sexual activity with the same sex - which the following joke references:
Q: What do you do when a chihuahua humps your leg?
A: You kick it!
Q: What do you do when a pit bull humps your leg?
A: Pretend you're enjoying it, bitch!
Re: (Score:2)
I've raised a few and never thought any of them were gay. I've seen occasional same sex sexual activity, but is that enough to say the animal is gay? For instance, I'd say you're setting the bar way too low if you think a male dog who humps a man's leg is gay.
Originally you said 'Many animals engage in same-sex behaviour as more than "a utilitarian thing" or an "occasional dip" - they'll pair-bond for life.' So I think you acknowledge that behavior like occasional humping doesn't qualify as making the anima
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing of the sort, but just out of curiosity, how many cocks does a guy have to suck before they're considered at least bi? In our psych courses, we set the bar at 6. Nowadays, of course, we'd say "6, but 3 if you owned a mac."
Look, it's simple - religions should not be telling people who want nothing to do with their superstitions how to run their lives, and they certainly shouldn't be doing it by making claims that are lies, such as "only humans engage in same-sex activities - it's unnatural." This i
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I didn't respond. I'm experiencing weird behavior with the comments section in slashdot. Sometimes it displays as a list of topics, showing the score and number of replies for each one. Other times it appears as a list of articles but doesn't show the number of replies. I don't know what's going on. But when the latter happens I tend to lose track of comments.
Nothing of the sort, but just out of curiosity, how many cocks does a guy have to suck before they're considered at least bi? In our psych courses, we set the bar at 6. Nowadays, of course, we'd say "6, but 3 if you owned a mac."
Hmm I really don't know. Also, is it possible to "turn" gay and then "turn" back? Like if you suck 50 cocks in one summer, but afterwards you're
Mars Hill (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually in revelations of financial misdeeds or
OK.... (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, this is ridiculous; just because a technology exists for something, you don't have to use it for everything. If you're truly interested in bringing your friends to (your) religion, Twitter's not gonna do it. You have to actually bring them into the building and break that ice by showing them that, no, you're not snake-handlers speaking in tongues or crazy terrorists preaching jihad or whatever. Besides, the reduction of religious beliefs to sound bytes by believers and non-believers alike is one of the most damaging processes to those who are religious. This will just end up backfiring on them and making them look like fools.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I fear it already does. Tony Jones, one of the "bright young minds" behind this, is currently twittering the Didache to his facebook page, and ended up having to ask me in a private e-mail "not to respond so fast".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, the reduction of religious beliefs to sound bytes by believers and non-believers alike is one of the most damaging processes to those who are religious.
Actually, reading the whole bible, instead of cherry-picking, is one of the most damaging processes for those who are religious.
It's just fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware most of the people here probably don't practice a religion. I do.
Hey, me too. Except that my religion's rites involve two crack whores, all the booze that I can shoplift, and a bathtub full of cottage cheese.
Troll on.
No, troll, but I would tend to disagree with you. I don't use Twitter, but in my opinion, religions have always been adept at adopting new technologies to "spread their word." Look at the "televangelists" in the US for an example.
And I could imagine that some folks who feel isolated by their faith, might take comfort in being able to send and receive quick messag
Re: (Score:2)
I'll go further and say the building doesn't matter. It will just be filled with people that cognitively acknowledge Jesus but have nothing to show for it but their weekly attendance to said building. Worthless.
Simply show them a life of someone that practices Jesus' teachings and they might see that it's more than an antiquated fairy tale. Love those that are hard to love. If you've been blessed with abundance (in whatever wealth, love, etc.) then share it with the poor (in wealth, love, etc.). Recognize t
Re: (Score:2)
Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? ...Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? ...If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
1 Corinthians 14:6,9,23,28 (NIV)
Its a shame (Score:4, Funny)
*Maniacal laughter*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what is left, when you take away the godless heathens, are orthodox people who can actually think and whose religion isn't opposed to rationality and science at every turn.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, how can someone who believes in a creator of all things accept the law of conservation of mass? Some things are just incompatible.
Atheism & Consistency (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe the scientific process and theism go hand in hand. On the other hand, atheists have to be inconsistent with the outworking of their atheism. To use your language, the atheist not only has to make concessions but has to capitulate.
If you believe God orders and sustains the universe, what would be inconsistent with theism and science? Now inconsistent with science-ism? Yes.
Now an atheist who assumes that we weren't put here for any particular reason should assume that we weren't designed for any par
Re: (Score:2)
I have no reason to believe the laws of physics will stay the same. However, they seem to be staying the same, so I'll assume they will until I have a reason to think otherwise.
I'm nice to people and help them, because experience tells me that tends to lead to
Re: (Score:2)
Being internally consistent is not the same as being "correct." Just because the universe doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean your made-up reasons for how it works are the right ones. Remember, having answers is not the same as having *good* answers.
Re: (Score:2)
If your beliefs are held only as a result of disciplined reasoning and experimentation then you're not a theist, are you?
See my argument further down- that in fact, given the overwhelming amount of theist literature and experimentation on the subject, anybody truly disciplined should at least be agnostic if not an outright theist. What I find a distinct lack of evidence for is the concept that there is no God.
The only way out is to become an atheist in how you treat reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I go one step further and put a limit on God. He can't alter the variables as he sees fit, they MUST fit the rules and causality consistently (even if, perhaps, we theorize a God that is outside of OUR time, and therefore isn't limited by time flowing the same direction we experience it in). I believe in a deterministic universe- but also that human beings preserve their own sense of free will because of their finite brain size that can't see all the variables all at once.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, how can someone who believes in a creator of all things accept the law of conservation of mass?
As an inadequate human attempt to explain a rule set up by the given creator? And that without that rule, the universe would be quite different?
Re: (Score:2)
Goes one step further if you talk to the quantum physics/mechanics guys. They're convinced that their own inability to move beyond probabilistic answers is a *universal* inability to move beyond probabilistic answers, and thus we live in an indeterministic universe. They can't even admit to some other species somewhere in the universe knowing more than we do, let alone an all powerful God able to know more than we do.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't even find your previous reply. Must have been someplace else.
Yeah, I have a tendency to do that...my belief in rational religion isn't limited to either my own religion or even my own beliefs, and in my common-to-cradle-catholics college years of apostasy, my 1500 WPM reading speed meant I learned a LOT about alternate philosophies and religions. I just love the "biblical athiest" elsewhere in this thread who seems to believe all of Christianity can be contained in the 15,000 denominations of Amer
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an physicist or an expert on quantum mechanics... but I don't think physicists are as convinced about things as you make them sound :)
Most aren't. It's a very few quantum physicist atheists who will claim that Hiesenberg's Uncertainty Principle means that NOBODY in the universe can measure both a position of an electron and it's velocity, and that means God's existence is impossible (because he'd be able to do this, being omniscient. Actually, any species able to do this could, with the h
2nd reply (Score:2)
http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/2009/05/slow-and-steady-makes-right.html [blogspot.com] is a discussion that split off of my reply to this post.
Re: (Score:2)
ALL religion is opposed to rationality.
which religion does not claim some supernatural being that, well, has NEVER shown himself?
if you are a religion, you have a deity (or plural). and I don't think there has been the tiniest shred of actual evidence to support ANY one's view of their god.
therefore, to believe in things you can't possibly prove - by definition - is to be irrational.
scientists who tend to believe in god have this weird duality to their mind. seems to be a flaw that lets them 'forgive' som
Re: (Score:2)
which religion does not claim some supernatural being that, well, has NEVER shown himself?
No religion I'm aware of claims that. They all have either written or oral traditional claims of a God who *did* show himself.
ALL religion is opposed to rationality.
Incorrect- in fact, the current Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, gave a rather interesting speech on the topic right after he was elected Pope. You ought to remember, it was the one where he condemned certain sects of Islam for b [vatican.va]
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that you are deluded to think any god 'did' show himself means you already are beyond thinking critically about the subject.
you are hooked and can't get out of that trap.
sorry to be you. otoh, ignorance is bliss and you may actually be happier in your delusion than I am in the knowledge that its all a lie.
it is all a lie. you just have been brainwashed into thinking the fairy tale is really true. sorry mate, but its not true. as much as we'd all want it to be, it just not. get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that you are deluded to think any god 'did' show himself means you already are beyond thinking critically about the subject.
And the fact that you don't at least read and test written documentation mans that you are already accepting too narrow a definition of evidence.
you are hooked and can't get out of that trap.
I can say the same about you
sorry to be you. otoh, ignorance is bliss and you may actually be happier in your delusion than I am in the kn
Re: (Score:2)
as is the fact of your apparent inability to find the [shift] key.
ah, you run out of actual arguments so you attack the person.
therefore, you have just lost the argument. and everyone can see that, too.
have a nice day ;)
Re: (Score:2)
as is the fact of your apparent inability to find the [shift] key.
ah, you run out of actual arguments so you attack the person.
therefore, you have just lost the argument. and everyone can see that, too.
have a nice day ;)
Yeah, thanks for giving me some actual substance to attack in your other message, like the idea that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century AD when we have a Qumran manuscript that has been carbon dated to 500 BCE with the same text.
Re: (Score:2)
and you somehow think:
age == wisdom
??
refute this, then, if the bible is 'so wise' beign so old.
the bible thinks the earth is flat:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:8&version=9 [biblegateway.com];
the bible says that giants (??) were once on the earth:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:4&version=9 [biblegateway.com];
Those who believe are able to handle snakes and drink any deadly poison without suffering harm.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:17-18&version=9 [biblegateway.com];
shall I REALLY
Re: (Score:2)
and you somehow think:
age == wisdom
Partially. To be more accurate, repeated experiments and additional observations bring more data and allow us to refine our theories and models to be closer to the truth.
refute this, then, if the bible is 'so wise' beign so old.
Nope, the Bible is a book, and therefore isn't wise. Wisdom requires thinking, which can only be accomplished by human beings. Books can only provide data, they can't interpret that data.
the bible
Re: (Score:2)
the bible MOST CERTAINLY does claim to be the word of god.
ok, I'm done here. you won't change your views and I won't change mine. that was an assumed conclusion, anyway.
my final thought: the motivations of those in the religious field is a historical concept. one only has to look at the power structure of all religions to see that they were designed to control and scare primitive man.
some of us have seen thru this and 'won't be fooled again' ;)
I really wish you were right and there WAS/IS a god. how com
Re: (Score:2)
the bible MOST CERTAINLY does claim to be the word of god.
Prove it. I gave you the quote where the Bible claims gives the title "The Word of God" to some sort of spiritual being, and you still claim that the Bible is the Word of God?
ok, I'm done here. you won't change your views and I won't change mine. that was an assumed conclusion, anyway.
Not by me it wasn't. In fact, I assumed you'd come up with something new at some point to challenge my world view- for only the unco
Re: (Score:2)
I believed exactly the same thing as you, in fact I could have written your post. I was 15 then and was convinced that I had everything figured out.
I have since lived another 16 years; believe me son, when you grow up a little bit you'll realize that there are a LOT of shades between black and white and not only do you not know everything, but you will NEVER know even a tiny fraction of anything.
There are things in this world that are beyond the comprehension of the human mind. Are they the work of God?
Re: (Score:2)
you're still very young. I have over 15 years on you, still.
its a shame the mass delusion runs so deep.
it is a form of mental impairment, to believe in spirits, ghosts and gods.
but I do realize that its 'comforting' to believe in fairy tales. that's the main reason why talking about religion is usually off-limits; it invades peoples' comfort levels by challenging the very fabric that they've build their whole view of reality on.
its very disturbing to learn that santa clause, easter bunny and the myth of j
Re: (Score:2)
you're still very young. I have over 15 years on you, still.
Too bad you've wasted those 46 years on fundamentalist Biblical atheism. Though I will give you this- you're more consistent in your beliefs than most fundamentalist Christians I deal with regularly.
it is a form of mental impairment, to believe in spirits, ghosts and gods.
And yet, well over 90% of humanity throughout history has done so. Why do you think THAT is?
but I do realize that its 'comforti
Re: (Score:2)
Or rather, they've been presented with evidence through personal experience that you refuse to admit is evidence.
so, I'm either unable to 'receive' god's message or witness his existence or I'm refusing to?
(laughing)
typical avoidance reply. no, dude, I'm NOT trying to 'reject god'. if he's out there, he's been silent to me and that seems to make no sense at all (why would he be selective in how he 'talks' to?)
this reasoning is a joke. its a twisted bit of thinking to try to make the other person feel 'u
Re: (Score:2)
so, I'm either unable to 'receive' god's message or witness his existence or I'm refusing to?
No, that's not what I said. I said so far your definition of objective evidence is too narrow to admit the mounds of written documentation from thousands of different cultures. There's a difference. Being "unable to 'receive' god's message or witness his existence or I'm refusing to?" is being irrational. Having too narrow a definition of objective evidence is merely being too skeptical.
Re: (Score:2)
written documentation, as in written by men meant to control other men?
is that what you submit as proof?
wow.
'documents' that have internal inconsistencies? like these, perhaps?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html [infidels.org]
now that we are a bit more advanced than we were a few thousand years ago, we can STUDY the bible and realize it for what it is- a flawed document created by a team of MEN, over centuries, to control and scare fellow primitive man.
there are sections in 'the bible'
Re: (Score:2)
written documentation, as in written by men meant to control other men?
No, written documentation as in "I wrote what I experienced and you can either believe it or not as you please". Later on, some other men DID choose to use such writings to control other men- but usually, that was not the intent of the original author.
is that what you submit as proof?
How is it any different than taking down a set of observations during an experiment in a laboratory and submitting THAT a
Re: (Score:2)
A superficial problem is that the "documentation", taken as a whole, is rife with massive contradictions.
Yes, but that's a pretty superficial problem; two descriptions of blind men meeting an elephant will be rife with massive contradictions also, as will the description of a high energy physics experiment by two physicists standing at opposite ends of the CERN Collider.
There's a more subtle and fundamental issue here though and that's the principle of parsimony / Occam's Razor.
Re: (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP! Especially for this line:
" The only thing they have going for them is that they have worked so far - or at least, we believe that we remember that they have."
Does that mean (Score:2)
that I don't have to feel guilty for tweeting in church?
simple messages (Score:2)
But church is also about creating a sacred space, where people are together in a single faith. I think it is this that is hurting the traditional church. If we broadcast the service, and make the TV or radio an extension of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like "DO EXACTLY WHAT I TELL YOU, OR YOU'LL BURN!!!!!!"
Beyond that, could you define "best". Hinduism and Catholicism have a rather large number of adherents, for instance, and I'd hardly call them simple.
I once twittered in church (Score:1)
Then an old lady was ushered down to my pew and she sat right IN IT!
WWJT (Score:4, Funny)
What would Jesus tweet?
Re:WWJT (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
2 Weeks (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
God isn't real, but where does religion come from? (Score:5, Interesting)
Jesus 2.0 (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, use science when (Score:2)
it helps you.
Re:*not* Mars Hill again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that the basic description of 6th generation American Protestantism in general? After all, you can't fill the megachurch with actual *SUBSTANCE* or *ORTHODOXY*- or even suggesting maybe being poor *might* be the fault of certain other groups taking more than they need.
Re: (Score:2)
this-is-what-the-bible-says-and-if-you-disagree-you're-wrong style
Ah, but you see, as a Catholic who rejects Sola Scriptura, that's not Orthodoxy to me, or substance. Orthodoxy would mean having an actual liturgical service that teaches from action as well as words, substance would mean being deeper than just Scripture.
Regardless of how much I agree or disagree with his teaching, I admire the way he holds to his beliefs and isn't afraid to teach them just because it mightn't go do
Mars Hill loons (Score:1, Troll)
Funny you should mention that, since the above blurb mentions Seattle's Mars Hill Church, who are a pack of far right fundie whack jobs trying to pose as 'Hip' to lure in the youngsters.
Snake handlers, indeed...
Re: (Score:2)
right-wing Christian fundamentalism.
Kinda. The pastor Mark Driscoll is very controversial, even among Christians. He's also extremely intelligent, and is very capable of defending the things he says (I'd pay money to see anyone on here debate him). Christian or not, he's a good thing for everyone, simply because he's not just another fundamentalist idiot that just spouts stuff off without it making any sense or being able to support it.