You really don't pay much attention, do you? I'm the last person who would suggest we forget the holocaust. I think we need to do MORE to support Israel and the jews. It's funny how people seem to forget the holocaust when they suggest we shouldn't give military support to Israel or we should compel the Israelis to give up their homeland to a pack of militant islamic thugs who will only continue to work towards the total destruction of the jews.

And, for your information, I DID find a blessing in my wife's suspension. It illustrated the double-standard for free speech that goes on around here, and showed me that I need to be a little more vocal about it. I'm sure EVERYONE will be glad you've brought up that subject again.

Yeah, I agree... the writing was poor... and it's disappointing, because the premise was solid, and the story could have been told so much better.

Why dont you try reading it in context to his answer then? He never suggested pepole "forget" about the War, just suggested people try to see the good that came from the war having been fought.

As for your continued blathering on about my suspension.....its folks like you that make my having been boxed completely ridiculous. My being blunt and to the point is less offensive then your mis quotes and sympathy trolling anyday. If the suspensions are ever handed out fairly and evenly then im sure your whining will be over.
However please continue on making our point.

If you believe life revolves around God, Satan, Heaven and Hell, ect, then yeah, I think there has got to be a screw loose(too put it more bluntly than I should). But if you are a good guy I'm not going to treat you like dirt or let it effect my opinion of you. I don't equate everyone to that nutty asshole Pastor.

Religion, as a whole, does nothing good for the world or the human civilization, it teaches a backwards way of thinking and intelorance based around what God wants and approves of. If you need it in order to feel better about your life, then you are using the bible as a crutch, something you shouldn't and don't need.

Now I'm a firm believer that science and the pursuit of knowledge is what is currently driving mankind forward, and at a very basic level religion and religion in government conflicts with this. Just taints my outlook a bit more.

I had something longer typed out, but I just turned out looking even more like FranklinNobile and his SO. Hopefully I wasn't TOO inflammatory(wishful thinking).

Isn't there a snappy bible verse you could have used here instead? Turn on ScriptureBot2000 and see what happens!!

Ah, the truth comes out. You two won't be happy until I'm boxed.


What is "sympathy trolling", pray tell?


It continues to be my humble duty to embody the Great Liberal Anti-Christ for the Noble household. Remember to tell your children that if they are bad, I will come for them in the night.

Why such faith in science (excuse the phrasing)? How has science ushered in progress? Couldn't similar arguments you referenced about religion be made about science and the pursuit of knowledge? Weren't Hitler's and Marx's projects scientific? What about the nuclear bomb at Hiroshima? Couldn't we say the increasingly massive deaths that come about in war are driven by scientific progress?

The religion is bad argument also doesn't seem to fly in light of all the work of all the religious charities who have stepped forward to help victims of crises in history. To suggest that religion is bad because it fosters intolerance (an effect) would then, to use the same logic, mean that religion is good because it has helped many people (an effect).

A lot of this does seem to boil down to a "everything happens for a reason" philosophy. And if you're familiar with the "Butterfly Effect," you'll understand just how vast the repercussions from even a small event.

There is something to be said for accepting everything, and making the most of it. As long as you aren't fatalistic about it. But I find it hard to accept the religious view that the Holocaust was in any way preventable or allowed by a god. That's just not something I can ever assimilate into a rational world view.

Any supreme being that allowed such an act is surely not worthy of respect, worship or even tolerance. And on the smaller scale, any supreme being that causes even the tiniest amount of harm to my son or my wife is not worthy of respect, worship or tolerance. There is no bigger picture here.

Amen.

Amen to that.

I should of added for better or for worse, progress is being made for both. If advancement eventually means the end of us, so be it, as it would of been inevitable. We are who we are. What else are we here for if not constantly striving to unlock the secrets around us?

As far as charities, all organizations have stepped to the plate to donate during periods of crisis, religious and otherwise. It doesn't stack up to the wars and hatred religion brings and nothing else can match it in that reguard, speaking historically and very broadly(does not apply to everyone).

And I would argue by saying that religion has not helped many people. Some religious ORGANIZATIONS have helped people, but not the religion itself.

Dont kid yourself. You are no more then a nat on my radar screen. I have NEVER ran crying to a moderator, complaing about you or any others like you, either about your liberal views your foul language, name calling or your deliberate attempts to bait me or my husband.

The moderators if they choose to speak up can reiterate this.

I need no moderator to protect me from the likes of you.

There is this great feature called an ignore button that is available whenever I choose to use it.

This points to a basic truth: both science and religion can be used by people for purposes that can be good or evil. The connection between a person's belief in science and/or religion and whether that person is "good" or "bad" is tenuous.

Again, as with most things, religion and science are not black and white, they are many shades of grey.

I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from here with this question. If advancement does mean the inevitable end of us, why bother with uncovering the secrets? What really is the point of it all? Progress for what end? Is the end about delaying inevitable destruction as long as possible? Again, I'm just trying to understand the perspective of someone who seems entirely devoted to the scientific point of view.

Am I the only one that trips out each time Franklinnoble reiterates that he is a devout Christian?

Fair point, but it's a fine distinction. I guess we would have to define what we mean by religion.

You are awesome. I hope you never get box again. I laugh at every single one of your posts.

Well done.

edit: that should read "boxed". i hope you get all the box you want, obviously. your call.

Nope. I find it hilarious as well. Apparently, Franklin comes from the " all the porn in the world is fine, but one gay person is evil" school of thought.

Advancement to further our understanding of the (for lack of better word) universe, to improve our standard of life, and to simply get answers to shit we don't understand. Those are the points of science, in my mind.

The number of spelling and grammar errors in this thread is absolutely horrifying. That's all I've got to offer.

DRAKE!

Come on, man! I believe in you! Make sumpin up!

Just a comment and a couple of questions (and I *REALLY* need to get going now)...

One of my favorite Dilbert characters is the brilliant garbage man. In one of Adams's cartoons, Dilbert asks him "Why are you a garbage man?" Adams comments on the cartoon something along the lines of, "The garbage man is the smartest man in the world. It intrigues me that anyone would question what the world's smartest person does."

What if the supreme being's ways are different from our ways, his understanding higher than ours, his knowledge greater than ours? If so, would that not mean that it is possible that some of the things that we think to be "wrong" or "not worthy of respect" are actually right, and we're the ones who have it wrong?

I sure am, and you're right, Franky.. there is a double standard about free speech. Unfortunately, the double standard is yours.

Care to throw any more pervasive liberal slants comments out? It's been a long day at work, and I could use the laughs.

Damn,

This is one hell of a pissing match here......

let me get my popcorn....

Ok...you may continue

You have a really small-minded view of things.

God sacrificed his own Son so that when you, your wife, and your son inevitably die, you will not have to suffer eternal torment. This "irrational supreme being" loves you, your wife, and your son more than you can fathom, and to dismiss Him so hatefully because a few things in your life (just like everyone else's) haven't gone your way is pretty sad.

To put it simplistically. Humankind's exists as a whole is to answer these questions around us, perhaps one of the answers will lead to a revolution on the way we think and comprehend the things around us. If during our journey this leads to the end of us so be it, it would be due to a basic flaw in mankind and over a long enough timespan this outcome would be inevitable. So why fear the end, we should make the most out of the journey.

Possibly. But then arguably everything we think is "right" could also be wrong. Thus Pascal's Wager, of course.

Nope.

Ah the all powerful garbage man.

And now we delve further into philosophy. But, to keep it simple, it's all a matter of perspective. Who's right and who's wrong, in your example, is irrelevant. If I/we/whoever feels Bad Event is, indeed, a Bad Event, then it is. Simple. If Supreme Being caused Bad Event, or did nothing to prevent Bad Event, then by my perspective, Supreme Being is an ass.

Supreme Being's perspective is irrelevant in this scenario, because we, being Not Supreme Beings, cannot consider Bad Event from Supreme Being's point of view.

Lord I need to go home now. :)

No he didn't.


No he doesn't.

Speaking of a narrow world view....

Thanks for the answer. It would seem that religious people would define the pursuit of religion (I'll use that term grudgingly) in terms of understanding the universe and "to simply get answers to shit we don't understand" as well although their pursuit would obviously take a different trajectory. So the discussion gets us back to whether or not science improves our standard of life.

How do we get past the apparent stalemate of 'science has caused incredible problems and death' and 'religion has caused incredible problems and death'? It seems this is where this thread has led us. What are the criteria we use to answer this question?

He loves me more than I can possibly imagine, he just may have to torture me for all eternity.

Sorry guys, I don't buy it.

See now, this is where I get upset with a lot of the bible thumping going on....just becuase his belief is not equal to your belief is sad?

Why does it have to be sad that he believes that way.

As God has his plan of salvation and we are all set to follow it, some will stray from the flock. There are those who will come back, and those who will stay away. Remember though, those who leave will stay away if you continue to push them away, and honestly, narrow sighted comments like what I have seen in here, tend to keep those away.

How does the pursuit of religion expand your knowledge? There is no stalemate as religion does not bring anything to the table other than being a crutch to help people through tough times.

I don't need the help.

I don't see a stalemate. In my opinion, both statements are true.

Perhaps the question to ask is "how?" Arguably science has caused problems & death because it has given man the tools to achieve these ends. Religion, on the other hand, can be said to have cause problems & death because it has propelled man to commit these acts in the name of their beliefs.

Thus, perhaps a way forward is to argue the moral equivalency between those two.

Matthew 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Luke 13: 1-5 1 There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? 3 I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo'am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, No;

There is no way you can believe in the teachings of Christ and believe that God sent Katrina to kill those in LA, MS and AL.

I'm astonished at the sheer ignorance of Christianity being revealed here. (And not just FOFCers - that Pastor with the sign, too.)


Let me say this is an excellent post by Skydog. One important lesson coming from the story of the Garden of Eden is that in *trying* to understand God (or attain God-like wisdom) we only succeed in putting distance between ourselves and the divine. The mystery and beauty of God is that He is beyond mortal comprehension.

Now I see this as the convenience of God. Given enough time, nothing is beyond mortal comprehension.

You err......the Twinkie is the ultimate example here....

Bolded to point the absurdity of your logic. It is, in fact, our mortality that makes the eternal incomprehensible.

Question!

If God is all powerful, why would he have to sacrifice his own Son in order for me to not have to suffer eternal torment? Couldn't he just not have me suffer eternal torment?

???? ;)

?? Mankind and all of it's knowledge does not die with the death of one man. I don't understand you.

I didn't say it was immortal...just behind the comprehension....white cake...stuffed with cream....wholesome goodness...mmmmmmmmmmm.....

Wait, aren't you typing this on your computer and participating in a discussion on the internet?

The pastor is full of shit:

#1: He believes there is a God.
#2: He thinks that God "punished" the people of New Orleans because America is turning away from God.

Other than that, I find the article to be amusing.

If God is all powerful, can he make Kerry Collins become a leader?

Well, the question you need to ask now....does he get more dates now because of the internet, or less dates....then you can tell if his quality of life has improved....:D

Some things, even God can't fix.....

Does God get nipple hair? If he does, does he pull it out? If he pulls it out, what does he do with it?

If it didn't improve his quality of life he wouldn't be using it. This applies to every product of science, and if everything science produced was shunned, it would cease to exist.

Maybe Kerry Collins should make a deal with the other guy then....






....Al Davis!

Why not?

Because Santa Claus has purview over Big Ten Quarterbacks.

Just go back...read what I was replying about....then you will see why.....

if you need a hint.....

Kerry Collins......


























Leader


I can't even place them in the same sentence.....

Gives it to the fat bearded woman in the carnival freak show.

Thanx much. I wondered what happened to it. I just pull mine out and eat it.

Dont forget about "butt sex" with random females, and talking badly about his "crackwhore" 1st wife(baby momma?)

Unless you're Jewish?

But what about circumcision?

Regarding the Sidetrack of the KJV and accuracy. I'll add that I've had multilple PhD's in Theology state that they felt that the New American Standard was the closest translation to the original text. I've heard one minister proclaim that the NIV was the best. My Father-in-law is fanatical about the Revised Standard(I think that's the one).

On the main topic. I'm a christian, and the kind of bible thumping or chest thumping represented by that sign Is offensive to me. It shows a callous insensitivity to those affected, and pretty much a callous disregard for human suffering. That church is declaring that New Orleans and those that live there deserved what happened. That is just unbelievably presumtuous. First of all it lays some sort of claim to knowlege that can't be possessed by man. Second of all, it shows a presumtion of righteousness on the part of those who purport these kinds of thoughts. It is the assumption that God considers the sins of others greater than our own. I'd think even an entry level theologian would recognize that error.

The people of that church should be embarrassed. I'd not be surprised if the parent organization requested they remove the sign. They might even be able to force them to do so.

It hurts?

This thread has led us to so many different fucked up tangents. :)

But, to provide an answer...

From my point of view, science does not cause death. Tools created by science most certainly do, but you don't often see wars/intolerance/whatever caused by "Your Science Is Wrong, Our Science Is Right". And that there is what religious strife has that science does not.

Insert your standard disclaimers here about how not all religious people (and not even a majority of religious folk) are belligerant fucks out to see all nonbelievers burned. But, the fact of the matter is, as Chris Rock said very simply in Dogma....People die for beliefs. People kill for beliefs.

Yes, science has created new and exciting ways for us to blow each other up. But I maintain that science has not created new and exciting REASONS for us to blow each other up. Religion has for centuries.

Apparently my husband has condemned your daily activities at sometime in the past...I suggest getting counseling to help with anger management.

Condemning, agreeing with....they are all shades of grey aren't they? :D

I disagree. I think people have used religion to rationalize violence - but the teachings of religion (generally) are to embrace peace. Shoot, the Pope was very outspoken against the war in Iraq.

Science and religion are not at odds, despite what some people say. They move in different circles, answering different questions.

ASV or the NASB are the closest to a literal translation. The NIV and the RSV are decent, easier to read translation. I prefer the NKJV because it keeps some of the KJV familar structure, updates the many archiac words and phrases that makes KJV so out of date/misunderstood, and recognizes some of the recent scholarship of translating Hebrew/Greek/Aramiac/Latin. For the most scholarly translation, you can't go wrong with the ASV/NASB.

Which questions does religion answer?

42.

It appears that I have misunderstood the definition of condemning for all these years. :)

\

So i'm guessing you havent read his whole entire catalogue of posts then? Including the hundreds he deleted before you registered? Probably 2000 of his posts involve "The Ladies Man", and actionable anal sodomy. Just calling it like i see it.

Well, a basic start might be:

How to live a good life.
Why to live a good life.
Should we fear death?

Who must you give money to on a weekly basis?

How about why does my pastor need a new car? Wouldn't Jesus just walk?

I can't wait for you to learn who this board's all time advocate of "butt sex" is. Based on what we've heard, I'd think you'd be well aware of this.

Please. That whole "Ladies Man" quote was a bad joke.

Why don't you argue the point instead of trying to slander the messanger? Or is name-calling the best you can do?

As far as anyone's life is concerned, I'm fairly certain that any major harm caused to a loved one is a huge negative.

For instance, my wife's brother's two-year-old son (the unfortunately-named Noah Rexin) died. This caused enormous suffering in our family. For them (devout Christians, actually), do you really want to make the argument that they benefitted from some sort of divine judgment?

Do you want to tell the sisters who lost family and friends to Katrina that they benefit because a significant percentage of the Christian world views the hurricane as a sign that there was too much sin in New Orleans?

As for the Holocaust, on behalf of everyone else who lost family members, do you really want to say there's a "greater good" mixed somewhere in there?

Dilbert's Garbage Man is obviously meant to be a religious figure. My response would be, "yes, I'd like to now, since all knowledge is good." Seems way too convenient that religion is a system where seeking knowledge is the root of much evil.

That seems much more like a method of controlling those who follow the religion. Don't ask about the inconsistencies and don't seek the truth on your own.


As for Franklin's last comment to me, all I'll say is it's everything I don't like about organized religion. That someone could genuinely come up with that kind of belief is proof, to me, that atheism is morally superior to religion in many ways. I feel like saying "nyah, nyah, nyah" now.

Heh, going around in circles now ;). Why do you need religion to show you how to lead a good life and be a good person? Why not come up with your own belief or idea of death? The fact that some people need this feeds my cynical side.

As an extreme example, does hating gays make you a better person and lead to a better life?

So im guessing sarcasm escapes you? MY husband has made his stance on gay sex and marriage well known, maybe you need to revisit some of his posts not I?

I don't mean this as a personal attack, only a statement of fact, which I think does address the issue of why some people here do not take franklinnoble seriously: Why should we recognize a person who has been suspended for posting porn links as any type of authority on Judeo Christian ethics and morality?

Actually, that would be Libel, since its written down. But of course, since its true, its not libel either.

Still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Because his wife is here now, so he has become a religous zealot?

This thread has gone so far in simply reinforcing everyone's views. So productive.

That's fantastic. I salute you Glengoyne :D.

Scanning through this unfortunate thread, I believe SkyDog had said it best. It truly saddens me that there are those professing the faith but choose to be so dogmatic and legalistic to others. Our Savior had some very choice words to say about the Pharisees.

Is there really any other possible outcome? Has anyone EVER been swayed in a discussion like this?

Well, if you did come up with your own belief that would still be religion in some sense.

My point was not that everybody needs to join an organized religion. I've made exactly the opposite point in other threads.

My point was that religion doesn't compete with science; it complements it. I was responding to the tangent we have since abandonded.

FN's post count is at 10,294 as of this posting. Let's see if it mysteriously drops in a race to expunge the record of incriminating evidence...

I wonder what JeffRutledge thinks of this.

I don't know. I guess I just keep hoping. And then I'm inevitably disappointed by both "sides."

She's read my post history.

I've tried to make an effort to seperate religion and organized religion in my posts, I may have slipped up here and there.

In the end, despite my ravings, I consider myself agnostic more than athiest(though I was raised athiest). Organized religion is what specifically gets under my skin. I believe there could possibly be a greater intelligence out there effecting us, more as an alien lifeform than a deity, and given enough time we could logically break it down and understand them.

How does religion not compete with science? Walking on water? A burning bush that talks? Coming back from the dead? Turning blood into wine???

At least in my opinion (and I admit it's not worth a whole lot), this post makes me feel a lot better about you Jeff. I often have my apprehension and doubt toward organized religion myself. And I certainly don't have all the answers, nor have I ever claimed to. But I would simply say that a belief in a higher power is not necessarily a bad thing. It does not make a person unintelligent, nor weak, nor brainwashed, nor any of the other words thrown around in threads like this.

And it absolutely does not mean a person is as sorely misguided as some others who spout Christianity as their motivation behind hateful acts.

If religion was really competing with science it would attempt to explain miracles; instead, it makes *no* attempt to explain miracles. It leaves explanation for science.

And science says it's impossible.

Yeah, I don't see where religion compliments science. At least not in circles of power, where the money comes from.

You're not even trying to understand what I'm saying.

What purpose does science serve?

What purpose does religion serve?

If you think the answer to those two questions is the same or even overlapping, then we have to agree to disagree. But in that case I would guess you haven't spent much time thinking about it.