winsor

but diarrhea is curable and preventable. HIV is devastating Africa in its own way, and once you have infested people, they can spread it for the rest of their days. If you put in a clean well, the entire town benefits immediately and the dangers of the past are wiped clean. All this is true, but dead is dead.

She talks funny.

The authors of the Bible could only write what they knew. Which was, of course, not much. Petito Principii - entirely circular logic wherein the conclusion depends entirely upon presumption of the premise. If you want to believe, fine. If you want to make a coherent statement, you are welcome to do so at any time. It is easily demonstrated that assembling the translations of various books that comprise any version of the 'Bible' to which you refer was done for specific reasons, none of which had anything to do with truth of any kind. Veracity was but an occasional byproduct. There are portions of the texts that are accurate, some that are wildly inaccurate, many that are heavily edited, and others that are entirely redacted. The originals of the various scriptures were written at various times and for quite different audiences. To treat the compendium as anything close to monolithic requires a true commitment to ignorance. BSBD, Winsor

The biggest issue I see is one of perspective. For example, though AIDS is a real problem, even at the height of the epidemic diarrhea was killing many more people worldwide than was AIDS. This is not to say that one should take comfort in the statistics if diagnosed with HIV, or that pumping obscene amounts of CO2 or Freon or whatever into tha atmosphere is okay, but that, from the standpoint of triage, there are other, more immediate issues. Making Global Warming a religion has the guaranteed effect of blinding people to anything they did not consider in the first place. BSBD, Winsor

My mother once noted that listening to 'The Lone Ranger' on the radio allowed one to imagine the scene being played out such that it was plausible. After transition to the silver screen, however, one was faced with the image of a guy wearing a mask wandering around town (with a faithful indian companion, no less) with nobody giving him a second glance - the whole scenario being clearly preposterous. Religion is similar to the radio version of the story. On can imagine some kind of omnipotent entity that is ultimately responsible for everything, knows if you've been naughty or nice, will ensure that everything works out for the best for everyone, and so forth. Any time neolithic to Bronze Age storytelling is subjected to the cold, harsh glare of critical evaluation, however, the whole set of concepts is revealed to be orders of magnitude more preposterous than any radio serial could ever be. A few minutes perusing data from the Hubble Space Telescope or other astronomical scanning system reveals to be patent nonsense the suggestion that everything is the result of some invisible entity of infinitely greater power and complexity, whose origins are addressed by hand-waving (if at all). Then you have the idea that some cosmic entity, for unstated reasons, has complete knowledge of every nuance of every life form ever to exist, has deemed one life form to be distinct from all others (according to said life form), and maintains the cosmic essence of each of these preferred life forms for eternity (Save the humans! Collect the whole set!). Since I have no particular recollection of existance prior to my birth, I am comfortable with the idea that I will revert to a similar state of nonexistance after death. Anything that has a beginning is likely to have an end, and I'm cool with that. There is an evolutionary basis for the susceptibility to belief in humans, which is supportive of evolution, rather than that which is believed in particular. Letting on that one is lacking in said susceptibility has historically resulted in one being removed from the gene pool, typically by crowds of true believers worked up into a murderous frenzy. Though routinely portrayed in completely the opposite fashion, for myriad reasons, believers have always been a real threat to skeptics, but skeptics have yet to pose any particular threat to believers. Back to the topic of the thread. Most people who characterize themselves as 'Christian' tend to compartmentalize, where they adhere to many of the social norms and customs associated with 'Christianity' without giving the details of the underlying mythology an awful lot of thought, but accept much of the technical realities of 'modern' existence as well. The 'faith' part of the equation addresses issues some people haven't quite figured out, kind of a 'beyond this point there be dragons!' limit to issues under consideration. Of course you have some people who observe customs and traditions, but view their source as superstitions from a bygone age, and you also have people who treat one text or another as the Absolute Truth (tm) - typos and all. Why people give lip service to the religion du jour reminds me of a long-married guy who finally came out of the closet. When asked why he had lived a 'straight' lifestyle for so long, his response was enlightening. According to him, he did not want to believe he was gay, and did everything he could to convince himself otherwise. "Who wants to be a paraiah?" There are people who 'believe' for similar reasons. When asked why, one cynic replied "it's easier." BSBD, Winsor

Nah, more like half an hour, but it was well worth the time and $20. $20? Did that include the robes? That covered tuition and fees. Postage and robes were, unfortunately, extra. That does make a lot more sense, back to square one. You have no idea about what you attempt to discredit. For me a spiritual relationship with God is not a crutch, but a way to greatly expand my perception of reality. I do enjoy reading your bombastic attempts to impose your opinions that for the most part are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. ... Boy, you sure put me in my place. Your opinions are the absolute truth, as you are so kind as to assure me.

Regardless of the axiom, you do realize that perception is not reality; right? Shhh! He's on a roll!

Nah, more like half an hour, but it was well worth the time and $20. $20? Did that include the robes? That covered tuition and fees. Postage and robes were, unfortunately, extra.

Nah, more like half an hour, but it was well worth the time and $20.

And you know precisely what about science? I simply reserve the right to call bullshit. The U.S. Government will routinely provide a medical discharge for a serviceman given to discussions with invisible people having unpopular names. If their invisible friend has a popular name, they may get promoted. Unfortunately, 'Jesus' and 'Harvey' look identical, so conversing with either qualifies one as equally mentally ill. Religion may be a socially acceptable form of psychosis, but nuts is nuts. The emotional disorder whereby one is unable to face existance without some kind of cosmic security blanket does appear to be hardwired to some extent. Woody Allen's beliefs in the movie "Sleeper" amounted to 'Sex and Death,' which translates to 'from whence do we come and to where do we go' -fundamental insecurities upon which religion feeds. Come to think of it, he's both crazy as hell (forgive the clinical terminology) and jewish, so there may be something to that. BSBD, Winsor

For one thing, I am a Doctor of Divinity - Diploma and everything. Nope, I thought the concept of a deity was complete nonsense from the git-go. Not terribly interesting (or time consuming or expensive) - look up the Universal Life Church. The only real change I have experienced is that I attributed religious conviction to stupidity when I was eight years old, but have since concluded that it is a manifestation of mental illness. People who have two-way conversations with invisible people are barking mad. You are free to investigate the grotty details as you see fit. So far as you could tell. Your batting average is goose eggs from where I sit. Belief is a form of stupidity, displayed by emotional cripples and/or the truly stupid. I do not respect the choice to live one's life on the basis of make-believe, and never did. BSBD, Winsor

And, most people who humble themselves at the foot of the cross of Christ and, those who invite Him to come into their heart find reason and experience to confirm His existence. It is just a matter of choice. If you are smart enough and brave enough why ask for help? I for one, as well as several others posting here, know we need help. Sanity in an asylum is not an asset. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is not a king - he is a paraiah.

Very impressive! Don't you ever wonder if your initial feelings that led you on such an intense search for God was real, and that where you have ended up was just a wrong turn along the way? ... Nope, I thought the concept of a deity was complete nonsense from the git-go. I am not very good at make-believe. The only real change I have experienced is that I attributed religious conviction to stupidity when I was eight years old, but have since concluded that it is a manifestation of mental illness. While I disapprove of picking on the kids on the short bus, I can see no harm in pointing out that someone barking at the moon is way fucked up. Again, mental illness is not a crime so one has the right to be fucked up, but there is no need to exercise such a right. BSBD, Winsor

The Atlantic has an interesting take on the ruling.

Recall that Nixon left office not for orchestrating the Watergate break-in, but for participating in the cover-up. Impeachment proceedings against Clinton were not the result of getting a honkjob, but for denying it under oath. "Oh! What a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive!," and so forth. BSBD, Winsor

Other than an unbelievable ration of arrogance what credentials could you possibly possess that would enable you to define spiritual reality? I have yet to read anything you have posted that would give the slightest inkling you have any clue of what you are trying to discredit . ... I went to school. For one thing, I am a Doctor of Divinity - Diploma and everything. For another thing, I have taken (and passed) many, many courses in Logic and Stochastic Processes/Probability and Statistics. The key point - work with me here - is that, with two exclusive claims, both can be false. This is to say that, given two claims of veracity where only one of which can be true, neither of them must be true. Extend this concept to 1,000 plus exclusive claims. Here, if one of these claims is true, the other 999 are necessarily false. However, the fact that 999 of these 1,000 claims is patently false not only does not guarantee the remaining claim is true; the remaining claim is a good 99.9% likely to be false as well. To significant digits, that is close enough to 100% for my liking. Thus, if someone claims to have an invisible friend, dollars to donuts says they're full of shit. IOW, I'm not saying I'm right, but there is a vanishingly small likelihood that you're anything close to right. Not that it matters. You have the right to be wrong, and it is up to you how vigorously you should exercise said right. BSBD, Winsor

Jungian.

After the election of a President that failed to provide a legitimate birth certificate, and was recently discovered by an undercover agent that he was indeed, not born in the US, but born in Kenya, and nothing was even thought of it, I can honestly say that the people of America seem to not give a rats ars about the Constitution. BHO Sr. was quietly ejected from Harvard for polygamy. While in Hawaii, he had impregnated & briefly married an 18 YO coed, but was reported by reputable sources to already have a minimum of one more wife back home in Kenya. The likelihood that a pair of college students would have coughed up the bucks necessary to fly halfway around the world, with one of them terribly pregnant, to bring the corn-fed Kansas cutie into contact with the home-town honey does not wash. If you think the reception would have been all smiles, think again. Should you wish to disapprove of our current CIC, you would do better to focus on what he really is or is not. Resorting to inane conspiracy theories is even more of a waste of time. BSBD, Winsor

The Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures are unrelated texts. There is much, much less continuity between the two than between "Gone With the Wind" and "Scarlett," and their combined packaging infringes upon the copyright of the former. All gods are equally valid. If you have 1,000 gods, each of whose adherents claim "the other gods are all false!," each is making an equally correct observation. BSBD, Winsor

Ya, like you all are a bunch of exhaustive scholars... Care to compare scholarly credentials? Of course, I never finished High School... Appearances are deceiving, eh? Could it be that there are some among us who have read every word of the Hebrew Scriptures, Christian Scriptures, the Koran, the Book of Mormon and Dianetics, and find much to be desired in any of them from the standpoint of veracity? The Greek Myths have easily as solid an historical basis as the bulk of the above mentioned texts, and are much more entertaining as well. BSBD, Winsor

...and most are non believers...kinda a conflict of interest, dontcha think? Not hardly - most people who do their homework thoroughly come to the conclusion that there is nothing to believe. Belief is the realm of ignorance by its very nature. BSBD, Winsor

And zip for source code.

When are you guyz gonna realize that scripture has all the angles covered? "But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you." There is nothing you guys can throw at us for which we haven't been primed. And thus a more definitive Disease of Denial has never existed.

I knew I could get you to say it. The ultimate Come To Jesus Moment, Ron. Hey, Jesus was a long haired hippie liberal who despised the rich, told us to pay our taxes, and fed the poor. Kind of exact opposite of Ron and the rest of the "Christian" right. According to accounts attributed to "Matthew" and "Luke," he was the firstborn son of the House of David and therefore royalty - not just nobility. His actions were hardly those of one dispossessed, but are more in line with an hereditary ruler following such recommendations as found in "The Prince." The highly redacted European/Pagan accounts reflect the worldview of their society (Roman) at the time, but do not jibe in the least with the perspective of anyone with a Hebrew following in Judea in the First Century. The European account is beyond revisionist. BSBD, Winsor

Pretty simple - if, for example, a tourist is here legally from Yokohama, constitutional safeguards that are not specific to U.S. citizens still apply.