Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Adam (Score 1) 512

by bobbied (#49142881) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

Yea, it was really when the apple was USED that things went badly for Adam.. "

He got thrown out of the garden and the life of ease where he was in charge and everything he needed was provided, where there was no sickness or death and into a world where he had to toil in the fields to eat, endure sickness to eventually die in a world ruled by another.

So where the fruit was "good for food" it was a bad idea to use it as such... "

Comment: Re:Kinda stupid since (Score 1) 512

by bobbied (#49142787) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

The point of all religion is power.

Not exactly...Well, not ALL of them anyway.

Generally Fundamental Evangelical Christians teach humility and service to others and subscribe to the view that others are more important than me. That's exactly opposite to what you claim "ALL" religion is.

Quit focusing on the supposed virtues that are "extolled" and look at things which are fundamentally more important than surface teachings.

Surface teachings... Sir, I believe you are *confused* about the level of the teacher being quoted. This was a quote from THE teacher, head honcho, primary authority etc. Others may assume to speak for him, but if what they do or say conflicts with what HE did or said, they don't represent Him accurately. HE is teaching that if you want to be first, you must serve others. What's more HE demonstrated this by taking on the role of a servant multiple times, and it is His example we look too. So if somebody is telling you to submit to them and their teaching they are NOT students of or followers of this same teacher.

1. Look at the power-structure within the group organization. Typically each church or congregation has a few leader which tells everyone else what to believe, how to behave and promotes a very specific culture. This is structure is all about power and dominance. It is not egalitarian.

That may be typical, but I can assure you it is NOT universal. The person who you would consider to be "in charge" in the church (Head Pastor/Elder) I go to is often heard to say "Don't take MY word for it! Go figure out what it means to you on your own. I want you to be INDEPENDANT seekers of truth!" Which is not what you are describing. This person does teach, but the students are expected to be independently looking at things themselves and making up their own minds not just swallowing the opinions of the teacher.

2. Look at what a person has to believe about themselves in order to be a Fundamental Evangelical Christian. The fundamental premise is that we are inherently tainted by sin. This is a direct attack on the self-esteem of the individual in order to dominate how they think, reason, and move through the world. You are fed a story about how bad you are and how much you must be saved. This is tremendously about thought-control. Power.

I really don't agree with you on this part. Where sin is indeed inborn and we earn punishment for sin, the story does NOT end there. You also misunderstand the means of salvation to be somehow feeling sorry enough or do enough good to meet some kind of standard. This is incorrect thinking, which is inconsistent with both the historical tenants of Christianity and with the declarations of the Apostle Paul who said: "The wages of sin is death" (you got that part, but you miss the next part) "But the free gift of God is Eternal life though Jesus Christ our lord." So salvation is not earned, it is free. And something given for free does not require the receiver to pay by word, deed or even cash to receive it so it cannot be about what you claim, control or power.

Further, this free gift which comes at no cost to me and you was actually purchased for us at GREAT cost. Legally, death is the required payment for sin, any sin, so the free gift being offered cost the purchaser death, and not just any death, but the death of the sinless. What would motivate someone to die for me? After all, I am a sinner, worthy of death.

Which leads me to my objection to your "self esteem" statement. What kind of value must I have if someone was willing to pay such a high price for me? You see, it's like I was a slave, old and weary, having nothing left and somebody comes up to my owner and offers to trade for my freedom. I know I'm worthless, but how does that slave feel when this somebody offers to become a slave and take my place? That's not a blow to one's self esteem. Neither is Christianity a blow to self esteem. Somebody paid MY debt for me, they must care about me! How would that make YOU feel? Bad about yourself? I don't think so.

The focus on the virtues is a distraction in order to infect you with a debilitating self-belief and instill a willingness to participate in the herd of followers.

This is a common misconception. There is no "focus on virtue". I have NO virtue of my own to offer, nor can I conger up enough virtue by doing good things to be worthy of more than just death. "All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." You and I are both part of the all. We cannot do anything to become worth of the previously mentioned free gift we just have to accept it. The Apostle Pal put it this way: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." It's not about trying to be good, or doing the right things, it's about the acceptance of the free gift so I don't get what I've ALREADY earned by my sin (which is death as you will recall from before).

As I 've sad before, free is free, and that precludes this idea of yours that all churches/religion is about power. Fundamental Evangelical Christians (which is not a denomination or a church but a description of what is believed) is therefor NOT what you claim all religion is.

Comment: Re:Kinda stupid since (Score 1, Informative) 512

by bobbied (#49139815) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

The point of all religion is power.

Not exactly...Well, not ALL of them anyway.

Generally Fundamental Evangelical Christians teach humility and service to others and subscribe to the view that others are more important than me. That's exactly opposite to what you claim "ALL" religion is.

To Quote Christ on this: "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

So if you would mind allowing for a few exceptions to the "ALL" part and say "MOST" instead I think your sentiment would be more accurate.

Comment: Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent (Score 1) 431

by bobbied (#49132499) Attached to: Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline Bill

Not to try and split hairs about this.... Ok.. I am...

You cannot define the "tea party" by anything but the OFFICAL platform of the organization. It may be filled with people who advocate for open carry rights (and it is) but that does NOT mean that the Tea Party is involved with such efforts.

It would be like equating the democratic party with opposition to the civil rights act, after all Strom Thurmond (and others) strongly opposed the passage of these laws. Such conclusions would NOT be fair, though members of the party still have the same position today. (Yes, they do, trust me, I know some...)

So, be fair here and recognize that it's not the "Tea Party" you are thinking about for some of this stuff you (and others) falsely say is part of the group. Guilt by association is an invalid approach, just like it would be unfair to judge Obama by what his friends (past and present) may have said and done.

Comment: Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent (Score 1) 431

by bobbied (#49132317) Attached to: Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline Bill

Calling the Tea Party into account for perceived logical failings of individuals who may support the Tea Party is a failure of logic born of simple intellectual laziness at best or politically biased punditry (aka lying) at worse. You have to judge by the official platform of the group, by their official contacts, and not by what somebody wants to say they stand for.

So, where you frown on people who dis Obama for things he's not done or voiced support for directly or though his representatives, you must be fair and use the same standards for those who would dis the Tea Party. Both sides have their dishonest politically biased brokers, both sides have their nutcases who fall for the rhetoric of the former. The trick is to recognize who's who and try to stay out of both groups...

Comment: Re:Why Not? (Score 1) 318

by bobbied (#49129851) Attached to: Use Astrology To Save Britain's Health System, Says MP

And he was one at the time, a Republican who was governor of a largely democratic state...

But all this brew-ha-ha overlooks the fact that what Romney signed was a STATE law, which IMHO is the correct venue for laws like this. The Federal government has little business being involved in such things constitutionally, unless you use a pretty contrived interpretation of the commerce clause...

So can we dispense with this "it was a republican idea" canard. It wasn't and republicans oppose it almost universally now as they did then.

Comment: Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent (Score 1) 431

by bobbied (#49127821) Attached to: Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline Bill

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party at it's core is about government spending and taxes and limiting both to the minimum possible by scaling back government's involvement in our everyday lives, not expanding it. ... But there is nothing in that fundamental difference of opinion that has anything to do with race.

And yet when a Republican was in office, and was vastly expanding the government for a brand new prescription drug program, they had no problem with it? They only start complaining when the Black Democrat takes office? So no, whatever their real problem is, it clearly isn't about government expansion. It has something to do with the current occupant of the White House.


You didn't read my post eh? The Tea Party opposed Bush's expansion of government, in fact it was largely about opposing the abuses of the Republican party of it's day. Come on, it was officially started in 2007, before Obama was the democratic nominee in 2008 obsessively to support Ran (or was it Ron?) Paul in their attempt to get the nomination from the Republican party...

You do remember the "split republican party" story line of the past right? WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT WAS ABOUT? Hint: The Tea Party was pushing the Republican party to the right by organizing the Ultra-right and the "establishment" was having nothing of it...

So the Tea Party is NOT the Republican Party persay, but a collation of people who are generally Republicans who are dissatisfied with large government and high taxes.

Comment: Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent (Score 1) 431

by bobbied (#49127629) Attached to: Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline Bill

Well.... There are nuts scattered all around...

Where I understand the frustration with Obama and his policies, there ARE some who push a bit too far on how to resolve the differences of opinion. I generally don't entertain such nonsense...

Problem though, some of the charges you bring up are factually true... For instance, his agenda is decidedly socialist leaning and the teachings of his mentors are decidedly un-American and Obama hasn't really distanced himself from these people. Some tend to make this kind of thing into more than it really is, but the media pundits also tend to sensationalize the issues raised because it brings in viewers and sells advertising.

However, the fact here is the Tea Party officially doesn't give voice to the things you object too, even if *some* of it's members do. You should be careful to not get confused by the media reporting that blurs the distinction between what the Tea Party officially is and what some person who may be a member says about something which is not a Tea Party position.

As for the criticisms against Obama, I agree that the racist part is rare.

Yet, it comes up way to often as a critique of those who oppose Obama on ideological grounds, such as the Tea Party. Really it's a political trick to "play the race card" as Bill Clinton calls it, to attempt to control the debate. How does one prove the racist claim is in fact not true? It's really an Ad Hominem for about 99.99% of the times it is used. Problem is people fall for the argument and we get this popular belief that the Tea Party is racist. It's not, it's just political spin to say so.

There are new messages.