Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Now watch... (Score 0) 640

Hi Raenex,
When you see a car smashed to pieces on the side of the road do you think that Ford designed their car to look like that?
Smashed car from google
From the christian view we live in a fallen world now, God created the Earth to be very good, but it is not good anymore.

Parasites, baterias, (even viruses?) can provide beneficial services to a host (e.g. humans need baterias in our guts.)
Once the curse has happen, degeneration starts to occur (a photocopy of a copy of a copy is always worst compared to the original). So once a virus, bateria, fungus, etc had a useful perpose, they many currently dont serve the original design but can only do what the degraded form allows them.

The fossils show a clear example of creation. Every kind (phylum) shows up in the fossil record perfectly without intermediates. There are no half trilobyte to bateria, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptile, reptiles to dinosour. The 55 kinds of dinosours (out of over a 1000 species) all appear fully formed. Dinosours to Birds. Archaeopteryx is a perching bird (a strange bird with teeth but still fully a bird). Monkeys to Humans, want me to list the number of hoaxs over the years? Neanderthal Man, Peeking Man, Java Man (Now called Homo Erectus), Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Cro magnon man, Lucy.

If evolution is true, we would expect to see millions of transitional fossils in the record, yet we dont any linking between the major phylum.

Do you know about all the hoaxs of what I just listed above for humans? Tell me which one you came from :-)
Cheers
Chris

Comment Re:Ah, case in point. (Score 0) 640

Well since I am a programmer and not a geologist I cant test them, But I can point to some examples.

For example of a large deposit of coal see the south of Australia http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood
This coal seam is 300kms by 300kms and up to 700m down. It's a vast deposit of coal which is highly unlikely if you expect a mash to sink just right.

Now the story of standard geology would say that animal after animal decided to walk into a black lake and have a swin until they drowned in massive numbers. (Where are the bones in the oil?). After that, for some strange reason the lake of oil is then covered with dirt without being washed away. The depth of these oil fields varies through out the world, some being 300ft and others 5700ft (1700meters) below the ground and the deepest going just below 12Kms. So you would need 12Kms of dirt to pile up (how many trillions/billions of years is that at current rates?) after 100 million years of dead things rotting away.

Now as far fetch as the idea of dead things turning into oil 12KMs down in the Earth, this is another possibility.
What if the oil is not made from dead things but are natural geochemistry in the ground.
Lets see if there is any other forms of naturally occurring hydrocarbons in the universe. There is methane & ethane on Titan, Uranus, Neptune, (Jupiter & Saturn I think as well).
So we know Hydrocarbons are on other planets & moons and you don't believe there were dinosaurs & plant life on Titan, Jupiter, etc... Why can't this chemistry be natural to the planet Earth as well?

Can you explain how oil is 12kms below the Earth surface? or how billions of animals would choose to die in the same place over and over and sudenly get covered up by sedimentary rock (water washed over it) ?

So Flood geology can explain some of the evidences found in the natural world. (note chemistry of where oil fields are being natural to earth isn't actually flood related, but the coal seams can be). I havn't read about of bones or tree trunks being buried in oil fields, but wouldn't millions of bones be in there? But there are many examples of tree trunks being petrified in coal indicating the coal in the vast coal seams are young i.e. buried all at once in a very rapid about of time

Reading that link you gave, it sounds like the ICR are kind of like assholes and they are struggling to understand everything.
Also the author of that article is still believing that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form where it would of been very quickly created in weeks after the dam broke open. (Dam of water happen after the flood), Mt St Helens within 24 hours in 1980 carved a canyon 1/40th the size of the grand canyon.

Comment Re:Putting their money where their mouth is? (Score 0) 640

Slashdot limited my replies for 24 hours so sorry for the delay.

There are 2 different and both correct genealogies of Jesus in the NT. One goes through the legal father and the other through the biological mother. Since there was a cause put on the male line Jesus could not be biologically born from the male decent, hence virgin birth. by being born as Joesph as his legal father, he gains the legal right to be a king of david, and yet still remain free of the cursed blood line.

With these concepts in view, most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).

As for the complexity and master piece involved in the genology in Mathews (written by a fisherman) see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbaJfRwYxM and part 2
Side Note: Chuck Missler is the reason why I am a YEC. He shows with his videos and radio shows the extreme complexities in the bible and the how it is a master piece.

That verse could equally be talking about "God created the heavens and the earth" vs "God didn't".

That is exactly what creation vs evolution is about. God vs No God. There is no need to believe in God if you believe God did nothing. It's all 1 big package.

the good news is that Jesus came to earth, died for our sins to take the punishment of sin, and rose again on the 3rd day. If you say God didn't create everything and death happen before man got cursed then the payment of sin by Jesus is meaningless. Death is the punishment of sin. Because of sin, death came to our world. Therefor there had to of been no death before otherwise Jesus paid for something he did not had too. Genesis is a foundation of the bible, otherwise there is no context for the events that happen in history.

Cheers
Chris

Comment Re:Putting their money where their mouth is? (Score 0) 640

Unless somehow the speed of light is magnitudes different at that part of the universe AND the other measurement methods are wrong

The distance is not in question. Again the time passes differently depending where you are. This exposition could of well of happen 169,000 years ago over there. That is not an issue when the time passed at different speeds according to the how deep in the well you are (where earth is the last out of the well).

The simulation comment is missing the point, that could be analogy to God's perspective sinces hes outside of time altogether, but this is irrelevant. We are talking about time from Earth's point. So a super nova going off 169,000 years ago would of happen on day 4 on earth while earth was still frozen in time because it was still in the white hole (black hole of the universe being stretch out).

There is not much point trying to figure out how old the universe is from the perspective of outside the universe.

I agree, this scenerio isn't that though.

FWIW I'm a Christian and in my opinion Christians who get too obsessed with creationism are actually getting close to heresy.

I take the opposite view, Christians who roll over and let people contradict the bible based purely on philosophical grounds are not doing their duty to spread the message of the gospel. Christains who agree with evolution (and big bang) are actually false teachers and God hates them, will be judge. (still saved but they wont be a happy according to judgment)

To be a Christian, believing and following Jesus is core/mandatory.

Then why not believe what he says. He gives his genology all the way back to Adam in Genesis. Hes either 100% correct and God created Adam or hes a lier so why follow him. This is why I am passionate about creationism. By rejecting Genesis, you and start to throw away any book in the bible.
As in II Peter 3: 3-5

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished

This talks about the creation vs evolution debate in our current times.

Therefore creationism (and many of the other things Christians foolishly fixate on) is not core. So any Christian claiming that it's a mandatory/core part of Christianity, would be spreading heresy. And distracting people from the things Jesus cared/taught about.

Although it's not a "core" of christianity, you will have to be schizophrenic to believe old ages and the bible at the same time. Why follow Jesus if Adam wasn't real. The genology in Mathew is incredibly complex. I'll try to find a link about it's detail ... but now I got to pick up my wife from the train station.
Cheers
Chris.

Comment Re:Now watch... (Score 0) 640

While getting a link containing more information, I found it's the nerves that are infront, not the blood cells. oops.
The blood vessels are right behind in sensor in the "choroid". If you designed the eye so that it's nerves are behind the eye, then the eye has to have the blood infront which would be as good as a hemorrhage or detached which suffers from refresh issues from bright lights.
This site talks about it much more than I could:
http://creation.com/fibre-optics-in-eye-demolish-atheistic-bad-design-argument
and http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins

The funnel shape fibre optic cable helps to filter the light bounding in the back of the eye, to quote the book "refuting evolution 2" which i have infront of me (no1 is better imo) on page 118:

One reason is that the images can be distorted by light "noise" i.e. light that is reflected several times within the eye instead of coming directly through the pupil. But the Muller cells transmit the direct light strongly to the rods and cones, while the noise leaks out. This makes the images sharper.

It then goes on to talk about how chromatic aberrations, which is the different colors splitting apart because of the lens of the eye and how the muller cells wide tops allow them to collect any separated colors and refocus them ensuring the colors are in focus. Apparently expensive cameras have multiple lens to help correct this
Cheers
Chris.

Comment Re:Putting their money where their mouth is? (Score 0) 640

Hello, Creationist here, Oil fields could well be geological in nature and not from dead corpses as commonly believed..
here and here from a quick google.

As for coal seams, the creationist believe is that the Earth had a much greater environment at creation. The creationist believe that there might of been a canopy of water over the earth before the flood which 1 - reduced X rays, 2 created greater pressure in the atmosphere. This greater pressure would make the entire earth into a hyperbolic chamber. A scientist decided to grow a tomato in a hyperbolic chamber and the tomato plant grew 14 ft high and produce 15000 tomatos which instead of being miniature where "full" size. The moved the tomato tree into a shopping center.
This perfect environment meant that there was alot more vegataion on earth. Alot more. The increase pressure also meant more water vapor which and as a hot house gas meant more heat on earth, which is why you get 300ft trees burried under 1000ft of permafrost ground in Alaska.
quick google again

I dare say in tongue and check why we hasn't done flood geology mining is we gave our money to the poor. :-P
Also I have no interest in drilling.
Also please explain what makes Flood geology good or bad about drilling? It doesn't say anything about where to drill. But I am not a geologist so I can't comment.

Comment Re:Not really (Score 0) 640

May I recommend you read the book "Dismantling the Big Bang" by Alex Williams and John Hartnett.

This book shows that creationist arguments to fit the data observed much better than the big bang which requires alot of adhoc assumptions and just so stories.
It even does an table with Occam's razor to show which is more likely.

It's a good read.
Cheers

Comment Re:Obligatory question (Score 0) 640

The "Young" universe is straw man argument for creationist.

A modern creationist would say the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old as on Earth. The Bible also gives an age for the universe (day 1&2) and the stars at day 4 about 6000 years ago.

About now you would be thinking I just contradicted myself. let me explain:
The bible also says 17 different locations that the heavens is stretched out like a tend. (Space is expanding.)
Time is not constant. The time on earth runs slower than on a satellite. GPS system must compensate for this otherwise you location will be off 400m a day.
The time dilation is very weak only a few nanoseconds i think per year. But if you approach a black hole, they say that time stops when you get deep enough into the gravity well.
So heres the creationist scenerio compared to the big bang: What happens if you have all of the universe within 500 MLyr?
You will get the entire universe inside the event horizon of a black hole!
Time stops on day 4.
After day 4, God starts to stretch out the heaven (space), as the mass of stars & galaixes move out of the event horizions, time for those stars speed up. the light from those stars will reach earth as the event horizon reduces.
So for a galaxy on the edge of the universe, you get 14billion years, on earth, maybe just 24 hours (if not weeks or a few years, we still see the universe expanding).
On Earth you get only the 6 days of creation yet billion of years for galaixies.
This means Earth would have to be near/in the center of the universe. And if you see the red shifts of galaxies they are quanitized into rings. This pattern would only be seen if we were near the center.
http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show

Comment Re:Obligatory question (Score 0) 640

I take a contrary view of this. I am familiar with what / how evolution suppose to work and we find that evolutionists are wrong based on observational science.
The evolution myth is unproven philosophical story being push onto everyone as a sacred cow.

I can't understand how knowledgeable men in evolution will be willing to believe in this as a science when science does it best to show how it is impossible. In the end I found such people when shown the flaws in thier "evidences" chooses to believe despite what they are shown. In the vain hope that someone else knows more than what they know and so their really is no God for them to get right with.


Not trying to do an emotional argument below..
I find the myth of evolution to be rather insidious, its a world view which has fast effects on the morality of a man. e.g. There is nothing wrong in killing a bag of chemicals is there? Nothing wrong in stealing, etc... Therefor this should not be part of our culture. Society will be better off without this cancer.

Tell me, since you say observational science says evolution is correct, what is the answer to the below:
  • - How did the first rock turn itself into a self replicating system. Please provide evidence for this. How did the chemicals do this? There have been several theories about this and all disproven but never reject. (I bet you will try to say the uller/gray experiment from the 50s)
  • - Any evidence of any kind (phylum) changing into another kind. E.g. Horse into Cat, Bacterias although they can adapt they are always bacterias and never turn into trilobites or spider. Flies are bread all the time, they are still only flies. btw, difference species are not what I am talking about as they can happen in a short time, e.g. Humans breading Dogs.
  • - Any evidence of information gaining in the gnome (gene duplication doesn't add information - e.g. there is a bacteria with 85000 copies of 1 gene, it has more DNA than a human but it's still a bacteria, the example of bateria gaining the ability to process citrus acid in an oxygen environment is an example of mutations damaging a functional switch in bateria, i.e the reverse of evolution (which in this scenerio is good)).

Please show these evidences in operational science.

Comment Re:Obligatory question (Score 0) 640

Creationism is based on the same facts as operation science gives uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism (Atheists) and Creationists both put their own interpretation of the facts.

Pick a subject and go look up what a creationist would believe, http://creation.com/qa#faqs

Please learn about the "other side"'s position before declaring them wrong. There are many strawman arguments atheists put up to defend your failing world view being passed of as a science.


For example:
- Natural Selection (Discovered by a creationist) - is proven by operation science, yet this does not help GTE evolution (goo to you via the zoo type of change).
NS doesn't add information - it only selects from what is there.

- Mutations - also fact - yet this destroys the creature. It doesn't build up creature. (there are a handful of good mutation by destroying functioning things, this observed best case still goes against GTE. To prove my point, walk into a necular plant. If you turn green like the hulk, I am wrong. If you die from cancers and tumors, that only proves that mutations are bad and goes against GTE evolution.

- Natural Selection again: It's doing it's best to slow down the degrade of humans, i.e. by removing the seriously damaged creatures.

So we use facts but we dont try to "spin" it like evolutionists do. We rely on observed repeatable evidence, not speculations based on your philosophy.
I do recommend reading up of the website linked above.
Cheers. Chris.

Comment Re:Now watch... (Score 0) 640

Please know your facts first instead of repeating strawman arguments.

The Human eye if a fantastically designed optical machine. It is capable of a dynamic range of 1,000,000,000 to 1. i.e. a good eye can detect 1 photo (although elsewhere I heard it is 7 photons, YMMV.) If you can design an optical device that is capable of the dynamic range of an eye and make it build itself within a woam of a woman then you will be up for a noble price.
I remember hearing that current advanced low light instruments designed by humans will be destroyed if they where given the brightness the human had to detail with. (hence they have safely cutoffs to prevent damage.) but I am not an expert in this subject.

The common argument against the human eye is that it is "wired the wrong way around". I.e. The blood vessles in the eye are in front of the optical sensors in the eye.
Yet if a human designed the eye, he would put the blood vessels behind the photo optical sensors. The problem with this is that you will be blinded by the first bright light for up to 30 mins. That car light that when by you, opps your blind for the next hour.

By having the blood in front, it allows the sensors to cool down and get oxygen more quickly. To get around the problem of the blood vessels, the designer has place between the sensors and blood vesselsOptical Fibers!. These are hour glass shaped fiber optical cables giving 99.9% of the light.

But wait theres more, not only do this design allow for rapid restoration of the sensor from light, it also improves on the sight by reducing the back scattering of light in the back of the eye which is the main cause of lose of resolution in the eye.
To sum up:
  • Atheist Designer: You will be blinded for a long time by any bright light.
  • Creator Designer: Rapid restore of sight, much improved sight by reducing the back of the eye scattering of light which would blur the image.

You pick slashdotters, which eye do you prefer? Who is an Idiotic designer and who is an Intelligent designer?


As for the ID, walk out to the street, point to the first car you see and tell me how that came about by only naturalistic processes over millions of years. Having a designer as a cause is logical. Limited "scientific answers" to just naturism is purely philosophical and not logic., (i.e. Religion). Please keep you arguments logical, and not religious. :-)

Comment Re:April fools (Score 1) 470

How do you distinguish murder from sodomy? Both are prohibited in the Old Testament--does "grace" cover the penalty for murder, and if so, why do you (presumably) feel justified in punishing murderers but not homosexuals? In your parable, how is the woman's prostitution different from murder?

If you are guilty of breaking any part of the law, you are guilty of breaking it all..

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:10

When it comes to sin, any form of sin is still sin, so both are bad, just like lying. I've heard of complaints about Christians that since they are forgiven they can get away with shit.

Yes, grace can cover every sin. When Jesus died, he said "It is finished", at that point all sins and every type of sin was satisfactory paid for in full, including murder, sodomy and lying. There is nothing needed to be added to that payment, all one person needs to do is accept that righteousness (legaleses for blameless) which is given away freely. (since we can't pay for it for what it's worth)

(I have to admit, I do quite like some of the Jesus-related bits of the Bible, that story being one of them. I don't believe Jesus himself ever condemned homosexuals.

I remember one of his speeches where he was talking to the pharisees (really stuck up religious jews)

Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. Math 10:15

That is a reference to a punishment God gave to 5 citys (two of them are S & G) for them being evil. (and very well known to by gay, God sent 2 angles to drag a man and his family out of one of the citys and the people there tried to rape the angles.)

I have a sneaking suspicion he was a radical in many ways ahead of his time who found a way to spread his message of love for one another by making it a religion that then got inevitably twisted.)

He hated "religion". He wanted people to have a direct relationship with God. Since he cleared the path with the issue of sin. Yes you could call him a radical.

Also, are you aware that you're arguing that killing gay people was alright before Christ came along? That is, if we were having this discussion 2100 years ago, you would be completely justified in killing me, according to your arguments.

And you could to me for fornication.

I'm sorry, all I see in your arguments is an elaborate rationalization--you seem to be pretty alright with gay people on the whole, certainly you're not interested in killing us, but you also want to believe your holy book, so all that's left for you is to add a bunch of twisted interpretation to the Bible that allows you to keep both views simultaneously. (I don't mean to be insulting, just direct.)

No insult taken. :-)

I'm actually a mathematician, and I see the same basic pattern you're displaying in "crank" proofs. Cranks present (false) proofs of famous problems like this "proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem. The proof will typically be very long, vague, and/or hard to follow. Many of the individual steps are typically correct, though somewhere in the mass of details there's a faulty step or assumption. If the fault is pointed out, cranks either don't believe it or they do believe it only to make an even more complicated proof along the same lines whose faulty step or assumption is even more difficult to spot. In the case I linked, the faulty step occurs just after Figure 10, where it implicitly assumes an equation to hold that's equivalent to n=2. The contradiction later derived is merely a product of this faulty assumption; the methods employed are not nearly powerful enough to solve the actual problem, so the proof is essentially unfixable. He did get the first, infinitely simpler case right, though.

As I see it, you are doing many of the same things as a crank. You've got a conclusion--gay people are pretty alright and the Bible is completely true--there's a flaw in that conclusion--the Bible condemns homosexuality very strongly--you notice the flaw and make your reasoning more complicated to avoid it--the condemnation is covered by grace in this particular case--but that only pushes the flaw further back--killing gay people was alright in the past. Next you'll either ignore the flaw by saying that killing gay people really was alright in the past (you seem too empathetic to go this route),

I would say yes before Christ died, the law stood so hence I would say up to that point it was OK to stone a gay to death. I am hypercritical if I didn't mention I am just as flawed for banging girls before I was married, we both would be in the same boat here.

I really hope I dont look like I am applying a crank, This is my understanding of the gospels, I feel it is consistent, even if you/we dont like the harsh penalties for breaking some of the Law, I dont choice what to believe or not like the latest "iGod 2.0". I just try to take all of it in, getting the whole picture. Like how any sin is an hated. Hence I can understand in my way how the bible is against gays and yet because of Jesus we can *love them still. (some people dont read past the stones in the OT)

The "Law" (from God, not man) is the only reason "Gays are wrong". If you believed in evolution then there is no morality hence even killing is ok, but I am just pointing out why up to that point I stand by it's moral code set down by an absolute reference point (God) instead of relative shifting moral point of view (man). If I was atheist then I wouldn't have an logical issue. I should point out you can be gay and christain but I assume you wouldn't be a happy person *unless your aware you can live be faith but not many have that metal ability. * If a christain believes what he does isn't wrong/sin then it isn't a sin

As for Christianity's part in persecuting gay people, why would God allow his own book to be so unclear as to allow such suffering for so long based on a misunderstanding? A single verse like, "and then Jesus said, 'Sodomy is sinful, but with my sacrifice comes grace. After I die, accept gay people as yourselves, do not persecute them, and let my father punish them (or not) as he chooses.'" It seems ludicrous.

It isn't unclear. being gay is still wrong. Him paying for it doesn't change that it's a crime (sin) against the Law.
What people do is up to them, Christians should be against the Sin, not the man. (Yes I know that can come out as hallow in the actions people do :-( ) Some people use anything to justify there actions (homophobes), it's also a hard/thin line at times to follow not being against the man. Also then the murderers/etc... would then complain Jesus didn't say about them.
Every main issue in the bible is spared out thru the bible, this is to stop "hostile jamming". e.g. If you tore out a single page in the bible, you havn't lost a critical thing. If being gay was ok it would be thru out the bible. Yet every verse paints it in a bad light.

I have not accepted that it's right, I still declare it's wrong. I can be friends with gay/les but if asked, I will still say its wrong. Just like how I can be friends with people who carried out abortions (murder), but I will still say it is wrong.

For all your faulty reasoning and rationalization, I suspect you're quite a nice person to be around, for instance.

Thank you. I am also very annoying to be around :-)

Comment Re:April fools (Score 1) 470

I'm essentially certain that you'll never convince me to be a young earth creationist, though I'm not interested in pursuing that line of thought right now anyway. I'll say I disagree with all the science you mentioned, and that I have difficulty using the word "science" to describe it since "science" usually implies that you don't know your conclusion when you start exploring, whereas as far as I'm aware young earth creationists start from the conclusion that the Bible is true. Still, thanks for mentioning your viewpoint, it's at least interesting to hear.

I'm very curious how you can take the Bible literally enough to believe in the existence of Adam and Eve, extreme longevity, and a 6000 year-old earth, while simultaneously saying

Yes the bible in the old testament probably had a law to stone them. And many nasty things have been done to them in the past because of the fear of the straight man e.g. Alan Turning in England.

The verse I quoted doesn't mince words: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." You don't seem to believe this line, "they must be put to death". Why? How can you believe other parts of your book (that to me are just as crazy) without believing this one? Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent, to selectively ignore things?

I believe that law is still there but it has been covered by grace.
From the Christain/Jew point of view, the law was given to show what is right and wrong. The the old testament gave that law and it has not been replaced.
For a Christian (follower of Jesus), We are not under the law of the old testament but are under grace. The book of Romans talks about such logic. Jesus didn't replace the law but fulfilled them. So the law still there showing right and wrong but it is covered by grace which is holding back the punishment being applied to you. Hence it is still wrong to be gay, but we still love the man not the sin.

Once in a while it's argued that, while the Leviticus law once applied, it no longer does--but then it used to be okay (and right!) to kill gay people, but it no longer is. That just trades one form of inconsistency with another, though.

As I see it, (a) either homosexuality really is so horrible it truly deserves the death penalty, or (b) I'm just a guy who likes guys instead of girls and the parts I quoted from the Bible are just plain wrong. I believe (b). I see no other, consistent options, and (a) completely contradicts my own experience, not to mention actually following it would create a worldwide genocide *far* larger than the Holocaust. As I said originally, I do not know how people who call themselves Christians can reconcile acceptance of homosexuality with the repeated, strong condemnation of it found in the Bible.

Form the Bible, The wages of sin is death. (First with the body normally naturally and then second death of soul from spirit).
With sexual sins, several of them have the punishment of death for it. e.g. rape, adultery, gay, *fornication (sex out of marriage). *disclaimer: being a hypocrite here.
God still hates any/all types of sins (not just sexual) with some assigned a physical punishment of earth.
For me, I do not accept that homosexuality as being normal. (We will just disagree here) They shouldn't be punish for being gay as grace is now in effect, but God still made the dividing line of right and wrong and that hasn't change. Just the punishment is currently *neutered. (*lol, what a word for this conversation)
I am remembering a story in the bible where Jesus walked to over to a well where a slut-hooker-lonely woman was. There were men trying to stone her, Jesus wrote something in the sand (the only time he wrote then covered up so it wasn't recorded *people think it's the names of the crowd for were the lovers of the woman) and the crowd stopped and walked away. Jesus said let he who is blameless cast the first stone. His is an example of Grace, the woman according the laws should of been stone but Jesus wouldn't let it happen. There is no difference to gays.

I was completely unable to in my own case; I don't believe it can be done. The Bible has small pieces of very good advice, but most of it is, well, crap that should just be ignored. I think most Christians unthinkingly ignore the inconvenient parts of the Bible or don't think too hard about their real beliefs, which is hideously intellectually dishonest. What a grotesque way to deal with the world.

I want to be clear once more--you say, "And many nasty things have been done to them in the past", but persecution of homosexuals occurs every day.

Yes, yes it does.

Yes, many "Christians" do not understand the bible, (I could say the same to any "religion") and many just want to pick out what they want to hear. This goes the same for atheist too.
I do not think any part of the Bible is crap but an integrated message system authored from outside domain. But that doesn't mean everything is in effect right now.

Oh I forgot to tell, one of my best friends in New Zealand, is a Les. I use to tease her by hitting on her knowing she wasn't interested. I remember when she first told her sister's husband while he, me, her and her two brothers where in a car. The sister's husband talked in a metaphor of bananas and pairs and how she like pairs and not bananas, thinking no one else in the car would understand, her two brothers of weak English didn't understand, and I said wtf. She was surprised that I understood as she was embarrassed coming out..

I saw an estimate that Iran has put to death around 4000 homosexuals in the last few decades. Being a prominent LGBT activist in some parts of the world can be very dangerous, to say nothing of the bullying a large fraction of even western gay kids go through. The problem is real and current, and the bits of the Bible I quoted are one of the root causes. You say "love the man"; that rings extremely hollow in the face of the ugly reality Christianity has helped create.

Yes, some Christians do think gays are the Antichrist. all "religions" have their stupid people. Any Islamic country is a scary place to me. For me it wouldn't be more than a week until I am pissing off someone quoting the Koran saying why don't you cut my thumbs off then behead me. Christians too suffer in islamic countries. I am sorry if it sounds hollow, I assume not many people can separate the sin from the person. E.g. and you take care and have platonic (non sexual) love with a child abuser who once rape 30 times a 5yr girl/boy? Most people dont separate the sin from the human.

Comment Re:April fools (Score 1) 470

Hello Frootloops,

Presumably, in your view God created me specially. He apparently designed me to be gay, since as far as I can tell I am innately gay (and in that sense I suppose my homosexuality is "natural" even with your definition). Around puberty when the other guys were becoming interested in girls I became interested in guys. I suspect genes conspired with conditions in my mom's womb to "flip a switch" an unusual way which only became apparent during adolescence. Why would God design me to be gay in light of the verses I quoted? It seems extremely cruel. The same argument can be made with "gay" replaced by "murderer", by the way. As far as I can tell the whole concept of being designed specially is flawed,...

The argument here is that we are not a direct creation of God. It's the same argument with someone with down symdrome or the australian soldiers exposed to nuke blast in australia for british tests in 1950s/60 where they and their children are dieing from cancers, tumors, and ever thing under the sun that could go wrong. I put that historical example in to show mutations are a bad thing to the body. (extremly rarly good but thats another topic)

In the christain belief system, The world & universe is cursed, basically alot of things a "f*cked up" (the * for any slashdot filters). Although Adam & Eve were perfect in the geans, each generation inherited the parent's mutations making them less functional. Some of these mutations can/will cause XXY, XYY kinds of people, maybe even female brain/male body types.
To put it as an analogy, God created a Ferreira, and over time the design being copied like chinese whispers, is starting to look like a golf.
Thats why the early generations (6000 years ago) lived for over 900 years, but with more generations the mistakes built up due to mutations so their live spans decreased like a half life graph, as genisicists would predict would happen. (note that the life span in the history in the bible doesn't actually prove it, it's just what would be expected given the asusmptions presented.)

So when a mutation happens it might make you gay but that it not the blueprint that God designed. (The chritian scienist view is that all living things are devolving, if you want I can talk about the logic/evidence there.)

but most people accept that conceit because of the comfort offered by believing in a benevolent all-powerful personal watchdog you can pray to and maybe get your wish from but who in any case makes everything work out for the best in your life, especially when it doesn't seem like it.

I agree, but I dont think most people think too much about it.

In my own view, evolution may be said to have designed a penis to fit in a vagina, but even supposing I wanted to use your definition of naturalness via design, that fact is not enough for me to call gay sex "unnatural" since the connotations of the word (bad; wrong; evil; confused; etc.) are so incorrect and inflammatory.

Side argument: Actually scientists dont know how sex came about because asexual reproduction is vastly fitter than sexual reproduction. For sexual reproduction, the genitals needs to be form both male and female all awhile asexual is carried on. It doesn't make sence. heres a 10 min video of arguments from a creationist site: http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=Cu0IK-EB5F4. Lets argee to disagree here, I would still call the act not natural, even if you feel it is natural. Also I would admit that "natural" is a very bad/weak definition of a word for my point of view: e.g. some rabits are gay, so would that be natural?.

The bits I quoted about sodomy being "unnatural" and a "perversion" have been used to justify the death penalty and murders. This is not an old, abstract issue either. From Wikipedia's Sodomy law article,

Yeah, homophobes have been around as long as there been homos. It does suck for them. Yes the bible in the old testament probably had a law to stone them. And many nasty things have been done to them in the past because of the fear of the straight man e.g. Alan Turning in England.

When it comes to Humans, it was M & F, it wasn't M & M. The male loves the female. I am aware that gay people view what they do as part of themselves i.e "natural" to them, but feeling that way doesn't make it natural according to the design.

By "The male loves the female", are you implying that gay couples can't love one another? I'm not sure what the point of that sentence is. I hope the idea that gay couples can't love each other is as preposterous to you as it is to me.

I want to be clear that being gay isn't just about sex (and some gay men don't even like anal sex). I personally am looking for a long-term relationship with a man who ideally would be both my lover and best friend (and hot) (as far as I can tell, this is identical to most single heterosexuals' desires). Why a man instead of a woman? For one, I want physical affection in the relationship--yes, sex, but also simple things like kissing or cuddling without them being forced. I actually had a girlfriend for a large chunk of high school, and I don't want a relationship with such a complete lack of physical affection again when there's the simple alternative of being with a man instead. Some badly reasoned, vague, and contradictory text and cultural attitudes are irrelevant to me in this regard.

I'm reminded of a proverb, "A full person does not understand the needs of the hungry". You have a world where your desires for a woman to spend your life with (or the night with) are fully accepted. I do not. You're able to rationalize away my feelings, but only because you don't feel them yourself. If it helps, imagine a world where test tube babies are society's method of procreation and heterosexual relations are viewed as "impure" (which you find remarkably vague). Most people, especially older people, agree. A few countries outright ban sex. But you feel like you do now--having sex with a woman sounds like one of the best things in the world. However, only a few percent of people are heterosexual--most are completely fine with test tube babies and don't have any desire for sex. It's a crappy situation for you to be in but what can you do? Argue once in a while that heterosexual relations really aren't "impure" and hope for society to enlighten with time.

That didn't come out as I intended, I used love for the word f*cking because I thought slashdot would filter such words. Yes Gay/Les are humans and can love deeply (pun not intended) each other. Yes it can suck to be gay, and I probably never understand that. Sorry right now I feel a little bit a of pitty that would suffer like that.

Slashdot Top Deals

Even bytes get lonely for a little bit.

Working...