prev <-> next
[2005-09-19 15:18:23] - dave: uhhh, how do they do a listing of jesus's geneology from adam without listing mary? - pierce
[2005-09-19 15:17:47] - Pierce: Right, but you have the exact same emotions invested in them which means there is no emotional difference between the two choices which I think makes it hard to have emotions or feelings about which choice is made. -Paul
[2005-09-19 15:17:20] - paul: but you're still wrong. - pierce
[2005-09-19 15:17:09] - paul: okay, we're talking about the same thing. - pierce
[2005-09-19 15:16:24] - a: Which means you have no emotions or feelings seperating the two of them in your mind. -Paul
[2005-09-19 15:16:19] - Paul: hence my point. you favor both situations. it's not that you have no emotion invested in them. - pierce
[2005-09-19 15:16:10] - pierce: what's even more notable is that neither one of them were Jews / Israelites -dave
[2005-09-19 15:15:53] - a: I know, but if means you don't favor one over the other. -paul
[2005-09-19 15:15:26] - pierce: actually, mary isn't one of them. they are Ruth and Rahab -dave
[2005-09-19 15:15:15] - Pierce: In such a situation, I would say that favoring both the exact same way works out to the same thing as saying you don't have any emotions or feelings differentiating the two options in your mind. -Paul
[2005-09-19 15:15:02] - amy: well, I think in general most things apply to both men and women, but there are spots where it differentiates -dave
[2005-09-19 15:14:38] - paul: just because you like/love two things equally, doesn't mean that you don't care about either thing. ~a
[2005-09-19 15:14:37] - dave: I assume one of them is Mary... who is the other? - pierce
[2005-09-19 15:14:05] - Pierce: We're not talking about "more-or-less equivalent", though. We're talking about a situation where you literally would have no sense of disappointment at all if one option was chosen over another. To me, that means that you favor both options the exact same way. -Paul
[2005-09-19 15:13:42] - amy: it's just the men. feel free to go out and murder to your heart's content with my blessing. - god
[2005-09-19 15:13:25] - amy: ahhh, yes, it matters what women do. The book of Esther is all about a woman. Also, two women made it into the listing of Jesus' geneology from Adam -dave
[2005-09-19 15:12:27] - sam: ah, so there were different standards created for men and for women. thanks for link. -amy
[2005-09-19 15:12:15] - sam: a lot of that is open to interpretation though - like the Bible also says that women should always wear headcoverings I think -dave
[2005-09-19 15:12:05] - dave: well that, but my conclusion was more like -- does it matter what women do, or is it only mens' actions that are judged? -amy
[2005-09-19 15:10:07] - amy: read the bottom paragraph. http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202;&version=31; -sam
[2005-09-19 15:09:11] - Paul: I love both my parents, but the fact that I love both of them to a more-or-less equivalent extent does not mean I have no emotion for either of them. - pierce
[2005-09-19 15:05:39] - Amy: yeah, the Bible is very sexist, if that is what you're saying -dave
[2005-09-19 14:57:46] - Amy: I mostly agree, but I would also say you can be disappointed without being disappointed in the situation as a whole. For instance, you might love the person your kid marries but you might be disappointed that he isn't a doctor or something. -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:57:02] - See this is what i'm talking about: "If a man marries his sister... he has dishonored his sister." It seems all to do with what the man does as if the women are put there to be man's desire, man's sister, man's wife, whatever. #16 is the only one i've scrolled to so far that addresses the actions of women as being something to judge. -amy
[2005-09-19 14:55:03] - Paul: you can have diff. feelings about diff. circumstances, none of which are disappointment. therefore you can feel differently, and thus care, without being disappointed in any situation. ("imho") -amy
[2005-09-19 14:53:43] - oops i meant: "assume that people in general are male." -amy
[2005-09-19 14:53:21] - Pierce: But if you aren't disappointed or upset in the slightest (which I think were close to Adrian's exact words), then that would seem to mean to me that you feel the exact same way about both possibilities and therefore you have essentially no emotions or feelings supporting either side.-Paul
[2005-09-19 14:53:20] - i guess i am just curious because i was wondering if the bible in general is addressing men or all people. in that excerpt it does not seem to be addressing women. -amy
[2005-09-19 14:52:49] - amy: go here. http://biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=20&version=31 -sam
[2005-09-19 14:52:40] - language seems to either assume that people in general or male, or use the same pronouns to refer to men and to people, so it is unclear which they mean. but in that excerpt (in that translation), i think it is clear that "one" does not refer to women. -amy
[2005-09-19 14:50:37] - pierce: ahh, good point -amy
[2005-09-19 14:50:24] - from the excerpt that sam cited, it seems that it is really just addressing men. "as one lies with a woman" -- one seems to be referring to men. -amy
[2005-09-19 14:50:18] - amy: I'm not sure that distinction means the same thing in English as it would have in the original languages. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:49:25] - just curious, because i don't know that much about the bible: in general does it address men or people? -amy
[2005-09-19 14:46:45] - paul: i won't be dissapointed either way. i just want to know about him/her. i'd like to meet him/her and that's not an unreasonable request. ~a
[2005-09-19 14:45:48] - *differently valued - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:44:51] - Paul: I don't think that's consistent with what you've said. I do have an emotion/feeling supporting both possiblities. Just that I don't value one set of emotions or feelings over the other. So you see it as having a differently values set of emotions depending on the outcome. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:44:43] - well in either case it looks like lesbians are still safe ... which is curious. - mig
[2005-09-19 14:43:41] - mig: Leviticus 20:13 = "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." -sam
[2005-09-19 14:43:40] - mig: as far as I understand it, all sexual activities other than straight vaginal intercourse are considered sodomy. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:43:39] - Pierce: Which is fine with me, I define it as needing to have some sort of emotion or feeling supporting it and not just meaning that you want to know something. -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:42:09] - dave: if that's the case then i don't see how you can actually say that homosexuality is forbidden by the bible. Love can exist between two men with other sexual activites as long as they avoid sodomy, then in a biblical sense, that would be ok. - mig
[2005-09-19 14:39:47] - paul: and that's why the dictionary definition is useless... it's a complex emotion that means different things to different people. I define it such that if I would want to know, then I care. For the record. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:39:45] - a: What if your kid didn't answer your questions and said that it shouldn't matter? -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:38:00] - Pierce: Understood. That's why I make the difference between wanting to know and caring. You want to know if you have money or property but if both situations are somehow equally positive or negative, I don't think you can really care which one you are in. -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:37:51] - paul: yes i would ask these things. i'd also probably like to meet him/her. ~a
[2005-09-19 14:37:46] - pierce: ahh, I see. -dave
[2005-09-19 14:36:55] - dave: the difference is that you can be a man attracted to men without doing anything about your attraction. Of course, some doctrines (like catholic) say that if you have the lust in your heart then you've committed the sin, but not every denomination believes that. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:35:51] - mig: I forget what passage is interpreted as a prohibition of lesbianism, but many christians I know accept that that one's really a logical stretch. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:35:20] - mig: look up Leviticus 20:13. -sam
[2005-09-19 14:35:00] - mig: I think just sodomy, because it doesn't say anything about lesbians? -dave
[2005-09-19 14:34:47] - mig: hmm, what's the difference? -dave
[2005-09-19 14:34:30] - Paul: do you have boardwalk? do you have $100 cash? did you just roll doubles? these differences matter to you, thus you care about them, but they don't necessarily connote a "better" or "worse" situation. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:33:13] - mig: it's "laying with a man as with a woman". Also, there's a separate implication that God punished one group of people because the men were "effeminate". - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:32:38] - a: You care about what? That he/she is Indian or not? Why do you care about that? Would you ask what color their eyes are? How tall they are? -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:32:28] - sam: hence the interpretive stuff. "kill" versus "murder" is a result of varying (valid) translations of the original language. Not to mention that the original language version was written by someone who may have had an editorial influence. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:31:43] - dave: is it homosexuality or sodomy that is explicitly condemned? - mig
[2005-09-19 14:31:15] - pierce: it depends on the ersion of the bible. some versions say "thou shall not kill." -sam
[2005-09-19 14:31:15] - sam: and a christian is anyone who accepts jesus as their savior and repents their sins. but if they get to define "sins" to whatever they want, then they're not repenting what jesus wants them to repent. thus, you have to accept the True Word of what constitutes a "sin", as well. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:30:49] - Pierce: Right, but the sentiment would presumably have to be exactly the same and nullify each other or else he would have some sort of net feeling one way or the other. -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:30:05] - sam: there's that interpretive stuff again. The bible doesn't strictly say that killing is wrong, it says that murder is wrong. Killing in the name of God is righteous, therefore not murder q.e.d. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:29:14] - Paul: we're not talking about a lack of sentiment, we're talking about a lack of differential sentiment. Adrian would (presumably) be happy about either an Indian or a non-Indian spouse, so he's not sentimentless. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:28:47] - dave: bible also says killing is wrong. but god allows joshua's army to annihilate the unbelievers. -sam
[2005-09-19 14:27:24] - pierce: well, I think it's probably because it's flat out stated in the Bible that being gay is wrong (ironically says nothing about lesbians) -dave
[2005-09-19 14:27:22] - paul: probably not. and because i care. ~a
[2005-09-19 14:26:50] - dave: i thought christian was anyone who accepted jesus into their lives and repented their sins. -sam
[2005-09-19 14:26:43] - dave: I agree. That's why arguments of definition are basically meaningless in circumstances like these. But then, why is gay-friendliness a notable version of the definitions debate? Why is it a more notable version than the church-service-type debate? I don't think it's because it's a more significant issue, but rather that it feeds of other biases. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:24:49] - pierce: like believing murder, lying, cheating, etc is wrong is not a core tenet of christianity, so technically, you could believe those are ok and still probably be a christian hypothetically. But people would scratch their heads and be like, how can you believe that and still be a christian? -dave
[2005-09-19 14:24:49] - \title is anyone working?
[2005-09-19 14:23:54] - I mean, it seems like we're talking about a complete lack of negative or positive sentiment on either side, almost like a robot. -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:23:53] - pierce: well, it certainly is very subjective. I mean, say that a church believed the 2-3 core christian assumptions, but then believed everything else was ok. Would they be christian? Technically yes, but people would say, how could they be christian and believe that? -dave
[2005-09-19 14:22:37] - Pierce: Right, and in that case I would say you would want to know which position you are in but you really don't care. I think to me, caring requires that you actually have some sort of net positive or negative feeling to one side or the other. -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:20:13] - Paul: not true. you are going to act differently based on which position you're in. If you have lots of property, you're going to try to maximize its likely payoff. If you have lots of cash, you're going to try to obtain property. Thus, you have to care about your position, but you don't have to judge one as superior to the other. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:18:11] - After all, if you don't have negative or positive feelings, then how can you say you care at all? Caring seems to require having some non-neutral feelings (does such a thing even exist?). -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:17:56] - dave: the point I'm trying to get at is that I don't think gay-friendly versus gay-unfriendly is any more important in a debate of "christianness" than the differences of how to appropriately run a church service. It's only a notable debate because of people's biases outside of their religious beliefs. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:17:21] - Pierce: As long as you truly don't have any positive or negative feelings either way (in terms of which position you are in), I would say it's also reasonable to say you don't care, though. -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:15:55] - dave: but there are doctrinal differences of faith between baptists and episcopalians, no? why are those differences not considered dealbreakers in "christianness" by the other denomination? - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:15:20] - pierce: yeah, you could say that. I didn't say that I think they were or weren't christian, just that there is debate on whether they are or aren't -dave
[2005-09-19 14:14:21] - pierce: well, there is a debate among say baptists and presbytarians on whether pentecostals are christians -dave
[2005-09-19 14:14:01] - paul: they are equivalent, but not equal. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:13:46] - Paul: imagine you're halfway through a game of Monopoly. You have $2,000 net worth of property (factoring in the statistical likely gains from that property). Your opponent has $2,000 cash. You both have the same statistical likelihood of winning. I would care which position I was in (property or cash), but I would not consider one better than the other. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:11:19] - I'm assuming here that the reason gay-friendly denominations are considered unchristian is because of the allegation that they are willingly departing from Christ's True Word; when in fact, I see it as simply a different interpretation of the True Word, much as the other doctrinal differences are the results of different interpretations. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:10:19] - pierce: there is debate because the Bible, or direct revelation from God (if you somehow get that) is always interpreted. -dave
[2005-09-19 14:10:18] - a: Are the positive feelings the exact same? And why would you ask if the spouse is Indian? -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:09:08] - or maybe I'm incorrect on a point here... do baptists believe that episcopalians are not christians, and vice-versa? - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:08:38] - dave: then I understood you correctly the first time. Why is there some significant level of debate over the "christianness" of those denominations, but not over the other distinctions between denominations. Isn't every doctrinal difference, no matter how small, perceived as a departure from Christ's True Word, and thus unchristian? - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:07:21] - paul: sorry i didn't see your question before i asked a different question. yes is the answer to your question (What if you were blind and couldn't tell if your child's spouse was Indian or not? Would you ask him/her?). ~a
[2005-09-19 14:07:00] - pierce: yeah, I can't seem to spell it out too well, hehe -dave
[2005-09-19 14:06:17] - pierce: some denominations believe homosexuality is ok. There is debate on whether those denominations are christian -dave
[2005-09-19 14:05:34] - dave: I got a little bit munged by the grammar there... can you rephrase? - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:04:52] - pierce: sorry, I said it badly. I mean that the denominations that believe homosexuality are ok have been debated whether those denominations are christian or not -dave
[2005-09-19 14:04:22] - paul: what if i have positive feelings about both ways something turns out? ~a
[2005-09-19 14:04:21] - Dave: Thank you. I can't say the same for you since I haven't been following your discussion at all, though.
-Paul[2005-09-19 14:04:18] - The way I see it, there are two blanket doctrines: Jesus is divine, and you should follow his word. Presumably the conflict about gay-friendly christians is that they're not accepting one particular piece of Jesus's word, but why is that one piece more notable than the other differences between the Christian sects? - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:04:06] - a: well, God makes plenty of promises in the Bible, so test one out. Or heck, you could die and see if there was an after-life. -dave
[2005-09-19 14:03:53] - dave: why is the issue of homosexuality in particular a debate over whether people are "christian" or not? - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:03:51] - a: What if you were blind and couldn't tell if your child's spouse was Indian or not? Would you ask him/her? -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:03:12] - paul: <nod> yeah, I understand your point -dave
[2005-09-19 14:03:08] - what is disprovable about christianity? ~a
[2005-09-19 14:02:06] - a: one could say the same of christianity. -dave
[2005-09-19 14:01:59] - Pierce: I somewhat agree, which is why I made the point a while ago that this is probably semantical. However, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to state that if Adrian truly does not have positive or negative feelings either way towards something, he doesn't care how it turns out. -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:01:48] - paul: "To be concerned or interested" ~a
[2005-09-19 14:01:21] - a: yes, but if you haven't tested those characteristics for yourself, then you are being a dependent thinker. Most of the stuff is taken for granted because it's internally consistent and logical, but it's still derived from someone else's word. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:01:04] - pierce: <nod> ok, looks like I agree with you but disagree with adrian. -dave
[2005-09-19 14:00:54] - a: Objecting or minding? Liking or having an attachment? Having a wish or being inclined? -Paul
[2005-09-19 14:00:25] - dave: just as with my example of my own knowledge of physics, I think mathematics are dependent thinking. - pierce
[2005-09-19 14:00:03] - dave: mathamatical assumptions (at least through physics) are used to explain observable and disprovable charateristics about the world. ~a
[2005-09-19 13:59:08] - a: yes. There's raging debate about it in the church. some religions (whether they are actually christian is also of debate) accept homosexuals -dave
[2005-09-19 13:58:05] - pierce: Yeah, I just think the number of assumptions you make does not necessarily have anything to do with dependent / independent thinking. Like math has a bunch of assumptions, right? So a mathematician is more of a dependent thinker than someone who doesn't know anything about it? -dave
[2005-09-19 13:57:51] - paul: which definition agrees with you? they all seem to agree with me. i'm concerned. i'm interested. ~a
[2005-09-19 13:57:41] - Paul: you can't define the nature of something as complex as "caring" with a dictionary definition. For the sake of brevity, it's simplistic to a fault. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:57:05] - dave: if god told you that homosexuality was a SIN, you would still look at the issue logically? ~a
[2005-09-19 13:56:39] - a: free choice etc? Besides, most Christians don't do what God tells them a lot of the time. -dave
[2005-09-19 13:56:27] - essentially, I'm saying that occam's razor makes atheism less dependent. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:56:12] - paul: i am (hypothetically) concerned AND interested. ~a
[2005-09-19 13:56:02] - a: If you won't be disappointed if the spouse is/isn't Indian, then I would say that you don't care whether or not the spouse is Indian. -Paul
[2005-09-19 13:55:47] - dave: and that one assumption, the belief in Him, is not more or less dependent than atheism in and of itself (IMO). As of that one belief, you are neck-and-neck with an atheist in dependency. But whereas most atheists stop their assumptions there, you (presumably) assume a number of more specific details, like Jesus's miracles, his divine self, etc. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:55:47] - a: yes -dave
[2005-09-19 13:55:16] - a: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=care I think the dictionary agrees with me. I'm looking at the verb definitions. -Paul
[2005-09-19 13:55:14] - dave: so if god told you to go back to post-graduate school (or whatever), then you would consider NOT doing it? ~a
[2005-09-19 13:54:22] - a: I don't think anyone ever said that wasn't the case? -dave
[2005-09-19 13:54:00] - paul: then what about the indian spouse example? do you think i actually DON'T care about who the spouse will be just because i won't be disappointed if the spouse is/isn't indian? ~a
[2005-09-19 13:52:49] - Pierce: I think I understand, I guess I just don't necessarily agree. -Paul
[2005-09-19 13:52:35] - a: I think if you do not prefer one choice over the other, then it's hard to argue that you care about the choice instead of just want to know what choice is made. At least that's how I see things. -Paul
[2005-09-19 13:52:30] - pierce: to think for yourself, you have to consider logically what god tells you and still come up with your own answers. ~a
[2005-09-19 13:51:54] - pierce: i would have answered "no". you're still being a dependent thinker. ~a
[2005-09-19 13:51:24] - pierce: because I know it is true for me, that everything I learned about Christianity from my parents et. al. was fine and dandy, but it took me personally seeing God work in my life before I could really believe in Him -dave
[2005-09-19 13:50:37] - dave: yes; or at least, that they are dependent on a more legitimate authority. But probably just "yes". - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:50:01] - paul: I think adrian is saying that you don't have to be judgemental about a decision in order to care about its outcome. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:49:42] - pierce: ahhh. So if I told you that some Christians believe God speaks directly to them, then you would start to say that they were less dependent? -dave
[2005-09-19 13:48:28] - paul: yes you are misrepresenting something. i do care which choice he/she makes. i also want to know which choice he/she makes. i won't be disappointed which choice he/she makes. look at my example about the indian spouse. i care who the spouse is going to be. i will not be disappointed if he/she is/is not indian. ~a
[2005-09-19 13:48:28] - dave: I appreciate people who can recognize what tenets of their belief system are basic assumptions, but if those assumptions were derived from trust in someone else's word then they are dependent in nature -- no matter what logical steps you take from them. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:46:49] - dave: I'm saying what makes them dependent thinkers is that the detailed assumptions they've made are not ones that I'd imagine they would come up with of their own power... they're too intricate. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:46:30] - pierce: in fact, just by knowing what you're assuming and going from there, I would probably say someone wasn't a dependent thinker -dave
[2005-09-19 13:45:12] - a: But you DON'T care. You want to know which choice he makes, but you don't care which choice he does make. Am I right? Or am I misrepresenting something? -Paul
[2005-09-19 13:45:00] - pierce: yes, I will agree that christians may technically have more assumptions about religion than atheists. I don't think I agree that that makes them what I would call dependent thinkers -dave
[2005-09-19 13:44:22] - dave: agreed on everyone being somewhat dependent, to varying extents. and as I said before, I don't think that's a bad thing, because if every person had to figure out everything in life from scratch, we wouldn't make much progress. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:43:43] - vinnie: yeah, the Bible's not actually required. There's a lot of technicalities, but Christians believe Abraham was 'saved' and there was no Bible then. -dave
[2005-09-19 13:43:16] - dave: I think that the two fundamental assumptions of christianity v. atheism, "There is a god" v. "There is no god", are approximately equal in "strength". Thus they cancel each other out in the comparison. But Christianity has the added tenet that Jesus was the son of god/god himself, so it pulls ahead in the total magnitude of assumptions. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:42:32] - pierce: I mean, you can make a good case for everyone being a dependent thinker, because people rarely come up with ideas themselves -dave
[2005-09-19 13:41:00] - pierce: yeah, I actually doubt we disagree widely, I was more responding to what I thought 'a's comment was earlier -dave
[2005-09-19 13:40:57] - a: they're not quantitative, but I think that a case can be made that agnosticism is the theoretical maximum of independent thinking, since it assumes nothing. Thus, it's the most independent. The dependency difference between atheism and christianity is a subjective one based on my personal opinion. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:39:52] - pierce: I mean, if you're going to nitpick, you also have to judge the 'strength' of an assumption, in that assuming there is no god is not the same as assuming your chair is going to hold you up when you sit in it, just because it always has before -dave
[2005-09-19 13:39:32] - dave: that is not the connotation that I'm implying, for the record. That's why I've tried to be very clear that I don't judge one belief system "correct" and another "incorrect" simply because one is more dependent than the other. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:38:55] - pierce: assumptions are not quantitative. ~a
[2005-09-19 13:38:28] - pierce: although i'm not sure if i agree. ~a
[2005-09-19 13:38:05] - pierce: gotcha. ~a
[2005-09-19 13:37:45] - pierce: well, we can argue about specific assumptions, but my original point is that when people refer to others as dependent thinkers, it connotates that those people don't think for themselves, or examine the veracity of what they assume, or even know what they assume, and I think that doesnt' apply to christians -dave
[2005-09-19 13:37:31] - a: we are talking about athiests, because I said agnostic was the most independent philosophy, but that athiesm was more independent than christianity. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:37:06] - a: no, I didn't think the bible part was required. I will defer to Dave though - vinnie
[2005-09-19 13:36:03] - vinnie: yeah, that's what I'm trying (and perhaps failing) to say -dave
[2005-09-19 13:35:51] - vinnie: i think you have to also believe that jesus was the son of god and that the bible is all factual? ~a
[2005-09-19 13:35:49] - I can't imagine someone coming to the exact ideas espoused by Jesus without having heard them from Jesus. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:35:25] - dave: the difference is that your handful of assumptions are the ones that were told to you by Jesus (disregarding for the sake of argument the fact that you've heard Jesus's words though a grapevine two millenia long). I can easily imagine someone assuming there's no god without any suggestive athiest input creating the idea... - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:35:06] - sam: well that seems to be very subjective, but I think in general, most parents would change things in retrospect after raising their kids - just like almost everyone would change some of their previous actions in retrospect -dave
[2005-09-19 13:35:00] - there aren't that many assumptions one has to make to be a christian anyway, right? just that jesus died for sins/was a man/ something like that? - vinnie
[2005-09-19 13:34:43] - agnostics believe that you cannot assume that there is no god. ~a
[2005-09-19 13:34:18] - dave: who's assuming that there is no god? ~a
[2005-09-19 13:32:47] - dave: do you think all children can be raised by parents the way the parents want them to be? -sam
[2005-09-19 13:31:07] - pierce: hence, christianity is not really (in the general sense) more dependent thinking -dave
[2005-09-19 13:30:38] - pierce: ahh, there I think we differ. I don't see any difference in my handful of assumptions and the assumption that there is no god -dave
[2005-09-19 13:30:08] - err, it's not like -dave
[2005-09-19 13:30:00] - paul: for the tenth time, i do care. stop saying i don't care. ~a
[2005-09-19 13:29:49] - pierce: yeah, you're probably right that there are a few more assumptions since all you have to assume with atheism is that there is no god. I guess what I was trying to say is that there isn't that huge a difference in the number. Like it's like 10,000 to 1 -dave
[2005-09-19 13:29:10] - dave: again, I'm not saying it's wrong. Dependent thinking is not inherently a bad or incorrect thing, but the problem is when the beliefs are unquestioningly dependent. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:27:56] - sam: you also were the one to consciously 'choose' your spouse, so that also probably weighs more in on how bad you feel if it didn't turn out as well -dave
[2005-09-19 13:27:21] - dave: not quite. you're believing that (1) what you've been told Jesus said was actually what Jesus said, and (2) that Jesus was who he said he was. Even (2) alone is depending on the word of another person; would you assume Jesus was the son of God and all of the intricate history and mythology associated with it if you didn't know anything about him? - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:27:13] - sam: well, I don't know about 'more' sadness, since I'm not sure you can actually measure those kinds of things - but for one, you have to deal with your spouse for your entire life, and your kids leave after awhile -dave
[2005-09-19 13:24:56] - a: Right, I've no doubt you would like to know, but it just seems a little impersonal and cold to say you don't care what decisions they make. Especially when it comes to something as important as religion. -Paul
[2005-09-19 13:24:51] - a: 6.2 -dave
[2005-09-19 13:24:34] - mig: I think that's true, but it's nevertheless a part of many modern christian doctrines. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:24:05] - pierce: yeah, but at the core, you're really only believing that Jesus was who he said he was, and the rest follows. Like with atheism you're believing at the core that there is no god. It's just that atheism doesn't have as much that follows from that core assumption -dave
[2005-09-19 13:17:24] - paul: you're right it is semantics. but, i wouldn't be disappointed, and i would certainly have a genuine care. like, if i were indian and i told my child: please choose between marrying an indian spouse or marrying a non-indian spouse. i really won't be dissapointed which one you choose, but i am very interested in who your new spouse will be. ~a
[2005-09-19 13:15:41] - pierce: i don't think lucifer's fall is in the bible? - mig
[2005-09-19 13:15:16] - Assuming, of course, that you think some, most, or all of those things are core tenets of your faith.... - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:14:33] - What are the chances that someone would personally derive Lucifer'sFall + GardenOfEden + NoahAndTheArk + PlaguesOfEgypt + DavidAndGoliath + VirginBirth + Resurrection + EventualJudgementDay without someone externally communicating it to them? - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:13:35] - Aaron: Makes sense to me. I think I might actually be the same way. -Paul
[2005-09-19 13:13:08] - a: I think that's where our semantical difference is, then. It seems to me that if you are not disappointed if your child choses something then you don't care which one they chose. -Paul
[2005-09-19 13:11:58] - but I still think athiesm is a less dependent belief system. It doesn't make any specific assumptions about the universe other than one big one... "there is no god". It seems a lot easier to come to that big conclusion than the extremely specific ones in the major religions. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:08:34] - dave: sorry, I was at lunch. I agree much more than you probably think... a lot of people seem to adopt athiesm as a cultural group, rather than actually having derived a belief in the absence of god for themselves. But I don't think the same is true of, say, agnosticism, where the personal questioning of spirituality is the doctrine. - pierce
[2005-09-19 13:08:30] - dave: how many years until you're married?
~a[2005-09-19 13:07:06] - dave: why do you think marriage has greater chance to cause more sadness and stress than the children? -sam
[2005-09-19 13:07:03] - sam: I would probably have kids. Would probably wait for 2+ years before having them tho (after getting married) -dave
[2005-09-19 13:05:00] - aaron: that makes sense to me ^_^ -dave
[2005-09-19 13:04:42] - sam: then don't get married, that probably has a greater chance to cause more sadness and stress than the children -dave
[2005-09-19 13:01:36] - i'm thinking maybe i won't have children. i think they could cause more sadness and stress than joy. -sam
[2005-09-19 13:00:55] - when/if you all get married, will you have children? -sam
[2005-09-19 12:59:57] - paul: Personally i wouldn't be disappointed if my kids chose religion a over religion b, but I might be disappointed about how they reached their decision, if that makes any sense - aaron
[2005-09-19 12:52:40] - http://www.venganza.org/ open letter. ~a
[2005-09-19 12:51:51] - Neither, however, has publicly stated a position specifically on FSM. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monsterism . The Universe was created by an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster. All evidence pointing towards evolution was intentionally planted by this being. ~a
[2005-09-19 12:50:38] - U.S. President George W. Bush and U.S. Senator Bill Frist have publicly supported the teaching of "different ideas" (Bush) and "a broad range of fact, of science, including faith" (Frist) on the origin of life, alongside evolutionary theory. therefore they support the teaching of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. ~a
[2005-09-19 12:43:43] - they're not mutually exclusive. ~a
[2005-09-19 12:40:22] - paul: just fyi. ~a
[2005-09-19 12:40:15] - paul: you can not be dissapointed and still care at the same time. ~a
[2005-09-19 12:34:28] - err - lori
[2005-09-19 12:34:22] - Ok - I know this is random and not in the line of conversation...but it is _really_ akward being told that they are firing someone and to clean up their desk only to have them walk in to work 10 minutes later because they never got the message. And she's still here. l ori
[2005-09-19 12:14:05] - a: It's not to say I would try to keep him from being a certain religion or even necessarily make my disappointment known. I just think that if you don't care at all what kind of important life decisions your child makes, it seems a little cold and detached. -Paul
[2005-09-19 12:12:37] - a: Assuming I did have a kid, I wouldn't care too much what religion they chose but I probably would be a little disappointed if they picked something drastically different from what I believed. -Paul
[2005-09-19 12:11:20] - off to lunch, cheers! -dave
[2005-09-19 12:10:45] - amy: yeah, that's what I was trying to say with my last (I think) comments to 'a' -dave
[2005-09-19 12:10:01] - amy: <nod nod> -dave
[2005-09-19 12:09:31] - sam: because it's something that God wants you to do. -dave
[2005-09-19 12:09:21] - a: Maybe it's semantics, but it seems like you were asked if you would be disappointed or upset if your kid chose a religion and you replied "not in the slightest". That just seems to imply to me that you don't seem to care one way or the other. -Paul
[2005-09-19 12:09:15] - *** amy jumps into the exploding can of worms.
[2005-09-19 12:09:09] - dave: ... if your child is Christian/Jewish/Hindu/whatever and it makes him/her happy, then I can see not being as sad as in the other situation. -amy
[2005-09-19 12:08:25] - dave: i think that if you are christian and you absolutely believe that if you child will go to Hell because s/he doesn't have the same beliefs as you, then you have good reason to be sad if the child doesn't embrace the same faith as you. However, if you are atheist, then you don't think there is any punishment/reward for believing any particular thing, so... -amy
[2005-09-19 12:07:39] - a: because to you, there is no "wrong" religion then -dave
[2005-09-19 12:07:37] - dave: why do you want your sins to be washed sway? -sam
[2005-09-19 12:07:31] - a: ok yeah, if you're agnostic, or something like unitarian universalis who believe that everything is right, or true, then I could see you not being upset if they were some other religion than you -dave
[2005-09-19 12:06:36] - sam: " i think it's all about you. your desire to go to heaven. -sam" -dave
[2005-09-19 12:05:17] - sam: yes, accepting the result of jesus dying/resurrecting/washing away your sins is validation of christianity being true. All my previous comments in the same vein were just aimed at responding to your statement that Christianity is all about you, and you wanting to go to Heaven -dave
[2005-09-19 12:05:11] - lunch. gtg. ~a
[2005-09-19 12:04:35] - dave: i would NOT be sad. although i WOULD care and i WOULD make it a goal to find out as much as i could about his/her point of view. ~a
[2005-09-19 12:03:51] - dave: i'm not an atheist. i'm agnostic. i believe that there is no "truth". i believe that the "truth" regarding spirtuality is CURRENTLY unknowable (or at the very least unknown). ~a
[2005-09-19 12:02:56] - a: so wouldn't you be sad if your kid believed in something that you thought was "wrong" ? -dave
[2005-09-19 12:02:48] - dave: correct?! there is only one truth? that doesn't seem to make any sense to me. ~a
[2005-09-19 12:01:40] - a: I the thing is (about wanting your kid to be the same religion) is that you want your kid to believe in something that is correct - so if you are an atheist, and truly believe there is no god, then wouldn't you want your kid see the "truth" of that too? -dave
[2005-09-19 12:00:53] - dave: right! therefore, you accept jesus because of the result. result being your sins being washed away and living an eternal life in heaven. no? - sam
[2005-09-19 11:59:43] - paul: what about you? do you care what religion that your pho-kid chooses? ~a
[2005-09-19 11:57:52] - sam: if Jesus failed in paying for everyone's sin by dying and resurrecting, then christianity is a hoax and Jesus/God would definitely not be worthy of anything -dave
[2005-09-19 11:57:40] - paul: just because i don't have his/her religion prepicked out for him/her means that i don't care? ~a
[2005-09-19 11:57:10] - paul: i do care if my hypothetical kid is religious or not. i just want him/her to figure it out for himself/herself. ~a
[2005-09-19 11:56:35] - pierce: or at the least, that being a christian does not mean you are a dependent thinker -dave
[2005-09-19 11:56:00] - pierce: in other words, whether you are a dependent thinker or not has nothing to do with whether you are a christian or not -dave
[2005-09-19 11:55:32] - a: I didn't say you didn't care about people. I'm saying that because you don't seem to care about if your kid is religious or not, that you don't seem to care how he turns out. I don't think it's a huge leap of logic. -Paul
[2005-09-19 11:55:31] - pierce: <nod> I agree with you that you need to be able to look at your own religion with a critical eye, that you CAN be a dependent thinker, but I also think that can be true for anything, not just religion -dave
[2005-09-19 11:54:26] - pierce: i would assert that non-christians develop their own sense of spirituality on just as much external information as christians do -dave
[2005-09-19 11:54:06] - dave: not that that's necessarily a bad thing. my knowledge of physics is very dependent, but I feel reasonably certain it's correct. But I hardly developed it by my own thought and experimentation. My only caveat is that you should be able to look at your own belief system with a critical eye, lest you become a zealot. - pierce
[2005-09-19 11:53:19] - a: some things from the Bible Christians believe on faith, but much of it is tested and observable. I would assert that non-christians take just as much on faith as Christians do -dave
[2005-09-19 11:52:56] - paul: what about you? what do you want out of a hypothetical-kid? ~a
[2005-09-19 11:52:27] - dave: unless you "develop" your own interpretation of spirituality (or lack thereof) completely with your own assumptions and logic and/or divine inspiration, you are (to an extent) a dependent thinker. In other words, if you are taught the doctrine of your faith by another human being, then you are depending on their internal logic to their faith. - pierce
[2005-09-19 11:52:22] - how does "i want people to be independent thinkers" translate to "i don't care about people" ? ~a
[2005-09-19 11:49:40] - dave: i would appreciate the effort, but i don't think that would be worthy of worship if he failed. -sam
[2005-09-19 11:49:16] - a: I don't quite know what you mean by "dependent thinkers" but it sounds like he actually cares about how his child turns out while it sounds like you could care less. -Paul
[2005-09-19 11:46:02] - how could you like that answer? ~a
[2005-09-19 11:45:39] - paul: but he's encouraging his hypothetical-children to be dependent thinkers? ~a
[2005-09-19 11:44:36] - a: Because his answer doesn't seem to be an subtle insult to anybody.
-Paul[2005-09-19 11:43:34] - dave: believing everything that is in the bible on faith (and nothing more than faith. i.e. nothing observable) is very dependent. it's almost dependent by definition. ~a
[2005-09-19 11:43:04] - sam: yes, I would still appreciate it, just like most people would appreciate someone trying to do something for them, even if they fail -dave
[2005-09-19 11:42:34] - sam: no you didn't, I was just assuming / guessing for the sake of the reply. -dave
[2005-09-19 11:42:28] - dave: i have been to churchs, bible studies, etc., but i still don't know if i want to accept jesus into my life. -sam
[2005-09-19 11:42:00] - paul: why? ~a
[2005-09-19 11:41:43] - *** dave fails to see how christians are anymore dependent thinkers than anyone else
[2005-09-19 11:41:31] - a: I like Dave's answer better.
-Paul[2005-09-19 11:40:04] - dave: did i say i was a christian? -sam
[2005-09-19 11:39:33] - dave: so you are appreciating jesus' thoughtfulness of washing your sins away? so even if the sins didn't get washed away, you would still love him for trying and his thoughtfulness? -sam
[2005-09-19 11:38:33] - paul: just to make you feel dumb, i had already typed my response to dave before you asked your question, but got distracted by work. ~a
[2005-09-19 11:37:58] - sam: so (assuming you're a christian) if your kid was an atheist but behaved like a "good kid" you wouldn't be saddened by it, even though your religion states that your kid is going to end up in eternal torment? -dave
[2005-09-19 11:37:48] - dave: not in the slightest. i encourage people to be independent thinkers, but if they choose to be SO different from me that they want to be dependent thinkers, then so be it
~a[2005-09-19 11:35:50] - *** dave fist pumps
prev <-> next