Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Meh, I'm a hypocrite. I never said I wasn't

_________________

I was gonna suggest, Didymus, that Zaius was just trolling you by insisting that some lego parody is a wholly accurate source for dealing with the Bible (and for that matter the basic tenets of an entire religion), but now I really don't know about that.

At any rate, while we're talking about kids who are the athiest's version of a religious extremist *cough*Zaius*cough*, take a look at this article:

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/at ... 41210.html

_________________

Zaius, I can see why you have problems with extremists who try and shove religion down your throat...heck, I'm Christian, and I can't stand it when people shove Christianity down my throat! But you need to know that most Christians aren't like that at all. Take me for example. I have many friends from all religions, belief systems, backgrounds, races, and even sexualities. And if you asked any of them, they would tell you that I've NEVER tried to "shove" religion down their throats. Now, if they ASK my opinion, I'll give it to them, but I never condemn ANYONE for believing differently than me. In fact, I think being friends with many types of people is good for you. I'll bet that people like Everettimmy, Didymus (love the avatar, by the way, dude!), and Trev-MUN would agree with me.

The thing is, the extremists from either side AREN'T the majority. They're just the ones getting all the publicity. For the record, I do not condone (nor does probably anyone else on this thread) killing our Jewish or homosexual brothers and sisters. That's NOT what being a Christian means. And maybe I'm out of bounds for saying this, but anyone who would kill like that "in the name of God" is NOT a Christian in my opinion, but someone looking for an excuse to harm others.

But I know you don't like Christianity, and honestly, I understand, because as I said, we're getting A LOT of bad press lately. I will not try to convert you, but I will ask you to please respect us and our beliefs - and we will in turn respect yours. If you want to continue to question my beliefs, fine, I welcome it. I'm not an expert, but I'll do the best I can!

_________________

I agree fully with Strong Canada. Another thing that doesn't make sense is that some Christians try to force their beliefs on others, saying that it's the only way to get into Heaven. In my personal belief, it doesn't matter what religion you are a part of (If you're even part of one at all), if you are basically a good person and tryto do good, you will be rewarded in the after life, wether that's Heaven, or reincarnated into someone that leads another good life.

_________________

Your point being? So what if some guy went back to believing in god. Look at how old he is, 81, there's a good chance he's suffering from some form of alzheimer's or something

_________________

It is very doubtful that that could be the cause of his "conversion." Alzheimer's is caused when the brain begins to atrophy; the nerve cells don't function like they're supposed to. People with Alzheimer's begin losing their memory, but old patterns of behavior and belief usually remain consistent through the process until very late stages. This guy was actually able to articulate an answer when asked about his conversion. That means that his brain is still functioning well enough that the onset of dementia could not have been the cause of his "conversion."

But I'm not sure what to make of this "conversion." While he has taken a step in the right direction, he still repudiates the God of traditional monotheistic religions. But then again, so did C. S. Lewis early in his career.

_________________

Way to have a joke go straight over your head dude...

_________________

... My point being this guy has been a crusader of athiesm and one of its most fervent philosophers, but he changed his tune.

This would be like a Christian saint suddenly denouncing Jesus and God altogether and believing in athiesm.

What the heck does age have to do with it, anyway? If age automatically determined one's intelligence, we wouldn't have people like Albert Einstein.

_________________

I don't think that guy's change of belief is very significant. Heck, nearly the same thing happened to me when I realised that even though I do not believe in any theist (or atheist) religion, it's still plausible (though not certain) that there is some higher power that created us. That's why I'm not very excited by these reports you see about evidence pointing to a creator. It's just, "Oh, I see that it's a bit more likely that there is a divine force which created the universe. That's nice. I wonder what's for tea..."

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

I seem to remember reading a statement just like that in The Screwtape Letters once.

_________________

Oh, I'm devilish.

By the way, I forgot to mention this earlier: Dr Zaius, I think your prejudice is groundless. I know a lot of Christians, and the majority of them are good, intelligent people. Even though I abstain from religion, we still get along. Naturally, there are some who I dislike, just as there are some atheists I dislike. I don't think any more highly of their beliefs as you do, but that's no reason for hate.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

The 1970's translation "New International Version" has no olde aenglish holdovers. The Message paraphrase and New Living Translation go even further to present a readable format to the reader. All of these translations are available (I think) at Bible.Gospelcom.Net for your reading pleasure.


Perhaps he meant 1 Corinthians 11:7. It's a principle, not an execution law.


I think he's mistaking Catholic tradition for the law of God, much like Catholics tend to do.


Then why do you love to talk about it so much? I fail to see your motivation for evangelization. You seem to want everyone to hate it as much as you do. That is a lot of emotional energy to put into something on a whim! You're like racists in one more respect: you hate something so much you're investing hours, words, and emotions meditating on your hatred and are determined to spread it. It's not worth your energy, Zaius.


Quite the opposite: I've read that much of the social progress in the last 200 years was done by Christians. If the increased crime rate, the increased poverty, the increase of corporate corruption, the increase in lawsuits, and the decrease of people who are sincerely happy is what you call the social progress of the last fourty years, I'm not impressed. And Christians are not taking over anything. I can't think of a single public or private institution that they've commandeered. I mean, the Christians are starting to be more vocal, to be sure. But so have the gays, the environmentalists, the feminists, the evolutionists, and Ross Perot. It's a result of increased communication, like the way you're communicating right now.


The man didn't convert to Christianity. He simply found evidence and motivation enough for belief in some kind of god through science and logic after a lifetime of actively opposing the concept. The point being: science does not disprove God, it in fact lends credence to the idea. But you'll have to read the man's philosophy books to get that point, the article is just a publicity thing.


Nope. I would not. I hereby declare my contempt for any purported Christian individual or group that uses non-Christian means to reach what they construe as Chritain ends. I do not believe in vigilantism or violence as a policy. I also declare my alignment with the principles of Judaism, and my grace toward non-Christians in general.

What you seem to selectively forget about the US history is that one of its founding principles was tolerance on the part of Christians for people of other religions. Christians are tolerant. It's you who is being intolerant: apparently you would kill us because we believe in a different god than you want us to... the very thing you hipocritically accuse us of doing. You should be ashamed of yourself. But I don't expect you are: instead of turning my comments inward for some well-earned introspection, you'll likely turn the feelings outward in anger.

Zaius, everything you hate about Christianity is a feature that you yourself have in some way. You hate people being unreasonable, but you're being unreasonable and make it impossible for us to reason with you. You hate people believing in stories, but you just believe whatever stories someone tells you about Christian conspiracies for government takeovers. You hate intolerant people, but you're intolerant. You hate divine judgement, but you seat yourself atop humanity and pass judgement. You hate nothing more than you hate yourself.

Once you come to terms with the fact that you hate yourself so much it hurts, let me suggest something to you. Maybe there is someone who loves you. Someone who cares about you despite all the feelings you have, all the things you say. Someone who doesn't judge you, isn't intolerant, someone who's reasonable, kind, goes out of his way to show you grace, and has no plans for using you as a means to an end. If that person exists, you need that person.

_________________

God inspired the Bible to be written, writers just used their own styles. And what contadictions are you talking about? I've never heard of any.

_________________

That surprises me, I have to say. But now seems to be a good time to link to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

Make of it what you will.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

And just what is wrong with God claiming that all the silver and gold are his, if indeed he created them?

_________________

Because for some reason, Gold and Silver were valued for reasons other than their great electrical conductivity. And since the church can lay claim that they were the word from god to earth, they can claim that the church should have right over all the gold and silver...

Personally, I think associating value to the precious metals was one of the worst things humanity has ever done. It gave rise to economic despotism, where one can be socially better than having a greater number of something that's basically worthless in a practical sense.

_________________

I'm not sure exactly where this discussion on gold started, because Didymus seems to be replying to something. But anyway, I love the electrical conductivity of gold. It's very useful! The physics behind its conductivity probably lends to its shiny-ness, and therefore it's popularity with the ladies. And once something is popular with the ladies, the guys have to go out and buy it for them... I think it's a leftover from when apes swung from trees and the females demanded that the male apes remodel the part of the tree used for cooking.

While your criticism of the Catholic church's ancient historical stance on wealth holds, I don't think it's a violence perpetrated by any modern denomination other than some cults. In fact, being money-grubbing is one of the signs that a "church" or specific pastor isn't truly Christian. So, your criticism is leveled against fake Christians using faulty reasoning for selfish gain.

Gold is very useful in a practical sense (not worthless as you suggest): you mentioned its electrical conductivity yourself. It's also invincible to corrosion, extremely malleable, and extremely dense (therefore easy to measure). For that reason, I think that assigning gold a high value was an accidental but brilliant mistake. Assigning value to pearls, however, I think is kind-of silly. But they're somewhat pretty, and aesthetic value seems OK by me at first glance. If you disdain aesthetic value, sentimental value, and a systematic approach to exchanging goods and services, then I suppose your conclusion follows.

_________________

Actually, Buz, I would want to factor in the AESTHETIC value of gems, pearls, and precious metals. Beautiful things can be made from them, and beauty itself is of value (regardless of what some philistines might say).

I was responding to Upsilon's link to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. I thought it was a very strange passage he was quoting, though. But I responded to it.

Zaius still has not addressed the issue: if I write a song, the copyrights belong to me because I created it. In the same way, if God creates gold and silver, then does he not own them himself? All things precious on this earth are his work. We only get to borrow them for the brief time we are here. Therefore, I think the SAB's comment on that verse is invalid.

_________________

I didn't deliberately quote that passage. That was just a random quote at the top of the main page. If you refresh it, you'll see something different.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Ooooo, out of context quotes in King James version! That's real understandable.
And the whole point of that site is to prove the bible is wrong?
Sorry, but I think they picked a pretty pathetic way to try to do it. They could at least have used NIV or something so as to prevent all the confusion that reading a dialect most people don't understand brings.

_________________
"Bowing!"
"And don't forget to experiance the fury of... Our gift shop!"

Alright, here goes nothing...

Dr. Zaius: You're right! The Bible is written by mankind and there's no way of proving any truth to it.

Didymus: You're right! The Bible could be written by man through God and there's not way of proving that any of it is lies.

This whole conversation is getting me really annoyed. Isn't the point of a debate to persuade others to believe you and to get your point across? It's not just saying the same thing over and over with pointless examples and hoping someone believes you!

Blech

_________________

You are correct that repetition and pointless examples do not contribute to a debate.

I don't know that the point of a debate is to persuade others to believe you, as much as it is to explore the issue. In fact, I think the term for saying something to make someone to agree with you is "propaganda." No, I think debate is so each side can explore their side and the other side, and for spectators to grow in understanding of the issue, in order for each to come to his own conclusions once more informed.

If someone goes into a debate with the mindset "nothing anyone can say will ever shake me," then I have no interest in debating him, because what he wants is not a debate but an argument. And if you allow yourself to become belligerent, it's counterproductive.

What do you think?

_________________

I would add that a wise person, though he may not change his opinion on a topic, will at least try to UNDERSTAND the other person's perspective, even if he doesn't agree.

_________________