Jeez man, take the day offOriginally Posted by The Wengerbabies
Jeez man, take the day off
You're missing it. Of course some doughnut eating saviour of the world at NSA is not going to directly look up your personal record unless there's a connection with somebody worth the effort. But AI will. Because it can handle in a second what a million people will take a year to shuffle, and still get wrong. The whole game has changed. Allowing these bastards the latitude they have is a very, very bad idea whether they use that scope or not. Whole new world coming with amazing horrors that, genuinely, nobody can see coming. I mean I have a good imagination and have some idea what these horrible cunts might WANT to do. But I can't match the blink of an eye consideration of all possibilities and outcomes. Data will certainly, definitely be the undoing of mankind. It already is. It's just not announced yet.
Für eure Sicherheit
Not in bed, as in dating. More in bed as in hired for the night. Cheap little whores who will take the cash. Like all these compnies with happy little hand drawn videos and jangly music. It's nauseating, but where we are.
Für eure Sicherheit
Letter’s favourite biologist has been trending because Christian Conservatives think he’s done an about turn by saying he considers Christian culture superior to Islamic culture (it is) and that he considers himself a cultural Christian.
Not a big fan of Dawkins because he’s not the best advocate for his argument but he’s been saying the same thing for decades. And unfortunately the Christian right have falsely conflated his view with a belief they think New Atheists had of a) wanting to eliminate Christian culture rather than eliminate coercive theology and that b) Any Anti Theist would not rightly consider Islam the most pernicious and dangerous of beliefs because it hasn’t been forced into reform by modernity.
Im a cultural Christian, I celebrate Christmas…I find religiously inspired art and literature and music uplifting and I believe the Churches and Cathedrals of this country are aesthetically pleasing…I wouldn’t be without them, life would be sterile. There’s also no doubt Christian morality has some influence on my thinking. Morality is not innate, it is driven by the culture in which we exist…it’s also changeable otherwise we wouldn’t have ridden ourselves of slavery and human sacrifice
What I don’t hold to be true, is that anything in the New Testament is true or that I’m locked into a covenant of blood because an apocryphal figure was crucified in Bronze Age Judea
This idea that you can’t embrace symbols without tolerating the meaning is a nonsense. It’s the same bollocks you get when people object to Rule Britannia and land of hope and glory at the last night of the proms because of its idolatry of British superiority and colonialism.
That's a sweet statement. It sums it up perfectly. I'm surprised I didn't think of that statement.Im a cultural Christian
Yes. Of course. Christian as in how society developed in the light of Christianity, NOT how the poxy church demanded it developed. This is the absolutely essential distinction.
And not only that - but the AMOUNT of Christianity that was drip-fed over the ages. It took advocates being burned alive to promote the idea people should be allowed to read the Bible in their own language. How fucked up must a system be if they can't even allow you to translate it into an understandable language?
So, in some ways, Christianity was concealed yet people still understood the principle of it. Argue that how you will, I think it's innate. People know right from wrong, regardless of how they behave. Letters would consult an approved textbook and pronounce the dishonest dichotomy as a conspiracy theory, however. Yet he still might possess an innate trait for goodness, even though he shuns it.
The distinction between man and God is paramount, and anyone who believes the word of man over the Word of God (I can define my idea of God if necessary, but don't presume to define yours) is not OF God, is apart from God, the opposite of God, or the anti-God, or -- allowing may take on it, anti-natural, or anti-nature. If you ever find yourself denying nature you're are in deep, deep, shit. And that's just about every church and spin-off that exists today.
You CANNOT be a Christian if you follow the doctrine of your church - ANY church. Because your church has NOTHING in common with the culture it preaches to, and never did. Try telling a priest that though, or Letters, and suddenly YOU are the evil, demonic, anti-Christ.
Last edited by Niall_Quinn; 02-04-2024 at 01:24 AM.
Für eure Sicherheit
TLDR; I kind of get there's shit bigger than me in this universe.
Für eure Sicherheit
Do you mean "The Bible"?
Earlier in this post you were lamenting (correctly) the fact that back in the day people couldn't read The Bible in their own language. I'm confused that you always seem to think it's cheating when I use Bible verses to back up by beliefs. That's where they come from.
I don't know what that means.pronounce the dishonest dichotomy as a conspiracy theory
What is the Word of God if it isn't The Bible?anyone who believes the word of man over the Word of God
I'm not sure my church has any "doctrine" other than what's in the Bible. You cannot be a Christian if you don't follow the teachings in there - or try to at least, no-one gets that completely right (Romans 3:23)You CANNOT be a Christian if you follow the doctrine of your church - ANY church. Because your church has NOTHING in common with the culture it preaches to, and never did.
Jesus was counter-cultural. The church is counter-cultural.
I like his writings on evolution - I've read The Blind Watchmaker and it's very well explained.
I just wish he'd stay in his lane. I've not read The God Delusion but I've heard bits from it and he's so ignorant on the subject.
I do sometimes wonder if something has happened to him - as in, a bad experience with church when he was younger. Most people who don't believe are content enough for others to believe. It's unusual for someone to be so "evangelical" in their unbelief, it's not enough for him not to believe, he doesn't want anyone else to either. Odd.
I see this objection a lot, what made you this way?
I think it probably needs taking into account that men like Dawkins and Hitchens come from a generation where the Church of England was a little more pushy than it is today. Dont get me wrong we aren’t talking about Middle Ages repression but there was this kind of tut tut finger wagging especially in schools if someone took exception to nonsense hymns like “All things Bright and Beautiful”
Plus religion and science are destined to rub up against each other so there’s just no sense in asking science to stay in its lane. There’s also no sense in becoming resentful about it, Jesus told his followers that they should expect to be ridiculed for their beliefs…so in essence any attempt to defenestrate God should be looked upon as a test of faith that presumably because your belief hasn’t been affected you’ve passed.
Equally you have the right of reply, which you’ve exercised by questioning the extent of Dawkins understanding of your belief system. How accurate and fair that criticism is, you know what? I couldn’t say
It's a reasonable point about the C of E being more pushy - certainly more ingrained in society. But I still wonder if there's anything specific that happened to Dawkins to make him so anti religion. It's not an objection, I'm just curious.
They do rub up against each other but I don't really think they should. I mentioned before I did a preach on this, how I see them as more complimentary than adversarial. I do think the church are to blame for a lot of this - famously putting Galileo under house arrest for daring to suggest that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe. And there are Bible verses which can be read as claiming the earth is stationary and at the centre of the universe but I don't believe The Bible should be read like a science book. Even now a fair number of Christians seem to believe it should. Early Genesis reveals some deep truths* about us being a creation and having a purpose, the mechanics of it all are best left to science and the language is clearly poetic.Plus religion and science are destined to rub up against each other so there’s just no sense in asking science to stay in its lane.
(*well, I believe they're truths!)
I think resentful would be overstating it, it's more of an irritation. Dawkins just doesn't know what he's talking about on this subject.There’s also no sense in becoming resentful about it, Jesus told his followers that they should expect to be ridiculed for their beliefs…so in essence any attempt to defenestrate God should be looked upon as a test of faith that presumably because your belief hasn’t been affected you’ve passed.
As I said, I haven't read The God Delusion, but I did see a series he did "The Root of All Evil", which was him going round finding extremists and then going "See? See how dangerous this is?". But then he did interview some more moderate Christians and just accused them of not following the Gospel, to back that up he cherry picked Old Testament Bible verses with no understanding of the context (Christians are prone to doing this too, to be fair). It was a bit of a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. The more extreme views he used to back up his thoughts on religion. The more moderate ones - which are more aligned to the Christianity I encounter - he just dismissed as not being the real deal.Equally you have the right of reply, which you’ve exercised by questioning the extent of Dawkins understanding of your belief system. How accurate and fair that criticism is, you know what? I couldn’t say
Reply With Quote
