RicOlie_2

Bingowings said:

Now you are comparing homosexuality with cannibalism.

In the example I gave, there would be nothing wrong with cannibalism at all except in the case of the existence of a God such as the one you described in the post prior to mine.

Is there no depth you cannot dig this hole to?

The example I gave would, if it were at all related to how I view homosexuality, give a more positive view than my previously stated one, not a more negative one.

Either the Old Testament is written by men and a fallible bronze aged, desert dwellers reflection on what seemed to make sense to them at the time or it's the timeless word of an insane murderous deity to whom we are but toys to squash for his pleasure.

I don't understand why it has to be one or the other, Bingo, because it's neither.

The latter is not a deity I can bring myself to admire.

It is a Golem, a Devil if you will.

Why anyone would draw spiritual inspiration from such a character is as much a mystery to me as Nazism.

I agree with that entirely.

If it's a fallible human account it should not be evoked in discourse other than comparative mythology.This same is true of the latter books of the New Testament, written as they were by men raised in the tradition of the earlier text (or by God's own hand).

If it were a fallible human account I would agree with this also.

Either way they are poor primary sources (if indeed they can be described even remotely as such) for any form of opinion let alone political discussion (like the shrimp).

 Agreed, but since neither way is true, your post is irrelevant to my points.

I don't understand why God would either expect something or not expect something regardless of a person or group's situation. If a person got lost in the arctic with some buddies and they all died, if he had no other food, he could either choose to eat them or die. In normal circumstances, cannibalism is not generally acceptable. The God you're describing would expect the man to choose starvation and death before eating his friends. The God I worship would expect the man to do his best to survive and this might include eating their dead bodies to stay alive and gain a better chance of surviving in the end.

If it the teaching existed in Leviticus only, then you would be right to tell me to ignore it. However, it is also present in the New Testament, minus the stoning bit. By the time of the NT a theocracy was no longer possible so punishments for things considered severe in a theocratic government was no longer applicable since those things were not necessarily considered seriously wrong by other people.

Only for the Israelites who lived in a theocracy--not a democracy, like I do.

Wow, a lot happened on that day. I usually don't put more than three dates though. If I do, I won't have anything to post next year. :)

January 21:

A.D. 1077: German King Heinrich (Henry) IV petitions Pope Gregory VII for absolution of his excommunication.

A.D. 1189: The Third Crusade is begun by Richard Cœur de Lion, Phillip II, and Henry II.

A.D. 1793: Louis XVI is guillotined in Paris.

A.D. 1799: Edward Jenner's smallpox vaccine is introduced.

S-3b

Rx4a

*sigh*

I wish it was possible to have as much free time in my adulthood as I do now. I'm currently reading fifty-something books at once, but I won't be able to do that much longer. :P

No, I'm fine with a mini game (I'm not doing it to make you happy :)).

G-2b

Exactly, Warbler.

Boost, if I think abortion is seriously wrong, is it really just a baby step to thinking everyone who is involved in an abortion should be killed? Wouldn't that be counter-intuitive since one of the main reasons I oppose abortion is because I think life is valuable and precious and by ending people's lives I would be proving myself a hypocrite? Do you think all criminals should be executed? No? Then why do you think it is so easy to step from "homosexual sex is a serious sin" to "kill the f*****s!"?

I think it was fun. I prefer a larger game, but small games are nice and quick. I think I'd like to try Minishogi next, since we'll be deprived of our knights, which you are better able to use to your advantage than I.

You go first.

G-3b

S*2d

January 20:

A.D. 1892: The first basketball game is played.

A.D. 2009: Barack Obama is inaugurated as President of the U.S.A.

Sx3c

I don't think I can hold out much longer.

K-1c

Neither did I. I suspect the year is an estimate though, it just depends what you base it off of.

darth_ender said:

It makes it fun, IMO.  It just goes to show how much complexity can be put into shogi based games.  Soon I will teach you a variant I designed that is very unique in nature, if you're still interested by that point.  It has some unique geometry and would be a terrible game for a chess variant, but it works out rather well for shogi, I believe.

Sure, I wouldn't mind trying it when we get that far.

Anyway, S*3d.  

K-2b

The more this game progresses, the more I value the knight above what I value them in regular shogi.  Though they only have access to two squares each move, their unique move is impossible to block and has a far and unique reach, making them a threat in such close quarters to all pieces, even rooks and bishops.

Yes, and you have (one of) mine pinned right now. :(

I know, I'm rambling a lot.  There is a fantastic program called shogivar that was programmed back in the late 90s.  Sadly, it doesn't work on 64 bit operating systems like I'm running (Windows 7).  However, I discovered another amazing bit of software called VirtualBox that allows me to emulate other operating systems.  It's truly amazing.  Right now I'm running XP within Windows 7, and I've just installed a few shogi programs including shogivar that no longer work.  Very cool stuff!  It makes me happy to see these old bits of software working again.  What operating system are you using?

 I am also running Windows 7 right now. I may already have VirtualBox installed on my laptop since my Dad uses it to play his old computer games (the laptop was originally his). It's a neat program, that's for sure.

January 18:

A.D. 1778: Captain James Cook discovers the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii).

A.D. 1788: The penal colony at Botany Bay, Australia, is begun.

A.D. 1861: The American Civil War begins.

January 19:

A.D. 379: Theodosius becomes the co-emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire.

A.D. 1785: The first manned hot air balloon flight takes place in Ireland.

A.D. 1840: Discovery of Antarctica.

Bingowings said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Science is not a doctrine, and I am glad you recognize that, because some think it is. What I mean by "satisfactory" is that science has provided an explanation for the universe's origins, but the origins aren't truly explained. Belief in a creator furthers the explanation greatly. I don't mean it is necessary, but I am giving reasons why people, not necessarily myself, hold religious beliefs.

Belief in a creator might further an explanation of the universe greatly but belief in the Biblical creator furthering our current explanation of the universe???

I fail to see how talking snakes and sinful scrumping have anything to do with the already shaky branches of string theory, for example. I also fail to see how the whore of Babylon and the fiery pit have any bearing on the entropic heat death hypothesis.

Indeed I fail to see how it explains anything other than the mindset of a bronze age people hoping to maintain some sense of order out of the chaos of living a desert beset by the dangers of nature and rival communities.

Applying that God to that situation makes perfect sense.

 A) I did not specify the Judeo-Christian God.

B) Why would I have to read the Bible for an explanation? Since the Biblical creation story is allegorical/symbolical, that would seem kind of silly.

So Bronze age people and talking dragons don't have any bearing on the matter.

What I mean is that a primary mover of some kind seems necessary to initiate things like the Big Bang. Specifically a mover who is by his/her/its very nature omniscient, omnipotent, and existing not as a thing but rather just "being" if that makes any sense (I find it a difficult concept to explain).

darth_ender said:

B-4d

I find it interesting how long even such a small game can last in shogi-land.

 Yes, I'm glad this game has lasted this long so far.

S*3b

Sorry, I thought this had posted, but I sat down to watch Inception, and realized it hadn't after the movie. :(

Leonardo said:

And now, let's hear the other side of the argument.

RicOlie_2 said:

1. Hope: religion often provides hope in an afterlife.

There is no evidence of any existence beyond the one we're currently experimenting. If you're gonna be good, do it for the sake of it, not for some sort of reward you're going to get at the pearly gates.

Quoting Queen.... Who wants to life forever????

If one lives with the opportunity to explore something infinite, then it might not be so bad.

2. Happiness: religion and prayer have been shown to increase happiness in multiple studies.

So have done many, many opium derivatives.

Fair enough, but prayer could be considered somewhat healthier than drugs. The healthiness of religion, on the other hand, is debatable.

3. Explanation of the supernatural.

Again, no evidence whatsoever of any "supernatural".

Miracles are almost dime a dozen and the existence of God would explain them. Some of them are explained by science, some proven to be hoaxes, others have no explanation.

4. Unification: this is debatable, but in theory, if everyone followed one religion there would be a lot fewer problems in the world, depending on the religion.

And everything would be really gray and boring, which is why I'm fine with people having different ideas, opinions, and that includes religion, too. People are always going to find something to disagree on.

Life would certainly be boring if everyone agreed with each other. Sharing the same religion would not necessitate that though. I do agree with you for the most part, however.

5. Community: by sharing beliefs and meeting every so often, communities of people are formed and people have a chance to meet with people who share their beliefs.

In theory. In practice churches are a nest for gossips in fur coats.

Depends on the church of course. Such is not the case in my Church. There are many parishioners who go there on Sunday for an hour and have nothing to do with it otherwise, but those who are active in the parish are generally good friends with each other and it's a good opportunity for people of all ages and varying interests to come together.

6. It explains the origins of the universe (science does this, but it doesn't give a very satisfactory answer).

Religion will always say one thing. [Insert message here]

Science can't be and doesn't want to be definitive. Our understanding of gravity, for example, has chanced during the centuries. Because science is not a doctrine.

I don't get the "satisfactory" part.

Science is not a doctrine, and I am glad you recognize that, because some think it is. What I mean by "satisfactory" is that science has provided an explanation for the universe's origins, but the origins aren't truly explained. Belief in a creator furthers the explanation greatly. I don't mean it is necessary, but I am giving reasons why people, not necessarily myself, hold religious beliefs.

7. Religion gives life meaning and purpose in a way that cannot be without religion.

Not everything is supposed to have a meaning, I'm afraid. We, as humans, have this ingrained reaction to all the things we do not understand, and that is trying to give them an explanation, a meaning.

Meanings are meaningless. It's all in the gooey gray and white matter inside our boney skulls.

 That is an opinion, and a valid one. This goes hand in hand with comfort. It is comforting to know that there is some purpose to your life, and religion is one way to achieve that comfort. Meaning is certainly not something I, personally, need, though my life would change drastically if I were not religious. I would spend nearly all my time learning, because I enjoy it, even if there was no point to my knowledge.

G-2a

Leonardo said:

mrbenja0618 said:

[Dissertation about the Grand Canyon]

Yeah, but you really can't compare a finite hole in the ground (no matter how big) to an infinite Deity, can you? Even if you never ever ever leave the house, you're still going to somehow have the experience of a hole in the ground.

However, I still think it's impossible to disprove God's existence.

You don't know everything either. I could even ask if you know half of everything, and you would probably tell me no. You couldn't know half of everything, just like I couldn't. But let's just say for the sake of discussion that you do know half of everything. But, alas, you still do not know everything, so I ask you. Is it possible that this Jesus/God/Heaven thing could exist on the other half of the stuff you haven't learned yet?

I'll tell you, I don't know a quarter of everything. But to use a poker analogy, if I may, by looking at the cards I have in my hand, I can tell you, I'm pretty sure the rest of the deck is cards. There's not gonna be a blue whale in it.

Yes, but in that case, you already have experience with decks of cards and know that the rest of the deck will also consist of cards. If you are given two chests of unknown objects, and look in one, but only get a glimpse of the contents of the other, you won't be able to say whether or not the second chest contained certain objects or not. Some people, however, may have opened both chests (or just the second one) and told you the contents (and others may have repeated it based on the testimony of those who actually saw the contents). You could believe it, or you could disbelieve it, not having seen it for yourself.

Still an imperfect analogy, but somewhat more accurate.