After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.

These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.

As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.

The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.

kirk then janeway.
they were just bad-azz.

picard was such a pussy and sisko was the prophet or messiah or some kinda crap that i didnt care about and archer just stepped in it...constantly.

one of my fave jokes concerning kirk and picard.
kirk:you have till the count of three to stop your attacks.
one.
two.
FIRE!

picard:you have till the count of three to stop your attacks.
one.
two.
two and a half.
two and three quarters.
i really mean it.
i am going to open fire.

>> ^KnivesOut:

I didn't know Jesus was a fan of sarcasm, this actually explains a lot. If all those nonsensical passages of scripture were actually misinterpreted sarcasm, the bible would make a lot more sense.
Imagine how many stonings could have been avoided if only other Christians had your sense of sarcasm. Also that passage about plucking out your eye if it offends... that MUST have been sarcasm.
Shinyblurry, thank you so much for opening the word of god to all us heathens, so we can see just how much bullshit it really is.>> ^shinyblurry:
Sure, arm a bunch of kids with a modicum of training and high powered weaponry..keep tossing them into combat zones where they are under constant, crippling stress, and they see their buddies killed and peoples heads blown off on a regular basis..keep redeploying them, over and over, with no time to rest until their heads are so messed up that if they don't commit suicide, they never fit into society again..but hey, we can't let any religion in there. That is very disturbing. The peace and strength they get from Jesus in those insane, brutal and emotionally devastating situations is something we as a nation just can't tolerate.
So, I thank you HQPQ for calling attention to this. Until now, we as a nation had honestly collectively abandoned the soldiers and their families. After all, there are only so many news reports you can watch about the war before it all becomes very boring and just yesterdays news. But you've breathed new life into the issue..we can finally care again. Let's all go to that website and make sure none of our treasured sons and daughters will ever hear anything that could bring them relief as we callously send them forth to murder our enemies in the name of freedom and forget that they ever existed.




Actually, Jesus did use sarcasm:

Luke 13:31

The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.

And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Jesus was saying that He had to keep working so He could get to Jerusalem, because it wouldn't be fitting for a prophet to die outside of it (since they were prone to murder all of the prophets God sent to them)

>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^kceaton1:
It goes beyond evolution though, if I'm getting this right. FOR HELL'S SAKE we can use the speed of light to see things FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR^100 older than 10,000 years!!! It's a fucking joke. If you believe this you are an idiot. Period! = .
It's not just light and carbon dating, we have LOTS of ways to show this place is WAY older...

You're forgetting the Law of God Physics which clearly states God can do anything including making the universe appear much older than it actually is for the purposes of fooling his human creations so he has a way of testing their loyalty when he's not asking them to kill their first born son and saying, JUST KIDDING, at the last minute.


The funny part about this stuff is that they typically say that God "moved the photons" (atleast the semi smarter ones will) and the STILL dumb ones will say that, well light was, you see going a different speed back then so it still all adds up...YOU SEE!!!

BUT THEN!...If you understand relativity correctly like me you understand that you can change the speed of light all the time you want. In fact make it go 1 ft/second! It doesn't MAKE A DAMNED difference in how we will STILL measure the time gone/go/will go by! People never get this at all and it really is the sort of thing were someone mumbles under their breath when they finally understand what I'm saying/going to say: "Is that not amazing!!!". You see mass and energy are the same thing and light is special, it goes the same speed EVERYWHERE, EVERY-TIME, ALL THE TIME--and this thing called "light" are these little tiny particles/waves called photons that as I said before, but not quite as directly, they literally ARE mass and energy, so the relationship between us and light is so fundamental it SHOULD blow your mind. But, so many people went through school and listen to their preachers and have no idea how vitally important that "little" discovery that Einstein made was!!! So, even we at 1 ft/s light speed STILL notice everything moving and everyone we know moving at that same "time" measurement of one second (funny isn't it; but, light is traveling at one second as well, how can this make any sense..!?!?! Well here it comes, it is called relativity and the fact that light is a constant and the other very important fact that our measurement of one second really measures...what?) as we are literally stuck in a cage (this "cage" is called The Universe) that cannot be tampered with. This is all due to that little fact that our perception of time IS relative and our view of one second can be EXTREMELY messed with, but to us it will always seem to be one second--even if 1 Billion years went by. The age of the Universe comes from the SHIFT of energy in the photons present that we can see coming from other places in any direction around us; so God would need to put THAT hologram there nothing else, BUT there is a giant problem in doing this (because due to our friends that want God to actively fuck us over for some reason--the hologram only extends technically 10,000 years out and "hides" the rest--if God put everything the way we see it and it isn't even an illusion--what can I say at that point if God was real I would join the Devil in less than a heart beat to overthrow his LYING, SADIST, and moreover EVIL ass!) If the hologram WAS there then: the hologram, it would need to be different in EVERY single direction you look; every time you move one Planck length (I might be wrong, maybe just the length of a photon) further out into space God would need to fix the energy distribution to make his illusion look correct... YOU HAVE no idea how absurd to the absurd degree this sounds, even GOD would spend his entire existence doing this because the job would require this long to do it: forever (until the UNIVERSE STOPS!). I'm not kidding it would be utterly ridiculous (from Earth his "image" would look right, on Mt. Everest, it would look wrong,; in space it would look wrong--in fact if you have sensitive enough equipment every square foot you took would somehow end up looking incorrect--we're talking about the cosmic background radiation, the little thing that lets us know how old our Universe is and that everything around us is moving away from us...

So that comes to the "putting the photons into place syndrome". For the most part I'm starting to think that these people like to abuse their brain in secret rooms with paint, huffing it until they collapse in a heap. in the morning they slowly scrub the white vinyl paint off their nose and mouth and go start with the blue. The problem with this is God had to of atleast put photons 13.5 Billion years out for this to even work--so in the end it falls so flat on it's face it makes no sense. If he was using a hologram, where is the border? Why do we detect gravitational anomalies when those have been proven to be real locally? It just goes on, and on, and on, and on.

I'd love to hear them explain why space may be full of Dark Matter or better yet why is "nothing" full of something called "The Quantum Foam"--you may have heard of "Vacuum Energy", same thing more or less--look it up it's fascinating and may even be the source OF "The Big Bang". Why can we pull photons (from "nothing") out of the Quantum Foam? According to lots of religious folks you can't create something from nothing, but WHAM, there it is! Sometimes, it just might be a bad idea to hold onto your old per-conceived precepts if they do not allow for change. BTW, the photon coming out of thin air was in a very well-known (now) experiment and is HIGHLY worth looking up; you can find details about it in my Videosift Blog (which is entirely about it).

You could disprove their crap all day. The truth is is that they did bad in their science classes, they just didn't get it and for some archaic left over juvenile resentment, they must have their righteous rite of "The Comeback Minister (or Preacher/Prophet/Father/etc...). So in revenge they are taking the easy way out and saying, "Hah, see I didn't need to learn that stuff from Mr. Scrampton in 12th grade! I'm a Minister now and I can just TELL you what is right, because I know it's right in my gut; especially after five cases of Budweiser!". Now they never tell you the truth. They lie, they tell you it "came" to them, like their a prophet now or something. ...Well if they can be prophets, why can't we? Oh wait, scientists do in fact fill this role and they do a good job at it. they constantly warn us of dangers and things the government should do. But, there are far too many damage control freaks with their own agenda running around and they seem to cling to religion as it satisfies very easily their questions, making it so they don't have to work to find the actual hard ones that exist and that we DO need.

It's not in the Bible that any of these idiots would tell us anything meaningful, nor the Koran, or any other holy book. So I find it strange that so many line up and then sit down and listen to these idiots blather on about the world and how to cure it and what it's ills are. They also as I said do a great deal of "re-education" in THEIR vision satisfying that old juvenile, washed up nothing who couldn't get over the fact that he wasn't good at science off the bat or maybe even when he tried too. This is the bane on America (and I would assume many other places, but America has a lot of this). They are teaching and re-teaching our people ridiculous notions and since they require very little work to understand, just community, people believe it--especially because it's being believed in numbers and that is the important part.

Now this was a longer post than what I wanted it to be and it also went past the scope of my original intentions. BUT, the reason why those statistics exist is due to the nature, the epidemic of how people are being re-taught forcibly (you think like us or you are no longer with us--it can have shocking community affects, especially when it becomes a inter-family problem...I know this EXTREMELY well due to my Mormon upbringing; when I became an atheist I was shunned and cut-off from the community, at first. they slowly let me back in when they realized I was an extremely good person, usually a better person than many of the people in the Church and so my neighbors finally no longer cared--cared what the churches stance was either--who or what I was, they took me for what I was--IT TOOK 20 years to happen!). So many people are started and taught young this is a HUGE problem, I know it's a major one with the Mormon church. You are baptized into the church at eight. You should hear the things they ask you to accept and agree to--they are things that only and adult with experience could properly answer (more like someone that is 25) yet an eight year old surrounded by their family and peers of course can give only ONE answer.

After that, you being to be taught all the incorrect things you could possibly think of. If you are even semi-devout like me (and this goes for many other religions as well) going to public school in Utah, the church has LITERALLY built seminary schools next to every High School and Junior High (and this is true outside of Utah too, as I'm SURE Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada--maybe more too, I'm sure they have them locally to attend--I'm sure many of these states have these institutions built right next door or somewhere for kids to attend) you will attend seminary due to the wishes of your parents (my parental situation was beginning to change--and for the better).

Still I attended seminary through grades 7-12 and could have continued in College, but I was agnostic by then...if not basically atheist, just not strong enough to say it. Seminary had it's wonderful parts, but the mis-information was a joke. luckily I was smart, very smart. So I was able to separate the information apart from each other and it allowed me to ask STRONG questions about my one time faith. These questions and their mis-information EASILY killed that religion for eternity, for me--for A LOT of reasons. Many of which, many of you know...easily. It came to ME slow. SO when i talk about helping other people you need to realize what we are up against. facts that do come to us easily usually don't to them and it typically has to do with their past. but, it is HARD to get them to talk about their past openly. For one thing there is no possibility of them being wrong or in danger of it. Somehow we MUST change this.

/Like I said longer, but I hope it was worth it.
/edited for more clarity and a few additions

>> ^enoch:

>> ^shinyblurry:
And this is how you can become demon possessed

congratulations! you have just won the super irony award!
considering that many biblical authors partook in the ingestion of shrooms.a common practice among seers and prophets of that time.


And the evidence for that is?

The prophets that spoke in the bible were inspired by God, and they didn't do what was common to the idolators of that time, or this one. Moses, for example, was educated by the Egyptians but you won't find a single shred of their "higher education" in the bible. They had the most advanced medical knowledge in the world at the time, much of which involved rubbing donkey dung in your wounds, yet the scriptures he wrote tell you to wash your hands after touching anything unclean, isolate people who are infected, and that the blood is the life of the body. This was thousands of years before any of these concepts were understood by anyone. Doctors didnt start washing their hands until the 1800's, and if someone had read the bible, George Washington wouldn't have had to die from bloodletting, and the black death probably wouldn't have killed off 1/3 of the worlds population.

>> ^shinyblurry:

And this is how you can become demon possessed


congratulations! you have just won the super irony award!
considering that many biblical authors partook in the ingestion of shrooms.a common practice among seers and prophets of that time.

The horse is a prophet.

First off, being divisive is not the same thing as being uncivil. I'm taking this as you're surrendering the argument that Obama is rude and uncivil for a political leader, which is pure utter horsecrap. I have plenty of complaints about Obama; his alleged incivility as a political leader is utterly laughable. I don't see him going around telling people that if they don't agree with him, they're unpatriotic, not "real Americans", communists, fascists, socialists, and other nonsense. He doesn't scream "YOU LIE!" in the middle of other politicians' nationally televised speeches. Your entire suggestion that he's uncivil is partisan hackery. There's PLENTY I would criticize Obama for, but being uncivil?! Give me a break.

I'm not really arguing in the first place, heropsycho. The fact that you feel you need to passionately defend president Obama, even against the benign implication that he is impolite (the video I provided has many valid examples of this(I bet you didn't watch it)) is proof of the cloud of divisiveness that permeates his presidency.

More extreme left Democrats don't like him so much, so that makes Obama divisive?! Newsflash - they don't care for him so much because he's governed as a moderate. You know, the type of politics most people in this country agree with when asked without being mislead by the media. His signature legislation, Obamacare, broadened Medicaid rolls by a few million people, while limiting tax deductible benefits related to health care that wealthier income people benefit from the most, such as Cadillac health plans and capping FSA yearly contributions. It was the most moderate health reform being discussed. Put it up against single payer or government option, and it is remarkably moderate. Extreme left Democrats didn't like it? COLOR ME SHOCKED!

If Obama is moderate, why are all of his appointees extreme left? The far left should be pleased with his presidency, but the portrait they are painting is of a disinterested narcissist who couldn't lead a dog on a leash. Everyone drank the Obama kool-aid in 2008; they even controlled congress for two years. They should be celebrating Obama, yet there is a definite schism.

You want to know why politics is more divisive today than ever? We are now in a political climate where Obama is being criticized for taking out Bin Laden by political opponents. "Spiking the football"?! Has there ever been a more politically shallow move than that? "Man... he really has us by the political balls on this one, how on earth can we spin it? EVERYONE wanted Bin Laden dead, and we couldn't do it for almost a decade of trying, and now his administration got him... I KNOW! Let's accuse him of taking too much credit and excessive celebration!!!" Talk about manufacturing a conflict!

Do you know where the spiking the football quote came from? President Obama. He used the anniversary of bin ladens death to score some cheap political points against Romney, and so he opened himself to the criticism. If he had handled it presidentially, as a strong leader instead of using it as a partisan political play, Romney would have had to eat crow that whole week.

And please, the birther thing is ridiculous. Just stop. It was idiotic before he released his birth certificate, and after he released it, it's taken absurdity to a whole new level. It makes his opposition look even more brain dead the more they talk about it. Extreme conservatives simply wanted to latch on to anything that could disqualify him from office because he's not a Republican. Where were these people when there was talks about Kissinger making a good President?

So explain why the two examples I gave you wouldn't cause a reasonable person, let alone a paranoid one, to be skeptical?

And stop playing your religious card. If you'll accept whoever God appoints as President, then drink a tall glass of STFU, and stay out of politics. Where's your outrage for the GOP not making it a priority to protect the poor? That's certainly not very Christian either.

I'm not playing a card, I'm telling you what I believe. Last time I checked, I didn't need your permission to do that. Neither am I much into politics, personally. I follow it, but generally the choices are "bad" and "worse". I don't think the republicans are any better than the democrats, in many ways. The fact is, this nation has fallen far away from God, farther every day, and so I expect judgment will be coming fairly soon. Prophetically, 9-11 was a warning:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Isaiah-Judgment-Foretells-Americas/dp/1936488191

Sorry for the rant, but when are we going to talk about things Obama ACTUALLY hasn't done well with as President?

No problem. When you can think of any besides Bin Laden, let me know. I don't consider Obamacare to be a plus; my mother is going to lose her current health coverage and end up paying much higher premiums because of it.

>> ^heropsycho:

From a writer at the Stranger, who works for editor Dan Savage

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/02/the-sermon-on-the-mount

Ah, that old "the Old Testament isn't Christian" trope that Dan is now being forced to push back against. I get it all the time in my weekly Slog Bible Study threads whenever I quote from the Old rather than the New. Well, to settle this thorny and persistent issue once and for all, let's go straight to the source, perhaps the most Jesusy scripture of them all, the Sermon on the Mount:

“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

“But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

Those "laws of Moses" Jesus says he's come to accomplish not abolish? They're laid down in the Old Testament—mostly in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy—which by the way, explains their inclusion in the Christian Bible. That the laws and commandments of Leviticus are not broadly repeated in the Gospel of Mark or the Epistles of Paul should be no more surprising than the fact that they're not repeated in Kings or in Psalms. It would be redundant. They're all part of the same book.

I'd argue that those Christians who do not understand that the Old Testament has always been a fundamental part of Christian scripture, do not understand the doctrinal underpinning of their own religion. Indeed, there is more disagreement between various Christian denominations over which texts should properly be included in the New Testament than there is over which texts should be included in the Old.

And by the way, the "Old Testament" is not the Jewish Bible. We've got the Torah, the five books of Moses, as our holiest of texts. The Nevi'im and Ketuvim, in which the other books are compiled, are also taught and studied, but are separate texts.

One final observation. It does strike me that there is something vaguely anti-Semitic about this effort by some Christians to downplay the significance of the Old Testament within the Christian Bible, as if the Jewishness of it taints their religion. Well too fucking bad. Your religion is, at its core, a Jewish sect. Deal with it.

>> ^messenger:
So could you please watch the whole thing and then comment? You've spent more time doing research and replying to comments than it would have taken to just watch the thing through. And please do so with an open heart. In a nutshell, Matthew makes the argument that scripture actually does not forbid gay Christians to have gay sex. After watching it, you'll see that your comments about homosexual activity being a sin might not be scriptural, which is why nobody in this thread thinks you've actually watched it through. To claim scripture says it's a sin after watching this means you haven't watched it. That's why I invited you.

Well, I've finished watching and I have a really hard time believing that he has spent "thousands of hours" researching this, because you could copy and paste everything he has said from gay apologist websites, almost verbatim. So, there is nothing new here; just the usual twisting of scripture and dishonesty that is to be expected from people trying to justify what the bible clearly condemns as sinful. I'll give you an example of the dishonesty.

One of his arguments was to say that the destruction of Sodom and Gemmorah actually had nothing to do with homosexuality. He says that the attempted gang rape of the angels was actually just a condemnation against rape and not "committed, loving consensual homosexual relationships". He then points out that out of all the mentions of Sodom, sexual sin is only mentioned a couple of times. Which is true, but what he fails to mention is that most of the mentions aren't talking about Sodoms sins at all, but rather are spoken in a prophetic context. He then cites Ezekiel 16:49 which says

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Matthew then says that this proves that the sin of sodom was not homosexuality but arrogance and not helping the poor. It might prove that, except that this idea is contradicted by the very next verse:

Ezekiel 16:50

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

As we know from Leviticus 20:13, God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, which then cements the connection to Sodom. To leave verse 50 out in his exegesis shows his total dishonesty and MO.

The crux of his argument is in trying to overcome Romans 1:26-27, which is the strongest NT passage in condemning homosexual relations. He first tries to weaken it by putting it in the broader context of idolatry, which is actually a correct interpretation. Paul did intend to contrast it to idolatry. With idolatry, man exchanges the natural worship of God to the unnatural worship of false idols. In the same way, man exchanges the natural relations with women to unnatural relationships with men. Yet, what Matthew tries to interject here, is that this only applies to heterosexual men who abandoned their natural predispositions. He then asserts that, based on his opinion and nothing more, that because homosexuals naturally desire other men, it doesn't apply to them. Not only is this position not based in scripture, but it directly contradicts Pauls intended meaning. When Paul is speaking of natural, he doesn't mean someones psychological predispositions. He means what God intended when He created men and women. This is further evidenced by his usage of the words arsen and thelys for male and female, words that are relatively unusual in scripture but are used in Genesis 1:27, which is suggesting that same-sex relationships are a violation of the created order. We also have the fact of biology itself. It is unnatural by definition.

I could go on, but the main point is, every reference in scripture to homosexuality is negative. There is nothing there to affirm any kind of homosexual relationship, but plenty to condemn it. Matthews presupposition that homosexuality is a natural and unalterable orientation for some is clearly refuted by scripture. He acknowledges that God at least once considered it to be abomination which alone refutes this idea.

I am open to solid biblical interpretation, and if someone could present an argument that doesn't have to twist scripture into a pretzel to make it even remotely plausible, I would embrace it. That was not to be found in this presentation. Secular people of course will embrace any interpretation that agrees with their liberal ideals. As a Christian who takes the word of God seriously, I cannot.

>> ^messengerPaul states it is better to be single.Better to be single than what? Can you give me the scriptural reference?

That it's better to be single than be married, because you have more of your life to devote to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28

Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this


>> ^messenger:
True they have higher disease rates, but I'll jump the gun and say all the other things are most likely the result of discrimination.

The Netherlands legally accepts homosexuality, but not because it's socially popular. The Netherlands is historically a conservative Christian nation at heart, but in terms of governance, they're extremely libertarian. So no matter how vile, sinful or immoral the population at large thinks something is, the higher cause is that government not interfere in people's personal choices as much as possible. Homosexuality is in fact not socially accepted in the Netherlands. It's more like the famous quote, "I may hate what you're saying, but I'll fight with my life for your right to say it," but applied to sexual freedom rather than freedom of speech.

You should have looked before you leaped:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands

The Netherlands was historically characterized by multitude of religions. Since the mid of the Middle Ages, the Netherlands was a predominantly Christian country until late into the 20th century. Although religious diversity remains to the present day, there is a major decline of religious adherence. Nowadays, the Netherlands is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe, with only 39% being religiously affiliated (31% for those aged under 35), and fewer than 20% visiting church regularly

If homosexuality were going to be accepted anywhere, it would be the most secular country in Europe. You cannot simply write off these statistics as discrimination.


>> ^messenger:
Why is it a "breakdown?" Why not just "discarding"? What families are breaking down because of men having sex? Remember that (at least by my understanding) a man's being attracted to other men isn't a sin on its own. So, what effect can gay sex have on the country? This is the part of the common argument that I have zero understanding of other than the disease angle, which alone isn't enough to label it "a behaviour harmful to society".

It's not just the disease angle, it is also the issue of domestic violence (many times more than normal), drug use, mental health, etc. This is a major drain on society, as well as a danger to children raised in homosexual households. When I say breakdown, I mean of traditional values. To redefine marriage in a society built upon the traditional (and biblical) values of marriage and family is to fundamentally transform it. The same goes with allowing gays to adopt children. This effects our entire concept of human relations and institutions. It erodes monogamy in that gays don't traditionally have monogamous relationships..in the Netherlands for instance, research shows that even in stable relationships, men have an average of 8 partners per year outside the marriage.

It also erodes the boundaries of marriage, and it's a slippery slope to polygamy. Many legal experts have predicted that laws establishing same-sex marriage will open the flood gates to polygamous relationships:

David Chambers wrote in a Michigan Law review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).

I think this article does a good job articulating this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

I agree with Krauthammer, that the homosexuality angle is only tertiary to the real problem with marriage, which I see as the abandonment of biblical morality back in the early 60s.

It's bad for children in that the family structure of two biological parents in a low conflict marriage is the ideal for raising children, and the farther you get away from that, the more problems you encounter. Consider these statistics from a federal study "Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States"

Children in nuclear families were generally less likely than children in nonnuclear families
• to be in good, fair, or poor health [Note: these three categories are considered “less than optimal”];
• to have a basic action disability;
• to have learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;
• to lack health insurance coverage;
• to have had two or more emergency room visits in the past 12 months;
• to have receipt of needed prescription medication delayed during the past 12 months due to lack of affordability;
• to have gone without needed dental care due to cost in the past 12 months;
• to be poorly behaved;
• and to have definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties during the past 6 months.

Children living in single-parent families had higher prevalence rates than children in nuclear families for the various health conditions and indicators examined in this report. However, when compared with children living in other nonnuclear families, children in single-parent families generally exhibited similar rates with respect to child health, access to care, and emotional or behavioral difficulties.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/federal-report-confirms-nuclear-family-best-for-childrens-hea lth-48997/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry

What spirit do you believe in if you don't believe in anything supernatural?

These don't form my "faith", per se, but my best educated guesses or hunches at the moment. I rarely verbalize my beliefs on these matters, so it probably won't come out too coherently, but heregoes:

All the experiences that humans have are part of the natural condition of being human, and are ultimately caused by something in nature and in our natures, not by anything supernatural. I don't believe there are any higher powers necessarily, though our knowledge of what happened more than 14 billion years ago is nil, and there is so much yet undiscovered, so really, anything could be there. I don't think we had a conscious creator. I don't believe there are any superior entities that interfere with the universe at all, and none have a personal interest in us.

Any spirituality I have, therefore, stems from experiences as a human only. I believe conditions like nirvana probably exist and are achievable with great concentration and effort. I believe that faith in something helps it become real, and lack of faith hinders it. This includes health and psychological matters, as well as attracting success or failure in your endeavours.

I think that humans probably don't actually have free will, but considering how complex a question that is (the sum of all laws that govern everything in the universe), it's better for me to interact with the world as if we do. I believe that the the closest thing a person has to a "calling" or a "true path" is to be true to themselves, find their own person, and let it express itself perfectly in the world. This can be done by achieving mental calmness and following your heart and what feels right [edited]. In a state of mental calmness, your heart will never misguide you. There is no single correct expression of a person, just as there is no single correct "good" thing to do at every given moment. It can be suppressed by the self or others, and this suppression always causes unhappiness, which causes people to do bad things to others and themselves. True happiness and fulfilment can only come from feeling free to express who you really are. That to me is the human spirit.

Words do have meaning, and I would suggest, considering the content of our previous conversations, that your conclusion is based on the many misconceptions and misunderstandings you have about scripture.

You're quoting the Bible at me as if I already accept that it's true. I don't. If I were to interpret that passage's spirit into my spiritual framework, it would say that humans usually cannot have numinous experiences unless they are very much in tune with their true selves, and let that spirit flow through them and guide their actions, and leave the ego out.

I will also note that these objections are always concerning the Old Testament, a lot of which applied only to Israel and not to Christianity.

I'm not talking about the laws. I now understand that they no longer apply. I'm talking about the historical account of events. I don't understand how the OT could have been accurate and the word of God before Jesus, but then suddenly ceased to be after. Either a book is God's word and it's true, or it's not. And a god's word should not be something ephemeral. Its truth value cannot change ever. So, either God did all those horrible things in the OT that are ascribed to him, or he didn't. If he didn't, then the OT is wrong.

Instead of considering the words of Jesus on their own merit, skeptics try to do an end run around Him and undermine the OT so they can dismiss Him entirely. [edit: didn't insert this quote in the first draft]

I don't know everything that Jesus preached, but I consider him to be probably the best moral philosopher I've ever heard of, at least in broad strokes.

Actually, statistically, it would be the people who are unaware that there is a supernatural reality who would be considered defective.

Statistics don't determine fact. I thought you told me you were a scientist before your conversion.

There is no evidence that your scenerio is true, it is actually only your confirmation bias at work; you had an issue where you believed something was going on which wasn't true, and then you unjustifiably extrapolated that to everyone elses spiritual experience. That just doesn't follow.

Are you going "lalala" with your hands over your ears? That's not what I said at all. Fact: there are lots of people besides me and you around the world who have transcendental experiences. Fact: they often identify the entity in their experience as a divinity from a particular religion. Fact: they are just as fervent about what they believe as you are about what you believe. If you agree that those are facts, then I don't see how you can tell me that your interpretation of your experience must be the correct one and all those other people's are false ones. Logically, this is strong evidence that your interpretation is not necessarily accurate, and may in fact represent something in the human condition caused naturally.

What I know and you don't know is that most everyone who claims to be speaking to a real entity actually is speaking to one.

How could you know this? Are you in their minds? Did God give you some statistical data?

There are superior beings, fallen angels, whose only purpose is to convince people, usually with supernatural signs and evidence, that anything but Jesus Christ is the truth. They have invented uncounted false religions, cults, spiritual systems, philosophies, etc, to blind human beings to the light of Christ. The people who believe in them are not just deluded, they are deceived.

How can you say that your revelation is the truth, and that all these other people's revelations are false? They would tell me with equal fervency that theirs is real and all the others are false. Saying yours is necessarily right is illogical. I mean, what separates you from these other people that got fooled by what you think are false visions? How do you know you haven't been fooled too? I mean, if they can get fooled, why can't you? Are you smarter? Stronger? What?

Is it possible we're all plugged into the matrix? Sure. Is it possible the Universe started five seconds ago and all of our memories are false? Sure.

We agreed back at Qualiasoup vs. Craig not to introduce solipsistic arguments.

I presuppose that God created reality, and that it is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. I believe my presupposition is well justified by a preponderance of evidence, not the least of which is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Do you have other evidence besides your relationship with Jesus? What is it?

Now I'm paraphrasing the Imam: "I presuppose that Allah created reality, and that it is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. I believe my presupposition is well justified by a preponderance of evidence, not the least of which is my personal relationship with Allah through the teachings of his prophet Mohammed (PBUH)."

What's the difference between the two of you? How can you say you're right and he's wrong?

Now me: "I presuppose that reality is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. My presupposition is not justified in any way. It just makes my experience of life more meaningful."

I had literally just a month or so previous discovered his genius and then he died, so sad! He had all the makings of a classic. Thank you bud, I appreciate it
In reply to this comment by enoch:
the man is a prophet.
*promote

>> ^enoch:

the man is a prophet.
promote


Sadly, "was" a prophet.

the man is a prophet.
*promote

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Homophobic, Iowa, school' to 'Homophobic, dunkerton, Iowa, school, junkyard prophet, bradlee dean' - edited by xxovercastxx