Recent Comments by cloudballoon subscribe to this feed

cloudballoon (Member Profile)

cloudballoon says...

Good question, BSR.

I wasn't a Christian until I'm in my 30's. But throughout my 20's, I occasionally get asked if I'm a Christian whenever I was just being nice/helping people. So after a dozen times getting asked that, I went to a church event from a Christian friend and got involved. I only wanted to get baptized after I read the whole Bible cover-to-cover.

I really don't get attached to the church much, although I do go every Sunday & have fellowship 3, 4 times a month. Not getting attached in the sense that knowing church is like any organization with lots of people - it's natural their hearts & minds tends to go to the daily running of the church (Getting more people into church, donations vs expenses, etc.) and communal/social side of things more than the spiritual-growth side.

I'm more of a "Jesus Follower" type of Christian I guess? not impressed with organized religion, but I just agree and put myself into practicing what Jesus preach to people, his simple commandments: Love God & my neighbors. Looking at Jesus as a humanitarian philosopher perspective, I can't believe He doesn't want us to make this Earth a better place. He's all about understanding, accepting and instill love & respect into everyone...

It's crazy to see people using and twisting religion to turn this world into - pardon my French - merde... how is this what Jesus wants? There are way too many people who just want the benefit (getting into heaven? bragging right? think Christianity is superior than others?) without the effort... these we call the "free-gift (read: cheap-fakes) gospel" that really have zero value and zero contribution to the betterment of the world.

You said it right. Jesus placed the world on his shoulder, if I call myself a Christian and I don't carry the cross as He does... I'm just lying to myself and to the world.

BSR said:

Still got the world on your shoulders I see.

Why did you decide to be Christian?

How Rwanda Built A Drone Delivery Service

Warp Speed Comparison

cloudballoon says...

This I agree. ST is indisputably more science based than SW, and deservedly earned that respect. It's fun to argue whether warp drive can/can not exist and all that, but to just compare the different warp speed of different ships, across different classes is kind of pointless, as the numbers are arbitrary to begin with, no?

Say, if the video instead compares Mach speed between F-15/16/18/22 etc. and argue which fighter got the more advanced engines (accounting for weight/speed/aerodynamic profiles factors) then I see the point...

entr0py said:

I'm just barely geeky enough to find this interesting, but here goes. The first reason is that logarithmic scales show up in science all the time, and are frequently misunderstood by layman and media, they just aren't at all intuitive.

The second is that those shows were written over decades by smart science-literate people who put in all of these careful details that totally flew over my head, it's fun to look back and see it was deeper than I knew at the time.

When Sci-fi is written with a good understanding of science and physics, it makes the fantastic parts seem more plausible because the rest checks out. The alternative way to do Sci-fi is to just say "Screw it, it's all magic!". Which works for Star Wars but isn't compelling in the same way.

Warp Speed Comparison

Graham Questions Judge Kavanaugh

The US-Canada Border Splits This Road Down The Middle

cloudballoon says...

There's an elite Canadian boarding school (Stanstead College) that I went to during my formative years. They admit quite few US & UK exchange students. Border agents were very friendly back in the day (80/90's). Us teenagers can just walk over to the US side by pointing and saying we're going to the groceries down the road when we check-in with the US border agents and they'd let us through. Back to the Canadian side, we just say we're Stanstead College students and they whisk us through.

We didn't carry passports. Not once did they not let us through. And I'm a visible minority (Chinese). Can't imagine they'd allow this anymore according to Mayor Dutil. Too bad...

How ancient Romans made stronger concrete than today

Atheist Angers Christians With Bible Verse

cloudballoon says...



Was gone for the weekend and it turned into word fights (almost)...

It is so hard to carry on a discussion... the heat too easily turned up. Sorry if I contributed in the heat.

Thing is, I don't think any of us need to argue for God's omnipotent or his non-existence. God can select to do or not do anything he wants. He can choose to reveal Himself to a believer or a non-believer, or NOT to. What's the point. It has been argued for millennia and I doubt we are "The Chosen One(s)" to end this. And I think, most of us in our Western society, whether you're Christian or not, we know quite a bit about the Bible CONTENT. But the 99.99% of us non-Bible-scholars probably don't know the exact CONTEXT of the tough stuff. The churches avoid them too for obvious reasons.

For me the important things is, there are really horrible things done in history (and present) in the name of religion. Allow me to be a bit self-serving and consider these terrible, inhumane events as evil beings hijacking their religions so they can get away Scot-free. We can't allow that in this day & age. Hold the evil doers & hypocrites accountable, not the religion.

When I read the Bible, I see all the crap that makes no sense too, but I see the discrepancy as humanity making progress. There are so many years between us & the Bible's original writings (or oral pass-me-downs), words & meaning invariably changed (and not always for the better). Could it be the clear-as-day word "gossip" (its Hebrew equivalent) was not part of its language yet? Therefore Paul said those sexist things (in our modern eye)? Or just people speak funny in those days? I can't be sure.

So, I *try* to figure out the meaning of those difficult Bible verses by keeping the context of Jesus' teachings in mind. I mean, come on, all he want is us all having compassion towards each other, be respectful of God and oh, there's the promise of heaven. Like, THAT'S IT, that's the gist of it. Anything else is pretty secondary & incidental to me. The part that concerns between human-human interact? Yes, it's hard to put in practice. But it's not hard to understand what's needed to be done. E.g. If someone offends my religion, should I go on the defensive and then all Super-Saiyan retaliation mode? Or should put my focus into finding out why he offended me and try to understand the reasoning behind it, and if possible, do something positive about it? I believe Jesus asks of us the latter.

Thing is, as a Christian (granted, some Christian might not consider me one that much, maybe?), I'm OK to leave a lot of things in the Bible in the "gray zone"... because it is *I* that haven't the smarts to comprehend what's written fully. But I do think I understand its purpose enough to know what I need to do to be better. The world is full of hurt, we can't just standby and focus on sometimes pointless fights (ironically I'm typing this post, lol, mea culpa, but hope it's worth it), better put more energy on making things better -- like Jesus, arguably the most progressive thinker/doer of its time, wanted to make the world a better place. Jesus didn't spend his time setting up a religion, he was there for a peace & compassion revolution.

Seriously sad that when the topic touches on religion, there're way too much stereotypes & presumptions on every sides. I see the reality as far more nuanced. I can understand, and in fact conditionally support, a lot of the abolition of "Religion" with its ritualistic practices in today's society. I really don't trust anyone loudly proclaiming themselves "devout" but support sexist/racist/unjust policies. The smell of hypocrisy, ulterior motives & power corruption are too great. Don't sheepishly give them the political & God forbid... military power to do great harm to humanity. History has proven that time & again.

Atheist Angers Christians With Bible Verse

cloudballoon says...

Well, if I go about interpreting your word wrong, the fault lie in me and not you, right?

Bible records the words of God and the history of the people too. Since the people in it are fallible, of course it should include those faults in the text for honesty.

newtboy said:

Hmmmm....but if the bible is the infallible word of God, how can mere man properly edit it?
If it's not, then who cares?

Atheist Angers Christians With Bible Verse

cloudballoon says...

Thanks dag & transmopher.

Oh yeah, this 3rd Testament you advocate would be most useful. There are external references throughout the centuries that helps people understand it in better context. Matthew Henry for example - not perfect, but useful. But I'm afraid human nature would just twist and corrupt anything. Pretty soon a 4th Testament will be needed.

The big problem with religion is the defensiveness of its practitioners. When people outside of their religion points out the weird crap in their holy text (weird in the present, not so much during the time it was written), they go all up in arms and goes on the attack. Yet so many withing their rank uses bits and pieces of the text out of context to justify horrendous behavior. Where is the self-criticism? Where's the self-reflection? Where's the self-correction?

It's no wonder atheist wants religion out. But realistically, religion is not going out the door anytime soon. I can understand that want too, really, I want the bad crap out of religion just as much.

But I do see the goodness within and just trying my best to achieve the same goal from an opposite (?) vantage point. If we're all here fighting evil, I don't care in what name you do it for, I'm going to support you.

Today's terrorism problems have no better authority than Muslim leaders coming out and condemn and explain their religion to the world. Christians needs to preach compassion towards their neighbors rather than fear & loathing, it's what Jesus commands. That's peaceful, cross-faith discussions the religious leaders of all faiths lack so much of. But I just don't see much of that up top...

transmorpher said:

I hear you, but the interpretation part is where I think the problem lies.

While you have a fairly benevolent interpretation, someone else who has trouble getting laid could read it as a god given justification to own sex slaves. That's a pretty extreme example of course, but you can imagine that there would be interpretations varying between your example and my extreme example, many of which could be used to oppress women.

When all that was needed was a simple "no gossiping in church" rule. It's a clear command, unmistakable and unexploitable for anything other that it's original intention.

So a 3rd testament would start with the words READ THIS LITERALLY :-)

Right now though - How do we know whether or not take the bible word for word? It's not even clear whether that is up to us to decide.

It's your interpretation that's made you decide not to read it literally, but instead to interpret it with the overall goal of viewing the good in the bible. And that says more about you being a good person, rather than the contents of the bible. I think you would be advocating living a compassionate lifestyle whether or not you read the bible.

That's why I'm thinking it's unnecessary to even have religion, when we can just teach ethical behavior, and ethical thinking in a very clear way, which leaves no room for error, or danger of allowing people to justify their bad behaviors.

Atheist Angers Christians With Bible Verse

cloudballoon says...

But it's not really solving a problem, is it? If you have a 3rd Testament then people a century later need a 4th Testament to understand the 3rd. It's just endless guessing.

The many confusions & consistencies deal with God's actions toward the peoples of its time. In this video's case, Paul to the Corinthian believers (people-people). My "narrow-minded" guess, is the "women" at the Corinthian church were there not as seekers of the Faith, but as wives just accompanying their husbands, so these females gathered around and started gossiping and various sundry conversations, turning bothersome to the brothers listening to the sermons... so that's why Paul ordered the women silenced. Now, that's MY interpretation, you can argue it's sexist/degrading of me calling the women gossipy (but bear with me for argument sake, because those men at those times are likely sexist!)... but that's one possible scenario. There can very well be other equally (or likely more) convincing scenarios, but only one of them is the truth. But which one is? Who has the authority to know and write down the true case in this 3rd Testament?

People have been discussing for centuries and I don't see the point of reading the Bible literally and try to interpret meanings on these small things. Humans in the Bible all make mistakes. We need to keep on progressing to make the world a better place. That's what Jesus advocated... Picking faults of the people in Bible is useful if we use them as examples of never repeating their faults. But it's no good if we're too focused on finding faults but lost sight of doing good.

transmorpher said:

I think there needs to be a 3rd testament that really clears this shit up.

And if we are supposed to just use common sense, then it means we don't need the bible at all, since that would mean we have an innate ability to make good decisions ourselves.

Atheist Angers Christians With Bible Verse

cloudballoon says...

I've gone to church for a few years. And I see no women staying silent, nor any man telling them to. I really don't care about "tradition" and would voice serious concern if these type of crap happens in the modern church. Believe me, my church sisters takes no crap from the brothers. And I don't really see much old-school practices except communion, and that's not far-out unacceptable a tradition considering its purpose.

I (or at least hope to) continuously carry a critical eye & mind on these social-issue things as in many others at the church. Church "doctrine/tradition" is no excuse to justify bad social/inequality/bigotry behavior. For me, discussion on why the heck Paul wrote these words is fine, it's good to find faults how those people who lived 2000 years ago and evolve the modern church practices to align better with Jesus' intention.
Overall, in my church, I think most people are pretty grounded in real-life struggles... but hey, I fully understand these are subjective opinions... we all have our blindspots. I think we're all better man/woman if we can take in criticisms.

I can't for the life of me understand the U.S. "Christian Right" (but I'm Canadian, so I'm just a passive observer, as I can't vote on US politics) nor, from my understanding of Him, Jesus (as a preacher of love & peace) could be a far/alt-right-winger. But oh, sorry, I don't mean to talk politics... just hope to convey from which side of the discussion I come from.

It's foolish (and arrogant) to take the Bible literally... so much contradictions, inconsistencies, if read this way. And really, I keep thinking - WHY LITERALLY? - I don't dare listen to my pastors and think their words MUST be what God/Jesus meant. Martin Luther's movement freed us from those chains of mindlessness from the church preachers' power over us.

Akways look to the intention of Jesus, which for me, is honestly good, relevant and much in demand, and do those as the Christian mission. The Bible can be confusing, but the message is crystal clear. And that's love & compassion towards our neighbors, go a preach THAT! Not hate/fear-filled "damn this, damn that"/"End of the World is nigh"-type rhetorics.

Seriously man, looking from a distance (again, Canadian here) those loud-voice Christian Rights in the States scare the hell out of me and most of my brothers & sisters, the general thought around me is that they've move way far out from the Christian's way that Jesus want us to be (that I know of)... makes me so sad.

French Crosswalk PSA

cloudballoon says...

Very well executed, and should be effective (even short term).

Really don't understand why any pedestrian would think it's more important to look at the phone the few seconds it takes to cross an intersection. Priorities, people!

Besides, people/cars/scenery are interesting to look at too, spend some time to look at the environment all around you!

(Mea culpa: While I do look at my cellphone while I walk, I do look up most of the time, and I stop if I need to type. And never look at the phone near intersections, it's just principle.)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon