What I actually said was "doh", not "duh." Big difference. One is a Homer Simpson catchphrase, the other is not.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
No duh intended or needed, please. I think there are too many reasonable ways for it to happen so no fail as I see it, respectfully.

You are, of course however, always welcome. Good luck to you and thank you.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Doh! Thanks for the heads up.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
This is a dupe of http://videosift.com/video/4-year-old-drummer-is-feeling-it.

I think you are closer on his age however.

Doh! Thanks for the heads up.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
This is a dupe of http://videosift.com/video/4-year-old-drummer-is-feeling-it.

I think you are closer on his age however.

Thank you! That's very nice of you to tell me what he said.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
From about 8:20 on...

When I'm walking into my bedroom I turned around and I heard him say, "Hang on." and I turned around and he looked at me and said, "Look, um, I've got another job on in about a month's time and, uh, if you're free I could use the help."

Thank you! It makes me happy that at least a few discerning people appreciate this kind of thing.

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
*quality

I don't even know where to start replying to your many comments. Do you seriously want me to justify my claim that religion should promote tolerance and reason with scripture? I could do it, but it would take me hours to explain all of doctrine to you. I have indeed both read and studied The Bible on my own, in over five religious courses and one secular, and in two courses at the university level. I am traveling to Jerusalem in January to further study The Old and New Testaments. I am not one of those people who think that you can prove anything about The Bible by quoting a few scriptures. I have no desire to argue with a person who makes points that I have already made (as if I disagree with you about them), and who answers with essays that don't even seem to be a direct rebuttal for me, but for all of Christianity. It annoys me when people assume things about what I believe, and it further annoys me when you say things like, "That is the problem. Everybody gets to interpret scripture how they want to," and then proceed to interpret The Bible as you want, in order to make a point. You can't dismiss biblical interpretation as arbitrary and then make definitive statements about how it supports slavery, torture, forcing women to marry their brothers-in-law, etc. That's just ridiculous.

I hope that I don't sound too hostile. I have a very fiery temperament, but I assure you that it's all in good fun and that I do appreciate your comments and enjoy heated discussions. I think that you are an intelligent person and that you made good points, but what am I supposed to do with that quagmire that you gave me, honestly? I don't have that kind of time nor stamina.

Sorry. I think I sounded short. I DO enjoy discussions, and I don't feel any animosity toward you for disagreeing with me. It's just that I've gotten into this argument more than once on this website and it's sort of draining afer a while. I find that I waste a lot of time that way because I love arguing so much.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I thought you enjoyed these debates. If not, just leave it at that. I'm not looking to stir up shit.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I don't have the time or desire to have this argument with you, but I have rebuttals for these points. Maybe if I take it bow by blow I can get through it eventually.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
If he's perfect then progress is not possible by definition.

He's perfect in that he possesses every godlike attribute. It's not a matter of self-improvement. He is not increasing in love, mercy, knowledge, etc., but his creations and dominions are increasing, and his children are progressing. I don't see how that's a contradiction at all.

In reply to this comment by thepinky

I don't have the time or desire to have this argument with you, but I have rebuttals for these points. Maybe if I take it bow by blow I can get through it eventually.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
If he's perfect then progress is not possible by definition.

He's perfect in that he possesses every godlike attribute. It's not a matter of self-improvement. He is not increasing in love, mercy, knowledge, etc., but his creations and dominions are increasing, and his children are progressing. I don't see how that's a contradiction at all.

In reply to this comment by thepinky

I appreciate your comment, and I understand what you're saying. I once wrote a 16-page paper on the "Problem of Evil," so I understand it a little bit. It took me at least 16 pages to write a sufficient solution to the Problem of Evil, but I feel that I did it. To me the solution is extremely simple, but I can never seem to convince anyone of this. Frankly, I don't have the time or the energy to try and convince you, but I'll give some highlights.

God is a perfect being, yet he is eternally progressing. He progresses through his creations. His creations increase, his children grow, etc. We, as his creations, are extensions of the progression of God. I think that you understand that in order for us to grow or be anything more than biological robots, we must have choice. God allows us to make evil choices and hurt ourselves and each other. He has provided the means for us to learn "the rules," but because of agency, people are free to choose what they will believe. This always worries people when I talk about it. We are all born with the ability to tell good from evil, but many people are never given a fighting chance to be "good" because of the evil of others or for whatever reason. The simple truth is that God is perfectly just. Because he has given us agency and because he will not intervene in our agency, some people do not have the same choices to be good as you or I, but it would be crazy to believe that God condemns people for things that they do not have a choice in. Whatever the inequites of this world that are created by man, God will make sure that all is fair, all is resolved, all is right. People worry about death and despair in this life, saying that a just God would not allow people to suffer so much. But to God, death is not a punishment. This life is so incredibly short in the grand scheme of eternity that it is not hard for me to believe that God will take care of it. If we suffer because of floods and famine, it will be for our good. You might say that people who live their entire lives in poverty are not benefitting from hardship, but God will reward us and make up a million times for our sufferings. You'd better believe that impoverished people are humble, and God has promised to reward the humble and meek. In the scope of eternity, suffering is a blessing. He has promised rewards in heaven for enduring our trials well that are beyond our comprehension. I think that's benevolent.

A couple more things concerning the Atonement. I do not believe that we will be punished or condemned for our sins unless we make them with full knowledge and consent. Even then, we have the chance to repent.

Here's a really corny video that is a brief explanation of why the Atonement is necessary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdc8rKcc4t4

How does sending his son to be brutally executed better equip God to forgive us? Even if it does, how is that a moral thing to do? Did everyone that died before 1AD go to hell? If not, then what made Jesus necessary later?

Like the video explains, in order for justice to be satisfied, Christ had to "pay for" our sins. In the garden of Gethsemane, not on the cross, Christ suffered for our sins. This is a matter of faith that I cannot explain. He was a mortal god, and because of this he was the only one who could suffer all of that exquisite pain. It had to happen the way that it did because Christ had to suffer as we will suffer. He had to

1. Have a body, because we have bodies
2. Be separated from God, because we are separated from God
3. Die, because we will die

It was moral because Jesus volunteered and knew what he was doing. And of course everyone before 1AD isn't going to hell. Time is a mental construct. The Atonement pays both past and future debts. Another thing is that we are not punished in eternity for mistakes that we make in a limited amount of time. If we do not repent, we have to pay the debt for our own sins instead of Jesus doing so, and then all but the vilest of sinners will be rewarded. I believe that only those that have a perfect understanding and knowledge of God and then deny him will be cast off forever. And maybe a few other really, really bad people. And that's almost no one.

I'm not done and there are lots of holes, but I want to go to bed. As a general rule, if something about Christian doctrine seems unjust or unmerciful or illogical to you, it is probably because it is wrong.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:

I agree that science, logic, and respect for others are essential to good society, but the right interpretation of Christian doctrine should encourage these things, not reject them.

"Religion" is not synonymous with "Protestant Christian," and your personal bad experiences with religion do not prove that all religion is harmful. It's funny how you just sort of skipped over the second part of my sentence, "However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself, but the watering-down and misuse of doctrine is, yes, extraordinarily evil and damaging to both straight and gay people."

When I refer to the "watering down" of doctrines, I'm verifying what you said. It seems like most Christians today have no concept of the fact that faith does not have to be removed from logic, tolerance, and an open mind. "Faith," for some people, is a word to throw out when someone asks you a hard question. I do believe in faith. You and I both know that there are things that human beings don't and/or can't understand. Whereas you write faith off as belief in the supernatural, I believe that faith is belief in things that follow all of the laws of the cosmos, but that are beyond our power, knowledge, or understanding. Faith is not necessary for the purpose of dismissing science and logic. It is necessary so that we can have choice. People are always arguing with me about choice, saying that a god who threatens damnation is not truly offering choice. Well, that's a discussion for another day.

When religious people think that morality is black and white, when they are hateful, intolerant, or bigoted, they obviously don't understand Jesus Christ AT ALL. So when I say that religion is not inherently harmful, your 37 years of experience, I'm sorry to say, do not exhaust all of the possibilities religion has to offer.

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
>> ^thepinky:
This is one of the best videos I've ever sifted. What's the deal? beg


It sure is!

*promote

Yay! You're a winner. Thanks. That video is fantastic, I say!

I like her art. And it's definitely the smirk.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
Your avatar always reminds me of an artist I follow on dA that goes by loish. I think it's the smirk. She uses a similar look in quite a few of her drawings.

Sorry, Farhad2000. It was like 3 a.m. and I temporarily lost my temper. Sometimes I get all crazy when I imagine that I sense egoism or hostility. Not your fault. Totally my fault.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
QM is dealing in half truths again, the legal definition towards enemy combatants does apply to those currently held in Gitmo.

Pinky, yes this is a garbage conversation because the parallel can be drawn pretty easily just re title this post as "GOVERNMENT OPPRESSION - NEVER SAY NEVER?" you will see how fast the opinions change. Its the same thing. The torture programs were not voted in, they were not representative of the American people it was just enforced over night. The same thing can happen when the Government decides you as a citizen are a threat as well.

You just made me very happy.

In reply to this comment by brain:
Same thing we do every night Pinky. TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!

Apology accepted. I, too, am sorry for being sarcastic. No hard feelings.

P.S. What about "Atheist?"

The silent "m" in "Mormon" thing? Congratulations for being un-funny, unoriginal, and for calling me and the people I love morons. *pins a blue ribbon to your chest and pats your head*

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
That's my line, Pinky. I actually take credit [e: or blame} for authoring it.

>> ^thepinky:
UsesProzac, I think you accidentally made this private, or maybe you're just afraid that your friends might see you for the troll that you are? Stop trying to provoke me. I prefer that you leave me alone.
>> ^UsesProzac:
The second "m" in "mormon" is silent.
In reply to this comment by thepinky