-Demosthenes-

Learn how to play the ukulele. Girls like it

You should look at the specific requirements at your college/university. Most Chem Engineering degrees are monstrous (like a 100+ credits passed GE's), but overlap a lot of Chem and Math. If you're college has a lot of overlap in the required classes for certain minors then it might be worth it. But it may be worth it at some colleges and not at others. I don't know how much it would help you in the job field though, not being a Chem Engineer myself.

The reason to collect CO2 in trees (not sure a tree is considered a fossil fuel) is that it is cheap and easy' date=' and the technology is already in place (trees). Is there some reason you object to the idea of using trees?[/quote']

I guess I was trying to think of something cool But that certainly satisfies the requirements and it sounds cheap and easy. What about plankton? I would take further study to see what effects there would be on the environment for these interventions and how much they cost.

 

An interesting fact..........the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has used enough money and resources to completely solve world hunger in the entire world. I believe it was 3x over. We can afford to blow the hell out of each other but not to solve our problems. THe solution to climate change is a world wide effort where money is non existent in the formulation of a solution..............good luck with that.

This highlights an interesting fact, that this isn't actually so much a technical problem as it is a social/political problem. The sad fact is that most hunger in the world is man made through war and political unrest, as apposed to simple lack of resources. The solution to a great many problems is just what you said, a world wide effort -- or rather cooperation or at least non-war.

In the 3rd world millions of people die of vaccine treatable diseases and other diseases that would be treatable by inexpensive interventions or preventions. People die of tetanus, vitamin A deficiency, Zink deficiency, AIDS, all of which are at some level preventable or treatable by some means that is much less expensive than clinical intervention -- then sending an actual doctor or nurse to treat them, or even just setting up a clinic with cheaply paid local health workers. It's ridiculously cheaper to educate a group of people on how to prevent AIDS, and even supply some minimal means, than to supply antiviral medication for a lifetime. Many child deaths could be avoided if more mothers nursed their babies, or if they knew how to treat diarrhoeal diseases at home, basic nutrition, etc etc. In the 1st world Hypertension, Obesity, tobacco, and alcohol are related to a lot of deaths and a lot of clinical money spent that could have been spent on education on how to prevent these diseases. But even if you educate are many even going to prevent their own diseases?

I don't see a reason to make CO2 back into fossil fuels, is there a cheap way to make CO2 into a some other solid solid?

It's way different.

I haven't read Jesus, Interrupted, but I have read the Bible, and it's quite obvious without reading commentary that it's fairly self-contradicting. But it's also a really old collection of writings (not originally one big book like a surprising amount of people believe ), and it's been kept for more than a few hundred years by people who may or may not had reason to change them (the scribes come to mind who had kept/transcribed the Jewish records between the OT and NT as well as the Jewish record keepers and leaders who reacted to the early Christian movement, to say nothing of early Christian record keepers who held the gospels, epistles, and revelation almost exclusively for hundreds of years).

To my knowledge there are very few references to Jesus outside of religious texts. There are a couple references in the old Jewish Records, referring to a character called Yeshu, who fits some of the descriptions of Jesus. Could anyone talk me down on this subject? lol

Most references to Jesus would be religious by nature, I'd think.

Of course "Jesus" is only a translation of that Jewish name, one not uncommon in the day of His birth.

The Ender's Game Series (By Card) and the Robot Novels (By Asimov).

It's not just the catholic church, and I believe it's more the evangelical ministries that are at fault here,but it's a well know problem. The ministries are sending over preachers that claim condoms are *causing* AIDS (plot by the 'white man') then literally encourage the disease and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Literally and directly.

 

The catholic church is a small part, granted.The catholic church should be a little ashamed. The other churches should be more ashamed.

 

Better?

 

If you want to put Christianity all together like that.

 

Yes, but it's quite a known phenomena that abstinence is NOT working, *specially* in Africa. So if you KNOW they will not abstain, and you STILL tell them that condom is the devil, then you *KNOW* they will not use condoms. Not much way of gettin 'round it, really.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7014335.stm

http://www.iheu.org/node/1754

 

 

~moo

No, I think abstinence would work. What you're saying is that they won't do it (or won't not do it, whatever). These people aren't a bunch of animals who can't help themselves, they're just like us -- people. They can do whatever they want.

Obviously it's wrong to tell someone that a condom is the devil (the thought of which is a little disconcerting). Following that advice, while ignoring all the rest and blaming the advice giver is rather irresponsible.

It's the proverbial equivalent of running head on into a brick wall with my seat belt on -- and taking no responsibility for it.

Though I agree with everything said along these lines' date=' how does this differ from the Boy Scouts, or the Moose Lodge, or the Grand Poo-baa of the Fraternal Order of The Lodge?

 

These are all social groups, but none of them seem to rely upon the existence of some magical--spiritual--being. (Being?)[/quote']

 

Well, that is the difference. Strictly social organizations say nothing about life after death, or about Deity's role in our lives, which are what people crave.

 

[...]

As an atheist' date=' a scientist, and a member of the human race (no other, just that one), I understand how insignificant my whole life feels when taken within the Grand Scheme of Things. It's a hard thing to contemplate.

 

But I bet many of us feel this way.

 

 

My scientific background demands that I accept it. That doesn't mean that I like it.

 

Lots of people go with what makes them feel significant.

 

I don't feel that way, but I understand it.

 

Just things to think about.

 

Bill Wolfe[/quote']

 

While a respectable and rational outlook, I know many scientists who are not atheists and do not feel demanded to accept atheism. They may be even a minority, but if so it is a substantial one.

It can also cause the spreading of STD's' date=' which is what happens, quite horrifically fast, in countries in Africa where the church (not just the catholic, but they're one of the bigger ones) decides to send its preachers.

 

They are essentially killing thousands, if not millions, of people out of an archaic belief that has no support in rational reality.

 

 

Irrational belief can be evolutionarily and ethically disastrous.[/quote']

 

First of all, I wouldn't give the catholic that much credit. If you wanna blame AIDS on the Catholic Church, I'm cool with that. I'm just going to disagree as I don't believe that Mother Church has enough pull in the world to cause nations of people to die of AIDS. That'd be pretty nuts though, I'll give you that.

 

Second of all, I think that not using condoms but having premarital sex and blaming the Catholics is kinda hypocritical? Just me? If I follow half of someone's advice and it goes wrong is that their fault? Whatever.

It's probably good to remember that fats and proteins are used for things other than calories. This is all anecdotal (so much of nutrition is) but I know people who've done high protein/low carb diets and people who've done low fat diets, and both have lost weight. I don't know who was healthier, but I think it's pretty much a calories game.

But some foods are more nutrient dense than others (more nutrients like fiber/vitamins/minerals per calorie). And a lot of people say that fat and fiber make you fuller, etc etc. There's a lot of stuff out there.

Wow I didn't realize how different other places were when it comes to education. In the states you don't actually graduate secondary school (our high school right?) in anything, you just graduate high school I wouldn't hesitate to go into any bachelor degree program from high school, even taking no pertinent classes in my major, but I don't know if that's helpful to you where ever you're at.

Also, as far as I know, there isn't much calculus in Biology. There's some stats I guess, but as far as I know calculus is very physics math (someone correct me if I'm wrong -- I often am).

The lower level bio classes at my school that the bio major requires aren't much harder than high school classes. I've actually started three different majors before settling where I'm at (History, Computer Science, and finally Exercise Science) and did very well in the lower level classes of each without having much of a background in some, they're not hard till you get higher in the major anyways.

I don't understand what you say here. You mean the problem is that religions is rationalized, or you mean problems arise WHEN religion is rationalized?

That problems arise when religion is rationalized. You can come with a rationalization for any belief, be it good or bad, and believe in it. So coming from the point of view that there is a true religion I think that you could only get it straight from God (instead of making it up out of what "makes sense"). Coming from the point of view that there isn't a true religion, I think their all wrong.

Yep that's a rationalization, isn't it?

If I believed it because I thought it made sense.

Depends WHICH!

You're right of course. I think there's a lot of amateur study of the Bible, which I think is good, my study of the Bible is amateur, which lends a little to the fact that a lot of Bible "research" is shotty. I think a bigger thing is that a lot is motivated by things other than scholarship. Like the pastor who has his ministerial license, has started a church, and is making money will interpret scripture to mean whatever will make him right. Of course this isn't always the case, and I don't think usually the case, but you see my point.

Bad analogy. What I'm saying is that you can't say that all over the world it's wet when it's only raining in 2 places.

So all we disagree is how much it's raining, and all I know is that I've seen it rain a lot. If you disagree I'm totally cool with that, maybe I'm wrong.

If you want to talk about what the bible/quran/OT/NT says, you shouldn't nitpick the good stuff and leave otu the bad stuff.

It's actually a little more complicated than that. I actually know virtually nothing about the Quran, having only read parts here and there, but I've read the Bible (King James Bible) at least once (mostly more than that, but books like Leviticus only once ). In the Bible there are a lot of seemingly contradicting ideas, and a lot of outright contradicting ones But mostly when contrasting different parts of the Bible. Most striking is the difference in the OT and NT, which are so drastically different. Even further the five books of Moses are pretty different from the writings, which sound almost Christian (like Psalms), which are very different form the prophets. And even in the NT the Epistles are different from the Gospels, and Acts has a different tone from either of them with different emphases.

So, although it's true there are is a lot of contradiction in the Bible, individual books and even small groupings of books are surprisingly uniform.

The problem only starts when these rationalizations and explanations come on the expense of others. Like gay marriage. Liek abortions. Like death penalty. You may agree or disagree with each and every one of them, but if the reasons are religious, then you should expect that others rationalize same religion differently and find different meanings to agree on, or disagree on. That's how religious streams are formed.

So we both see the same problem that happens with religion is rationalized.

You might want to re-read Matthew, because He explicitly states when He would fulfill the Law; and it hasn't happened yet.

The common belief being that it was with His death and resurrection, which is what I ascribe to.

Bible studies are notorious for ignoring context. If you want context, you should study the texts from a historical-critical perspective rather than treating the texts as a single text with one viewpoint.

Truer words have never been spoken. I think Biblical studies are the studies that most often ignore context.

Why would they call themselves after Christ when they disagree with what He taught. Paul is clearly at odds with Peter(he even talks about a confrontation with him) about whether the Law must be obeyed. Peter(the one whom Jesus said would be the rock upon which the Church is built) and Jesus said that the Law was to be explicitly followed, but Paul disagreed. In cases such as this, it is logical to name your group after the teacher with which you agree.

Actually Paul doesn't specifically mention Peter (Cephas) it acutally appears in verse 12 in a list of names. Paul says "...every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ" in verse 12 of the KJV. He actually includes himself in the list. And says two verses before that "there be no divisions among you." He says they shouldn't be divided following different teachers. That actually what he's preaching against, even people saying they follow Paul who wrote the letter are screing it up and misunderstanding the gospel. He actually says, sorrowing that they are doing this: "I thank God I baptized none of you." Which are strong words, even for Paul.

This is a very familiar idea in epistle written to the Gentiles, and even general epistles. Renouncing division is huge, emphasizing that the religion that people make up is wrong, and the only real answers come straight from deity, not reason.

This thread asks the question "Which Religion is Right". How can you expect to relate to this question while mishmashing groups with mutually-exclusive beliefs? Mormons believe utterly DIFFERENT things than Catholics and Evangelicals' date=' who believe different things than Orthodox. In fact, many of those groups treat the others as if they aren't at all Christians, because they don't follow their notions of what christians should be.

 

You can't talk about the trends that affect the *BELIEFS* of those groups as if they're one when they're completely separate.

 

~moo[/quote']

 

I got to agree with you, and I appreciate the way you look at it, but it's just no fun. You can't really say it's warm outside, because not all the molecules in the air actually have the same amount of energy. You can't say Americans are getting fatter because not all of them are, just a significant number. I can appreciate that, but at the same time -- that's not how I look at the world. I see generalizations. The house I live in is messy, not every surface in the house is messed up, but I generalize. My shoes are brown, not really there's gray and green too, I generalize.

 

If you don't you are really restricted on what you can say. Grass is no longer green (some is brown), the sky is no longer blue (sometimes it's gray, black, etc), etc etc.

 

Islam, Judaism and Christianity preach some love and harmony, and a lot of war and vengeance. If you choose to follow this in modern time or if you choose to reinterpret it in light of modern morality, that's your right. These teachings are still there, and in all these religions there are streams who choose to interpret their teaching literally and *keep* those warlike violent immoral teachings.

 

I think that at least as often as not these were and are rationalizations and lines of reasoning built on top of religion. A lot of religious violence in Europe in the Middle ages was to control religious lands, in the name of a religion based off of the Bible. Now Jesus never says to take control of Jerusalem in the Bible, but if you put together some OT stuff you can come up with a rationalization. Even in Islam the Qur'an says something like "There shall be no coercion in matters of faith." (Surah 2:256)

 

Religions today are very usually based very loosely on scripture, their mostly ideas from men. The Bible says nothing about how to baptize, nothing about Popes, bishops, what we should do on Sunday, how to do the sacrament (or communion), or any of those things. So why not go a step further and rationalize some other thing you want to do to

 

But other than that' date=' what do you mean the 'letters to the gentile churches' in the bible? What letters?

[/quote']

 

Most of the Bible isn't actually the story about Jesus, contained in the Gospels. Most are "epistles" or letters to different peoples, mostly from Paul. Especially Corinthians (who are mostly Greek converts) Paul rips into them for leaning unto "wisdom" instead of faith. "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom" (1:22)

 

He continues in the next chapter "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." (2:11-12) The New Testament Church was all about revelation straight from Deity, which is usually no longer the case.

 

In fact sometimes I think Corinthians was written to the United States In chapter one where Paul chastises them for calling themselves after different religious teachers ("I am of Cephas" or follower of Cephas) when they should be calling themselves after Christ -- makes me think of all the denominations here in the States named after some religious figure

That's because most of the time they have different trends.

 

I think we should separate them' date=' is my point. [/quote']

 

I would agree there are different things happening in different areas of Christianity, but it is useful and interesting to define Christianity loosely in terms of a group that shares certain characteristics. History is full of imperfect trends and loosely defined groups. The Great Awakening was a religious trend in American. By no means does that mean that all of religion was affected or even that all of Christianity in America. It's merely a noticeable trend in large enough group of similar organizations that is both useful and interesting.

 

History isn't an exact science. When we speak of American history in the Revolutionary period, things other than revolution were going on. Not everyone was either a loyalist or a patriot, but these definitions and groups are nonetheless useful interpretations, if only approximations of the real thing.

 

I don't quite know what you mean by that. First off, Jews never had holy men (prophets are not holy, they're righteous, there's a huge huge difference in faith about that).

 

I wasn't very clear. We don't often refer to Israel in the OT as "Jews," but assuming that the Jews (as they claim, which is quite supported in secular history) are descendants culturally and religiously from the people of Israel in the OT (the Old Testament that is, with Moses and Isaiah and those guys) then they in face did have "Holy Men." Whether or not you want to call them that, I don't mind, but the leaders in the OT talked to God, especially the patriarchs. Vision was not uncommon, my favorite being Isaiah's vision of God. After the OT ended there were no more men who talked to God (with exceptions, but the ruling class did not). If fact the Jews have a terrible history of teaching the words of old prophets while ignoring or killing the current prophets (I'd like to cite the entire Bible here). They preferred the Hellenistic (or Greek) scholar approach, which is what they turned into by the time of the NT. (assume "with exceptions" -- oxygen does always have a 2- oxidation state, Ribosomes don't always translate proteins right, some white people can dance! etc etc)

 

Much can be said about the influence (ahem, forceful influence) of Christianity in most of those places, including south America. If that's the reason, then no wonder they are subdued -- christian missionaries, with soldiers and guns, subdued them.

 

However terrible and unrighteous that was, it's not so much the case anymore. In the anglo world secularism is a big part of the culture, I'm not attacking it I'm merely calling it how I see it. By subdued I meant they commonly view their religion with less mysticism and it affects their every day lives less. This is a generalization of course.

 

But that's true for the USA, while not so much to many parts of Europe. Is that still a trend?

 

If it is true in the US, as you say, then it's still a trend. Trends can be limited to geographical locations.

 

Also, how does that answer the "Which relgion is right" question?

 

I'm merely pointed out that many attempt to answer the question my mixing their culture with the religious heritage.

 

I'm a bit lost with regards to your point.

 

Of course this is a generalization. It's impossible to talk about a group of people with out generalizing, it's an approximation. When you open your history text book and it talks about Nazi Germany, it's a generalization. Not everyone in Germany was a Nazi, it's ridiculous to think of it that way. To say that Africa has been negatively affected by colonial powers is generalization, it's an approximation that is useful and so on.

You know, I think one of the problems I have with the past few posts is that "Modern Christianity" is an extreme generalization. It seems to me that there's an attempt to explain how "Modern Christianity" relates to various subjects and its history, when "Modern Christianity" is divided into various streams that have, a lot of times, mutually exclusive beliefs and, most of the time, totally different history.

 

Which "Modern Christianity" are we talking about?

Maybe I'd rather meant mainstream Christianity, although that might be just as ambiguous. Denominations loosely based off of the NT from the last two hundred years who have paid clergy and believe in the Trinity? It's hard to talk about absolute terms and groups when you're talking about trends.

But the trend is, and has been as exemplified by Judaism, a move towards a replacement of Holy men (prophets, apostles, etc.) with a scholarly class, an abstraction of God (such as the Jews whose own scripture portrayed a very anthropomorphic God that openly appeared to people, but by NT times, dominated by Jewish scribes, their idea of God had changed a God very much not involved in their lives), and other trends are also interesting.

But it's not just the Judeo-Christian ideals that are affected. If you go to Latin America in many places where the culture is different Catholicism is much more extreme, Deity is more real. Those of other faiths who are very much involved in American or European culture are much more subdued in their religious beliefs. Hindus, Muslims, or Christians aren't necessarily less Hindu, Muslim, or Christian, just have different ideas because of their cultural notions.

Our culture is just very secular is all, I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, but it nonetheless has an enormous affect on everything we do, and one of those things happens to be religion.

When the merge occurred, the result was a hybrid blend of these two entities. Christianity started to become more Roman and Rome became more Christian. The history that follows is about this Roman-Christian hybrid. We call this hybrid Christianity, even though the Roman spirit was part of the blend.

I think this is super interesting. Modern Christianity is based of the Bible, albeit loosely. I'm obviously way biased, with my background, but mainstream Christianity is so steeped in western culture (I guess you could call it Roman long ago, or some derivative of Greek, either way today in the States and Europe we have some descendant of that culture some sort of rationalistic Anglo-culture -- I don't know what to call it -- which is not a bad culture by the way).

It's interesting that this is exactly what happened to the Jews following the Old Testament, the "Hellenization" (or "Greekifying" if you prefer) of the Jews. They went from being led by the Prophets of the OT with the Priesthood of the Temple to some weird form of scholar/clergy rabbinical system (hear of scribes, Pharisees, or Sadducees -- whom Jesus was not fond of?) in between the OT and the NT. The main language that all Jew's shared became Greek! (recall the Septuagint)

It's actually really strange when you think about it. After the "End of the Prophets" as it says in the KJV, everything went to Hell (Hellenization that is, of course not exclusively though ), creating some apostate system that eventually killed the Judaism's very God, Jehovah/Jesus (according to the NT of course).

Then Christianity supplanted Judaism (or rather fulfilled according to Jesus) and then Greek/Roman/Western culture seeped into it and created a weird scholar/clergy system similar to the scribes and Pharisees (which was not present in the NT), and a very similar thing has happened (As the Hebrew Bible became Greek, the Christian Bible has now become English as it were). You could say western culture has killed Biblical religion twice, the Jews then the Christians.

Of course modern Christianity isn't necessarily bad for being similar to apostate Judaism, or for wandering from NT Christianity, but it is interesting.

There are a lot of things based on the Bible, but there's hardly enough in there to make a complete religion, too many unanswered questions. That's why Christianity is so diverse, and there are so many denominations.

Religion, or spiritualism or personal belief, seems so mixed up in rationalism and logic. When I've asked people why they believe what they do I get all sorts of evidence and some really cool lines of reasoning, but I don't understand how you can prove something logically when it is unobservable with ones physical senses. I understand why religion needs it either.

I think the forcing together of these two great paradigms, spiritualism and secularism/rationalism, is unfortunate, and it seems to me -- rather illogical. Both from different worlds, the natural and the supernatural, and both based on totally different ideologies.

Personally, whether right or wrong, I believe because I've tried it, and it feels good -- it tastes good. In my opinion, that's the very tone of the entire New Testament, especially the Gospels.

By the way, how's it goin'?

Wade and Nancy had their baby, but that hasn't stopped Wade from hitting on Nancy's sister Charlene, who lost her job at the ad agency after her boss Desmond found out she was sleeping with Desmond's assistant Helga, who, it turns out, is really Wade's evil twin brother who went to Brazil and had a sex change.

A lot can happen in two years.

I've had like no time, I just started school, summer term. I was anxious to get back into it. Computer Science major. What the heck's been going on here?

welcome back, bro... did they really not have computer access for 2 years?

Missionaries are pretty busy

Crazy-Mormon.

Isn't that a bit redundant?

Yes.

Oh guess who's back.

[...']and I don't think mormons all over the country are outraged[...]

Meh. Them mormons are crazy.

Use a pseudonym