Evangelical Christians

[F250 28705]

John Hagee and Robert Jeffress were part of the Jerusalem embassy ceremony yesterday. I'm pretty familiar with Hagee since he is a local. I used to run into him regularly when I'm used to live near him. The dude loves to eat and is somewhat of a jack ass. He also has a major fetish for Israel and has had Bibi speak at his church a couple of times. I can see why he would get the invite. Jeffress is just a flat out dick without the obsession with Israel, not really sure why he was included.

Anyways, Dubya's Pro-Israel Neocon administration didn't even pull a stunt like this. Trump definitely locked down his evangelical base with this move. I believe Troph nailed the reason for their support. He is a flawed man being used to carry out Gods will similar to the kings of Babylon.

 

Controversial US pastors take part in Jerusalem embassy opening

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/13/politics/hagee-jeffress-us-embassy-jerusalem/index.html

[Blotto 23434]

28 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Come on dude, this is seriously the argument you use? You know that's bullshit right? No wonder you people are duped so easily.

Sooners? It's about what I would expect from that shithole.

[F250 28705]

18 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

Boy you aint kidding. I wish every new Methodist was required to read the Book of Discipline - that should put them to sleep for about 2 years.

And don't get me started on the fact that if it takes a 900 page book to run a denomination, then you are doing it wrong.

Or the fact that there is more than 1 version of the Book of Discipline. Thank you Central Conferences.

I think I am one of the few that like the book of Discipline and reading Wesley's letters. It actually is required for new members, well the "survey course" is required.

[relapse98 634]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

I think I am one of the few that like the book of Discipline and reading Wesley's letters. It actually is required for new members, well the "survey course" is required.

Come again?  Maybe you can show me in the BoD where that is required. You'll want to look at Article 216b - "It shall be the duty of the congregation, led by the pastor, to instruct them in the meaning of baptism, in the meaning of the Christian faith, and in the history, organization, and teachings of The United Methodist Church, using materials approved by The United Methodist Church for that purpose. After the completion of the period of nurture and instruction, the sponsor(s) and pastor shall bring the candidates before the congregation and administer the services of Baptismal Covenant, in which people are baptized, confirmed, and received into the Church."

But it aint a requirement for membership. Its up to the congregation and pastor to determine if they have been instructed.

 

[F250 28705]

2 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

Come again?  Maybe you can show me in the BoD where that is required. You'll want to look at Article 216b - "It shall be the duty of the congregation, led by the pastor, to instruct them in the meaning of baptism, in the meaning of the Christian faith, and in the history, organization, and teachings of The United Methodist Church, using materials approved by The United Methodist Church for that purpose. After the completion of the period of nurture and instruction, the sponsor(s) and pastor shall bring the candidates before the congregation and administer the services of Baptismal Covenant, in which people are baptized, confirmed, and received into the Church."

But it aint a requirement for membership. Its up to the congregation and pastor to determine if they have been instructed.

 

Yeah, I put "survey course" in there for a reason. It's required in our church as a survey type course, basically an overview. I guess a pamphlet with bullet points can be handed out to cover it too, it's kinda like a ToS. Still, some knowledge from it must be passed on even if no one reads the details.

 

[relapse98 634]

3 minutes ago, F250 said:

Yeah, I put "survey course" in there for a reason. It's required in our church as a survey type course, basically an overview. I guess a pamphlet with bullet points can be handed out to cover it too, it's kinda like a ToS. Still, some knowledge from it must be passed on even if no one reads the details.

 

Yeah, local requirement, just not required via the BoD.

[Guest]

On 5/15/2018 at 6:21 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

It's science that's resoundingly contradicted by church doctrine. 

The idea that Christianity is anti-science is a recent meme that is based on a complete disregarding of history.  Modern science is largely the progeny of Christian thinkers and the majority of the significant contributions to science are from Christians.  Here are just a few:  Roger Bacon (father of scientific method), Copernicus (heliocentrism, considered to have ushered in the scientific revolution), Kepler (elliptical planetary orbits, laws of planetary motion), Descartes (analytic geometry), Pascal (hydrostatics and fluid dynamics), Boyle (founder of modern chemistry), Newton (mathematics based physics, mechanics, universal gravitation, optics, calculus), Leibniz (symbolic logic, relative mechanics, calculus), Euler (analysis, mathematical function, analytic number theory, principle of least action), Cauchy (complex analysis, study of permutation groups in abstract algebra), Mendel (founder of modern science of genetics), Kelvin (one of the primary founders of thermodynamics, 2nd law of thermodynamics), Riemann (Riemannian geometry), Faraday, Maxwell (founder of electromagnetism), Cantor (set theory), Lemaitre (big bang theory), Heisenberg (uncertainty principle), Godel (incompleteness theorems).  

Universities are also a development of Christian institutions.  Various academies and places of learning existed in ancient China, India, and Greece, but the modern degree-granting university where research was conducted began around the 12th century and was the product of Christian monasteries.

“Many historians state that universities and cathedral schools were a continuation of the interest in learning promoted by monasteries.” – From University of Texas site on the origin of universities.  

The oldest universities in both Europe and the US were founded as Christian institutions:  Oxford, University of Paris, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton.  Many were established as seminaries and for theological studies. 

“From their monastic roots and through the nineteenth century, all universities were founded as Christian institutions, regardless of whether they taught law, theology, or medicine.  Until well into the nineteenth century, even with the growth of scientific studies, Western universities and colleges ‘almost always operated within theological boundaries.’”  - Alvin Schmidt

 

The above is not meant to imply that Christians are somehow smarter or that nonbelievers do not contribute to science (they absolutely do).  But the idea that Christians on the whole are anti science or that Christianity is somehow pitted against science is nonsense.

 

On 5/15/2018 at 8:50 AM, trauma babe said:

I have met quite a few people who do not treat their diabetes because they have faith that the Lord will cure them of their ailment. 

There are irrational folks in every significantly sized group of people.  There are plenty of agnostics who think vaccinations cause autism.  This says nothing about agnosticism or agnostic people in general.  

The vast majority of Christians are strong advocates for modern medicine.  Hospitals and the roots of modern medicine were also developed almost entirely by Christian organizations.  In-patient medical care in the sense of what we today consider a hospital was an invention driven by Christian mercy, starting with the Byzantines in the fourth century A.D. Some hospitals maintained libraries and training programs, and doctors compiled their medical and pharmacological studies in manuscripts. Byzantine hospital staff included the Chief Physician, professional nurses, and the orderlies. 

“During these centuries [4^th through 14^th] the Christian faith . . . permeated all aspects of life in the West. The very conception of medicine, as well as its practice, was deeply touched by the doctrine and discipline of the Church. This theological and ecclesiastical influence manifestly shaped the ethics of medicine, but it even indirectly affected its science since, as its missionaries evangelized the peoples of Western and Northern Europe, the Church found itself in a constant battle against the use of magic and superstition in the work of healing. It championed rational medicine, along with prayer, to counter superstition.”  Albert Jonsen, University of Washington historian of medicine

Edited June 17, 2018 by Guest

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

Come on dude, this is seriously the argument you use? You know that's bullshit right? No wonder you people are duped so easily.

Well it was more just bored sarcasm.  Science refutes  pretty much everything the Bible states

[seven 1366]

4 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And on theory and accepted aerodynamics  a bumble bee can't fly.....

Good grief, you are very stupid. 

[Tuco 5076]

26 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

The idea that Christianity is anti-science is a recent meme that is based on a complete disregarding of history.  Modern science is largely the progeny of Christian thinkers and the majority of the significant contributions to science are from Christians.  Here are just a few:  Roger Bacon (father of scientific method), Copernicus (heliocentrism, considered to have ushered in the scientific revolution), Kepler (elliptical planetary orbits, laws of planetary motion), Descartes (analytic geometry), Pascal (hydrostatics and fluid dynamics), Boyle (founder of modern chemistry), Newton (mathematics based physics, mechanics, universal gravitation, optics, calculus), Leibniz (symbolic logic, relative mechanics, calculus), Euler (analysis, mathematical function, analytic number theory, principle of least action), Cauchy (complex analysis, study of permutation groups in abstract algebra), Mendel (founder of modern science of genetics), Kelvin (one of the primary founders of thermodynamics, 2nd law of thermodynamics), Riemann (Riemannian geometry), Faraday, Maxwell (founder of electromagnetism), Cantor (set theory), Lemaitre (big bang theory), Heisenberg (uncertainty principle), Godel (incompleteness theorems).  

 

You forgot to mention Galileo and Darwin.  Both Christians.  I think Galileo actually trained to be a monk at one point. 

But, the fact that there are many brilliant Christian (pretty much by default, for much of European history) scientists doesn't address the point that Christian churches have, at various times, attacked their scientific findings based on religious implications.  That's the conflict.  I don't care if a scientist believes in Jesus; it shouldn't affect his work or his conclusions.  That is fundamentally unscientific. Pulling a catalog of historical names doesn't address the fact that in 2018, that is still going on, and appears to be increasing.   

[Brisketexan 104697]

41 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

The above is not meant to imply that Christians are somehow smarter or that nonbelievers do not contribute to science (they absolutely do).  But the idea that Christians on the whole are anti science or that Christianity is somehow pitted against science is nonsense.

And that's not the premise that's being discussed here.  A particularly FLAVOR of Christianity -- a flavor that has been rising in prominence and power in recent decades -- is strongly anti-science.  

The modern fundamentalist/evangelical movement -- with adherents like the Vice President of the United States and the Administrator of the EPA -- holds significant anti-science beliefs, based on the purported reasoning that the Bible tells us differently, and the Biblical take should reign supreme.

Yes, there are many Christians and Christian denominations that are not anti-science.  That's why the statements here have not been that CHRISTIANS are anti-science.  But some Christians -- particularly the ones from a group that has risen to the pinnacle of political power in this country -- are.  We're talking about that sub-set of "Christians" here.  So your "defense" of the larger group is logically fallacious and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Guest]

On 5/15/2018 at 11:39 AM, Tuco said:

You forgot to mention Galileo and Darwin.  Both Christians.  I think Galileo actually trained to be a monk at one point. 

But, the fact that there are many brilliant Christian (pretty much by default, for much of European history) scientists doesn't address the point that Christian churches have, at various times, attacked their scientific findings based on religious implications.  That's the conflict.  I don't care if a scientist believes in Jesus; it shouldn't affect his work or his conclusions.  That is fundamentally unscientific. Pulling a catalog of historical names doesn't address the fact that in 2018, that is still going on, and appears to be increasing.   

I didn't forget Galileo or Darwin.  I didn't list Galileo because the list was long enough and I didn't mention Darwin because he was an agnostic in his adult years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin#Agnosticism

It was not the default for prominent thinkers to be Christian during the scientific revolution.  That is also a myth.  There were outspoken skeptics during this time.

People's world views influence their academic and scientific endeavors.  This is true today and fortunately for us this was true in the time of the scientific revolution with Christian thinkers looking for the natural laws of the Creator.  

"Of probably even greater importance, Chinese scholars abandoned the idea of a supreme being with persona and creative properties. No rational Author of Nature existed in their universe; consequently the objects they meticulously described did not follow universal principles, but instead operated within particular rules followed by those entities in the cosmic order. In the absence of a compelling need for the notion of general laws - thoughts in the mind of God, so to speak - little or no search was made for them."  -Consilience, E.O. Wilson

 

On 5/15/2018 at 11:45 AM, Brisketexan said:

And that's not the premise that's being discussed here.  A particularly FLAVOR of Christianity -- a flavor that has been rising in prominence and power in recent decades -- is strongly anti-science.  

The modern fundamentalist/evangelical movement -- with adherents like the Vice President of the United States and the Administrator of the EPA -- holds significant anti-science beliefs, based on the purported reasoning that the Bible tells us differently, and the Biblical take should reign supreme.

Yes, there are many Christians and Christian denominations that are not anti-science.  That's why the statements here have not been that CHRISTIANS are anti-science.  But some Christians -- particularly the ones from a group that has risen to the pinnacle of political power in this country -- are.  We're talking about that sub-set of "Christians" here.  So your "defense" of the larger group is logically fallacious and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Why not take the time to read the quote I responded to before making accusations of logic fallacies?  WTB attacks the immaculate conception and the resurrection (I presume, he can clarify if that was directed at the resurrection) as church doctrines that are inherently unscientific.  Those are fundamental to all forms of Christianity.  The post was not merely directly at the dreaded evangelicals.  

Edited June 17, 2018 by Guest

[F250 28705]

Anyways, shit recently hit the fan in Gaza with the death of 60 Palestinians due to a decision by the administration that was directly influenced by Christian Zionists. AIPAC has done their part too, they even have a Christian outreach program. Which is a smart play on their part.

Many people seem dumbfounded by the association the Israelis have with the Armageddon crowd but it's in their best interest to use these groups as Useful Idiots. It somewhat reminds me of how the Jews under Greek and Roman rule used to feed animals to be sacrificed for pagan rituals stuff to freak out the Greeks/Romans. The entrails of the sacrificed animal was inspected as a means of divination. Sometimes the Greeks/Romans would see something in the entrails as a bad omen and back off with certain plans. Basically they were using a Super Power's religion to manipulate local governance in their favor.

[Tuco 5076]

43 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

People's world views influence their academic and scientific endeavors.  This is true today and fortunately for us this was true in the time of the scientific revolution with Christian thinkers looking for the natural laws of the Creator.   

That's a fucking cop out.  The findings of Galileo and Darwin weren't "influenced" by their world views, they have been attacked because it interfered with the views held by other Christians who think it interferes with what they think the Bible tells them.  Galileo was arrested and held in house arrest because people thought the results of his scientific observations were blasphemy.  Scopes was arrested because some Christians couldn't handle Darwin's conclusions. 

[Brisketexan 104697]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

WTB attacks the immaculate conception and the resurrection (I presume, he can clarify if that was directed at the resurrection) as church doctrines that are inherently unscientific.  Those are fundamental to all forms of Christianity.  The post was not merely directly at the dreaded evangelicals.  

They are unscientific.  But they are not "anti-science."  Believing in the resurrection does not necessarily mean that you do not believe in biological death, the issuance of death certificates based on absence of brain activity, etc.

Those things are matters of faith.  Only if Christians asserted those matters to the EXCLUSION of science would they be "anti-science."

Faith is faith, and most folks have no problem with that (yes, there are plenty of people who get annoyed/pissed at the idea of folks believing in a "sky daddy," but who cares?)  Hell, believing in God AT ALL (regardless of your faith) is inherently unscientific -- belief in a divine supreme being is not supported by scientific evidence or observation.  It's only when that belief is taken to a point of being exclusionary -- that is, if I believe in a supreme being, than the idea of anything happening naturally is unacceptable and must be denied -- that it becomes a problem.

[WhatTheBuck 28719]

4 hours ago, Aphelion said:

The idea that Christianity is anti-science is a recent meme that is based on a complete disregarding of history.  Modern science is largely the progeny of Christian thinkers and the majority of the significant contributions to science are from Christians.  Here are just a few:  Roger Bacon (father of scientific method), Copernicus (heliocentrism, considered to have ushered in the scientific revolution), Kepler (elliptical planetary orbits, laws of planetary motion), Descartes (analytic geometry), Pascal (hydrostatics and fluid dynamics), Boyle (founder of modern chemistry), Newton (mathematics based physics, mechanics, universal gravitation, optics, calculus), Leibniz (symbolic logic, relative mechanics, calculus), Euler (analysis, mathematical function, analytic number theory, principle of least action), Cauchy (complex analysis, study of permutation groups in abstract algebra), Mendel (founder of modern science of genetics), Kelvin (one of the primary founders of thermodynamics, 2nd law of thermodynamics), Riemann (Riemannian geometry), Faraday, Maxwell (founder of electromagnetism), Cantor (set theory), Lemaitre (big bang theory), Heisenberg (uncertainty principle), Godel (incompleteness theorems).  

Universities are also a development of Christian institutions.  Various academies and places of learning existed in ancient China, India, and Greece, but the modern degree-granting university where research was conducted began around the 12th century and was the product of Christian monasteries.

“Many historians state that universities and cathedral schools were a continuation of the interest in learning promoted by monasteries.” – From University of Texas site on the origin of universities.  

The oldest universities in both Europe and the US were founded as Christian institutions:  Oxford, University of Paris, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton.  Many were established as seminaries and for theological studies. 

“From their monastic roots and through the nineteenth century, all universities were founded as Christian institutions, regardless of whether they taught law, theology, or medicine.  Until well into the nineteenth century, even with the growth of scientific studies, Western universities and colleges ‘almost always operated within theological boundaries.’”  - Alvin Schmidt

 

The above is not meant to imply that Christians are somehow smarter or that nonbelievers do not contribute to science (they absolutely do).  But the idea that Christians on the whole are anti science or that Christianity is somehow pitted against science is nonsense.

 

There are irrational folks in every significantly sized group of people.  There are plenty of agnosticism who think vaccinations cause autism.  This says nothing about agnosticism or agnostic people in general.  

The vast majority of Christians are strong advocates for modern medicine.  Hospitals and the roots of modern medicine were also developed almost entirely by Christian organizations.  In-patient medical care in the sense of what we today consider a hospital was an invention driven by Christian mercy, starting with the Byzantines in the fourth century A.D. Some hospitals maintained libraries and training programs, and doctors compiled their medical and pharmacological studies in manuscripts. Byzantine hospital staff included the Chief Physician, professional nurses, and the orderlies. 

“During these centuries [4^th through 14^th] the Christian faith . . . permeated all aspects of life in the West. The very conception of medicine, as well as its practice, was deeply touched by the doctrine and discipline of the Church. This theological and ecclesiastical influence manifestly shaped the ethics of medicine, but it even indirectly affected its science since, as its missionaries evangelized the peoples of Western and Northern Europe, the Church found itself in a constant battle against the use of magic and superstition in the work of healing. It championed rational medicine, along with prayer, to counter superstition.”  Albert Jonsen, University of Washington historian of medicine

Bullshit. Religion and science are separate enterprises. Science is based on observable facts and no conclusion is held so sacred that it can't be overturned if evidence disproves it. Religion is based on faith and dare not be questioned. There is no scientific evidence for a soul. Virgin women in the First Century couldn't get pregnant. People dead for days can't be brought back to life. Germs cause disease. The Sun is the center of our solar system. 

The cosmos is about 14.5 billion years old, Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. All life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor and anatomically modern humans evolved around 200,000 years ago based on our best evidence. New fossil discoveries could push that back. Regardless, humans have been living and procreating and dying for many tens of thousands of years before any religion currently practiced in this world was ever conceived. No matter what religion you practice, the notion that there is a sentient creator who waited that long before sharing its thoughts with its creation is absurd. 

It's a recent Christian meme that science is somehow a Christian invention. The fact that Newton believed in God doesn't make physics a Christian invention. The fact that the church was a source of funding to pay for one's education, and working a job as a member of the clergy gave one time to conduct scientific research, doesn't make the science a religious enterprise. It wasn't because of the religion that the science got done. It was in spite of it. Contributions to science have been made by many people of many faiths, and by many people of no religious faith at all.

Christianity tells you to pray and believe. Science tells you to think and question. You can do both, but when you're doing one you're not doing the other. 

Edited May 15, 2018 by WhatTheBuck
You got me there, Aphelion. I accidentally wrote "galaxy" instead of "solar system." You got one thing right.

[Paul Wesley 3277]

3 hours ago, Aphelion said:

The idea that Christianity is anti-science is a recent meme that is based on a complete disregarding of history. 

This thesis statement is even stupider than your post where you said the term "evangelical" was a term invented by political pundits to unfairly group christians together.  

It's an interesting posting style -- boldly state something laughably wrong, then go on to "explain" how you're correct and the rest of the world gets it all wrong.  Your posts remind me of those forwarded emails that explain how it's actually the **left** who are Nazis, and not the self-proclaimed, self-described Nazis at an ALT RIGHT rally wearing Nazi uniforms and chanting Nazi slogans.    

Read WhatTheBuck's reply above.  He has more patience with nonsense than me.

[Mole 4320]

Here's a very good paper on Knoll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind: http://www.onthewing.org/user/Ev_Scandal of the Evangelical Mind - Knoll.pdf

It's a bit of a long read, so I pulled out some highlights.

Spoiler

Quote

An appeal for Christian learning does not presume that learning is the ultimate or only value. It serves to augment and infill other gifts. Evangelical culture in America tends to be antagonistic. It often sets up choices and competition between things meant to complement one another: conversion to the exclusion of gradual growth in grace; the immediate experience of the Holy Spirit instead of contemplating God in the created realm; prizing popular wisdom over learned authorities; a fascination with heaven while slighting attention to earth; devotion to the supernatural but a neglect of the natural. Christian learning doesn’t ask to reverse such polarities. Rather, it calls for mutual interdependence of the body, reuniting the characteristics that American experience has ruthlessly divorced, and acknowledging that Christ can be exalted by humble activity in every sphere of human life, including the life of the mind.

1

Quote

It is of small consequence – or none – that evangelicals have no research university, or that they have no Nobel laureates. It of immense significance that evangelicals are not doing the kind of work for which research universities exist and which is recognized by Nobel Prizes. Why? Because the great institutions of higher learning in Western culture function as the mind of Western culture. 9 The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind Evangelicals who think that the basic intellectual operations performed by the modern research universities can be conceded to “the world” without doing fundamental damage to the cause of Christ may think of themselves as orthodox Christians. In reality, however, they are modern-day Manicheans, Gnostics, or docetists.

Quote

In France, the Enlightenment led to the people rising up against the state and the church. While in America, the Enlightenment led to the people and evangelicalism melding church and state – an systhesis of Enlightenment thinking, republicanism, democracy, economic liberalism, and manifest destiny – clearly seen by Alexis de Tocqueville.

Quote

The reason the new class of wealthy Americans were funding education was to encourage more of practical science and managerial theory, and less of moralism, more on academic reputation than preserving orthodoxy. They became increasingly naturalistic in science and pragmatic in philosophy, with little criticism of the new materialism and industrial power. The old synthesis of religion and science was melting away, and the Christian mind with it. P. 110-113 In response, rather than raise the level of our thinking, we raised the level of our spirituality. The Holiness (or Keswick) movement, Pentecostalism, and premillennial dispensationalism became the defenders of traditional beliefs against the onslaught of scientism.

Quote

Under the midwifery of fundamentalism, “the evangelical community gave birth to virtually no insights into how, under God, the natural world proceeded, how human societies worked, why human nature acted the way it did, or what constituted the blessings and perils of culture.” They had firm beliefs about each, backed up by Scriptural citations, but they lacked a profound knowledge of the divinely created world in which those beliefs were applied. P. 137 When faced with a social crisis, evangelicals either mount a public crusade, or retreat into an inner sanctum (retreat often follows such one-shot crusades). There are either the clanging gongs as with the Christian Right and the Creationists which testifies to the first, or the profound silence on complex real-life issues which testifies to the second.

1

Quote

If this is a post-Christian Right period, what will characterize this phase of evangelical politics? It’s possible that in-fighting over the nature of biblical authority, the role of women in the church, and Creationism could so splinter evangelicalism that it loses its vestiges of theological cohesion. The Southern Baptist Convention might arise from its slumber to become more influential among evangelicals – or the Pentecostal-charismatic surge may come to dominate the evangelical mosaic if its spirituality takes a new shape. Then again, the New Right might regroup. Evangelicals could be coopted by Republican leaders who have their own agenda, or they might influence Republican strategy. They might even be heard among the Democrats, or persuade more Americans to support a pro-life policy. It’s also possible evangelicalism will be swamped by new waves of pietistic anti-intellectualism.

1

Quote

Whether opposed to or in favor of evolutionary theory, evangelicals failed to question their commitment to the bond between Enlightenment notions of science and traditional conceptions of Christianity. They were committed to science, but specifically to Baconian science. The debate over evolution was also a debate over the role of Protestantism in a culture that no longer embraced traditionalism.

Quote

Millions of evangelicals think they are defending the Bible by defending creation science, but in reality they are giving ultimate authority to the... interpretations of the Bible that arose from the mania for science in the early nineteenth century. Evangelicals have gone back to thinking that we must shut up one of God’s books (Nature) if we want to read the other one (Scripture).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

That's a fucking cop out.  The findings of Galileo and Darwin weren't "influenced" by their world views, they have been attacked because it interfered with the views held by other Christians who think it interferes with what they think the Bible tells them.  Galileo was arrested and held in house arrest because people thought the results of his scientific observations were blasphemy.  Scopes was arrested because some Christians couldn't handle Darwin's conclusions. 

Stating what happened is a cop out?  Go read the works of the primary contributors of the scientific revolution and you will find that they are filled with references to the laws of the Creator, how it was their duty to study and learn the natural works of God, why nature must be ordered because God would do things in an ordered fashion, how the order and symmetry in nature must be the work of the infinitely intelligent and powerful Creator, &c.  Their worldviews absolutely influenced their academic pursuits & conclusions (this is true even for Galileo).

“To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power, to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more gratifying than knowledge.” - Copernicus

“Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.” - Kepler

"I tell you that if natural bodies have it from Nature to be moved by any movement, this can only be circular motion, nor is it possible that Nature has given to any of its integral bodies a propensity to be moved by straight motion. I have many confirmations of this proposition, but for the present one alone suffices, which is this. I suppose the parts of the universe to be in the best arrangement, so that none is out of its place, which is to say that Nature and God have perfectly arranged their structure."  Galileo, on his philosophical (i.e. worldview) reasons on why he thought circular motion is the default motion of nature.  Galileo did not use the elliptical orbits of Kepler; he based his system on circular orbits.  It is one of the great ironies of history that Galileo's arguments for heliocentrism were actually wrong and his opponents had valid scientific objections.  

"This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." - Newton

"It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. And therefore as they would understand the frame of the world must endeavor to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity, so must it be in seeking to understand these visions." - Newton

“I wish them a happy success in their attempts to discover the true nature of the works of God; and I pray that they, and all searchers into physical truths, may cordially refer their attainments to the glory of the great Author of nature, and to the comfort of mankind.“  - Last article in Robert Boyle’s will, referring to the Royal Society

“I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of.”  - James Maxwell

 

An anecdote involving a substitute teacher in Tennessee does not accurately depict the role that Christians and the church have played in the development of science over the centuries & spanning numerous nationalities.  If we take the worst behavior from the worst representatives, then no group of people or institution will look very good.  

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

They are unscientific.  But they are not "anti-science."  Believing in the resurrection does not necessarily mean that you do not believe in biological death, the issuance of death certificates based on absence of brain activity, etc.

Those things are matters of faith.  Only if Christians asserted those matters to the EXCLUSION of science would they be "anti-science."

Faith is faith, and most folks have no problem with that (yes, there are plenty of people who get annoyed/pissed at the idea of folks believing in a "sky daddy," but who cares?)  Hell, believing in God AT ALL (regardless of your faith) is inherently unscientific -- belief in a divine supreme being is not supported by scientific evidence or observation.  It's only when that belief is taken to a point of being exclusionary -- that is, if I believe in a supreme being, than the idea of anything happening naturally is unacceptable and must be denied -- that it becomes a problem.

The bold part was the basic point of my response to WTB.  You accused me of a logic fallacy and now state my point back to me for some reason; not sure if this is intended as an argument or general acknowledgment of agreement.

In any case, although I disagree with some of your specific points and wouldn't word it that way, I agree with the general idea you're getting at with the rest of your post.

 

27 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Bullshit. Religion and science are separate enterprises. Science is based on observable facts and no conclusion is held so sacred that it can't be overturned if evidence disproves it. Religion is based on faith and dare not be questioned. There is no scientific evidence for a soul. Virgin women in the First Century couldn't get pregnant. People dead for days can't be brought back to life. Germs cause disease. The Sun is the center of our galaxy.

The cosmos is about 14.5 billion years old, Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. All life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor and anatomically modern humans evolved around 200,000 years ago based on our best evidence. New fossil discoveries could push that back. Regardless, humans have been living and procreating and dying for many tens of thousands of years before any religion currently practiced in this world was ever conceived. No matter what religion you practice, the notion that there is a sentient creator who waited that long before sharing its thoughts with its creation is absurd. 

It's a recent Christian meme that science is somehow a Christian invention. The fact that Newton believed in God doesn't make physics a Christian invention. The fact that the church was a source of funding to pay for one's education, and working a job as a member of the clergy gave one time to conduct scientific research, doesn't make the science a religious enterprise. It wasn't because of the religion that the science got done. It was in spite of it. Contributions to science have been made by many people of many faiths, and by many people of no religious faith at all.

Christianity tells you to pray and believe. Science tells you to think and question. You can do both, but when you're doing one you're not doing the other. 

You give no verifiable facts, historical references, quotes, or anything at all to back up your claim that "It's a recent Christian meme that science is somehow a Christian invention."  This is nothing more than you babbling about your thoughts on things.  

The sun is not the center of our galaxy.  

 

14 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

This thesis statement is even stupider than your post where you said the term "evangelical" was a term invented by political pundits to unfairly group christians together.  

It's an interesting posting style -- boldly state something laughably wrong, then go on to "explain" how you're correct and the rest of the world gets it all wrong.  Your posts remind me of those forwarded emails that explain how it's actually the **left** who are Nazis, and not the self-proclaimed, self-described Nazis at an ALT RIGHT rally wearing Nazi uniforms and chanting Nazi slogans.    

Read WhatTheBuck's reply above.  He has more patience with nonsense than me.

I'll assume that you also won't attempt an actual counter argument.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Guest

[David Dennison 18662]

8 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Stating what happened is a cop out?  Go read the works of the primary contributors of the scientific revolution and you will find that they are filled with references to the laws of the Creator, how it was their duty to study and learn the natural works of God, why nature must be ordered because God would do things in an ordered fashion, how the order and symmetry in nature must be the work of the infinitely intelligent and powerful Creator, &c.  Their worldviews absolutely influenced their academic pursuits & conclusions (this is true even for Galileo).

“To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power, to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more gratifying than knowledge.” - Copernicus

“Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.” - Kepler

"I tell you that if natural bodies have it from Nature to be moved by any movement, this can only be circular motion, nor is it possible that Nature has given to any of its integral bodies a propensity to be moved by straight motion. I have many confirmations of this proposition, but for the present one alone suffices, which is this. I suppose the parts of the universe to be in the best arrangement, so that none is out of its place, which is to say that Nature and God have perfectly arranged their structure."  Galileo, on his philosophical (i.e. worldview) reasons on why he thought circular motion is the default motion of nature.  Galileo did not use the elliptical orbits of Kepler; he based his system on circular orbits.  It is one of the great ironies of history that Galileo's arguments for heliocentrism were actually wrong and his opponents had valid scientific objections.  

"This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." - Newton

"It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. And therefore as they would understand the frame of the world must endeavor to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity, so must it be in seeking to understand these visions." - Newton

“I wish them a happy success in their attempts to discover the true nature of the works of God; and I pray that they, and all searchers into physical truths, may cordially refer their attainments to the glory of the great Author of nature, and to the comfort of mankind.“  - Last article in Robert Boyle’s will, referring to the Royal Society

“I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of.”  - James Maxwell

 

An anecdote involving a substitute teacher in Tennessee does not accurately depict the role that Christians and the church have played in the development of science over the centuries & spanning numerous nationalities.  If we take the worst behavior from the worst representatives, then no group of people or institution will look very good.  

 

The bold part was the basic point of my response to WTB.  You accused me of a logic fallacy and now state my point back to me for some reason; not sure if this is intended as an argument or general acknowledgment of agreement.

In any case, although I disagree with some of your specific points and wouldn't word it that way, I agree with the general idea you're getting at with the rest of your post.

 

You give no verifiable facts, historical references, quotes, or anything at all to back up your claim that "It's a recent Christian meme that science is somehow a Christian invention."  This is nothing more than you babbling about your thoughts on things.  

The sun is not the center of our galaxy.  

 

I'll assume that you also won't attempt an actual counter argument.

Do you believe in God?

[Paul Wesley 3277]

1 minute ago, Aphelion said:

 

I'll assume that you also won't attempt an actual counter argument.

You want me to argue with absurdly false thesis statements, like "evangelist is a pejorative term invented by pollsters to demonize Christians?"  

No, thanks.  

[Brisketexan 104697]

11 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

You accused me of a logic fallacy and now state my point back to me for some reason

Because your point was the logical fallacy.  You created and then refuted a strawman.

The topic is not "Christianity is unscientific."  The topic is evangelicals, leading to the topic of "Evangelicals are anti-science."  SO...you making the point that many Christian beliefs are unscientific is of no moment.  The act of introducing such a statement is an act of logical fallacy.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Do you believe in God?

Yes.  

 

6 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

You want me to argue with absurdly false thesis statements, like "evangelist is a pejorative term invented by pollsters to demonize Christians?"  

No, thanks.  

If you use quotations marks, its implied that you're quoting someone.  That's why they're called quotation marks.  But I did not write that statement; in fact, it's complete misrepresentation of the point I made.  

I don't care if you argue or not.  Like all brilliant logicians, I suspect that you will be content to simply claim that my posts are stupid and that they are reminiscent of Nazi sympathizer propaganda. 

 

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Because your point was the logical fallacy.  You created and then refuted a strawman.

The topic is not "Christianity is unscientific."  The topic is evangelicals, leading to the topic of "Evangelicals are anti-science."  SO...you making the point that many Christian beliefs are unscientific is of no moment.  The act of introducing such a statement is an act of logical fallacy.

I was responding to WTB.  He thinks that Christianity (not just the theology of the vile & loathsome evangelicals) is anti science.  If you don't believe me, ask him yourself.  I'm not creating any straw man.   

[Brisketexan 104697]

4 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I was responding to WTB.  He thinks that Christianity (not just the theology of the vile & loathsome evangelicals) is anti science.  If you don't believe me, ask him yourself.  I'm not creating any straw man.   

Citation, please?

I saw from his posts that he says that faith and science are inconsistent, and in many respects, they are.  But I did not see where he said that Christianity is "anti science."  quote, please.

[Tuco 5076]

33 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Stating what happened is a cop out?  Go read the works of the primary contributors of the scientific revolution ...

There is nothing that wrote that is in the least bit responsive to the fact that Christian churches have pushed back on scientific conclusions when they have conflicted with what they believed via their faith.  There is nothing that you have written that at all acknowledges the problem.  Did scientists have religious education and inspiration for their work?  Sure.  Did that justify religious reactions to scientific conclusions.  Fuck no.

It's not like all Christians believe the same thing.  Even Peter and Paul had deep disagreements.  It is ridiculous that you need to defend all of Christianity's effect on science.  For example, I will certainly grant you the Church was crucial for maintaining some level of literacy during centuries of Europe's development.  But that doesn't mean they are immune from criticism. And the idiots out there attacking evolution today, they aren't doing shit for science other than confuse what it concludes. 

[phdhorn 6224]

I've generally tried to stay out of shit on the new board (although this thread is sorta kinda in control).  But I'll play this one time.

I was an Evangelical (yes, I considered myself an Evangelical first, denomination second) for a long time when younger.  Eventually I decided that some of the practical day-to-day applications of that theology were more subjective than "required".  I no longer consider myself one.  However, this has done nothing but increase my belief that this God thing is so big, mysterious, and unfathomable (as Einstein himself said) that to reduce it to mere sophism is, well, more irrelevant than the target of the sophists.

At my mom's funeral last week, 3 of my best friends back then, and still very close to my heart, met up with me to express condolences re: my mom.  All 3 of them are still pretty hard-core practicing Evangelicals.

One is a PhD in physics, and runs an entire agency on materials research for weaponry for the Armed Services.  He's so fucking brutally intelligent it hurts.

The second is a Phi Beta Kappa in History, and spent 35 years teaching high-level high schoolers.  He retired and taught history to Koreans in Seoul for 2 years.  Won numerous awards in history.  Brilliant fellow.

The final is a pastor, ex math teacher and phys ed instructor.  His "life code" would probably make 2/3 of you shit your pants here (what's "proper" and what's "not".  Yet he's been a terrific Elvis impersonator, and is regarded by most of my old crowd as one of the most dynamic, friendly, and non-condemning individual ever.  He's also arguably still my best friend after 40 years.  We are so different, but when we meet up, it's phenomenal.

Their creed is very conservative, but in no way harsh.  The fact that they make me laugh and talk animatedly about world topics and history as easily and naturally as slipping on a pair of flip flops is a testament to their amazing intellects and brilliance.

There are a helluva lot of stereotypes which get slung around on these boards about "Evangelicals" and most of them end up with a highly biased view of a major, huge swath of people.   These guys know more about physics, history, and culture as anyone I can run into.  I don't share the same theological applications as they do, but I would take a bullet for any of them.

Just be careful of slinging stereotypes out there for "Evangelicals" when the real stereotypes are often the really inaccurate picture of what they are.

[Brisketexan 104697]

5 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

I've generally tried to stay out of shit on the new board (although this thread is sorta kinda in control).  But I'll play this one time.

I was an Evangelical (yes, I considered myself an Evangelical first, denomination second) for a long time when younger.  Eventually I decided that some of the practical day-to-day applications of that theology were more subjective than "required".  I no longer consider myself one.  However, this has done nothing but increase my belief that this God thing is so big, mysterious, and unfathomable (as Einstein himself said) that to reduce it to mere sophism is, well, more irrelevant than the target of the sophists.

At my mom's funeral last week, 3 of my best friends back then, and still very close to my heart, met up with me to express condolences re: my mom.  All 3 of them are still pretty hard-core practicing Evangelicals.

One is a PhD in physics, and runs an entire agency on materials research for weaponry for the Armed Services.  He's so fucking brutally intelligent it hurts.

The second is a Phi Beta Kappa in History, and spent 35 years teaching high-level high schoolers.  He retired and taught history to Koreans in Seoul for 2 years.  Won numerous awards in history.  Brilliant fellow.

The final is a pastor, ex math teacher and phys ed instructor.  His "life code" would probably make 2/3 of you shit your pants here (what's "proper" and what's "not".  Yet he's been a terrific Elvis impersonator, and is regarded by most of my old crowd as one of the most dynamic, friendly, and non-condemning individual ever.  He's also arguably still my best friend after 40 years.  We are so different, but when we meet up, it's phenomenal.

Their creed is very conservative, but in no way harsh.  The fact that they make me laugh and talk animatedly about world topics and history as easily and naturally as slipping on a pair of flip flops is a testament to their amazing intellects and brilliance.

There are a helluva lot of stereotypes which get slung around on these boards about "Evangelicals" and most of them end up with a highly biased view of a major, huge swath of people.   These guys know more about physics, history, and culture as anyone I can run into.  I don't share the same theological applications as they do, but I would take a bullet for any of them.

Just be careful of slinging stereotypes out there for "Evangelicals" when the real stereotypes are often the really inaccurate picture of what they are.

Very good, and very fair post.

I certainly know some folks whose theology is QUITE different from mine who are good, decent, kind, and smart folks, and there is a downside to painting ANY "group' with a broad brush in that you capture people with that brush who may not quite match up the characterization you're making.

That said, I do go back to my strong anecdotal experience, which is similar to others: while I know many outwardly devout Christians who are good and decent folks, the MEANEST people I've ever run across have been outward, showy "Christians."

And in the end, neither of our observations in either direction have much bearing on the cognitive dissonance exhibited by "Evangelicals," even the supposed smart ones -- every purported value they have, save one (abortion) has been completely sacrificed at the altar of Trumpism.  (Oh, and the jury's out on Trump's sincerity with respect to abortion).

[David Dennison 18662]

59 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Yes.  

Then you know that at least some of what you believe is incompatible with science. 

[RPM 26236]

I know several evangelicals. They all believe dinosaurs are a myth and Earth is only 6,000 years old. They didn't start believing that until not long ago. I'm convinced they were brainwashed/indoctrinated. Church culture is cult culture. They slowly turn your brain to mush as they teach you to march along in step.

[KYHorn 16865]

On 5/11/2018 at 9:28 AM, Ghost of LL said:

There have been multiple studies showing the correlation between support for Trump and white racial grievance.  And there is plenty of obvious correlation between support for Trump and white evangelical Christians.    And with a number of high-profile white evangelical Trump supporters (e.g., Robert Jeffress), their white nationalism is manifest.

And let's be real honest here--most of the mainline protestant churches split over the issue of race/civil rights/slavery.  Along the way, the "southern" brand of those churches--whether it be Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist--became far more "evangelical" (at least as we understand the term in common parlance).  So the notion that evangelical churches are closely tied to racism has a serious historical foundation.

So while there are plenty of people who go to evangelical churches who don't have a racist bone in their body, I think it's absurd to ignore the correlation.

I'm still working through these pages, but I wanted to respond to some reasonable posts, so my apologies if this has already been covered. This is fair, but I think an important confound in the correlation is education, which was found to be one of the most significant predictors of supporting Trump. I'd consider myself an evangelical Christian, but I'm a year away from a PhD, and nearly all of my evangelical friends (age is likely another confound here- we're all around 30 YO) have at least a bachelor's degree and none of them supported nor voted for Trump. In fact, I can only think of a handful of evangelical Christians I personally know who voted for Trump. Many of us couldn't stand either candidate and so voted for a third party (most of the people I know fall into this category) or didn't vote at all. As has been mentioned, the term evangelical has been politicized in many ways, one of which includes viewing them as just a homogeneous voting block. However, many of those who will tell researchers they identify as evangelical are not frequent church attenders, do not frequently engage in spiritual practices, and aren't necessarily committed to Christian orthodoxy. Instead, they're committed to an americanized subcultural Christianity that (I believe) is a remnant of the moral majority, but is more unified in their education level or geographic location (rural vs urban) than they are in their theological commitments. Hope this furthers the discussion some.

[F250 28705]

59 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

an americanized subcultural Christianity...

This is a pretty good descriptor of the non-denominational Christian groups you would encounter in the suburbs.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Citation, please?

I saw from his posts that he says that faith and science are inconsistent, and in many respects, they are.  But I did not see where he said that Christianity is "anti science."  quote, please.

I have a hard time believing that you actually think I've misrepresented WTB's position.  It seems more like gymnastics to justify your original objection.  But I'll extend the benefit of the doubt and assume you're serious.

You said "The topic is not 'Christianity is unscientific.'"  WTB said "It's science that's resoundingly contradicted by church doctrine."  He gave two doctrines that are fundamental to all Christianity (not just the vile & loathsome evangelicals) as evidence for said science contradictions.  It is not a straw man to equate Christianity is unscientific with Christianity contradicts science.  Contradictions are powerful.  The term itself literally means "to speak against."  If A contradicts B, then this means that A entails "un-B" or "anti-B" or the negation of B.  That's the way they work.

Furthermore, WTB actually does believe that Christianity is anti science.  So I'm arguing against the direct implications of his statements and a position that he believes to be true.  

 

2 hours ago, Tuco said:

There is nothing that wrote that is in the least bit responsive to the fact that Christian churches have pushed back on scientific conclusions when they have conflicted with what they believed via their faith.  There is nothing that you have written that at all acknowledges the problem.  Did scientists have religious education and inspiration for their work?  Sure.  Did that justify religious reactions to scientific conclusions.  Fuck no.

It's not like all Christians believe the same thing.  Even Peter and Paul had deep disagreements.  It is ridiculous that you need to defend all of Christianity's effect on science.  For example, I will certainly grant you the Church was crucial for maintaining some level of literacy during centuries of Europe's development.  But that doesn't mean they are immune from criticism. And the idiots out there attacking evolution today, they aren't doing shit for science other than confuse what it concludes. 

I think it's ridiculous that you feel the need to argue against my verified claims that Christianity on the whole is supportive of science.

 

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Then you know that at least some of what you believe is incompatible with science. 

Is that really all you had to say or is this supposed to lead to a back and forth that builds to a more salient point you've got up your sleeve? 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, RPM said:

I know several evangelicals. They all believe dinosaurs are a myth and Earth is only 6,000 years old. They didn't start believing that until not long ago. I'm convinced they were brainwashed/indoctrinated. Church culture is cult culture. They slowly turn your brain to mush as they teach you to march along in step.

You’re an established moron. 

[RPM 26236]

I'm not the one thinking dinosaurs are a myth and Jesus isn't.

[Sawbonz 27445]

7 hours ago, Tuco said:

That's a fucking cop out.  The findings of Galileo and Darwin weren't "influenced" by their world views, they have been attacked because it interfered with the views held by other Christians who think it interferes with what they think the Bible tells them.  Galileo was arrested and held in house arrest because people thought the results of his scientific observations were blasphemy.  Scopes was arrested because some Christians couldn't handle Darwin's conclusions. 

Galileo was arrested because he literally made a fool (Simplicio) of the pope

[David Dennison 18662]

6 minutes ago, RPM said:

I'm not the one thinking dinosaurs are a myth and Jesus isn't.

[Woodrow Call 494]

I wish they'd get raptured and get the fuck out of here. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, RPM said:

I'm not the one thinking dinosaurs are a myth and Jesus isn't.

Who is? 

[TwiceHorn 31311]

9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

And that's not the premise that's being discussed here.  A particularly FLAVOR of Christianity -- a flavor that has been rising in prominence and power in recent decades -- is strongly anti-science.  

The modern fundamentalist/evangelical movement -- with adherents like the Vice President of the United States and the Administrator of the EPA -- holds significant anti-science beliefs, based on the purported reasoning that the Bible tells us differently, and the Biblical take should reign supreme.

Yes, there are many Christians and Christian denominations that are not anti-science.  That's why the statements here have not been that CHRISTIANS are anti-science.  But some Christians -- particularly the ones from a group that has risen to the pinnacle of political power in this country -- are.  We're talking about that sub-set of "Christians" here.  So your "defense" of the larger group is logically fallacious and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I think Aphe has got you here.  Regardless of what he may have said on this thread, WTB is the most stridently anti-religious poster on this board.  And that's saying something.  He does not confine his comments to "evangelicals" either on this thread or elsewhere.

[RPM 26236]

12 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Who is? 

I can't take time to explain to you how to determine the subject of the response. Maybe you should stick to reddit.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, RPM said:

I can't take time to explain to you how to determine the subject of the response. Maybe you should stick to reddit.

Oh, so you think that’s me. I can see you’ve paid close attention to this thread. Like I said, established moron. Reinforced. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33850]

I'm not the one thinking dinosaurs are a myth and Jesus isn't.

*golf clap*

[RPM 26236]

13 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Oh, so you think that’s me. I can see you’ve paid close attention to this thread. Like I said, established moron. Reinforced. 

Inability to follow thread established. Stick to reddit.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, RPM said:

Inability to follow thread established. Stick to reddit.

I can follow just fine. 

[RPM 26236]

Just now, Rex Kramer said:

I can follow just fine. 

Apparently not. Why don't you go back and try again. I'll wait...

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, RPM said:

Apparently not. Why don't you go back and try again. I'll wait...

Why don’t you fuck your own face. 

[RPM 26236]

Because my name isn't Rex Kramer.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

Lmao

[F250 28705]

Two days ago, I was checking out at HEB when the guy behind me in line starts up a conversation by saying, "Did you know you've been lied to?" This guy was a dead ringer for the actor Kevin Durand (evil mercenary from Lost) which added to the "WTF?" moment.

I reply, "I hope you aren't referring to my wife." He laughs and says, "No, I was talking about this..." he shows me his phone with pictures of the galaxy but the stars are fuzzy. "Notice how the stars don't appear as you would expect? You were told the earth rotates around the sun but..." I cut him off with a laugh and say, "This is about the earth being flat I assume." He replies with "I'm just trying to offer you some useful information... There are other lies we've all been told." I turn away to pay the cashier.

The HEB cashier and bagger have this incredulous look on their faces. The guy continues to ramble on but I tune him out and I'm just giggling at the absurdity. I apologize to the guy while laughing and tell him that I thought I was on a hidden camera show. He just implores me to do my own research. That's when I noticed his basket.

He had a few litters of alkaline water, Probiotics, chia seeds, various vitamins, a handful of boxes with Non-GMO labels, you get the picture. I told him that I don't believe the earth is flat but I believe vaccines are toxic. Somehow I knew he would agree, he then starts up with, "see it's the same concept, it's all lies." I grabbed my receipt and said I was kidding about the vaccines and walk off. He gives me one last "Do your research!"

 

TL/DR: A pseudo science anti-vaxxer/flat earther attempted to proselytize me at HEB. No pamphlets were involved.

 

 

[Guest]

So was it gsoda or Numbers?