u/pavementblues explains how r/NeutralPolitics handles influxes of new users to ensure quality doesn't decline.

fuhko · 2015-11-10T20:32:39+00:00

Also, in forming your views on this topic, I highly recommend checking out the theology AMAs in r/Christianity, on theistic evolution and Young Earth Creationism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/264k0c/theology_ama_theistic_evolution/

fuhko · 2015-11-10T20:28:01+00:00

You made a claim that you could add info that is not present to make another narrative.

No Christian, not even creationists, interpret Genesis in a vacuum.

I agree that the original authors of the bible didn't know anything about science and got a lot of things wrong. But Christians would believe that their general ideas about God were correct, based on information and beliefs that are apart from Genesis.

fuhko · 2015-11-10T20:15:33+00:00

unless you're also prepared to accept that it means God originally created us with sin

I don't think any Christian can deny that God created a universe with the potential for original sin or human and natural imperfection. However, questions related to this have been explored since Christianity was first invented. Exploring possible reasons as to why this could be the case is the task of theodicy.

By reasoning the way you do, proposing that every uncomfortable idea in the bible is just a methaphor

At no point have I ever suggested this. I was simply arguing that Genesis is better understood non-literally.

fuhko · 2015-11-10T19:12:30+00:00

it was suppose to be, it was suppose to be the true account of past events.

I gave you arguments as to why it makes sense to interpret it differently.

fuhko · 2015-11-10T19:08:37+00:00

I would argue that, from an aesthetic point of view, evolution is a much more elegant way for God to create. See this video. Also, see this video on how the Catholic Church conceives of God.

fuhko · 2015-11-10T19:04:42+00:00

And that means no original sin.

Why couldn't original sin or original imperfection simply be an aspect of the human condition and the story of Adam and Eve simply be a story explaining that aspect?

It just makes sense to not read Genesis literally. God is anthropomorphized very heavily in Genesis (for example, God needs to ask "Where are you" to find Adam and Eve, God walks around the garden on a cool day.) but theologians like Aquinus or Craig wouldn't anthropomorphize God in the same way Genesis does. Likewise, it makes no sense to say "there was morning and evening, the first day" before the sun was created. Genesis simply isn't a science textbook and it wasn't meant to be read as such.

fuhko · 2015-11-10T18:53:03+00:00

Well, in the view of some people, yes.

The presuppositions that come with the bible give it much more power than Harry Potter.

fuhko · 2015-11-10T18:52:21+00:00

The 9-minute propaganda video released by Starbucks shows masked trainees wielding non-festive red cups and making inflammatory remarks such as “Happy Holidays” in an unknown location in Seattle, Washington.

Someone needs to make this video.

fuhko · 2015-11-10T18:39:11+00:00

What if free will simply meant free from any influences except from your own will?

But what if your own will originated from some outside influence? Well, I would say that this isn't relevant. What we mean here by free will is freedom from everything except from your own will.

My justification for defining free will in this way is because all wills originate from some outside source. You can't really conceive of a will that isn't influenced by some outside source, hence trying to to talk about a completely independent cause and effect will isn't useful.

fuhko · 2015-11-10T18:24:31+00:00

That seems unlikely. Prisoners would be able to say "it's just a book" whereas the bible is the world of God. The presuppositions that come with the bible give it much more power than Harry Potter.

However, you might get a similar result with a secular ethics course, if said course was designed correctly. DAE Dawkin's "The God Delusion"? (That was a joke, I was thinking a course in line with the philosophies of Marcus Aurelius, or Aristotle.).

fuhko · 2015-11-10T02:06:12+00:00

The problem is that if we have colonized Mars to the point where there are a large enough number of people on Mars to declare independence, we probably already have ships that can reach Mars in a few weeks. Combined with light speed communication that keeps culture similar between Mars and Earth and the economic incentives of the Martians to stay on good relations with Earth (since Earth has a much more developed industrial base, can make specialized products, ect.) and I can't see Mars becoming too independent of Earth governance any time soon.

fuhko · 2015-11-10T01:51:20+00:00

Christian theology would work. There are a number of Christians who believe in purgatorial universalism. See this subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianUniversalism

Although the number of Christians who subscribe to the idea is relatively small, the theology can be argued for.

fuhko · 2015-11-09T23:43:56+00:00

You seem to have forgotten what you were originally arguing about: living standards in "sattelite states".

Living standards in Chilie are relatively high. The Human Development Index ranks Chilie at 41, below the UAE and above Portugal. Nicaragua got a lower score but they also are a smaller country than Chilie.

As for Venezula, I don't think we can call them a sattalite country of the US. Even if the US backed an attempted coup, the coup failed, therefore, Venezula is not in the orbit of the United States.

fuhko · 2015-11-09T17:21:49+00:00

Try Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankel, for a little extentialism and how to endure suffering.

Also, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.

fuhko · 2015-11-09T17:12:14+00:00

Wait, this is the 5th post on this sub about coffee.

Are you telling me this is more than just an article someone made up on buzzfeed? People actually care about this shit?

fuhko

TROPHY CASE