5 ms·

Huge ramifications for religion. Thinking of Mark 8:22. To know God, you must become... We have to be ok with this at some point.

by jksmith 13y ago

mangeletti 13y ago
Who's Mark 8? Also, which God? Are you talking about a specific novel or just general gnosticism or mythology?
- jksmith 13y ago
  That's a bible verse describing Jesus making a blind man see. Point is, knowing God better is apparently of value to religious Jews and Christians. Biblical study can serve this effort. If it (knowing God) really is important to believers, then they have to consider how science plays a role in that effort as well, except that what science offers may not be nearly as satisfying in a traditional religious sense.
  - hnriot 13y ago
    What beautiful irony, the bible itself extols the value in "knowing god" - for which I will read, knowing the natural world. Yet when anyone tries to do that, they very often end up being persecuted by the very same church. Not that any of this Mark nonsense makes any difference in the real world. Aside from contributing to huge death tolls across the world in the name of minor semantic difference in reading, religion adds absolutely no value to advances in medicine. In another lovely irony, the eye is one of the single most convincing pieces of evidence for the non-existence of god! Why, otherwise, would "he" have bothered to create a blind spot. If we could all just stop with this outdated nonsense and focus on the actual problems the world faces, like climate change and overpopulation instead of worrying about which particular form of doctrine to pick we might as a species stand a chance.
    - sdegutis 13y ago
      > In another lovely irony, the eye is one of the single most convincing pieces of evidence for the non-existence of god! Why, otherwise, would "he" have bothered to create a blind spot. So we could learn to trust in Him and stop relying entirely on ourselves.
      - hnriot 13y ago
        haha! what does that even mean - that's just typical religious mumbo jumbo. It's by relying in "HIM" that we have the blind spot. If "He" is so capable wouldn't he have thought of a better way to connect the optic nerve, like evolution did in other species? I know I can't win an argument using logic with a zealot, but seriously, let's stop with the "trust in him" claptrap.
    - fixermark 13y ago
      >> "religion adds absolutely no value to advances in medicine" I know what you mean, but the number of hospitals hosting groundbreaking medical research that happen to have "Saint" in their name contradict the way you're trying to say it. I recommend shying away from superlatives when stating a case.
- mangeletti 13y ago
  I'm surprised to see that my questions were down-voted, and that a religious tirade ensued. I was just curious who Mark 8 was. The comment I was replying to mentioned Mark 8 with the assumption that everybody knew who that was... Sometimes religious people are so indoctrinated that they think they live in a [theology book]-centric universe. I'm sorry I crossed you, Mark 8.
andrelaszlo 13y ago
How about "an eye for an eye" (Matthew 5:38, apparently)? - So sorry about your eye! You're half-blind now! I should really stop running with scissors. - Ah, that old thing? I was going to get a new one anyway.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  If we can replace organs at will, its logical to believe that somewhere, inflicting grievous harm as punishment is going to become common. If someone's lung or heart can be replaced in a day, do your qualms about stabbing someone in the chest go down?
  - claudius 13y ago
    Small wounds often heal within days, yet I don’t go around stabbing people (not even with tiny knives!). Sure, maybe some offences turn from ‘murder’ into ‘grievous bodily harm’, but that shouldn’t be bad in and of itself?
  - rch 13y ago
    Better recovery would make grievous injury more dangerous for the assailant, not less. Leaving aside murderous intent for a moment, and think about a car accident from reckless driving: the party at fault would be on the hook for the bill, and regrowing complex organs won't be cheap.
  - artmageddon 13y ago
    I wouldn't think it'd become more common. Personally, I'd say no to the possibility of my qualms going down about it because: -That is still considered a screwed up thing to do someone, -It's illegal: you'd be charged(and probably convicted) with attempted murder, or at the very least, assault and battery, which carries significant fines and jail time, -the person could still die as a result of it
  - fixermark 13y ago
    I have, from time to time, played the "I can't get behind that" game. It goes like this: 1) Observe that a lot of older people in my life---and throughout history---are / have been intolerant of something that you find benign (myriad things have taken this role in history: bare ankles, women voting, rock music). 2) Infer by the law of averages that I am probably not very different from most people. 3) Assume I will therefore have a 'thing'that a younger generation will be fine with that I am utterly intolerant of. 4) Try to guess that 'thing.' It's a hard game. My best guess at this time is "In a world where medical science and services have evolved to the point where life-saving procedures are routine, automated, and five-nines successful, a younger generation will find ever more violent and dangerous versions of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game) to be fun to play, and I can't get behind that!"

Huge ramifications for religion. Thinking of Mark 8:22. To know God, you must become... We have to be ok with this at some point.

by jksmith 13y ago

Huge ramifications for religion. Thinking of Mark 8:22. To know God, you must become... We have to be ok with this at some point.

mangeletti 13y ago

Who's Mark 8? Also, which God? Are you talking about a specific novel or just general gnosticism or mythology?

jksmith 13y ago
That's a bible verse describing Jesus making a blind man see. Point is, knowing God better is apparently of value to religious Jews and Christians. Biblical study can serve this effort. If it (knowing God) really is important to believers, then they have to consider how science plays a role in that effort as well, except that what science offers may not be nearly as satisfying in a traditional religious sense.
- hnriot 13y ago
  What beautiful irony, the bible itself extols the value in "knowing god" - for which I will read, knowing the natural world. Yet when anyone tries to do that, they very often end up being persecuted by the very same church. Not that any of this Mark nonsense makes any difference in the real world. Aside from contributing to huge death tolls across the world in the name of minor semantic difference in reading, religion adds absolutely no value to advances in medicine. In another lovely irony, the eye is one of the single most convincing pieces of evidence for the non-existence of god! Why, otherwise, would "he" have bothered to create a blind spot. If we could all just stop with this outdated nonsense and focus on the actual problems the world faces, like climate change and overpopulation instead of worrying about which particular form of doctrine to pick we might as a species stand a chance.
  - sdegutis 13y ago
    > In another lovely irony, the eye is one of the single most convincing pieces of evidence for the non-existence of god! Why, otherwise, would "he" have bothered to create a blind spot. So we could learn to trust in Him and stop relying entirely on ourselves.
    - hnriot 13y ago
      haha! what does that even mean - that's just typical religious mumbo jumbo. It's by relying in "HIM" that we have the blind spot. If "He" is so capable wouldn't he have thought of a better way to connect the optic nerve, like evolution did in other species? I know I can't win an argument using logic with a zealot, but seriously, let's stop with the "trust in him" claptrap.
  - fixermark 13y ago
    >> "religion adds absolutely no value to advances in medicine" I know what you mean, but the number of hospitals hosting groundbreaking medical research that happen to have "Saint" in their name contradict the way you're trying to say it. I recommend shying away from superlatives when stating a case.
mangeletti 13y ago
I'm surprised to see that my questions were down-voted, and that a religious tirade ensued. I was just curious who Mark 8 was. The comment I was replying to mentioned Mark 8 with the assumption that everybody knew who that was... Sometimes religious people are so indoctrinated that they think they live in a [theology book]-centric universe. I'm sorry I crossed you, Mark 8.

andrelaszlo 13y ago

How about "an eye for an eye" (Matthew 5:38, apparently)? - So sorry about your eye! You're half-blind now! I should really stop running with scissors. - Ah, that old thing? I was going to get a new one anyway.

toomuchtodo 13y ago
If we can replace organs at will, its logical to believe that somewhere, inflicting grievous harm as punishment is going to become common. If someone's lung or heart can be replaced in a day, do your qualms about stabbing someone in the chest go down?
- claudius 13y ago
  Small wounds often heal within days, yet I don’t go around stabbing people (not even with tiny knives!). Sure, maybe some offences turn from ‘murder’ into ‘grievous bodily harm’, but that shouldn’t be bad in and of itself?
- rch 13y ago
  Better recovery would make grievous injury more dangerous for the assailant, not less. Leaving aside murderous intent for a moment, and think about a car accident from reckless driving: the party at fault would be on the hook for the bill, and regrowing complex organs won't be cheap.
- artmageddon 13y ago
  I wouldn't think it'd become more common. Personally, I'd say no to the possibility of my qualms going down about it because: -That is still considered a screwed up thing to do someone, -It's illegal: you'd be charged(and probably convicted) with attempted murder, or at the very least, assault and battery, which carries significant fines and jail time, -the person could still die as a result of it
- fixermark 13y ago
  I have, from time to time, played the "I can't get behind that" game. It goes like this: 1) Observe that a lot of older people in my life---and throughout history---are / have been intolerant of something that you find benign (myriad things have taken this role in history: bare ankles, women voting, rock music). 2) Infer by the law of averages that I am probably not very different from most people. 3) Assume I will therefore have a 'thing'that a younger generation will be fine with that I am utterly intolerant of. 4) Try to guess that 'thing.' It's a hard game. My best guess at this time is "In a world where medical science and services have evolved to the point where life-saving procedures are routine, automated, and five-nines successful, a younger generation will find ever more violent and dangerous versions of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game) to be fun to play, and I can't get behind that!"