Why Bother?

The controversy here is so thick that it's hard to move. I'll continue to believe that the vast majority of the content here in both stories and comments is nothing but devil's advocacy, because it helps me sleep better at night. The alternative, that those who post strongly agree with what they're writing, is far too horrifying to imagine. The posts are filled with ignorance, hypocricy, and completely false arguements that are occasionally wrapped around perhaps the smallest grains of truth. Yet, I think I've seen more comments agreeing than disagreeing.

Is it censorship? Is everyone too apathetic to post disagreeing? Do people not want to beat the stick of reason against a wall of false arguement? Why do ideas like "Day Care casuses Communism" go virtually unopposed other than noise from people who happen to dislike Christianity? Can no one be bothered to argue within the bounds of someone's beliefs?

It troubles me, somewhat deeply, to see the obviously intelligent minds that write the articles for adequacy to be using their writing skills to write up completely irrational arguements in such a way that they seem somewhat legitimate.

I understand the Kuro5hin is something of a facist regime that would never let anything more than mildly thought provoking get posted as shown by the fact that qpt [editor's note, by jsm](an unpopular member of the popular, but not very controversial discussion site kuro5hin) consistently was voted down, because the users didn't get it. I understand that stories only go up there, because the majority of the users agree with the ideas being expressed making it a less than perfect breeding ground for discussion. Is this really the answer though?

If you want to provide a place for opinons that are less than conventional, ideas that might not be accepted elsewhere, more power to you, but isn't it coutner-productive to post stories that are obviously inflammatory and serve no purpose other than to rile people up? [editor's note, by bc](Just riling people up is not the aim of adequacy.org. We strive to provide an arena of debate, not emotion) What's worse, you're probably tricking a few people into believing that your arguements are valid and infusing them with grossly misguided opinions (AIDS is a Hoax, for example) [editor's note, by jsm](this is not necessarily a misguided opinion, as Steve Richards made clear). Some people are gullible, you know.

I think the greatest slap on the face to humanity on this site is the way that the authors seem to portray Christianity.

I personally am an athiest. I don't have a problem with Christianity, and I derive a great deal of my morality from it and believe the Bible has some wonderful views on how people should live their lives mixed in with a little bit of history. In fact, many of the nicest most sane people I know are not only Christians, but also ministers or training to be such. I feel confident in saying that they would be insulted and angered by the way many articles posted here use Christianity.

In case some of you missed the New Testament, Jesus is supposed to be a Christian role-model. He was God. He was perfection. He is what we all, theoretically, should aspire to be like. I'm not entirely sure where some of the authors here got the idea that it would be a good idea to use his words in hate and anger. [editor's note, by jsm] (perhaps from 90% of all Christians who have ever lived)

Christianity, at it's core, is about forgiveness.

Judge not lest ye be judged.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Love thy neighboor as thy love thy self.

Nowhere in the Good Book does it say "unless they're not good Christians like you". These statements apply to all humanity. Even the pagans, muslims, jews, or whatever of the world. Even the Satanists who, BTW, don't actually worship Satan or sacrifice people or any of that other nonsense (The Church of Satan revolves around the idea of self-worship). Keep that in mind next time you decide to draw up an article about how we should purge ourself of some subculture in the name of the Lord.

I think Jesus would be mortified at the concept of evangelical preaching as well. It's about condemning. "Join us or you'll go to hell!" Jesus led by example. He condemned no one. The harlot, the leper, or the samaritan were all condemned by the religous leaders of the time. Jesus offered them the hand of forgiveness and love.

It's the old "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" bit. There are many misguided people in our world who are simply looking for someone to care about them in a world full of hate-mongers who are quicker to point a finger in blame than to give support to those who so desperately need it. Think about lending them the helping hand they need before you write your beautiful article about how some harmless entity is really the source of evil in the world.

The only real source of evil is the hate that you seem to support.

[editor's note, by bc](Although we consider this last statement to be libelous, we have posted it anyway for we at adequacy.org are firm believers in free speech, as long as the ideas expressed are genuinely believed by the writer)

	Not sure about Jesus. (none / 0) (#12)
	by dmg on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 06:51:07 AM PST

	Jesus led by example. He condemned no one. The harlot, the leper, or the samaritan were all condemned by the religous leaders of the time. Jesus offered them the hand of forgiveness and love. We all fall short of Jesus. We are all sinners. But surely it is not sinful to engage in meaningful debate ? One of the wonders of the Internet is how it can break down barriers, and lead to new modes of communication. By talking about the controversial issues of the day, in a rational, public manner, surely we are more likely to come to some meaningful conclusions ? The way I see it is this: The 'powers that be' are screwing things up with their bad attitudes and 'me first' approach to politics. Sites like adequacy demonstrate that there are alternative viewpoints. Should we be afraid of controversy per se ? Well, one has to step back and ask oneself why a particular view point is controversial. After all, Jesus Himself had some pretty controversial views, but nobody accused him of 'trolling', even though he was a 'fisher of men':-) Now, perhaps what you have seen of Adequacy has been a bit biased, but bear in mind we are a relatively new site on the web. We haven't had time to expose a wide range of opinions yet, but stick around. It is going to get even more interesting... time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	Right-O! (5.00 / 1) (#15)
	by sventhatcher on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 07:27:36 AM PST

	We all fall short of Jesus. We are all sinners. But surely it is not sinful to engage in meaningful debate ? Oh absolutely. Obviously from the Christian stand point, few people can even come close to being able to forgive on demand. What irks me though is people essentially saying that it's alright to hate someone if they're a "threat" to "good Christian values" which is just inherently contradictory since good Christian values would in fact include never hating. I'm all for debate, but I'm pretty sure that it's possible to debate without taking the most extreme point of view possible on an issue. Maybe I'm naively optimistic.. One of the wonders of the Internet is how it can break down barriers, and lead to new modes of communication. By talking about the controversial issues of the day, in a rational, public manner, surely we are more likely to come to some meaningful conclusions ? Except.. most of the articles up aren't really written in a rational manner. They tend to exploit common fallacies. If you want to argue something that you believe in or wish to play the devil's advocate for, at least pick things that you can back up with a logical arguement. It's not the controversial nature of the content that puts me off; it's the massive amount of completely unsupported claims. The way I see it is this: The 'powers that be' are screwing things up with their bad attitudes and 'me first' approach to politics. Sites like adequacy demonstrate that there are alternative viewpoints. TomPaine.com also showcases articles written from an alternative viewpoint, but I would never suggest for a moment there that the writers don't support the viewpoints they're arguing. The stylistic choices made by authors here seem to be intentionally inflammatory as opposed to taking on a somewhat more journalistic approach to opinion writing. One doesn't have to be firey to adequately state one's beliefs. In fact, I probably would've never put this up for submission had jsm not encouraged me to do such. Should we be afraid of controversy per se ? Well, one has to step back and ask oneself why a particular view point is controversial. After all, Jesus Himself had some pretty controversial views, but nobody accused him of 'trolling', even though he was a 'fisher of men':-) Well, from a religious stand point, he was pretty radical, because he was telling the Jews that all those laws in the Old Testament were outdated. That looking out for the benefit of mankind was more important than ritual and tradition. I don't think Jesus was the first to suggest that perhaps it would be a good idea that we all just got along. He was just the first that told people he was the Son of God and performed miracles. =) Still. It's misguided to compare (on any level) "Day Care Causes Communism", "The Gay Tax", or "SUVs: The American Dream" to the teachings of Jesus. Now, perhaps what you have seen of Adequacy has been a bit biased, but bear in mind we are a relatively new site on the web. We haven't had time to expose a wide range of opinions yet, but stick around. It is going to get even more interesting... If someone actually had a convincing arguement for any of the topics currently being discussed, I'd be happy to hear it. It's not the subject matter. I'm open to possibilities. I just want something that isn't based on fallacy and misdirection. I want something that isn't written to be purposefully inflammatory. That's all. --Sven (now with bonus weblog vanity site! (MLP sold seperately))

	Some truths have to be deduced (none / 0) (#43)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 07:42:21 AM PST

	It's misguided to compare (on any level) "Day Care Causes Communism", "The Gay Tax", or "SUVs: The American Dream" to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus himself was not averse to teaching by way of parables. The student of Bhuddism may read Koans. The point is to draw your own conclusion. It is possible to draw attention to a universal truth by stating something that is blatantly false. It can be viewed as 'education through misinformation'. The student will gain enlightenment eventually.

	Commentary (5.00 / 1) (#13)
	by sventhatcher on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 06:58:12 AM PST

	I will admit that my article is virtually unchanged from the original just to make sure people don't think that the editors are facists or anything. The link to jinwicked on self-worship was not mine originally, so yell at jsm for that if you want. =) There's one thing I'd like to smash my head against briefly though: [editor's note, by jsm] (perhaps from 90% of all Christians who have ever lived) 90% might be a little bit high. It's just that the hate-mongers are far more vocal than those who actually are inclined to understand rather than judge. Still, even if that were true it doesn't change the fact that Christians should be using the Bible as their guide since it's supposed to be the Word of God rather than what other men tell them the Bible says/means. My commentary is not really directed at everything posted here. It's mostly at the things I have recently read an engaged in discussion over. Certainly, there have been numerous articles recently that have used Christianity as a jumping ground for stomping all over something. --Sven (now with bonus weblog vanity site! (MLP sold seperately))

	Perhaps the problem is one of identification (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 07:13:29 AM PST

	Until there is some sort of certification (a bit like an MCSE) or proof of someone's Christianity, after all it is possible that many people claiming to be Christians, are not in fact Christians: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21) If one searches the web it is possible to find all sorts of perversions of Christianity. Gay 'Christians', Bisexual 'Christians', 'Christian' Goths, 'Christian' Bikers, the list is endless. All have one thing in common. They claim to be Christian - but we know better: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. (Matthew 6:5) Perhaps jsm has been unfortunate enough to meet with a really bad selection of so-called Christians. Either way, we need to develop new ways of identifying 'True Christians' so that the lunatic fringe does not end up tarring all the good Christians with the same brush!!! This site has a lot of time for Christians, indeed it is possible that some of the editors are in fact commited Christians. They just don't like to wave it around under your nose.

	Hrm (5.00 / 1) (#16)
	by sventhatcher on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 07:40:52 AM PST

	Keep in mind that I am of course an athiest, and therefore in the long-run it doesn't really matter to me who's Christian for real and who isn't. I just really like the message that the actual Bible sends out, and I wish more people would listen to the main idea instead of getting hung up on a few minor details. If one searches the web it is possible to find all sorts of perversions of Christianity. Gay 'Christians', Bisexual 'Christians', 'Christian' Goths, 'Christian' Bikers, the list is endless. All have one thing in common. They claim to be Christian - but we know better: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. (Matthew 6:5) That's just silly. Silly, silly, silly. There's no reason that non-heterosexuals can't be Christian. Although, one might wonder why they would want to since they're rarely met with anything except hate or rejection from the Christian community. There's no reason that Goths can't be Christian. Goth is just a fashion trend and a taste in music. Who the hell says that you can't wear black, have weird hair, and be Christian? I have a friend named Amber who is slightly-Goth, and she very much belives in God. There's no reason that Bikers can't be Christian. This is the most absurd claim of the four. Just because you own a motorcycle and like to travel around the country on it, you can't really be a Christian? The people who your scripture really applies to are those that follow the religion out of habit. They go to Church not because they want to, but because they feel they're supposed to. They pray for the same reason. They believe everything their pastor tells them as if it is the direct word of god. I think to be a true Christian, you have to be a freethinker. Otherwise, you'll be crumpled by false dogma. --Sven (now with bonus weblog vanity site! (MLP sold seperately))

	yes there is (none / 0) (#20)
	by jsm on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 08:57:56 AM PST

	There's no reason that non-heterosexuals can't be Christian Oh of course there is, and St Paul goes on about the fact at great length. ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	Which begs the question: (5.00 / 1) (#21)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 09:03:55 AM PST

	Why would anyone want to embrace a religion that specifically oppresses and discriminates against anyone else? Because you're Right? Is there any cognitive thought taking place or is it just rote and recitation? A troll's true colors.

	don't get me wrong (none / 0) (#22)
	by jsm on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 09:18:14 AM PST

	that's a bad thing about Christianity in my book. But there's no point in pretending it isn't true, as so many "Gay Christians" try to. ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	The Bible is not "Open Source" (5.00 / 1) (#23)
	by Adam Rightmann on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 09:24:29 AM PST

	You can't pick and choose what you want to believe in, and modify the sections that don't fit your chosen lifestyle. Believe in it all, and do you best to live by the rules presented therein, or suffer eternal torment in the burning lkaes of hellfire. See, simple! A. Rightmann

	On Christianity and Atheism (5.00 / 1) (#33)
	by donkpunch on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 10:43:29 AM PST

	Premise: Atheism is the disbelief in an unseen intelligence (or intelligences) that created the universe. Atheism is NOT a "religion", rather it is the absence of religion. If you disagree with my premise, the rest of my post will undoubtedly miss the mark as well. Because Christianity is the dominant religion of the western world, atheists in the western world find themselves at odds with Christians more than any other group. Indeed, the debate is often couched in terms which make "atheist" synonymous with "anti-Christian". But this is not accurate. Atheists need not be "anti" anything. They simply believe (perhaps rightly) that today's "modern" religions are no more "correct" than the mythology of the ancient Greeks. And, in fact, many self-proclaimed atheists themselves contribute to this unfortunate stereotype. Not only do they choose not to believe in a God, but they go out of their way to sneer at and belittle people who hold religious convictions. Animosity is often a mask for insecurity. With every snide comment, the "attack" atheists (to coin a phrase) foster an impression they are insecure about their own (non)beliefs. Truth be told, there are far more atheists than popular culture would have us believe. Pick any church on Sunday and, given mind-reading powers, one could easily find people in the pews who attend out of quaint social tradition rather than actual faith. These are good, honest, hard-working people -- some might even ironically describe them as "God-fearing". There is no need to "force" atheism on people the way certain religions try to bring people into their own fold. Atheists can adopt the principle of "When in Rome...." and accept that Judeo-Christian rituals are the norm in the western world. It is irrational for atheists to spend so much vitriol on Christians while simply ignoring Muslims, Wiccans, etc. All of these groups hold beliefs contrary to atheist rationale, but the most venomous comments always seem directed at believers in Jesus Christ. Would an atheist in India roll her eyes at someone turning toward Mecca or would they simply think it was "interesting?" sigh To this admittedly confused agnostic, it makes no sense.

	All or nothing (3.50 / 2) (#27)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 09:45:13 AM PST

	Unfortunately, your statement does nothing to answer my question: why would anyone want to embrace a religion that discriminates against and oppresses anyone else? The answer is clearly "rote and recitation." Don't think about what you're doing. Don't think about what you're saying. Don't think about the needs or interests of anyone who doesn't conform to your worldview. Just condemn them for not Walking in the Sight of God. I find that Truth is a highly elusive thing. Jesus renamed Simon to Peter, which means "pebble." According to the Roman Catholic Church, the Truth is that Jesus founded his Church on that same pebble. Men are supposed to keep their hair short because "long hair is a vanity," yet Samson drew his strength from his long hair and Paul took the vows of the Nazarene requiring him to cut no hair on his body for a year and a day. Homosexuality is vilified by so many Christian religions using Biblical justification without once applying Acts 10:28, "...God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." I've said it before and I'll say it again: the world is not black and white. Truth isn't a destination, but a journey, and anyone who says they've arrived is sincerely deluded. A troll's true colors.

	Perception indeed (none / 0) (#18)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 08:16:32 AM PST

	I must respond to this person: "Until there is some sort of certification (a bit like an MCSE) or proof of someone's Christianity, after all it is possible that many people claiming to be Christians, are not in fact Christians..." Who are you to say that anyone who claims to be Christian is lying? What we do determines who we are, not some label we may or may not fit. There are people who fit the label "Christian" but are mean and hateful in private. I myself am Atheist, but believe that someone's relationship with God is not for man to judge - only God can judge it. To "certify" someone as Christian is to definitively judge and apply a label. Not good. "If one searches the web it is possible to find all sorts of perversions of Christianity. Gay 'Christians', Bisexual 'Christians', 'Christian' Goths, 'Christian' Bikers, the list is endless. All have one thing in common. They claim to be Christian - but we know better..." Again, more proof that you are less Christian than you act. Do not judge people based on labels, that is just as bad as applying them! Would you like it if someone who read your post accused you of lying about your faith? What if they said they knew better? "Perhaps jsm has been unfortunate enough to meet with a really bad selection of so-called Christians. Either way, we need to develop new ways of identifying 'True Christians' so that the lunatic fringe does not end up tarring all the good Christians with the same brush!!!" This comes across as though you are creating a scapegoat. Clearly, there exists Christians with extreme beliefs. But explain to us how the idea of labelling people "True Christians" is any less extreme, or any less ironic? For by trying to segregate your group, you "True Christians" end up tarring yourselves! If many Christians share your viewpoint about who is and who is not "one of them", it only figures that JSM has met with a really bad selection of "them". "This site has a lot of time for Christians, indeed it is possible that some of the editors are in fact commited Christians. They just don't like to wave it around under your nose." Indeed, but they may also be something which you find "bad", like a biker. The bottom line is that you DON'T know what they are. It is easy to suppose things that support one's platform, and easy to criticize things that disagree with one's platform. Obviously you are free to arrive at your opinions however you deem "logical". But at least realize how paradoxical your words sound.

	Things to think about (5.00 / 2) (#17)
	by seventypercent on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 07:47:50 AM PST

	You hit the nail on the head when you discussed the major drawback of discussion sites such as Kuro5hin; because all of the stories that appear there require the approval of a majority of the site's readers, there is virtually no chance that any controversial point of view will make it past the submission queue. This is a Good Thing if your intent is to promote conformity and inside-the-box thinking, but it hardly advances points of view that lie outside of the mainstream. 200 years ago, it was considered controversial to discuss the morality of slavery. It simply was not a topic of polite conversation. But if certain people had not taken it upon themselves to "rock the boat" and challenge the overwhelming sentiment of the day, chances are that African-Americans would be toiling in the fields even to this day. Now, does this mean that frank discussions about the size of Jennifer Lopez's behind and the hidden agenda of the Wiccanist religion are as important as freeing an entire oppressed race? Of course not. We here at Adequacy admit to a certain degree of self-aggrandizement, but not to that ridiculous extent. When our boys left their safe and comfortable homes to fight the Krauts in WWII, they were not fighting for CNN, the New York Times, or USA Today (media outlets that are about as controversial as a Sunday drive.) They were fighting for Adequacy (figuratively, not literally.) That we exist is a testament to the level of freedom that the Western world enjoys. We cannot guarantee that everybody (or anybody) will agree with the sentiments that are expressed here. But ideas that are suppressed and unspoken are ideas that eventually die, and there are some ideas that are just too good to die. Adequacy serves as a shining beacon illuminating the darkness of tyranny and keeping the light on those ideas. -- Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

	see article, dwell on author's motives (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 08:34:01 AM PST

	instead of ideas informing the article. the vast majority of the content here in both stories and comments is nothing but devil's advocacy, They are common sentiment purposefully taken to logical conclusions. A lot of posted comments argue against themselves, amusingly.

	Controversy and Adequacy.org (3.50 / 2) (#24)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 09:29:41 AM PST

	Having been threatened to have my posts deleted as a troll, I am deeply amused. Particularly since the post I was threatened over wasn't a troll. I've given up attempting to argue rationally to people's articles and comments, and instead started to agree with them in such a way that my opinion is made known by the extremity of the position I take. I found it even more amusing that the first time I did this, the Editors (Infinite in Their Wisdom) rated me up. Anyone who thinks I'm agreeing with such reactionary opinions has some serious blinders on. This site has convinced me that it is a Troll site. Protests of "lively debate" aside, the FAQ states that some articles will be posted in earnest and some in jest. I really can't tell what's intended to be a joke and what isn't, and that scares me. People are blatantly advocating censorship and abridgement of freedoms so that what they consider to be "right" will be enforced. This is met with reactions ranging from celebration to disgust, and from what I understand, the most vociferous statements of dissent have been deleted as "trolling." I cannot imagine how any of the responses could be more inflammatory or hateful than articles about The Gay Tax. Given that sort of environment, attempts to police the site against "trolling" seems arbitrary at best. The only controvery apparently not tolerated is the suggestion that this site is merely a breeding ground for trolls and bigots. I don't know why I come here either. Except that it breaks the monotony of the day. A troll's true colors.

	Ohh, a new motto (none / 0) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 09:36:33 AM PST

	Adequacy: It breaks the monotony of the day.

	did you think "The Gay Tax" was hateful? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
	by jsm on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 09:39:18 AM PST

	I thought it was a gentle piece of whimsy, poking a little bit of friendly fun at the more superficial, commercialised aspects of modern gay culture (specifically at the shop Kitchen Sync, which I used to live down the road from). I suppose a lot of this is in the eye of the beholder, but since other editors have advocated the use of a ducking stool on Wiccans and the introduction of purdah in the workplace, I have a hard time with being singled out as the poster boy for hate on adequacy.org. ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	Consider your audience (3.00 / 2) (#29)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 09:51:08 AM PST

	This is what bothers me about Adequacy: people are taking your humor for gospel truth. Obviously some critical thinking skills are required, but given the content strewn everywhere, I have difficulty separating what was said in jest and what was said in earnest. You may have meant your article in jest, but some people are reading it for Truth. Other people are posting similar articles or comments that edge the boundary of intolerance and bigotry. You've become the poster boy for hate messages and the rally cry for discrimination whether you intended to or not. A troll's true colors.

	fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#30)
	by jsm on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 09:56:57 AM PST

	You're entitled to your opinion; I retain my own, but have noted your criticism. If you want to write your own article promoting tolerance, go for it; we'll post it if it's sufficiently controversial (certainly, advocating equal treatment for anyone except white heterosexual males seems to raise a surprising number of hackles). But I'd prefer to get articles disagreeing with us on substantive points than "meta" ones about the nature of adequacy.org; we've discussed the editorial line quite extensively before setting up the site, and I suspect that this is the last "Meta" article, we'll post for a while, particularly given that lb tends to disable your posting rights for a couple of days if you use the word "Meta". ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	Just consider (none / 0) (#40)
	by Husaria on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 01:10:29 PM PST

	All the articles as humorous, thats all. Sig sigger

	Why bother indeed? (none / 0) (#28)
	by Harvey Black on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 09:50:32 AM PST

	First, let me ask a quick question: I notice the editors include "Editor's notes" in the body of Mr. Thatcher's text. There is nothing wrong with that, of course. However, traditionally notes made by an editor are to clarify a point the author was trying to make, to provide additional information, or to make a note such as (sic) or add a word that makes the flow of the paragraph easier. What we have in Sven's post are several "Editor's notes" that are in fact opinionated replies to Sven's message. This seems a) a touch unfair to the users who must post their responses at the bottom of the essay for comment and b)as though the opinions of the editors of adequacy.org are more important than the opinions of those people who must open up their comments for review and scoring by other members. The real point I wanted to make for Sven is that the New Testament of the Bible is not all smiles and sunshine. Most importantly, in the New Testament, Hell is expanded. In the Old Testament, God's vengeance was over once his enemies were dead. In the NT, God's enemies were banished to an -eternity- of fire and brimstone. That's not nice! Jesus himself was supposedly all loving and all forgiving, but that hardly accounts for the supposed existence of Hell. Take, for a moment, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Lazarus was poor, filthy, diseased, and died alone in a gutter. The Rich Man was healthy, wealthy, and well fed, and died surrounded by healers trying to save his life. Lazarus went to Heaven, the Rich Man went to Hell. Ridiculous, isn't it? For every "Judge not lest ye be judged" in the Bible there's some wackiness like Lazarus and the Rich Man going on, so you should take the Bible with a grain of salt.

	so what? (none / 0) (#32)
	by jsm on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 10:37:51 AM PST

	as though the opinions of the editors of adequacy.org are more important than the opinions of those people who must open up their comments for review and scoring by other members. Well slap my arse if it ain't true!. Look, let's get real here. The editors of adequacy.org are all in gainful employment, in the tech and media sectors. They are all highly regarded Net figures (or pseudonyms for such) and talented journalists. I'm all for this ooey-gooey everybody-must-get-a-prize egalitarianism in its place, but not when it flies in the face of the facts. The opinions of adequacy.org editors are in the main, prima facie more likely to be worth reading than randomly selected members of the public (which includes about a hundred Wiccans who can't even get their heads round the concept of "Post HTML Formatted". Get over it. And consider this a final warning that you are reaching the boundaries of being considered "trolling", which is not tolerated on this site. ("Arbychoow", if you're looking for your comments, they have been deleted). ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	Wacky? (none / 0) (#41)
	by specom on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 03:42:18 PM PST

	I beg your pardon, there is nothing "wacky" about Lazarus and the rich man. The point of the story is that the rich man was wrapped up in the wealth of this world and gave no regard to the poor. The new testament, especially the gospels, is full of quotes from Jesus that if you just go for it and have no regard for your fellow man you would receive a reward from him at the judgement commensurate with your attitude. Ayn Rand would not get along with Jesus. Yes, Lazarus "poor, filthy, diseased, and died alone in a gutter" and he probably never harmed anyone, except maybe himself. Hell is a place where those who want nothing to do with God get their wish. We make a big deal out of the fire (but it's a DRY heat), but the true "hellishness" of hell is the complete and total separation from God and His Grace. We beleive that even if you do not acknowledge it, it is about you and that once God withdraws His Grace from the world and the Antichrist is come in the midst of the Great Tribulation there will be literal Hell on Earth. At the end, there will be a judgement where those who reject Christ will be cast into a fiery Prison prepared for Satan and the angels which made war on God and His kingdom. There is no place else for them in the new Heaven and Earth that will exist after Christ's return. >brimstone. That's not nice! Jesus himself was supposedly all loving and all forgiving, but that hardly accounts for the supposed existence of Hell. Take, for a moment, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Lazarus was poor, filthy, diseased, and died alone in a gutter. The Rich Man was healthy, wealthy, and well fed, and died surrounded by healers trying to save his life. Lazarus went to Heaven, the Rich Man went to Hell. Ridiculous, isn't it? For every "Judge not lest ye be judged" in the Bible there's some wackiness like Lazarus and the Rich Man going on, so you should take the Bible with a grain of salt.< Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

	Nice (none / 0) (#34)
	by sventhatcher on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 10:52:24 AM PST

	Nice bit of commenting, but what does it have to do with anything? =) I am a professed athiest, but I think I made it clear that I think the Bible can be really cool at times anyway which makes me a far cry from anti-Christian. --Sven (now with bonus weblog vanity site! (MLP sold seperately))

	Of course (none / 0) (#35)
	by donkpunch on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 11:09:43 AM PST

	And being a non-agressive atheist makes your point of view and writing far more persuasive than the more aggressive "attack" atheists. I think about the differences mostly when issues of public prayer come to the fore. It seems some atheists become egregiously offended at something that could easily be treated like a simple cultural ritual. I don't presume to speak for atheists, but it seems the most confident reaction would be to simply ignore it. If you don't mind me asking, do the more vocal atheists make you uncomfortable sometimes? There are numerous Christians who profess disdain for Christian extremists. The "televangelist" craze of the 80s seemed to bring more ire from the moderate faithful than anyone else. Is there such a thing as a "militant atheist"? I hope I'm not rambling too far off-topic here, but I find the subject fascinating. Perhaps I should post it as a separate thread?

	Aggressive athiests (5.00 / 1) (#37)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 11:18:41 AM PST

	Speaking as a Deist (I believe in God but refuse to attempt to try to pin Him/Her/It down with any sort of definition or motivations), aggressive anything annoys me. It's one thing to state your opinion for other people to hear and ponder. It's something else to insist that your point of view is absolutely correct and anyone who doesn't agree is either mentally incompetent or damned for heresy. Not that I'm not guilty of lapsing myself now and again, but I do try. I respect everyone's right to their opinions and beliefs, but I get a little peeved when I'm told The Truth. I believe that anyone who takes the time to inspect their beliefs and actions will come to the realization that not everything they think or do is necessarily valid. I will not attempt to force anyone to do this because I believe the same freedom to choose for themselves should be granted to everyone. A troll's true colors.

	Snuggling Up with the Anti-Christ (5.00 / 1) (#38)
	by sventhatcher on Fri Jul 20th, 2001 at 11:21:23 AM PST

	Generally anyone who is fanatical enough to believe that their perspective on reality is universally true makes me a tad bit uncomfortable. --Sven (now with bonus weblog vanity site! (MLP sold seperately))

	Confusion, I suspect.... (none / 0) (#42)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 22nd, 2001 at 05:42:43 AM PST

	"Premise: Atheism is the disbelief in an unseen intelligence (or intelligences) that created the universe. Atheism is NOT a "religion", rather it is the absence of religion." Technically, I think you're referring to being agnostic, not being an atheist. The difference is rather crucial, considering the rest of your argument.

	Oh really? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
	by Rand Race on Mon Jul 23rd, 2001 at 11:47:54 AM PST

	Nowhere in the Good Book does it say "unless they're not good Christians like you". Romans 8:33 "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" Corinthians 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" 2nd Thessalonians 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." 1st John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." Mathew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Romans 14:23 "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. " 1st John 5:19 "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." 2nd John 1:10 "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed."