I am sure that parents can find comfort in "god's plan" when they are mourning the loss of an abducted child or worse. Unless some lives are just pawns for the lessons of others, which does not seem to be the message preached by Christianity.
God intended for us to live forever in a paradise with Him. Instead, people wanted to be their own gods, lie, lust, steal, kidnap, etc. Even if warned, all have sinned and continue to choose evil. Suffering is God’s wrath on sin, often through our own decisions but not always. He wants people to repent whereupon they will eventually see a world restored.
(Essentially, everyone who commits evil was the cause of the dead children, etc. A collective responsibility. They won’t stop doing evil either. Not even to save children.)
Parent also tell me how the Spirit of God and prayer help. So many situations go better than they would have. That’s by good teaching (character), a disaster avoided by an unlikely event answered in prayer, more calm during it, or increased wisdom on the way out of it. The peace God gives to believers in all circumstances, an inner peace, helps facing chaos and uncertainty. Like sending kids to college knowing God is with them.
I interviewed tons of people as a hardcore atheist. I’ve listened to many as a Christian. My friends lost children, had their sisters kidnapped (two murdered), etc. I had PTSD, etc. The difference between how people experience these events in Christ vs on their own is very evident. Also, God’s interventions for those that pray can be huge.
Here’s a recent one. A couple I met in a store told me why they appreciate Christ more that week. Their son’s car was smashed into a tree (looked like it was compacted) with driver leaving his body in a ditch to die. A relative, devout Christian, felt an overwhelming urge to take a different road which they thought was from God. They saw his body in a chance event. In the hospital, after more prayer, he had a swollen eye and a rod in his leg instead of dead which the EMT’s said happened to everyone else they saw in that situation.
Likewise, my friend whose sisters were kidnapped wasn’t close to Christ. Situation made the news. Two girls were killed. Many people prayed for God to intervene. Between the attacker’s decision and a bystander’s presence, an unlikely tip happened that led police to where the other two were held. That could’ve gone very differently.
Two more. Another friend lost her daughter to a hit and run by a texting teenager. While depressing, she’s been highly impactful to others thanks to a strong relationship with Christ. Didn’t go back to hard drugs she had just kicked. Also, love of Christ motivated her to worry about the driver’s emotional health so much she contacted her to counsel her. She and the woman who killed her daughter are on good terms despite the tragedy.
In another case, baby Silas was dying in the hospital. Pictures showed him a gray color with holes in his neck. Eyes rolled back in his head. They were praying as a group for him. He’s alive and well today.
Better than all of this, our experiences with Christ just point to the greater truth that one day all who believe will be in heaven with Him. There will be no pain. He will wipe away ever tear from every eye. If they were in Christ, we didn’t lose any loved ones cuz we’ll see them again. Even those who sadly weren’t born. :)
> Suffering is God’s wrath on sin, often through our own decisions but not always. He wants people to repent whereupon they will eventually see a world restored.
So a toddler abducted and murdered suffered to repent for what? To teach the parents a lesson? To bring the parents closer to Christ? I have asked this question to many religious teachers and all had answers similar to yours (or hid behind things like "they weren't baptized") and none addressed the core that real, innocent people die horrible deaths from time to time through no fault of their own. Others may learn and grow from the experience but what about the innocent person that died?
God is sovereign which means He can do what He pleases. He created us to worship Him and love each other. He’s also painting a story of humanity that shows who He is (all attributes), who we are, and how that interacts. We are all part of the story He is telling whether we want to be or not. Christ dying for unworthy, unrepentant people to redeem and adopt them as His children is the climax of His love story.
God making us in His image means He makes us autonomous: free agents able to choose good or evil. He also allows the consequences of both. On an eternal level, choosing Christ leads to life while betraying a perfect, everlasting God leads to eternal punishment. On earthly level, our choices impact us, our families, and our societies. God lets most play out with minimal intervention. If His children ask Him (pray), He sometimes intervenes on those same levels to help them.
We’re also in it together. God judges our actions as individuals, families, nations, and even humanity as a whole. He blesses obedience and curses disobedience which includes, per Deuteronomy 27-30, both fertility rates and our health.
We also see most harms are directly tied to selfish, sinful behavior of humans (consequences of choices). His wrath is often letting our choices hurt us so we or others will learn from it. Ex: My PTSD was caused by others’ sins but my liver problems came from mine. Many health problems are caused by our diets, how we process food, and stressful choices. Our public policies, including financial investments, can help or hurt people. Individually and nationally, we can intervene (or not) to help the helpless or restrain evil. Choices -> consequences.
That all of humanity rebels against God, even daily choosing evil, requires a holy God to respond to that. Genesis 3 and 4 said He cursed the Earth with hard labor, childbearing pain, and death itself. People didn’t repent. So, that form of His wrath continues as both justice and tough love to inspire repentance.
That’s why children die. They die because everyone opposes God to a degree which forgoes protections, like against natural causes, that are conditional on collective obedience. They die because we poison our environment, our bodies, and so on. They die when people neglect them or kill them, inside and outside the womb. We’re tested where some have conditions that can be treated but we’re too selfish to allocate the resources that way. Then, people mistreat them as adults, too.
So, the combo is the moral law of God that rewards/punishes choices, free will means we can earn justice for evil choices, that our choices affect other people, and a holy God always punishes sin somehow. That creates all suffering on the Earth. People also stay evil even when we tell them that which justifies God’s wrath even more.
Yet, God so loved the world that He gave His only Son so that whoever believes in Him shall never perish but have eternal life. Whoever confessed Jesus is Lord will be saved. He’ll help them transform, too. Repent and choose life. That He offers these things to wicked people, even guaranteeing their salvation by Jesus’ own blood, is the Good News.
Is it? The fact you can do unlimited evil and be just fine as long as you lick the right boots sounds pretty horrible.
All in all, from your description the god is a pretty despicable being.
If you have kids, and they make bad choices, do you want them to be in prison forever or reform into a better life?
Does someone who sees the best in someone and love them want to hurt them? Or do just enough damage to teach the lesson while getting back into a positive relationship with them?
While Hell is for being God’s enemy, do you think a person who commits finite sins against other people whose damage does away after death should receive infinite punishment? Or should the punishment be related to the damage done? And should they ever receive mercy in sentencing if truly repentant?
God is justice but He is love. He does both. His Word says “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked but would rather they turn and live.” His love outweighs His justice if people truly repent.
There’s also eternity to think about. Even the worst things here are barely a blink of an eye in eternity. I’d rather the people who abused me, of which there were many, not burn alive in a lake of fire forever and ever. I was spared for my sins and I’d like them to be.
People who come to Christ are transformed into new people who often don’t think in the worst ways they used to. People in my life now barely believe my testimony saying I could never be that person. Yet, they’ve seen others transformed, too. God will finish it later by removing our sinful nature entirely as a gift for loyalty.
Punishing the repentant person, who is a new creation, would be more like punishing a person who didn’t commit the crime. That they’ve walked away from sins that now disgust them is good enough for me. I’d rather see the character of Christ expressed through them. I want to see the good works God prepared beforehand when He predistined them to be redeemed. I also love hearing the testimonies of what they were and what God is doing now.
You are a great person, but grew up in an atheist household? Straight to hell.
You're a mass murderer, but convert to Christianity on your deathbed? Welcome to heaven, my friend!
I know it wasn't your intent, but we have to by effects, not intent (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) and the effects are clear—I don't just mean in this case, but in the general case.
"and it destroys the free exchange of views by ruining the container—the community and site—that supports it. The container is fragile and needs protecting."
"it's the difference between users who comment with care for the whole and those who don't"
I believe these two summarize your top goal. There's a higher goal that we're to balance which is giving glory to God (Jesus Christ) while leading others back into a relationship with Him. While it bothers some, I'm not ashamed of the Gospel since Christ is the only name by which men can be saved. Sharing Christ with a community creates eternal value for them on top of existing, temporary value. Also, a life of purpose with access to God in prayer to help live it effectively.
Whereas, a community of people, or moderators, who suppress the Gospel of Jesus Christ will face severe consequences the day He judges their lives. The thought of people here experiencing that saddens me. The risk goes up if you allowed things that mock the same God. Recent example in this story:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42369233
Far as "troll effects," that won't be a problem for open-minded, humble people. The Father draws them to Himself. His Word is living and active where the Creator of our brain causes it to know it's true on a deep level. If they act on that, they'll repent and be grateful for all the Lord Jesus Christ does for them. God's Word never returns void if shared.
"[Jesus said,] But the things which proceed out of the mouth come out of the heart, and they defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies." (Matt. 15:18)
If they hate God's authority or love their sin, they react highly negatively in a way that shows how wicked their hearts are. Jesus says we're judged only for giving them a chance, not their rejection of Him. If they admonish or censor, I believe Christ expects authorities to address their reactions, not censor the Gospel.
(Note: One person here did find some of the comments insightful. Others might have been built up. That's some success.)
Now, I'm certainly willing to reflect or share Christ in the same ways people here do other topics. Especially controversial ones. I see submissions, corroborating points from different perspective with helpful advice (I did that here), counterpoints asking their thoughts, and personal expression of beliefs in on-topic comments.
Are these allowed for Christians like they are for other topics, some controversial? Or are you banning sharing the Gospel on Hacker News where readers can't receive eternal salvation here? Shouldn't we let them decide if they burn in a lake of fire for their sins or receive Jesus Christ's gift of forgiveness?
I don't subscribe to "it's worth torturing one person for their entire life if it removes dust specks from enough peoples' eyes" hyper-rationalist logic, but I do think that "an eternity of peace and joy outweighs a few days of suffering" is a reasonable argument to make. (and the more you think about the length of infinity, the more reasonable that argument gets)
Also, my understanding of the answer to "why do innocent people suffer" starts out with the caveat "Nobody is truly innocent - everyone sins a lot (the standards of a perfect God are zero sin, not "not very much sin")" and then under that caveat there's a few reasons:
1. God's punishment/wrath on non-Christians
2. God's correction on Christians for sin (like punishing a child for disobeying something important like "don't hit others" so that they don't do that when they grow up)
3. God pushing non-Christians into a state where they'll realize they need Him (I've heard a lot of stories that basically go "my life started out OK and then I did alcohol and drugs and eventually ended up in a ditch and realized I needed Jesus")
4. The result of other humans being created with free will exercising their free will
5. God bringing Christians closer to Him (to your last point)
6. God using that person's suffering to either bring other Christians closer to Him, or to convert non-Christians
...where the reason for any particular case is probably a linear combination of the above.
For the specific case of the person dying instead of just suffering, take (1), (4), (6), and "it was in God's plan that it was time for this person to die" (e.g. because they were a Christian who He was ready to take to heaven, they were a non-Christian who He knew would never become a Christian, they were going to do something evil in the future, etc.)
A lot of the reason why people think so many things in Christianity are crazy is because their perspectives are wildly different. For instance, in almost every non-religious people have some threshold value for what it means to be "good" that still includes occasionally doing something "bad". But where does that value (and "good" and "bad" for that matter) come from? The Christian answer is that "good" things are things that are not sin, "bad" things are things against God's will, and that the threshold value is "perfect" because God is perfect - which seems nuts, but I think that it logically follows from the premises, and if you understand all the premises at once, the entire thing seems quite logical to me at least (although most people don't actually believe the premises without a major ego shift).
You do have to understand the premises, though - if someone says "they weren't baptized" I can guarantee you that their theology is inconsistent and they don't understand the premises. There's a reason that Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Catholic church - not only was the church incredibly corrupt, but the theology itself is inconsistent with the Bible.
Uh, I hope this was helpful. I don't expect you to believe it, but I at least hope it's logical. If all that was rational to you, then you can challenge me with more hard questions at the email in my HN profile and we can see how far I can get before I run out of answers :P
Luckily, this can be easily dismissed with some pre-existing memes. Almost nothing can break a metaphysical framework once it takes root in the mind, in my experience anyways (a little irony on my behalf to make things kinda even, and foster inter-religious harmony) :)
Wait, what am I going to be saved from, you say? Oh, what sky-daddy will do to me if I DON'T love, honor, obey, and tithe him, etc.
You need to take a look at the HN guidelines because you have very clearly not read them.
The HN (and other "intellectual" online spaces) guidelines are a big part of The Problem.
I would argue that, as far as "intellectual online spaces" go (e.g. LessWrong, less memey subreddits), HN has one of the best sets of rules that are the most consistently enforced.
But you probably have something specific that you mean by The Problem that I'm not anticipating. Could you elaborate?
That on certain other topics, rhetoric trumps logic.
And if one should point this out, guess which one is used in response? :)
(To be fair to HN: this is true of all such communities to differing degrees, but at least LessWrong as a platform at least aspires to take such things seriously*.)
If it's the latter, I absolutely agree with you - tons of posters have double-standards and switch from logic mode to rhetoric (or even emotion) mode when there's something they don't agree with (e.g. lwhalen, who is engaging in blatant emotional manipulation and logical fallacies).
But, at least aspirationally, the HN rules are designed to constrain rhetoric to keep the discourse civil, while allowing users to set the standards for what's acceptable logic and what's not (although in practice, users like lwhalen and lproven just completely ignore the guidelines).
Both.
> (e.g. lwhalen, who is engaging in blatant emotional manipulation and logical fallacies).
Is it not absolutely amazing! And I bet he's otherwise fairly smart (I am speculating though, perhaps I will go through his history to get a better read).
That ~no one finds this sort of thing interesting, is interesting. That ~everyone has a strong aversion to studying this phenomenon deeply is even more interesting, and it makes me wonder where that aversion comes from (mainly cultural evolution and conditioning is my guess).
> But, at least aspirationally
There's talking the talk, and then there is walking it. All ideologues have problems with the latter, and are rarely enthusiastic about discussing it, to put it nicely.
> the HN rules are designed to constrain rhetoric to keep the discourse civil
I'm suspicious, considering how rhetorically weaponized they are. But then, maybe it's just luck or random error.
> while allowing users to set the standards for what's acceptable logic
My very point!! :)
I'd have put "logic" in quotes though.
> although in practice, users like lwhalen and lproven just completely ignore the guidelines
The enforcers of the guidelines also regularly ignore them, though not "just" and "completely", which I suspect is a big part of why no one notices.
Sky daddy offers ready forgiveness unlike the new secular regime.
Not possible for you to know (more Faith...watch out for misdirection though).
> but it's far less egregious than "sky-daddy says I should love, honor, and obey him - and most crucially give him MONEY as the almighty is somehow perpetually short on cash - so I can be saved".
I will resist the urge to make up something about Your Kind and represent it as True.
> Wait, what am I going to be saved from, you say?
How about: yourselves?
Had I made an assertion (about the object level point of contention) or even offered relevant advice (I didn't), you would have a fine point. But I did not.
You on the other hand, did make an assertion (several, actually).
Have you some more Normative Memetic Rhetoric (framed as Good Faith Critical Thinking) for me?
And also: I did make an assertion, and asked some pointed questions, but you (shrewdly?) decided to give those a pass, instead opting for much more convenient simulated events.
A question: did you do this with conscious knowledge and intent?
> "If not the christian god, why not the flying spaghetti monster" is what this usually boils down to.
Interestingly, this is basically the opposite of the kind of thinking I recommend. This is substantially ironic.
> Anything that is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Can you (in fact, and physically, as opposed to simply claiming that you have the ability) please translate the figure of speech "can be dismissed" into an explicit epistemic status?
EDIT: thought I'd pat myself on the back for my earlier prescience: "Luckily, this can be easily dismissed with some pre-existing memes."
Gosh, how could I have possibly done that? Am I a wizard??
a) You are engaging in rhetoric.
b) "parsing semantics" is not the win you think it is - we are in the age of AI, man. People now know what the term means.
> When I say something "can be dismissed," I mean that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The question is: what is the epistemic status?
Are you afraid to admit it out loud, or does the question not even make sense?
> The burden of proof lies with those making supernatural claims, not with those rejecting them.
False.
"A" claim lies with anyone who makes an assertion of fact. That is you, and it is not me.
> You seem to be suggesting there's some deep irony or inconsistency in my position
There is, though I wouldn't call it "deep" (that's "you" engaging in rhetorical framing"). And I explicitly told you the problem: you are experiencing (psychologically) "Faith" (belief without adequate substantiating evidence).
Look, you're welcome to believe whatever you like, but please don't act as if you are working with some superior to others logic. You are using heuristics, and perhaps some "consensus" "reality".
> but pointing out logical flaws in religious reasoning isn't the same as making unsupported assertions about the supernatural.
I am pointing out the errors in yours. But if you are admitting the religious aspect to it, we've made some progress.
FWIW: in case you're wondering whether I think religious people are also silly in their reasoning: yes I do.
> And yes, I consciously chose to focus on the most relevant parts of your argument rather than chase every tangential point.
But then you would be treating the subjective realm as objective, which is kinda the same thing that I am originally complaining about.
I am genuinely curious: do you think I am dumb, or confused? "Pedantic" I can understand (thought that experience is also technically incorrect).
When I say "can be dismissed," I mean exactly that - claims that contradict known physics, make untestable assertions, or rely on circular logic can be provisionally rejected until evidence is presented. That's not faith - it's methodological naturalism.
You're right that I'm working with consensus reality and scientific heuristics. But these approaches have demonstrated predictive power and practical utility. They've given us everything from smartphones to space travel. Religious claims haven't demonstrated similar utility beyond social/psychological benefits that can be explained naturalistically.
No, I don't think you're dumb or confused. You're making a sophisticated point about epistemological humility. But I worry this kind of radical skepticism, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to a philosophical paralysis where we can't meaningfully distinguish between well-supported and unsupported beliefs.
> accepting base axioms necessary for any kind of knowledge (like "my sensory experiences generally correspond to reality")
The irony.
You People fascinate me to no end.
> can be provisionally rejected
I'd enjoy seeing you store "can be provisionally rejected" in a variable, perform some logic upon it, and then produce an output - what would the variable type of the output be?
> and scientific heuristics
I said heuristics, not scientific heuristics. Science (the scriptures) has methods and standards, and you are violating them, thus failing to meet the categorical requirements.
> They've given us everything from smartphones to space travel.
Right smack dab in the middle of the Normal Distribution. Thus, not shocking.
> Religious claims haven't demonstrated similar utility beyond social/psychological benefits that can be explained naturalistically.
"haven't...that can be explained"
> No, I don't think you're dumb or confused.
Then why do you talk to me the way you do?
> taken to its logical conclusion
Did you use logic to arrive at this "its(!) logical conclusion"?
> where we can't meaningfully distinguish between well-supported and unsupported beliefs.
I have bad news: you're already in this spot, but you cannot realize it because you are in the spot.
Yeah, no, bollocks.
This is a bog-standard religionut response to criticism of $faith. Doesn't matter what faith. "Well atheism is a religion too!"
No, it's not, and by trying that tactic you have demonstrated very effectively that you do not understand, and have nothing useful to contribute.
"I declare myself the victor!"
Wow that is very easy, maybe that's why it's so popular.
You claim:
> all metaphysical frameworks are faith-based
First, define what a "metaphysical framework" is.
But my strong suspicion is that to do so you will end up with a philosophical argument that amounts to "we can know nothing" and ends up with solipsism.
Which is largely why I disdain philosophy.
Instead, here is a simple set of statements to counter your position that all belief systems are equivalent:
* There is such a thing as objective reality, independent of belief.
* It is possible to probe and determine the nature of reality by experiment.
* By doing this, we can obtain objectively verifiable, reproducible results, ands they are consistent for all, regardless of belief.
* No such test is possible for any kind of supernatural belief. Gods, afterlife, any of it.
* Therefore there is no way to demonstrate these.
Belief in that which cannot be tested and demonstrated is faith based.
Lack of such belief is not a belief, although it is typically asserted to be so by faith-holders.
It is is equivalent to saying that "off" is a TV station. "I watch channel X, you watch channel Y. We are the same!"
No: I turned off my TV. It has no aerial. I do not watch any station or channel.
This is not the same.
Person A: "I have hair, you don't. We both have hairstyles. You chose that hairstyle."
Person B: "I am bald."
Atheism is not a faith. Atheism is not a belief. It is the absence of belief. It is not equivalent. It is not a metaphysical framework, if I understand what you meant.
I have encountered many evangelists who maintain that all atheists are lying and everyone believes in their god. This is a simple failure of imagination. It is not a stronger argument.
"Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it." -- Philip K Dick.
I stopped believing at age 11 and have never since seen any evidence to make me reconsider.
All gods are lies. All religions are simple superstition with no basis in reality or truth.
I welcome any objectively verifiable, reproducible evidence to the contrary.
If this was true, you would be able to DEMONSTRATE that you can actually consider criticism of your claims, and take questions seriously, and answer them.
I believe that you quite literally cannot do that.
For starters, there is your base cognitive capability. But there is also now the "losing face" element in play.
Pushing back against one's cultural conditioning and the intuitions and customs that come along with it is not easy.
Have you wondered why it is so incredibly easy for LLM's to emulate Humans?
I am not interested in whatever weird little sky-fairy-botherer game you are trying to play.
If your gods were real, you could prove their existence. You can't, same as all other sky-fairy-botherers. Therefore, there being no evidence whatsoever for them, they don't exist. The end.
Now please go away and stop being annoying. The grownups have technology to talk about.
I’d say more but my son is saying “play with me” over and over. Take care ya’ll.
You show two, common views: God owes us something; no gratitude.
God is a sovereign being who can do what He wants with His creation like you do with your possessions. If we always choose evil, He owes us nothing but wrath. Yet, people expect God of all creation to come down, drop on His knees to kiss their feet, and do an entire list of things to please them and earn their respect. What arrogance!
In fact, His lovingkindness and mercies are on everything He’s made. He gives the gift of children to many people, gives medical treatment for cancers that human activities (eg chemicals/food/stress) are likely causing, and all the good things in our lives. Gor protects so many children that there’s almost ten billion people on Earth.
So, people show up on Hacker News grateful for all God has given them: children, our daily lives, and even good submissions here. Nope! Maybe you thank Him for protecting billions of lives or motivating tens of billions in charity. Nope! Instead, people act like He doesn’t exist, censor the Gospel in media, curse His name in movies, and accuse Him on HN with no credit for any positive things.
God must love us to keep letting us live, healing our kids, etc. While we were still sinners (God’s enemies), Christ died for us so we’d get a second chance. You should repent of the evil in your heart. Once you meet God, you may thank Him for all He does for you instead of curse Him. Especially for the gift of eternal life.
Friendly reminder that this is HackerNews; nobody is here (nor cares) to read your incoherent, unwelcome religious preach nor to argue religion - at all. That is not the topic of the article, there is nothing to do with religion in the article yet you feel it is your duty to solicit your irrelevant and frankly offensive religious beliefs onto others.
I don't spew atheist thought unto christianforums.com - though if I did I'm certain there would be be pitchforks, unchallenged hypocrisy is one of religions most potent weapons.
Also, I'm assuming you do not possess the physical configuration to give birth to a child so lay hands off her body, it's not your f*cking life. If you are indeed capable of birthing a child, forgive me - I hear y'all good at that.
One last question: is your zealotry the reason behind your lobste.rs ban last year by pushcx?
> Even supposedly friendly bigotry is unwelcome.
Maybe don't pray on us, cool?
Thanks!
edit: spelling
Most of my work here in Mississippi is like that. I talk to a lot of people about many topics, including their faith (or atheism). While many avoid the topic, those that discuss it mostly speak their mind, we listen, share our views in love, sometimes debate, and walk away with mutual respect. Some react harshly but most are pleasant. I learn plenty from them, too.
Then, there’s other areas with a different culture. They discuss all kinds of topics, even religion, allowing many views in posts or comments. The second a Christian shows up, they’re met with dismissal, mockery, personal attacks, and censorship (eg downvotes). It’s usually multiple people showing up as a mob.
At least one always claims to speak for everyone in the place or the world or a race or gender but don’t actually represent most or all views. In some places, they try to eject opponents or get them fired. Unlike Jesus Christ and His followers, this group usually has no love for their outgroup, no forgiveness for perceived wrongs, their own beliefs are inconsistent over time, and never did miracles (no power).
(Note: The best description I have so far are Western Progressives into intersectionality. Especially who went to colleges dominated by those ideologies which passed them on. Outside this group, I basically never run into the patterns I described.)
As you pointed out, that was the case on Lobsters. It was a low-noise, tech site. The social justice crowd demanded in meta threads that they could inject politics, their agenda, into every thread. However, anything opposing their beliefs was hate speech, harassment, “exterminist,” etc. Once favored, they mobbed their opponents, downvoted them, and tried to get them banned. I was banned.
The worst part was selective deletion of civil comments, but leaving horrible accusations, that makes future readers think that’s what the deleted comment said. Progressive liberals revise history to make them look better and opponents look worse which is what they accuse others of. I do thank pushcx for otherwise being a great moderator. Also, for crediting that I was kind to the mob in the last debate.
Even there, I received private messages and emails from opponents saying what happened was unfair to me, non-Progressives thanking me for speaking up, and Christian’s saying they don’t identify as Christians there to avoid mistreatment.
Back to HN, there’s clearly some hardcore people in specific ideologies who use similar tactics. However, the majority of Hacker News are more open-minded and civil. They like learning others’ perspectives. The rare few who mob on me don’t scare me since I wear the armor of God. I just respond peacefully and helpfully. You had a question, too.
Re not my body and no hands on “her” body
That’s three misconceptions: only her body; man’s view; only woman has a right to an opinion.
First, a pregnant woman has a baby growing inside them. It’s their body and another person’s body. We respect both. We apply the right to life, to safety, and so on to the baby’s body, too. Like with adults, we’re morally consistent by not allowing people to murder inconvenient dependents.
Second, even Progressives and non-Christians often support giving the helpless a voice. Protection, too. We also do that for babies that many don’t care about.
Other ministries exist that interview or are made up of people who would’ve been aborted. They changed their mind or it failed or something. In all cases I’ve heard, they were glad their mothers didn’t or couldn’t murder them. One was my best friend, a smart guy, who doctors said would be a vegetable. I thank God his mother listened to Him, not them.
Third, there’s a myth that you might be referencing that Christianity or protecting children in the womb is men’s belief forced on women. The first witnesses to Christ’s resurrection were women, most Christians are women IIRC, they spread it the most (esp to children), and they think God’s Word is the best thing for women. I feel I must speak up for half a billion women that some segments, like Progressives or feminists, often mock or censor. We should listen to those women.
Finally, people in Life Choices Memphis discovered another lie in many scenarios: Progressives care about what women want. Women going to abortion clinics sometimes allowed interviews. The vast majority were undecided on abortion but were pressured to do it. From their boyfriend to parents to liberal media to the clinic itself, everyone was telling them killing the child was the right thing. Those women who were asked what they thought, esp if having ultrasound or hearing heartbeat, kept the baby in many cases. Pressuring women to kill a child isn't caring for the woman or the child.
I never knew any of that as a liberal atheist. I wasn’t allowed to because specific segments in control of media and college forced those beliefs out where I never heard them. Eventually, I experienced a miracle (see GetHisWord.com) with events sending me to Christ. Outside of Plato’s Cave, I learned things I never knew which make sense and actually get good results. I’m happy to share the gift with others.
I'm sorry but prayers aren't valid tender and cannot be exchanged for tangible necessities like food and shelter, it's almost 2025, we should be well past this.
Here's a real fun exercise you can try yourself - you'll need :
* A couple dollars
* Prayers
Now I want you to go to the grocery store and try to buy a loaf of bread with prayers, use the really good juicy ones!
Okay next, I want you to then repeat the same experiment but instead of prayers, use dollars.
See which one keeps you alive longer...
> only woman has a right to an opinion
I see what you did there, sneaky and typical christpilled behaviour. When it comes to women's rights, yes, it is one hundred percent their call. full stop.
Here's another fun one - go visit Africa and check the great work missionaries are doing spreading reprehensible speech that condoms are sacrilege and you can pray the AIDS away... do you see how harmful this is?
> Paper bills only in the collection plate folks, coins disrupt the service...
Then Larry, my brother-in-law, arrived.
Larry wasn’t exactly unwelcome. He had a knack for showing up unannounced, but most of the time, we didn’t mind. He’s a guy full of ideas and energy, and that can be great—just not always at the right time. His real challenge is understanding when the moment isn’t about him or his latest fixation. Today, it was marshmallows.
“You’re boiling lobsters?” Larry asked, strolling over with a bag of marshmallows dangling from one hand. His tone wasn’t accusatory, exactly—more like he’d stumbled upon a golden opportunity that we somehow hadn’t noticed.
“Yep,” I said, turning a lobster in the pot to make sure it cooked evenly. “It’s our thing. Lobster boil Sunday.”
Larry nodded, but he wasn’t listening. He was already holding up the bag of marshmallows like they were the answer to a question no one had asked. “You know what would really make this fun? Roasting these bad boys over the fire. Quick, easy, no mess. You get that perfect golden crust and—bam!—instant crowd-pleaser.”
I glanced at my son, who was tending the fire with the focus of someone trying very hard not to roll his eyes.
“We’re good, Larry,” I said. “We’ve got our lobsters, our butter, our lemon. That’s all we need.”
But Larry wasn’t done. “I get it,” he said, with the tone of someone who clearly didn’t get it. “You’ve got your little setup here. It’s cute. But marshmallows? Way simpler. And honestly, they’re just more fun. No one has to deal with… you know, lobsters. You ever think about how much work those things are?”
My son looked up at me, a faint smirk tugging at the corner of his mouth. “Do you even like lobster, Larry?” he asked.
Larry shrugged, already rummaging for sticks to skewer his marshmallows. “It’s not about what I like,” he said. “It’s about what’s… practical. You know, sometimes people get so stuck on their thing that they don’t see how much easier it could be.”
I took a deep breath, stirring the pot as the lobsters turned that bright, unmistakable red. “Larry, this isn’t about easy. It’s about the process. We like doing it this way.”
“Oh, sure, sure,” he said, his tone dripping with doubt. “But still, I think you’re missing out.” He waved a marshmallow-laden stick at us like a torch of wisdom. “These are the way to go. You’ll see.”
We didn’t.
My son and I turned back to our lobsters—cracking claws, dipping the meat into butter, savoring every bite. Larry sat to the side, roasting marshmallows in silence, looking vaguely put out that we hadn’t joined his impromptu campfire crusade.
When we’d finished, my son leaned back and sighed. “Best lobster yet,” he said with a grin.
I nodded, smiling. Larry watched us for a moment before finally saying, “You know, you could have had marshmallows and lobster.”
“Maybe next time,” I said, though we both knew there wouldn’t be a next time for that particular combination.
The thing about Larry—and people like him—isn’t that they’re wrong. Marshmallows are fine, in their place. But sometimes, the fire’s already lit for something else. Not every moment needs to be reimagined, repurposed, or improved upon. Sometimes, it’s enough to just cook lobsters with your son and enjoy what’s already there.
Be careful, Faith comes in many forms, and in many metaphysical frameworks (science, as one example).
I have faith in the mathematical probability that you will reply - 66.6% Nobody told me to do that, but I have faith!
Do be careful, religion also divides countries, separates families and inherently promotes inequality by categorizing human beings into troughs to be tagged, labelled and consumed.
I do not need a lecture on religion or rationality from you, thanks. It is Your Kind that keeps these habits going strong, not mine.
Your hypocrisy and hateful tone also further serve to legitimize nickpsecurity's points - he is the one preaching religion, but in a very kind and respectful tone despite your vitriol and hypocrisy.
You also demonstrate a shocking lack of ability to use logic, and a lack of awareness of what the poster's points or ideology actually are, in addition to the above malice. More than even a tone problem - your comment is just completely and entirely unsuitable for HN and beyond providing zero value provides negative value. Please don't do this here.
Recently, we’ve been reading Disciplines of a Godly Man by R. Kent Hughes. Today we’re to discuss the chapter on Fatherhood. I was happy to see the author had learned a few of these lessons. Here’s a few for those interested.
Do’s include investing time in them, speaking tenderly, teaching them, setting an example, discipline where necessary, and especially praying for them. If they have Christ, and God intervenes for them, many situations day to day work out better than if left purely to human nature. My friends strongly attest to this with many examples.
Don’t included too much criticism (or too little praise), excessive strictness, irritability (esp “been at work all day!”), inconsistency, and favoritism. He gives examples of each hurting relationships between fathers and sons.
I thought those were a nice start. Character of Christ, putting the children first (love), and some specific tips. Lastly, we can be calm knowing God is in control of every step of our future. He just expects us to act on what we’ve learned a day at a time. He’ll only let happen what needs to happen for His plan for our lives and our kids’ lives. That’s comforting.