May I suggest the Flying Sphagetti Monster instead? Just as valid as some "man in the sky" mythology, from a "turn to X" point of view.

Please, take your religious preaching elsewhere and don't prey on someone's confusion/depression, at least on this forum.

Thanks in advance.

As of this writing the grandparent is voted down, so maybe the change is already happening. But I felt the grandparent was at least a good faith attempt toward something readable and interesting, whereas the parent is the sort of post that made me stop reading Slashdot threads about religion: insulting and meaningless.

There are better arguments that could be posted against why you should turn to Jesus, but I'm not ashamed to downvote the original comment. It's not good advice.

I wonder... if I'd posted a comment saying "Get involved with transhumanism" or "sign up for cryonics", and someone had posted a sarcastic reply saying "Where's the science?" (not that this isn't a perfectly legitimate question with I-should-hope legitimate answers), would you be working so hard to defend me?

There is however no meaningless attack on that poster. Clearly the answer to your last question is yes.

That guy gave lots of secular advice and ended with the word. This post is all "Go to Jesus." There's a difference.

And I shudder at the thought of HN turning into a place where appeals for advice are met by "Turn to $Diety, who watcheth over us all". That something may be believed with high conviction is not a measure of its truth or validity or appropriateness.

wrt

" any genuine religious feeling or discussion"

But that is the point. HN isn't the place for religious discussion or proselytizing, no matter how heartfelt or (subjectively) genuine the belief in its tenets is.

As with politics, these circle endlessly and go nowhere. There are plenty of other forums on the intertubez where people of specific convictions can exchange their beliefs (or delusions) to their hearts content.

Theology of any kind is a bad topic to bring up on HN. And any organized religion's theological minutiae are just as valid (or invalid) as discussion of the FSM, which is a device contrived to expose the subjective nature of such strongly held beliefs.

I have my beliefs about the nature of the Universe (it is irrelevant whether I am agnostic, atheist or religious), but I don't proselytize them here or try to gain converts by pivoting off peoples misery.

So no matter how "genuinely felt" your religious belief is, please don't pollute HN with it.

"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

I'm sorry if religion does not gratify your intellectual curiosity, but the grandparent post was genuinely on topic and may gratify the curiosity of any hacker who is interested in religious feelings.

Notice that I didn't say anything about my religious beliefs, or whether I even have them, yet you seem to be making assumptions about what they are. Furthermore, though you claim you don't want HN to have religious debates, there was no religious argument until you started posting.

It looks as though you define a forum free of endless religious flames as a forum where everyone believes the same way you do, or else is silent about it. I say "looks as though" because I would hesitate to accuse anyone directly of holding such a deplorable position--and it should be obvious to any of what pg called the "intellectually curious" why such a position is so deplorable.

If HN is to be free of religion-targeted flames, why are you posting religion-targeted flames? If you want HN discussions not to be motivated by religious conviction, why do you try to effect its presence?

You keep saying this, but on what authority?

(I honestly can't seem to find the site discussion guidelines, is there such a thing?)

Has religious discussion been permanently banned on HN? This discussion naturally led in to questions about "the meaning of it all," and it is pretty much impossible for a religious person to honestly address those questions without invoking their religion at some point.

"I have my beliefs about the nature of the Universe (it is irrelevant whether I am agnostic, atheist or religious), but I don't proselytize them here or try to gain converts by pivoting off peoples misery."

I do think that some of the discussion has already veered into "beliefs about the universe" in some ways, and I do not see clearly where that line is drawn.

I never questioned the strength of your conviction in your beliefs, just the appropriateness of expressing them here. My post could have been less strongly worded, though. I apologize unreservedly for any offense caused by the sharpness of my tone.

" If I had seen that he added an email address to his account I would have just emailed him"

I agree this would be the correct action to take.

Cheers,

Normally, yes. In this case however, they don't deserve down mods. The appropriate value for such a comment in this thread is 1.

If the op is dissatisfied with his life, then perhaps changing his career or living circumstances as most other comments talk aobut is the way to fix that. But perhaps looking at religion is. Christianity is only one possible religion to explore, but I think it has helped me be a better person personally and sheats is just sharing his experience with it. Sheats phrased it quite respectfully and as one option to consider, not trying to push it as something the OP must do.

Rather than downvoting because you disagree with the concept of religion, why don't you let the poster read the comment and evaluate for himself whether it has good advice?

It doesn't matter. Ultimately this site isn't a venue for religious evangelism, no mattter how "respectful" the build up is. And if it is, evangelizing the FSM makes as much sense as evangelizing Jesus (or Buddha or Allah or the Great BingaBonga of the White Voudoun).

And I've noticed that evangelizers pounce on already depressed people. This seems to fit the pattern.

Anyways I don't want to extend an already useless thread. So I'll stop. Preach away.

Which is basically what you are doing by making such a strong counterpoint. Take your own advice here.

I'm saddened by the vicious response towards a religious belief. Last time I checked all religions are valid forms of personal expression constitutionally, and as long as he not actively trying to turn HN into an evangelical experience, he is entitled to provide any solution he sees may help without being ridiculed by people that don't have the maturity to accept that others can have different belief systems from them.

For the record, I'm not overly religious and don't think it would personally help, but the validity of god is irrelevant if the outcome is to ease the restless pain he is feeling.

> the validity of god is irrelevant if the outcome is to ease the restless pain

...you are entitled to have no respect for the truth, but I am constitutionally entitled to openly disrespect your lack of respect. Is it Hacker News, though? Ah, there's the question...

Can we really be hearing that it is Hacker News to advocate for Jesus, but Not Hacker News to counterargue? Now that's religion!

lostsheep, I must say that with a username like that, you are kind of asking for religious answers. :-) See Isaiah 53:6-7, one of the passages the lost sheep "meme" comes from: http://biblegateway.decenturl.com/lost-sheep -- we are the lost sheep, Jesus is also like a sheep, but he was "led like a lamb to the slaughter" and our sin was laid on him.

This is completely the wrong reason to embrace Christianity (heh), but one of the benefits is community. If you go to an active church, you're suddenly surrounded by many people who care about you, and some of them are quite knowledgeable. You also have access to a (free!) counsellor or pastor -- I guess it varies, but our pastor is very helpful with questions like this.