It’s okay to believe in evolution…as long as you don’t mind going to Hell.
It’s okay to believe in evolution…as long as you don’t mind going to Hell.
(Mike Huckabee)
picture: Mike Huckabee. lol caption: fastfood
You May Like:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous 15 MINUTES OF FAME | What’re we doing tonight, Putin? Next »
» 426 Comments
-
Recent Comments
Danbala on You’re wrong about … Danbala on You’re wrong about … jj on Vladurday: My name? PortladMark on You’re wrong about … Anna on When does the PortlandMark on Vladurday: My name? offyerrocker on You get much better resul… viking gal on Vladurday: My name? viking gal on Vladurday: My name? bad fairie on Vladurday: My name? 
Cheezburger Network Blog
But most of us are already experience Hell just by looking at this picture!
I mean, isn’t this guy head minion for the devil, and all?
At least that’s what I heard …
“I mean, isn’t this guy head minion for the devil, and all?”
`
He’s not important enough to be the head minion, but he’s definitely a minion; you can tell by the fact that he’s wearing a lavender satin tie.
Actually, I’m thinking of the wrong guy… this guy’s problem is biblical inerrancy.. He can’t help holding bigoted views like
or
or
since biblical inerrancy is indistinguishable from a combination of Tourette’s and Paranoid Schizophrenia…
Fu*k. I’m too new here to tell if this is serious or not, and whether or not to respond.
Will the real Peter Griffin please stand up?
Which words are bothering you? Those in gray are Huckabee’s actual words.
Fester’s words are his own and he can defend them or not by himself, but I agree with what he’s saying.
I think the disturbance is coming from the dark of the Huckabee mental space rift… Tons of Zazz radiation, which causes moral tumors, emits from there. Literal probably just wants to avoid such a development.
No. I can’t tell if it’s UF or his usurping doppelganger, and I don’t want to waste my breath (fingers) on a troll.
See below.
*it’s not the words that are bothering me.
Sentence fail.
Aaaah, no… I’d let the sentence stand. Kinda works for you. Be proud! Own it!
Goodness win.
*Accepts the ownership*
Got it. It sounded like (read like) Fester to me, although I’m more of a newby
than you are.
Oh yeah? Whaddya mean, your’re noobier than me??
Wanna fight about who’s the freshiest????!ONE!!!!
(It’s ‘noobier than I‘ actually).
Nah, I just mean my noobie’s bigger than yours.
Noobier than thou.
Thou art a noob. Thy must accept thine noobness, and thus revel in such
Noobie 69:
My sweatshirt sleeve posted prematurely. FAIL!
Book 13, Verse 7:8008.
Don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll find someone, somewhere who doesn’t mind that you have a tiny noobie.
*pulls Literal and scum by their ears
into the parlor*
You’re both noobs and you both have
average-sized noobie bits. No more
fussing or I’m getting the fly swatter!
*turns on Nickelodeon; pops a Xanax*
THOU must accept THY noobness.
Thank you. I didn’t have the heart to correct him a second time.
How many people would call a Christian a paranoid schizophrenic? Hmmm? really?
I prefer the simplistic elegance of “barbarian.”
Let’s start the count: Me (that’s one).
Unfortunately, most of them are more functional than
the average psychotic. Mark me down for “Schizotypal
Personality Disorder.”
They’re functional as long as you don’t try to challenge their delusional network… then they can get violent…
Yes, and, unfortunately, they are functional
enough to plan an attack and sustain function
long enough to follow through with it, call it a
victory, then hallucinate an exit strategy…
*plots attack on rho & UF*
*mumbles the while*
Call ME a schizy, will they? No, they DIDN’T you dweeb, they called THEm schizies… DON’T you mumble at me while I’m mumbling… HEY! WHO MOVED MY MEDS!?!
“…he’s definitely a minion; you can tell by the fact that he’s wearing a lavender satin tie.”
-
I thought that tie was the only good thing about the whole picture…
I DO love lavender…
…and shinee!
Yeah, but Satin is Satan’s gay brother; that’s how you can tell. Also, Stan is Satan’s cousin, but he’s only a half-breed muslin.
You mean that all it takes to be a minion is to wear an ugly red tie? I thought there was a contract or something…
-apologies for any spelling/grammar errors… I’m writing this from the bar on my phone…
Bar! Phone! Want!
Jealous more than much!
Tequila shooters for all, por favor …
I just caught that – impressive phone, kid…
*Glad I didn’t shell out for an iPhone…*
Condi gives you the tie after you sign the contract.
….and it’s not red. It’s lavender / evil-soft-purple.
Cue angsty comments in 3… 2… 1…
“Angsty”… it’s a pretty cute word. Comes off the tongue well, takes something of the dread from the original German angst… I like it!
*Runs around the playground muttering “angsty, angsty, angsty!”*
it takes away some of the angst of saying the word angst?
The word sounds far more dark and worrisome if you envisage Kirkegaard’s accent on it – aahngst. It may add more angst!
Oooo. That inspires Fear and Suffering, and Sickness unto Death in me!
I hadn’t come across that until a lecturer mentioned it in passing. Good effective word. But… “angsty” takes a Win for adding some sweetness and light to the word.
Anything that adds sweetness and light to Kirkegaard is worth it… My
mother is a major fan. I’ve even been to his grave. Everything from him seems dark and worrisome!
I’ll be wading into Kirkegaard this year in my philosophy course – I haven’t done much more than some light reading about the guy himself. He sounds rare – a philosopher that would have been a pleasure to know.
The back story might help you with the tendency towards grim and dreary: his entire family died of tuberculosis, and he knew he had it too (in his spine), and so he was eventually going to die as well. So the fact that he came up with the concept the of leap of faith is rather amazing. The fact that he sabotaged his chance with the gal he loved…not so surprising.
I think I’m going to like him – a real counterpoint in so many, many ways to Nietzsche.
News flash – we’re all going to die. No need to get angsty.
How about “angstish?”
“angstified”?
Angstoid?
Angsterycal?
Thank you for authoring my new favorite
fake word. I have a particular friend in mind
for that one…
I can’t imagine…
Angst will always make me think of this. [LINK]
*snort*
Oh, that was good – forgot all about the Potter Puppets!
[Link] where the pictured cretin thinks I’m going… I’ll save him a seat
That’s awesome!
It doesn’t help the fact I own things like this [link]
I sometimes print a few off and leave them at Alpha meetings :¬>
that’s AWESOME!
Yay! Cthulu!
ROFL! Good one. Can I print it out and hand to the Jehovah’s Witnesses the next time they come by?
Damn, I was laughing so hard, I couldn’t even finish my name.
Of course, I’m going to be in Hell right next to Uncle Fester for making stuff like my link anyway, I guess.
Feel free… I’m all about spreading the chaos…
So, according to the cartoon in the link, I’m eventually going to be nommed by a giant calamari? I have to admit there’s a certain karmic justice to that.
Yes… when the Dark Lord rises and all the earth is engulfed in an inferno of ecstasy, pain, and slaughter, then he shall feed first upon his chosen, his faithful, so they become one with him…
But I’d be planning a quiet day of reading, drinking some fine wines, and then rounding off the day by discharging a 12-bore under my chin, foregoing the sangria in the park…
*pictures self in life-or-death struggle with Cthulu, desperately squirting him/her/it with lemon wedges and cocktail sauce*
Okay, that did it!
I prefer the ocean of fire, that way I get to go surfing!
okole puka he’e nalu
you’ll need some gnarly board wax there, dude…
The sad thing is, religious bigotry aside, he seems like a genuinely nice guy. Y’know, for a rightie.
He IS a nice guy. He’s just more fundamentalist than makes people comfortable. I still wouldn’t have voted for him in a race between him and Fred Thompson
He’s vileness and bigotry personified… and a KJV only IIRC… so not only vile and bigoted, but ignorant too…
I’ll agree on the ignorant. I HATE the KJV. HATE HATE HATE.
I like the KJV of Psalm 23… and a lot of the Song of Solomon is great… the rest… no…
Am I missing something here? Why would you not just use the NRSV? If it means that much to you, surely you want the most accurate and best-researched version, right?
Not that it’s any great shakes to me. But I never could see the logic behind ‘but I like this version’. Unless you’re purely looking at it as a work of literature, which of course is a whole different kettle of fish.
For better or for worse, the “I-prefer-this-version” is no different to arguments about who makes the best car. It’s really a matter of taste. Doesn’t matter whether you prefer an essentially-literal (NRSV, ESV, NASB) or a dynamic-equivelant (NLT, CEV, GNB). I still am surprised that there are people who really-truly think that the KJV is the only God-anointed version around, though. That’s seriously screwy.
Personally, I can’t stand it when I hear people praying in KJV English, as if that’s the only language God understands.
That, I think, is their intention. Never understood that line of thinking… particularly when a lot of the most honest prayers often start with “oh shit, Lord, what do I do now?”
So true! Hardcore KJV supporters also seem to forget that not everyone speaks English… makes me wonder if they think prayers in foreign tongues don’t count.
Of course they don’t count… they only count if you’re an American…
That’s right, I forgot… but isn’t that spelled “Amurrikin”?
I stand corrected… but those are hoarding tinned food and buying giuns now you have a Muslim Terrorist President…
not only is he a Muslim Terrorist President, but he’s the Antichrist! according to revelations, this is Serious Business.
a thought: perhaps if everyone who believes that crap goes and hides in their bomb shelters to await the rapture we could actually get some work done around here.
Wow, you’re as intolerant of religions you don’t understand as you accuse them being of atheists.
I don’t remember making any claims about religious folk being tolerant or intolerant of atheism – I know that growing up in a very fundamental sect of Christianity it was frowned upon (but then again, so were women getting jobs, Catholics, Baptists, women who didn’t shave their legs, and foreigners) but that wasn’t the point of what I wrote above. What I meant was that those individuals and/or organizations who are determined to use their beliefs in a divisive way (for example, calling Obama the Antichrist or a Muslim terrorist) get in the way of our society thinking and behaving in a non-dualistic fashion and working together for good.
-
Looking back, I perhaps did not use a tone that would be conducive to a discussion about non-dualistic thinking – and for that I apologize. No offense was meant; talk of fundamental religion just raises my hackles.
1) I still can’t parse Frou’s comment, so I need a ‘religious speaker’ on aisle 9… and possibly a clean up crew…
2) I thought you made a fine point there Srab… don’t let the Frou intimidate you…
We have 2000 years of religious bigotry to redress… snot the SOBs
I’m starting to wonder how much care you have in the subject, Uncle. Sounds to me like you’re a hot and hard debater looking for the chance to go clubbing. How much of this is having a smash, and how much of this is something you have a genuine care about?
@ Unc: I was making a knee-jerk reaction post to srab being snide about hides in their bomb shelters to await the rapture’. It’s a broad brush, it’s wrong, and it’s typical of the crap that is spewed about ‘religious people’ as a whole. And, on top of that, it’s intolerant. That’s what I was pointing out, the fact that being snide about religion, especially religion that srab has elsewhere admitted he doesn’t understand, is just as intolerant as a Baptist trying to tell you you’re going to hell for taking a drink of communal wine.
Srab, we’re good. Unc, here’s my ass, kiss it 
-
In his second post, when he elaborated, he had a much better tone and it appeased me
Frou’s ass –> (_o_)<— XXX (with tongues)
I tend to find the idea that people can invest so much in
what is, at best, facile stupidity used to protect them from having to deal with reality offensive. Now, if they kept that to themselves, I’d be less antsy… however, when they use their ‘faith’ to legislate misery and hate, then I say enough. They want respect… then lose the imaginary friend in the sky… it’s no better than having one called ‘Dave’… I know the history better than most (often better than clergy) I find the justifications pretty empty,
and, to quote Khayyam, in the Fitzgerald, “neither all thy piety nor wit” will make the explanations anything but empty justifications of the unjustifiable. However, feel free to try… you may get another ’soul saved’ but in the end, it’s just blowing smoke up people’s arse for cash.
@froo glad we’re cool. i’m a “she”, by the way, not that that has any bearing on this discussion.
@unc i would tend to agree with you about people “keeping to themselves.” i think that everyone has a right to believe whatever they want, but when their beliefs begin to hurt other people who do not subscribe to their particular version of reality, i have a problem.
How can you ignore the bigotry issues?
I dont’ feel like going down that road with you today, so it’s ignored
Aww… go on… I have double choc chip cookies…
*spies cookies; ponders*
Uh… Because if Gawd liked other people as much as us,
he would have made them look like us…
*really wants cookie now, to get bad taste out of mouth*
Out damn spot! I don’t think that cookie’s going to help you dirty, dirty girl.
Hmmm… you’re hot when you come out with filth like that…
Have the box of cookies while you whisper more oh that stuff in Old Festers ear… pay no mind to the droolin’ ya hear?
Aaah – the KJV has a great deal of natural beauty to it, and for a change every once in a while is refreshing. And occasionally unbeatable for imagery – 2Kgs 18:27 “Hath he not sent me to the men who sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you?”
I’m an ESV boy, but I still revel in the elegance of the language (and having an old, old quarto-sized, leather-bound, india-paper, Smyth-sewn KJV is pretty nice).
Mine had pictures by Gustave Dore too… bare naked ladies and god drowing everyone in elegant half tone etching… one of the great depictions of what you get when you give cosmic power to a demented, vindictive, child…
AWESOME COSMIC POWER!!!
Mr. Sparkle? Is that you?
AWESOME COSMIC POWER!!!
itty-bitty brain-space
I suffer from premature posting… (blush)
Happens to the best of us
this is sooooo familiar. aladdin: when the genie comes out of the lamp it’s “amazing something-or-other power, itty-bitty living space” am i right? i haven’t seen that movie in a good 10 years probably.
That’s what it is! It’s been driving me nuts.
PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWAH!!!!!!
ittybittylivingspace.
See linky.
In YahWeh’s case, it’s called his mind…
Aaah – the KJV has a great deal of natural beauty to it, and for a change every once in a while is refreshing. And occasionally unbeatable for imagery – 2Kgs 18:27 “Hath he not sent me to the men who sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you?”
`
Is this also the version where the book of Ezekiel describes a hypothetical woman whose gentlemen callers are all hung like horses and donkeys, complete with descriptions of their “emissions”?
Yes, indeed – I knew there was someone else who knew where the dirty little sectrets were hidden… Ezekiel is pretty-well carried like that in most modern translations (there is some delicacy about the hung-like-horses, it comes up {stop it} as either “flesh” or “members”).
Nothing like a slab of revisionist thought, is there?
I’ll allow for the fact that I’m pretty tired… how exactly is that revisionist?
Wiping out the ‘coarse’ language… it’s revisionist…
If I were a woman it wouldn’t bother me how nice he was, the fact he believes I should submit to my husband and basically be his servant would be enough for me to dislike him.
You are not only taking that section completely out of context, you’re twisting the meaning on top of that.
Urm, no, she’s not twisting how it appears to still play out in many fundamentlist sects… 1 TIM 2 is hard to put a positive spin on…
Looking that up, I found an interesting link–or, at least, it was interesting to me. It’s hiding in my name.
Interesting… nothing I’d not thought.
Can anyone tell me the positive spin on 1 Tim 2? I don’t need exegesis, nor interpretation. Read what it says, then tell me how it makes the 21st C a better place… all of it… no selective ignoring of parts… from verse 1, bullet pointed…
1 Tim (and I’m doing this without looking at my Bible, so I think I know which section you’re talking about) was directed at a SINGLE CHURCH that was having problems with their women being disruptive. IIRC, this church was in Athens, and was populated by ‘converts’ from the Athenian Temple. Mostly prostitutes. These women were disrupting services, and were told to sit down and shut up.
-
There are far too many female preachers, teachers, and leaders mentioned by both Jesus and Paul for it not to be ok for a woman to speak in church.
-
The part that is taken out of context is the fact that the book (and all of Paul’s writings) are specific to the churches they are written to, not to Christians as a whole. THe twisting of meaning part is him saying that all women everywhere in every church are required to be silent. That’s just not true.
Then, shouldn’t they be removed from the bible? Since it was a bunch of messages only meant for a small group of people who are all already dead now?
(MY other thought)
So, Paul’s writings are like the Bush V Gore decision: a one time ruling that shouldn’t be misinterpreted as meaning anything in any other context.
If you take out those passages of the Bible because they aren’t relevant, you might as well remove parts of history books that are no longer relevant to current events. There is nothing wrong with looking back over someone else’s mistakes and deciding not to make the same mistakes, or using them as a model of what to do in the same situation. What is that old chestnut about forgetting history and being condemned to repeat it?
But they did remove large sections of the Bible once. There’s already a precedent.
I’m not even going down the road of the Nicean council and all of that crap. i’m just talking about the letters themselves, which are historical in nature, and a good thing to read to get a little context on the whole thing. There’s a huge precedent for changing history as well, does that make it necessary and right?
without the first ecumenical council, you’d not have a Bible to smack people with. They cherry picked what they wanted, then wiped out the opposition with an efficiency that even surprised the Romans. In the end, the whole edifice is without merit, or honesty…
But please, defend the indefensible…
Worse, my understanding is that the Christian cult (which it was at the time) was rolled into the “Sol Invictus” cult (I’m not misrembering my pre-christian religions, am I?) at that time. All the conflicts were ironed out of the two religions, and presto changeo, the two competing religions become one state religion, and later Christians forget they come from a pagan background!
Yeah, that’s it. Up until Constantine (who was the one big on Sol Invictus, and never a Christian) the followers of Jesus celebrated
the Sabbath on Saturday, like the Jews. It was changed
to Sunday, the holy day of Sol Invictus (the Invincible Sun) because Constatnine was pretty cool about any cult that he saw as more or less
compatible with his. It’s also the reason Christmas is
celebrated near the winter solstice (which is also the
beginning of Saturnalia) instead of the spring when
Jesus would actually have been born.
And I think the demi-god stuff was spread by Paul deliberately
to get the attention of the Greeks and Romans. After all,
under their way of thinking, you weren’t anybody unless
one of your parents was a god or goddess. That’s why
they STILL insist on saying “God’s ONLY son”, even though
that phrase isn’t relevant any more. But it’s still
distinctly pagan in thought. After all, the Greeks and Romans
had no problem imagining their gods taking human (or
other) form and having physical sex with mortals if they so
chose to.
That got revised out… it’s like the infancy gospel interpolation on Luke.
There be some truth there… to a point. And in fairness, your generalizations are every bit as valid as ones I’ll probably make. You and Fes generalize, I generalize, Froo do – we all do. That’s the nature of apologetics on a LOL site…
Gods and sex with humans – ah, yup. Part of classical mythology, happens all over the place, including ghastly pictures and statues of Leda and the Swan (Why a swan? Ugly, foul-tempered things). As I’m not a classified mythology expert, I don’t know if this carries in all categories, but the results of such unions were never pretty, particularly for the father. Son goes after father, kills father or is killed by father, much blood and anguish etc etc.
The thought of a god impregnating a woman, for the resultant son to work in full harmony with (and obedience to) the father-god steps well out of the realm of the norms of Hellenised thought.
By the way, Acts is pretty honest in showing the reactions of people back then to this news teaching. No real difference to reactions now.
Honesty in the Bible? please… The only near honest bit it the probably murder of Annais and Sapphia by Peter…
Probable – not probably… oops
but the bible really isn’t history… it’s barely a moral guide…
Ah, the cherry picking defence… not unexpected. All of Paul’s letters are directed to one church (or geographical grouping of churches) at a specific period in history. If one applies that ruling then NONE of Paul’s letters are more than curios.
Hell, the OT is aimed as Jews and Jesus only realy spoke to Jews in the first century, extending the ruling the whole thing becomes what I regard it as. A rather nasty spirited historical curio…
*Sigh* I missed this post when you put it up, Uncle. Froo did a pretty good job of on-the-fly exposition. It was actually better than the majority of preachers who generally tiptoe right around the outside of 1 Timothy.
A couple of quick (hah!) points- it’s a passage that certainly does require exegesis (I have no idea how YOU can be exegeted), quite simply because anything less than a careful walk through can end up getting very messy, as you well know (which, I suspect, why you pulled 1 Timothy 2 out in the first place). However, as you wish, I’ll leave it alone. But a walk-through with a good interlinear translation might help. [Click for a first-rate tool]
Paul was writing to a man charged with getting a disorderly community back into order. He also wrote a letter to that church as well (the Epistle to the Ephesians); the difference in tone is noticeable, and it may help to note that the letter to Timothy was (at the time of writing) private correspondence.
The community of believers (who may not yet have called themselves Christian) were a collation of Jewish and Greek believers. It must be noted at this point that neither the Jewish nor Greek communities allowed the public education of women AT ALL – that was the job of a father or husband, and would only occur at home at his discretion. The fact that Paul talks about women in the assembly, learning in public, is decidedly at odds with society then – and THAT almost never rates a mention now.
Further, Paul’s famous call for women to be silent is a mis-read (if you’ve clicked, look for the Greek word “esuchia” in verse 11). The call for QUIETNESS (a far better word) and submissiveness is the exact same call for ANY student under a teacher – whether synagogue, gymnasium, academy or wood-working shop. Froo’s point about the women at the time revelling in their newfound status and overstepping the mark is quite correct.
Teaching that level of background information is (for me, at any rate) a must for anyone who wishes to teach 1 Timothy. Anything less is either evidence of very lazy preparation, or some arse-wipe of a preacher telling ladies to shut up. The fact that few people go there is a bloody indictment on the standard of preaching in general, NOT an indictment of the text.
*Wipes chalk off hands* Questions?
See my opinion of that defence of the text above… it applies to ALL the booms of the bible… Romans is no more than a letter to a Roman group who are all long dust, not the lynch pin of the faith…
BTW, both you and Frou have simply given one of many exegeses of the text.
You a-priori assume that you’re version is the right one, while really all you’re doing is tying to make the unjustifiable in the current era justified.
If we had the social mores of only 60 years ago, it’s unlikely either of you would be allowed access to this technology, being women… and 1 Tim 2 would be the justification… so, we have an exegesis that is all but dis-proven as a common view within living memory (my Maternal Grandmother couldn’t visit relatives relatives until she’d been ‘churched’ to make her clean… and no one in the congregation thought anything of it… apart from Grandad, and he’d come back form WWI an atheist, but it was important to Nan so he went along with it…NE English Methodist sect… but it was common round epworth and the Isle…)
*tumble weed rolls past*
Well, that killed the conversation stone dead…
Wimps…
OMG is of the male persuasion, iirc.
OMG could be the output of a Thai clinic for all I care…
As an addendum, OMG’s gender really didn’t invalidate the point…
*Gets collected by tumbleweed, is surprised how heavy the things are*
Wimps? Naah – I went to bed, went hunting for a house, wrote two essays, got a handle on Facebook, changed a couple of dozen nappies, did an exam (badly) in ancient Greek… and I never made it to Thailand. The penis is mine, such as it is.
@Uncle Fester: Your point about how people exegeted 1 Tim 2 sixty years ago is quite correct – and it was the result of lazy, lazy reading and teaching. People just read “women, shut up”, like the Gospel according to Borat. Many took advantage, others just believed what they were told, and (I may not have made this point strongly enough) that is lazy, bad, manipulative, evil even. No argument there. I’ll be quite happy to throw in and say that the history of the church (Catholic, Reformed, Orthodox) is so badly splattered with blood and worse. There are no excuses. Power is power, abuse is abuse, hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
One of the reasons I’m moved enough to get off my arse, try (badly) to figure out Koine Greek, immerse myself for four years in history, philosophy, and enough other things for a degree in divinity isn’t to merely have a collar and dress badly – it’s to seriously get in under the skin of the text, try bloody hard to exegete well, take nothing a priori and teach it as accurately, as well and as close to truth as can be done.
Sometimes that will mean dealing with horrible wrongs, often at the hands of Christians, often at the hands of churches. My father-in-law was raised in an exclusive Brethren environment and was basically expelled and shunned. I live in a country with one of the most appaling record of the treatment of an indigenous population, with a stupidly well-meaning church as dumb accomplice to quiet genocide. No need to tell me what damage can be done when we get it wrong.
The issue then become when does exegesis become making up something that is pallatable about something that has no relevance and dubious veracity?
I’m just seeing an argument that says ‘It’s not applicable since it was to one church at one time’ then trying to tell me that the whole subject has some form of relevance now, when it’s clear that the every book in the book was only aimed at one community at a given time…
“When does exegesis become making something up…?”
Best question that you’ve raised in this thread, Unc.
Truth be told, damned if I know – yet. That’s why I’m doing what I’m doing.
By and large, the exegesis seems to be trying to get the text to mean what it clearly doesn’t say so one can get more converts to a ‘truth’ that is dubious at best… and even with the best intent, winds up blood drenched.
Ooh, thanks for that link. I found another article on that same blog, relevant to what I was posting about below. The link is in my name right here.
I worked with a lady and she and her husband were major Christians. Aside from her being a wretched two-faced bitch (which had more to do with her and less to do with her religion) her husband a) did not have a job, b) still expected her to cook and clean when she got home from work, c) forbade her from seeing male doctors (and I’m not just talking the gyno, ALL doctors), and d) one morning it was really icy and her car door and frozen shut and she woke him up to help her since she had to go to work and he didn’t have a job and he bitched her out up one side and down the other for waking him up. Although she was upset enough to tell me about all this, she still called him at lunch time to apologize for waking him up. In addition to all this when our governer got elected and immediatly started cutting the education budget (like he’d promised) a petition went around the school for the teachers to sign in protest. She handed it to me and went on and on about how if she knew he was going to do this she never would have voted for him, it’s just that her church said he was the right guy and the “other” guy seemed so old (he wasn’t, they were the same age. The “other” guy happend to have been a POW).
-
Now, all this aside I realize it’s not the religion that caused these two people to act this way. Religion was an excuse for weak people like this women to stay with jerks like her husband.
Jane, much as he sounds like a raging douchebag, I have to admit my first reaction on the frozen car door thing was “Well, if somebody woke me up
on an icy morning when I didn’t have to get up and wanted me to go out into the ice and do something they could perfectly well do themselves, I’d be pissed off too.” Now, saying that, I know darn well if I was to ask my boyfriend to do that, he’d do it with good grace and brush off my thanks and/or apology, but on the other hand I’d almost certainly just grab the blowdryer and extension cord and take care of it myself.
That said, he’s a jerk, and she’s an idiot.
There are a lot of them… they’re usually in Church…
All any Christian man would need to do is travel to East Texas, observe
the young male population, then imagine his daughter obeying and
submitting to one of them.
Cure!!
True… they’d just shoot them…
…with 5 points added for shootings arising from over- or
undercooked food; 10 points added for paternity disputes and
beer shortages; and 20 extra points for any shootings on major
holidays.
I think Fester meant the fathers would shoot the young bucks.
I meant the women would… of course they’d hang them for being uppity afterward…
you can’t really set aside the religious bigotry…
We didn’t see much of him out here – what has he said that makes people land a bigot-tag on him? (If he’s KJV-only, that’s a different kind of loopy altogether…)
I quoted some above…
I just love you god bothers talking about diferent versions of your bible like they are
all interchangeable !
Make up your minds is it written by the hand of god or just open to picking which one you like that day?
His home life must be interesting too
The story of why his son got invited to leave the scouts is behind my name…
We know what HIS sort go on to be, now don’t we kiddies?
At least he made junior take his punishment like a man… acutally no, he didn’t
more link behind my name
You’re saying this man is ‘nice’…
There’s really not a good way to spin that… if you’ve REALLY done something like that, you’d not care to admit it, and if you’ve not you can’t really say that ‘we’ve all done something that stupid and nasty’ can you?
Though I’m not surprised, really. One thing that always
turned me off from Christianity is the average Christian’s apparent lack of
concern for non-human life. Yes, I know there are exceptions, but that’s
exactly what they seem to me – exceptions.I think of all the “good Christians” who defend sport hunting til they’re blue in the face, and accuse anyone against it of being “animal worshippers” and “pagans” (like that’s something horrid? Christianity, as it’s presented by the fundamentalist crowd, seems to me to be “human worship” at most and “self-worship” at its worst.)
And then they turn around and call themselves “morally superior” to those who are distressed at the idea of deliberately causing unnecessary suffering a and death, just because someone wants to “enjoy the outdoors” and can’t think of a better, non-destructive way to do it, because the Christian hunter believes every jot and tittle of the Bible to be true, and the person against their “sport” may not .. and (gasp) might also be an homosexual (even if they’re not) for disapproving such a “manly” “sport”. (Their ridiculous paranoid rants against homosexuals is another matter altogether, and almost too stupid to discuss. besides the fact I don’t have the space to go into it here.)
They’re so quick to deny the possession of a “soul” to any creature other than humans, which, I guess, is an excuse to take away any consideration for how animals are treated.
Which links back to their paranoia against the concept of natural evolution. I think they like to cling to the idea of “seperate and special creation” because it takes away the thorny question of when this special human “soul” was inserted into human-like beings. Did Australopithecines have a soul? Or did it magically appear with the first Homo sapiens? And if Australopithecines had one, then why not chimpanzees? Why not monkeys? Why not lemurs? And so on “down” the “great chain of being”. Though they don’t seem to have this problem when it comes to human zygotes – somehow, a lump of 4 or 6 human cells has a “soul” while a fully grown dog or even chimp does not. Which makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever, but then logic is not their strong suit, is it? Although WHY the concept of the animal soul should bother them so is beyond my fathoming. Which brings me back to my earlier accusation of Christian fundamentalism being nothing more than “human worship” – humans have to be seen as special no matter what (and as the fundamentalist is genetically human, well, that brings it down to “self-worship” – _I_ am special, no matter what.)
And with this “specialness” comes special license to do “whatever I want,
because I am human”. A bear who wanders into town must be tranqued and moved at best, or killed, immediately. However, a human is supposedly able to wander into the bear’s home (the forest) and expect no reprisal whatsoever. A bear kills a hunter (an act to me akin to self-defence)? Kill every bear in the area to make sure you have the “culprit”. But sport killing of bears is sacrosanct, even in the spring (anyone remember Ted Nugent fuming about Ontario wanting to get rid of the spring bear hunt? And he gets on like a fundie, too; I remember being sickened by his morning radio show at work. I was actually ready to quit my job over it after two weeks if they hadn’t moved me to an area where I couldn’t hear the radio broadcast.)
And which is why fundies tend to be anti-environmentalist. What humans want to do is paramount, it matters not how it affects the rest of the natural world, unless it somehow comes back to bite us on the arse (and THEN they demand scientists to “prove it”, but dismiss any evidence they don’t like, as with every other kind of science they don’t like). Their creationist POV forces them to dismiss the idea that all life IS interconnected, and is interconnected with the atmosphere, hydrosphere and other aspects of the Earth as a whole – oh, my . Lovelock’s “Gaia theory” is so BADLY misrepresented by people of this mindset, as if it’s just redressed animistic paganism, which it is most definitely not. The Earth and everything on it was handed to humans to with as they will, and that’s that.
Which is why the senior Huckabee was really driven to get his son excused for torture-killing a dog, his political career aside. Such an act simply doesn’t matter to a person with such a mind-set, and has no impact on a person’s “soul” or moral fibre. One will go to Hell for loving a person of the same sex, or causing an early-term pregnancy to cease, but will still be entered into Heaven if they cause an entire species to become extinct just for shits and giggles.
My own views? Obviously, I’m firmly grounded in science. I trust the evidence provided by many investigators, and remain open to new theories if the evidence so suggests. What we call the “supernatural” is nothing more than either things we don’t yet have evidence for, or can’t explain or are merely figments of our imagination. If there is such a thing as a “soul”, either everything with life has one, or nothing has one (not even us). I obviously do not believe in some all-powerful creator god; if there are spirits or “gods” floating about unseen, they are nothing more than the natural products of the universe, like ourselves and everything we can see, and if they do really exist, they will one day be discovered and studied like anything else. If there’s life after death, it’s available to all with life (and therefore a soul to live on), and is also some natural product of the universe (maybe having something to do with the higher dimensions of superstring theory, and branes? I read one physicist a couple of years ago – Brian Moore, I think – who stated that our three-dimensional universe might be a “hologram” of some higher-dimensional structure. I don’t understand what he really meant by that, but it does provide some brain candy to play with, pun not intended.)
Sorry about the length of this essay.
Actually, I find the tenets of my few believes to hold all life sacred but that life is also cold. If anything, I believe that not only do animals possess just as much soul as we do but they are pretty much all innocent. A shark is just a shark. It does what a shark does. Granted I know that some animals can be jerks and all the personality that goes with it but stay with me here.
A dog is a dog because it is a dog. It can’t be a cat, a republican, etc. It has thoughts and feelings, even if they are just simple, they are still there. If a dog must die, then it must die. However, there is no honor or entitlement to do so. A rabid dog is put down as much a mercy as it is for the good of a community.
If you want to believe in God, you can’t half*ss it. If he made your proverbial dumb*ss then he made the rest and they all have a purpose. If you disrespect that purpose, you disrespect God. If you want to worship God, that is how the cookie crumbles. The bible states that God made the Earth for man but it also states that we are supposed to make it a paradise. Since technically God supposedly made the Garden of Eden and didn’t fill it with smokestacks, guess what the goal of man should be, biblically?
However, this is but another rant and thus I will cut if off here since Isengrim covered most of my feelings already. I just wanted to lend my support.
… Bloody hell. BELIEFS, not believes. Ugh.
*headdesk*
Re Isengrim & DeathWymNexus 12:18 & 4:32 respectively:
I salute your critical thinking!
I came up with an idea for a new religion a few years ago. It posits that all
humans are born A. “finite” not “wilfully sinful/fallen”, and B. born “morally
neutral” rather than innately depraved or naturally “good”..
But it just hasn’t got the “juiciness” of judgmental repressive trad
religions. We always seem to have a “face” ot the top, a Cult
of Personality” that exercises authority over adherents by either
“wisdom” or force. My religion would be “faceless”, but wouldn’t
forbid art like the 10 commandments seems to do for some factions.
Well, Taoism, as presented by Lao Tzu, is more of a bunch of common sense pronouncements and a philosphy (a way of looking at things) than a religion, but it’s called a religion nonetheless (unless that only refers to Temple Toaism, which did add the idea of gods and spirits (but no Ultimate Creator God, as far as I know. I remember a newspaper article about a land grandfather god statue that got stolen from a Taoist temple somewhere. The thief demanded a
ten thousand dollar ransom to get it back. The high priest laughed
at this, saying “What’s he going to do, kill the god?” and added that
they could buy three statues for that much money. Very common sense point of view.
And then there’s traditional Native North American animism. From what I’ve read of it, the concept of the Great Spirit seems to have been
adopted from the Christian missionaries at some point on their
way to conversion (and that mish-mash known as the Native American
Church.) Either the Earth was here, or was made by a Earthmaker (who does nothing else) with a little “help” from Coyote or by Raven, or maybe hatched from an egg. Humans were either fished up out of the water (and
then fished the other animals out) or came from underground or
somewhere else long after the animal people had set the stage for
them, and worked out how things would be done (and who then
taught humans when they finally “got here” before turning completely into their current forms.) Except for the Raven mythos of the Inuit,
nobody really seemed to be “in charge”. The archetypical animal people (who would then form the basis for the Animal Fathers and totem spirits) did things pretty much of their own accord without referring to anything
higher than themselves. They were not so much “worshipped” in
the way that a Christian worships God and Jesus, or a Muslim
worships Allah, they were seen more as guides and a reminder
to respect the animals they represent – archaeologically, it seems
that Natives were witnesses to (and perhaps responsible for) a number of extinctions on this continent, and they probably realized that they did in fact rely on the other animals for their own sustenance, and that the animals could disappear (and then themselves) if they weren’t careful and
respectful (doesn’t mean they weren’t totally wasteless; granted they couldn’t afford to waste much, but the buffalo jumps likely produced more than
any tribe could ever handle (and there was probably a problem getting to the corpses at the bottom of the pile.)
However, our society is highly geared towards alpha-male
monotheism (and even the Wiccans have an alpha male and female)
figure.) Polytheism and/or nature spirit belief is seen as “primitive”
somehow, and not many people would be attracted to it. They seem to want some alpha figure telling them what to do. People like us who can
decide what’s right and wrong on our own, well, are like us and don’t join religions.
Thankyou for putting that so well. It’s the problem with religions in general.
They all preach moral cowardice. You have to make your own choices about what’s right and wrong; that’s the whole point.
It pisses me off so much when people talk about morality and they haven’t thought it through for themselves and they don’t really understand it. It’s like watching a kid playing with fire – you know it can only end badly. And it hurts to watch and it hurts to turn your back on it.
For the most part, people like to have someone else do their thinking and make their choices for them… In terms of the Abrahamic cults, there’s an element of stripping self esteem and self reliance – they have a god that despises the follower as a broken, foul, puppet. If you’re familar with Maslow, it’s to keep the follower in a state by which their self worth functions only by membership of the cult, and its inherent superiority… and supplying a long line of people to hate…
What really sickens me is that people WANT this. These disgusting ideas are what attract people to organised religion.
What the hell is wrong with them? Freedom is worth the cost. If you believe in right and wrong, that’s not going to vanish because you use different words to describe it. Making it yours makes it matter more. And you can still respect and accept all the good bits of whatever faith (or faiths) you like: you just don’t have to be bound to the outdated, misguided and horrific bits.
Refusing to accept your own freedom is just incomprehensible to me. Why wouldn’t you want to be free? It feels almost like moral marxism. The theists have nothing to lose but their chains!
Apologies to any theists. I am sure you are very pleasant, sincere and moral folks, who have good reasons for believing and acting the ways you do. I just really don’t understand you at all.
I’ve met good theists, and bad theists. The good ones tend
to be acts-based types – the bad ones tend to be the
faith-based legalistic types. There’s some that are a little
mixed; I know an old feller (he’s 91!) who will bend over
backwards for anyone, regardless of their faith (but he will
evangelize to you. He knows I’m an atheist, and he probably
knows I humour him a lot, but I do respect him because he
does more for the people of Drumheller than anyone else -
even to the point of being taken advantage of. And I hate
it when people take advantage of him (calling him up at
3 am for a ride because they’re at the bar and don’t want
to pay for a cab, for instance. He will immediately go out
in any weather and pick them up. I have TOLD him he
shouldn’t do this, but he insists that “that’s what he’s there
for”. Even the churches take advantage of him – getting
him to drive an hour and a half to Calgary (and then the
same back) to deliver already-stale bread to The Mustard
Seed. And these churches do nothing back for him. He says he was nothign but a “sinful drunk” before he converted at the age of 50, and
is trying to right some percieved wrong. I think he’s more
than made up for it, and have told him so. My ol’ man owed him a debt and I repaid it myself with interest (he couldn’t remember how
much was owed. I said I didn’t either, and added another
$50 to what I knew was in fact owed. I even once restrained
from laughing at him when he went into a diatribe against
the Big Bang and evolution, neither of which he obviously
knew anything about. Anyone else would have gotten a new
arsehole ripped, as I think y’all know by now!
It’s the faith-based arseholes who really get me. A lot of them
wouldn’t even lift a finger to help their own grandmothers
who were freezing in the snow. The ones who actively
work to destroy science education as it should be. The ones
who use the attitudes in the first long post I made to wreak
havoc on the natural world. I laugh when I see fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims rage at each other – they’re both
two sides of the same coin. Both would suppress women, both
would put people like myself on the firing line. I’ll give
Mohammed one thing – from what I understand, he forbade
his followers from hunting (though they still do, having
caused the near extinction of animals like the oryx and the
bustard through sport hunting), something Jesus never
bothered to do. Apparently, Mo was even kind to kittycats
(cutting the sleeve off his shirt to avoid waking one up.) But
that’s about all all I’ll give.
On the subject of “holy lands”, I’ve never understood why
the Middle East should get that title just because a bunch
of long-dead Jewish folk trod upon it. We’d be all better off if
we went back to thinking the entire Earth was “holy land”, woudln’ty we?
Sorry if this is rambling and doesn’t make any sense, but
I’m quite drunk now.
@purple switch: what about freedom from sin, fear and hatred, from conforming and from being alone? That, to me, is freedom and I am a Christian.
Define ’sin’
*more tumbleweed rolls by*
Why is it, when you ask these damned Christians a question, they clam up worse than a Mafia hitman (only with more dubious morality,
looking at the number of Christians who are almost orgasmic about the death penalty and torture… it’s as morally relativistic as it’s illegitimate brother, Islam and it’s whoring progenitor, Judaism…)
It’s the disadvantage of timezones, baby-poo and a lack of Red Bull and vodka (at least on my end). More preachers should bar-up on Red Bull and vodka. Or maybe not – the thoughts of Bible huggin’ rednecks who WON’T EVER STOP is not good…
@Isengrim: Your very old friend is one of the rare beasts that gets it, live it, breathes it, loves it and would have it no other way. Look after him, will you? He’s a precious one, and too bloody rare.
@Unc – death penalty is just as divisive within Xn circles as without. Generally, at least in Australia, the death penalty is viewed with horror in all denominations (except for a few slack-jawed inbreds who would queue to pull the lever).
I’m still waiting for a definition of Sin…
There again, I’m still waiting to find out why the letters of Paul (and the people claiming to be Paul) are more than historical curios… Hell, I’ve never had a straight answer on why anyone takes not of Paul, other than it suited the politice of Irenaeus…
Politics! GAAAA!!!!
This won’t help much, but consider the source.
IIRC, the Hebrew word for “sin” was an
archery term, meaning “miss.” Since that time,
the word has taken on a life of its own, in the
hands of the agenda-driven churches.
Curious – hadn’t come across that one before. I’ll have a look. Certainly the concept of sin – whetever the etymology – is core stuff thoughout the OT, so it’s on the table well before agenda-driven churches. Trying to recall if Cyrus Cylinder spoke of sin / forgivenness thereof. Too tired to go hunting.
@Rho – It’s in the Greek, not the Hebrew…hamartia (ἁμαρτία) in classical Greek. and NT only. There are numerous Hebrew words that are translated to the word ’sin’ in English, commonest being ‘het’ which really means ‘error’, although there is the latter attribution of the NT meaning of ‘to miss the mark’ but the term isn’t from archery in Hebrew.
I seem to recall that most views of Sin are either Aquinas or Augustine…
Dag nabbit! I’ve tried to post this link twice,
but PK keeps sending me up top!
Here is the link (please to remove spaces):
http://www.articlesbase .com/religion-articles/whats-archery-got-to-do-with-the-jewish-high-holy-days-213128. html
At any rate, this article is concerning the
Hebrew word “het” (“chet”), as you noted
above. Either this or another source I read
have it as “miss” in both Hebrew and Greek.
@Unc:
Sadly, PK hates my link, and doesn’t like it
when I put it into the comment section with
spaces, etiher.
At any rate, one of my sources indicated the
original word to mean “miss” in both Hebrew
(“het” or “chet,” as you noted) and Greek.
If you’re interested, you can get to my source
by googling “hebrew archery sin,” and it’s the
second hit, entitled, “What’s Archery Got to
do…”
This is why I love the 21st C. When I was first learning this stuff, research involved months of sifting, instead of hours…
AC – I always understood “sin” to be “a crime against (a) god.
If one is an atheist, then one is already free from sin. And
keep in mind that different gods consider different things to
be sins. YHWH of the OT considers wearing denim jeans and
a cotton sweater to be a “sin”, according to Leviticus. Eating
a cheeseburger is also a sin to this god. To Krishna, on the
other hand, eating a hamburger (or any other meat) is a sin. None of these are
sins to the god of the New Testament, though, apparently.
No one is free from fear all the time. Even the brave who
boldly go feel the fear; they just act against it. If one feels no fear, then they live a pretty sheltered life, or are just really dumb.
Freedom from hatred? Then how do you explain all the
Christians who do hate? Even “hating the sin and loving the
sinner” is still to feel hatred.
Freedom from conforming? WTF? That makes no sense
whatsoever. Does not a churchgoer conform to the
beliefs and dress of his congregation? A non-conformist is one
who thinks his own thoughts, does his own actions, and
dresses the way s/he feels fit without giving a damn whether
anyone else likes it or not – and not just to fit into some
subculture (to which s/he is ultimately conforming to.)
The only Christian non-conformist I can think of would be
Jesus himself.
Freedom from being alone – One can be free from being alone
simply by going out and seeking out other people. I am
a hermit; I have lived as such at various times in my life,
and am doing so again, due to certain circumstances that
rather demand I do (for my own good) for the forseeable
future. I do not leave my house except to get mail and
groceries; I speak to no one except through this medium. and
the occasional phone call my ol’ man is allowed to have to me.
I don’t need to make my life more complicated and miserable than it has been by introducing new and questionable people into it. Fantasizing about imaginary friends does not change this state of “being alone” in the least – it just takes one’s mind off the loneliness for a time. It wouldn’t matter if it
were biblical characters, or characters of my own or someone
else’s devising (and none of the biblical characters are
anyone I personally would want for a companion, imaginary
or otherwise. After all, if Jesus was a celibate, he certainly
wouldn’t fit my bill for a fantasy man right about now. My taste is currently running along the lines of what’s hiding behind my name at
the moment, ie, tall dark and possibly desperate.)
You may feel free as a Christian, but I feel quite free (to the
extent that I allow my own self to be!) as an atheist.
“what about freedom from sin, fear and hatred, from conforming and from being alone? ”
To me, the concept of sin indicates that you’re not free. Ultimately, almost any idea of sin is based on an acceptance of a moral basis not your own. Certain things are defined as right and wrong, and you conform to this.
As has already been noted, an atheist is free from sin de dicto. Fear and hatred are almost inescapable flaws of the present human condition. To be completly free of them, in this lifetime, is almost unwishably optimistic. I’m settling for self-improvement leading to a lessened need for emotional escape valves.
To choose to make your own decisions about morality, life and what your will mean, is to me the ultimate act of individuality. You choose to make your life something of your own making. If you’re familiar with the book, I’d liken this to Michael Valentine Smith’s ‘coming of age’ in Heinlein’s “Stranger in a Strange Land”.
And I personally like to be alone. To be honest, the idea of a god who was always with me would freak me out a little. I’ve always seen comfort with yourself as part of being an independent human being.
I cant disagree with any of that. Rock on science
Isengrim
January 16th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
@Unc: “His home life must be interesting too”
-
We can see that there is a “pecking order,” literally, in the family.
Apparently, the females are allowed to eat only after the males have
finished eating…
Apparently, the females are allowed to eat only after the males have
finished eating…
and your problem with this is….?
Ah, but she who cooks, tastes. So maybe that pecking order is not as the males think?
Who says I let women cook?
A line from Will & Grace:
Call me old fashioned but I think Poker is like cooking or gardening, women should just stay out of it.
Actually, I don’t care who’s doing the cooking, if it’s good, and good company, I’m in. (And I’m a damned good cook myself)
As a restaurant manager and former line cook, I’ve long felt that women have no place in a kitchen. Nope, just can’t trust a chick with all that fire and those sharp knives during a 20k dinner.
That said, the relatively few women I’ve met who prove me wrong are delightful. I’ll gladly pay extra for employees like that.
Nice story from Anthony Bourdain about what it takes for a woman to survive in a kitchen: he had a pastry chef who was of average size, but who studied some eastern martial art on the side. A pantry chef grabbed her butt as she passed his station. She grabbed the offending hand, bent it up behind his back, bent him over the table and starts humping. “How do you like it, B*tch!” she cried loudly, and he behaved himsefl forever after that.
I swear I’d marry that lady!
Brilliant!
I went to chef school briefly many years ago. The commercial kitchen is a much tougher environment than most people realize. Anyone who can do it well deserves respect. (The same goes for waiting tables, which I only did in that environment, and I wanted to kill them all! bwah hahaha) A friend of mine completed culinary school 1.5(?) years ago and is currently floating between kitchens in a casino in LV.
He used to live in Portland and would love to move back there (even though I’m trying to get him to move here to Hawaii), so, if you need someone good for your restaurant, let me know!
Now would be a very bad time to move to this area. There are no jobs. I haven’t hired any servers in months, and I have people who made $15 and $20 an hour at their last position queuing up to take a part time, minimum wage bussing job.
That’s the good thing about Texas. We still have jobs available.
Yeah, but you also have all of those fire spitting right-wingers…
And the bad side would be what?
BDRM –
I’m just going to have to assume that your handle stands for:
Bondage/Discipline & Religious Masochism.
I’m not a masochist.
@Scum: OT, but have you checked your
profile messages lately?
@rhorho
I did yesterday and responded. I wasn’t quite sure what you were trying to say, but it doesn’t matter. I think you were trying to explain the purpose of your wang. Wait, did that come out wrong?
Considering the circumstances, did anyone
think my attempt would end well?
That’s because no one sane wants to go there… unless it’s to Austin
Is that why we gained over 2 million people in the last five years> And New York lost over a million ? (Personally, they can have the arrogant b*stards back)
As I said.. sane…
Yeah, it’s a bad time to go pretty much anywhere desirable.
Things are tight here too since tourism is down and we’re tougher to get to than mainland cities. I still want him to come out and look though.
I just know that he really liked the Portland area a lot.
If you’re willing to come to Canada (and can), there’s still lots of jobs
available here in Alberta. There’s likely a lot of places crying for
cooks, especially resource camps in the north. If you don’t mind
living out in the middle of nowhere for 3 weeks out of 4, most
camps pay quite well for cooks (who are the ultimate boss of the camp).
But don’t work for PTI, they’ll rip you off.
Thanks, but it’s my friend in Vegas not me.
I mentioned it here to PortlandMark, because my friend used to live in and loves Portland.
One must always remember not to piss off the cook. You never know what’ll wind up in the food!
I’m not touching that one.
… Great, I’ve been hijacked… And me without being Harrison Ford on Air Force One.
You too? Bollocks…
and Jesus agrees [link]
… I’ve looked close to that before but my robe was epileptic green.
Pics or it didn’t happen.
My beard isn’t that long anymore but I do have the robe, long hair and a beard still. So I could take a picture but do you REALLY want to be that damaged? I mean, it’s a picture of me after all. I hear they cause cancer.
Only in Republicans…
That’s what she said.
OK, who the hell is that?
It’s me.
Great… an id stealing retard…
How are we going to tell the difference?
If I start saying the anyone is better than sliced bread… they’re not me…
Or are you the ID stealing retard?
We’ve replaced the forums’ usual Uncle Fester with a human substitute. Let’s see if they notice.
If the post doesn’t contain at least one personal insult, it’s not the real thing.
Ah, but you should specify: ‘colourfully worded personal insult’.
(and note the UK spelling, please!)
I’m sorry . . . I try to quit but it’s like crack, sans the burned fingers.
is it just me or does it look like he just crapped his pants?
More like “I didn’t have secks with that girl scout.”
or denying a fart
I’m with you on that one – “Hey – that wasn’t m- who let Fluffy off the chain?”
I am NOT a crook!
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
YES! Thank you! I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw the resemblance to Nixon.
What’s that red smear on his left hand?
the shadow?
It’s not from a girl scout, AH SWARZ!
Oops. Referencing FAIL, addressing:
Noob
January 15th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
It works here too…
It certainly does.
lol. yes it does…
Eugh – it does!
I’d think it was the Mark of the Beast, except that the Mark of the Beast is actually a little yellow magnetic ribbon that you put on your car’s trunk.
Magic Marker of the Beast… Stabilo’s orange 1/2 incher…
♫ Just stick a yellow ribbon on your SUV… ♫
[LINK]: The only little yellow magnetic ribbon I’ve ever truly coveted.
Thank you! You now have fellows in your covetousness…
“What’s that red smear on his left hand?”
`
He helped paint the backdrop?
Stigmata?
HAHA! America, in a nutshell.
ha! stupidity in a nutshell.
Isn’t that a tautology? “America, in a nutshell. stupidity in a nutshell.”
To clarify…
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
*gets out neuralizer*
Is it Pratchett who said the IQ of a mob is equal to the lowest IQ in it, divided by the number of people in it?
i’m not sure who said it but that’s brilliant.
Yep.
*hugs*
Yay!! Danbala!! Good to see you again!!
It’s good to be back! Well, it feels good, but it’s a bit worse for my work hours. The days get longer. : P
Sounds like a line from one of the City Guard cycle
I was thinking that too, all them there books being all tangled up in my ickle brain, but unless random people on the Internet are all wrong:
“The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters.”
is a quote from Maskerade (which makes that my most quoted Pratchett-book, since it also has the thing about exclamation marks).
It’s been a while since I read a TP…
Same here. By pure coinkydink, I went out and bought the first books a few weeks ago, when I realised I haven’t read them in ages, and don’t own them anymore. It’s not exactly as I remembered it, but still nice to get reacquainted with sir Pterry.
It’s strange; you go back to the first three books, and they’re nowhere near as good as you remember them. His writing really picked up a gear with “Mort”, but the stuff he’s doing now just glitters. Anone read “Making Money”?
To be honest, I remembered them as really terrible, but now I find them a wee bit better than that. I agree that some of the later work is far better though, and I do like the Moist books. My favourites might still be the witches, probably because those are what I started with. Love the city watch theme too, though. I lived, for years, in Discworld on a daily basis working (non-commercial/unpaid) as a game developer on Discworld Mud,for some time in charge of developing and maintaining AM, so I have a strange, soft spot for that cess pit…
(And, apparently, a strange, soft spot for building sentences with rather … alternative punctuation. Sorry.
)
Think nothing of it. You’re amongst friends… and I’ve given my GrammarNazi shirt back to Prince Harry.
No, he said that about Obama voters………
and the punchline is?
Oh, I see, you believe that it matters… right…
Original… ok, i’m lying… it’s dull and cliche and you can do a lot better…
Glad I’m Shinto !
ROFLMAO HEY GUYS WHOEVER WROTE THIS IS FUNNY XDDDDDD
Well, Huckabee proves that not everybody evolves …
some even manage to de-evolve…
Does this mean I should drop my evolution class?…oh wait I was already going to hell.
holy spit-on-a-stick batman! Teh Republicanz are teh suxxorz, backwards, and evilz!!!!1!!!!1!one!!!
BTW, first
next time please use English. It really helps to get your point across…
I think the lolspeak what part of the point.
Next time, please use English. It really helps to get your point across…
But what would be the point of your point, lacrosse?
and the sock Fester is at it again… ho hum…
Ok, who’s posting crap using my name? That’s not nice…
Rock Sock? Sock Rock? Isn’t that a type of music? Or a type of dance?
Geez! It was called Schoolhouse Rock, and it aired during Saturday
morning cartoons. Do you remember nothing???
[LINK] to learn how a bill becomes a law.
Why am I singing ‘Don’t drown your food’ now????? DAMMIT! *shakes fist at sky*
Lolly, lolly, lolly get your adverbs here …
Naughty….Number….Ni-ine! Bwahahahaha!
Interplanet Janet, she’s a galaxy girl……
IN-terjection, shows exCITE-ment! And e-MO-tion!
Conjunction Junction, what’s your function?
three is a magic number!
*reminiscing*
that was my favorite SHR.
Oh, god. Do they still play the one about “Elbow Room” (or was it Lebensraum?)
Click my name for “Elbow Room” on YouTube.
Oh my. Thanks for the reminder of just how … um .. manifest destinyish that was.
“Elbow Room up on the moon?!?” Giggle. There’s so much wrong with that one .. you can tell just how old it is.
Hmm. I’d better get back to work on that “Independence Day” (the movie) reply story.
This lol reminds me of the Church Lady from the old SNL (when it used to be funny), it’s something I could see her saying.
“Jazz Hands!” Starwipe ….
I plan to go to Hell. That’s where all the fun people are going to be. Heaven will be full of the uptight douches and sticks in the mud, if you believe what they say
Can I sit with you and Uncle Fester on the Party Bus to Hell? I’ll bring the rum.
I’ve got the double-chocolate brownies, and according to the Bible I’m going to Hell! Do I have a seat on the bus?
I thought we were on the Nature Trail to Hell!
You mean I’ve been settling for this bland boring granola when I could have been passing around the tin of Quality Street? Grrrr!
*noms nummy chockies*
Party bus to Hell? I’m in. Do we stop in Vegas? Is there a movie en route? I brought some hot wings and potato salad!
i’ll bring the keg, someone else bring the tap…
Banana bread anyone?
ooh, i’ll take a slice! and i brought a bottle of beam if anyone’s interested…
Jim Beam? Granola? Hell starts on the bus, I see. Lemme see…
*Throws in a case of James Boag (Tasmanian) ale and a case of Coopers (South Australian) pale ale*
But I’m a mi–oh, frack, I’m going to hell anyway, right? Oh well. *drinks up*
Rum?! *moves over* Sounds good to me!
Got a lime by any chance?
No lime, but I’ll bring a case of Coke, too, if you like. Can’t drink the
rum without it. It’s what I’m drinking now, in fact (hic).
Wow…this “lol” is full of fail.
Why?
Because believing in evolution doesn’t mean you’re going to Hell, I suppose would be the simplest answer.
Sorry, didn’t mark this for followup.
According to the gentleman, it probably does, since he is a literalist… to believe in Evolution means you doubt the ‘Word of God’, and to do so is a hellbound offence… it’s in the manual…
I think you misunderstand the rules.
No, I think Huckabee does. Believing evolution means doubting the infallibility of the Babble, which is a one way ticket down in his world.
Source? Or are you, like so many others, spouting what you’ve heard because you paint with a roller instead of a detail brush?
It seems to be southern baptist view and he’s a southern baptist…
But tell us, what are the ‘rules’?
Accept Jesus as your savior and ask to be forgiven. That’s it. And you can find loons in any group that make the others shake their heads. How do you think I felt every time a Harry Potter book came out?
Are you saying that your academy was more liberal than Hogwarts?
No, I’m saying that every time a Harry Potter book came out, the nutbars who claimed it encouraged witchcraft made my brain hurt.
Robert – The nutbars who did complain about those
books would probably do well to read them. The Christians
who did complain were legalists/fundamentalists. Any
mention of any kind of “magic” not performed by Jesus or
some clearly Christian saint or character is automatically
evil. They completely miss the point that the thing underlying
the entire metastory was love, or the lack of it, and how
it can affect people in different ways.
Voldemort neither received nor gave it. This allowed him
to kill without remorse, for his own ends (and to kill to avoid
his own death) and to use and deceive even his own followers
Harry himself never received it growing up at his aunt’s
house – but the thing that saved his life was the fact that
his mother loved him enough to use her own sacrifice as
his shield. Enough of this kind of love, I suppose, managed to live within him (despite horrible circumstances as a child) to be able to
still feel it as he got older, and to avoid the poison that
lived within him through his link with Voldemort.
The third character is such a moving portrait of human error
and eventual redmption due to unrequited love that I can’t even discuss it without totally spoiling the entire story for anyone who hasn’t taken the time to
read the books, but his portrait and my opinion of his place
in the tale hides behind my name.
And love is supposed to be what Christianity is all about. Dumbledore, with his belief in second chances, was more Christian than most
of the Christians who would condemn him for being a gay
wizard.
But you’re missing the point. Wizardry is teh ebil, and even touching the books will send you directly to Hell.
And as noted above. I’m all ready for my bus ride.
when I get there (since I’m destined for the Circle of Unbelievers) I’m considering running a bus service to the Circle of Fornicators…
Isengrim, you are absolutely right in every regard, and too many of the loud Christians are more concerned with condemning others than keeping their own affairs in order, which is also criticized rather severely in the Bible. Most Christians just want to be left alone to their beliefs, truth be told, and the loud , sanctimonious ones really annoy the rest of us.
@Unc: “Heaven is an American salary, a Chinese cook, an English house, and a Japanese wife. Hell is defined as having a Chinese salary, an English cook, a Japanese house, and an American wife.”
James H. Kabbler III.
That should go down well in some Episcopalian circles, paricularly after Rowling outing Dumbledore like that. Incidentally, was much made of that in yopur side of the sphere?
In the UK, the biggest coverage was a guy who had Dumbledore tattoed on his back…
Time for a new Fester pic!
I didn’t hear much about it…but, I try not to listen too much, truth be told.
I think that’s apparent…
So, ask a Jewish Zombie who’s magically his own father to ’save’ you…
That makes is so much more sensible and not loon like at all…
Wh… you okay there? BTW, why the picture of the jumper behind your name?
OH that… someone claimed the plane ditch was the ‘hand of God’
That guy, leaving WTC by the last exit available to him…
Seems God was busy stopping people in traffic or changing shirts to prevent them getting into work (various ‘miracles’ of 9/11 I’ve seen reported)… to notice one busboy who’d rolled up early to set up tables… I can only assume that by the time came God was tired…
[LINK] YouTube Republican Debate, Huckabee on Creationism
Huckabee denies being a literalist, in terms of the “6-day” business,
at least.
Actually, if you watch more youtubes, the less ‘clear’ the huckster is about his stance… I watched about 5…
I’ve done some more YouTubes watching, and some reading,
including the source for your quotes at the top. I can’t find
anything to pin him down on the literal interpretation of the
“6 day” business, but you’re right: He dances on the edge,
like a good politician, so that true literalists would consider him
to be a giant leap forward.
This is one bat-shirt crazy dude: Changing the U.S. Constitu-
tion into a Bible-driven document? Can you imagine what
bru-ha-ha there would be over interpretation?
I’m actually laughing a little, because there’s no 2nd Amend-
ment (right to bear arms) language in the Bible, per se. I’m
picturing NRA members scouring Bible pages, looking for some
reference to Jesus blessing fully automatic weaponry…
Mate, having a look at the way we seem to go to war over interpretation now, hat thought is rather frightening. I have no objection to Christians getting their arses elected, even to the Top Job. But a good squint at the theocracy that was in Iran, the Taliban-as-government, northern v southern Ireland, etc etc should say that we (as Xns) just can’t be trusted en mass.
Sad but true.
No group can be trusted with power for any length of time. The most corrupt states are the ones that have had one party in power for long periods of time. California and Alaska, for instance.
The normal distribution curve does have a far end! Robert made sense…
Note it people…
Assuming that there are only about 600 Christian
factions around here (in the U.S.), I would have to
agree that getting something satisfactory on paper
would be chaotic. May I add that enforcement may
also cause a little concern?
The biggest problem is that every one of those factions is RIGHT! (Of course, since as far as I know, I’m the only Sydney Anglican that chips in here, I can automatically deduce where they’re all doctrinally skewed… yeah right…)
And, yes, reinforcement will be something to watch from a great distance. On CNN. In another country.
Hopefully you’re searching for a house with a
spare room? I’m a great babysitter and
passable laundress…
I seem to find that, if you can peel them out of the mob, there are as many definitions as there are adherents…
Or vice versa.
As many definitions as there are mobs?
Assuming one could find two who agree on
every point, I would put money on both of
their heads, if they were put into the same
room together…
Don’t tell my… the brain cell believes this poison…
You really are a ‘catch’…
Please, please tell me you’re a creationist. I haven’t told off a creationist in far too long.
Or a biblical literalist, or whatever. Need… strawman…
*is escorted to the home for the terminally antagonistic*
No, not a bible literalist, sorry to burst your bubble.
but the Huckster is… thus the lol is a reasonably accurate reflection his views.
I do love it when Christians justify torture in one place then defend loon monkeys in another… it quite affirms my faith in the nature of the average religionist.
Oh, come one, you of all people should believe in shades of grey.
I do… but I don’t pretend to be a favourite of God… however, I don’t think (note THINK. Not BELIEVE) that torture is ever justified, yet you seem to believe it’s an acceptable part of any penal code…
God doesn’t have favorites. As for torture, you mean to tell me that if your wife/mother/daughter/brother/father was in mortal peril, and you knew smacking around a scum bag would allow you to save her, you wouldn’t bend the rules to save your loved one?
Ah the strawman of absolute certainty and relation… The question is actually;
would I randomly gather 100 people up and then systematically torture them in the hope of finding someone involved? No. It’s pointless.
And I don’t claim any morality guide here… but I’m sure your Zombie forgives you… He’d have to, since I’m not cutting slack, you drooling barbarian…
Under your example, these people are just randomly scooped up, not captured while shooting rockets and planting bombs. And again, we don’t torture. Unless you count fat momma jokes. You say you don’t claim any morality guide, but you seem intent on determining who is and isn’t moral. It amuses me.
I’m sure it does… but then, that’s simply because you’re a psychopath…
As to being captured in combat, very few, even according to the DoD figures (look them out) have been charged with anything and most were released…
But let’s look at your version of ‘fat momma’ jokes eh? Lets see what sort of Frat boy you are… Link1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Takes a real man to beat on a guy with his hands in cable ties and a bag on his head…
Link
The people who did that are in prison, boss. Where they belong.
And that makes it ‘better’? That’s the stuff you’re apporving with ‘fat momma’ quotes so suck it up…
And that makes it ‘better’? That’s the stuff you’re apporving with ‘fat momma’ quotes so suck it up…
Actually, approving of one doesn’t amount to approving of the other. I’m not sure how we went from G’itmo to Abu Ghraib, honestly. But, if you’re asking me to feel bad when bad things happen to bad people, sorry, can’t do it.
That’s one of the sickest, wrongest things there is.
“Torture isn’t bad because they deserved it”
First off, NO-ONE deserves that. Ever, at all. They’re called ‘inalienable rights’ for a reason.
Secondly, it’s not right or wrong because of who you do it to. Torturing a dog is wrong, right? Is a ‘bad’ person of less moral worth than a dog?
Torture is wrong because it is WRONG. Anyone with any kind of moral compass can tell you that. If you need more, it’s always wrong because it makes you into a worse person. No matter what, torture MAKES YOU EVIL.
If you don’t feel bad for someone who you’ve been trained to think of as ‘the enemy’ on broad racial basis when they’re tortured, you’re seriously fucked up. Any kind of serious, unbiased analysis of the events around US detention of suspects in Iraq etc. makes it VERY clear that a dragnet policy was in efect, and a majority of innocents were swept up to avoid losing the few genuine suspects.
Link 6
Finally, a couple of keeper snaps for the folks back home…
First – Daddy with a dead guy…
Second – Daddy with a pile of naked people with plastic bags over their heads…
Now… does that look like ‘intelligence’ gathering or something else, dirt ball?
No, that’s prisoner abuse. And again…the people who did that are now in prison. Of course, I’d rather have a dog tear me to pieces than have my daughter raped by Saddam’s thugs, but that’s just me.
Ah, the great semantics of the denier… ‘Prisioner Abuse’ is not ‘Troture’
And of course all the bad men have been caught… some how only 6 people doing all that really doesn’t seem overly feasible does it…
but then, you’re just a silly little frat boy who probably thought it was all left wing lies until they found that at least 6 people were dumb enough to want to keep photos of what they did…
Wait, are we talking about intelligence gathering or are we talking about being a dick for the sake of being so. You have to pick the framework for your arguments. Of course, then you wouldn’t get to throw names around like a six-year-old on the playground, so I can understand why that would be an unpalatable argument.
no, you’re making artificial delineations… and you clearly know little of psyops…
AG’s treatment, from a Psyops pov, had a clear point.
It was to soften up the ’subjects’ to make them more pliant to torture. their
To think that that sort of thing DIDN’T happen in Gitmo is just naive… it’s just the lads at Gitmo were better trained not to send trophy photos home…
Generally, I try not to buy into Uncle Fester’s brand of personal vitriol, but you’re one who, it seems, deserves it. He may well be right in throwing a “Psychopath” tag at you – you seem to have no problem with torture at all, do you? And, when pressed hard enough to finally concede that *ouch* there is such a thing in the world as prisoner abuse, you slip in a little justifier in there as well. Torture to gather intelligence = torture because they might know something = torture because they look a bit similar to the 9/11 terrorists = torture happens somewhere else, plus “who cares? They’re over there”.
You were the Bush apologist from the other day, too, weren’t you?
It’s just different styles… I’d not sweat it that we agree…
Apologies – above was @Robert. No argument from me here, Fes
and it seems a lot of people didn’t belong in GITMO either… so antoher snotter for Bobby… [link]
@Fester: You seem to believe that because one group of military personel engaged in prisoner abuse, the whole military is like that. Another example of you using a paint roller when a detail brush would be more appropriate. And I’m glad that guy is going home. I’m sorry that he was detained for so long when he shouldn’t have been. But he’s the exception, not the rule.
@Goodness: I’m sorry that you think I’m a psychopath if homicidal killers get the snot beaten out of them doesn’t bother me. But I still go back to the whole “we don’t torture.” Thing. And I don’t think it should be the official policy to torture someone to get information. I also think that sometimes lines do have to be crossed to save lives. That doesn’t mean I like it, or think it’s appropriate. I’m pretty sure I couldn’t do it, honestly, because it’s not the type of person I am. But I also don’t want to see 3000 civilians murdered in the space of hours ever again.
@Robert: I understand your POV, and no one
wants to see any of the 9/11 events again.
Torture has been demonstrated to be an
ineffective, even negative tool for gathering
actionable intel. [LINK]
Now what?
I’ve already said I don’t approve of torture being official policy, and I know it’s an ineffective tool. Everyone does. So why exactly do people keep insisting it is the standard tool for interrogation?
I’m hung up on this line of yours:
It seems as though you’re saying that crossing lines leads to lives being saved. I read that to mean the lines in place via the Geneva Conventions. Am I wrong?
In this instance, yes. Are you prepared to argue that there are some lines one should never cross?
If you’re still talking about torture, yes.
If you’re talking about fashion sense, uh…
*twitches*
lol-All I’m saying is, if that’s what it takes to save lives, I’m not prepared to forbid it. That said, I don’t think step one in an interrogation should be breaking they guy’s kneecaps, either.
@Robert
I won’t argue it because there’s no way to account for all circumstances ahead of time. I will however point out that once you cross that line:
A. You can never go back
B. It’s that much easier to cross that same line the next time.
If you think the ends justifies the means, it just gets easier and easier to justify each time.
That’s absolutely right, which is why it’s a line I don’t encourage crossing lightly.
That’s how tyrants are born.
It’s much safer, and better in the long run for all involved to never cross those lines. No, it’s not perfect, but nothing is.
I suppose the question becomes who and what you’re willing to sacrifice for which ideals.
Sacrificing human rights to protect human rights is doomed to fail in the long run. Doing bad things because you know you’re the good guys will one day make you wake up and realise you aren’t anymore. I am definitely willing to say there are lines that should not be crossed, ever.
I’ve already said my piece on people who choose to act like animals, but I repect your stance even if I don’t agree with it. You’re right, though, that institutionalizing brutality never ends well. Which is why I oppose it.
@Robert: Torture has been proven not to
work. That remains the bottom line. (Sorry
to step on the other “line” analogy.)
Besides, we have a responsibility to lead by
good example, even when our enemies
aren’t using the same rule book.
@Scum: I agree with your points. That which
has been crossed cannot be uncrossed.
@ Robert.
You’re right, and you will never know how strong you are, or how strongly you believe in your ideals until you are faced with that decision.
If you can’t sacrifice for the future of those ideals, then you
didn’t really believe in them because you’re weak, or they are.
That’s a great way to put it.
And as I said before… you really don’t understand the Psychosocial Operations/Interrogation part of your own intelligence gathering service… what went on at AG and what went on at GITMO won’t be that much different…
The can was opened, worms are out, and you still manage to get off on the brutality,even though you’re now claiming that you don’t… Human rights are human rights. Whether you ‘think’ (which is a claim I doubt) they deserve it or not… it’s an all or nothing deal… you’re earlier posts stand in mute testement to the sort of creature you REALLY are… shame you really don’t have the guts to follow through on it…
*yawn* Yeah, yeah, you think I eat kittens for breakfast, I get it. It’s kinda funny, really. I see shades of gray and the possibility for extraordinary circumstances, and you continue to see an isolated event as a systemic problem. I still can’t force myself to feel bad about bad things happening to bad people, whether I think those bad things were justified or not. You once said I was beneath your contempt because I was a monster. Now, look at it from my perspective. When you act as a monster, engage in the murder of civilians, blow up school buses, and launch rockets from religious buildings, I really have no ears for your whining about how abused you were. Ya’ dig?
Torture is never shaded in gray. It’s that simple.
What makes your ideals worthy is that you WON’T sacrifice them, no matter what. If you’ll only support human rights when you can, then you don’t beieve in them. This is what makes you a person of moral fortitude IMO. If you believe in your principles and will not sacrifice them, come what may.
A principle that has exceptions is a comfortable lie.
I apologise f that sounds overly harsh, but it’s my honest opinion.
Oh, I’m not hurt. But look at it this way-you’re standing at a fork in the train tracks. The track switch is in front of you. There’s a train coming towards you, and another one coming up the track the opposite way. They’re going to hit if you don’t flip the switch. But there’s a bus full of kindergartners stalled ont he other track. If you hit the switch, they’ll die. If you don’t, hundreds or thousands die? What do you do? How do you make that decision? I have a very strict “Don’t cause the death of children” policy, but that would be a decision that’s damn near impossible for me. In this instance, though, we’re not talking about children. We’re talking about murderers. Sorry, but I see gray area there.
False analogy. If the switch is torture, it’s already been proven that the switch is broken and throwing it is only going to hurt the people on the train, and it’s still going to hit the kiddies, a few puppies and grandma anyway.
Analogies can be used to illustrate a point, but not to argue it. Talk about the real thing, not some made up story and you’ll find the truth, whatever that might be.
It’s a bit refreshing that no one is actually defending Huckabee. Kudos all.
Frou has had a go a defending a few of his opinions here and there… but not on this thread… yet…
Huckabee for Prez in 2012 hopefully. Despite the many mindless drones on here sucking in what CNN tells you.
Shouldn’t you say “Palin for Prez”, oh enlightened one? If you go with batshit, go with the real batshit.
It’s mostly what the man says that damns him…
Hey! there is nothing wrong with Darwinisum!!!!
Which means what exactly?
Okay since you want to take this out of context, please put on the whole speech.
Umm, you’re new here aren’t you?
which speech?
although it matters little since the man is a drooling looney…
Notice, the vociferous Christians aren’t even backing this two legged horse?
Actually, there’s a lot wrong with Darwinisum (no such thing). There’s even a lot wrong with Darwinism, and there’s also a lot wrong with evolution. (Different things BTW).
The modern use of the term Darwinsim seems to be most often applied by right-wing fanatics, who can’t fathom that there are people (generally known as atheists), who don’t feel the need to worship anything. Right-wingers, assuming that everyone needs to worship something have decided that many of us worship the man, Darwin. This is of course false, since we don’t worship anything (in the religious sense).
Other right-wingers, refer to science in general, or the theory of evolution in specific and personify the disciplines, endowing them with human characteristics such as purpose and intent, and decide that atheists worship those.
If by Darwinisum, you meant Darwin’s original theories of evolution, then many of his ideas have been updated, corrected or outright changed as evidence has dictated.
Evolution itself also gets updated, because unlike religions, science never assumes that knowledge is perfect or complete. We are always striving to learn more, and to improve on what is ‘known’ today with what we discover tomorrow.
Define ‘Darwinism’ having read ‘Origin of species’ and his follow ups…. I expect an answer sometime in June…
Well, my post was supposed to be a response to Sara, up there ^ a couple of posts, who said,
Hey! there is nothing wrong with Darwinisum!!!!
but I screwed up.
If you’d still like a paper by June, please let me know.
Follow-up: I have to add this quote from Men in Black.
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.
Apropo of your post, check this out:
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE50E6TD20090116
Cool! It probably has to do with strictly geological processes, but it’s tantalizing, nonetheless. Titan is another methane mystery.
I’ve heard it said that if life is going to exist on a planet, it’s going to exist everywhere on it. I don’t think that’s necessarily true, though, because we really don’t have any other life-bearing planets to observe yet.
New link in my name; this one goes to one of my favourite sites to look at from time to time, PlanetQuest: the New Worlds Atlas. The number of exoplanets found keeps rising at a surprising pace (the last time I looked, the number was 305, with no terrestrials.)
If we do find life “out there” – even bacterial life – I wonder how the creationists will spin it?
I used that above to illustrate why Americans in a nutshell, stupidity in a nutshell is a tautology…
That quote has nothing to do with Americans. The last time I looked, there were people across the globe, and we Americans hadn’t yet conquered the whole planet. In fact we’ve never actually tried to like the Brits.
Calling Americans stupid is such easy hyperbole. It requires no thought, and you’re better than that.
No… it applies to any group…
and if you REALLY think the Americans HAVEN’T tried to conquer the world, then you’re down a hole… or up one…
Ok, maybe you’re not better than that.
That is a great pic you have linked though.
You really want me to list America’s fail physical interventions, and more successful Economic and Sub Rosa type exercises in Imperial Expansion?
I figured you were more intelligent that… seems I was mistaken. Critical History Fail!
There’s a long queue to get on Old Fester’s retard list… you just moved up a place.
Actually, Fester, I was referring to your habit of attempting to insult anyone who doesn’t agree with you. I felt you were better than that, but you’ve proved me wrong. Apparently you’re not better than that.
The behavior makes you look like a petulant 12 year old.
Re: that pic. ROFL! ROFL! ROFL!
One of my rare ‘Lol’s
Hee. Here’s a relevant lol.
That’s gold, buddy. Laughed enough to rattle up phlegm.
Good one. Right on the money.
wow, this whole conversation here is a ginat train wreck. all i have to say is that is just because you believe in evolution, dosent mean youll go to hell. the bible, really, is a tricky thing to read and theres more than one way to read it. and because of this, there are so many different churches of the christian faith. the only real way to prove to yourself that there is a god is to follow him and see what he does in your life. and i dont mean just saying ill follow you god and continue with your daily life, go to different churches and see what hes doing. there are things like tounges and being filled with the holy spirit that are unexplainable to science. if your actually open minded to do this and you actually search for the ways god is working, thank you. if you do this totaly honestly and you actually tried and you didnt see god, fine. go ahead and live your life how ever you want, but at least you tried and you wernt ignorant and determined that your right. you were willing to admit your wrong. the first step to wisdom is admiting you dont know everything.