Friday, July 27, 2012

More elbow room....

More discussion of religion with guest star Mike and the usual motley crew....

Hope Eric shows up to lend Mike a hand (without ever acknowledging the fact that they really aren't in agreement on very much)

Eric, you owe us an apology!

(Get it?  Oh, I'm so witty...)

200 comments:

  1. But Brian in all reality your big bang theory is nothing more then another name for God with a twist.
    You have managed to shave and reshape you own concept of what a god in your box would be like.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree in a way. It takes the place of a god without being one. That is why I do not accept it, because of it's obvious appeal to my conditioning. (I am conditioned too of course, but at least I'm aware of it and can compensate somewhat)
    It's nothing like YOUR god. You insist it be a Father figure, a paternalistic, petty, small being with most of out human flaws. That, is ridiculous. You're (not you, your faith) not creative enough to imagine a god that is BETTER than you.

    I don't call it (the Big Brain stuff) god for a reason. It's not god at all, but it IS something that us poor, unimaginative beings would definitely mistake for one (if it were real.) (and it likely isn't.) But hey, it's still a million billion times more likely than Yahweh, Jesus, and the sacred poltergeist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I assume you meant my Big Brain theory and not the Big Bang theory (which you typed).... that's not anything like a god, now is it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike:

    If there is a god (to me a huge 'if'), being sensible and understanding this world is not a childish world of fairy tales being true, wouldn't it be more likely that on the spectrum of your god to my Big Brain ideas, the real god would be more like what I'm saying than what you are? Perhaps not even a conscious being but more like a force? Or more like the universe itself is "god" in that it is consciousness-based? And the rest was just added in by fallible, uneducated men a long time ago?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unfortunately for my mystical tendencies, it's really more likely that all my musings are just that, musings. Reality, often to my chagrin, keeps on acting realistically. What I know and you do not, is the fallibility of the instrument. We, our bodies and minds, are the instrument through which we sense reality, and we're unbelievably (literally!) inaccurate. Once we realize that, at least once I realized it, I've spent much of my time trying to compensate for it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. From the previous thread:

    The fact that Gods laws are hardwired into the moral fiber of mankind is in itself evidence that God exist.

    Teh Bullshite Beginneth...

    The laws of God were given unto man...

    with Teh Obligatory Pseudo-KJVisms (more like "Teh Lawls of Gawd")...

    What reason would one have to write thou shalt not have no other Gods before me. The only one it would matter to would be the one who was offended because man worshiped a false God.

    First, it's fiction. Second, God (if he DID exist, arguendo) would not feel threatened by false gods. ONly a fictional God could be threatened by other "false" gods. But this is just the sort of thing the fictional YHWH would write... except that YHWH didn't ever put stylus to clay tablet. MEN wrote Teh Buy-Bull. Not God. Because MEN have a vested interest in controlling large groups of others for their own gain.

    If a person or persons as you claim wrote the bible as to play on the masses then what purpose would there to be condemn those who Idol worship?

    Freedom of thought breeds dissent in the masses, Einstein. If you control the mind, you control the man. Thus, individuals within the group thinking in a non-approved way is a bad thing for those who would control the group. This is fucking obvious.

    Thou shalt not make any graven image. Again the only one who would care would be he who was offended because man worshiped a graven image as Israel started to do with the Brazen serpent. There is no logic at all for a man or men to write such things for no reason.

    Wrong, Mike. See above.

    Remember God created Adam/Eve...

    God did nothing of the sort. Genetics proves without any doubt that there was never a single pair of human beings 6,000 years ago that all of humanity is descended from. That's a fairy tale, and the people who were alive 8,000 years ago would have laughed at your stories.

    Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain…. Who would care?

    Again, the only ones who WUOLD care are the MEN who are attempting to control the larger group. "Taking the Lord's name in vain" isn't saying 'Goddammit'; it's claiming that you KNOW what God (the Group Leaders) is thinking, what God (the Group Leaders) wants, who God (the Group Leaders) has "chosen", etc, and passing judgement in God's (the Group Leaders') name (usurping His authority) on others. Again, it has nothing to do with an EXTANT God, it's all about justification by the group leaders for their right to control the group. In other words, "You cannot question this because it comes from God" (says the Group Leader(s)).

    I could go on and on with the rest of the commandments that only matter to God.

    You could. But you would be dead wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gear, that is priceless.... St. George was amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey Mike!

    Did you know that Brazen just means 'made of brass' and only nowadays does it also mean 'shameless?'

    Anyhow, I missed that post that Pliny was answering for you above when you posted it on the previous page.... He's answered your questions more eloquently but essentially the same as I would have. Did you realize that the answers were very obvious to someone that isn't conditioned to believe the bible? I mean, your question about 'gee, why would god resent other gods? is precious.... you really can't see it, can you? The motivations for writing those commandments have everything to do with SOCIAL CONTROL and next to nothing to do with pleasing god. Can't you see that? How can you MISS it? It's like if I slap you in the face with a sixteen-inch rainbow trout... and you thank me for brushing the dust off your shoulder! Hey, how didn't you just see that TROUT?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey Mike, what would your 'dream' world be like? I mean, if you could wake up tomorrow and the world was as you'd prefer, what would that be like for you?

    Would you be a pastor with a nice church and maybe four or five hundred regulars?(more?) Maybe a big hall that could double as a soup kitchen to get the poor in, you know to give them a sermon, and a bingo hall, charitable works doesn't pay for itself, you know.

    Maybe you'd like to have a govt. cheque rolling in for your faith-based initiatives, after all, it's all for the Glory of God, no?

    Perhaps dinner with Mayor McNobb, to shame him into giving a charitable donation, since he owns half the city anyways?

    Checking up on the school board to make sure they're not teaching anything other than the four Rs, reading, 'riting, 'rithmetic and religion?

    That kind of thing?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The biblical god is much more interesting than Mike's god. A deity who likes to hang out with naked people, morphs into a petulant, mass-murdering tribal god, gains some universality as Israel contends with its concepts of the "other" via the separate kingdoms, decides the dying god shtick needs to be brought back, then quits.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Replies
    1. Not bad, work is decidedly heavy, new girlfriend, and finally moving from being a renter to an owner. How's you, the wiff, and the little man?

      Delete
  12. Judge You!

    You disappear without a trace for month, kill your facebook account (without saying G,bye, M'Fers!"... Nuthin!

    Anyway, welcome back, Harry!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I missed you a bit too Edward. ;-)

      Edward (chuckle).

      That soooo doesn't fit you.

      Delete
  13. @Ian, my answer would be "me" not in it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Good try Ed but no cigar.

    You say “first it’s fiction” Only in the minds of the unbelievers… The Bible has stood the test of time. Luke is recognized as one of the leading historians of all times, his writings of times periods, places, and rulers have been proven to be most accurate.

    The Spiritual Birth Jesus told Necodemus about has been proven to be true… I can attest to that truth for I experienced for myself.

    Second ,God did not fell threatened by false Gods… it was the fact that men would put there trust in a lie.
    How is that a threat to God? lol

    You say “men have a vested interest in controlling large groups of others for their own gain”
    You mean like Obama or say the Government. Guess what ,man does not need to manufacture a God to accomplish that … Look around you that’s happening as we speak and at the same time they are removing God from the landscape.

    Freedom of thought breeds dissent in the masses , Yeah so obvious you don’t seem to see you are numbered with the masses. Government control has always been the real puppet master.

    What’s funny Ed is the fact that man did not live 8,000 years ago. And That’s why I cant laugh at them .

    ReplyDelete
  15. George Carlin was a fool Ed, a fool.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey Mike, no offense, really no offense, but I am required to say this by the Gods of Logic and Reason, because you insulted Saint George:
    Fuck you.

    Now, that being taken care of, I just wanted to say that you are a silly person that would likely wear a waxed mustachio and twirl the ends into comical "C" shapes, and then soil your shorts while falling off your ridiculously-large-front-wheeled bicycle.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Those who are fools see a brilliant man as a fool. It's not your fault Mike and I'm only play-acting the anger... Really I think though that you've become even more set in your ways lately... You're like talking to a recording. Droning on your parroted child-answers to grownup questions.... Religion makes fools of good men, and I mourn the man that you might have been if you hadn't surrendered your mind and your soul to a morally and intellectually bankrupt philosophy that is really just old-fashioned brainwashing disguised as the Holiest of Holies. It is obvious that you can't even comprehend what we tell you... you react to it before you have a chance of understanding it.... it's a cowardly way to go about life, being afraid of knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Brian , I don’t understand why you feel as if you have to insult people the way you do.
    Why can’t we have a conversation with out the childlike antics?

    ReplyDelete
  19. You say “men have a vested interest in controlling large groups of others for their own gain”. You mean like Obama or say the Government.

    No, I mean like ancient kings and their buddies, the priest class (usually the only ones who were ever taught to WRITE).

    ReplyDelete
  20. I suppose that was childish, but honestly you're the one that called one of my childhood idols and the one man that most formed my personality and sense of humor, a fool. You are the fool, it's that simple. all the other stuff was me trying to make light of it. You are frustrating, because you are not sane.

    You have no ANSWERS. Nothing we tell you about your religion can you REFUTE. All you have to fall back on is the yes, childish idea that you are just plain right without any sort of real proof, just the words of men in a book. If you want to be treated like an adult, grow up and listen and learn about your religion and have the doubts that any sane person would have, and explore them without your pitiful terror of punishment that a child would have.

    I love you man, but hey, it's a tough love, so get used to it. Now listen to Carlin again and tell us, point by point, why he's wrong, if you can... And if all you can give us is 'it's not biblically true' or the equivalent, then at least be prepared to be made fun at for trying to win a game of chess by sucking your thumb.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I mean, you can call me a fool anytime and I don't really give a shit, but for some reason when you call Carlin a fool, the phrase 'fucking retard' comes to mind... and I hate being politically incorrect like that, so cut that shit out.

    Oh, and BTW, here's a free 'insight' for you. Y'Ever wonder why atheists tend to swear at christians? Because normal people don't think words are 'dirty' and 'gross' and 'disgusting' and 'evil' just because they refer to bodily functions... swears hold special power when used against a christian, because christians are born prudes. That's part of what their controllers instilled in their minds when they brainwashed them. And speaking for myself as an ex-christian, it feels good to use a word that doesn't have any power over ME but does over YOU. See?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am not always a reasonable person, Mike, because I still have a LOT of anger at your religion from what it did to me and my family, personally.

    If someone poisoned your family and it made them all stupid wouldn't it bother you?

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Ian, my answer would be "me" not in it.
    -----------------
    Then Mike, may I suggest to you christians that, since you don't even want to be in this world, stop trying to fuck it up for those of us who do, okay? Can't we agree to that much even?

    ReplyDelete
  24. What’s funny Ed is the fact that man did not live 8,000 years ago. And That’s why I cant laugh at them .
    ---------------------------
    Mike, this is so sad it makes my stomach clench. How can you be this dense, Mike? The proof is everywhere you look. You just refuse to see it.

    You christians love your heads to be buried in the sand. Hard to believe that it's such a thorough job sometimes. I mean, it's comical, or it would be if it were a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So the fossils... another lie that god told us to throw us off, Mike?

    Or to you they're all less than 8000 years old, right?

    You spurn science as if it were a belief system. It's not. If you don't believe in science then you're a fool, plain and simple, the accent on the 'simple.'

    So, please don't be "that guy," okay?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I suppose the geologic column makes no sense to you then...

    Oh well...

    Hey, just take my word for it, I am no science expert but I do have a good grasp of the big picture that it represents, and I can tell you that the idea of the earth being less than 10,000 (or 100,000, or a million, or even a billion) years old, is 100% disproven. There are thousands of reasons why it just can't be. It's that simple, so deal with it and stop denying what's hanging in front of your face. If you can do that, you won't be a fool.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I know you've listened to people that say they have 'proof' that science is wrong.

    They're not thinkers, they're believers. They have a belief system and, LIKE YOU, can't IMAGINE it being any other way so they MUST pull things out of their patooties that SEEM to say other than what is OBVIOUS to any thinking being that looks around. They're jokes, Mike. Jokes. That's all they'll ever be. Except to the gullible who want to have things their way, who HAVE TO have things their way.

    I told you that I had anger because of what christianity did to me and those I knew.... when I realized it was all bullshit, it really pissed me off... so I can only IMAGINE how it would be with you if you ever realized what I did. Hell, it'd practically KILL you, wouldn't it? So you can't even GO THERE in your head.

    Think about that. That's what brainwashing feels like. A free mind can go ANYWHERE. No limits. But your mind has shackles and chains on it that you can't see, like the poem on my main page by Arne Lerma. Read it if you haven't already. It's about you, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  28. (and of course I know that all of this is in vain but I can't help trying to get through your christian mind shield)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Okay, I'm done... hope you don't go away forever... I do want to like you... it's not easy for me... so I can learn that from you somehow at least....

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Hey Mike, what would your 'dream' world be like?"

    Saying 'me not in it' is a cop-out!

    Like answering 'what kind of car would you like to drive?', with, 'I'd rather walk'.

    You can't dream a world that you're not in, that'd make you dead.

    Or maybe that's the whole 'right' position? Start WWIII and get the whole 'world' thing over with? You all seem to want no govt. except maybe a police state controlling womens' parts, throwing as many people in prison as possible for as many reasons as possible, and hunting around for people to 'pre-emptively strike', right?

    ReplyDelete
  31. What’s funny Ed is the fact that man did not live 8,000 years ago.

    Wrong. The Earth is 4.5 Billion (with a capital 'B') years old, the universe is 13.7 Billion (with a capital 'B') years old, and a musty old book of just-so stories written before man had the capacity to discover those truths does not make them untrue.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Question: Is a particular book written, or "dictated" by god?

    First test: God would write a book without any internal inconsistencies.

    Fail.

    Second test: God would write a book introducing new things that the people of the time did not know about yet.

    Fail.

    Third test: God would not write a book in which he himself was depicted as being less mature than many mortal humans are.

    Fail.

    Mike, I can go on all night if you wish...

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mike, you have no answers to any of this but your faith? Is that really it? And that's enough for you? Afraid we evil atheists will trick you into questioning it and score a win for satan? Are you really on that level? Here we all are trying to break through to you and that's your defense? Fear of what you've been taught. So you put your fingers in your ears and sing 'la la la...'
    And you accuse me of being childish?

    ReplyDelete
  34. You have a case of induced paranoia about facts and the truth. It's a mental illness (psychosis) but they did it to you on purpose. You'll never believe me or anyone else about it, either, because that's part of the illness... they programmed you, and part of the programming is to believe that when people tell you things like this, like what we tell you, that they are just evil or wrong or both, or even agents of the devil, but can't you see that THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD TELL YOU if their motivation was to have you never learn the truth, because the TRUTH would set you free. They don't want you to ever find out the truth... Of course, most of these 'THEY' are dead now, but the programming remains virulent forever. And new people who know this secret, use it to make you believe what they want you to believe, like for instance, that Mitt Romney's good for the country and Obama is 'foreign' or a 'socialist' of whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mike, it's a simple matter of perspective.

    If you believe that Jesus died for your sins, that you may not perish but have everlasting life, any contradictory parts are to be studied as 'difficult' parts. The 'difficulty' is that they are contradictory.

    You are prevented from seeing this, in a very simple way. Anyone who points out the contradiction is working his/her Satanic ways on you and, therefore, not to be believed.

    If you start to see the contradiction, this turns into a confusion, and naturally, if you are confused, you ask a fellow Christian, who will point out that those who seek to confuse you are working their Satanic ways on you AND that all you need do is contemplate Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross which was done to save your everlasting soul.

    Example. You know, since you have been told to believe, that Eve was tempted by Satan, which caused the Fall of Man.

    But, if you read the Garden of Eden story, it speaks of a serpent, an animal which, according to the story is condemed, by God, to be at odds with men, who will bash snakes on the head while snakes will bite men on their legs.

    Satan wasn't condemned to slither on the ground and bite men etc. Snakes were.

    Escape clause:- Satan assumed the form of a snake! Checkmate atheists(Satanic ones).

    No. God condemned snakes to crawl on their bellies etc., not Satan.

    This is an irreconcilable contradiction. God could not imagine the snakes HE was punishing was, a) just snakes, which live according to God's punishment, AND b) that the snake was in fact Satan, which God simply didn't mention or perhaps didn't recognise.

    Now, if you refuse to accept that this is a contradiction, you're being your own Christian counsel and declaring that this cannot be a contradiction since Jesus died on the Cross to atone for your sins.

    But it doesn't 'follow' that the story isn't contradicting the Christian meaning given to the story because Jesus did something, does it?

    So, that's called a Confusion Technique. In your mystery religion it's not necessarilly a bad thing to have passages which have contradictary meanings, since it shows the good Christian how devious unbelievers can be or at most creates this Confusion Technique which can easily be turned into a diversion. "Don't forget that you believe Jesus died on the Cross to save your soul!"

    All Christians can deny the contradictions or be temporarilly confused and diverted away from their confusion to an 'indisputable', and very personal Christian 'fact'.

    Now I'd like you to deny that there is any confusion about the serpent and God's punishment of it(serpents), quoting the Eden story if you like, and, on the other hand, the idea that the serpent was actually Satan, which God doesn't seem to notice.

    ReplyDelete
  36. And Mike, surely you must be able to see that if some early Christian wrote a letter to other Christians where he explains that the snake God punished in the Garden was, in fact, Satan, it doesn't make it all better simply because the letter writer was expounding Christian belief.

    All that explains is the Christian interpretation of the Garden story. To suggest that the Satan/actual snake contradiction is harmonized by an early Christian mention of the contradiction, "No no, the snake really WAS Satan.", is to deliberately forget that God punishes Adam, Eve and the serpent simply as a man, a woman and a snake, specifically mentioning 'crawling on it's belly' and 'biting men on their legs' and such, stuff which Satan doesn't do but snakes do do.

    (Yay! Managed to get 'do do' into a sentence!)

    ReplyDelete
  37. And Mike:-

    Escape clause No.2

    "It's just an allegory!"

    This story is not about facts and yet it is about facts. Fact, Jews, Muslims and Christians all accept this story as Biblical Truth.

    Basically, it's an allegory, but not 'just' an allegory, a Holy Scriptural Allegory, a none-of-your-business-you-damned(literally)-atheists kind of mystery 'allegory' with perhaps more than one level of truth, yea. (Not to sound Satanically devious or anything).

    Kind of a STFU atheist a-holes, since you don't believe in God/Jesus and his new Covenant with us it's NOYB anyways! BTW, try to b'lieve!!!

    If you can get that kind of mish-mash running around in your head, along with another Christian or two railing against the non-believer's lack of respect, that they're obviously Satanic and by God they don't believe the historical FACT that Jesus came down to save our everlasting souls, well, there's really no contradiction, no confusion here at all, is there?

    This is called 'muddying the waters'.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mike: Fossils

    We have fossils of men from 6000 years ago. They are just like us, Homo Sapiens. We have fossils from 8000 years ago, again just like us. 10,000 years ago, still the same. 15,000, still the same... and so on... we have fossils from a hundred thousand years ago, STILL the same, homo sapiens.... we have fossils of people from over a million years ago.. hey, they're starting to look different! Two million years ago, we have fossils that look more different... ten million years ago, we have ramipithicus, a little furry guy, three feet tall, way different from us.... three feet tall was all they grew to, and they had small brains, not that smart.... and you can go back further and our ancestors look different still... this btw, is also true with most animals on the planet, all of them really... we can find earlier forms... but you have to go back a ways... I personally own fossils that are 450 million years old. Older than the dinosaurs! Sea creatures that are like nothing around today.
    How do you account for this?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Everyone knows the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Some of them, the small flying dinosaurs, pterosaurs, became the birds. With the dino's out of the picture it allowed mammals to take over their place and diversify.

    Again, how does your fairy tale account for this?

    Tell me, please tell me, it isn't that you believe that the dinos all lived within the last 6000 years please! That would be so far beyond asinine that there is not a word for it....

    Asiten.... maybe even asieleven.... Asitwelve?

    ReplyDelete
  40. We know that species of animals (pick a species) tend to be around for between three and five million years, maybe ten million, and then tend to go extinct, or evolve into something else, a new species, but similar to the old species, never very different, usually just different enough that if one of the new species mated with one of the old species they could not produce viable offspring. So any individual species is very stable on the time frame of 6000 years... that's a blink of an eye to evolution. And yet to you, EVERYTHING happened in that blink! So then maybe god made the fossils and made them look old? God lied? Or what?
    Inquiring minds want to know, Mike! I want to know your explanation for this.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Fossils? HAha you fool! Put there to cloud mens' minds! Plate techtonics? HaHA you fool! Put there to cloud mens' minds!

    Face it Brian, Mike has rejected your reality and has substituted his own!

    He doesn't want to be alive on this planet and he's not shy about trying to convince everyone, by helping make this a Hellscape, that they don't want to be alive on this planet either!

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm starting to see that.

    It's appalling.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Why does god need mens' minds to be clouded?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Since God has been made in the image of smartasses, HE is a bit of a smartass who gets off on clouding our minds.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Cute... but why would god put the fossils here in the first place? To deceive us again, to cloud our minds? Why would he put things, millions of things, here that ALL point to him not existing, and not one solid comparable THING that shows that he does?

    I'll also direct this question at Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Why does he want us to think that he does not exist? It's obvious that he does, so why?

    To test us? That's the only logical answer, more tests from the guy that already knows what we will do...

    Why did god set this place up so that in order to believe in him you can't be a smart person who observes reality closely?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Above, I said 'it's obvious that he does'... what I meant of course is that it's obvious that god (if he existed, hah!) set this place up so that we'd think that he didn't make it. Not that it's obvious that god exists... um, NO.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Guess Mike is done getting his 'shot' in.

    What a coincidence that Mike then HarryC commented about the same time there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peeb, please tell me you're not that goddamn paranoid. Or am I inferring something you're not implying?

      Delete
    2. Ohhhh, I get it. Mike's a pharisee.

      A day late and a dollar short (sigh).

      Delete
  49. I wonder why Mike still comes here. I mean, I don't hate him, and I like him showing up, makes things interesting and all, but we do rag on him for his faith. (impossible *not* to!)
    What use is that to someone that has already 'decided?' Someone that should not have and seems not to have any desire to hear contrary opinions? Does he have doubts deep down and come here to try to see if we get to him or if he can still fend us off? Do we represent the 'ENEMY' to him and he wants to show us that we're evil or wrong somehow?
    It is interesting to me. I mean, I hope he always comes back, as I do Eric, but it's not like they don't get an earful when they do.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hi Mike

    I'm sure that you and I agree far more than we disagree, and that our areas of agreement concern for the most part the essentials, whereas our disagreements are primarily concerned with tangential issues. For instance, we both believe that god exists, that atheism is false, that the great Christian creeds express fundamental religious truths, and so on.

    But our areas of disagreement, though tangential to our faith, are not without consequences. For instance, I think that it's harmful to the Christian faith when Christians reject the clear findings of natural science and substitute them with the unclear interpretations (themselves resting on dubious hermeneutical methodologies and inconsistent theological conceptions) of complex texts written in ancient languages with ancient literary conventions. The scriptures teach us theology (understood broadly), not science, and we do ourselves and the scriptures a great disservice when we insist on interpretations of scripture that clearly contradict the uncontroversial data of modern science.

    The good news is that we don't have to reject science to bend the knee to god and become Christians! I hope that you'll look into this a bit more; if you do, you'll see that it's true. As far as I'm concerned, I have to say that if I understood Christianity as establishing the dichotomy you've set up -- either Christianity or science -- I'd very likely go with science. I could not believe in a god who would demand that I repudiate reason; such a being would not be worthy of worship. To the extent that god is the truth, Mike, truth can never be opposed to god, regardless of its source. At least tell me that you'll think about it!

    That aside, keep sharing the gospel, and god bless!

    ReplyDelete
  51. I think Romney would prefer not to have to nominate anyone for VP candidate.

    The trouble is, there's no one suitable. What Romney needs is another empty suit like himself, as close to the proverbial republican 'ham sandwich' as possible. Someone who tries to be everything to everyone, yet nothing to everyone, like himself.

    ReplyDelete
  52. What's wrong with Rubio? Besides the obvious... but if you were a republican, what would be wrong with Rubio?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Eric (I guess) said: "truth can never be opposed to god"

    Of course not, because as truth is discovered, you'll just modify your theology. Duh...

    ReplyDelete
  54. To the extent that god is the truth,
    ----------------
    Yes, to that extent...

    ReplyDelete
  55. Or deny truth, or demonize it, and/or call it a lie. Then it's okay.

    Hi Eric! (smooch!)

    ReplyDelete
  56. I like what you said to Mike, Eric. For whatever reason you said it, it was an honorable thing to do. And I think you did it well.

    ReplyDelete
  57. When push comes to shove Eric, if you ran the world it might not be too different; we mostly disagree on basic idea of god's reality, but as much as I want to love my neighbor Mike there, if he ran the place we'd be in a different reality entirely that wouldn't even have any room for the likes of me, and no compunction in proving that to me real fast.

    ReplyDelete
  58. The scriptures teach us theology (understood broadly), not science, and we do ourselves and the scriptures a great disservice when we insist on interpretations of scripture that clearly contradict the uncontroversial data of modern science.
    ----------------
    Augustine couldn't have said it better.

    Mike, are you listening? Hope so.

    ReplyDelete
  59. http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/When-did-modern-culture-begin

    Christian Science Monitor says Modern **culture** started thirty thousand years ago.

    Think about that, Mike! Amazing, isn't it? So much more interesting than a paltry six thousand years.... so much more to wonder at.

    ReplyDelete
  60. C'Mon Mike! Don't you not want to be "that guy" that thinks 'The Flintstones' was a National Geographic documentary?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Ian ,do you think you are the first to take a step back and say what did that say again?
    What would be the reasoning behind Gods judgment on a snake when satan was at fault for using it for a vehicle? It wouldn’t be the snakes fault …yet it has crawled on it’s belly just the same. Well here’s a thought , According to KJV satan transformed himself into a serpent and the judgment against the serpent was upon satan and the crawling on his belly was a sign signifying his defeat .

    ReplyDelete
  62. Eric, what if Mike's mind is hermeneutically sealed?

    ReplyDelete
  63. So why punish the snakes again?

    Love you, Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Mike, all the confusion is easily ended. The bible isn't literally true at all. That's what most christians think anyhow.... are they all not 'real' christians?

    ReplyDelete
  65. It sounds irrational and not logical because it is. It sounds confusing because it is. It's not a "mystery," Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Why is it that when we look at the fossils, we see lizard-like reptiles slowly over millions of YEARS, losing their legs due to living underground where they don't need them so much and they tend to get in the way, and then after they moved back above ground becoming today's snakes?
    And today, as we might expect, there are LIVING snakes that live unerground, and also living LEGLESS LIZARDS that also live underground and are heard to tell from the underground snakes? (Ears, they have ears, snakes don't)

    ReplyDelete
  67. Why also did god accidentally leave tiny stubs of legs on the boa/python family of snakes? He didn't shave them close enough?

    ReplyDelete
  68. A god that punishes a whole family of INNOCENT living creatures not even to prove, but to merely *commemorate* his point about Satan, is not a god that is significantly DIFFERENT from Satan.
    For that matter, punishing a whole family of creatures for the sins of one or two, is stupid, in a really evil way.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The bible says that I am guilty of the sin of Adam.

    If there is one sin that all people are guilty of, it is surely PRIDE.

    The Sin of Adam must be PRIDE. Or else, I am not guilty of it.

    If you think about it, that's what it was of course.

    Ironic how so many christians can't even see it, huh? Pride, I mean. Can't even see that they have set themselves above all other men. They feel so entitled to be since they are convinced that they and only they have the One Right Answer and everyone else is wrong, evil, and damned in one fell swoop.... a childish mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  70. the crawling on his belly was a sign signifying his defeat .
    -----------------
    Mike, think about this.

    What defeat? What defeat are you talking about? Satan gets off scot-free, the snakes suffer for him, and he got away with tempting humanity to sin.

    What are you talking about here, Mike? How did you get it so twisted around?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Satan won, Mike. No other way to put it. Won, as if he'd payed god off like a bad cop. God framed someone else. And his adoring fans bought it.
    Jeeze, this isn't hard, Mike...

    ReplyDelete
  72. And of course, god let the snake or Satan or whoever into the garden and allowed him to tempt adam and eve.... no other way to think about that, him knowing everything and all.

    ReplyDelete
  73. These questions, Mike, are the right ones to be asking yourself. I'm sorry if it hurts to think this way, but if god gave us minds to think with, then it's an insult to god not to use them. God must be logical and rational in order to be superior to us in the first place; when the bible shows you an illogical representation of god or the world, ask those questions about it, and don't be afraid of the answers.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "What would be the reasoning behind Gods judgment on a snake when satan was at fault for using it for a vehicle?"

    You're just turning the story around to make the Christian view of the story 'true' and phrasing it as a question. This is called rhetoric.

    God doesn't punish Satan, he punishes a snake, condemns snakes to 'crawl on their bellies', as we can see snakes doing.

    " It wouldn’t be the snakes fault …yet it has crawled on it’s belly just the same."

    It's a silly childish story. What did snakes or serpents do before God punished them, grab their tail and roll along like a wheel?

    " Well here’s a thought , According to KJV satan transformed himself into a serpent and the judgment against the serpent was upon satan and the crawling on his belly was a sign signifying his defeat ."

    Here's another thought. It's not according to the story of the Garden of Eden that snakes happen to be being punished in place of Satan.

    Here's another thought. If the object was to get Adam and Eve to disobey God, the serpent WON! A snake crawling on it's belly is no hardship, for a snake.

    So, you have just exemplified another escape clause. Any point that seems obviously up for grabs. i.e. God punishes the serpent and doens't mention Satan, not even once.

    Escape clause:- Talk about the serpent being Satan as if it's not the point in question at all, as if the question really is, "Why do snakes get punished when it was Satan?"

    My question, which you are simply ducking, is, "If Satan were involved at all, why didn't God address that?", there was no better opportunity to introduce Satan to Adam and Eve than right then, so why would God just leave that little piece of information hidden?


    Gen.3[1] Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

    This implies that the serpent was just another beast of the field.

    Gen.5[14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

    Once again, God isn't implying that the serpent is a malevolent spirit, but a beast, now a cursed beast, which God apparently thinks eats dust.

    Could you tell us which snake is, you know, the dust-eating snake? Hey, maybe they could replace vacuum cleaners?

    You say, "According to KJV satan transformed himself into a serpent.."

    Do you have a Book, chapter and verse on this? I think that you are just making that up.

    This is how this works. If the KJV Bible says that, it is true.
    If you say it, and it's not written in the KJV Bible, it's not true and you are making it up to make what you say seem more authoritative.

    So, does the Bible say that, or are you just bullshitting now???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you ever seen a talking snake? lol Talk about hard to believe This one takes first place.

      Delete
    2. No The bible did not say that. I put a little spin on it.lol

      Delete
  75. Unless... Mike.... do you believe snakes are still, to this day, Satanic?

    Please tell me no.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Gen.5[14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

    Just explain this, in as straightforward a way as you can. I know it's hard not to dance around a question, hard not to be a great deceiver, a satan.

    The question. Satan was originally an angel in Heaven who warred on the Heavenly host and was cast down from Heaven, right? Wasn't Satan and his host already cursed?

    What on Earth would be the need to recurse Satan again, simply 'cos he showed up as a serpent? God just pretended not to know? Satan couldn't just unpossess the serpent and 'spirit off' somewhere, like in da movies, before God showed up?

    Why bother possessing the serpent anyway, why not just possess Adam or Eve directly?

    Or is this just an old time story allegorizing peoples' fear of snakes?

    "But why are there poisonous snakes daddy?"... "God did it!"

    "And this, son, is why everytime we come across one we beat the Jew, er, the snake, to death!"

    ReplyDelete
  77. My family firmly believed that whenever you saw a snake, you were obligated to kill it. True.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Snakes don't eat dust. Are you supposed to take that part literally too, Mike? Snakes are all predators. No dust. Lots of mice and such.

    God was definitely punishing the snake. Above all cattle and every other, that's OTHER, beast of the field.
    Is Satan a beast of the field Mike?

    ReplyDelete
  79. See Mike, we here already know why the Genesis story doesn't SAY that the snake is the devil.

    It was written before the devil became popular. See, it was written before Christ, remember?

    When the new testament was written and compiled, they tried as best possible to mesh it in with the Old Testament, but they were never meant to go together. The NT was more of a bunch of stories that the people of the time kinda grafted onto the old testament. They needed that snake to be the devil. But originally it was just a snake. See? That makes SENSE, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not unless you believe in talking snakes

      Delete
  80. In fact I believe that originally when the OT mentions the devil it seems to confuse him with the king of Tyre. A lot. So of course the apologists have figured out how, if you squint just right, it refers to the devil.

    ReplyDelete
  81. The Biblical references to serpent make a small point that they are 'different' from 'beasts of the field'. But the point is not that they are supernatural or that they are different in that they're not considered animals, just animals.

    In fact they're mostly mentioned as being a nasty animal, not exactly a 'beast' of the field, though to be sure, still, 'of the field'. This makes sense since most animals around have the hair/fur and the four legs and that.

    Serpents are mentioned as a different category only in the same sense that birds and scorpions and so on are different categories than the 'standard' beasts of the field.

    And, while people are generally scared of snakes since they might get bit and poisoned, they demand a kind of disgusted respect that other animals don't. Not sure if this would actually give them some kind of supernatural status in ancient religious settings, though that is likely, but only for the same kind of reason that living things have some claim to supernaturality since they have 'spirit', meaning 'breath', or 'breath of life', in them.

    Honestly snakes may well be venerated as god-like or loathed as false-god-like, but taking that idea to the point where a snake in a story simply must be SATAN, or some old half forgotten idea that a snake is at least 'in league' with SATAN or a 'familiar' of SATAN, is ignoring the plain words of Genesis and it's simple allegory that snakes are to be avoided... 'cos they might be fuckin' poisonous!

    But it's so easy for them to talk down their snooty noses and claim that God isn't 'really' saying that snakes 'eat dust', just that well, their heads are at ground level and all.

    Christ on a stick, Brian, I bet a large percentage of Jews, Christians and Muslims literally believe that snakes are actually evil, what with their 'laying in wait' and their expressionless stare and their tendency to bite you, yes you, so you better pray that you don't get bit while you're roaming the land preaching the Word to people!

    Wait though, if preachers are 'of God', God wouldn't allow his disciples to be poisoned by Satan's familiars, would HE? Therefore good Ghristian disciples must be immune from the snake's evil!

    Q.E.D. (They might even say something stupid like this in the KJV of the Bible, that smarter Christians regard as 'fucking nuts', what?)

    ReplyDelete
  82. My family used to believe that snakes, and even cats, could stare at a bird in a tree and hypnotize it and it would fall out of the tree.

    My grandmother and her family including my mom also believed in 'malocchio.' Italian for, yes, "The Evil Eye!" Total catholics, but with village witchcraft thrown in for good measure I guess... my grandmother used to do a ritual (didn't call it that, but that's what it was) with a bowl of water, dripping oil into it off her fingers and praying 'special prayers...' if the oil stayed in separate droplets on the surface then the person with the headache or whatever, didn't have 'malocchio' but if they broke up and disappeared than the person DID. Now when I was ten or so I told her and my mom and her sister, that if grandmother had perhaps some SOAP residue under her fingers, the oil would break up, and DEMONSTRATED it for them using a bowl of water and some oil. They HATED THAT SHIT. Practically thought I was evil for it! I'll never forget it.

    They were mentally neutered, just about, by their faith and it's culture.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Oh, and even my mom believed that, just maybe, cats stole the breath away from newborn babies.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Oh those old witches knew about the soap trick. They just didn't like that you stole their mojo by knowing about the soap trick.

    ReplyDelete
  85. No doubt the further back we go, the more rituals there were which could demonstrate this or that, until, well, chemistry totally fucked them up and they were reduced to poisoning people, which they then would deserve to be burned for. LOL

    Love potion. Make the guy sick and send the maiden in with the antidote! Works for me!

    ReplyDelete
  86. How 'bout this. Long lasting slow poison, sending the maiden in with quick but short lasting antidote. Every time the man sees the maiden who loves him, he gets a bit better, then when she is gone, the poor bastard gets 'love sick' again! Too bad for the witch if he dies and the maiden rats on the witch though.

    Then she is fucked! She better know her measuring!

    ReplyDelete
  87. I still don't see how god punished the devil for tempting eve. The snakes got it instead. That's just stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  88. There's only one conclusion: Adam and Eve, were set up!

    The devil paid off god or something, to set the whole thing up. Maybe another bet? God seems to have a gambling problem...

    ReplyDelete
  89. See, that thing, the malocchio ritual with the oil and water... my mom and grandmother used to show me when they did that and the oil 'disappeared' and basically said to me 'see, it happens! It must be true that malocchio is responsible!'

    Bad mistake to tell me shit like that. That, was a challenge!

    Much like Mike and most other christians, they can't stand a rational explanation for their dearly-held beliefs and myths.... it only pisses them off. The idea that they might actually be wrong never enters their minds.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Not unless you believe in talking snakes
    ---------------
    So you're admitting that you do not believe in talking snakes now? And that you lied about that bible passage?

    Interesting. Now I don't know what to believe from you. Are you really a sensible person pretending to have sold his soul to senselessness?

    So, how did a snake tempt Eve if it couldn't talk? Or did all animals in the garden talk like in children's cartoon versions?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Telling us that you may believe in a talking snake is not something that will leap out at us and we'll say 'oh that Mike, always with the jokes' you know. It's no less silly than the rest of what you've been telling us that you believe.

    So what's up? What DO you believe in?

    ReplyDelete
  92. There was a fox which came across some grapes hanging down from a branch and it was too high to reach no matter how he tried jumping.

    Eventually he gave up and went away imagining that the grapes were likely sour anyways.

    Do you believe that I saw a fox wandering through the woods which came upon a bunch of grapes that were too high for it to reach?

    Do you believe that the fox went away imagining that the grapes were sour?

    Or, Mike, do you believe that some people, upon seeing something that they really want, but cannot get, upon realizing that they'll never get it, decide that's likely no good for them anyways?

    Sour grapes.

    Now if you believe that the fox/sour grapes story contains 'truth', why isn't it possible that the Garden of Eden story couldn't be a story told to children since time forgotten, told and retold around the fire, containing reasons why there are girls and boys, why we ought to fear snakes, why men and women get married and why God(the everlasting) isn't sitting around the fire telling us this.(HE is mad at us! You see?)

    Now the notion of God is a great intro. into the notion of a king or an emperor. The king(let's say) owns all the land and the peeps in it. You might own a mansion and have five wives and twenty kids who all help take in the crops, the chicken eggs, the grapes and make the wine and cheese and so forth, but the king has the power of life and death, he can come by and take what he wants from you and if you sass him, off with your head, so you'd be better off to have some bloody respect!

    So the king wants to be loved too though, no-one wants to be thought of as just some sociopath who can waltz in and fuck with you just 'cos he has an armed guard bigger than yours, no.

    So the idea that there's an all powerful God helps with the whole process of why you should have to fear, respect and even love some guy who you've likely never met.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Well said, sir Pboy. To us, this is so obvious, but perhaps Mike never thought of it...

    ReplyDelete
  94. Jesus' "Render unto Caesar" quote for example... nice to encode "PAY YOUR TAXES AND SHUT UP ABOUT IT!" into the religion.

    ReplyDelete
  95. That's why the republican christians don't question their leaders. Don't investigate their claims in depth and with eyes open. They have 'faith' in them, as they believe they should. As they were conditioned to do. And of course, they are so tied to them that they even automatically hate whom their leaders tell them is to be hated.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I mean, who in their RIGHT MIND would follow a leader like Mitt Romney WITHOUT brainwashing?

    HA! Nobody!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong. I'd follow that hair into a hopeless battle. I'd pledge a loath of loyalty to Romney's masterful coif!

      Delete
  97. They repeat the talking points without any analysis.... like prayers almost. Like they quote the bible. It's all connected. Operation Big Lie is a two-millennia mindfuck. Plenty of time to work out the bugs. It's so smooth.... when you're on the inside, it all looks normal. And the religion puffs up their pride to the point where they are, in their own minds, always correct by definition. If their leaders say it, it's correct, and if you say it isn't, you're a filthy liberal (atheist)....

    ReplyDelete
  98. Those who are incapable of questioning themselves, are handy to have around if you're a leader that doesn't want to be questioned.

    Mike, can you see that any of what we're talking about here is true? Does any of it ring true to you, I mean? What is the difference between the man that you would have to be in order to see that it's true, and the man that you are now, I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Here's another obvious thing Mike. The construction of the Gospels.

    Religion is 'strong' in these guys, they've been at this game for hundreds and hundreds of years. It shouldn't be the least bit surprising for anyone to realise that while some were going about trying to be the embodiment of the Jewish Messiah by creating an army and expelling the gentiles, others were studying anything and everything that could possibly be prophecies concerning the coming of said Messiah.

    Some of these also studied Hellenistic mysteries, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the man-of-war Messiah wasn't going to show up, perhaps a Platonic-like figure would. In fact using the O.T. prophecies they could actually construct a story-line for this figure, beginning with a virgin birth and ending with his death and resurrection.

    But that's exactly how works of fiction are created. You start with a story-line, set it as best you can in the recent past with historical figures or at least plausibly historical figures, and out to like-minded people the basic story goes. They then embellish the story with their particular nuances which perhaps add to the story an O.T. prophecy which the original author(s) couldn't manage to write in.

    Of course the main character's name is Our Savior, the Branch, in keeping with some prophet or others thing about 'a branch of David',(Jesus the Nazarene), this is tricky since opponents can just counter with, 'Who says he is a Nazarene?', so you say he is from Nazareth, instead, and so on, and he must have more than all the attributes and sayings of the Godly du jour, since your claim is, in fact that HE is the real deal and they are but faint shadows of HIM.

    Jesus, the new Moses, couldn't lead his people home to a new physical Promised Land, so HE had to be leading his people home to their spiritual eternal(and very Platonic) home.

    Seems reasonable to me.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Heaven is the Giant Carrot.

    Jesus is the Official Carrot Dangler.

    And God the Father is the very unpredictable and stern Stick.

    ReplyDelete
  101. The fact that, right there in the story, it says it's the word of god and that you have to believe all of it or else, is to be expected of a story concocted by men with agendas that they wanted to spread and become popular.
    They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, too.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Mike, do you ever, ever, ever ask yourself, even for a split-second, do you ever ask yourself 'what if they're right; what if I've been lied to? What if the whole thing isn't true?'

    Nah, right? Never happens, right? Why, that's "agin' yer religun!"

    ReplyDelete
  103. So, Mike, instead of starting from the premise that Jesus is God come down to Earth as a man in order to atone for our sins and save believers eternal souls, we could start from the earliest writings and traditions, the O.T. of course and study that for messianic prophecies, then story-ifying them.

    "The Hebrew term Midrash (plural midrashim, "story" from "to investigate" or "study") is a homiletic method of biblical exegesis."

    If we investigate the entire O.T. and find messianic prophecies, we're stuck with various disconnected vague prophecies, but they're all supposed to be about the one man. Of course if you've investigated individual prophecies there seems to be problems with some of them, that the O.T. book is talking about someone else, 'young woman' is translated as 'virgin', confusion between nazerite or 'holy man'(with the long hair and beard, that hippy look they give Jesus), nazarene, branch of David, or perhaps a new branch of Judahism is prophesied.

    Anyways the waters get muddied really quickly, some of the so called prophecies, now apparently the entire aim of the O.T. are just some quote taken from the O.T. and supposedly said again by someone in the N.T.

    Now not to put too fine a point on it(or am I, I just liked saying that), the Gospels go so far as to explicitly say stuff like Jesus did or said such and such which fullfilled prophecy!

    Seems they didn't want to take a chance of writing the story based on all these prophecies and no-one noticing, especially some of the 'iffy' prophecies.

    In the end it's a bit of a mish-mash, giving 'students' lots to study and many 'difficult' parts to 'interpret with the guidance of the Holy Spirit'! If in confusion, ask an expert, who will happily guide you to ignore it and think of Jesus on the Cross, saving your everlasting soul!

    Look for that, it's classic Confusion Technique, when faced with cognitive dissonance, people will cling to any 'out' as an answer, even if the supposed solution isn't any answer to the problem at all.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Here's the thing Mike, we live in an absurd universe where if we try to find answers to supposedly basic questions like 'why are we here' and 'why is there something instead of nothing at all' and so on, the universe has no answers, it just is, caring nothing for you nor I.

    Camus says that when we recognise this we have three options. The first is suicide. The universe cares not for me nor anyone, I'm out of here! But it's not a very elegant solution.

    The second solution is a leap of faith. The universe, according to the faithful cannot be cold and heartless and bleak in the face of our searching for meaning, therefore 'have faith that there is a spiritual reality that makes more sense, gives you a permanent place in it'.

    The third solution is to accept the absurdity of it. Like if you get stuck in an elevator and after awhile you go through all the reasons why, why you, why now and so on. But you realise that there is no deep meaning to figure out. There is no enigma wrapped in a puzzle inside a pinata, no.

    You and I are going to live our lives, perhaps from crisis to crisis, perhaps ignoring all crises and enjoying our time on this giant blue marble, fulfilling our duty to our D.N.A. in our children, or no.(leave that to your siblings maybe), and in the end, we will have no more worries, no more debt, no more anything.

    I think that is a peaceful conclusion. Let others play their games and fight their way up the social ladder or whatever. Even a ruler of the entire World will eventually die. How equitable is that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will comment latter Pboy I need to work on something else right now.

      Delete
  105. Mike, the whole point of the programming that you went through, is to think of the afterlife instead of this one, so that other people who control you can have more in this life at your expense and you won't think to complain about that. So it's 'keep your eye on heaven' and don't care about this life, we've got it covered. Now be a good christian and shut up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never went through a programming as you would suggest.
      No one controls me Brian... and I'm not catholic nor do we have rituals in the Baptist church least not the one I am affiliated with.

      Delete
  106. And the proof is in the pudding.... do you christians vote against your own interests and for the interests of the wealthy instead? Do you believe that's not true, that you really are voting in your interests when you do that?

    You've been mentally neutered. I'd be really pissed off at that if I were you.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Well they're worshipping the hierarchy, just the general idea that there is a hierarchy where, at least they're not at the bottom.

    Even a homeless Christian can feel as if at least he/she is not at the bottom of the ladder. Why, there's all those non-Christians who are destined to burn in Hell for their wrong beliefs/ no beliefs. Then below that there's all the demons and Satan Himself, isn't there?

    ReplyDelete
  108. I always got the impression that Christian church services (especially Catholic and Anglican services which are high in "ritual" content) could easily be viewed by outsiders as magical. There's incantations, symbology, special clothing, magic items such as crosses, wafers and wine (of which the wafers and wine magically turn to the flesh and blood of a dead guy!) that respond to mumbled magical spells...

    Call me a heretic, I don't care.

    Christianity is just so much mumbo-jumbo in a dress.

    Dominus Vobiscum et cum Spiritu Tuo, won't you eat my sleazy pancakes just for Saintly Alfonzo...

    ReplyDelete
  109. The High Latin Mass of the Roman Catholic Church was designed to be a magical ritual, taking it's many parts from pre-existing rituals followed by the 'pagans.' They didn't want to outlaw all magic, they wanted a MONOPOLY on it.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Right, Brian...

    It's so OBVIOUSLY contrived and fake, it's inconceivable that intelligent people like Eric can swallow it whole.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I think about that a lot... I can't put myself in Eric's place. I can put myself in Mikes place.... but not Eric's. I've always suspected that it was all a contrived thing to take advantage of the reality that there's a much shorter path to fame and fortune for a smart guy like Eric on the side where such people are a rarity.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Of course, thinking about it, the religion, belief in god, causes people to talk themselves into belief. They want to believe; so they tell themselves what they already know that they need to hear... So perhaps an intelligent man must needs a more sophisticated argument in order to fool himself.

    I think that's it.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

    Yep.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Pboy said,

    Even a homeless Christian can feel as if at least he/she is not at the bottom of the ladder. Why, there's all those non-Christians who are destined to burn in Hell for their wrong beliefs/ no beliefs. Then below that there's all the demons and Satan Himself, isn't there?
    -----------------------------
    You got it all wrong Ian, Christians DO NOT think like that.
    In fact most Christians I know feel bad about the situation of unbelievers.
    Mainly most Christians are thankful they have made their peace with God…

    ReplyDelete
  115. Too bad Mike, that most of all that is egotism, feeling good because you're 'special' and 'chosen' and 'good enough' and you've checked all the boxes.... You're mostly concerned about yourselves and your souls, and are in terror of hell so you are scared like little children... and mostly like to feel good about how we unbelievers aren't going to the good place according to you and a bunch of dead men who wrote the bible in order to control people like you.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Schadenfreude is practically a sacrament to most christians.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Mainly most Christians are thankful they have made their peace with God…
    ---------------
    So why do they have to try to make the laws of this country into christian ones then? Why must they INTERFERE with those who do not believe as they do? Why do they automatically HATE so much, and so many different kinds of people? Why are they trying to bring on WWIII, Mike? And destroy the economy while pretending to help it out?
    It's all BULLSHIT, that's why.

    ReplyDelete
  118. You got it all wrong Ian, Christians DO NOT think like that.
    -------------------
    Not when you ask them, no. They never admit it.

    See, I look to actions and not words Mike. You should try it. Actions give away the liars, Mike. Not words. Words can be made to mean anything.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Once upon a time, before time in fact, there was nothing but a powerfully magical, telepathic disembodied mind.

    God, we'll call it was, and still is the ultimate authority, the unmoved mover, the creator of all time and space and things living and not living, therefore it is the ultimate 'he'.(HE)

    If you're saying, "What happened next?", you are a good candidate for being a theist!

    If you're saying, "Get the fuck out!", well, you're not.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Hey, Deuteronomy says: He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

    Does circumcision count?

    Jeeze, those rules are sure strict, huh Mike? So I guess the point is, don't get your nuts blown off or you're going to hell. As if you needed hell after getting your nuts blown off...

    The bible is STUPID.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Maybe if I speak in biblese?

    Mike, I know that you believe in all of the words in the bible... so how do you decide which words you don't believe in, in the bible? Because I can SEE that you don't believe in all the words while you're believing in all the words, so how did you make those decisions which you never made?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Pboy, and the rest of the gang here, what do you all think of the Chic-Fil-A controversy? I find it depressing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's encouraging to think some conservatives find buying chicken an adequate expression of disgust.

      Delete
  123. Its overblown, Chick-fil-a is a privately held company that "keeps the sabbath". Why is anyone surprised they don't support gay marriage?

    With that said, Mike Huckabee is a goon.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Mike, I'd like to do some sort of experiment where "In the beginning..." can be used predictively. Care to help?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd like to ask you a few ? about your religious past care to fill in the blanks... All of it, who what where when and why.

      Delete
  125. "You got it all wrong Ian, Christians DO NOT think like that.
    In fact most Christians I know feel bad about the situation of unbelievers.
    Mainly most Christians are thankful they have made their peace with God…"

    We live in a world of deceit Mike, where a simple question obviously doesn't mean, literally, what it asks, but there is one main alternative followed by less likely other options.

    This B.S. is where our verbal fencing with women comes in all the time.

    But other people deceive themselves all the time. Teabaggers are always coming back to their Christian roots, yet they constantly rail against illegal immigrants, even though these poor people are simply trying to scrape by like everyone else.

    Sure you can kid yourselves that you're simply worried for lost souls, and this would be a stance which would be comforting to you and the Christians you know, of course. This doesn't give you guys rights to use politics to try to fix what you perceive is wrong with us, yet a helluva lot of you do just that.

    This seems to be working like this for immigration, womens' rights, the rights of the poor, to the really creepy, underhanded laws that your representatives and legislators are willing to step over the line when it comes to making laws.

    Honestly you guys are pathetic when you justify your, what can only be termed 'evil', in the name of your god.

    ReplyDelete
  126. It can only be termed "Evil." I've been saying this for a long time. If Evil exists, this is it. Doing harm while believing it to be doing good, is surely Evil at work.

    ReplyDelete
  127. If Evil exists, this is it. Doing harm while believing it to be doing good, is surely Evil at work.If Evil exists, this is it.

    I disagree with this. This is only "evil" as far as someone else with a differing opinion of what "harm" is concerned (and you need to have perfect information and KNOW that what they are doing is actually causing net harm, etc...)

    Surely doing harm while believing it to be harmful, is objectively far worse and more "eville" than doing harm while believing it to be good?

    ReplyDelete
  128. Now I disagree. The harm is the same. Doing harm while knowing it to be harmful does the harm, alone. Doing harm while believing it to be good, in a religious context, causes others to also believe as you do and also do harm while believing it to be good... and it spreads to more and more people like a virus. Leaving that one person that knows he does harm in the dust. See?

    ReplyDelete
  129. Also remember that the actual number of people that do harm and know that they are doing harm is vanishingly small. Most people that do harm, even if not religious, hold the belief that they are not doing harm but instead are doing good. I would include Hitler in this category. He didn't believe that he himself was evil. He believed it was all good in the long run, hafta break a few eggs and so forth... The type of psychotic that revels in doing harm and realizes it, is rather rare I'd wager. Most, religious or not, believe they are doing good, or at least do not believe they are doing any harm.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Andres Breivik the Norway shooter, sincerely believes he was doing a good and necessary thing. Timothy McVeigh. Jim Jones. Stalin. Hitler.

    When's the last time you heard of someone doing something comparable, and when they were caught they said something like "I just wanted to do something really bad that would make people think I was evil because I like the idea of just being evil and hurting people makes me laugh...

    I mean, it does happen. But you have to think in order to come up with someone. It's rare. And if that paragraph above continues with something like 'I am the devil! Muah ha ha ha!' then it's STILL a matter of belief, only in this case it's a strong reaction AGAINST the normal current of belief. In order to believe you're the devil, you still have to have 'faith.'

    ReplyDelete
  131. Under normal circumstances one person that is evil and knows it and revels in it, is not capable of causing other otherwise decent people to follow him and do harm also. They are repelled. But a person that does the same or equivalent harm and has his story (that he believes) that shows the harm to be in reality the highest good, that motherfucker gets a following!

    ReplyDelete
  132. I was trying to think of one person that did harm and knew it as he did it.

    A serial killer like Ted Bundy perhaps? But I am inclined to think that while perhaps Mr. Bundy didn't believe that what he was doing was a good thing, I also am inclined to think that he didn't think it was such a very bad thing. The evil of it was not what appealed to him. He had a desire and could not see anything that stood in it's way... He could not differentiate between good and evil. He didn't choose to be evil. He chose to kill and eat people. Perhaps I am wrong in this and he did revel in his own evil. If so, still, this is far less common that the person that does evil and believes it to be good. And how many people visited Bundy in prison and started websites talking about how misunderstood and good he really was? Like when say a christian kills an abortion doctor?
    No following. Those people have no following. The evil is not CONTAGIOUS. CONTAGIOUS evil is far worse.

    ReplyDelete
  133. The kind of evil where the perpetrator is aware of the fact that he or she is evil, can kill people. Sometimes many people.

    However, the kind of evil where the perpetrator sincerely believes it to be good, the highest good, well that kind of evil destroys whole societies, and perhaps someday the whole world.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Back to the person that believes himself to be the devil, or just a really evil person.

    This is I think often a reaction to the SANCTIONED evils in our society. Religion, mostly. The person can see that much evil is being done in the name of good, and some of that evil is directed at him, so he reacts to it by deciding 'okay, you assholes believe I'm evil, well I'LL SHOW YOU EVIL!'
    Anton Szandor LaVey for example. Starting the church of satan, in reaction to his valid and correct perception that the christian god is evil. So if god is evil, then the devil must be the good one.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Interesting discussion, to me at any rate...

    ReplyDelete
  136. I was trying to think of one person that did harm and knew it as he did it.


    I can think of one...

    My second X-wife Carol. That cunt HAD to know that what she was doing would hurt other people, and she did it anyway. I even WANTED there to be divine justice so she could suffer for eternity (for about ten minutes...), but I knew deep down that there is no ultimate justice. My only solace is knowing that she's going to die alone and bitter, thinking the world owes her a living while she spends all her efforts scraping by on charity and welfare.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Oh, yeah...

    She was raised Catholic, too.

    ReplyDelete
  138. But she is likely a sociopath who can only empathize with others to the point of figuring out how best to take advantage of them.

    The know how people feel and use it against them. Like the terminator, they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be convinced that there is any better way to live, they can be sweet and innocent to those who are not their target and when confronted will vehemently deny knowledge of their plan, which is to 'crush you'.

    ReplyDelete
  139. To catch a sociopath out, you must wait until he/she is in data collection mode. This is where they are pumping you for weaknesses and giving you a break from the mental onslaught. They know you can only handle so much before you'd either need to be in a hospital or will strongly consider running.

    When a sociopath is in that mode, you concoct something that has 'bothered you all your life', your big toes are crooked or too big, something you sincerely couldn't give a shit about.

    When the random arguments start, they're never 'engineered' by them, wait for the mention of your horrible toes!

    Now that you have recognised your sociopath who is targetting you, take comfort in the fact that he/she cannot help it. Don't find a list of symptoms that he/she matches and confront him/her with that, there is no cure. You will illicit sociopathic reactions though. You'll find out it's all your fault, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  140. So likely she was a victim of catholic 'morality.' One of the damaged soul-less ones who lost their hearts years ago. Psychological manipulation and abuse if not actual physical abuse from parental figures might be in the mix as well. Been there, done that.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Or perhaps just a total lack of any teachings as a child about empathy and love of others.

    We humans are often rather fucked up. I'm hardly exempt.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Ryan's on the right track, hence him putting 'evil' in quotes. Even by discussing the concepts good/evil and their "examples," we are assuming their existence. They don't exist. Why buy into core concepts of religious mythology when their veracity is equal to 'god,' 'the afterlife' or 'messiah?'

    ReplyDelete
  143. It isn't so much what she did to me (I've been rejected before and since; shit happens), but what she did to (and continues to do) to our son. She shopped him around to doctors looking for some "condition" that she could use to collect disability on his behalf, knowing at the time that she was only going to use him as a source of income when the child support ran out (he'll be 24 in January, still lives with her last I heard).

    ...Which leads me to believe that she only allowed herself to get pregnant in the first place so she could collect the child support. Her exact words to me, when she found out she was pregnant (Mother's Day, 1988): "Thanks for getting me pregnant! Now I'm going to have to put off my career for three years while I raise this fucking brat of yours!"

    ReplyDelete
  144. I don't believe in "evil", but that bitch deserves to die slowly and most painfully.

    ReplyDelete
  145. What I was getting at with Mike was his right-wing attitude. The entire right-wing has drivelled down to becoming the anti-liberal wing. How should Mike, MI and them feel about any particular topic? Well, let's see what the liberals think first, we think the opposite of that.

    The 'old right' was a bit war-mongering, a bit elitist(they'll steal terminology any time they can obviously), but the dirty 30s scared the Hell out of everyone and they realised that we can't have a proletariat, masses with no rights at all, completely disenfranchised, since the real economy, the percentage of actors, who is spending, who is buying, shrinks, the number of owners of 'stuff' shrinks, the economy disappears actually.

    If I owned all the World and you all rented from me and worked at my factories, in my stores etc. etc. this is not a good thing since I control, fuck, I AM government, peoples' well-being is directly connected to which side of bed I wake up in the morning.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely! I'd be another Hitler, not happy with owning one nation, next thing, a continent, a World!

    Monopoly at it's worst. These idiots should take time to reflect, to see the Hitler in themselves, in their leaders.

    Given a free hand there's no telling what could happen since we have no free will yet we can rationalize anything to each other.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Harry, I disagree. There is such a thing as Evil. It's a four-letter word and it's found in the dictionary, and since there is not any such thing as a *metaphysical* evil, the word is thus consigned to mean 'the worst kind of bad.' When someone is the worst kind of bad, so bad it starts to look creatively bad, bad like a symphony of badness, that is called 'evil.' I'd say that when a person is so bad that they believe they're really the very highest form of good, that person is totally freed up internally, conscience-wise, that they are capable of anything, even ending the world on a whim.
    I've defined myself on this word before. I like the word. It satisfies a need. Just 'bad' isn't severe enough.
    For instance I'd say that the bible is evil... (where's botts?) It doesn't just do harm, it corrupts people with pride and confuses them to the point of schizophrenia, and then they do the evil. It's contagious badness.

    ReplyDelete
  147. But if you prefer to not confuse the terms with biblical or dogmatic ones, we need a word for 'really fucking bad person.'

    Perniciously and sadistically destructive while believing one's self to be the polar opposite of that, thus enabling one's self to be perniciously and sadistically destructive in the first place. What word can we use for that, Harry?

    ReplyDelete
  148. Ryan, that woman does sound bad enough to qualify for 'evil.' My first wife was about comparable... had to take knives away from her... she was cheating on me while being super-jealous of me at the same time.... thought the very idea of having a baby was akin to having an alien parasite growing in her body, then changed her mind, told me one day that she'd been thinking and lately realized that she DID want a baby! (Paused for a couple of minutes to let that sink in to my head, saw my eyes light up with happiness, aha, now I understood her constant anger and frustration, all will be well after all, we'll have a baby....) and then let the hammer drop on my heart by saying 'but not with you.'
    She loved to see me hurt. Made her day. What a psycho bitch from hell... I used to call her 'PBH' to my friends.

    She didn't think that she herself was evil though. No way. She believed only the very best about herself. It was everyone else that was bad. Since she believed she was so good, she could be so bad and not even notice it of herself.

    ReplyDelete
  149. She was an atheist. BUT:

    Christian family, abusive father, drunk mother. Daddy beat the crap out of her on a regular basis all her young life. And so on.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Another thing about her: She always lied even when the truth would serve, just to stay in practice.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Did I ever tell you guys about the time, actually a couple of times, that we were sleeping and I woke up to her beating the shit out of me with her FISTS? See, she had a dream that I was cheating on her.... and just woke up and started thrashing me for it! FUNNY, HUH?

    ReplyDelete
  152. Ed:

    Did your ex there really know that she herself was a bad person, really? You say 'she had to know' but in my experience that is almost never true.
    Do you think that she ever said to herself, 'shit, you're not a good person at all, are you?' I really doubt it. But it's possible I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  153. I think Ed’s right, any women who would act like that about their child is the perfect example of EVIL.
    Sorry Ed.

    ReplyDelete
  154. When I said "she had to know", I was referring to the part about her 'knowing' that her actions would hurt other people.

    I imagine she thought she was doing the "right things", just that she didn't give a shit that it would be hurtful to those around her.

    ReplyDelete
  155. I never said she was evil, Mike. I don't believe in "evil". But she doesn't have a shred of conscience or empathy if she can use people like that just for financial gain.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Ed, would you consider the Colorado movie shootings evil?
    Or how about the slaughter of innocent people in the world trade center acts of terror.
    You can not go around with your head in the sand and say evil doesn’t exist because you simply refuse to deny the existence of good / evil merely because it is associated with God.

    ReplyDelete
  157. First, my head is NOT in the sand.

    Second, it depends on how you define "evil". If your definition of evil is equivalent to "really, really bad things", then I'm OK with you calling something really, really bad 'evil'. OTOH, if your definition of "evil" includes spiritual forces of darkness exhibiting supernatural malevolent intent, I don't believe in those things, and such "evil" doesn't exist, for me.

    There's no "Cosmic Struggle between Good and Evil", Mike. There's just a bunch of people on this little rock we call Earth doing shitty things to each other, and blaming it on anything but themselves. If you don't believe that, it's YOU who has his head in the sand, my friend.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Amen to that, Ed.

    Mike, you have no idea how badly you've been misled. But we do. It's a 'sin' what they did to you, my friend. You bought the Biggest Lie Ever Told. And here you are, all self-important, *instructing* us on how we're the wrong ones. You're just being led around by your own pride.

    ReplyDelete
  159. It's okay Mike, most pastors are proud men. They need others to 'rely' on them. They need to feel like leaders. The Big Cheese. Someone that others look up to. It feeds the ego. They of course mistake this for God's Grace or some such thing. Nope, it's egotism. Pride. The sin of Pride, if you will.

    ReplyDelete
  160. How do you know that you were not lied to, that you were not misled, that the whole religion isn't a fairy tale used to control people?

    How do you KNOW, Mike? You've never checked.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Another mass shooting today. I think they're gonna get more common.

    This time it was the Sikhs. Wanna bet it was because they looked "Ay-Rab?"

    ReplyDelete
  162. Though police have not given any details on the identity or motive of the shooter, or released the identities of the victims, sources have told ABC News the shootings are the work of a "white supremacist" or "skinhead." - ABC News

    ReplyDelete
  163. I was just wondering what Mike thinks when it comes to politics and economy.

    I know of one guy who has a web-page, he is convinced that Hitler was a socialist since, hey, it's right there in the party name, National Socialist!

    Can you imagine that? If you're talking to that guy, and you mention two things, one, that you're some kind of socialist, perhaps a social democrat, and that you're horrified at the thought of fascism, he'd be thinking that you're nuts since they're the same thing in his mind.

    I wonder what economy means to Mike? Is it 'cheapness' as in 'economy size'? Perhaps it's to do with a book-keeping ledger, you're either in a good economy where the figures are in the black, or you're not and everything is in bright red!(Oh horrors!)

    And you don't have to be a nut like that guy mixing up socialism and fascism to get turned around by the word economy. Politicians do it all the time.

    I wonder, does the Bible promote, in general, some kind of libertarian point of view? The Christian right, you know, in general, seem to think so.

    What do you suppose that someone(hint:-Mike) who doesn't even want to be on this planet under 'dream' circumstances(that is, there is no scenario where he'd want to be here) thinks about what the different political parties are up to and what 'economy' means to a nation?

    I cannot picture him reading some Nazi-like verse such as, 'he who will not work shall not eat' and be doing his best to cut grandmas off their pensions for that sake.

    Or being so thoughtless as to imagine that things would get much better if we were to just cut everyone off welfare and let the poor wander the streets starving, in some weird 'dirty 30s' scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  164. The Sikh temple shooter was ex-military, and was in a white supremacist band. Playing songs about the good old days to come where we git rid of all the coloreds and ayrabs no doubt.

    Wonder if Mike Huckabee will have a national Shoot-A-Sikh Day?

    ReplyDelete
  165. I know of one guy who has a web-page, he is convinced that Hitler was a socialist since, hey, it's right there in the party name, National Socialist!
    ------------------
    That's another thing that pisses me off. Hitler lied. He was never about socialism. He used it in the same way that Ralph Reed and the rest of those anti-gay assholes use the word 'Family.' As a ruse to make it seem that he's really promoting something good for the people.
    How stupid are today's christian right? If Hitler had used the word 'Nice' then today the word 'nice' would be demonized by the right as something nasty. They're doing the same thing Hitler did in so many ways.... Pretending to be good when you're anything but.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Ed said,



    There's no "Cosmic Struggle between Good and Evil", Mike. There's just a bunch of people on this little rock we call Earth doing shitty things to each other, and blaming it on anything but themselves. If you don't believe that, it's YOU who has his head in the sand, my friend.
    ------------------------------
    Ok Ed for arguments sake lets call the shity things as you put it “unjust” or how about unkind or dirty , or lowdown, or just plain rotten or maybe they do those things because of jealousy or because they simply are without natural affection, empathy , what ever the source they are drawing from it is certainly within ones self to choose to be good or evil, mean or kind, loving or hateful. Surly you and Brian can will agree with this.

    ReplyDelete
  167. I disagree Mike. Many people who are 'evil' have no choice. It's in their belief system, and they can no more change that, than you can. That's why I'm always going on and on about beliefs versus facts.

    Abuse your child, and maybe they grow up to be abusive. But in their hearts they truly believe that they're not. So no way to tell them that they are. They can't see it. Pride blinds people, Mike.

    Can't you see this? If not, I wonder WHY....

    ReplyDelete
  168. I think half the population is suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder and what better vehicle to operate from than religion? They can imagine themselves 'The Chosen People' in a zero-sum game where if some illegals or some poor coloureds get a break from the govt. they're personally being 'shorted'.

    I think many of them go to their graves imagining that if it weren't for the coloureds, legal or no, the entire WORLD would be a much better place.

    Don't you think that PNAC is yet another version of Mein Kampf?

    These stupid white supremicists likely imagine they can start a race war which would go well with the gay war, the drug war, the war FOR poverty(as opposed to AGAINST poverty).

    Wasn't it wonderful how the USA reacted to the vilification of the Jews by Nazi Germany? Vilification of the Japanese! LOL

    Us white boys sure love our prejudices, don't we? As Dirty Harry almost said, "A man's got to know his vilifications!"

    ReplyDelete
  169. Mike, a really, really simple question that I want you to answer honestly:

    Do you really believe that Hitler thought that he himself was an evil man, or a good man?

    Think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  170. it is certainly within ones self to choose to be good or evil, mean or kind, loving or hateful. Surly you and Brian can will agree with this.
    ---------------
    Is it within you Mike, to realize that you are wrong about what you believe in?

    If it is, I certainly haven't seen any sign of it.

    Wake up, Mike. Wake up.

    ReplyDelete
  171. You keep wanting to believe that all people make a conscious choice to be good or evil, Mike.

    Why is that?

    Almost nobody does that, at least not successfully. The man that decides to be good often runs smack into PRIDE and instead only comes to BELIEVE that he is good when he actually is not. The belief substitutes for the actual behavior. The more GOOD that a person believes he or she is, the more EVIL they are capable of doing in the name of that good.

    ReplyDelete
  172. You did mention 'empathy' though, Mike.

    That's the real key to being a good person. Real empathy. When you can really relate to others, then your pride in yourself is lessened. And that opens your eyes.
    Maybe if you had a gay son and saw him bullied by your christian friends, it would do the trick for you... it would have to be something like that, because you're too deeply asleep for anything less to awaken you.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Mike, if you had an argument with a devout Muslim...

    And you both were as convinced that your version of God is the one right version, which would DEFINITELY be the case...

    How do you convince yourself that he's the wrong one when you're both equally convinced and you both have equivalent 'evidence?' He would have answers that satisfy him that you are definitely the wrong one too. Neither one of you would be able to 'defeat' the others arguments. A stalemate.
    And yet, you just KNOW that you're right, right? (So does he)
    You both have your holy books and both of them tell us that they're the one right path and all others are wrong.

    Now can you understand how stupid this looks from the outside, from our point of view? You have nothing that he doesn't have. And one thing that he does have. Blind belief. In spades.

    You both can't be right. But you definitely both can be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  174. And of course, we should use an illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator to do it!

    ReplyDelete
  175. Thanks for the belly laugh, Ed! The wife loved it, too!

    ReplyDelete
  176. Rachael Maddow is describing what happened at the Sikh Temple.

    She's telling us what happened with Lt. Murphy and how he was being shot, then they tried to attend to him but Murphy waived them off and sent...

    This is where I filled in the ending and added in my mind.. sent the shooter to Hell!

    .. but that's not what she said.

    ReplyDelete
  177. "pro-gun" or "anti-gun"*... who's what and why?


    *obviously there are more nuanced positions...

    ReplyDelete
  178. Sooo, Harry Reid is my hero.

    I think that Harry should remind everyone that when the Viet Nam war was in full swing Mitt Romney was in France, doing Frrrench stuff! We all know what them French get up to in Frrrance, don't we Mike!? They get up to Frrench stuff, that's what!

    Back to taxes, doesn't the old, "I paid 100% of the taxes I owed.", sound like politician-speak for, "It might be a lot, it might be nothing since 100% of 'I owe nothing due to tax loop-holes', is nothing!"?

    ReplyDelete
  179. What a bunch of cry-babies the Republican bullies are, Mitt Romney lying about what Obama is trying to do in Ohio(or is it Wisconsin?), ads using Obama out of context and Romney giving us the old, "What's good for the goose..", as if Obama is forever taking Romney 'out of context', the whole eight years of the Bush Administration and the Fox News talking points about WMDs and the legality of torture and so on, isn't THAT dirty politics?

    ReplyDelete