Mark 11:20
The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
Discuss.
The best argument ever for a 711 in Bethany.
I just had a vision of the Lord munching on beef jerky and holding a 32 ounce Mountain Dew.
According to noted Catholic Andrew Sullivan, Jesus was gay, so eating figs is clearly a euphemism for sex.
Oops, wrong Brit.
It was Elton John who said that Jesus was gay. I always get Elton John and Andrew Sullivan confused.
Even jeebus could get pissy sometimes, evidently.
Goldy–
As ususal, you fail to put the entire context.
Why? To try and make some anti-Christian point. It’s the only conceivable reason.
So, as usual, all me to provide the context–
What does this illustrate Goldy?
Opportunity for a spiritual lesson….about faith.
How can you lead a meaningful life without faith?
Atheist Progressives have an arrogant belief that ALL THINGS must be understood…and nothing left to faith.
That they are here as a result of no Divine act…but merely a result of random atoms banging around.
Think about it. FAITH!
Not only would Jesus be munching on beef jerky and downing a 32 ounce Dew, he would be riding a skate board and listening to thrash metal.
5. Dan Robinson spews:
And you say this based on???
Random thoughts??
Mr. Cynical is right.
http://www.thebricktestament.c.....21_21.html
Jesus sayings are like computer standards. There are so many to choose from.
http://www.thebricktestament.c.....0_34a.html
Not only does he get pissy, he’ll fuck you up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
@4: So if you don’t get everything what you want in life, because of stuff like those pesky natural seasons and mountain ranges interfering, you just have to believe enough to destroy everything in your path. It’s a good thing kids don’t understand this lesson.
Cynical,
Arguing with these libtardos over things Biblical is foolishness. They’ll never understand that which is right in front of their noses.
pud,
please explain how your comments on HA are in accord with Jesus’ teachings, specifically “Love thy neighbor.”
Did fig trees go wild in Biblical Palestine, or was that a cultivated tree on private property?
If the latter, wouldn’t Jesus be guilty of trespassing and attempted theft?
But if Jesus is the Son of God, and perfect, how can He be a criminal?
If you believe in God, and in Jesus’ divinity, then simple logic forces you to conclude that God does not recognize private property and intends for the fruits of the land that He created to be the common property of all beings.
After all, even under human law, birds are not prosecuted for picking berries from bushes on what humans call “private” land and rabbits are not prosecuted for eating grass on “private” lawns.
God, it seems, is a communist.
@4 Is that where so-called “prosperity Christians” get the idea of praying for money?
@4 So, yelling “FAITH” at the top of your lungs somehow changes things? A meaningful life is unpossible without unfounded belief in some Sky Daddy?
Keep up the christian bashing, Goldy – if ever there was a group that needed their hypocrisy called out, it was them. The gymnastics needed to get from “Love your neighbor” to the avaricious, bloodthirsty warmongering woman-hating no-nothingism that is modern American christianity is truly breathtaking.
As a happy product of billions of years of stardust atoms bashing about randomly, I stand in awe and wonder at the fathomless beauty and majesty of our universe – without the guy with the beard behind the curtain.
@13..or the tree was growing in the wild..dolt.
I heard a story about the time W.C Fields was giving an interview to a magazine writer and he took the writer out to view his rose garden.
The writer noted to Fields that they were just a few scraggly rose bushes with no roses on them, upon which Fields began beating one of the bushes with his cane, shouting, “Bloom, damn you, bloom!!”
I think there’s a deep spiritual message for us here if you’ll only think about it really hard.
@16…uh, re-read his first line. He acknowledges that possibility. His argument addresses his assumption (valid if not correct, and honestly noted as such) that it was likely cultivated. You’re the dolt, dolt.
To Anyone left or right with any vestige of faith-
Don’t bother with this nonsense. Goldy is a silly little man who wants to bait people for his own amusement. Don’t feed the bear- scratch that. Don’t feed the rabid squirrel. Ignore him. Talk about the fine weather we’re having and the opportunities for terrific hiking it provides. Talk about the health care debate or anything constructive and worthwhile. But ignore silly little Goldy and immature attempts at raking up pointless acrimony.
Have a nice Sunday.
lost,
if that’s your opinion, then why are you here? You’re doing exactly what you’re encouraging others not to do.
@17
The writer noted to Fields that they were just a few scraggly rose bushes with no roses on them, upon which Fields began beating one of the bushes with his cane, shouting, “Bloom, damn you, bloom!!”
I think there’s a deep spiritual message for us here if you’ll only think about it really hard.
——–
I think I get it. If Jesus had had a cane, he could have gotten the tree to give fruit again.
Either that or the fact that Jesus didn’t have gin like WC Fields did.
@17
If at first you don’t succeed, beat the shit out of something with a stick!
Jesus was a liberal because he was talking to a tree.
@4 “How can you lead a meaningful life without faith?”
What is faith good for if you only believe in accumulating money?
Klown, you should read this book review in the respected magazine Foreign Affairs:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/.....the-master
(Warning: This publication is written by people capable of having thoughts)
“The author of the authoritative three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes provides here a welcome short introduction to Keynesian economics, which he argues is still relevant to the modern U.S. economy. Keynes specified three important contentions. First, uncertainty needs to be taken seriously in modern economics, and this fundamental uncertainty — the unknown unknowns — cannot be adequately captured with the statistical techniques fashionable in the study of economics. Second, once dislodged from a satisfactory state, modern economies cannot be relied on to return smoothly and automatically to that state — at least not quickly enough to be politically tolerable. Third, civilization cannot thrive if efficiency and moneymaking are held as its highest values. The book offers clear and cogent critiques of modern macroeconomic thought, along with a brief but useful summary of what went wrong in 2007-9.”
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Well, it’s hard to improve on that. For you blockheads unfamiliar with Keynes, allow me to explain that his theories are observational, not prescriptive; that is, Keynes didn’t set out to write rules for policymakers to follow, but simply to explain how the real world works.
And, by way of credentials, Keynes became a very rich man from speculating in financial markets. It seems he understood actual human behavior well enough to predict in advance what market participants would do. For you blockheads who measure a person’s worth by his net worth, that’s all you need to establish Keynes’ credibility, right?
Well, what he came up with is more than a little interesting.
Let’s see, first, he says Milton Friedman and the whole Chicago School don’t know as much as they claim to.
Second, markets aren’t self-correcting and intervention is required to get them functioning again when they break down.
Third, obsessive focus on making money is unhealthy for society.
It appears to me this blows to hell most of the conservative value system. Which may be why wingnuts blow off Keynes as a “liberal” (a moniker he himself wouldn’t have understood and likely would have ridiculed) — and therefore not to be trusted.
So, how trustworthy are Keynes’ ideas, and should intelligent people trust him, even if the Ignorati don’t?
History is full of evidence that Keynes was right. For example, in his 2009 book, “Lords of Finance,” former World Bank investment manager Liaquat Ahamed narrates the dismal story of how the world slid into the Great Depression. Fixing major blame on the central bankers of England, France, Germany, and the U.S., Ahamed contrasts their wrongheaded decisions with Keynesian theory.
In fact, wingnut arguments virtually mirror the disastrous policies of the 1920s and 1930s that led to a calamitous depression which Ahamed and numerous other reputable authors persuasively argue was preventable. If you look at the wingnut agenda — restore the gold standard, dismantle the Federal Reserve, and cut government spending during downturns — you see virtually a replay of the events that turned an ordinary recession into the Great Depression.
After World War 2, the practice of “Keynesian economics” kept all of the postwar U.S. recessions relatively mild — until now. The replacement of Keynesian doctrine with policies based on Friedman’s “Chicago School” thinking came within a whisker of putting us into another Great Depression — until Bush, Obama, Bernanke (a Depression scholar), and Geithner responded with Keynesian-based interventionist measures to pull the American and global economies back from the abyss.
In short, the economy collapsed in 1929-30 because Keynes was ignored, and didn’t plunge over the cliff in 2008-09 because he was followed.
Which brings us back to the importance of this book review. The profound flaw of conservative arguments is they assume economic efficiency and making money should be society’s highest values and goals.
Keynes says this is wrong, and he’s obviously right. Obsessive focus on gathering currency debases the entire society, and ultimately the currency itself. A society that won’t feed its unemployed because it believes food stamps interfere with the efficient workings of the marketplace is a society that can’t survive over the long term.
Keynes got it right: Human, not economic, values are the lifeblood of civilization and should be the primary focus of societal policymaking and governance, with the pursuit of economic efficiency and wealth gathering playing only a secondary and supportive role.
@22
If at first you don’t succeed, beat the shit out of something with a stick!
—————
That worked for Moses. See Numbers 20.
@15 “As a happy product of billions of years of stardust atoms bashing about randomly, I stand in awe and wonder at the fathomless beauty and majesty of our universe – without the guy with the beard behind the curtain.”
Two important points here.
First, you are right about being made of stardust. The complex atoms that form our bodies (e.g., carbon and oxygen) can be created from the universe’s simpler matter in only one place: In the super-intense heat and pressure found only at the center of stars. Every one of our bodies is formed of atoms that are, literally, the dust of expired stars.
Second, God is a woman. The chauvinist males who dominated religion for their own selfish ends for thousands of years got away with the myth of a male deity for a long time because, as Karl Marx cogently pointed out, the masses are gullible asses who will swallow anything. But myths, like stars, eventually explode and we now know the truth: The Great Mother Rabbit Spirit is not a guy.
@16 Where does it say the tree was growing in the wild?
This is so typical of rightwing “logic” — to make it work, they have to fill in blank spaces with assumed or made-up facts.
You know what happens when you assume things, fool: You make an ASS of U and ME. (Well, not me, but certainly you.)
@17 “I think there’s a deep spiritual message for us here if you’ll only think about it really hard.”
God doesn’t respond positively to beatings.
conservative response to the rabbit’s Keynes post: tl;dr.
People don’t respond well to beatings, either. That’s why torture doesn’t live up to its advertisements as a means of getting information from people.
For example, rightwing assertions that Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah broke under waterboarding after only 35 seconds are a lie.
In fact, Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in one month, and 9/11 mastermined Kahlid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded at least 183 times, which strongly argues that the Bush administration’s “harsh interrogation methods” didn’t work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04......html?_r=1
Countries don’t respond positively to beatings, either. This fact blows the conservative strategy for fighting insurgencies out of the water. Racking up body counts? Forget it, North Vietnamese was born faster than we could kill them off, and despite the 2 million casualties inflicted on North Vietnam by U.S. military might, they ended the war with more population than they began with — and could, and would, have fought our forces literally forever.
Same in Afghanistan. The Russian war effort there went sour because they tried to subjugate the Afghan people by force, provoking a resistance that literally would fight to the last man. Likewise, the Bush administration’s hamhanded efforts in Afghanistan merely fueled a Taliban resurgence. The Obamaites are taking a different and more productive tack, shifting emphasis from military operations to working with the indigenous population to provide security and help meet their other needs.
@26
On your first observation, yes indeed, we are all made of the debris of supernovae, that was part of the point I was originally making – thank you for making it explicit. I (perhaps mistakenly, given the troll infestation around here) perhaps err on the side of nuance.
On the second, my intent was somewhat tongue-in-cheek: when I wrote “guy behind the curtain” I had nothing in mind more than the image of god as portrayed in “The Far Side” cartoons by Gary Larson.
Conservative governance is bad for America because it is based on uncritical belief in myths accepted as verities by people who are so blinded by ideology they don’t realize they’re wrong. Conservatives have led us to one policy disaster after another. America has almost nothing positive to show for 30 years of conservative rule. Their political philosophy and misguided dogmas would have been consigned to the dustbin of history long ago were it not for an investment of billions of dollars by self-interested corporations and wealthy individuals in maintaining a drumbeat of rightwing propaganda aimed at propping up a political and social institution that exploits rather than helps the people it targets. There is precedent for this in history; the Catholic Church has done the same thing for 2,000 years.
@15
But, for all your science and physics, you still can’t account for how it all began. In fact, I’d say you’ve just as much faith in your theory as those who believe in God.
@19 Huh? Goldy merely quoted the Bible and said, “discuss.” There’s nothing there that can explain or justify your hyperventilating.
Apparently it doesn’t take much to provoke close-minded provincials like “Lost.” He may be competent with hammer or saw, but he’s afraid of a simple suggestion to discuss a Bible passage. There’s no possibility of reasoning with people like “Lost.” They’re so locked into their own way of thinking and so afraid of ideas that they go ballistic upon seeing the simple word, “discuss.”
@22 All of world history teaches intelligent and observant people that doesn’t work. That’s why this method is still in active use only by the world’s idiots.
@33 So true…can you say “Laffer Curve?”
@29 If you’re smarter than Keynes, why was he rich, and you’re not?
@34 Wrong, WrongStuff.
Saying “I do not know” is the, uh, genesis of learning.
What happened in the nanoseconds prior to the Big Bang is not yet understood, and I am comfortable with that – it is a topic of intense scientific investigation. However, given that, we scientists have no need to invent a myth to explain what we do not (yet) understand.
You commit an error pitifully common among the irrational and anti-scientific: projection of one’s own faults (“scientists believe/take on faith/cannot explain ‘X'”) onto your opponents.
@32 “I (perhaps mistakenly, given the troll infestation around here) perhaps err on the side of nuance.”
I don’t think it makes any difference. Even when you spell things out at a third-grade reading level to these simpletons, you might as well be talking to a fencepost. Their minds are incurably closed. They believe what they believe, and no evidence to the contrary can shake their faith-based beliefs. This is the same mentality that consigned “witches” to the stake five centuries ago, which is why they must never be allowed to govern our country or any other country.
Wholly shit, the edit function is back!
…………///////////////************
It works, too!
———————-
Although not any better than before.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wonder where it’s been for the last 3 months?
I changed “Holy” to “Wholly” in the previous comment because this is a religious thread.
@34 Neither can you; and when you try to fill in the blank spaces of knowledge with mythology, the statistical odds of your being right are infinitesmally small.
Re Rabbit Droppings
Actually, evangelical atheists/agnostics like Goldy, Liberal Scientist et al need Christianity to bash. Otherwise the paucity of their beliefs becomes too apparent. Otherwise why would these spiritual midgits care about Christianity at all.
That old ‘hammer and saw’ thing just doesn’t get old with you does it. It does two things, really. It shows your real attitude toward workers as opposed to your states one. And it shows your ignorance.
First, I rarely put my bags on. I’d love to, but don’t have time between contract negotiations, job planning and execution, labor issues etcetera. Second, even if this weren’t true a carpenter must be competent at math, conversant with an overly complicated building code, able to conceptualize a drawing as it lays out on the ground etcetera. Hardly the provincial yo-yo that your elitist smugness illustrates, eh Rabbit? Try actually admiring labor rather than the diffuse concept of it, and you might get some credibility as a rabid leftist.
My guess is there was a prior universe that collapsed into a single black hole which exploded and ejected all matter back into the void of space which is what we call the Big Bang.
But I’m guessing, which makes me almost certainly wrong.
@37, 22
That was a joke.
@45 “Actually, evangelical atheists/agnostics like Goldy, Liberal Scientist et al need Christianity to bash.”
Likewise, closed-minded provincials like you need Goldy, Liberal Scientist, et al. to bash because your beliefs can’t exist without opponents.
Re 40
Incorrect. You take on faith the assumptions on which your experiments are based. You take on pitifully little evidence comprehensive theories (despite the dogmatism of most scientists) about the origin of life, origin of the universe, global warming and anything else that staves off your fear of the unknown.
Religion candidly assumes a basis of faith, you try to deny that you do the same.
Re 48
I note with interest your lack of response to the contempt with which you hold labor.
And I don’t need things like Hitchens. Things like Hitchens need Christianity.
Re 48
But heck, what does a dumb hick from the sticks know about readin and writin and math and such. I don’t hold with none of that there intellectual stuff. I can’t write no decent sentence no-how.
And that’s how Rabbit sees labor.
@45 “That old ‘hammer and saw’ thing just doesn’t get old with you does it. It does two things, really. It shows your real attitude toward workers as opposed to your states one. And it shows your ignorance.”
One thing that’s clear is you can’t function without reading between lines things that aren’t there, and filling in the blank spaces of your understanding by making up myths.
My comments about “hammer and saw” tradesmen contain no element of value judgment. I wouldn’t attempt to build a house myself. I entrust that work to construction workers, because I’m no good at it myself. Likewise, you should take a cue from me and leave thinking to intellectual workers, because you lack skill in that. Each of us has a role and place in society, and we all serve society best by sticking to our own specialties.
@51 Considering that I pay “labor” (as you put it) upwards of $100 an hour to repair and remodel my burrow, I would argue the checks I give to contractors reflect a hell of a lot of respect for the value of skilled labor.
Any negative value judgments applied to the term “labor” are strictly your own. (And you do have a nasty penchant for infecting everything you touch with personal value judgments.)
As for whether you’re a dumb hick, I don’t have to say anything, your posts speak for themselves.
re 52
Really the difference is that I’ve read most of the (worthwhile) books you have. I’ve been to some of the great European art museums and return at least once a year to some of my favorite. I’ve written and reviewed contracts in the line of my business. I can build a house, organise the capital, materials and labor to get it done, and read Kierkegaard or Kant in my finished study afterwards. I can do this in the study whose bookshelves I built, whose floor I laid and whose fireplace I installed.
For all your posturing you’re just a specialist. You know one thing and one thing only, and on that basis you presume to judge eveyone and every thing else.
Enjoy the rest of this sunny day.
I thought this parable had to do with false appearances: the tree looks like it has yummy figs, but doesn’t, like the Pharisees who claimed to be holy and weren’t, or anyone else who doesn’t practice the virtues they pay lip service to.
There is also a reading that suggests it has to do with the Jews’ rejection of Christ.
A more literal interpretation:
http://godhatesfigs.net
What it has to do with anything discussed here in this thread is a mystery.
Of course, a rationalist can’t win an argument with someone operating with a faith-based belief system, because they don’t accept the validity of evidence or logic. All one can hope to do is point out the dangers of staking one’s own fate on an anti-rationalist’s mythology.
@54 Any dilletante can look at a book and then pretend to know what’s in it.
You’re right, I’m a specialist who knows only one thing: Government and public policy. My undergraduate major was political science. My master’s degree work was in public management. My professional degree is law. I’ve been involved in politics since I was a teenager. My career was in government and legal administration. This stuff is what I do. I’ve been immersed in it every day for the last 50 years. I don’t build houses, and I don’t claim to know as much about building houses as people who do, but on this blog I see a guy who repairs houses arguing that he knows more about government and public policy than I do. I find that very strange.
How not to get laid.
http://gallery.borjanet.com/v/.....6.jpg.html
@45, you remain lost, Lost.
Like wrong @34, you project.
“Otherwise the paucity of their beliefs becomes too apparent.”
I wear the paucity of my beliefs on my sleeve, you dipstick. It’s the quality of my ideas, and the generosity of my acts, by which I wished to be judged, not the mythologic team I’ve chosen/been born into.
I need no christianity nor any other mythology as a counterpoint to validate my views or enforce cohesion among my teammates. I’m not claiming to have the one true path to heaven and that all not like me will burn in eternal hellfire and damnation.
The reason I respond to discussions of religion, and American christianity in particular, is that I object strenuously to its corrosive effect on our society. I object to the smarmy sanctimony, the hypocrisy, the contempt for reason. I object to its undermining of reason and investigation, and in its place exalting a mythology that ensconces a powerful elite into a position able to subjugate and exploit the majority of its followers, in parallel with the forces of unbridled capitalism, and thereby poisons the society we all have to share.
lost @ 45,
I can’t pretend to speak for anyone else, but for myself, I’d be more than happy to start ignoring Christianity. And as soon as Christians stop trying to force their mythology and morality on the rest of us, I will.
And again I ask, after your comment at 19, why are you still here?
http://unitedstatesofscamerica.....write.html
Can we talk about sex? I keep thinking about Mary had a back door man, God. She was letting God ring her bell while she was married to Joseph. And is God hung? Is he swinging some serious timber? Or is he just normal? Is God a sixty minute man?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UZhPKydKcY
@54 I haven’t been to the European art museums. I don’t make discretionary purchases. I invest all of my spare cash because I can’t trust half of my fellow citizens to honor the pension rights that were part of my employment contract.
When I hear rightwingers talk about ditching public pensions and abrogating Social Security — which together are 98% of my income — I don’t know whether to take such talk seriously or not. But it has immediate and decisive effects on my own economic behavior. Not knowing whether I can trust these people, I play it safe and don’t take chances, and hoard instead of spend.
It doesn’t take much imagination to see what loose talk from self-centered rightwingers could lead to. American consumers have already learned they can’t trust employers or rely on private pensions. Now they’re being told not to trust government — by people hell-bent on destroying government. When we become a society in which nothing is honored, and no one trusts anyone, we will all become hoarders and the consumer economy will collapse. That’s exactly where rightwing selfishness is taking us, and we’re getting there very fast.
Righties are wrong about almost everything, but they’re right about one thing: If their vision for America is realized, gold, guns, and hoarded food will be the only things that matter.
@49
Ugh. The projection just will not end.
Assumption are indeed a part of scientific, reasoned investigation. They are not, however, synonymous with religious faith, and therefore the conclusion you draw is completely wrong.
Scientific assumptions, like hypotheses they might underlie, need be subjected to critical analysis and testing, and if found invalid, discarded. Period. This happens constantly and is an integral part of science.
It is simply not possible (rationally) to equate this process with the formation of a creation myth, or a cosmic land grant, or any other “revealed” or prophetic pronouncement that entails untestable and fundamentally unknowable features. Particularly one so often prone to unspeakable violence.
You persist in delusion that acknowledgment of scientific unknowns is somehow tantamount to religion. It isn’t – get over it.
Moreover, your use of ‘theory’ as an epithet reveals your stupidity.
The foundation of civilization is kept promises.
@59 The reason the bible thumpers try to brand themselves as christians is because they want folks like you to attack all who follow Christ’s teachings and drive a nice big wedge between us.
@56
Thank you for that, I grow exasperated, which is I suppose part of their intent – inducing exhaustion through relentless idiocy.
@49 Would you ride in a car with a driver who took his hands off the wheel and told you to have faith that God will steer it down the freeway at 70 mph?
This question calls for a simple “yes” or “no” answer without further commentary.
Oh yeah, lost, one more thing; despite my 26 years in construction, I’m having a hard time seeing this “contempt for labor” in Rabbit’s posts. You might want to look up “projection”.
@ 45
Actually, evangelical atheists/agnostics like Goldy, Liberal Scientist et al need Christianity to bash.
Here’s the rub. According to Christian theology, Jesus was God incarnate. Now, why does an All-Knowing God have to walk over to a fig tree in order to find out if it has any fruit on it, and why would an All-Merciful God curse the tree merely because it didn’t have any fruit out of season?
Now, one could try to provide some interpretation that explains this passage in terms of Christian theology, but none of the Christians in this thread have deigned to do so. Rather, the Christians in this thread piss and moan about atheists bashing Christianity. By their behavior, the Christians in this thread have revealed the paltry nature of the intellectual edifice that is their Faith.
And then Jesus said unto the masses, “Put someone’s name into this Washington State Courts website, and see how many times he has had legal problems.”
http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index......rms=accept
Now, someone who really knows the Bible would point out the New Testament passage that warns us against tempting the Lord like that.
To which I will respond that a lot of people who claim to be Christians ask us to take a whole bunch of things on faith — which, it seems to me, is tempting the Lord.
@71 I routinely do that before hiring a contractor. There’s a lot of scuzzy characters in the contracting business. If I know the guy I’m hiring to repair a roof or build a new deck is an ex-convict, I can negotiate a lower labor rate because he has a harder time getting work.
I’m gonna check out the Bird’s Eye View contest…
@58 Is that a roll of toilet paper hanging from his neck?
@58 Getting laid is overrated. It can lead to marriage or child support.
@59 Like all dumb hicks, he’s an arrogant know-it-all.
@59 (continued) I can’t prove whether there is or isn’t a God. I don’t disrespect Lost’s religious faith. In fact, I share it. The difference between him and me is he thinks he knows there is a God whereas I know that I don’t know, and don’t presume to tell others they’re right or wrong about it. I’m open to evidence and discussion; but his mind is made up, and closed to different ideas. That’s what makes him a hick.
@76..how would you know, you havent gotten any tail since ’77….
@79 I’m a lawyer. I make part of my living off people who succeed in getting laid. Even if what you say were true, which it isn’t, I would still have the last laugh … on my way to the bank.
@59 “corrosive effect on our society … smarmy sanctimony, the hypocrisy, the contempt for reason … undermining of reason and investigation … subjugate and exploit … poisons the society”
That basically sums up the problem with the arrogant certitude of presumptuous closed-minded people.
@ 49
You take on faith the assumptions on which your experiments are based. You take on pitifully little evidence comprehensive theories (despite the dogmatism of most scientists) about the origin of life, origin of the universe, global warming and anything else that staves off your fear of the unknown.
It would seem appropriate, in light of another somewhat active thread going on here, to spend a little time talking about inductive reasoning, because science is based on inductive reasoning.
The “assumptions” of which you speak, the “laws” of science, are examples of inductive reasoning. We reach generalized conclusions about the world around us based on a subset of that reality that consists of our experience.
There are two hallmarks of inductive reasoning. The first is that the intellectual edifice is at least coherent. There are no All-Knowing God’s who don’t know whether a particular tree is bearing fruit or All-Merciful Gods who curse trees that happen to be barren at the moment.
The second hallmark of inductive reasoning is that conclusions are always subject to revision in light of new evidence. Newtonian mechanics was once thought to be the Truth, but we discovered circumstances that weren’t adequately explained by Newtonian mechanics. Hence, Einsteinian Relativity was born. Newtonian mechanics is understood to be a reasonable approximation for most circumstances, but we know that it’s not the Truth.
Your religious beliefs appear to be neither internally coherent nor subject to revision in light of new evidence. Therefore, any comparison between your religion and science is invalid on its face, and your attempt to make such a comparison reveals more about your ignorance than it reveals anything about the nature of “faith” in science.
@60 Because he lacks anything constructive to do with his time.
@72
I tried both “Jesus H Christ” and just “Jesus Christ” and neither one worked. What am I doing wrong?
@78
I measured and respectful attitude toward Lost.
I really don’t give a whit about goes on in Lost’s mind. However, read @49 again – unbridled contempt for science and rational inquiry.
While this is fairly meaningless while it remains in Lost’s pointy head, look to the hysteria that meets teaching evolution in high schools across the country. Look to the horror story that is the Texas Board of Education and the choosing/writing of textbooks, and not just science. Look to the irrational skepticism of climate science that plays directly into the agenda of the fossil fuel industry. These are some of the consequences of the irrationality of organized religion in this country and it is threatening our survival.
Lost, or you, or anyone else can have any belief or embrace of any sort of mythology that they find helpful/comforting/empowering, whatever. When these beliefs lead to harmful behavior (on a society-wide level), or lend themselves to formation of exploitative and undemocratic power structures, they take on a whole new meaning and need be confronted, I think.
@61 Interesting question. I’ve never thought about it, so I don’t know. The Hiroshima bomb was of a type that had never been tested. Yields from primitive A-bomb designs are all over the map. See, e.g., North Korea’s first test, which was more fizzle than bang. I’d have to do some reading before I could form an opinion about that. All I remember off the top of my head is the U.S. designers of the 1940s were so sure the U-235 bomb would go off that they didn’t feel a need to test it. The Trinity test was of the more complicated — and chancier — plutonium implosion design.
@62 The only thing you can be sure of is God isn’t a goat, so Klown isn’t in bed with God, no matter what he claims to the contrary.
@64 Face it, you’re dealing with a small mind.
@67 No, they’re too stupid to form such a complicated intent. They do it because, like little children, they don’t know any better.
@69 There’s gotta be some self-hate in there somewhere, although he’s fairly facile at disguising it.
@82 Large minds attempt to reconcile the notion of a divine power with science. Small minds assume it’s an either-or choice.
@84 You might get better results by standing under a thunderstorm and grasping an aluminum radio tower while standing in a puddle of water.
Hmmmm.. Can’t find anywhere in scripture where Jesus said this so I’ll assume it comes from some idiot troll.
I put S. Sharkansky in and I find one case in Thurston County brought as a plaintiff (i.e. the fool is making trouble for others) and the last thing noted is an order of “dismissal with prejudice”.
There’s another case. Can’t make too much of it as I am not a lawyer. Maybe he actually shook down the other defendant for money, oh yeah I remember now, taxpayer money.. What a fiend..
Troll: You take my name in vain. I cast you out and condemn you to hell. Forever you will wander a lost soul.
Just kidding. :)
Re Rabbit rantings
I’m crushed. My reason for living has gone. I don’t see any point in going on. Rabbit doesn’t like me.
Oh the soul deep pain. I’m having to question everything more than 2 decades of study have taught me. All the study of philosophy and art and literature, wasted. All the crisis times in life in which I learned hard lessons are in vain. Rabbit thinks I have a small mind.
The existential conundrum-do I take up arms against a sea of misfortune if I don’t have the respect of an anonymous poster on a small time blog? Do I continue to struggle to find meaning in the world when a bitter and angry old man doesn’t find my philosophy compelling?
I guess not. I suppose I’ll have to end it all.
4 Cyn
Wow, cool. So if I with faith curse anybody I am pissed of at, God wilt smite them a mighty smight, and they wilt sleep with the fishes.
Good to know.
FAITH!
@95: You studied TWO DECADES to come up with your ‘philosophy’? Man, that is truly an existential conundrum. But it could be worse…think Gregor Samsa.
But verily…I’d just say take the Soren K. leap. I hear you get as many tries as you want. Or ponder some more the scribblings of Msr. Rousseau, for example this one:
“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said “This is mine,” and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”
–Discourse on Inequality
Sincerely,
Comrade Ass
@ 96
Ah. So that’s what happened to Luca Brasi.
re
Yes, earning a living, raising a family, having a social life and travelling here and there all I learned was ‘philosophy.’ Damn, brought down a peg by a liberal again.
For my money Kierkegaard beats Rousseau hollow. And Kafka is just strange and depressing.
Rousseau is a brilliant philosopher, and of course the sentiment you quote would be perfectly right in an ideal world. Unfortunately if we lived without private property we would still be foraging for grubs and berries, living in caves and starving in the winter. Philosophical approaches that take human frailties like greed into account do so much better in the real world than the ones that don’t. That’s why capitalism beats communism, for instance, every time. One assumes every one will be nice and bases the approach on that assumption. The other assumes people will be human.
Cheers. Have a nice week.
25
Hey, Dan Robinson! How are we supposed to knpow which parts of the OT to follow and which ones not to? Because I am sure we can find all kinds of crazy OT shit that we can try to hold you to.
That’s kind of the whole thing with the Book: The stuff you ageree with is the Law, and the stuff you don’t is just swept under the big cosmic Rug.
Hey; it’s crazy, and we know no one these days will follow it, so it does not exist!
I’ll follow this post up with one containing the crazy shite detailed.
I won’t argue for or aainst the existence of some kind of weird, elusive, and not-subject-to-evidence thing one could call God, but the freaky, illogical, and based-on-writings-of-only-carefully-selected-delusives beleifs of “Christians” is even better than hilarious.
“Damn, brought down a peg by a liberal again.”
Yeah. But at least it wasn’t a rabbit this time. I mean, for shame!
As for liberal, eh, perhaps.
@100
DL spews:
That’s kind of the whole thing with the Book: The stuff you ageree with is the Law, and the stuff you don’t is just swept under the big cosmic Rug.
hhmm…sounds a lot like the man-made global warming religion to me….
If Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes, DJ, who’re you sleeping with these days? Does he, she, or it advertise in Savage’s Stranger?
@ 104
Who’re you sleeping with these days?
Why, Mrs. Joe, of course. Why do you ask?
re 103: If some corporation put a turd in your drinking water, you’d deny its existence.
You are the one that has the ideology problem.
@106…oh, do tell…..
@4. Mr. Cynical
oops
Now that is odd. Thbe institution of the rabbinate did nto yet exist in Jesus time. So whadya suppose PetE real said?
Sensei??
So, have you tried it Mr. C???
(Snoop’s comin’.)
Apologies to you and Mrs. Joe. 104 should have been aborted on demand.
Did you tell us that you teach con law?
49. lostinaseaofblue
True enough, science assumes that there is a reality and that facts are reproducible.
errr ahhh … who does not believe in that?
Nietche?
are you an atheist?
Pitifully little? As in how My scientists use evolution to create new kinds of animals? astrophysics to explain how fusion works? What is pitiful about the power of science?
Do you think I mislead scientists?
Not at all. Science just insists that assumptions lead to reproducible predictions.
Which is more predictable .. electricity or prayer?
70. Don Joe spews:
I am that I am. Ask yourself why would I trust wandering minstrels to tell My truths?
@ 109
Did you tell us that you teach con law?
Nope, though I find it to be a fascinating subject.
@ 111
Ask yourself why would I trust wandering minstrels to tell My truths?
I was wondering if this particular minstrel was up to singing a different tune. Should I have asked Ian Anderson instead?
Hey Roger Rabbit, Jesus made that tree so it is his to destroy if he wants. Jesus made this whole world (Of corse were the ones who messed it up.) He is the rightful owner of this whole world. So this world is his to do as he pleases. He decided to let the Devil have control for a while, because of our sin. He is going to reclaim it though. (Many people think, including myself, that the scroll from Revelations chapter five is the deed to the Earth. He is reclaiming it from Satan when he looses the seven seals.) I am just glad he loves even though all of us keep spitting in His face. I am also glad that I am on the winning side. One day all of the God Haters on this site are going to fall on there knees and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God. If it is the next life I will be there to witness. I will morn.
Mathew
Are you so arrogant as to believe I need a deed to won the world?
Or that I need you to fall on your knees to praise Me?
Or that yiu can see My face to spit upon Me?
Am I so powerless or cruel as to create a Son to be sacrificed to Me?
You badly misjudge Me.
@114 “I will morn.”
Hmm, I wonder if this has something to do with morans. Maybe it’s kind of a, “I am moran, watch me morn”, type statement. Wingnuts. They often puzzle me.
Note from previous threads that GBS & I are deep in Everson. Can you help us c/ that?
If Jesus made the tree, why the hell didn’t he understand that it was not it’s fig-bearing season?
God is not a woman. No woman would have made this miserable world.
Notice the root word “fig” in the following words: figuratively, figure, fight, figment, figuration, figurehead, figurine. Coincidence? I think not . . .