This is godless's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following godless's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
godless
Recent Activity
Limbaugh may be part of the "kooky right," but he has enough clout to force elected officials (as well as the chairman of the RNC) to back down when they dare to criticize him. He has millions of zombie "dittoheads" who seem willing to do his bidding when he seeks to impose his will on Republican officials, and has forced himself to the forefront of the wingnut base.
Toggle Commented May 29, 2009 on Conservatives attack Sotomayor at two or three . net
1 reply
No, the torture of Jesus is not justified. It was morally wrong for the Romans to treat criminals (and Jesus) that way. However, God took their bad intentions and immoral acts and used it for the good of humanity. But this ignores the whole point of the Christ event (at least according to orthodoxy) doesn't it? He was tortured and killed in our place; the Romans merely were the instruments of this purpose. What if the Romans had let him go? Or sentenced him to a few years in prison? And then he had lived out his life? Where would orthodox Christianity be then? Throughout the story of Jesus, we constantly read how he is destined for this death: it is part of God's purpose. How can one argue that God didn't want him executed?
Toggle Commented May 29, 2009 on Do the ends justify the means? at two or three . net
1 reply
Rush Limbaugh, leader of the conservative movement: "Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She'd be a disaster on the Court. Do I still want to Obama to fail as President? Yeah, -- AP, you getting this? He's gonna fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country." "Here you have a racist — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist,” Limbaugh said of Sotomayor on his show, alluding to the New York federal appeals court judge’s past statement that a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” Liberals, "of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism,” Limbaugh said according to a transcript on his website. “Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power. ... Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one.”
Toggle Commented May 28, 2009 on Conservatives attack Sotomayor at two or three . net
1 reply
The issue with Christ is not one of God engaging in torture to save humanity, it is the fact of God undergoing torture to save humanity. Yes, I know that. I was just making the point that, according to orthodox Christian dogma, sometimes torture is justified: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Of course, that theology also maintains that this was an event which makes all subsequent torture and sacrifice moot.
Toggle Commented May 28, 2009 on Do the ends justify the means? at two or three . net
1 reply
What about crucifixion? Does that qualify as torture?
Toggle Commented May 27, 2009 on Do the ends justify the means? at two or three . net
1 reply
Since Aaron's disappearance (with good reason, of course), this blog has devolved into a right-wing, fringe, christianist kook-fest, and less and less interesting. No wonder comments have all but dried up. Until Aaron resumes active participation I suggest ignoring it. I also suggest transforming it by allowing long-time commenters (myself, Cineaste, Keith Johnson, to participate under the watchful eye of any moderator (even daniel since Aaron is too busy). It would allow us to introduce other topics and liven up exchanges. Otherwise, this blog will become more and more irrelevant, fringe, and stale.
1 reply
I find it hard to believe that xians would condemn torture that "saves millions of innocent lives? What about thousands? Dozens? One? Is there a line that has to be crossed to make torture acceptable? (A better question may be, how do you define torture?)." Doesn't that describe the central assertion of the religion itself, that Christ was tortured to death in order that all mankind would be spared a similar fate, post-death? Surely a Christian would have to accept that, sometimes, the ends justifies the means? Apparently, God thinks so. Btw: Why doesn't italics, bold, and hotlinks work?
Toggle Commented May 20, 2009 on Do the ends justify the means? at two or three . net
1 reply
Global warming facts: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html But, of course, this will be dismissed as usual as the baseless ranting of evil liberals since, as we all know, by naming something or someone as liberal they are thus beyond the pale. stinker loves to whine about ad hominem attacks when he is critiqued, but constantly and consistently dishes it out to demonize his opponents. To what passes for a mind with stinker merely flinging the accusation liberal ends all debate, for liberal=evil. This is what passes for argumentation to the fundamentalist/evangelical/right-wing "mind." It's really amazing that they can swallow whole the nonsense and superstition which makes up most of Evangelical "thought" while simultaneously trashing anyone who disagrees in the most vicious manner. But why be surprised? When you abandon reason and science and true spirituality anything goes. The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters
1 reply
Matthew 6:5-8 (New International Version) Prayer 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
1 reply
It's people like you who turn the rest of us off from Christianity. Congratulations to Obama for refusing to be intimidated or participating in the hate.
1 reply
"All reasoned argumentation is built on primary assumptions. Do you disagree with my assumptions? If so, then you are right, you won't agree with my conclusions even if they are logical." No, I don't agree with your assumptions, particularly the hidden assumptions and assertions you don't spell out. You keep claiming that you base your views on "reason" and "logic" and the Bible, but I don't see it. In fact, all I see going on here is you claiming that I am making assertions and unsupported opinions. All I'm doing is calling you out for yours. As usual, it's useless arguing with the fundamentalist for reasons I enunciated above. Within the closed circle of your assumptions (about the Bible, about Christianity, about history, about values, about words), you are reasonable, but I don't share your assumptions, and I resent your dismissal and misrepresentation of my views. Just asserting that you use reason and logic doesn't mean you do, unless we are limited to your definitions. I don't agree with your fundamental assumptions; I have an alternative view of history and philosophy, and, believe it or not, I have every right to hold it and reject yours - and to reject your attempt to bully me into accepting yours. So, you shut up.
1 reply
More of the same: I assume.... Of course you assume! Despite your claims that everything you assume is based on "reason" I've seen little of it. "Biblical Christianity" is just more of the same. It's all just your interpretation of things, based on one historical tradition among others. It's really kind of funny how you just dismiss all others (Quaker, Roman Catholic) as not "real" Christianity because they disagree with your view of things. On one hand, you're no different from most other believers: certainly, Roman Catholics can be just as bad. But that's just the point, isn't it? "No different." This argument has been going on for centuries, often including violence. Believe whatever you want, but I see no reason to accept your assumptions and assertions, or your definitions.
1 reply
Nope, sorry, but I'm not going to allow you to draw me into your trap and force me to argue on your grounds. You may think I'm wrong, but only because I don't swallow your assumptions and assertions whole. You've admitted this yourself: you look to "traditional Protestantism" and the Bible (seen literally)-as defined by you, of course-for your view of things. However, I see no reason why I should agree with you or your definition of Christianity or spirituality in general. Indeed, why should I? That's the point I was making above: you have a certain religious viewpoint and state it it in absolutist, dictatorial terms, so you seem to think that the rest of us should just bow down to you, as if you have a direct line to the mind of God. Of course, we've seen this tactic used throughout history - many times - with the same result: a few people - weak-minded, powerless, fearful - comply, the rest rebel or ignore it. In fact, this was how the Roman Catholic church acted. It's ironic that Protestantism, created in reaction to the RCC's tyrannical and corrupt rule, has gone down the same path! An idea is not true just because you like it or false because you dislike it. Well, obviously! But you should apply that to yourself. But, of course, the fundamentalist cannot really examine his own motives because he has abandoned such honesty long ago in favor of the ideology with which he is hag-ridden. What you display is the fundamentalist mindset, so full of fear and hatred of reality that it gives itself over to absolutist belief (religious, political - it doesn't matter) as a shield against all it despises. Everything and everybody which does not or cannot comply with its narrow view is anathematized and condemned as "heresy" and destroyed. We've seen this here with your hysterical condemnation of Islam, gays, evolution, abortion - you name it. And, of course, the fundamentalist thinks he's speaking for God where, in reality, he's only projecting his own distorted mind onto the world. Maybe you need a twelve-step program.
1 reply
The Gospel According to Daniel. Heed him, for he has a direct line to the mind of God.
1 reply
I said that Christians have done a poor job of representing Christ and have made Him subject to the GOP. That is wrong and I want to change that, but it is a difficult task. I don't think it's difficult at all. Simply stop, that's all. Stop aligning Christ with a political movement or party. You can - and should - vote your values and conscience, but you needn't make your religion a political party among others. I may be wrong, but upon reflecting on the actions of Jesus I didn't notice him taking part in partisan politics or leading a political movement (of whatever stripe). Certainly, his actions had far-reaching political effects, but that was mainly due to the reactions of others (religious authorities, Roman officials). He seemed to concentrate on specific individuals, like throwing a stone in a pond and watching the ripples move outwards. These ripples moved all the way to Rome and beyond (for better and worse, it seems). Maybe you should look to Him for your model rather than a political philosophy or movement or party. Hmmm?
1 reply
What I find interesting about the above commentary is the underlying assumption that conservative, evangelical Christianity is the only version of the religion which exists (despite the dismissive reference to the "Religious Left"). It may be that the movement you fear is away from your type of Christianity (or, more widely put, religion) to others - more moderate, less ideological, more spiritually motivated, less political. What many of us reject is the political ideology your version of Christ has degenerated into - the storm troopers of the Republican party. That is what we fear, and that is what we will fight against, no matter how you disguise or reformulate it. It is not so much Christ we reject as the anti-Christ you have raised in His place. Do you, nominal Christians, have no faith that Christ must influence events, whatever political tactics you choose? Oh, ye of little faith! He is not dependent on your fangs.
1 reply
What I keep wondering is where were the tea-party protests by the Republicans and their right-wing dupes when Bush & Co. were running record deficits and pushing up the national debt to astronomical numbers during his term. Oh, that's right...
1 reply
You know, it's really revealing that, I post this poem friendly to the notion of physical resurrection and faith, and I get zero comments or responses. It seems that the believers here are more interested in putting others down and fighting and judging than in engaging in constructive interaction. Of course, why should this surprise me? No interest in Updike's poem at all? Figures...
Toggle Commented Apr 14, 2009 on Defense of the Resurrection at two or three . net
1 reply
Nope. I just refuse to accept your attempt to hijack the whole subject by defining the terms of the argument your way. I'm being honest: I reject your worldview, and will not enter it in a futile and doomed attempt to convince you otherwise. You may think you are being reasonable, but you are really just trying to extend the hegemony of the religionist/patriarchal ideology. Again, I reject this, and will not fall into the trap of arguing on your terms. Finis.
1 reply
Why should I? My long, sad experience with you right-wing religionists is that your arrogant boorishness is impenetrable. You are motivated by a twisted religious sense of bigotry and thus are incapable of reason or compassion. I'm through using a reasonable approach. One might as well argue with a scorpion or Ebola virus. For instance, You are demanding a privilege, not a legitimate right! As if we are subjects of a royal or theocratic government who have to beg for our inalienable rights. No! We are citizens! The government answers to us and not the other way around. We demand our rights to equality, and you anti-gay bigots are just gonna have to go pound sand if you don't like it. I refuse to continue discussion with people whose main intent and political goal is to force me back into the closet and into second-class status! I agree with Louis completely: you don't deserve to be taken seriously, despite your pseudo-intellectual pretensions.
1 reply
Seven Stanzas at Easter By John Updike Make no mistake: if He rose at all it was as His body; if the cells' dissolution did not reverse, the molecules reknit, the amino acids rekindle, the Church will fall. It was not as the flowers, each soft Spring recurrent; it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled eyes of the eleven apostles; it was as His Flesh: ours. The same hinged thumbs and toes, the same valved heart that — pierced — died, withered, paused, and then regathered out of enduring Might new strength to enclose. Let us not mock God with metaphor, analogy, sidestepping transcendence; making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the faded credulity of earlier ages: let us walk through the door. The stone is rolled back, not papier-mache, not a stone in a story, but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow grinding of time will eclipse for each of us the wide light of day. And if we will have an angel at the tomb, make it a real angel, weighty with Max Planck's quanta, vivid with hair, opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen spun on a definite loom. Let us not seek to make it less monstrous, for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty, lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are embarrassed by the miracle, and crushed by remonstrance.
Toggle Commented Apr 12, 2009 on Defense of the Resurrection at two or three . net
1 reply
I repeat, why should the production and upbringing of children be the only or, if you prefer, the most "important" (or even one) criteria to qualify one for marriage? Marriage can be far more than that - and it should be. It's ironic that you refer to the founders statement in the Declaration of Independence to bolster your assertions concerning the inferiority gays. Shall we reproduce the entire statement? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The "self-evident truths" here aren't concerning the supposed dysfunctionality of hx or the inferiority of gay people, rather, the fact that all men and women are created equal, and that the rights they are endowed with are, among others, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights accrue to all people in this country, not just heterosexuals. Thus, contrary to how you would twist it, gays are just as entitled to equality under the law, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness as you are. These are self-evident truths, not the bigotry you promulgate. [Homosexuality] is clearly a dysfunction, and although reason and science could be martialed to defend that position, there is a sense in which such moral stances go beyond mere empiricism, and we appeal to the self-evident laws of nature, and claim that reasonable people would agree. Actually, all current science (and the reason that backs it up) is on the side of equality for gays, and that hx is not a dysfunction. This is fact. The "self-evident laws of nature" you spin out of thin air are merely assumptions on your part, assertions for which there is little to no evidence (untwisted by religious belief, that is). I have seen no evidence that the numerous assertions you produce above are anything but the fantasies of religiously motivated prejudice. Your animus towards gays is illustrated by your constant yoking of them to such extraneous issues as polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. These are the blood-libels by which people like you have tarred the honor and dignity of gay people for too long. Fortunately, the tide is turning against you and your infernal lies. Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa...gay equality is advancing, and they will prove that the cataclysm you proclaim will not occur. Rather, as Amos declared, But let justice flow like a river and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Justice will come for gay people, regardless of what their enemies among the religious right might do.
1 reply
Sometimes people act like a-holes and should be called out as such. I'm not sure what is meant by "families are under attack." It may be that things are getting difficult for the traditional notion of the family (one dad, one mom, 2.5 kids and dog), but most of this is the result of economic pressure (something conservatives never mention, btw). There's also the notion that this idea of the family was never viable as the only alternative, that no other configuration ever existed or worked anytime in history. It seems somewhat arbitrary that this must be the one and only "definition" of family for everyone everywhere for all eternity (amen). Why? Who says so? If your sole criterion of "family" is the production and raising of children there are other arrangements which work as well. But why should that be the one and only basis for considering what is and isn't a real marriage. Again, why? Who said so? If you aren't a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian, why should you have to conform to their definitions of anything? As you point out above, divorce [expressly forbidden by Jesus] does more damage to traditional notions of the family than anything else, why aren't Christians agitating for constitutional amendments banning divorce? No, the real story here is creating a scapegoat to blame for the failures heterosexuals have made for themselves. There's no evidence anywhere (not emanating from fundamentalist Christian circles, that is) which indicates that gays are any threat to marriage or families, that 3% or the population constitutes any threat to the other 97%. No, it's just unjust scapegoating and protection of heterosexual privilege at work. When I see mass movements by Christians to write bans on divorce into law, I'll give this jihad against gays some credence. Until then, it's just bullsh*t by bigot a--holes.
1 reply
[yawn] Louis is right: arguing with fundamentalists (or whatever label you prefer) is pointless, for they just don't function on the same plane as the rest of us. They declare the Bible is literally true, and any problems lie with us not it. Of course, there's no proof for this at all: they just assert it. Contrary to what Mr. Wilcox believes, I do know quite a bit about Christianity, enough to know that much, if not all, of it was manufactured by fallible, politically motivated humans centuries ago. Look it up if you don't believe me. One thing I don't understand is the fundamentalist mind. I admit that. Fine. If that's how you want to live you have every right so to do, just don't inflict it on me. 'nuff said.
Toggle Commented Apr 8, 2009 on A civil compromise at two or three . net
1 reply
MONTPELIER, Vt.- Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote. The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote — the minimum needed — to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5. Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.
Toggle Commented Apr 7, 2009 on A civil compromise at two or three . net
1 reply