ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, February 08, 2013

And what do you do with witches?

"The thesis of The World Until Yesterday is that we in industrialized societies have much to learn from people who make (or recently made) their living by hunting-and-gathering or small-scale farming."
- National Public Radio on Jared Diamond's latest ode to the primitive life in Papua New Guinea

"A young mother was tossed screaming on to a pyre of tyres and burned alive after being accused of killing a neighbour's six-year-old son with sorcery.  Kepari Leniata, 20, 'confessed' after she was dragged from her hut, stripped naked and tortured with white-hot iron rods.  She was then dragged to a local rubbish dump, doused in petrol and, with hands and feet bound, thrown on a fire of burning tyres. As the mother-of-two screamed in agony, more petrol-soaked tyres were thrown on top of her....  The tragedy unfolded after Miss Leniata's young neighbour fell sick on Tuesday morning. He complained of pains in the stomach and chest and was taken to Mt Hagen hospital where he died a few hours later. Relatives of the boy were suspicious that witchcraft was involved in the death and learned that two women had gone into hiding in the jungle.  After they were tracked down, the pair admitted they practised sorcery but had nothing to do with the boy's death. Miss Leniata, they said, was the person responsible."
- Mail Online

Clearly we have a lot to learn from such a simple and noble way of life. I don't know about you, but I find it more than a little amusing that the poster boy for modern pop science is advocating a Rousseauean idealization of a state of nature that happens to include the great historical secular bugaboo, witch-burnings.  As I have repeatedly pointed out, far from being progressive, secular post-Christianity is more regressive than 7th century Islam.  It's ultimately a return to the mores of precivilized paganism.

Labels: ,

173 Comments:

Anonymous A Visitor February 08, 2013 9:05 AM  

"It's ultimately a return to the mores of precivilized paganism." YEP! However, we all know they'll bring up claims of evils done in Christianity's name over the centuries. The difference? Christianity, as a whole, acknowledged the wrongs done in its name. This pagan junk? It's still going on and no "pagan" has condemned what they've done in paganism's (if there is such a thing as a "religious" concept, which makes me skittish in and of itself) name.

Anonymous Anonymous February 08, 2013 9:07 AM  

"precivilized paganism" -- and the problem with this is... ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/020104grovebackground.htm


Did you ever think, this is the whole point???

Ted Turner
Marketing Manager
New World Order

Anonymous Dobos Torte February 08, 2013 9:10 AM  

I haven't read the book, but very much doubt his thesis is we must exactly emulate every aspect of primative societies.

Anonymous CS February 08, 2013 9:11 AM  

And thanks to our public school system, our society is so ill-educated that hasn't the slightest clue that this is what's happening

Anonymous ZhukovG February 08, 2013 9:13 AM  

I have always felt that an atheist is little more than a primitive nature worshiper, who has exchanged his nose bone for a lab coat.

Even Polytheistic Paganism represents an advance over these backwards knuckledraggers.

Anonymous Anonymous February 08, 2013 9:15 AM  


Anyone care to bet that Diamond isn't a fan of the 2A?


Cassandra (of Troy)

Anonymous paradox February 08, 2013 9:27 AM  

Drone strikes are such a more humane way of hunting witches. You only blow limbs and jaws off.

Anonymous Josh February 08, 2013 9:29 AM  

So we should start eating brains?

How sure are we that diamond isn't trying to hasten the zombie apocalypse?

Anonymous Roundtine February 08, 2013 9:33 AM  

Maybe he secretly wants to throw feminists onto flaming pyres. Peter Singer on steroids.

Blogger Nate February 08, 2013 9:34 AM  

Throw them into the pond!

Anonymous Josh February 08, 2013 9:37 AM  

Was anyone turned into a newt?

Anonymous Lulabelle February 08, 2013 9:38 AM  

@Dobas Torte - So, "I haven't read the book, but very much doubt his thesis is we must exactly emulate every aspect of primative societies" is equal to "we have a lot to learn"?

Evidently my grasp of the English language is tenuous at best.

OpenID herenvardo February 08, 2013 9:41 AM  

Perhaps they need a few ministers in the mold of the Dark Ages:
http://tofspot.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/witchcraft-and-dark-ages.html

Anonymous Other Josh February 08, 2013 9:46 AM  

Wow. That's a terrible way to die.

Blogger tz February 08, 2013 9:55 AM  

If you will accept Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, the Witch Craze was mainly protestant intellectuals, but fell along the same line - any crop failure, unexplained illness, deformed birth or miscarriage were judgments from God so there had to be a witch somewhere. CS Lewis pointed out if you don't believe in witches, there is nothing to burn (he compared thinking someone loves animals because there are no mousetraps, but there are no mice in his house). If you have no moral grounding, and believe people are doing some evil, like changing the climate, you start stacking flammables. And you get rid of due process or change it into something bizarre.

I wish those who would use force would learn more primitive stuff and forget the technology. The enlightenment without Christ brought on the French Revolution. Last century we got pagan Nazism, and "scientific" atheistic communism - both the Maoist and Stalinist flavors. By all means let them live like the Papuans and I'll keep my technology to keep them at bay.

OTOH, considering the government, they really are trying their best to turn the ashes of Christendom into Papua New Guinea.

Better an intellectual darkness to go along with their moral darkness.

Anonymous Anonymous February 08, 2013 9:56 AM  

""Anyone care to bet that Diamond isn't a fan of the 2A""

Anyone watch the ridiculous PBS series on his book "Guns, Germs and Steel"?

At one point, it shows Diamond attempting to fire a Flintlock, I believe. He had to have a another guy help him hold the gun and he actually turned his head screamed as it fired.

To me, that was a perfect metaphor for everything that motivates Diamond and his kind. Apologizing and justifying why everything weak is good and everything strong is bad.

Anonymous Anonymous February 08, 2013 9:57 AM  

-Boone Waxwell

Anonymous Noah B. February 08, 2013 9:59 AM  

"He had to have a another guy help him hold the gun and he actually turned his head screamed as it fired."

Was the series called... WHEN RABBITS ATTACK?

Anonymous test123 February 08, 2013 10:00 AM  

It is always those furthest removed from savagery who extoll it. That's what I've noticed about the SWPL set---they've grown up middle-to-upper class, never near ghettos or high crime areas, from white collar parents. They have no notion of how precious civilization is, or how dangerous savagery is. They claim to be well-traveled amongst "non-Western" people, but their familial wealth and power means that no matter how much they immerse themselves in a savage people, it's only a game to them---a game they can easily end with a phone call to mommy or daddy, who can put them on a plane and, withing 72 hours, they can be eating the best food, having the best medical care, and living a life of western luxury again.

Reminds me of the Brits as their empire grew. When the British started gaining overseas territories (such as in the U.S.), the local native peoples were extolled and brought to England as both curiosities and examples of the "noble savage." Native Americans, Indians, Africans---all were paraded and celebrated in London, whose cultures gained more and more equivalency in intellectuals' minds with English culture.

Except the Scottish. Despite being a noted "savage" people who, even by the mid-18th century, lived in little more than mud huts less than 100 miles from London, the Brits never celebrated their own native savages until well after they embraced civilization. It wasn't until the Scots were no longer a threat---they could no longer marshal an army that threatened the English pale, and lived in housing comparable with English ones---that suddenly the "tartan" craze and clan studies took off amongst the British intelligencia. This is when Rob Roy and other Scottish legends first became popular to non-Scots. Now, the "Wild Scotsman" of legend, no longer perceived as a threat, became romanticized over the plain English bulldog of a man.

It would seem to me that civilizations great failing is become too secure---such that people who never experienced the savagery that civilization protects us do not realize how bad it is, and begin to extol it over civilization. Much like modern environmentalists try to "save the wolf" and talk about how beautiful and noble they are---a far cry from the thousands of years of history where people who actually dealt with wild wolves saw how vicious, murderous, cruel, malignant, terrifying, and evil they were. There was a reason people hunted them to extinction, and it ain't the meat. Our modern sensibilities about wolves would have horrified most people from the pre-1900s, much as we would be horrified by a five-year-old who tries to breath through a plastic bag.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 February 08, 2013 10:00 AM  

When will those uncivilized brutes learn that this is how you treat bitches, not witches.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick February 08, 2013 10:17 AM  

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

But ... that definitely is not the way to do it.

Anonymous Christian in Babylon February 08, 2013 10:19 AM  

Our civilized, industrial secular society managed to kill 50 million babies.

uncivilized, primitive paganism better than civilized, industrial secularism

Anonymous JartStar February 08, 2013 10:23 AM  

Don't forget about astrology. It was ubiquitous before the last 100 years and we left it behind.

Percent who believe astrology is very or sort of scientific
43.3% Extremely liberal
32.2% Liberal
31.4% Slightly liberal
25.9% Moderate
25.9% Slightly conservative
26.1% Conservative
25.0% Extremely conservative

Oops...

You note that as belief in God decreases, lack of belief in God or a Spirit increases as well, but belief in Spirit increases to a greater extent than lack of any belief at all.

Blogger Giraffe February 08, 2013 10:26 AM  

Oh come one Vox. You were flicking your bic at a witch just the other day.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 10:27 AM  

Witch Burnings. Witch Hunts.

You don't see them much anymore, in the West. But when you did, it seems there was often of the Christian church involved.

I'm not sure we can pin the past history of witch burnings on "secularism".

But, the good news is that as the church wields less and less influence around the world and in the U.S., we have to worry less and less about the impact of the fables of the church embraces.

Anonymous Lex Rex February 08, 2013 10:30 AM  

Dang you stealing my witty comment.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick February 08, 2013 10:30 AM  

Witch burnings vs Gulags. You got me there Tad.

Anonymous Josh February 08, 2013 10:31 AM  

we have to worry less and less about the impact of the fables of the church embraces.

And what, oh syphilitic one, will replace those "fables" as a primary source of cultural influence?

Blogger Giraffe February 08, 2013 10:38 AM  

I'm sorry, I must have missed that part of the story that said it was Christians burning this witch.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 February 08, 2013 10:39 AM  

Tad,

These days, the post-modern secular society kills unborn babies out of convenience, murders children because their fathers might be terrorists, and imprisons people for being politically incorrect.

The body count comparison between the Christian societies of old and the modern secular state shows a wide deficit in the old societies favor, even if you measure it proportionally.

Anonymous Edjamacator February 08, 2013 10:42 AM  

As I have repeatedly pointed out, far from being progressive, secular post-Christianity is more regressive than 7th century Islam. It's ultimately a return to the mores of precivilized paganism.

Yeah, but it's so vibrant!

Anonymous VD February 08, 2013 10:42 AM  

Oh come one Vox. You were flicking your bic at a witch just the other day.

Sure, but only because I have complete trust in the advice given by Jared Diamond.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 10:43 AM  

@Josh

It's not that many of the principles and ideas and morality behind the fables will be replaced by something else (though certainly they will be added to by other lessons), but that the insistence that we act and do as a God tells us to will be abandoned. And that's good.

Anonymous Edjamacator February 08, 2013 10:46 AM  

But, the good news is that as the church wields less and less influence around the world and in the U.S., we have to worry less and less about the impact of the fables of the church embraces.

That's not good news. It doesn't work out well for your "side" in the end.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 10:46 AM  

@Swift

These days, the post-modern secular society kills unborn babies out of convenience, murders children because their fathers might be terrorists, and imprisons people for being politically incorrect.

Long before there was a "post modern secular society"—whatever that means—babies were senselessly killed, abortions took place too, and people were imprisoned and tortured for their views (see witch burning, the inquisition, pogroms, etc.)

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 10:47 AM  

@Edjamacater


That's not good news. It doesn't work out well for your "side" in the end.


My side??

Anonymous Daniel February 08, 2013 10:51 AM  

Tad, you are getting your burning witch confused with your flaming boyfriend. Your domestic situation has my sympathy, but really: next time just let him borrow your Jimmy Choos, and he won't flip out like that.

Blogger IM2L844 February 08, 2013 10:54 AM  

Precisely which impacts, resulting from Christianity's influence, should anybody ever be worried about, Tad?

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 11:01 AM  

@IM2844

Really? There are a number of them.

Only because I was reading a few brief yesterday on the subject, I'll point to the influence of christianity on giving support to the notion that requiring coverage of contraception somehow violates a person's ability to practice their religion. This view is being put forward almost exclusively and forcefully and is being supported most forcefully by those who are influenced considerably by their christian world view. It's a dangerous view primarily because it's implications, in addition to be silly, are that no laws enacted in a representative government are legitimate if they violate one's very own, specific moral world view.

And this is just one. You can look at the notion of "Personhood" being given to a zygote and embryo as another absurd and dangerous result.

You could look at the entirely anti-free trade and protectionist alcohol laws in Utah that are a result.

It goes on and on and on....

Anonymous The other skeptic February 08, 2013 11:07 AM  

I'm with Tad on abortion, because after all, when we figure out what causes homosexuality, we can abort those babies.

Anonymous Alexander February 08, 2013 11:08 AM  

Tad's got us on this one. The past fifty years of rock solid social cohesion and prominence of the family unit lay waste to any claims that christian morality has any place in our society.

Just think how awful we'd have it if we had another fifty million mouths to feed!

Blogger Giraffe February 08, 2013 11:10 AM  

You stupid gay twat. If the US were to pass a law making homosexual acts a capital offense, would you oppose it as illegitimate because it violates your very own specific moral world view?

Blogger IM2L844 February 08, 2013 11:10 AM  

I'll point to the influence of christianity on giving support to the notion that requiring coverage of contraception somehow violates a person's ability to practice their religion.

You are knowingly misrepresenting the argument.

Anonymous Alexander February 08, 2013 11:11 AM  

Other Skeptic,

I confess to looking forward to the blue-on-blue showdown that goes down between the pro-choicers and the genetics. The feminists have so far been willing to look the other way that it's the girls who are more likely to be choiced out of existence. But somehow I can't see other groups being so willing to kill themselves off for the sake of their ideologies.

Anonymous Gx1080 February 08, 2013 11:15 AM  

Wow, yet another sodomite with a deep hatred against Christianity.

Shocking, I know.

Sodomites will always join Leftist causes to try to hurt a Church that will never accept them.

Atehism is a religion like any other. That much is obvious.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 11:15 AM  

@Giraffe

You stupid gay twat. If the US were to pass a law making homosexual acts a capital offense, would you oppose it as illegitimate because it violates your very own specific moral world view?

I wouldn't have to. It would be ruled unconstitutional. But the point is that if I were to take the position of the catholic community, I'd argue that I should be exempt from the law because it violates my deeply held moral beliefs.

Anonymous Mudz February 08, 2013 11:16 AM  

Tha's your idea of dangerous? Not enough pregancies being avoided? Or too many children being allowed to live?

On a different note, I've read that the Catholic Church denied the existence of witches as superstition, and that it was a couple of hoohaas in the middle of nowhere that wrote Malleus Maleficarum. I think the Church was technically wrong about the existence of witches.

I have no idea what a witch could do, or what that would mean, but they did apparently exist. Along with magic-practising priests. I assume they were mediums for demons or some such. (Barring the charlatans.)

I did flat with an ex-satanist who says he use to have sort of 'seances' with his buds, and curse people with his blood, or something. So maybe something along those lines.

Anonymous rienzi February 08, 2013 11:16 AM  

Mt. Hagen is in the Enga province of Papua New Guinea. My parents lived about twenty miles from there for several years in the early 80's, working as support for the LCMS missionaries in the area.

A man, being chased by a mob, accused of pretty much the same crap as the unfortunate young woman (which isn't all that uncommon there), took refuge in my father's house. My Dad had to go out on his front porch, and was able to face down the mob.

A native, invited to dinner with them, didn't show up. They found his body on their lawn the next morning, speared to death.

His dog killed several chickens belonging to a native neighbor. He had to go negotiate a price for the offense, or, under the native's time-honored custom of "payback", the neighbor would have been obligated to kill my mother.

The progressive idiots who subscribe to the idea of the "noble savage" ought to spend a few years living in the bush around Mt. Hagen. They would quickly become disabused of that notion.

Blogger Giraffe February 08, 2013 11:18 AM  

We'll make a constitutional amendment then.

I'd argue that I should be exempt from the law because it violates my deeply held moral beliefs.
So if you'd do it, it must be OK.

Blogger The Observer February 08, 2013 11:18 AM  

@Alexander:

Did you ever think that feminists were ever for women?

Sweden being the country with second highest number of rape in the world, 77% of which are by Muslim immigrants, and they spend their efforts on having a "man tax" and gender-neutral toys instead.

Acid attacks in London...ignored because the attacker was in a hijab.

Woman raped...blames not her rapist, but "white privilege".

Swedish feminists allowing Somalian rapists asylum in the country because "he would just rape someone elsewhere".

They've been more than willing to throw women under the bus if a) an event cannot be used to attack men or b) it's not in lockstep with leftist idealogy.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 11:19 AM  

@IM2L:

I'll point to the influence of christianity on giving support to the notion that requiring coverage of contraception somehow violates a person's ability to practice their religion.

You are knowingly misrepresenting the argument.


No, I'm not. The Catholic church is arguing that the first the requirement that contraception be included in healthcare coverage violates the 1st amendment because it to follow the law violates Catholics deeply held religious beliefs. If this is the case, what do we make of the person who has deeply held religious beliefs telling them that paying taxes to the state is immoral? Or the person who has deeply held religious beliefs that tell them beating their children and spouse is a requirement of God? Out they be exempt from tax laws and assault laws?

Anonymous Mudz February 08, 2013 11:23 AM  

@ Tad

What if Christians had a deeply held belief that worshipping a giant gold image was wrong? Guess you just have to throw us in the oven.

We don't consider men and man's laws impressive enough to compete with God.

Blogger IM2L844 February 08, 2013 11:23 AM  

Stay on point, Tad. Do you assert that contraception is not an enabling factor for indiscriminate sexually promiscuous behavior that is contrary to certain religious beliefs?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 February 08, 2013 11:23 AM  

@Tad

Long before there was a "post modern secular society"—whatever that means—babies were senselessly killed, abortions took place too, and people were imprisoned and tortured for their views (see witch burning, the inquisition, pogroms, etc.)

And yet you failed to address the second half of my argument. Try trolling next time. It's much more fun and you don't have to strain what little brainpower you have responding to people here.

Anonymous Alexander February 08, 2013 11:26 AM  

Observer,

Of course not - that's the point. The female infanticide is ignored by the feminists, because it's irrelevant to their actual mission. But other groups are only fellow travelers with 'the left' insofar as they see an advantage to doing so. They will happily attack the pro-choice crowd within their coalition if they see themselves threatened by it.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 11:28 AM  

@IM2

Stay on point, Tad. Do you assert that contraception is not an enabling factor for indiscriminate sexually promiscuous behavior that is contrary to certain religious beliefs?

Going to church and looking at smartly dressed women is an enabling factor for indiscriminate sexually promiscuous behavior. If catholics are against promiscuous behavior, they ought not engage in it.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick February 08, 2013 11:30 AM  

Anyone notice that once Tad posts twice in a thread it becomes Re-tad-id?

Anonymous Mudz February 08, 2013 11:33 AM  

@ Tad

Taken to extremes, it could be said that being born is an enabling factor. Just not really relevant.

Blogger Giraffe February 08, 2013 11:34 AM  

No, I'm not. The Catholic church is arguing that the first the requirement that contraception be included in healthcare coverage violates the 1st amendment because it to follow the law violates Catholics deeply held religious beliefs.

But Tad, you are claiming the constitution protects you too. And it does. Just like it protects Catholics. Obamacare is unconstitutional also.

Blogger IM2L844 February 08, 2013 11:41 AM  

Stop deflecting, Tad. I will take forever, but we can walk through this one phrase or one word at a time if we need to.

Is the main purpose of contraception to reduce the potential consequences that result from heterosexuals engaging in sexual intercourse?

Anonymous Alexander February 08, 2013 11:41 AM  

OT but 1) it's about gun control so that's a loophole, yes? and 2) I'd like Tad's response and he can't pretend he's not following this thread.

Looks like CA is proposing gun laws that will not only prohibit certain guns but will actively confiscate those currently (legally) owned by citizens. So:

1) Nobody's talking about confiscation, huh?

2) Do you agree that this would go too far now that we are, in fact, talking about confiscation?

Blogger The Observer February 08, 2013 11:44 AM  

@Alexander,

Do you have a source for the CA gun laws? That's news to me.

Anonymous test123 February 08, 2013 11:47 AM  

This Tad fag is quite funny.

Like most lefties, he deliberately changes definitions of words to suit his goal. Hence now morality is absolutely equal to religion for his purposes here.

Classic leftist move---Newspeak-esqu. Much like his psychological projection, also evident here.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner February 08, 2013 11:48 AM  

@Alexander

"girls who are more likely to be choiced out of existence"

Teh Grrrrrls in China now have to "Rent" a "Date".

http://abcnews.go.com/International/boyfriend-rentals-boom-chinese-year-valentines-day/story?id=18439072

Ah, the smell of feminism in the morning.

Anonymous Flaming Logic February 08, 2013 11:49 AM  

We have absolutely nothing to learn from the Christian Church because people in the middle ages burned heretics.

But

We have a lot of things to learn from pagan savages who still burn people alive.

No contradiction there.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner February 08, 2013 11:51 AM  

"Re-tad-id?"

Around these parts some don't "Retire", they "Ree-tard", and they spell it that way too.

Anonymous Alexander February 08, 2013 11:54 AM  

@Observer

http://tinyurl.com/bxgctof

http://tinyurl.com/a59xey4

http://tinyurl.com/bhn5xjx

@ Lysander,

HAHAHAHA. So girls are now paying for the privileged to be taken to a movie. Classic.

Blogger IM2L844 February 08, 2013 12:15 PM  

Okay. Well, here's a question that is more suited to you: Does that color make Gamma Rabbit's butt look fat?

Anonymous Curlytop February 08, 2013 12:15 PM  

"HAHAHAHA. So girls are now paying for the privileged to be taken to a movie. Classic."

And one more example of how men will ALWAYS find a way around the idiotic attitudes that saturate feminist thought. Whether it's sexbots or paying a man for his sperm, or this latest "pay a man for a date,".. progressive women never fail to disappoint in their stupidity.

Next up: the headline that glorifies women's so-called independence from the big bad patriarchy by PAYING a man to not only take her out but have sex with her. Can you see the price point for foreplay or ensuring climax?

Way to go, ladies!

Anonymous Edjamacator February 08, 2013 12:17 PM  

My side??

Yes, Tad. Your "side." The lost. The damned. Those hated by God at present. The ones who look at the universe and life and laughably chalk it all up to "natural forces" blind and non-sentient. The ones destined for eternal torment. The ones who mock God and bask in their foolish pride and false righteousness. The ones who, upon seeing their own dead body, will in one split second realize that they got it wrong. The ones who will have nothing to say when Jesus judges them and gives them the desire of their hearts in the form of removing them from the presence of God forever. The ones who rejected a free offer of salvation and threw it back into God's face.

So yes, your side. It doesn't work out well for you. I don't say this out of joy. I say it as a warning. Discard it if you like and wrap yourself up in your blanket of false security and smug pride and laugh at those of us who believe all you want. We're used to it. But to us, your grasping at some idea that humanity is actually going to pull it together somehow and create some secular utopia is sad and pathetic. Humans have had long enough and we haven't done anything near that goal, and we never will. Nature of the beast.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 12:32 PM  

@Edjumacator

The ones who, upon seeing their own dead body, will in one split second realize that they got it wrong.

Died much have you, Edjumacator?

Blogger Lud VanB February 08, 2013 12:42 PM  

"We have absolutely nothing to learn from the Christian Church because people in the middle ages burned heretics.

But

We have a lot of things to learn from pagan savages who still burn people alive.

No contradiction there"


the only thing we have to learn from anyone who invokes miracle/magic/mysticism as a reason for doing or not doing anything is that as a species, we still have a long way to go

Blogger Giraffe February 08, 2013 12:44 PM  

the only thing we have to learn from anyone who invokes miracle/magic/mysticism as a reason for doing or not doing anything is that as a species, we still have a long way to go

Right. We need to evolve into a more successful species. Like flies or termites.

Anonymous Herman the German February 08, 2013 12:45 PM  

Josh wrote: Was anyone turned into a newt?


--- "Umm, well....I got better!"

LOL

Blogger Lud VanB February 08, 2013 12:46 PM  

well if you feel that being a fly or termite would be in improvement over your current state, be my guest.

Blogger Giraffe February 08, 2013 12:48 PM  

I was just mocking the idea that an undirected process would have a direction. Unless you are one of those eugenicists that thinks all black people should be sterilized. That ain't funny.

Anonymous Stilicho February 08, 2013 12:49 PM  

Anyone notice that once Tad posts twice in a thread it becomes Re-tad-id?

That's his whole purpose. Pollute the threads with idiocy to drive away the ilk.

Blogger Lud VanB February 08, 2013 12:50 PM  

i was obviously not talking about our still much needed progress in a biological sense and i m fairly certain you understood that.

Blogger Giraffe February 08, 2013 12:55 PM  

I don't have a lot of hope for the species otherwise either. We are fallen and all that.

Anonymous VD February 08, 2013 12:55 PM  

i was obviously not talking about our still much needed progress in a biological sense and i m fairly certain you understood that.

And what sense were you talking about it? Moral? Do tell.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan February 08, 2013 12:58 PM  

When an American Wiccan expires,
Funeral goers become wailers and cryers,
But in Papau she'd be roasted,
Quite literally toasted,
On a pile of gasoline soaked tires.

Blogger IM2L844 February 08, 2013 1:04 PM  

the only thing we have to learn from anyone who invokes miracle/magic/mysticism as a reason for doing or not doing anything is that as a species, we still have a long way to go

Why? Is it because you think science deserves to occupy the exalted position in the pantheon of knowledge as the supreme arbiter of truth?

Anonymous test123 February 08, 2013 1:11 PM  

the only thing we have to learn from anyone who invokes miracle/magic/mysticism as a reason for doing or not doing anything is that as a species, we still have a long way to go

----The idea that, as a species, we have contemplated the meaning of our existence, have come to believe we are not the most dominant universal beings, and have come up with highly developed intellectual and moral systems to explain our existence and our goals is proof that we are quite highly evolved species.

Dogs and apes do not contemplate the divine, dear one.

Anonymous bw February 08, 2013 1:15 PM  

Can you see the price point for foreplay or ensuring climax?

Considering the attractiveness of your average feminist?
They will never be able to afford it.
"She won't have anything to do with Lippy at any price..." - Gus

Anonymous Shutup, Tad February 08, 2013 1:24 PM  

That's his whole purpose. Pollute the threads with idiocy to drive away the ilk.

Could just tell him to shutup.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 08, 2013 1:32 PM  

It is always those furthest removed from savagery who extoll it.

I suspect that the economic (depression) and physical (WWII) savagery that the GI generation experienced had a lot to so with the stability and generally high degree of civilization of the 50's and early 60's.
It's also probably why they refrained from strangling the Boomers in their cribs.

If our society makes it out of the coming crisis with a functional industrial base and the ability to feed itself, I predict the latter half of the 21st Century will be a time of great prosperity and civilizational splendor. The modern Left will be relegated to the historical role of movie villains.

Note, however, the rather large if at the start of that paragraph. There's also a good change the latter half of the 21st Century could be a very savage time. But one way or another, I don't think the current semi-civilized state we live in will last much more than 30 years.

Anonymous Edjamacator February 08, 2013 1:35 PM  

Died much have you, Edjumacator?

Gee, Tad, is my name too hard to spell? Just copy and paste if you can't handle it.

And yes, I was dead in my sins. Spiritually. Like you are now.

But no, I don't expect you to change or listen or anything. Many never will and will only know the truth after death. By then, it won't do you any good, however.

Anonymous test123 February 08, 2013 1:44 PM  

@Jack Amok:
I suspect that the economic (depression) and physical (WWII) savagery that the GI generation experienced had a lot to so with the stability and generally high degree of civilization of the 50's and early 60's.

---A few anti-feminists have commented that the 1950's housewife wasn't some trapped, beaten, domesticated little bunny kept from the world by Big Bad Men. They were girls who had been born and grown up during the crushing poverty of the Great Depression and lived through the horrors of the Dust Bowl and other the 1930s natural disasters (for example, the storm known as The Long Island Express), then seen many men die in WW2 whilst fearing invasion from Japanese and Germans, then lived through the terrifying fear of the beginnings of the Cold War and the nuclear bomb age.

In short, these women had lived through extremely rough times and had worked' and "done it for themselves" their entire lives. And the first chance they had, they ran screaming into domesticity and the suburban "prisons" so derided by later feminazis, like the mentally disturbed Betty Friedan.

Feminism as a movement was largely pushed by the Boomer girls. They knew nothing of how the world was when suburbia didn't exist and men didn't take care of their every need.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 1:46 PM  

@IM2L8

Why? Is it because you think science deserves to occupy the exalted position in the pantheon of knowledge as the supreme arbiter of truth?

No. We leave that to the miracle/magic/mysticism of Christianity.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 1:48 PM  

@Edjamacater

Died much have you, Edjumacator?

And yes, I was dead in my sins. Spiritually. Like you are now.


So in other words, you are just guessing about what happens after we die.

Anonymous test123 February 08, 2013 1:53 PM  

Tad fag's miracle/magic/mysticism is the Cult of Leftism.

His projection is showing.

Anonymous Mudz February 08, 2013 1:54 PM  

@ Tad

So in other words, you are just guessing about what happens after we die.

Amusing, but misdirected. We're guessing that the bible is accurate about what happens after we die. We consider the source reliable.

No. We leave that to the miracle/magic/mysticism of Christianity.

Preferably. Although I don't think abstract concepts can actually arbiter anything.

Anonymous Gx1080 February 08, 2013 1:59 PM  

The generation that got to enjoy the spoils of the greatest war on human history without having to work for it turned out to be a bunch of spoiled brats with deep self-steem issues.

Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but it looks very predictable.

Christianity didn't bowed to powers far more scary than a bunch of Leftoids. I don't see it starting any time soon.

Anonymous Alexander February 08, 2013 2:02 PM  

Tad, please answer my questions about gun confiscation.

1. Do you concede that the state legislature in California is discussing legislation that would make previously legal firearms owned by citizens in that state illegal and is proposing changes to the law that require those guns be confiscated?

2. Do you think this is acceptable behavior by the legislature?

3. Do you believe this is constitutional, either on a state or national level, regardless of if you personally believe it is acceptable.

Anonymous bw February 08, 2013 2:04 PM  

It is always interesting to note that the Rabbits consistently enable the Predators in the world around them.

Anonymous Imatiger February 08, 2013 2:10 PM  

So, don't mimic the burning people alive part. But I bet the Papuans do have something to teach us about farming and/or hunting/gathering.

Anonymous Edjamacator February 08, 2013 2:16 PM  

So in other words, you are just guessing about what happens after we die.

Hardly. I'm listening to those who not only make a great deal of sense about this world but who witnessed a resurrection. I also have my own internal experiences that validate my belief. To you, no, they won't. The lost are blind to things of God and they won't make sense to you. You can't understand or know them, exactly as I couldn't before.

Heck, you can't even understand the secular world. How could you possibly understand the spiritual?

Now concentrate on those tearing apart your secular opinions. This is the world that matters to you so you may as well try to learn about it instead of wallowing in your current ignorance.

Anonymous 11B February 08, 2013 2:20 PM  

Witch Burnings. Witch Hunts.

You don't see them much anymore, in the West. But when you did, it seems there was often of the Christian church involved.


Are you referring to the Salem Witch Trials? I find it amazing an event that is almost 400 years old, that took about 25 lives, still lives on to this day.

Long before there was a "post modern secular society"—whatever that means—babies were senselessly killed, abortions took place too, and people were imprisoned and tortured for their views (see witch burning, the inquisition, pogroms, etc.)

I think it is funny how you can usually tell someone's political persuasion or ethnic background from the examples they list about history's worst crimes.


Anonymous Jack Amok February 08, 2013 2:20 PM  

But I bet the Papuans do have something to teach us about farming and/or hunting/gathering.

Yeah, don't do it in an upland jungle. Find a nice river valley with good soil and a decided lack of bug/snake infestations.

Doh! Civilized people with guns already control all the river valleys. Now we know why the cannibals live where they do - they're the only places on earth nobody stronger, smarter and more deadly than them don't want.

Seriously, pilots in the South Pacific in WWII generally decided that if they had to bail out, they'd rather bail out over the shark infested, trackless ocean than over the disease infested "Green Hell" of the New Guinea jungles.

Blogger Lud VanB February 08, 2013 2:28 PM  

"And what sense were you talking about it? Moral? Do tell."


yes moral. religion based morality is predicated on the idea that we require someone other than ourselves to determine right from wrong. as long as we believe that, we ll never me more than barely sentient slaves to our collective gullibility.

Blogger Lud VanB February 08, 2013 2:30 PM  

"Why? Is it because you think science deserves to occupy the exalted position in the pantheon of knowledge as the supreme arbiter of truth? "


science, for all its faults, has at least the merit of being the constant search for truth, as opposed to religion being the pretense that truth has allready been found.

Anonymous 11B February 08, 2013 2:31 PM  

Feminism as a movement was largely pushed by the Boomer girls

Gloria Steinem, Susan Sontag, and Betty Friedan were not boomers. Speaking of which, can any of our Jewish commenters enlighten us as to the behavior of Jewish men toward their women in the early to mid twentieth century. Given the large percentage of Jewish women in the feminist movement, it seems that Jewish men must have been ogres back then. Was this the case? If not, then why would so many Jewish girls have been involved in this movement?

Blogger Lud VanB February 08, 2013 2:33 PM  

"Dogs and apes do not contemplate the divine, dear one."


contemplating the divine is one thing. pretending to know anything about it when you so clearly dont is quite another.

Anonymous Matt Strictland February 08, 2013 2:34 PM  

A true Christian society would be doing the same thing, maybe with some kind of trial

Exodus 22:18 nuff said ...

Anonymous Whitefeather February 08, 2013 2:34 PM  

"pretending to know anything about it when you so clearly dont is quite another."

IRONY ALERT!! LEVEL 11!!!

Blogger njartist February 08, 2013 2:40 PM  

If you do not believe in or acknowledge Satan, his capacities, and his dominion of powers and principalities, then of course there are no witches; there are no serious occult practices; and the Freemason occult secrets and practices are just silly activities of men in apron and funny hats; nor do you think that Satan has the capacity to communicate with his human servants; but, if you do believe and acknowledge, then there are witches; then the occult practices of the Freemasons are not silly; and such people and others are in communication with the demonic: What do you do?

Blogger Lud VanB February 08, 2013 2:45 PM  

if you believe that your devil character, being over 6000 years old and well versed in all forms of deception and trickery as he is reputed to be would proceed with his influencing the world through such obviously recognizable agencies as "witches" or "demonic possessions" maybe that says more about you than it does about him.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 2:51 PM  

@Alexander

Tad, please answer my questions about gun confiscation.

I have no idea what you are talking about or referring to. Ask someone else.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 2:55 PM  

@Edjumacator

Hardly. I'm listening to those who not only make a great deal of sense about this world but who witnessed a resurrection

Really. What, are these folks in your kitchen discussing a resurrection with you?

I also have my own internal experiences that validate my belief. To you, no, they won't.

Well of course they won't. And you shouldn't expect them to since no one access to your internal experiences. Want to know about mine? Will that prove something to you?

Now concentrate on those tearing apart your secular opinions. This is the world that matters to you so you may as well try to learn about it instead of wallowing in your current ignorance.

I'm ignorant because I can't experience your internal experiences or because I'm not at your kitchen table conversing with resurrection witnesses?

Anonymous Lysander Spooner February 08, 2013 3:02 PM  

I see Tad people.

I must have a built in Tad "repulsinator", never read one of his posts, I can't even see them, weird...lol.

Anonymous Freddy February 08, 2013 3:03 PM  

The late John G. Paxson's autobiography of his missionary ventures to New Hebrides in the 1860's tell of the most horrific canabalistic stories of waring tribes and men of various tribes mercilessly clubing their own woman to death and eating them in front of all the ladies as "examples." The murdering, lying, theiving duplicitous nature of every "nobel savage" is well documented by Paxon before the
regenerating balm of the gospel of Jesus Christ
came through the lifelong work of this man. Without Christ paganism reels it's wicked head in many forms

Anonymous Edjamacator February 08, 2013 3:06 PM  

@Ta(r)d

Really. What, are these folks in your kitchen discussing a resurrection with you?

That's sweet. Keep pretending you don't know what I'm referring to.

Want to know about mine? Will that prove something to you?

If your personal experiences line up with a source that I have determined to have the best grasp of reality, then yes. However, I sincerely doubt they will. I've seen your arguments in various threads and like I said before, you don't even understand things like human nature, the Constitution, etc. You dodge questions you can't answer and hope they go away rather than reveal your ignorance. I've seen others rip your arguments apart and instead of you learning something like a rational, tolerant, open-minded adult that seeks to learn, you cling to your erroneous, unrealistic ideas because you can't stand to have your pride wounded.

I'm ignorant because I can't experience your internal experiences or because I'm not at your kitchen table conversing with resurrection witnesses?

Actually, quoting me and then making that statement only proves that even reading comprehension is beyond you. In case you missed it, I told you to deal with questions of this world, which is not the resurrection, but the secular debates going on. Once you can learn about those which you can actually see maybe you'll be ready to learn about other things. Now try answering Alex's questions if you can, without the dodging.

Blogger IM2L844 February 08, 2013 3:15 PM  

science, for all its faults, has at least the merit of being the constant search for truth


It is presumptuous to imagine that science has been responsible for the whole of truth known to date, or even that there doesn't exist a better method for discovering the truth.


...religion being the pretense that truth has all ready been found.

I object to your use of the word "pretense". Justify it.

Anonymous kh123 February 08, 2013 3:19 PM  

"Tad, please answer my questions about gun confiscation."

Hadn't you heard - ever since the most recent shootings to hit the wire over the past year or more have mainly represented underprivileged peoples sticking it to straight Caucasian goyim (especially the shooting at the Family Research Council in DC, which had the triple-plus-good bonus of being straight, honkey, and Christian), Tad's stance on gun control has since morphed into what we've come to expect from him on all other topics:

Solely protecting the rights of those with which he agrees. Fuera de La Raza,... etc.

Which in the above case would be light-loafer-legionnaires.

Anonymous test123 February 08, 2013 3:22 PM  

@11b:

Gloria Steinem, Susan Sontag, and Betty Friedan were not boomers.

---No, they were not.

They were three mentally deranged malcontents----Friedan, a clear schizophrenic or had borderline personality disorder; Steinem, a woman from a broken home with a schizophrenic mother; and Sontag, a pseudo-lesbian, had a mother who spent more time away from her than raising her. These women, driven by their own unhappy home lives and mental problems, sought to make the unsuspecting as miserable as they.



But they would have been merely forgotten lonely people with a few intellectual admirers had the Boomers grown up in the same situation they mothers did. Girls of their own generation laughed at and rejected Friedan, Sontag, and Steinam's b.s., knowing how good their lives really were. Feminism did not take off in the 50s or early 60s, but rather when Boomer girls followed them, completely ignorant of what true misery, oppression, and feminism was.

Speaking of which, can any of our Jewish commenters enlighten us as to the behavior of Jewish men toward their women in the early to mid twentieth century. Given the large percentage of Jewish women in the feminist movement, it seems that Jewish men must have been ogres back then. Was this the case? If not, then why would so many Jewish girls have been involved in this movement?
---More of the opposite. As Heartiste explains, more effete action by men breeds more wild, ugly, anti-man behavior in women. Jewish men, caught up in the left-wing movements of the time, were paralyzed by the notion of equality. Abandoning their old Jewish tradition, they "reformed" , rejected religion, and argued that women were "equals."

When they did that, suddenly they became the hen-pecked losers of vaudville jokes.

Anonymous Alexander February 08, 2013 3:31 PM  

Tad, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Your entire song-and-dance on gun control has rested on the fact that you can call people paranoid because actual, physical confiscation was not taking place, or being publicly admitted to by the left's congressional leadership. You argue that short of confiscation, any restriction is reasonable and (presumably) constitutional. This has come up time and time again with you.

So now, I would appreciate an answer as California lawmakers have decided it's now an all out race-to-the-finish and are willing to openly support and propose changes to the law that will force people to give up legally owned guns.

No more claims of paranoia, no more non-falsifiable bullshit statements about the slope is slippery, even though it's been traveled down time and time again to the same conclusion.

Please, answer the questions.

Anonymous alexamenos February 08, 2013 3:39 PM  

Burn them!

(a little late to the party, but what the heck...)

Anonymous Iain Johnston February 08, 2013 3:43 PM  

@edjamacator: "Many never will and will only know the truth after death. By then, it won't do you any good, however."

The emphasis on Hell as a punishment for disbelief makes Christianity sound like a kind of divine protection racket: "Nice soul ya got there, it'd be a shame if anything happened to it." But the vast majority of unbelievers are not doing anything wicked when they find that they cannot sincerely give intellectual assent to the central proposition of Christianity: that a hereditary curse caused by an apple offered by a talking snake made it necessary for God to appear on earth in the person of an ordinary Jew who was born of a virgin, who died for our sins, subsequently came back to life and ascended into heaven. They find this idea as genuinely difficult to credit as you do the claims of Islam. (Of course, the Muslims would threaten both you and the rest of us with eternal torture in the afterlife for not following their religion... they're running the spiritual protection racket as well.)

Blogger Lud VanB February 08, 2013 3:44 PM  

"It is presumptuous to imagine that science has been responsible for the whole of truth known to date, or even that there doesn't exist a better method for discovering the truth."

what better way is there to know the "truth" about the world and our place in it?

"I object to your use of the word "pretense". Justify it."


object all you want, i ll keep using it. what objective justification does religion give for its "truth claims"?

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 3:48 PM  

@Edjumacater

That's sweet. Keep pretending you don't know what I'm referring to.

But you said you were listening to those that had witnessed a resurrection. But you aren't, are you. In fact, you are just reading a book.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 4:00 PM  

@Alexander

So now, I would appreciate an answer as California lawmakers have decided it's now an all out race-to-the-finish and are willing to openly support and propose changes to the law that will force people to give up legally owned guns.

Do you have a link to a bill from CA that demands confiscation?

Anonymous Asher February 08, 2013 4:07 PM  

@ Tad

e it's implications, in addition to be silly, are that no laws enacted in a representative government are legitimate if they violate one's very own, specific moral world view.

Hey, asshole, when it's one person''s idiosyncratic view then you're right, but when it's the view of tens upon tens of millions of people it's a violation of the principle of political self-determination of a people..

In other words, you're openly advocating tyranny.

Why not do the sensible thing and give those people their own country?

no one access to your internal experiences. Want to know about mine?

There is no such thing as an "internal experience", that is a glitch in cognition.

Anonymous Asher February 08, 2013 4:09 PM  

@ Tad

You're confusing the non-demonstrable with the demonstrably false. The Resurrection cannot be empirically demonstrated. However, most of what the feminist movement claims is demonstrably false. One is religion and the other superstition.

Last I checked feminism is on the Left, not the Right, making the left the party of superstition.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 4:12 PM  

@Asher

Hey, asshole, when it's one person''s idiosyncratic view then you're right, but when it's the view of tens upon tens of millions of people it's a violation of the principle of political self-determination of a people..

You didn't understand my point. Slow down. Take a breath and re-read.

Anonymous Alexander February 08, 2013 4:13 PM  

http://www.sbsun.com/breakingnews/ci_22544460/californias-state-senate-democrats-roll-out-big-gun

It is not yet a bill. Don't get smart - the lawmakers are explicitly stating their desire to pass laws that would confiscate guns from owners, and are taking actions to that effect. We do not need to wait until the sheriff is making midnight raids to get your views on the matter. Namely, whether confiscation is a legitimate fear of citizens, whether you personally find confiscation acceptable, and whether confiscation would be constitutional.

Answer the questions, Tad.

Anonymous Asher February 08, 2013 4:13 PM  

@ All Christians

"The 'internal states' of man are sinful and desperately wicked, who can know them"

Don't you Christians even read your own damn Bible? A quick glance at the bible would indicate that our "internal states" are unknowable, including to ourselves.

Anonymous Asher February 08, 2013 4:14 PM  

@ Tad

You didn't understand my point. Slow down. Take a breath and re-read.

That's not the way it works, you ignorant jackass. If you have a point then state it, otherwise, STFU.

Anonymous Asher February 08, 2013 4:17 PM  

@ Tad

The point is that tens of millions of people, not one, have a moral system with a long history that prohibits contraception. That makes that population a distinct people with a moral view radically different and distinct from yours. You want to use the power of the federal government to impose your moral system not on just one person but on tens of millions of people who are a distinct and different people.

That is tyranny.

OpenID mevennen February 08, 2013 4:33 PM  

Flick away. It's chilly here: we could do with the free heat (I said I'd be back).

A couple of points: the Papua case is appalling, and anyone following Rousseau's lead of the noble savage needs, as you suggest, to take a look at what actually happens in indigenous societies, which is not pretty. The Western view of this is usually fuelled more by condescension than realism.

Secondly, as an example, witch burning in Scandinavia decreased depending on the power of the church. So in areas where the church held greater sway, fewer people were sent to the stake or the gallows, probably because the local priests were rational people who mitigated the level of inter-neighbour abuse. These things are rarely based on theological or metaphysical principles and usually on who has nicked someone else's cow or shagged someone else's husband.

To anyone familiar with small spiritual communities, this will come as no surprise: I have frequently advocated the return of the ducking stool for the more annoying locals.

Anonymous Mudz February 08, 2013 4:34 PM  

Logically speaking, why would a moral system that works for us, not work for another arbitary group of genetically identical/similiar humanity?

Anonymous Mudz February 08, 2013 4:52 PM  

Or, you know, vice versa. Just to be clear.

Anonymous Asher February 08, 2013 5:05 PM  

@ Mudz

That's a complicated answer. On my droid right now but I'll get back to you tonight.

Anonymous Asher February 08, 2013 5:12 PM  

@@Tad

Yeah, I just reread your comment. You were comparing the historical belief system of an entire people with the idiosyncratic beliefs of one person.

Exactly what I said you dishonest little twerp.

Anonymous Mudz February 08, 2013 5:13 PM  

@ Asher

Sweet as.

P.S. Be nice to Tad. Gay people feel pain too. :)

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 5:51 PM  

@Asher

Christians for many decades justified their racism against blacks on the bible. It was a consistent refrain through out the south.

Suppose a person, based on this historic view of christianity supporting racism demands to be exempt from non-discrimination laws. Why should they not be exempt if the anti-discrimination laws violate his deeply held religious and moral beliefs?

The Catholic church opposes the death penalty. Should a catholic be exempt from the dealth penalty if they they are convicted of murder in Texas?

What if a sound biblical argument can be made against income taxes? Should christians be exempt from paying income tax?

The Free Exercise clause prohibits the govt. from passing most laws that prohibit the practice of religion. Catholic workers at a business run by a catholic owner as well as the owner can choose to not practice contraception. There is nothing in the healthcare law that prohibits them from not using contraception.

Anonymous Mudz February 08, 2013 6:06 PM  

@ Tad

You're making up hypothetical non-Christian arguments that Jesus already answered.

'Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's...'

-

Wilberforce completely freed slaves in England. Christian chap.

There is no biblical justification for racism. We're not even ancient Israelites. 'There is no distinction between the Jew and Greek with Him'. (Paraphrase)

Christianity is a specific religion, not just a generic factory model that could freak out at any moment. People can interpret it badly, but that just make's them bad interpreters, not Christianity a bad religion.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 6:27 PM  

@Mudz

No, it's the catholic church that is asking for far more than it deserves. The Supreme Court has been clear where the Free Exercise clause is concerned when it ruled that if law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

The Contraception Mandate does not target any particular religious practice.

Blogger Giraffe February 08, 2013 6:31 PM  

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Blogger Lud VanB February 08, 2013 6:31 PM  

and i suppose that you have the correct interpretation of christianity which is...what again?

Anonymous Gen. Kong February 08, 2013 6:34 PM  

Tossed onto a pyre of flaming tires. Outstanding. Diamond is absolutely correct - we really no longer know how to properly deal with witches here in the unicorn utopia. I mean really, is there a more effective way of dispatching a feminist screech-orc than by tying it up, tossing onto a pyre of tires and setting it ablaze? If this were done more often, the world would be a quieter place in short order. Let's get the faith-based gang to resettle some New Guineans in some Section 8 condos down the street from Tad, maybe some Moose-limbs too. Great amusement would ensue.

Blogger Giraffe February 08, 2013 6:36 PM  

Screw the supreme court, Tad. I'm not Catholic and I don't want my money to pay for contraception. Some forms for moral/religious reasons, and also because pay for your own, dammit. The bill clearly oversteps what is allowed by the Constitution, Roberts be damned.

Would you want your money paying for therapy to turn gay men straight, assuming it was part of the bill? And it might be, nobody's read the damn thing yet.

Blogger Lud VanB February 08, 2013 6:41 PM  

"Diamond is absolutely correct - we really no longer know how to properly deal with witches here in the unicorn utopia."


of course we know how to deal with witches...we recognize them to be fabulations of dellusional religionist diseased minds.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 6:57 PM  

@Giraffe

Screw the supreme court, Tad. I'm not Catholic and I don't want my money to pay for contraception. Some forms for moral/religious reasons, and also because pay for your own, dammit. The bill clearly oversteps what is allowed by the Constitution, Roberts be damned.

Please believe me when I tell you that I understand the feeling of "screw the Supreme Court". It's not an uncommon feelings.

That said, whether or not the contraception mandate is allowed to stand will in fact turn on how the Supreme Court understands the Free Exercise clause. And what we know is that the current interpretation of that clause is that if a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. I don't see any way in which the general contraception mandate TARGETS a particular religion. So, the Catholics and others that oppose it on those grounds are likely out of luck.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 7:18 PM  

@Asher

That is tyranny.

Perhaps, but only of the sort that makes a speed limit of 65MPH a tyranny.

Anonymous Mudz February 08, 2013 7:22 PM  

@ Tad

The Supreme Court is ostensibly subject to God as the highest justice. If it is violating Christian precepts, then it is the one out of order.

Even if it didn't affirm God, it would make no difference. You don't get to choose your ultimate Judge.

Anonymous Mudz February 08, 2013 7:26 PM  

@ Lud

and i suppose that you have the correct interpretation of christianity which is...what again?

If I didn't, I wouldn't know it. But you're welcome to ask me a useful question. Otherwise, it would be 'Jesus' interpretation'.

Anonymous 11B February 08, 2013 8:18 PM  

Abandoning their old Jewish tradition, they "reformed" , rejected religion, and argued that women were "equals."

When they did that, suddenly they became the hen-pecked losers of vaudville jokes.


Maybe that's why we don't see many muslim, black, Mexican and other vibrant feminists.

Blogger Lud VanB February 08, 2013 8:39 PM  

"If I didn't, I wouldn't know it. But you're welcome to ask me a useful question. Otherwise, it would be 'Jesus' interpretation'."

would that be the interpretation where humans are "fallen" from some non-descript, nebulous past exalted state which required a blood sacrifice to put us back on the right tract?

Anonymous Anonymous February 08, 2013 8:46 PM  

It is hilarious to watch. Tad is so fearful.... all we have to do is stop listening, stop being shamed into submission... and Tad loses all of his power. Go ahead, Tad....make my day, little tyrant. We both know you don't have the ballz. Atlas shrugged.

Anonymous Tad February 08, 2013 9:01 PM  

@Mudz


The Supreme Court is ostensibly subject to God as the highest justice. If it is violating Christian precepts, then it is the one out of order.


The supreme court is not apparently, purportedly, ostensibly or actually subject to God.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 08, 2013 9:33 PM  

Logically speaking, why would a moral system that works for us, not work for another arbitary group of genetically identical/similiar humanity?

No reason at all, for sufficient definitions of "genetically similar."

Anonymous JartStar February 08, 2013 10:35 PM  

religion being the pretense that truth has allready been found.

Did you arrive at this conclusion through the scientific method?

Anonymous Crude February 09, 2013 2:01 AM  

There's a gulf between 'what the constitution says' and 'what the SCOTUS happens to say at any given time'. The SCOTUS decision most of the time (not always, but far and away most of the time) determines what laws get enforced and how they get enforced. But they only settle issues in a practical sense. That's enough for most people, but the idea that a person's interpretation of the Constitution is shown to be wrong just because the SCOTUS ruled a particular way one time (or even multiple times) is silly.

As for the pale imitation of an argument being given here - saying what amounts to 'I can imagine problems coming up if this were constitutional, therefore it can't be constitutional!' is just laugh out loud inane. That's like saying that laws against pornography can't be constitutional because Tad can imagine it being difficult to determine what does and does not count as pornography. The court doesn't really care what Tad (or myself, or most other people) thinks, and the fact that something being constitutional may create problems in principle doesn't mean that it's therefore not constitutional, or that solutions for those problems can't be sought.

Anonymous Crude February 09, 2013 2:03 AM  

The supreme court is not apparently, purportedly, ostensibly or actually subject to God.

Sure it is. As are you, as a matter of fact.

Blogger Lud VanB February 09, 2013 2:51 AM  

"Sure it is. As are you, as a matter of fact."

its true. If God does exist, it is by definition absolutely sovereign over everything. which also means that again, be definition, nothing can occur outside of its will.

Anonymous Mudz February 10, 2013 1:20 AM  

@ Lud

would that be the interpretation where humans are "fallen" from some non-descript, nebulous past exalted state which required a blood sacrifice to put us back on the right tract?

Depends. Are you referring to the explicitly described situation in Genesis 1 and 2, and the crucifixion of Jesus described in the New Testament that forms the central pillar of Christianity?

@ Tad

The supreme court is not apparently, purportedly, ostensibly or actually subject to God.

For all practical purposes, I can surely tell that from their behaviour. Yet I can't help but notice that the first thing people are required to do in court is swear on the bible. You know, as if the court is 'swearing them in' to be held accountable to God, or that they are in some sense authorised to judge on his behalf.

If they do not recognise God's authority, then what the heck are they doing trying to make him part of the protocol of justice? Do they think it's pick and choose?

This is apparently your pledge of allegiance:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

How can a nation be 'under' God, and yet it's justice system not be 'subject' to God?

Anonymous Mudz February 10, 2013 1:21 AM  

And that is an oath of every citizen too. Not just a protocol of law.

(Did you swear this oath? I don't know how it works myself.)

Blogger Lud VanB February 10, 2013 6:39 AM  

"Depends. Are you referring to the explicitly described situation in Genesis 1 and 2, and the crucifixion of Jesus described in the New Testament that forms the central pillar of Christianity?"


yes...that laughably ridiculous and illogical fairy tale.

Blogger Lud VanB February 10, 2013 6:45 AM  

"If they do not recognise God's authority, then what the heck are they doing trying to make him part of the protocol of justice? Do they think it's pick and choose?"


thats actually a very good question. Since no one in the history of life on earth has ever objectively demonstrated an ability know conclusively or hell even tentatively what God's opinion would be about anything humans do or dont do, why would its autority be incorporated into our justice system?

Anonymous Mudz February 10, 2013 8:26 AM  

yes...that laughably ridiculous and illogical fairy tale.

How so?

And so it is not because of it's descriptiveness or lack of descriptiveness that you object to it?


thats actually a very good question. Since no one in the history of life on earth has ever objectively demonstrated an ability know conclusively or hell even tentatively what God's opinion would be about anything humans do or dont do, why would its autority be incorporated into our justice system?


You mean asides from a roughly 1500 page book known as the bible, I assume?

Anonymous Mudz February 10, 2013 8:28 AM  

Although, I must admit, Jesus is in all likelihood not an objective source. He probably loves his dad.

Anonymous Mudz February 10, 2013 8:33 AM  

why would its autority be incorporated into our justice system?

Does this mean you accept that God's authority is implicitly accepted in your justice system?

Blogger Lud VanB February 10, 2013 9:29 AM  

"And so it is not because of it's descriptiveness or lack of descriptiveness that you object to it?"


no...its illogical because its a story about a couple of individuals who wind up being punished along with all their descendants for doing something that they had no way of understanding was wrong in the first place until they actually did it and then it was too late..."hey kids... heres an apple...you are not supposed to eat it, although you do not understand why its wrong for you to disobey me since the knowledge of right and wrong is contained in said apple and if you do eat it, i ll punish you with death, somthing you have no way of knwing anything about becasue it havent invented it yet....makes sense, right?

Blogger Lud VanB February 10, 2013 9:31 AM  

"You mean asides from a roughly 1500 page book known as the bible, I assume?"


oh...well by that metric, the lord of the ring constitutes objective evidence of the existence of the dark lord Sauron and his one ring of power then doesnt it?

Blogger Lud VanB February 10, 2013 9:33 AM  

"Does this mean you accept that God's authority is implicitly accepted in your justice system?"


of course not...God's concept of justice is completely arbitrary whereas human justice is based on specific actions and circumstances.

Anonymous Mudz February 10, 2013 9:56 AM  

no...its illogical because its a story about a couple of individuals who wind up being punished along with all their descendants for doing something that they had no way of understanding was wrong in the first place until they actually did it and then it was too late..."hey kids... heres an apple...you are not supposed to eat it, although you do not understand why its wrong for you to disobey me since the knowledge of right and wrong is contained in said apple and if you do eat it, i ll punish you with death, somthing you have no way of knwing anything about becasue it havent invented it yet....makes sense, right?

Loyalty is not the same attribute as morality. Even a nazi understood loyalty. So did Stalin's people.

Eve was cognisant enough to say:

Genesis 3:3 "...God has said, 'You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it that you do not die.'"
(4) At this the serpent said to the woman: "You positively will not die. (5) For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad."
(6) Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon..." etc.

Then verse 13 - "...the woman replied: "The serpent-it deceived me and so I ate."


So:

A) Eve clearly understood the meaning of 'must not'. She may not have 'good and bad' (although the biggest indicator of what this is seemed to be propriety), but she knew 'I should' and 'I shouldn't'. Or else yes, God's prohibition would have been meaningless.

B) It wasn't even the primary motivation. God said she would die if she ate it. Even bad people, or nihilists, want to live. (Mostly)



oh...well by that metric, the lord of the ring constitutes objective evidence of the existence of the dark lord Sauron and his one ring of power then doesnt it?


Metric? If it is a metric, I would define it as the difference between recording eye-witness testimony, and producing a work of fiction.

But I'm sure Tolkien would be considered a reliable source about his own work.

Would you feel similiarly if I told you I believed the American Declaration of Independence was in 1776 because I read it in some book ages ago, whose author I don't even remember? Would you consider that reliable information? Would you think that was a history book or a fictional tale teaching contradictory stories about people shooting themselves?


of course not...God's concept of justice is completely arbitrary whereas human justice is based on specific actions and circumstances.


I didn't ask you if you thought it should, or whether it had any meaning. I asked you if your justice system implicitly affirmed the authority of God? Whether or not you yourself thinks it exists, or is arbitrary.

Also. Justify your statement. You're posing a lot of statements, but so far they seem to be only superficial. How have you determined God's concept of justice to be 'completely arbitrary'?

I seem to remember having this conversation before actually. If it was with you, I am honestly surprised that you are continuing to use it. It would require a level of knowledge that I would require significant evidence to credit you with.

Anonymous Mudz February 10, 2013 10:05 AM  

More importantly, what difference would it make if God was 'arbitrary'? Is he not the Ultimate Arbiter?

Blogger Lud VanB February 10, 2013 10:23 AM  

"Loyalty is not the same attribute as morality. Even a nazi understood loyalty. So did Stalin's people."


oh but it is...loyalty is a moral act which inherently requires a working understanding of the concepts of right and wrong to have any applicability when it comes to judging ones character over it. could you ever accuse a newborn of being disloyal? btw, nazis and stalin understood perfectly well the idea of right and wrong...they simply believed they were right. Neither Adam nor Eve in the genesis story had any such understanding even in its most basic form...they were completely innocent...just like newborns.


"Genesis 3:3 "...God has said, 'You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it that you do not die.'"
(4) At this the serpent said to the woman: "You positively will not die. (5) For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad."
(6) Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon..." etc.

Then verse 13 - "...the woman replied: "The serpent-it deceived me and so I ate."


thats exactly my point...it was only AFTER they had ingested the apple that they understood it was wrong of them to do so...before they did, that action could have no moral component attached to it in their mind because morality was a complete unknown to them...until it was taught to them by eating the apple. and as for death, how could it serve as a deterent when again, they could have no knowledge of such things since it had yet to be created as a concept.


"Metric? If it is a metric, I would define it as the difference between recording eye-witness testimony, and producing a work of fiction."


but the bible that you read was not written by eye-witnesses to anything it claims to be truth. it is at best a collection of hearsay written long after the fact, copied and translated multiple times with the multitudes of errors , removals and added passages that one can reasonably expect from such endeavours over the ages when humans are involved. and you cant even claim to know with any level of certainty who the original author(s) were to begin with. Face it...you have no more cause for calling it accurate history than i would the lord of the ring.

Blogger Lud VanB February 10, 2013 10:27 AM  

"More importantly, what difference would it make if God was 'arbitrary'? Is he not the Ultimate Arbiter?"


sure... assuming he even exists, if you can demonstrate that you actually know for a fact his mind on any subject pertaining to right and wrong, then you ll have an argument for incorporating God in human justice...but not before.

OpenID herenvardo February 10, 2013 6:38 PM  

"the bible that you read was not written by eye-witnesses to anything it claims to be truth."

Ah, the fable of the Christ Myth. There's a good reason why the Christ Myth myth is no longer believed by any credited historian. You really need to update your propaganda, dude.

"multitudes of errors , removals and added passages that one can reasonably expect from such endeavours over the ages"
Yes, those millenia that passed between the events of the NT and the writing of the gospels. Never mind that these 'earlier versions' of the gospels are so similar that the differences can all be listed in the footnotes; never mind that the best evidence we have dates the gospels to the lifetime of the apostles (while the Gnostic 'gospels' date to much later); never mind the complete lack of any evidence of such change over time. You stick to your fable of the unreliability of scripture, because of your fathomless devotion to the Truth.

Anonymous Mudz February 10, 2013 7:21 PM  

oh but it is...loyalty is a moral act which inherently requires a working understanding of the concepts of right and wrong to have any applicability when it comes to judging ones character over it. could you ever accuse a newborn of being disloyal?

No, because an infant is too unintelligent to be responsible. It has nothing to be disloyal too. It's incapable of independent intelligent action. Adam and Eve were clearly intelligent. God brought all the animals to Adam to see what he would name them. They carried on full conversations. They were amoral adults, who hadn't been taught, at the very least, propriety. For all I know, God had created the Tree of Fashion Dos and Dont's, although I doubt it.

You're oversimplifying the concept of good and bad into applying comprehensively to every motivation and restriction. Adam and Eve were quite obviosuly obeying the restriction, and understood the restriction, and the reason they disobeyed was temptation. It wasn't a matter of understanding what they did wrong, and when Eve did understand the concept of right and wrong, she didn't say 'but I didn't know!', she said 'the serpent deceived me, it's all serpent's fault!'.

Then verse 13 - "...the woman replied: "The serpent-it deceived me and so I ate."

thats exactly my point...it was only AFTER they had ingested the apple that they understood it was wrong of them to do so

No. You might argue that it only AFTER she ate the apple that Eve knew she had been deceived. Not suddenly that it was wrong.

You're still confusing the concept of 'good and bad' with 'doing what you're told' and 'self-preservation'.

In fact, it couldn't really be said that God punished them. He told them exactly what would happen if they ate it. They ate it, and then it happened. Even animals understand cause and effect.

I understand that you like trying to simplify 'good and bad' into an infantile status of personal motivation, you're not the first, but it's wrong. You're more than intelligent enough to understand the point that I'm making, you are also intelligent enough that even if you truly believed that was how the concept should be applied, that 'good and bad' may itself be a simplification of translation or recording.

Anonymous Mudz February 10, 2013 7:22 PM  

but the bible that you read was not written by eye-witnesses to anything it claims to be truth. it is at best a collection of hearsay written long after the fact, copied and translated multiple times with the multitudes of errors , removals and added passages that one can reasonably expect from such endeavours over the ages when humans are involved. and you cant even claim to know with any level of certainty who the original author(s) were to begin with. Face it...you have no more cause for calling it accurate history than i would the lord of the ring.

You're asking me to face a bare-face lie. The ancient Israelites saw God, almost literally face to face. God gave Moses personal hand-written tablets of His laws, and had conversations with him (presumably over some tea).

Moses, was the original author involved in the Pentateuch. Probably Aaron as well. Doubtless others also had a hand.

But the 'original authors' of the Pentateuch would doubtless be those who witnessed the arrival of God, and being led out of Egypt. The writers of Psalms are quite clearly given.

Luke wrote some of the New Testament. So did John.

Look, if you want to ask about the 'original' authors, just do some research. There's a reason that all the books of the bible are attribuetd to one fellow or another.

But it's funny you know, I've never read any eyewitness accounts of people who saw Hitler. Yet no-one seems to mind that I believe in his existence.

Also, I have to inform you, but history books are constantly being revised, revisted, even errors in copying or translation. Some history books are plain wrong.

The Bible has had a remarkable legacy. Skeptics consistently choose to doubt it, and are consistently proven wrong. It took them ages before they believed the Hittites existed, and they had to find the Cyrus cylinder, and a whole bunch of artifacts before conceding the bible was accurate in a whole bunch of other ways too.

That's plenty of cause right there, because it's proof of accuracy.

But the debate continues on and on. As it must, if anyone is to try and deny God, they must deny the Bible that recorded His presence.

Even if it was say, only 95% accurate, due to human error, it's still the best damn history book in the world.

I claim to be at least 95% certain. Possibly up to 100% certain. Not having a magic certainty meter plugged in my brain I couldn't give a precise integer.

Let's just say I am confident in the bible, and in the honesty and integrity of its writers.

How about you? How much of the bible do you consider reliable? Because if it's any amount at all, then the claims of recording God bear attention. And if it's none, you're deliberately deceiving youtrself.


sure... assuming he even exists, if you can demonstrate that you actually know for a fact his mind on any subject pertaining to right and wrong, then you ll have an argument for incorporating God in human justice...but not before.


Lud. This is the entire bible. This is the entire field of theology. What do you think Christians think about all the time, do all the time? We are comporting ourselves to obey God, and observe His covenant.

He specifically wrote down His thoughts at Mt. Sinai. That was not whimsical. In fact, He seemed quite grumpy about the whole affair, but was following through on His promise to Abraham.

Your objection, is so incredibly frivolous it's upsetting. Are you trying to waste my time and damn yourself? You essentially just asked me, 'sure, assuming England even exists. Can you demonstrate that you even knows what it looks like?'

The Mosaic Law, Leviticus. These are direct examples of God's 'mind' on national law. They have been around for 3500 years, and they haven't been hiding. Where do you get the gall to make the statement that you did?

Anonymous Mudz February 10, 2013 7:22 PM  

And you'rr still ocmpletely ignoring the point. The Amereican jstuice system already has incorporated God. We've skipped right past that part of it. Your objections there are irrelevant. I just want you to admit that they have. I understand if you find it difficult to concede me the argument.

And the point is, that Americans really do seem to see America itself as a Christian country. And you make a commitment like that, you have to follow through on it. If you call on God's name, it better not be in vain.

American citizens have sworn an oath. I think the oath is foolhardy and false. But you do not ignore something like that.

Look, now are you genuinely interested in getting answers or not? This doesn't affect me at the least, Lud. Jesus told me only that I had to try and teach, but he'll forgive me if it turns out I'm throwing pearls before swine. Even he had to give up on some people.

Think about your reasons for a moment. In all likelihood you cannot offend me, and you cannot upset me in any sense other than I'm watching you stab yourself in the face and I'm unable to do anything about it.

What do you want from this conversation, where do you want it to go? If I really have all the answers that you need, do you want to listen to them? If God exists, and everything that I'm saying is true, and the Bible contains His words, and it's very very important, do you actually want to listen?

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts