Does this mean Elton John hates gay people too?
Come out as a gay conservative who supports a Republican candidate who opposes “marriage quality” (whatever that is) and some left-wing critic will call you self-hating. But, if a Democrat (or other approved public figure) opposes same-sex marriage, he gets a pass from the guardians of proper opinions on gay people.
Try to explain that all those who oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage do not do so out of animosity for homosexuals, but out of a belief that marriage represents a union between two individuals of different sexes and have someone act as if they’re covering their ears and repeating in an ever louder voice, “I’m not listening. I’m not listening.”
So, finding that “Elton John and Rush Limbaugh share the exact same opinion in regards to gay marriage [as] do a majority of Americans,” Steven Crowder asks if “everyday Americans, politicians (both Republican and Democrat), Rush Limbaugh and –gulp– Elton John all hate… the gays?”
At least that’s how mainstream media would try and spin it. Most leftists in the press have simply tried to bury those less than “typically gay” quotes. Why? Well, when Elton John speaks the truth, it disrupts the sensationalized narrative that the media and Hollywood have been setting for years; If you don’t support gay marriage, you must secretly despise gay people.
It’s Hate Vs. Gay. Period.
Clearly there are some people even in the gay community tired of the blatant pandering and simple-mindedness.
(Via Instapundit.) And some of those people blog on this very site. :-)
Crowder quotes Elton John’s views on state recognition of same-sex marriage–which are nearly identical to my own.
What Crowder’s post really points to is the difficulty of having a good conversation on gay marriage when its most zealous advocates define their adversaries in such harsh terms. Either you’re with us or you’re a hater.
209 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Funny how Crowder never seems to have similiar commentary about civil unions, DADT, etc. While liberalism is ripe for mocking (really, they make it toooooo easy) one would think that the BS coming from segments of the Right would be too.
Comment by John — June 10, 2010 @ 11:47 am - June 10, 2010
I think we should let El Rushbo and his new bride speak for themselves:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/06/08/rush-limbaugh-and-kathryn-rogers-why-elton-john-played-their-wedding/
And as far as I know, there has been no condemnation by any so-called “evangelicals” about Rush’s choice for wedding music, although Rev. Fred Phelps (D-Westboro Baptist) was unavailable for comment.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 10, 2010 @ 12:00 pm - June 10, 2010
Elton John deserves nothing but shame.
Marriage equality is what will save the community. Without it, gays have no reason to be monogamous, hence the high rates of promiscuousity. But Elton is so rich that he doesn’t need to worry about the lack of benefits-unlike the majority of gays.
Comment by Lloyd — June 10, 2010 @ 12:54 pm - June 10, 2010
Rush supports civil unions? I had no idea. Thats a nice surprise.
Comment by darkeyedresolve — June 10, 2010 @ 12:56 pm - June 10, 2010
@Lloyd: “Without (marriage equality), gays have no reason to be monogamous, hence the high rates of promiscuousity (sp).”
Um… are you kidding?
Here’s a reason to be monogamous:
Because you’re a normal person, and not a complete piece of sh*t who cheats on his/her partner?
Here’s another one:
Because you don’t find a life of random hook-ups particularly rewarding?
One more:
Because millions of people have been monogamous as a pre-cursor to marriage, and never needed a piece of paper to pledge their love and commitment to someone?
Unfortunately Lloyd, it is your exact thinking that is why many people believe gays don’t deserve marriage. I don’t think this issue is about marriage at all. I believe it’s nothing more than an attempt to defeat Christianity and Conservatism by an angry, victim-obsessed, LEFT.
I sincerely hope you are in a long-term relationship, so you can tell your partner tonight — as you drift off to sleep — that you have no incentive to be monogamous until the STATE recognizes your relationship as full marriage.
Sweet dreams.
Comment by Mark — June 10, 2010 @ 1:03 pm - June 10, 2010
+1 Mark.
It must be rough for Lloyd, to go through life unable to do anything right, without official government approval ™.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 10, 2010 @ 1:08 pm - June 10, 2010
Dan – Great post! Crowder is a superstar & knows how to cut to the truth. If he were a homo, he’d be a GayPatriot!!
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — June 10, 2010 @ 1:19 pm - June 10, 2010
So, if giving gay people marriage licenses (per Lloyd) is the cure for promiscuity, than giving Presidential Physical Fitness awards to fat kids must be the cure for obesity.
Comment by V the K — June 10, 2010 @ 1:25 pm - June 10, 2010
I realize that this never gets through, but monogamy isn’t right because it “feels good.” Monogamy is right because that’s what God created us for. We don’t have a choice about right and wrong. For the gay world, if having a lot of partners feels good, do it. If, suddenly, monogamy feels good, do it. Whatever feels good at the moment, do it. But the only foundation for right and wrong is God.
The government can give legal sanctions based on what society feels at any given moment, but only God can bless a couple.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 10, 2010 @ 1:43 pm - June 10, 2010
Isn’t it funny how gays and lesbians like Lloyd who insist that marriage will make gays monogamous then turn around and trash heterosexual marriage by pointing out anyone who strays?
This is like a married man arguing that he isn’t responsible for committing adultery because the punishments for it in marriage aren’t strong enough.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 10, 2010 @ 1:56 pm - June 10, 2010
#3: Lloyd, there’s an diagnosis for people like you who find living their lives intolerable until they receive a stamp of approval from the government: Self-loathing.
Comment by Sean A — June 10, 2010 @ 2:01 pm - June 10, 2010
Lloyd — while it’s theoretical possible for marriage to discourage promiscuity, it can only do so if there is a social stigma attached to extramarital sex. But if no one’s willing to say to adulterers “shame on you — here’s your scarlet letter,” then what exactly is there to stop gay men from having their marriage licenses and their
promiscuity“open relationships” too?And if you’ve spent more than fifteen minutes immersed in gay male culture, you know that a lot of gay men have an almost superstitious aversion to “acting judgmental” about other gay men’s sexual habits. (Though they may be quite eager to judge the motives of gay people who vote GOP…)
Comment by Throbert McGee — June 10, 2010 @ 2:23 pm - June 10, 2010
“I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,” John says. “The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off. Elton John
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm
He met his Canadian-born partner David Furnish, a former advertising executive and now film maker, in 1993. On 21 December 2005, they entered into a civil partnership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John
Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities comparable to civil marriage.[1] Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner’s children,[2] as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one’s partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnership_in_the_United_Kingdom
Elton said he is happy with Civil Partnerships. . .although he had also been ‘married’ before but divorced.
Maybe as time goes on . . . less folk will be ‘put off’ when it comes to Same Sex unions. More and More people are open to the idea of Gay Marriage.
Heck this is Elton’s second formal committment to another person and it was Rush’s fourth formal committment.
We may not see ‘gay marriage’ in the next 10, 15 or even 20 years, but I do believe it will be something that I will see before I die, although I am pushing that 50 year mark in a couple of years.
Comment by rusty — June 10, 2010 @ 2:42 pm - June 10, 2010
#5: “Unfortunately Lloyd, it is your exact thinking that is why many people believe gays don’t deserve marriage. I don’t think this issue is about marriage at all. I believe it’s nothing more than an attempt to defeat Christianity and Conservatism by an angry, victim-obsessed, LEFT.”
You’re absolutely right, Mark. If it were about “rights,” then gays would be focused on getting laws authorizing civil unions passed in the states that don’t already have them and promoting legislation to address the areas not covered by the law in states that do have civil unions (i.e. finding a solution for couples in legal civil unions under state law, but facing separation due to federal immigration laws).
But since it isn’t about rights, the gay left has chosen to pursue court battles attacking state laws related to marriage as unconstitutional. Their objective couldn’t be more transparent–if the gay left persuades a court to declare a state’s marriage laws unconstitutional, the court cannot get to that conclusion without first concluding that same-sex marriage is identical to traditional marriage (and therefore same-sex couples cannot be excluded under those laws). They LOVE the idea of a secular government (through its judiciary) decreeing that same-sex marriage is no different from traditional marriage because they know that it would be a slap in the face to religious conservatives. There is no evidence whatsoever that state marriage laws were intended to apply to anyone other than heterosexual couples and judges that conclude otherwise are doing nothing more than abusing their power to send to religious conservatives precisely the message that the gay left wants them to. The court decisions are dressed up in platitudes about “equality” and a pretense of state neutrality, but it’s the opposite–it’s activist judges using their power to FAVOR gays and send a message to “bigoted” religious conservatives who they believe need to be taught a lesson.
Comment by Sean A — June 10, 2010 @ 2:43 pm - June 10, 2010
#12: “Lloyd — while it’s theoretical possible for marriage to discourage promiscuity, it can only do so if there is a social stigma attached to extramarital sex. But if no one’s willing to say to adulterers “shame on you — here’s your scarlet letter,” then what exactly is there to stop gay men from having their marriage licenses and their promiscuity “open relationships” too?”
You nailed it, Throbert. One of the few threads that is still holding traditional marriage together is the fact that there remains a social stigma attached to adultery. In the gay community there is no such stigma which is why you will never hear the word “adultery” applied to a homosexual relationship. Gays have “open relationships” because for most of them, their lives are about satisfying every sexual whim they have, regardless of the consequences. No stigma is attached to this kind of behavior. In fact, in the gay community, the only stigma that is applied at all is to those who would dare to judge such behavior as immoral, unethical, or unstable. There are only three deadly sins in the gay community: (1) being judgmental; (2) being a Republican; and (3) white pants after labor day.
Comment by Sean A — June 10, 2010 @ 2:55 pm - June 10, 2010
In other news, a coalition of Orthodox rabbis has called for government-issued Kosher and Proud! window decals as an incentive to help wean Reform and/or secular Jews away from bacon cheeseburgers and shrimp lo mein. “The proposed stickers would be irresistibly keen-looking,” explained one rabbi, “with sparkly iridescent holograms in Hello Kitty™, Lightning McQueen™, and Tron™ motifs. Who wouldn’t swear off trayf for a chance to sport one of these on your car, I ask you?”
Comment by Throbert McGee — June 10, 2010 @ 3:11 pm - June 10, 2010
Sounds like an excuse.
Maybe if gays quit pissing on people’s shoes, they might be more open to the idea?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 10, 2010 @ 4:30 pm - June 10, 2010
pissing on people’s shoes. . . Yeah TGC, just like those lofty folk like Ms G at NOM and her sidekick Brian, or Mr Perkins and the FRC. . .who also Lobbied Congress on Resolution Denouncing Ugandan Anti-Gay Bill.
but I do find that sometimes these lofty folk do more to raise the awareness around GLBT issues than most gay pride events.
Who knows, if more folk like Lynne Cheney and Laura Bush step up to the plate with their ‘approval’ there might be less folk pissin’ on any shoes.
Comment by rusty — June 10, 2010 @ 4:52 pm - June 10, 2010
“Marriage equality is what will save the community….”
I had no idea that ‘the community’ was so weak and endangered.
Comment by DaveP. — June 10, 2010 @ 5:52 pm - June 10, 2010
Well Ash, it didn’t take long for someone to out-crazy one of your previous statements.
Loyd, everyone has pretty much said what I would have said. I would just love to be a fly on the wall when you explain to a potential life partner, someone who really cares for you and wants to settle down with you, that you’re not going to be monogamous with him because you can’t get married.
Signed Sonicfrog, a gay who is can’t get married but still has been in a monogamous bond with the Sonic-Mate for fourteen years this July.
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 10, 2010 @ 7:14 pm - June 10, 2010
It’s undeniably true that a closely intertwined, faithful relationship with a single partner carries additional burdens than an open one. With heterosexual couples, this burden is offset by additional benefits.
For a same-sex couple, monogamy currently carries additional burdens and stresses but no additional benefits-and marriage equality would change that.
Comment by Lloyd — June 10, 2010 @ 8:31 pm - June 10, 2010
#21: Oh, I see your point now Lloyd. Monogamy is a really stressful burden for gay couples and the only way they could possibly hope to pull it off is if they are paid for their trouble by the state.
Lloyd, you raise an excellent point and I plan to bring this up with my partner of five years tonight. I’ll just explain to him that being faithful for the last five years has been a total nightmare and that if the state doesn’t get with the program and start rewarding me for the sacrifices I have made, well…then I really can’t promise him that I won’t go out and start fu*king other people. I mean, c’mon! I have been knocking myself out for the past five years sleeping with only one guy and what do I have to show for it? Nothing! The governor hasn’t even bothered to send so much as a card thanking me! Once I explain it I’m sure Shane will agree that if the state can’t bother showing it’s appreciation for our relationship and how we live our lives then what’s the point?
Yeah, I’m looking forward to having that conversation. It just makes good business sense to demand a reward for doing things that are difficult. Otherwise, you’re just a sucker–am I right or am I right? I mean, what’s he going to do–get angry or make me sleep in the car or something crazy like that? Please! I’m like…I dunno, 3 or 4 percent sure that probably won’t happen. Probably. I’m like, super-positive that won’t happen.
Comment by Sean A — June 10, 2010 @ 9:08 pm - June 10, 2010
” …monogamy currently carries additional burdens and stresses but no additional benefits-and marriage equality would change that.”
Yeah, there’s the increased-tax-burden benefit, the taken-to-the-cleaners-in-divorce-court benefit…
Comment by DaveP. — June 10, 2010 @ 11:05 pm - June 10, 2010
The only point on which I might slightly disagree with Sean A is that I’m not totally opposed to the “open relationships” concept as a way to keep things spicy. However, I think that:
(a) “open relationships” are definitely non-traditional, may be a worse idea for male/female couples or female/female couples than they are for male/male couples, and in any case shouldn’t be confused with the ideal of strictly monogamous marriage; and
(b) the ONLY type of “open relationship” that I would personally endorse for male/male couples would be for the two of you to go TOGETHER to a J/O club like NY Jacks. Or, occasionally invite a few other long-term couples over for a circle-jerk in your living room. (But in either case, don’t be dishonest by calling yourselves “faithfully married” — just say you’re swingers joined at the hip, or something.)
The two key points are that you’re doing it together, and that the sexual contact is a little more restricted (such as mutual-masturbation-only) than what you have within the intimacy of couplehood.
(“Open relationship” scenarios that I do NOT recommend would be inviting over ONE guy for a three-way, or giving each other permission to date other men — at that point, you’re just housemates.)
Comment by Throbert McGee — June 10, 2010 @ 11:28 pm - June 10, 2010
Please elaborate; what burdens?
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 11, 2010 @ 12:26 am - June 11, 2010
Just wanted to say that as a marriage *supporter*, I find that an embarassingly bad argument.
I believe the “burden” there is called, self-control.
Really? Would most lesbians agree with that statement? I think most lesbians would agree with the following statements instead: Monogamy is actually easier than promiscuity. Lack of self-control is a choice, and building up a culture of no self-control is a poor choice that some gay men have made.
You really think that “benefits” will induce unfaithful people to change their sexual behavior? I see no reason why they should. Unfaithful people are perfectly capable of being unfaithful, after they are married.
The reason to do gay marriage, in my book, is for society to make the statement to gays and lesbians that they ought to be settling down. Setting an expectation or making a subtle demand, much more than offering a bribe (of “benefits”). It is up to marriage supporters (like myself) to convince the rest of society of that. It will take time. If we don’t get marriage and we only get civil unions equal to marriage in almost every respect, well then fine, that is how the cookie crumbles and vastly better than nothing.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2010 @ 12:32 am - June 11, 2010
I’m going to guess that there’s a point in your comment, but for the life of me, I have no idea what in the hell it is.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 11, 2010 @ 12:37 am - June 11, 2010
“It’s undeniably true that a closely intertwined, faithful relationship with a single partner carries additional burdens than an open one.”
No, that is not undeniably true. If you ask me, it’s undeniably false. And you’ve got it backwards — I think an open relationship would be far more burdensome than a faithful one. But then, faithful, monogamous relationships are the only kind of relationship I’ve ever had. My reason for being monogamous was that I wanted to be monogamous. It stuns me that someone would say that without gay marriage, there is no reason to be faithful to a partner.
Lloyd, you must be either an 18 year old virgin with no idea what you’re talking about, or someone whose life experience has been so different from mine that you are beyond my understanding.
Comment by Conservative Guy — June 11, 2010 @ 2:06 am - June 11, 2010
No; Lloyd is a typical duplicitous gay liberal.
You see, gay liberals act like they want to settle down, but just can’t because, quote, monogamy is “too hard”, and unless you bribe them to do it, they can’t.
Of course, then once they do get gay-sex marriage, what incentive is there for them to stay monogamous? Once again, it’s all about getting benefits without any of the responsibility or commitments.
My answer to the Lloyds of this world is very simple; since they insist that they cannot be monogamous without gay-sex marriage, one of the conditions of gay-sex marriage must be that individuals who commit adultery while in a gay-sex marriage are immediately and permanently stripped of their marriage benefits.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2010 @ 2:37 am - June 11, 2010
#25,
Honour, loyalty, honesty for a start. Having to reign in those ‘tap anything that moves’ impulses. Having to communicate with your partner. Having to push aside yetzer hara for the yetzer tov.
You know, being an adult, things that apparently aren’t beyond Lloyd.
Just like I reward my dog for going in the yard and not on the carpet, Lloyd wants to be rewarded for doing what’s right.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 11, 2010 @ 6:45 am - June 11, 2010
OT: There was much ado on the moonbatshitcrazy-osphere about a supposed “Big Oil Bailout legislation” by Sen. Murkowski (R, AK). NONE would link to it or offer any text. They just told us that it would bail out the oil companies. However, it turns out that it was a Senate Resolution to oppose the EPA’s power grab and attempt to regulate homes, schools, hospitals etc. It had nothing to do with the oil companies and even less to do with the spill in the GOM.
http://tinyurl.com/2eg6qaq
But we weren’t told that. We were merely told to contact our senators and tell them to oppose it. Wonder why? Of course the moonbatshitcrazies are delighted that it failed 47-53, but call it a test vote for Crap & Tax. Even Rockefeller voted with all the Republicans.
No bailouts for “Big Oil”, apparently, but now folks are starting to look at Porkulus cash to bail out the teacher’s unions.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 11, 2010 @ 6:50 am - June 11, 2010
I would think it would be the opposite. An open relationship brings in the burdens of STD concerns, jealousy, the time spent finding outside partners and arranging the hook-up logistics.
Comment by V the K — June 11, 2010 @ 10:21 am - June 11, 2010
I’ll ask again, and Lloyd should be the one to answer, as I was his assertion:
Please elaborate; what burdens?
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 11, 2010 @ 10:26 am - June 11, 2010
sorry, sonic,
I figured my reply would be ok, since the concepts were so alien to Lloyd, he’d not understand them
Comment by The_Livewire — June 11, 2010 @ 11:21 am - June 11, 2010
I’m really hoping he rises to the challenge. I’m intrigued to know what he considers burdens.
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 11, 2010 @ 12:57 pm - June 11, 2010
I am going to speculate … or bait… that the biggest “burden” of committed relationships is having to consider someone other than yourself. Left-liberals are the most selfish people out there… all liberalism is based on selfishness. Making a committed relationship work requires unselfishness. Putting consideration of another person ahead of yourself, denying the urge for immediate gratification, maybe even requiring some personal sacrifice… way too much to ask of a self-centered liberal gay man.
Comment by V the K — June 11, 2010 @ 1:20 pm - June 11, 2010
You are absolutely right, V.
Liberals are what Rand called “moochers” — they are all about compassion for other people when it comes to forcing someone else to pay the bill.
Liberals do not spend their own money on their pet causes. They go into government and into grievance-mongering, where they use their pet causes to force other people to disgorge funds. Why? Because they are selfish.
Again, classic example: Ted Kennedy. Obese man with “compounds” everywhere who never worked a day in his life and could afford crack legal teams to defend his raping, drunk, and drug-addled spawn demanding that the government raise taxes on everyone else about hunger, poverty, jobs, and welfare.
In short: “Take the pate de foie gras off your own table, let your own property be confiscated, and hand over all the money you’re wasting on bribes to keep Patrick’s ass out of prison, or shut up.”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2010 @ 1:35 pm - June 11, 2010
#33: “Please elaborate; what burdens?”
I’m perfectly willing to concede that being in a “closely intertwined” relationship with Lloyd, monogamous or otherwise, would present intolerable burdens and stresses. I would definitely be looking for some type of compensation for enduring that.
Comment by Sean A — June 11, 2010 @ 2:11 pm - June 11, 2010
You are absolutely wrong, V
If they had “selves” to begin with, then they would be into stuff like planning for their old age, doing the right thing, avoiding STDs, self-control, having good relationships, etc. It takes a person with a weak ego, or little contact with their deepest / most authentic self, to have street trash morals.
(This post is partly tongue-in-cheek – but only partly. I think V and I have ideas here that are compatible. But his chosen lingo and mine, are different.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2010 @ 4:41 pm - June 11, 2010
(Specifically, I think the basic problem with leftists is that they put short-term, emotional self-indulgence ahead of thinking. The problem, as I see it, is not the selfishness or self-interest so much as it is the lack of thinking.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2010 @ 4:53 pm - June 11, 2010
You would be right, ILC, if their lack of thinking stopped at merely indulging their desires without thought to the consequences. Where the selfishness comes in is in insisting that in order to insulate them from the consequences of their self-indulgence, other people must be robbed. As in, “Oh, no! I got an STD! I want the Government to provide me with free medical care!” Or, “Oh no, I bought a house I couldn’t afford! I want the Government to bail me out of my mortgage!” Or, “I want to go to college and study something useless, and I want the Government to finance my education.”
Comment by V the K — June 11, 2010 @ 5:23 pm - June 11, 2010
I hear you. Again, I just see us as 2 people with different lingo. What you would call “selfish”, I would call “narcissistic”. What I would call “selfish in the good sense, i.e. productively improving one’s own life”, you would call….. ?
Mooching / looting off of others to pay for one’s own mistakes, is immoral. The immorality is the problem. The false or absent thinking, and the general sense of narcissistic entitlement, by which an immoral person enables their immorality, are the problem. “Selfishness” or self-concern as a general human drive is not inherently immoral. It makes people go to the gym, work hard for raises, etc.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2010 @ 7:25 pm - June 11, 2010
I see you’re working your Randian mojo there, ILC. Our disagreement is basically semantic. I get that.
Comment by V the K — June 11, 2010 @ 7:47 pm - June 11, 2010
I wonder if Elton John sang a special version of Candle in the Wind/England’s Rose/Whatever he calls it this week for Rush’s bride?
Comment by American Elephant — June 11, 2010 @ 8:05 pm - June 11, 2010
you all think it is a matter of a certain intellectual level or something. . .
mahny a circumstance or outcome is the actual result of a whole folk of sheeple, easy swayed, easily directed into a certain way of thougt. . .I mean, free thinker – having the ability to think – are usually outside of this subset.
Both Dems and Repubs have their ‘sacred’ followers. So don’t be so dismissive.
I still value ILC’s opinion over most of the folk here. . .Ok I admit that LW and Pat are amazing!!!! But ILC is absolutely MARVELOUSQ!
Many thanks and much appreciation for the tolerance. . . .
Comment by rusty — June 12, 2010 @ 12:23 am - June 12, 2010
whooops. sorry for some typos
Comment by rusty — June 12, 2010 @ 12:26 am - June 12, 2010
“I don’t think this issue is about marriage at all. I believe it’s nothing more than an attempt to defeat Christianity and Conservatism by an angry, victim-obsessed, LEFT.”
This is EXACTLY how I feel and the point I’ve tried to make to the “conservative” gays here but never could do it as succintly as you did. Nice job, Mark.
Comment by Seane-Anna — June 12, 2010 @ 12:35 am - June 12, 2010
“The government can give legal sanctions based on what society feels at any given moment, but only God can bless a couple.”
That’s so true, Ash. Unfortunately for you the only couple God blessed was male and female. Sorry.
Comment by Seane-Anna — June 12, 2010 @ 12:56 am - June 12, 2010
and there you go. sheeple. OH HI Seane Anna. . . .simple yet pleasant embarrassment.
Comment by rusty — June 12, 2010 @ 1:09 am - June 12, 2010
[...] Does this mean Elton John hates gay people too? – Gay Patriot [...]
Pingback by Saturday Afternoon – Hacking Up Furballs – Laundry Time , An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings — June 12, 2010 @ 6:12 pm - June 12, 2010
Actually, God blessed Ruth and Naomi, Jonathan and David, Ashpenaz and Daniel, and the Centruion and his beloved pais. Look it up. Thanks in advance.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 12, 2010 @ 9:18 pm - June 12, 2010
But Ashpenaz was still a Eunuch.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 13, 2010 @ 5:12 am - June 13, 2010
#51 some things never change…
Comment by The_Livewire — June 13, 2010 @ 9:42 am - June 13, 2010
That’s so true, Ash. Unfortunately for you the only couple God blessed was male and female. Sorry.
50.Actually, God blessed Ruth and Naomi, Jonathan and David, Ashpenaz and Daniel, and the Centruion and his beloved pais. Look it up. Thanks in advance.
Sorry Ashpenaz and Seane-Anna, but you’re both wrong. God blesses only those couples that my beliefs, upbringing, and interpretation of the Bible say can be blessed.
Comment by Pat — June 13, 2010 @ 12:22 pm - June 13, 2010
Saying that God only blesses those who believe a certain way is like saying gravity only works on those who understand it. Gravity works whether you believe it or not; God blesses whether you believe in Him or not, or believe in Him incorrectly or for selfish reasons. Gravity and God both continue to happily exist even when “gravity atheists” try to jump away from the earth saying, “Gravity is just a spaghetti-monster myth and I can jump as high as I want whenever I want!” Gravity and God both work on the just and the unjust equally. You don’t need to know anything about God or believe anything about God to get God’s blessing–but, like it’s a good thing to believe that gravity exists and know a lot about gravity if you want to fire a rocket, the more accurate information you have about God, the better your life will be.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 13, 2010 @ 12:51 pm - June 13, 2010
And despite all that, Ashpenaz, most people who, like you, “know” whom God blesses and doesn’t bless, disagree with you. That was kind of my point.
And as tricky as gravity is, God is even trickier. We know a lot about gravity, but just can’t seem to unify it with the other three physical forces. We know even much less about God, let alone if He even exists. So your gravity analogy is way off the mark.
the more accurate information you have about God, the better your life will be.
So Seane-Anna and I would have better lives if we had the same “true” beliefs about God that you have?
Although where you and Seana-Anna agree is that you both believe that you have the “true” workings of God, and believe they are absolute, and they are true whether or not you believe in God, and if you do, for selfish or whatever reasons, that you liken what you believe to be certainties of God with the certainties of gravity, etc. Whereas I have my own beliefs, I admit that I may not be correct.
Comment by Pat — June 13, 2010 @ 1:17 pm - June 13, 2010
I have no idea who God blesses and I never said I did. Ever.
I do think that the Episcopal and ELCA churches have a relatively accurate understanding of God compared to most Christian churches. But they’re not perfect.
We don’t know if gravity exists, either. Ask any physicist what gravity is and they won’t know. We experience being held to the earth, and we can describe what we experience with symbols, but we have no idea whether there is anything there when we’re not measuring it. It is pure faith in the invisible and unknown whether there is such a thing as gravity and whether we will go shooting off into space the second after you read this.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 13, 2010 @ 5:00 pm - June 13, 2010
And STILL no response from Lloyd.
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 13, 2010 @ 6:06 pm - June 13, 2010
Ashpenaz @ 56:
This may be the most absurd statement ever made on this blog. And their have been some doozies here to be sure!
Anyone who thinks the Earth and Moon, the Sun and the planets, and the stars of the Milky Way aren’t attracted to each other gravitationally when we aren’t making measurements needs to be locked in a padded cell!
Stop conflating natural science (or even everyday experience and common sense) with your religious dogma, Ash.
Experts in gravitation base their work on their observations. Oh sure, they may engage in all sorts of mathematical modelling, but their models are based on their observations of gravity at work, not the other way around.
This is very different from the behavior of “experts” on God like youself and Seane-Anna.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — June 13, 2010 @ 9:03 pm - June 13, 2010
Any physicist would say that the mathematical symbols have nothing to do with the actual phenomena. Why don’t you look up Hilbert space? What is it? We can’t observe it–we can only describe it using mathematical symbols. Wow–something you can’t observe but which can only be described symbolically. What does that remind me of? What–let’s see? Hmm. . .
“Anyone who thinks the Earth and Moon, the Sun and the planets, and the stars of the Milky Way aren’t attracted to each other gravitationally when we aren’t making measurements needs to be locked in a padded cell!”
Gee, that’s like saying the earth has four corners or the sun literally rises and sets–nothing is “attracted to each other” by gravity. Gravity is best described (metaphorically) as the curvature of space-time. And we don’t have any idea what is going on in the subatomic realm when we are not measuring it–do read your Schrodinger before making such outdated comments.
If you are a materialist, ask yourself this–what is matter? What would a physicist say?
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 13, 2010 @ 9:14 pm - June 13, 2010
OK then. Solve God mathematically.
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 14, 2010 @ 12:16 am - June 14, 2010
Gee, that’s like saying the earth has four corners or the sun literally rises and sets–nothing is “attracted to each other” by gravity.
Not quite, Ashpenaz. Because we all know damn well what “attracted to each other” meant in the given context, and unless one needs a padded cell, knows that gravitational forces occur whether one is measuring it or not. And I can’t see a metaphorical way to truthfully say that the Earth has four corners.
Your argument seems to come down to this. “Since we don’t know the full extent of what gravity is, we still know that it exists. Therefore, the same is true about God. And furthermore, the nature of God is very close to what I say it is.”
56.I have no idea who God blesses and I never said I did. Ever.
My apologies. Then I must have somehow misinterpreted your statement which appears to say the exact opposite.
50.Actually, God blessed Ruth and Naomi, Jonathan and David, Ashpenaz and Daniel, and the Centruion and his beloved pais. Look it up. Thanks in advance.
I do think that the Episcopal and ELCA churches have a relatively accurate understanding of God compared to most Christian churches. But they’re not perfect.
And that’s fine that you think that. Because others who belong to other Christian or non-Christian churches, who put the same thought that you have believe their church has the more accurate understanding of God.
Comment by Pat — June 14, 2010 @ 7:00 am - June 14, 2010
y’know…
Reading this latest threadjack by Ash, I think I understand his mindset better. Ash is always going on about the inability of most gays (except himself) to maintain a monogomous relationship. I think it’s projection.
I mean he has no problem with bearing false witness (selectively quoting Scripture, distorting biblical relationships for his own ends) Coveting (wanting the level of Health Care I receive through work) Theft (making me pay for his health care). His inability to live by the values he espouses gnaws at him, but he won’t change his life, so he wants all the Benefits of Christianity (salvation, forgiveness, etc.) and none of the Obligations. (humility, charity, forgiving others, etc.)
In that, I think my beliefs are in opposition to his directly. I left the ELCA because I felt they’d drifted too far into the material world and away from His calling (Lutheran Politics can put Catholics to shame). Ash seems to embrace his church, feeling they only can love him because now, undoing 500 years of tradition and teaching and dogma, they recognize same sex couples.
Tell me Ash do you agree with the church that Israel engages in “human rights abuses against the Palestinians, because of the Israeli occupation”?
Do you agree with the church’s call “To admit annually a reasonable number”?
I’m at least honest in my Herasy. The concept of “Christians aren’t Perfect, just Forgiven” shows that we all do sin, but redemption through Him is possible. We have to want it though.
I accept Him through the teachings of Luther. But I also know Luther was a man, and a flawed one like the rest of us (read some of his works on the New Testament if you don’t beleive me). But I try to live the way I feel He wants me to. Ashpenaz wants Him to bless they way he lives.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 14, 2010 @ 9:43 am - June 14, 2010
“Solve God mathematically.”
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
(P. S. Gravity isn’t a force. Look it up.)
(P.P.S. It was the British Dispensationalists who were behind the creation of the state of Israel, so I think much harm was done to the indigenous people of Palestine, many of whom are Christians. But both sides are equally to blame for atrocities in that area now.)
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 14, 2010 @ 12:09 pm - June 14, 2010
As is not surprising Others disagree with your version of events.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 14, 2010 @ 2:32 pm - June 14, 2010
Yeah, rush limbaugh has such mainstream views on marriage. That’s why he has been married four times now, has never fathered any children, and picks wives that are half his age.
How can such an ugly, morally depraved man have so many people spellbound when every detail of his personal life reveals him to be a complete hypocrite and liar? None or you have the balls to tell the emperor he has no clothes.
Comment by levi — June 14, 2010 @ 2:38 pm - June 14, 2010
Oh, were arguing about religion in this thread? adults arguing about their respective religions is like third graders arguing over which pokemon is the best; its a nice little diversion that is ultimately devoid of all meaning because at the end of the day you’re just discussing works of fiction. except that the kids arguments don’t end up starting wars and getting people killed.
the world would be a lot better place if people stopped fooling themselves into believing the biggest con in human history and started taking responsibility for their lives, their behavior, and their community. the alternative is to destroy ourselves over absolutely nothing. how is that a hard choice?
Comment by levi — June 14, 2010 @ 2:48 pm - June 14, 2010
Levi, given your endorsement and support of child rape, we find it extremely amusing that you whine about “morals” in other people.
And as for religion, if you want to attack it, go right ahead — and aim for your Barack Obama, who blabbers on about God, who says that he should do “God’s will”, and who tried to plaster his beliefs all over his campaign.
Your hypocrisy becomes blatantly obvious when you refuse to attack Obama Party members over their religion.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 14, 2010 @ 3:13 pm - June 14, 2010
Levi, my argument has been that using religion to justify about anything is futile, because there are so many different opinions and beliefs. In any case, I don’t think any wars will be started as a result of the discussion on this thread, except for a possible flame war.
Comment by Pat — June 14, 2010 @ 3:15 pm - June 14, 2010
the world would be a lot better place if people stopped fooling themselves into believing the biggest con in human history and started taking responsibility for their lives, their behavior, and their community.
Levi, that’s the most hilarious thing you’ve ever written.
You demand that the government pay your bills.
You demand that the government provide you free housing.
You demand that the government take money away from other people who work and earn it so you can have fat welfare checks.
And now, when your Obama Party members are caught on tape assaulting people, you scream and whine that they should not be held responsible for their actions.
Liberals like you hate religion for one reason and one reason only: you hate ANYTHING that shames your selfishness, your criminal thievery, your promiscuity, and your support of murder.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 14, 2010 @ 3:16 pm - June 14, 2010
If religion is a fiction, then what is a fact? Evolution? Quantum mechanics? Sociobiology? Neuroscience? Alchemy? Astrology? Phrenology?
There’s a quote: Atheism has gone downhill since Nietzsche. God, if you only had his cojones, atheism would be worth debating. But you want that Joel Osteen version of atheism promoted by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, etc., you know, the atheism that those with actual philosophy degrees laugh at. Those of us who have read Brave New World know where your “happy atheism” is headed. Enjoy your Soma.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 14, 2010 @ 3:19 pm - June 14, 2010
Ashpenaz, there is nothing fiction about religion. We humans created it, just like any of our other institutions. The question is whether the dogmas of the religion, including the various beliefs of the nature of God, sacred texts, etc., are fiction or not. So, depending on your faith, you may believe these things are facts, while others with different faiths will believe other things as facts. Without faith, the only realistic conclusion is that holy books, such as the Bible and Koran, were written by humans with no more divine inspiration than any other literary work. And since humans at that time would not have knowledge of some of the historical events, one would have to conclude that they are works of fiction. Again, with faith, one could come to a different conclusion.
71.If religion is a fiction, then what is a fact? Evolution? Quantum mechanics? Sociobiology? Neuroscience? Alchemy? Astrology? Phrenology?
The answers are respectively…fact, fact, theory, fact, garbage, garbage, garbage.
Comment by Pat — June 14, 2010 @ 3:37 pm - June 14, 2010
Ash, ‘there’s a great disturbance in the Force.’
but did Rush use this Wedding Planner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMN6HM3_iD8
Comment by rusty — June 14, 2010 @ 4:05 pm - June 14, 2010
Pat, your argument is basically that because people disagree about God, there is no God, or there is no way to know anything about God. The fact that people disagreed with Einstein about E=MC2 didn’t mean that he wasn’t right and everyone else was wrong. It took a moment of revelation–a total eclipse–to demonstrate that Einstein was right.
All human theories about God are going to disagree with each other until there is a moment of revelation which discloses the truth about God.
There is just as much hard evidence for evolution and neuroscience as there is for astrology and phrenology. Phrenology and neuroscience are based on the same principle, that the mind can be known from physical effect–either bumps on the head or neural networks. Correlating head bumps or neural networks with mind states are equally “factual.”
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 14, 2010 @ 5:56 pm - June 14, 2010
was wondering when Levi would pop up to spread his bile.
Perhaps the funniest thing of all is Levi’s faith that he is superior to everyone else, and his belief that a system that killed 60 million plus will work if we try it ‘just one more time’.
Compared to his faith in socialism and in his perfection at 26 years, my own faith seems weak in comparison. I believe with a lack of quantifiable evidence, Levi believes despite it.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 14, 2010 @ 6:39 pm - June 14, 2010
It has been my experience that religious people are simply not capable of understanding atheism. if you’ve been raised your entire life to belief that you and everyone you love have been in constant communication and under constant surveillance every minute of your life, you’re simply going to reject any alternative hypothesis for being that states otherwise. the human brain loves its illusions, and to have one as big as religion come crashing down on you is too much for most human egos to bear. I have no frame of reference because Ive been an atheist since before middle school, but i imagine that losing ones faith is probably one of the hardest things to do in this world, and it was designed to be so.
mostly, I have pity for religious people. you are just the most current generation of people to be brainwashed from birth, as your parents were before your and their parents before them, and on and on for centuries. Religion gets to you when you’re young, when you are simple minded and eager to please and are only capable of comprehending the universe through instinctive emotions like fear and guilt and anger. most people that believe in god never had a choice in the matter, and if the indoctrination of the youth were to end tomorrow, you would see the end of faith around the world. do you think that a teenager or a college student would prefer the hocus pocus of any of the worlds religions over the explanatory powers of science and history and logic if they were the ones that truly got to decide?
but that’s the thing. you can’t talk to a three year old about allele frequencies and strange quarks, but you sure can put the fear of god into them! The way that religion is passed on is such an obvious cheat, and religious people refuse to acknowledge it. part of the package I guess, along with asserting that there can be no morality through atheism and going on incoherent rants about astrology. I guess we will all see who is right in the end won’t we?
What is the best example of something being too good to be true that any of you can think of? For me, its another human being purporting to know what happens when you die, and him or her explaining that what happens when you die is eternal life in the presence of the creator of the universe where you get to do everything you always wanted with everyone youVe ever known and love. how is it that a thinking adult can still be taken in by such cartoons imagery in the twenty first century?
As for north Dallas thirty, you can believe all you want that all I do all day is sit around and collect welfare and wait for the government to take care of me, but that’s simply not true, and even if it were, id still consider myself more self-reliant, independent, and responsible for myself than you who postulates that the master of all space and time has nothing better to do than follow you around telling you you’re special and promising you goodies if you do what he wants you to do.
Comment by levi — June 14, 2010 @ 6:53 pm - June 14, 2010
Wow–someone really hated the Lost finale!
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 14, 2010 @ 8:01 pm - June 14, 2010
Boy, did I ever. That’s the kind of ending an overly sentimental kindergartner would come up with. The last season was nothing but gimmicky cameos and terrible dialogue with nonsensical plot threads that went nowhere all over the place. It was a wierd mix of depressing, embarrassing, and hilarious all at once, which i don’t think is what they were going for. Here’s hoping the creators never work again!
Comment by levi — June 14, 2010 @ 8:26 pm - June 14, 2010
I thought that the Lost finale was the closest television will ever come to depicting my faith. I believe that in this life, we are building our place in the next life–building the community in which we will continue to grow toward God. We try, fail, connect, fall apart, forgive, come together, and move on. And we’re led by Christian Shepherd.
It was very Episcopal. (Carlton Cuse is a Catholic.)
And it shows how you and I are different.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 14, 2010 @ 9:20 pm - June 14, 2010
OK Ash…. That was genuinely funny!!!
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 15, 2010 @ 12:03 am - June 15, 2010
CLD, Ash loves to deny the obvious. Instead, advocating a philosophy of narcissistic subjectivism – and expecting others (us) to be impressed, because he calls it his “faith”.
Ash: Yes we do know. We do. It’s just that in this, as in certain other matters, you prefer to deny reality.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 15, 2010 @ 2:56 am - June 15, 2010
(Which, BTW, is not being very complimentary to That which made it.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 15, 2010 @ 2:59 am - June 15, 2010
Few are as blind in their faith as the convert.
As can be shown by Levi. I dislike Ash’s rambling, but I try not to mock his faith. We both come to the Divine from the same origins (Luther’s teachings) which in turn come from the Way made flesh. Which in turn owes its beliefs to the Faith of Abraham. V the K’s faith is similar, as is Seena Anna. We may feel sorrow that the others have found a path that is different from our Way, but we don’t hate them or condemn them or patronize them. (Even when Seena Anna gets on a rant, I try to understand her as a fellow Christian).
I even (being a Henotheist) accept that there are other gods (little g) out there. I don’t worship them, as I worship Him.
The Athiest on the other hand, must be fanatical in his faith. He must believe with every fibre of his being that he is the product of random chance, that there is nothing except this world. Being that there is no higher power, either without or within himself, he feels free to be as the animals, justifying any action he takes to better himself, no matter who he hurts.
Charity is unknown to him. Indeed, in Levi’s case, his utopia can be built on a mound of bodies, as he has chosen himself to know better than his ‘lessers’. That is the trap of the Athiest. Hoping deep inside that there is no reward, no punishment for actions in this life, he must mock, attack, and deride anyone who says otherwise. For Christians and Jews, questions lead to understanding and affirmation of faith. For the Athiest, questions lead to doubt and lonliness.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2010 @ 6:53 am - June 15, 2010
74.Pat, your argument is basically that because people disagree about God, there is no God, or there is no way to know anything about God.
Not quite, Ashpenaz. Personally, I believe in God. Why? For one reason, is because, Someone must have created this thing called the universe, and got the ball rolling. But even if it is God, it still doesn’t answer why there is a God in the first place. Anyway, my belief in God comes down to faith. But based on any evidence and lack thereof, I understand why people can also believe that there is no God. However, most honest people, will believe that they really don’t know the answer, including avoid atheists such as Dawkins and Maher. I also believe that the existence of God will be one of those unanswerable questions. And if God exists, I don’t believe that we will know exactly the nature of God. As you say, there are plenty of different beliefs of what God is. At most one of those beliefs are correct. You insist that yours is most likely correct. But you evidence is based on a house of cards. There’s no evidence for your original premise.
The fact that people disagreed with Einstein about E=MC2 didn’t mean that he wasn’t right and everyone else was wrong.
Many times, theories that do end up being correct take time for people to come around. But Einstein had real evidence to back up his claim.
It took a moment of revelation–a total eclipse–to demonstrate that Einstein was right.
All human theories about God are going to disagree with each other until there is a moment of revelation which discloses the truth about God.
Ah, proof by (poor) analogy.
There is just as much hard evidence for evolution and neuroscience as there is for astrology and phrenology.
So, here’s your argument. You want to argue (incorrectly) that because there are just as much uncertainty regarding evolution and quantum mechanics (I’ll not throw in neuroscience, since I’m not sure what you mean by it) as there is for astrology and phrenology, your theory about God is correct. Sorry, it just doesn’t wash.
Comment by Pat — June 15, 2010 @ 7:10 am - June 15, 2010
Levi, I don’t believe, as you do, that religion is the biggest con in history. Religion, like everything else, is created by humans. And like anything else, there can be good and bad associated with it. I found that the best philosophy is to go with the good and throw away the bad. For example, I once belong to an organization that had some good theories on life, and helped me in many respects. But I also found it to have some cultish aspects to it. So I was grateful for the good that it caused, but let it end there, and not get caught up in the things I found distasteful.
So for religion, when there is bad that comes from it, I have to put the blame on the people who made it so. But when good comes from it, I also give people credit for it as well.
Livewire, as usual, good discussion. However, I don’t agree with all your points. I personally believe that God gave us brains to think rationally and, at appropriate times, question anything, including religion.* As such, changes in religious thinking and dogma have changed throughout time. This included the emergence of Christianity, as well as Luther breaking from Catholic tradition, as well as ELCA’s current dogma. Now perhaps changes should not happen for transient causes. And perhaps the tail shouldn’t be wagging the dog here, where people find a faith that conveniently matches or excuses their beliefs. But this happens somewhat even in well-established religions. Most Catholics I know are cafeteria Catholics. They believe some tenets of Catholicism, and throw out the rest (e.g., I don’t know any Catholic who actually follows the no birth control rule, although I’m sure some still exist today, although I’m not counting those who follow that rule, but throw out the no sex outside of marriage rule either).
*Of course, if this isn’t true, then my argument falls like a house of cards.
Henotheism is an interesting belief. I googled it, and according to one of the sites, it stated that both Judaism and Christianity are henotheistic religions. I guess this is inferred from God’s commandment to not worship gods before Him (or something like that)?
In any case, what happens with henotheism? Is it that the God you worship “governs” you and no other god, but if someone worships another God, that God governs that person, and no other god?
I disagree with you regarding atheists. Yes, many atheists, like many religious adherents are arrogant about their beliefs while mocking others who don’t see it their way. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that an atheist is less moral than a religious adherent.
Comment by Pat — June 15, 2010 @ 8:05 am - June 15, 2010
Livewire, I must have hit “Say It!” accidentally before I finished.
I think one of the reasons religion came about was to come up with a code of being good to our fellow neighbor, and otherwise living a decent, moral life (or die trying to do so). So today people still do that by either continuing a long standing tradition of their religion, or determining for themselves what living a decent, moral life is. Sure, there are many atheists (and religious adherents) who will try to justify any immoral behavior. Heck, there are Christians who believe that they could sin all they want, whatever, because, since they believe in Jesus, He will forgive their sins. And also, I don’t believe that most persons do good, because there may be a reward in the afterlife. Now, of course, many people do believe in an afterlife, but I don’t think that, in and of itself, governs their actions.
Comment by Pat — June 15, 2010 @ 8:12 am - June 15, 2010
Thank you Pat,
Well what another person’s god tells them to do doesn’t matter to me (well unless they’re trying to kill me of course*). I have a ‘professional understanding’ with my wiccan friends that we don’t cross each other’s rituals. It’s one of the reasons I can see we aren’t a theocracy, is that all beliefs have to be respected by the government equally, as long as they don’t interfere in the rights of those who don’t belong to the faith.
Of course interference is always being changed in its definition. To some it is ‘interference’ to allow Catholic charities to handle adoption, because they discriminate based on their religious beliefs. To others it’s ‘interference’ to disallow Catholic charities, as they’re providing the same service (adoption) as others, albiet with different criteria. A state adoption service is going to discriminate against me (single, work at office, previous mental health issues) over a stable two parent couple. Surprise! I can handle that. Likewise, the Catholic Charity will discriminate based on their criteria. Because of our free market system, if a same sex couple wants to adopt, they can choose another agency. If one agency falters in their placement, the state (not Federal) government can step in and rectify the problem.
I do beleive that faith and reason go hand in hand. Luther questioned the practice of indulgences as part of his 99 thesises, that questioning opened up His wisdom to generations, as part of the Protestant movement was printing the bible in other languages. It also eventually sparked the counter-reformation movement in the Catholic church, as the Church was forced to re-evaluate what was being taught.**
Reason and Faith go hand in hand. We have faith that the Sun will rise every morning. We have reason to ask ‘why?’ Sometimes the answers we have found do not match the facts as we discover them. (Heliocentric theory anyone?) C.S. Lewis once wrote “Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful.” I’d say that Reason, detached from Faith, becomes unreasonable. For Christianity, it is Reason that says we should show the infidel the way, instead of the sword. It is faith that He will give them the choice, and faith in our fellow man that he will take the choice given.
Radicalized Islam obsesses with the Material and not the spiritual. By trying to carve out Allah’s Kingdom on Earth, the leaders want to enhance their power in this world, believing that is what matters. In Christianity, suicide is a sin. Some believe it is the ultimate sin, as one cannot ask for forgiveness of murder of the self, and it is taking His ultimate gift, free will, and using it to give Him the spiritual finger.
The Athiest, to me, is practicing the ultimate self delusion. By beliving that there is no special ‘spark’ (to use transformers) that seperates us from the animals, the atroicites that they can (and have) justify are legion.
Plus there’s the sheer hubris of it. I believe that man is above the animals as we all carry a spark of the divine in our souls. The Athiest believes he is superior, because he said so.
Back on topic, part of that is why I argue for ‘fred’; a seperate institution, recognizable by the government and crafted through the legal process. It doesn’t encroach on those who look at Marriage being one thing, and it gives legal recognition of the personal commitment between two people of the same sex. It increases net freedom.
Gods that was a long post***
* Well it matters in that I hope their gods take care of them in the next world. I’d hate for my friends to end up in oblivion or worse because their gods went ‘nah, nevermind’.
** There was a comic set in 2099. Catholic women were allowed to be priests, but the titles weren’t changed. So one of the main supporting characters was ‘Father Jennifer’
*** Yes, I swear ‘gods’ a lot. We cannot take HIS name in vain. Swearing at other deities is just fine
Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2010 @ 9:09 am - June 15, 2010
There was a Futurama with a Father-Sister Bertrille…. And yes, she could fly!
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 15, 2010 @ 10:06 am - June 15, 2010
The Athiest on the other hand, must be fanatical in his faith. He must believe with every fibre of his being that he is the product of random chance, that there is nothing except this world. Being that there is no higher power, either without or within himself, he feels free to be as the animals, justifying any action he takes to better himself, no matter who he hurts.
Didn’t I call it? I’m an atheist, therefore I have no morality. Religious people think they’ve got that market cornered, that I can’t be charitable and friendly in real life because I don’t waste a couple hours every week talking to my forefathers’ imaginary friend. I do think we’re here by random chance, but I fail to see how this is any kind of faith – I have mountains of empirical evidence to suggest that this is the case, and further, a universe brought about by random chance is far more special and unique in the abstract then a universe where everyone is destined to be here and live their lives according to some Big Brother figure’s master plan. I live on this planet everyday feeling like I won the lottery, that all of us won the lottery, and that we’re are absurdly lucky to be here at all. Think of it; in my scheme, the odds that you and I would be discussing anything on the internet are infinitely minute, but in a God-built universe its inevitable, predictable, and therefore dull. You’re going to sit there and tell me you believe that there is another world after this one that is better in every respect, far more important, and then tell me that I don’t appreciate existence and life and humanity? That’s completely laughable.
Charity is unknown to him. Indeed, in Levi’s case, his utopia can be built on a mound of bodies, as he has chosen himself to know better than his ‘lessers’. That is the trap of the Athiest. Hoping deep inside that there is no reward, no punishment for actions in this life, he must mock, attack, and deride anyone who says otherwise. For Christians and Jews, questions lead to understanding and affirmation of faith. For the Athiest, questions lead to doubt and lonliness.
Those last two statements are delusional; your questions only lead to understanding and affirmation if you shut your brain off. With religion, you can conjure up any old explanation for anything and be content and there is no measure of authenticity whatsoever. I can sit here and tell you that after a lifetime I’ve silenced, I just communed with an entity calling himself God, and that he wanted me to be President and get rich and force the rest of the planet to believe in him as much as I do, and you would have absolutely no choice but to believe what I’m saying. The religion I can create in 15 seconds has exactly as much authority and credibility as yours that was created 2,000 years ago. That is the problem with faith, and that is the problem with believing that religion has any sort of ability to help people understand anything about the world.
Doubt, by the way, is one of the most productive characteristics in the history of man. And I’m hardly lonely, thank you very much.
And I will continue mocking religion until the day I die. One of the worst parts about religion is the special pleading that goes on when faith conflicts with the secular; I have to stop treating you like an adult and put on the kid gloves due to the finer points of your ridiculous faith or you’ll be insulted or offended. Religion is this embarrassing little shield of last resort that you’ll scramble behind any time you’re feeling outsmarted or silly, and it’s always a conversation ender. I can indulge little kids that want to believe in Santa and the Easter bunny in good fun, but I just can’t abide by a grown ass man trying to pass legislation based on his interpretation of the will of a completely fictional character.
One last question I like to throw out whenever I get into one of these; why did God create AIDS and breast cancer? Let me guess, is it because “HE WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS?” What a joke. You might as well say “Because none of this makes any sense, so just don’t think about it too much and you’ll be good.”
Comment by Levi — June 15, 2010 @ 10:34 am - June 15, 2010
I’m at a loss for what could be considered a bigger con job than someone coming out of the woods one day and declaring themselves to be a prophet of the creator of the universe, which results in thousands of years of authoritarian psychological and political control of almost every single human being to have ever lived. The Piltdown Man? Bernie Madoff? Not even close.
I recognize that religion is and has been a force for good in the world in a lot of places. It was the best guess at making sense of a world that just didn’t make sense. People didn’t know about anatomy or germs or weather patterns or earthquakes. If I was born in a cave and had to compete with bears and wolves and lions every day I’d probably believe in some pretty magical shit, too.
And yes, religion brings people together and there are good causes and all that and I have many religious friends that I think are very smart and very capable. I just think we’ve outgrown it is all. There are a lot of drawbacks to the system and there isn’t anything that religion does anymore that couldn’t be replaced. People can still be charitable and moral and benevolent without religion, and we could get rid of those nasty habits religion has of splitting people up into arbitrary groups and compromising peoples’ ability to think. Morality isn’t set by religion, and getting rid of religion doesn’t de-emphasize existence and make life meaningless, I find that it makes life more significant.
I will also say I appreciate your thought on the question. I’m not even going to pretend to know how the universe got started and what put things in motion, and if you wanted to posit some kind of initiating creator that set it all off back at the beginning then I’m not going to fault you for it. It’s the people that try to promise me heaven and are convinced that there is a magical sky fairy reading my thoughts and watching me sleep that just don’t make any sense to me.
Comment by Levi — June 15, 2010 @ 10:52 am - June 15, 2010
Livewire, I must have hit “Say It!” accidentally before I finished.
I think one of the reasons religion came about was to come up with a code of being good to our fellow neighbor, and otherwise living a decent, moral life (or die trying to do so). So today people still do that by either continuing a long standing tradition of their religion, or determining for themselves what living a decent, moral life is. Sure, there are many atheists (and religious adherents) who will try to justify any immoral behavior. Heck, there are Christians who believe that they could sin all they want, whatever, because, since they believe in Jesus, He will forgive their sins. And also, I don’t believe that most persons do good, because there may be a reward in the afterlife. Now, of course, many people do believe in an afterlife, but I don’t think that, in and of itself, governs their actions.
I’m going to take issue with this somewhat. Religion couldn’t have been the initiator of moral behavior in humans, because for millions of years, our evolutionary ancestors had no such thing. Like virtually every other mammal and animal species on the planet, individual members of a community don’t kill other members of their community as a general rule. The trait that we’re talking about here is social behavior, and just like physical traits across seemingly unrelated organisms, you can see how social behavior evolved and made a tremendously beneficial impact on the reproductive success of animals. Lions hunt in packs so more people can be fed, dolphins swim together in huge numbers to ward off predators, zebras developed group camouflage, birds fly in formations that make flight easier and more efficient for the group, etc.
Human morality is just a fancy way of saying social behavior, and it was with us long before any of the contemporary religions showed up on the scene. Religion came after the fact and tried to take credit for it, but since the invention of modern science and the development of the theory of evolution, there’s no longer any need to believe religious people when they start talking about objective moral law.
What you’re saying is true to some extent, but I would attribute the prevalence of religion during the development of civilization to more authoritarian goals. Certainly, sometimes religion was a way to codify treating your neighbors well, but it was just as likely used to start wars and justify atrocities. Killing members of your own species is also a behavior that developed during our evolutionary history that was also successful, by the way.
Bottom line – these things are in us because of what life was like for our ancestors on the Sarengetti for a few million years, not because God set up the rules for us to play by.
Comment by Levi — June 15, 2010 @ 11:06 am - June 15, 2010
That depends. Some atheists are emotional / militant / fanatical about it; some aren’t. Same as with theists.
Again: You are describing a particular type of atheist. There are others. I know atheists who are highly committed to the idea of morality, and especially the idea of everybody (including themselves) respecting everybody’s rights. By their existence, they disprove your argument.
Now, if you want, you could ask me to say more about how such people could exist and what motivates them (since I seem to know a few of them). Or, instead, you could militantly insist to me that I must be dreaming because they cannot exist.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 15, 2010 @ 11:15 am - June 15, 2010
Livewire, thanks for explaining henotheism. I still don’t quite get it (perhaps because of my monotheistic upbringing), but it is good food for thought. I do like the way that enables one to practice their beliefs while respecting others’ beliefs. And, thank God we don’t live in a theocracy.
I still don’t agree with you regarding atheism. An atheist can still believe that there is something special about the human race with respect to other animals. It doesn’t have to be a “spark” to believe such differentiation. In fact, I personally believe that this happened gradually, and really came into shape with the advent of oral and written communication (I’d like to see another species type a post like this on the Internet). Also, what you say about atheists is also true about religious people. Many do exhibit superiority, moral and otherwise, over other religious adherents and atheists. I’m not sure specifically what moral atrocities atheists have justified, but atrocities have been committed (and justified) in the name of religion.
Comment by Pat — June 15, 2010 @ 11:20 am - June 15, 2010
I gotta come back to that. It is the difference between the child and the grownup, or the savage and the civilized human being.
The grownup / civilized person grasps that reality exists independently of him or her; that reality is not arbitrary; that reality can be known; that reality can be commanded *after* (and only after) it is known; that said knowledge is valid, if one generates / validates it by the right cognitive process; that knowledge requires effort, including (but not limited to) the effort of honesty, the effort of improving one’s thinking / cognitive process as such, and the effort of continually acquiring new knowledge; and that said effort is is required for a successful life.
The child and the savage don’t know those things. They want to claim the prestige and benefits of instant knowledge… so they make sh*t up and call it personal “revelation”. They preen and pretend at having a better knowledge of reality – while they deny the validity of knowledge in general (see #57), a contradictory position. Contradictions don’t bother them. In the same discussion, a child-savage can make contradictory statements that, just for example, (1) she doesn’t know who God blesses and never claimed she did; (2) God blessed the following specific list of persons among others. If you call her on the demented dishonesty of her contradictions, she may confess somewhat inadvertently that it is all a big “Song of Herself”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 15, 2010 @ 11:47 am - June 15, 2010
Religion couldn’t have been the initiator of moral behavior in humans,
Levi, in fact, I’ve said the opposite. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. Humans were the ones that began the moral codes, and continued the tradition orally, and eventually, in written sacred texts. Thus, religion was born.
I’m at a loss for what could be considered a bigger con job than someone coming out of the woods one day and declaring themselves to be a prophet of the creator of the universe, which results in thousands of years of authoritarian psychological and political control of almost every single human being to have ever lived.
I assume the prophet you are referring to is Jesus. First of all, we really don’t know what the story of Jesus is. And I know I’m probably not considered a good Christian because I question the literal circumstances of his conception and resurrection. And who really knows what and how Jesus established Christianity or if He even had the intention to do so.
Christianity certainly did become a force to be reckoned with for over 1000 years. But how did that come about? Christianity wasn’t going anywhere fast as an international powerful religion until one of the Roman emperors took it on. And with the fall of the empire, a lot of the powerful monarchs took on Christianity. That was fine, until you had to comply, or face the death penalty. So, if the con job was that these ruthless, evil, powerful people took a legend (if you will), and turned it into authoritarian control, I refuse to blame it on Jesus, or religion for that matter. It was humans that turned Christianity into the evil it was under these authoritarian regimes. And if wasn’t Jesus, another prophet, or some other religious person, entity, or thing, than created these authoritarian monstrosities, it would have been something else that would have created them.
And yes, religion brings people together and there are good causes and all that and I have many religious friends that I think are very smart and very capable. I just think we’ve outgrown it is all.
I’m not sure we’ve outgrown it. Religion is also a culture in many cases. There are people who are agnostic/atheist, but still maintain religious traditions.
I’m not even going to pretend to know how the universe got started and what put things in motion, and if you wanted to posit some kind of initiating creator that set it all off back at the beginning then I’m not going to fault you for it.
I’m not going to pretend either. And perhaps this is where my faith comes in, when I state my belief in God, even though my arguments may appear to others, that I believe otherwise.
It’s the people that try to promise me heaven and are convinced that there is a magical sky fairy reading my thoughts and watching me sleep that just don’t make any sense to me.
But wouldn’t a God omnipotent enough to create the universe would be omniscient enough to know all our thoughts? I don’t have an answer, as again, I have no idea what the nature of God is.
One last question I like to throw out whenever I get into one of these; why did God create AIDS and breast cancer? Let me guess, is it because “HE WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS?” What a joke. You might as well say “Because none of this makes any sense, so just don’t think about it too much and you’ll be good.”
As I read somewhere, God has a good PR agent. He gets credit for all the good that happens, none of the blame for all the bad that happens, but gets credit again, because things could have been worse. Go figure. And if God does exist, I have to agree with those who say He works in mysterious ways.
Comment by Pat — June 15, 2010 @ 11:48 am - June 15, 2010
T Kincaid over at BTB had some info about the battle over in Hawaii . . .and closes with this
But I think the matter is bigger than just discrimination towards the gay and lesbian children of God. It’s a battle over the establishment of religion.
There is a concerted attempt on the part of State Churchists (of various faiths) to legislate their doctrine and thus claim the mantle of “real Christians” and “real Jews”. And, sadly, I don’t think that the more liberal religious adherents have yet realized what is at risk.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/14/23438#comments
Comment by rusty — June 15, 2010 @ 12:19 pm - June 15, 2010
Ok, maybe I’m projecting Hitchens/Levi et al. on all Athiests, for that I’ll apologize. I was on a roll. I do wonder how an Athiest derives a moral compass though.
Well just in this century China, North Korea, USSR, Cambodia…
And as is always, Levi’s own words prove my point about him.
Let me use another quote of Levi’s “People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future.”
Levi then backpedals and tries to justify himself I’m saying follow my path because there are reams of evidence that conclusively demonstrate that it’s the best one for a society to follow,”
Yet, 108 days and Levi can’t name one successful socialist country.
Yet he has ‘reams of evidence’.
The flaw in my arguments about Athiesm is that I’m forgetting Levi is not an Athiest. His belief that after killing over 100 million people, we’ll get Socialism right this time.
Like I said, Levi believes his socialism is correct, despite his inability to find evidence. He’ll build his Utopia on the bodies of the dead. The religious man tries to convert (normally). The Socialist just kills you.
(I’ll be kind and assume the normal athiest just tries to convince you there’s no god (or dog if he’s dyslexic)).
As to the creation/evolution thing. I was watching Stephen Hawking’s Universe. He mentions the possibility of a Creator with all the incredible coincidences, clear back to the big bang, making intelligent life on the planet. He then postulates the counterpoint that there may be millions of alternate universes where life didn’t evolve. This amused me, since it comes down to belief in luck or belief in the Divine.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2010 @ 12:30 pm - June 15, 2010
I understood you. I just don’t think religions get started by people saying they need to take care of one another (all humans and most animals instinctively understand this to be a good idea), they are started by people who want to control one another.
Jesus, Mohammed, the Mormon guy, L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones, whoever. Anyone that says they know what the deal is with God and the universe.
But the authoritarian monstrosities are the inevitable, inescapable end result. Jesus might have been a great guy, who knows? If he did exist, I certainly don’t believe he was supernatural in any way, and I don’t know if he claimed to be the son of God, no one really can. Maybe he was all about sitting around singing Kumbayah and getting along with everyone, but as soon as these things catch on, there are people that are going to exploit it and manipulate it to their own ends. If you get people wrapped up in a series of irrational beliefs, you can get them to do all kinds of irrational things, like give you money and fight and die for you. If you don’t want to blame Jesus for that, fine, but you have to blame religion, that’s what religion is.
There are churches that give people a chance to meet and talk and share and all that without the religious mumbo jumbo and ritual, and those are great places. People need to feel like part of a community and that is one of the good services that some sense of spirituality can provide, but institutional religion is a dinosaur that is getting more and more dangerous.
That’s a good attitude to have. It’s these people like Livewire that proclaim to know for sure what’s going on, and then make blanket statements about people different from himself not having any sense of morality that is the problem.
I mean, I guess? Is that what you would choose to do with omnipotence? You create the universe, wait around for a couple billion years, then create human beings so you can spy on them when they’re in the shower? That sounds like a curse more than a gift.
That truly is the case, and is just another piece of evidence that God doesn’t exist. It’s just too convenient to think that God is looking out for you if you get a new job when a few hundred thousand people can die in an earthquake. It reflects a very selfish part of the human ego and psyche that is within all of us – that we’re important and significant and are one of the primary people on the planet, so much so that God is handing down blessings while he’s smiting away on the other side of the world.
Comment by Levi — June 15, 2010 @ 12:39 pm - June 15, 2010
Indeed.
Not to put words in TL’s mouth, but he may be thinking of the hundreds of millions killed by communism, not to mention fascism. No question about it, some atheists have done some bad stuff – as have some religious people. There are bad people and good people, in every group.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 15, 2010 @ 12:56 pm - June 15, 2010
Start by asking, why do people need morality? We need it because of some of the things I said earlier, plus a few more: Reality is objective, but knowledge of it isn’t automatic. As far as reality is concerned, we can live or we can die. In order to live and live well, we must constantly make choices. Unlike lower animals who have simple goals that they are driven by instinct to achieve, we are faced with real choices and need a guide to those choices. That’s what morality is: principles to guide personal decision-making, leading to better decisions (or ideally, the best decisions). Everyone needs that. I.e., everyone needs morality. Whether they know it or not.
The next question is, good/better/best by what standard? With that question, we enter the moral discussion / debate as such. Religionists say, good/better/best by what my God or my religious text is alleged to say, or to have revealed. Atheists say, good/better/best by some other standard. You can argue with them all day long, I am not trying to give you the full edition of their views here, only an idea of their starting point.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 15, 2010 @ 1:09 pm - June 15, 2010
Scientifically, there is no such thing as “luck”.
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 15, 2010 @ 1:10 pm - June 15, 2010
(#100 continued) But some of the standards atheists have used, include: what will advance human evolution; what will advance evolution in general; what will enable the person to find meaning whether there is a God or not; what will enable the person to realize their potential as a thinking / conscious being; what will enable the person to live a life proper to a thinking being, that is, a being which by its nature survives by means of its thinking; etc.
sf – Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 15, 2010 @ 1:14 pm - June 15, 2010
And therein we see why atheism is really on several levels such an underdeveloped understanding of the universe.
From studies of learning and development in children, we find that individuals progress from levels in which they are capable of comprehending only what they can see and touch to understanding the abstract. The classic example is the child who thinks a penny is worth more than a dime because it’s bigger, or who thinks that the same amount of liquid poured from a flat pan into a cylinder becomes “more” because it is taller. The ability to move beyond the senses, to accept the abstract, to realize that there are things that react and think differently than you do and that those things are valid, to move from complete egocentrism to a broader view, is a sign of intellectual and emotional maturity.
But what do we see with Levi? God doesn’t exist because Levi can’t see Him. God doesn’t exist because He doesn’t act exactly the way that Levi thinks one should. Completely egocentric. Nothing is real that Levi cannot see, touch, or comprehend.
The egocentrism Levi has is what leads to his utter hypocrisy. Take this, for example:
But what is Levi’s stated belief system and goals?
So again, what we see here is the spoiled, egocentric child that Levi is. He himself screams and rails and insists that religion is evil because it tries to control other people. Then he demands that he should be put in complete and total control of everyone else because he’s better than they are.
That is why people state that atheists have no morality. It should be clear to anyone observing Levi that he will lie, cheat, and steal to justify his own behavior, and that he will attack and insult those who he claims try to “control” others while demanding that he be allowed to do so.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2010 @ 1:49 pm - June 15, 2010
Why do you think the human body feels pain, Pat?
For example, as a little child, when you wanted to touch the stove and feel the interesting glowing element, you might have done so — and had immediate pain for your troubles.
Now, how is that fair? You were just curious. Why shouldn’t you be able to touch the stove without pain? What could happen?
The reason why is pretty straightforward. Putting your hand on a hot element would cook your flesh and permanently destroy your hand. Indeed, if you’ve ever worked with or researched frostbite cases, several people have inadvertently suffered third-degree burns and lost feet — not from the frostbite, but from the fact that they weren’t careful to keep their numb feet out of fires or out of water that was too hot.
The lesson is that pain serves a purpose — both to keep us from injuring ourselves further and to teach us to be careful in our behavior. If you’ve burned yourself picking up the teapot once, you are going to check that the gas isn’t on when you do it the next time. Your burned finger has prevented you from catching an entire sleeve or arm on fire or otherwise doing worse to yourself.
The interesting thing to me is that people like Paris Hilton’s parents, who have always given their child everything she wanted, gotten her out of every bad situation that could be imagined, and used their immense resources to make sure that she has never had a moment’s worry in her life, are vilified by society for producing spoiled brats — but they expect and demand that God do the same thing as Paris Hilton’s parents.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2010 @ 2:09 pm - June 15, 2010
intersting article here.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2010 @ 2:27 pm - June 15, 2010
But the authoritarian monstrosities are the inevitable, inescapable end result.
Levi, that has been true in too many, but not all, cases. Perhaps I’m a pessimist, but I believe that these would have occurred without religion. There would be some other mechanism to try to control people, and excuse to imprison, injure, or murder many.
Well just in this century China, North Korea, USSR, Cambodia…
AND
Not to put words in TL’s mouth, but he may be thinking of the hundreds of millions killed by communism, not to mention fascism.
Livewire and ILC, agreed. There are definitely atrocities committed by atheist leaders. In the past 100 years we have seen atrocities committed by Nazi Germany, and Islamic regimes and terrorist organizations. And Russia, and in particular China, has such a brutal past before their leaders espoused atheism. Everytime China was due for a power struggle, millions had to die while it was all sorted out. Why in God’s name couldn’t their religious views stop the slaughter, let alone prevent it from starting it?
Anyway, my point isn’t that religion is any better or worse than atheism when it comes to these atrocities. These atrocities were caused by people who had the power to not cause it, but chose not to.
Why do you think the human body feels pain, Pat?
For example, as a little child, when you wanted to touch the stove and feel the interesting glowing element, you might have done so — and had immediate pain for your troubles.
NDT, I’ll join the PR brigade on that one. It certainly is a good thing to experience pain in the example you provide. But we were talking about thousands or millions being slaughtered by power-hungry scum, disease, or natural disasters. Many times victims include children who would have benefited by the pain/stove thing, but won’t, because they’re dead.
I don’t know what people want from God. Maybe some want God to be like the Hiltons. Maybe some want a fair shot. Many do, which is great, but too many don’t, which is a damn shame.
Comment by Pat — June 15, 2010 @ 2:57 pm - June 15, 2010
Here is why some have a problem with some of the teaching of Christianity.
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 15, 2010 @ 3:09 pm - June 15, 2010
Pat, pogroms against Jews, just to use an example, have been going on since time immemorial. But for some reason, only until six million Jews were wiped off the face of the earth during the Holocaust did it become socially unacceptable to demand their death — and even that, given the current state of the global left, the Obama Party, and other Hamas endorsers, doesn’t seem to be enough to convince people that genocide against Jews is unacceptable.
Humans have a horrible track record of recognizing dangers and modifying our behaviors BEFORE disasters strike. After, though, the death and loss of life seems to shock us into listening, and as a result, more lives are saved.
The 1906 San Francisco quake killed 3,000 people in San Francisco alone and destroyed the bulk of the city. Loma Prieta, which was only slightly smaller, killed four people and destroyed or rendered uninhabitable only about 75 buildings. Why? Because people changed their behavior to accomodate the fact that we live in an earthquake zone. People knew that San Francisco was prone to quakes — there had been several, including ones that destroyed buildings and caused devastating fires, prior to the 1906 quake — but it took 3,000 dead and a vaporized area to make people actually pay attention to it. And because they paid attention, instead of simply ignoring it as they had done before, thousands more lives have been saved.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2010 @ 4:07 pm - June 15, 2010
NDT, I guess your stove/pain example was a metaphor for the big picture. So these tragic things that happen to thousands or millions of people will (hopefully) lead to improved behavior and/or actions, so these tragic things don’t happen again. But, in the meantime, innocents were killed. I think a better would have been learned that, instead of the 3000+ people who died on 9/11 and the tens of thousands or so that died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, why couldn’t all the terrorists just die some horrible death in one full swoop. I think that would be quite a good lesson that would prevent terrorism. Or instead of 6 million Jews, 5 million plus others in Germany, and the 20 million Soviet citizenry murdered, why couldn’t have Hitler, Stalin, and their thugs have been smited before they stained their hands with 31 million plus deaths? Heck, if these scum had the equivalent of pain of touching the stove every time they murdered someone, maybe they would have stopped by the time they reached 10 (okay, maybe 100 with these bloodthirsty subhumans). Yes, I know. That’s not the way God does things.
Comment by Pat — June 15, 2010 @ 5:07 pm - June 15, 2010
Ok, maybe I’m projecting Hitchens/Levi et al. on all Athiests, for that I’ll apologize. I was on a roll. I do wonder how an Athiest derives a moral compass though.
If you stop looking at human social behavior as some extra-special phenomenon not governed by the laws of the natural world, it is apparent. Our social behavior may be far more complex than any other organisms’, but the mechanisms are the same under the hood, just like any number of our physical features. All vertebrates have roughly the same body, and most large mammals have roughly the same sort of social structure. Morality is just another name for the physical and mental adaptations that have taken place in human beings over millions of years that allow us to live together and succeed in harsh environments. Cooperation in the animal kingdom is a force multiplier – good eyes and a big brain and a opposable thumbs are a novelty on an individual, but as features of a group they are literally an unbeatable combination. Individuals that cooperated as part of a group were more successful, had more food, and had more opportunities to produce. The physical adaptations herethat are being selected upon are the endorphins and hormones that trigger in certain social situations, from embarrassment to sorrow to longing to love to rage. We are built this way through evolution and natural selection – God has nothing to do with it.
Pinning your morality on the existence of God means you’re effectively admitting you’d be a monster if it could ever be proven that there was no God, right? For my side, in either a godless universe or a universe with a god, I have no doubts about what my morality would be. You seem to suggest that you’re only being moral because of God, is that the case?
Comment by Levi — June 15, 2010 @ 6:04 pm - June 15, 2010
Are you implying that, without RELIGION, there can be no way a human could know that murdering another is wrong, that stealing form someone is wrong, that sleeping with someone elses girlfriend / boyfriend / husband / wife is wrong?
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 15, 2010 @ 7:13 pm - June 15, 2010
Oh, Levi, you are hilarious.
You honestly believe that there is no difference whatsoever between humans and animals?
That would explain why you and yours support abortion. To you, killing a human child is no different than dropping a bag of puppies or kittens into a river. After all, a child would just be a drain on your resources and of no value to you, so you arbitrarily remove and destroy it.
Correction. Levi and his leftist ilk would probably scream bloody murder if someone dropped a bag of puppies or kittens into a river. Indeed, they have passed laws that require animal owners to take responsibility for the offspring that their animals produce. They have more concern for animal life than they do for humans.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2010 @ 7:14 pm - June 15, 2010
Actually, Sonic, without religion, the question would be if those are wrong in EVERY SITUATION.
Levi and his fellow leftists can always rationalize the others. For example, if they think you have too much money, they justify taking it from you. If they don’t want to deal with an elderly parent or an unplanned pregnancy, they rationalize aborting the latter and killing the former. And they justify sleeping around because it gives them gratification and besides, such rules are prudish.
The sort of scary part is that liberalism and the leftist views of amorality, natural selection, and evolution lead invariably to the Leopold and Loebs of the world.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2010 @ 7:18 pm - June 15, 2010
I wrote:
NDT replied:
And yet, religion does have exemptions for those too. Murder? Well if you commit a crime, or even commit adultery, you get stoned. Speaking of adultery – not OK… unless you’re either one of Lot’s daughters, who are not only married, but offered by Lot to commit adultery right in from of the Angles. Does Lot get punished for this? No. But later he does get date raped by his own daughters, which apparently is OK with God, because there are no consequences that I know of. And stealing… well it’s OK, if it happens to be due to war and conquest.
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 15, 2010 @ 7:41 pm - June 15, 2010
Um, let’s see.
His home and the city where he lives, along with all of his possessions, are destroyed.
His wife is turned to a pillar of salt.
None of those qualify as punishment?
Go to Bible.com and put in “Moabites” and “Ammonites”. Turns out their descendants had a pretty not-so-nice life thanks to their parents’ choices.
Just because God doesn’t strike people dead doesn’t mean that they weren’t punished. Sometimes the worst possible punishment is to have to live and deal with the consequences of your actions.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2010 @ 8:03 pm - June 15, 2010
But that wasn’t because of the actions I described, it was because of the actions of other for whom Lot did not control. God, in a way, functions much like the NCAA when punishing USC.
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 15, 2010 @ 8:57 pm - June 15, 2010
Actually, I find it rather hard to believe that Lot didn’t know what kind of a city Sodom was in the first place.
It’s, again, a bit like me moving to San Francisco and being angry at God because an earthquake happened. Hello? My choice to live in an earthquake zone.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 15, 2010 @ 9:01 pm - June 15, 2010
Of course there is. But there’s nothing so unique about us that I’m willing to believe that we’re all imbued with some kind of mystical essence by some mysterious supernatural being. Intelligence isn’t unique to humans, opposable thumbs aren’t unique to humans, empathy and sadness and joy aren’t unique to humans. We may be more expressive than most other species and have a higher ceiling of capability, but our species is still playing by the same rules as all the others. It should go without saying that I value human life more than the lives of dogs and cats, and there isn’t anything contradictory about that assertion and saying that there is nothing “special” about humans in a supernatural sense.
You’re a 4-year old buddy.
Comment by Levi — June 15, 2010 @ 9:57 pm - June 15, 2010
So what are you saying? That God puts us through these little rigors like earthquakes so we learn how to build better buildings? That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Why can’t human ingenuity take credit for that? Why does everything always have to be God’s obstacle course with you people?
Riddle me this; why did an earthquake just kill a few hundred thousand Haitians earlier this year? Haven’t we failed God if people are still dying in earthquakes by the thousands? Did we learn so much from the pain of World War II that those tens of millions of deaths were worth it? What kind of calculus does this idiot-God of yours go by if he’s choosing to teach us lessons through such vicious, over-the-top carnage?
Comment by Levi — June 15, 2010 @ 10:13 pm - June 15, 2010
That example doesn’t really work, as God didn’t tell Lot beforehand that Sodom was going to be destroyed, did he. And, as an example, San Francisco only works in modern 20th century because we know Earthquakes occur there, and we know the mechanism – that it sits on a major slip-strike fault. Those who perished in 1906… what was their crime in the eyes of God?
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 15, 2010 @ 11:59 pm - June 15, 2010
So, if it’s God’s will that the descendants, who them selves did nothing wrong, be punished for their parents sins, then why shouldn’t we start punishing people for the crimes of their parents? It’s the Godly thing to do.
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 16, 2010 @ 12:12 am - June 16, 2010
I do so love it when liberals try that one.
Put bluntly, Levi, you and yours put people in jail for killing animals — but demand that the Federal government promote and pay for the killing of humans.
It thus isn’t surprising that you try to argue that humans are no better than animals; otherwise, that would raise serious questions about the “morality” you embrace that normalizes killing them.
Next:
Yes.
God created humans with the capacity for free will and to learn. You learn both by your successes and your failures, by what comes easy and what is difficult.
The problem here, Levi, is that your entire worldview is centered around eliminating God. It is perfectly possible for human ingenuity to exist simultaneously with God. However, for you to admit that there is a God would throw into question your entire egocentric worldview, which states that a) there is nothing greater than you and b) therefore you are not answerable to anyone or anything.
Yes. But of course we’re going to fail God; we’re not perfect.
Another thing that is difficult for you to admit, Levi. Since humanity to you is the crux of existence, that really provides a horrible object lesson to which to aspire, since by human standards, Hitler and Stalin were outrageous successes.
A recognition of exactly how dumb humans can be.
Remember, Hitler had laid out virtually every aspect of his ideology and plans in Mein Kampf in 1925 — and yet the world, right up until the invasion of Poland, even AFTER seeing what Hitler had done in civil-war Spain, in Germany, in Austria, in Czechoslovakia, and the like, still predominantly believed his intentions were peaceful.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2010 @ 1:06 am - June 16, 2010
Look at it this way, Sonic; what happens to the child of a mother who chooses to smoke, drink, or worst, do crack, while she is pregnant?
Or, on the flip side, what mother who really cares about her children would do something like that during her pregnancy?
The choices of the parents do affect the child. And that’s particularly the lesson God is showing with that one; think before you act, especially in a selfish and irresponsible manner as did Lot and his daughters.
Therein lies a problem, Sonic, that has to be understood.
To a Christian, death is not necessarily a bad thing. To paraphrase Paul in Galatians, who wouldn’t prefer heaven and perfect bliss to the daily struggles and inconveniences of life? Certainly death CAN be a punishment, but in some cases, it’s a welcome relief. Indeed, we find that commonality of the good life after death in cultures as diverse as classical Greek and ancient Egypt.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2010 @ 1:25 am - June 16, 2010
Unless it’s punishment, like those in Sodom. And the majority of the population in San Fran, given that it was a major port for Chinese immigration, was probably not Christian. So that is little comfort for them.
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 16, 2010 @ 1:39 am - June 16, 2010
Ashpenaz @ 60:
No, I don’t think any physicist would say that, Ash, I really don’t. You see, if the equations physicists write don’t have anything to do with actual phenomena, there isn’t much point in the physicists writing them, is there?
Now I’m not a physicist; I studied chemistry. And in chemistry the symbols in our equations definitely refer to real phenomena. When we write “p” for pressure we mean the actual pressure of a real physical system. The same when we write “T” for temperature, or “V” for volume. You get the idea, I’m sure.
As for physics, I’m confident when those in that field write
f = ma
they really are refering to forces (pushes or pulls on bodies), masses, and accelerations.
That, oh mighty genius Ashpenaz, is because Hilbert space is a mathematical reality and so can be observed only be the mind and not the senses. Mathematics deals with developing the language needed for dealing with quantitive reality. You are again conflating one thing with another when you glibly skip from physics to mathematics.
REALLY! Wow! Does gravity now repel objects from one another. Or make them happy? Or turn them blue? Because one of the fundamental interactions between physical bodies surely cannot have no effect on them.
Oh. So we now must argue over the “best” description over a physical phenomenon? If a description is correct as far as it goes it’s still rubbish if it isn’t the “best,” eh. Methinks you just like showing off, Ash. Too bad for you it won’t work with me.
What counts as the “best” description depends on the context: What are you doing with your desciption at that time. Pat dealt quite well with this at comment # 62.
Space-time is a mathematical concept; there is no such thing as space-time per se. Mathematicians and phycists have simply developed the language for describing the relationship between distance and time measurements.
And there is nothing metaphorical occuring when scientists say that space is different in the presence of a gravitational field. It really is different. And in the presence of another bodies gravitational field a body (unless in free fall) will experience a force attracting it toward said other body.
More sheer stupidity.
Your original comment — the one that set me off — was on gravity:
We don’t know if gravity exists, either. Ask any physicist what gravity is and they won’t know. We experience being held to the earth, and we can describe what we experience with symbols, but we have no idea whether there is anything there when we’re not measuring it.
You made no distinction here between gravity on a subatomic scale or on a cosmic one. Now you change the conditions of inquiry as glibly as you move between the concrete and the ideal with your Hilbert space nonsense.
No matter. Moving from classical to quantum physics changes nothing here. If we have a jar of helium we know we have atoms consisting of two electrons that are gravitationally and electromagnetically attracted to a helium nucleus. We need not make any observations of the atoms — quantitative of otherwise — to now that they remain in this state unless a stronger gravitational or electromagnetic attraction acts on the electrons. This example is equivalent to your earlier comment on macroscopic gravity.
As for your interpretation of quantum mechanics … well you need to do some more reading.
I’m not. However there is a HUGE difference from dealing with the physical realities of bodies (matter) and space and having concepts for them and asserting that there is some supreme dude who blesses certain sexual relationships and then arguing — with certainty — over just which relationships have been so blessed. That is what you and Seane-Anna did.
You confuse uncertainties about the physical world, which we all know to be real, with your arguments over the supreme being, for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — June 16, 2010 @ 2:50 am - June 16, 2010
I’m not done with you yet, Ash.
Your comment at 74:
More reading on science, Ash, more reading. It wasn’t Einstein’s work on relativity that was confirmed by those solar eclipse photos; it was his understanding of gravitation.
This is the one sensible thing you’ve said.
However, you don’t seem to follow your own advice:
Where was the personal revelation, the moment of intuitive insight, that told you all those stories were true?
Good grief. This is nearly as bad as the BS about gravity.
Neuroscience is the study of the nervous system. It requires now assumption that the mind is a pure product of the nervous system. It is known, however, that mental states and brain states are correlated.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — June 16, 2010 @ 3:23 am - June 16, 2010
Indeed, ILC, indeed.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — June 16, 2010 @ 3:25 am - June 16, 2010
109 days Levi.
I’ll keep reminding others that you have no objections to crushing the will of others, building a utopia of your imaging on the death of the freedom of your fellow man despite all evidence that it won’t work. You keep saying you have ‘reams of evidence’ but can’t present it, while we can look to the world and present evidence that your socialist utopia is a nightmare.
You ask if I would be a monster if God was disproved? Well He can’t be, but you show that even if He’d come and turn water to wine before your eyes, you still will be.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2010 @ 6:49 am - June 16, 2010
Pat, ILC,
It’s been my believe/upbringing that He does have a plan, and we have a part to play in it, but the Divine’s scope is so big that we’re not able to comprehend all of it. If we’re lucky, we can see part of it.
And bad things happen to good people because He isn’t there to wrap the world in bubble wrap. We all make bad choices that in turn affect others, including innocents. Life is risk, whether it be living in the earthquake prone areas, or living in Tornado alley. People have the ability to do good and evil. It’s what makes us unique, Levi’s beliefs not withstanding.
When the dog pees on the carpet, he’s not doing it to be cruel or evil, he’s doing it because his bladder’s full and the alpha (that’s the owner for you, Levi) hasn’t given him any other options or taught him it’s not accepted. When the serial killer kills his victim, that’s a conscious choice to be evil.
Look at reality as a complex computer program, litterally millions of if/then statements. If I do X, it will trigger Y. If I run in front of a bus, it will remove me from His plan, but someone else will step up to take my place in it. Will Innocents suffer? Yes they can, but it’s not because of Him it’s because of us.
Miracles happen not because He feels “Oh, let’s turn Ethiopia into a jungle because I feel like it.” But because He sees we have used the gifts we have been given to screw up His plan so bad that He needs to ‘debug’ the program.
(So, Christ wasn’t just a Jewish Carpenter, he was the first IT guy.)
That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to master our domain, indeed, we are the only of His creations (on this world at least) who can affect changes on our environment.
I’ve said before I’m a ‘two boats and a helicopter’ kind of Christian.
And Sonicfrog, the problem I have with that cartoon is the murderer’s deathbed confession would have to be because he understood his actions and honestly felt remorse. Not “Oh crap, I’d better ask forgiveness because I’m going to Hell.” I’m a big fan of pennance myself.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2010 @ 7:03 am - June 16, 2010
Look at it this way, Sonic; what happens to the child of a mother who chooses to smoke, drink, or worst, do crack, while she is pregnant?
So, the lesson here is if children don’t suffer enough because of the misdeeds of their parents, God will make sure that they, and their descendants will suffer as well. Ugh!
God, in a way, functions much like the NCAA when punishing USC.
Sonicfrog, I was thinking the same thing. How often does the NCAA punish a program, in which the violation was committed by the coach who has left the team, and getting paid millions to coach another team? And in USC’s case, Reggie Bush is long gone making millions in the NFL, and the current athletes are paying for their violations and are stuck with the choice of either playing for a program with limited resources, or transferring to another school.
Comment by Pat — June 16, 2010 @ 7:31 am - June 16, 2010
Livewire, I share much of your philosophy here. One of the areas I disagree with is miracles. I don’t believe God is any more or less responsible for the good things, including miracles, than He is for the bad things that happen.
When the dog pees on the carpet, he’s not doing it to be cruel or evil, he’s doing it because his bladder’s full and the alpha (that’s the owner for you, Levi) hasn’t given him any other options or taught him it’s not accepted.
Well, our puppy doesn’t pee on the carpet anymore, but still likes to go in the basement. When I try to catch him, it’s either before he is about to do the deed, or too late after. And he still likes to think he’s alpha.
Comment by Pat — June 16, 2010 @ 7:59 am - June 16, 2010
I don’t look to God as ‘punishing’ or ‘rewarding’ people. Yes, we suffer for the actions of others, but He gave us the potential to rise above or descend, it is up to us to make the best of what we have. (Boy has this wandered off topic.)
He didn’t set the baby up to be a crack baby, but did give him the potential to rise above his circumstances. Just like he didn’t give (former?) Governor Sanford a Brazillian hottie to be thrown in his path, he did give him the ability to overcome his baser instincts and remain loyal to his wife and not ‘bang the hot chick’.
I mean I don’t expect Trig Palin to ever be a rocket scientist (barring a massive DNA rewrite) but he can still be the best he can be. I don’t blame God (or Andrew Sullivan) for the extra chromosome, anymore than I blame Him for taking Donna from me so suddenly.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2010 @ 8:06 am - June 16, 2010
Just like he didn’t give (former?) Governor Sanford a Brazillian hottie to be thrown in his path
Probably not, but at the time, I can imagine Sanford thanked God for it.
(Boy has this wandered off topic.)
That’s what happens when Elton John and Rush Limbaugh get together.
Comment by Pat — June 16, 2010 @ 8:12 am - June 16, 2010
Well there’s a difference between ‘miracles’ (The Lights all were green on my way to pick you up! The Virgin Mary appeared in my Nachos!) and Miracles! (The resurrection, the parting of the red sea, the 12 plagues).
The later require massive cosmic intervention, and often can be seen later as a happy set of coincidences. (Sure was lucky that the Volcano’s ash cloud blotted out the sun, that the nile had a mysterious red tide, that the locusts attacked, etc all at the same time The spiritual man sees the Hand of God(TM) in all of these. The agnostic sees a series of amazing coincidences.
I’ve read elsewhere (Dan, Leah, please correct me) that the Miracle! wasn’t the 12 plagues, rather it was that His people had fallen so far from Him, his intervention was the actual miracle.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2010 @ 8:17 am - June 16, 2010
Perhaps this is where my Christian card gets taken away. I question that the three Miracles you mentioned actually occurred. In fact, I sincerely doubt they did.
Comment by Pat — June 16, 2010 @ 8:22 am - June 16, 2010
It’s ok Pat, questioning is allowed, remember?
I’ve read scientific theories for the twelve plagues (the volcano, the red tide) I’ve even seen it mathmatcially proven that a constant breeze of 30 miles an hour for a certain amount of time can ‘part’ a section of the ‘reed sea’ where people believe the parting happened.
It doesn’t matter to me that science can explain away Miracles! It still doesn’t explain how the series of unfortunate events happen. A Conservative Rabbi does point out one thing. When a Reform Rabbi called the Exodus ‘a myth’ the Conservative replied that it is the Exodus that made the Jews a distinct culture and His people. To deny the exodus is to deny being a Jew.
(It’s also when I whip out my Heritic card. The priests of Egypt were doing real magic with their own sticks to snakes trick. They were calling on something. Most modern Christians I talk to say they were invoking the Adversary. But this makes no sense to me, the ‘we worship God, everyone else is a Satinist’ is too black and white for my thinking.)
It’s like when people say Jesus was ‘a great man, but not the Son of God.’ CS Lewis basically said, “either he’s the Son of God, or he was a loon. Pick one!”
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2010 @ 9:06 am - June 16, 2010
To be clear: I am *not* out here knocking all faith. I just know chaff (vs. wheat) when I see it. Advocating bullsh*t under the cover of “faith” is the insult to real faith.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 9:46 am - June 16, 2010
Actually, that’s a false dichotomy! You leave out the obvious third option…. He Was Both!!! I mean, come on – If you found out you were the Son Of God…. That would REALLY screw you up!!!!!
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 16, 2010 @ 9:53 am - June 16, 2010
I mean, jeez louise. Only an ignoramus, someone with NO understanding of scientific method to speak of (though in their narcissism, they may believe otherwise) could say this:
Even if current evolutionary and/or neuroscientific theories turn out to be wrong, the statement is still false.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 9:57 am - June 16, 2010
I agree. We have the gift of life. We have the gift of free will. They are two enormous, wonderful gifts. Putting them together, oftentimes *we* (not God) will then do evil, and/or suffer evil (of which we may or may not be innocent). God could only prevent it by taking away one or both of the gifts, which if He did that, would not be very nice of Him. But now we have Levi out here to tell us otherwise, spreading his un-faith. Levi is the kid who just got a great new bike at Christmas and can only whine that it’s uncomfortable and won’t protect him from car accidents.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 10:04 am - June 16, 2010
As for sins: We are not punished for them… only by them.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 10:08 am - June 16, 2010
As for a successful socialist country: There is one, right now. It’s a fluke. I could tell you the reasons for the fluke. But if I did that, I’d be telling Levi what country it is. I’m just enjoying the irony that I know of it, and (apparently) he doesn’t.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 10:16 am - June 16, 2010
I never said that, you’re being pathetic.
And you can save your rants about your virtuous moral superiority over me because of my position on abortion when you start recognizing that the wars you support have killed thousands of innocent people for nothing.
That was incoherent. What you’re saying here is that its God who is responsible for natural disasters, right? Earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes don’t have anything to do with plate tectonics and weather systems? Natural disasters are just a lesson that God is teaching us about enduring hardship?
I’m not trying to eliminate God – he already doesn’t exist. And why is that a problem as it relates to the question of why there is evil and destruction in God’s world?
And I’m sorry, but I would have to say that my worldview has for more humility than yours does. To believe in God, you have to believe that the universe was created specifically for us, that God talks to you every day, and that the creator of everything wants desperately for you to spend an eternity with him…. and you’re trying to tell me that I’m egocentric? Please.
My outlook is that we are all tremendously lucky to be here at all and that we all need to find our own value and meaning in this conundrum called existence. The universe is a huge place full of all different kinds of things, but it’s undoubtedly the case that even the tiniest, seemingly insignificant little microbe of life on this planet is the universe’s most amazing feature. For all we know, we may be the only sentient beings in the neighborhood, and if that’s the case, I believe we have an obligation to observe and explore and appreciate as much of it as we can. I think that’s far more encouraging and humble than to think that God is in direct, personal contact with me every moment of my life.
That doesn’t make any sense. Because we’re not perfect, we’re going to die by the millions in God’s Obstacle Course. What is the point?
That makes even less sense. You’re just incapable of talking about this like an adult if you’re going to start saying that atheists necessarily believe that Stalin and Hitler were successes.
What kind of calculus does this idiot-God of yours go by if he’s choosing to teach us lessons through such vicious, over-the-top carnage?
We die in earthquakes because we’re dumb? Who needs to recognize that we’re dumb? Us or God? I would think that most people know there can be stupid people, and God must know already, and regardless, how does dying in random disasters prove that we’re dumb?
What does that have to do with anything?
Comment by Levi — June 16, 2010 @ 10:36 am - June 16, 2010
Shouldn’t this mean that Christians should jump for joy when they’re diagnosed with terminal illnesses or when their family members are murdered? Shouldn’t it mean that you should stop what you’re doing right now, run outside, and throw yourself in front of a bus?
If “God works in mysterious ways,” maybe he’s been giving cancer to the people that he wants to start hanging out with in heaven? If God is promising an afterlife of bliss and is willing to let us know about it, shouldn’t he forgive us if he want to take a shortcut and commit suicide?
You’re so full of it. The idea that this realm of existence is just some sort of spring training for how we’re going to spend eternity is totally ridiculous. Wishful thinking taken to extremes. Nobody wants to die, and hospitals the world over filled with Christians taking chemotherapy and volunteering for experimental surgery are proof of that.
Comment by Levi — June 16, 2010 @ 10:42 am - June 16, 2010
Back to topic – Rush on Elton, though it takes him awhile to get to the point: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/15/rush-let-me-tell-you-about-my-new-friend-elton-john/
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 10:46 am - June 16, 2010
Your little taunts are boring and childish and that’s why I’m ignoring them. There are socialist programs that are successful all over the world, most predominantly in Western Europe, we’ve even got some right here in the United States. Public roads? Public schools? Social Security and Medicare? I don’t feel any kind of need to answer for Hitler and Stalin, those were authoritarian figures detached from all moral considerations and the socialism that is in practice bears absolutely no resemblance to them.
So go ahead and keep counting whatever it is you’re counting. I’m not impressed and I don’t think anyone else around here gives a sh*t.
And for what it’s worth, if someone turned water into wine in front of my eyes and I knew that I was lucid and was given the opportunity to examine everything to make sure it wasn’t an illusion, I might be inclined to believe that something supernatural was going on. I’d definitely ask for more proof, you know walking on water, raising the dead, etc. I’ll believe it when I see it – doesn’t that sound reasonable?
Comment by Levi — June 16, 2010 @ 10:49 am - June 16, 2010
Shorter version: None of this makes sense, so just don’t think about it too hard and go with it!
Even shorter version: “GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS!!”
Is that an acceptable answer in any other context? A mechanic charges you $10,000 to fix your car, you ask why. He says, “CARS WORK IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS!!” You go to check your bank account and it’s empty. When you call your bank, the only thing they will say to you is, “BANKING WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS!!” You get a letter from your boss saying that you’re fired, he gives no reason. You storm into the the building the next day and ask him to tell what you did wrong, and he says, “EMPLOYMENT WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS!!”
You might as well just tattoo the words “I AM A GULLIBLE SUCKER, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ME” on your forehead.
Comment by Levi — June 16, 2010 @ 10:57 am - June 16, 2010
That’s so rich. So much left-wing mental illness, packed into so little a space.
Wrong on its face, but the real translation is: LEVI CANNOT NAME A SUCCESSFUL SOCIALIST COUNTRY. LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 10:59 am - June 16, 2010
Wrong on its face, but the real translation is: LEVI CANNOT NAME A SUCCESSFUL SOCIALIST COUNTRY. LOL
I just don’t know what you idiots are looking for. A 100% socialist country? I wouldn’t even know what that means. Most successful Western countries are some mix of capitalist and socialist policies, and I’ve never advocated complete abandonment of capitalism. I like capitalism a lot, I live capitalism every day. But I also live socialism, too, with my public education and my public transportation and public regulations. Some successful programs abroad might not work so well in the States because of the unique characteristics of our country, specifically our size, but I do think we need to start heading in that direction. The alternative is to continue putting up with these robber barons in the government and the highest halls of the private sector, where schemes are being constructed at this very moment to increase private profits at greater public expense.
Is it Sweden you’re thinking of?
Comment by Levi — June 16, 2010 @ 11:26 am - June 16, 2010
So now Levi’s gone from “plenty of socialist countries that are doing just fine” to him admitting that ‘plenty’ equals zero.
Instead he clings to roads (defined in the Constitution as a Federal Power, but falling apart) Social Security (bankrupt) Medicare (Corrupt AND Bankrupt) Public schools (failing) as examples of successful socialist programs. Levi’s definition of success must deviate outside the norm.
And of course, Levi tries the ‘No true Scottsman’ falicy to disassociate himself from his fellow Socialists, Mao and Stalin. Even though he’s just as willing to throw freedom to the wind to drag people to his future like those he says don’t represent him.
Perhaps the best chestnut is this:
But with 100 million+ dead and no successful socialist nation to show for it (by his own admission), he thinks he can get it right.
“You might as well just tattoo the words “LEVI IS A GULLIBLE SUCKER, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIM” on his forehead.
Though Levi mentioning tattoos is funny. Perhaps he’d be more comfortable following another socialist icon and tattooing them on my arm instead?
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2010 @ 11:27 am - June 16, 2010
Another thought about free will before I head to work; it really isn’t free will if the ultimate decision comes down to spending eternity in heaven versus eternity in hell. God says, “You have free will. Now with that free will, you must believe in me with all your heart or you will die and spend eons burning in a lake of fire.” Does that sound like free will? To me, that sounds like a prick giving me an ultimatum. Good thing he doesn’t exist, right?
And really, it’s only human beings that have ever given me that ultimatum, which grounds the choice in the kind of human ambition and deceit that is designed to get something out of me.
Any God that would fault me for using the brain that he is alleged to have given me and being doubtful of the claims of my fellow humans, who I know from personal experience to be exploitative and conniving, while giving me absolutely no reason to believe in his existence, is not somebody I would want to spend an eternity with anyway. Good thing he doesn’t exist!
Comment by Levi — June 16, 2010 @ 11:33 am - June 16, 2010
No. Sweden has become a bit more successful in recent years – but because, and to the extent that, they have begun to back away from their socialism. That’s not a fluke, that’s in line with the lessons of history.
Of course not. Without capitalism raising living standards and capitalists moving the world forward, you’d have nothing to loot. Even Lenin allowed a period of capitalism in Soviet Russia, when he realized that socialism was killing too many people at once.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 11:36 am - June 16, 2010
Also known as “corporate socialism” – socialism for the benefit of large corporations and their political/bureaucratic patrons.
Another name for it: The aristocracy of ‘pull’. Yet another name for it: Fascism. But laissez-faire capitalism, a system in which people and enterprises are allowed to be free and to succeed and fail on their merits, it ain’t.
Emphasis added. Levi, does this mean you reject Obama? Because it is precisely the Obama administration, that you would be talking about, if the emphasized words mean anything. (And you’d be right, BTW.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 11:49 am - June 16, 2010
I admitted no such thing. You’re hearing what you want to hear, as usual, so you can jump around flailing like a toddler in the desperate hope that someone will acknowledge your intelligence.
What is that supposed to mean? Roads are a social service and its administered by the government.
The issues we’re having with those programs are due in large part to deliberately incompetent forces in the government undermining them. With that considered, those programs are still extremely beneficial to the society and are very popular.
You’re inability to decipher analogy and metaphor is debilitating. I didn’t mean that I was literally going to drag anybody anywhere, but I guess I’ve been giving you too much credit? From now on, I’ll talk real slow, with short words, and treat you like a 4 year old, okay?
You don’t get to define socialism. That’s what this all comes down to. And really, that’s just a word. The things that I advocate for in our government include policies that reasonable people might consider socialist or capitalist or egalitarian or whatever, but there really just isn’t any use in talking to you if all you’re going to do is keep screaming that socialism is Hitler and Stalin and Nazis and Satan and death. Like most conservatives, you’re a terrible debater and seemingly can’t expand your scope beyond plucking out individual sentences and phrases and parading around with them like you’ve taken a scalp. I present paragraphs and paragraphs that you ignore completely and deliberately misconstrue a passage or two that reinforces the propaganda you’ve been fed. You’re striking out on three pitches and telling everyone that you hit a grand slam. Actually, to say you’re even making an attempt at the game is too generous. What you’re doing is more like sitting in a bar next to the stadium getting drunk, and then strutting around telling people that you invented baseball.
Oh, but there I go with the analogies again. I’m sure that will sail right over your head. Let me dumb it down for you: you’re a moron and a liar.
Do you understand that?
Comment by Levi — June 16, 2010 @ 11:55 am - June 16, 2010
And let’s see, Levi; every year, the abortions you push, demand, and support kill MILLIONS of innocent babies.
Do you get that, Levi? You and your fellow “progressives” shriek about killing thousands of adults, but every year you slaughter over a million babies while proclaiming how wonderful it is and how the government should pay you to do it.
You are so f’ing hilarious. You honestly equate unborn children, who haven’t even had a chance to commit any sort of negative action, with the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters you count as “innocents”.
And also, Levi, I pointed out that “progressives” like you jail people for killing unborn animals, but demand that the public subsidize your killing unborn humans. You make it clear that you consider human life worth less than animal life.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2010 @ 11:57 am - June 16, 2010
Oh the irony and hilarity.
If you didn’t have free will, Levi, you wouldn’t be able to deny God’s existence.
The fact that you can demonstrates conclusively that you do have free will. And frankly, your choice is no different than the ones your Barack Obama makes to chain smoke and use cocaine, both of which are bad for him, but both of which he chooses to do anyway.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2010 @ 12:03 pm - June 16, 2010
Of course not. Without capitalism raising living standards and capitalists moving the world forward, you’d have nothing to loot. Even Lenin allowed a period of capitalism in Soviet Russia, when he realized that socialism was killing too many people at once.
Ugh, get over yourself. One of the most popular self-delusions among Republicans is that liberals hate capitalism and that we want nothing to do with it and don’t appreciate the opportunities that its created, and that simply isn’t the case. A desire to put limits on capitalism is a desire to preserve capitalism itself. Catastrophes like that going on in the Gulf and the financial collapse from a few years ago are the inevitable consequences of capitalist excess, and how many more of those types of disasters do you think this country can absorb?
Comment by Levi — June 16, 2010 @ 12:07 pm - June 16, 2010
Levi, you talk so much, and say so little.
You proudly proclaimed there are plenty of successful socialist countries. When called to name two, it took you 109 days to admit you can’t back up what you say, again.
So then you try to redefine your own statements to talk about successful socialist programs hoping that no one would notice. Again, your words are hollow an you can’t back up what you say. You list a number of government social programs, claiming that a government program shows success for a socialist government.
Then when it is shown those programs are failures, you claim that they would be fine, if not for those pesky kids and their do- er if not for elected officials in government. Congratulations, you proved that Socialism works great for ants, not humans.
Now having been backed into a rhetorical corner, by your own words, you lash out trying to tar your opponents rather than defend the undefensable.
Levi retreats to the one true Scottsman argument again, then claims that Levi, and Levi alone can define the terms of the debate. He claims words taken out of context, trying to deflect that I am kind enough (for other readers) to link to his very words. It’s hard to accuse someone of taking something out of context when you link to the very source of the words
Let’s look at those words shall we?
You claim to be smarter than most conservatives. Well last time I checked, ‘most conservatives’ know how to link to previous posts, and aren’t shocked when someone takes their words in context. You also seem to believe that even after 100 million dead and countless rendered homeless, land ruined, and other consequences, we should try it again because, “Socialism works, Damnit! I know we don’t have any proof, and despite my inability to show it works, it does work!”
You also claim moral superiority. I guess ‘dragging people against their will’ shows that moral superiority. I’m sure your idols Stalin and Mao and Hitler thought the same way for their socialist Utopias. They felt their way was morally superior, no matter who showed them it wasn’t.
So, we have from that sense, Levi sees himself as an intellectually superior, morally superior being who believes he should be able to make choices for everyone, unless you agree with him.
Congratulations. Now I know why you don’t believe in the Divine… you believe you ARE the Divine.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2010 @ 12:14 pm - June 16, 2010
And let’s see, Levi; every year, the abortions you push, demand, and support kill MILLIONS of innocent babies.
Do you get that, Levi? You and your fellow “progressives” shriek about killing thousands of adults, but every year you slaughter over a million babies while proclaiming how wonderful it is and how the government should pay you to do it.
You are so f’ing hilarious. You honestly equate unborn children, who haven’t even had a chance to commit any sort of negative action, with the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters you count as “innocents”.
And also, Levi, I pointed out that “progressives” like you jail people for killing unborn animals, but demand that the public subsidize your killing unborn humans. You make it clear that you consider human life worth less than animal life.
Oh North, why do I even bother? How about this; I’ll stop responding to you unless you’re capable of accurately describing any one of my positions on anything. There isn’t a single statement in what you posted that accurately reflects my views. Do you want to try again? Should I expect anything other than your typical “Levi is a welfare queen” rant?
Comment by Levi — June 16, 2010 @ 12:16 pm - June 16, 2010
Wrong again. Catastrophes like that going on in the Gulf are the result of denying the access of more readily available resources that don’t require experimental methods. If we’d been drilling close to shore, or in ANWAR, this wouldn’t have happened.
But hey, you’ve not let facts get in the way of a good tirade, why start now?
On Topic: It is the difference between a Republic and a Socialist state that states (and the Federal Government) can create a government recognized institution that all people can qualify for (marriage, ‘fred’) with the will of the governed, and having a limited few decide it for ‘the good of all’
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2010 @ 12:19 pm - June 16, 2010
Exactly. Who forced BP to drill at 5,000 feet under water? Not capitalism. Left-liberalism did.
Furthermore, it is pretty much a law of economics that government regulation drives out self-regulation. BP has no interest in a disaster happening. A disaster is totally against their interests; it totally cuts into their profits (or bankrupts them). If, note *IF*, they had only been left to their own devices, they would have taken more steps to prevent disaster. Instead, over the decades, we have created layer upon layer upon layer upon layer of government regulation which forced BP to pay attention to the regulators, figure out how to get along with the regulators, seek exemptions from the regulators, etc. So BP did that… and sure enough, BP *got exemptions from the Obama administration, to which BP was a top donor*, instead of paying attention to real stuff like the well, BP’s bottom line, etc.
That’s corporate socialism (aka aristocracy of ‘pull’, aka fascism) in action. Created by 8 decades of left-liberalism.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 1:17 pm - June 16, 2010
1) It is no delusion.
2) I am no Republican. (And never have been.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 1:21 pm - June 16, 2010
(continued) I am an ex-Democrat. I know how much left-liberals truly, deeply hate capitalism; both by observation, and by 15-20 of having been one and having heard dozens of committed left-liberals speak in that vein, in personal conversations where they thought it was “just us chickens”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 1:22 pm - June 16, 2010
aargh, 15-20 -years-
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 1:22 pm - June 16, 2010
(continued) But again – as I suggested earlier:
- Left-liberals sort of secretly, guiltily know that capitalism creates higher living standards; i.e., that they *need* capitalism in order to have something to loot;
- And likewise, they know that the rest of the electorate knows it, so in order to get elected, they must pretend to be “moderate”, “reform” “capitalists”.
So they do.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 1:28 pm - June 16, 2010
Also, with the described system of
I’m reminded of something, wait…
“It shouldn’t be too hard to recognize that the best way for our democracy to work is to have a competitive private sector working cooperatively with an organized public sector.”
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2010 @ 1:36 pm - June 16, 2010
LOL – good one, TL! Levi’s own words, advocating what was more or less the economic platform of Mussolini!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 1:39 pm - June 16, 2010
And yet, with free will, we get to chose what we do, what we believe. Pat of the scope of having free will is that our actions, which, by their very nature, can not be planned by God, are thus not a part of His plan. I always cringe when I hear, after the unfortunate death of someone, say from a drunk driver, that it was part of God’s plan. If the drunk driver is an atheist and is free to do as he pleases without interference from God (free will), then it can’t be part of God’s plan to get him drunk and cause the accident?
What? I was never taught anything like this in CCD. God is perfection! God is all knowing! How can a perfect being, who knows all and sees all, who transcends time, which means that time is no obstacle to that vision, make plans that we, idiot humans, on a whim of free will if you will, screw up?
And where are the miracles. Sure, there are instances when people survive things that seem so unlikely, the boy that survived that plane crash, a baby that was born in 1965 weighing only a scant 2lb 8 oz. But where are the “Big Ones”? Isn’t it convenient that all the good ones have seemed to have occurred at a time when people couldn’t write or take pictures and video. Instead, the Church has to make up miracles in order to declare someone a Saint.
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 16, 2010 @ 1:52 pm - June 16, 2010
No, you’ll stop answering because you’re getting your butt kicked and can’t spin your way out of the situation.
You shriek about “thousands dead”, Levi, while pushing for Federal funding of the killing of MILLIONS of babies annually. There is no elegant way to spin that. There is no elegant way to be weeping over Taliban and al-Qaeda members and supporters killed by drones as “innocent lives” while you and your fellow progressives support leaving babies to die in broom closets. There is no elegant way to explain why you demand that the government put people in jail for killing unborn turtles, but pay them to kill unborn humans.
And that’s why you’re pulling this whiny spoiled-brat “I’m not going to answer”, just like you went screaming home to Mommy that your teachers were “mean” for giving you a bad grade on a test for which you didn’t study. It has nothing to do with someone being mean; it has everyone to do with someone asking you to think and explain yourself beyond your usual “I’m a liberal, so I can do what I want” bullshit.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2010 @ 2:31 pm - June 16, 2010
The Sox won the world series… that’s not enough of a miracle for you?
Though I do find it hard to not see some Divine intervention in the case of Israel.
Or you could look at it this way, we’ve not screwed up enough recently.
As to ‘it was God’s will’ I will agree with you. Bill didn’t die in a car wreck because God said ‘let there be Booze! and lo the driver was drunk.” Bill died because God said “Let there be free will, and lo the driver made himself drunk.”
When I say ‘He has a plan’ I mean it in the general sense. If the Divine truly is all knowing, then he can see a particle’s momentum and position, and not change its state by observing it. Given that, why can’t an omnicient being see every probability and his plan take it accordingly?
If I Turn Left (to steal from Dr Who) instead of Right, wouldn’t an omnicient being know the outcome of both choices? If he has a plan, wouldn’t He be able to plan for the outcome of both choices?
He won’t possess my car and turn the wheel for me, but he will be ready to use which way I turn in His plan.
Does that makes sense? “If The Livewire turns left, he’ll have a chance to be a decent human being and help the little girl get home. If he turns right, then Bill will have the chance. If the little girl gets help from a stranger, she will be happy and her single mom will have a chance to meet a bachelor…”
Kind of simplified of what I mean by ‘His Plan’ but it’s the best I can describe it.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2010 @ 2:34 pm - June 16, 2010
Comment by levi — June 16, 2010 @ 2:59 pm - June 16, 2010
You’d be an idiot not to believe it. “Drill, baby drill!” meant ANWR and offshore (shallow-water), Levi, not deep-water. Opening those things to drilling is still a very good idea and would still be a very good compensation for Obama’s shutdown of deep-water drilling… which btw is going to send oil prices through the roof, in coming months.
I could go on, Levi, but it’s probably not worth it because your comments make no sense to begin with. You can screech all you want about this or that being “bullshit” or “idiotic”, but that doesn’t make it so.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 3:13 pm - June 16, 2010
Wrong.
Money quote:
Now run away, Levi. You’ve been slapped with the facts again, and we know a failure like yourself can’t cope with having your LIES exposed.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2010 @ 3:17 pm - June 16, 2010
So Democrats sent the oil companies into deep-water drilling actively? I didn’t know that. I assumed the Democrats had done it passively, by making land and shallow-water drilling impossible.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 16, 2010 @ 3:29 pm - June 16, 2010
OK. Not bad. But it would be more impressive if the Cubs….. No! That’s just crazy talk!!!!
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 16, 2010 @ 3:57 pm - June 16, 2010
And once again, Levi is slapped by facts. Of course, linking to arguments prior to the oil spill is pointless. Levi’s shown he won’t accept the reality of criticism of Bush prior to 2008 from the right, so why would be believe yet more facts that fly in the face of his worldview?
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2010 @ 5:57 pm - June 16, 2010
Meh. That’s what I thought.
Comment by levi — June 16, 2010 @ 6:59 pm - June 16, 2010
How do you think you’ve got me with that Kerry quote? Is it your assertion that conservatives have been opposed to deepwater drilling and have been for some time now? Where is the quote to back that up? How does a statement by a democrat apply to this argument?
You’re pretending and everyone knows it. Why have I never heard a conservative make this argument before? Why aren’t conservatives righteously demanding that all deepwater operations be ceased? All you’re doing is Monday morning quarterbacking and acting like you knew this was coming when its plain to see that you didn’t.
Have any more random quotes that don’t have anything to do with what we’re discussing that you’d like to share?
Comment by levi — June 16, 2010 @ 7:09 pm - June 16, 2010
You’re joking. When did any conservative ever make a distinction between coastal drilling and deepwater? Who said it? When did they say it? It’s a bunch of nonsense and you know it. Do you mean to tell me that conservatives would he opposing deepwater operations if coastal drilling was allowed? That’s a hypothetical as ridiculous as belief in god. Unless you can prove me wrong? Find me the conservative that’s been arguing for coastal instead of deepwater, and not coastal in addition to deepwater if you can. I’m willing to bet you can’t.
Comment by levi — June 16, 2010 @ 7:18 pm - June 16, 2010
Well Levi,
you can’t find two successful socialist countries, despite your boast of ‘plenty of successful socialist countries.’ Yet you want us to provide what you won’t?
Still, Here’s Gov Palin lamenting the shutting down of near shore drilling in deference to the deep sea drilling. And here she is again condemning the shutting down of OCS drilling. (9 miles out, vs 300 miles).
an example of drill here, drill now, again promoting on shore drilling, not deep sea drilling.
And here’s more arguing for offshore drilling, not deep offshore drilling.
Those are called facts, Levi. I understand they’re alien to you, and I’m sorry if the words are too long. Since you refused to accept proof that the Right criticized President Bush before 2008, I don’t expect you to accept this proof you asked for either.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 16, 2010 @ 7:55 pm - June 16, 2010
Deepwater operations are far more expensive and risky than coastal drilling, which is why the overwhelming preference for both oil companies AND conservatives is for the latter.
But you simply don’t understand that, Levi, because uneducated liberals like yourself and your Barack Obama know even less about oil than you do about economics.
I’m torn. On the one hand, it’s not good for society that idiots like Levi and Obama are screaming about topics on which they have absolutely no knowledge. On the other hand, it also provides us the amusement value of watching a clueless, hypocritical idiot lecture people on fossil fuel usage when he demands that a 747 be fired up to fly just over 100 miles from DC to Williamsburg, Virginia.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2010 @ 8:21 pm - June 16, 2010
By showing that your own Barack Obama and your own Barack Obama Party are the ones who demanded that oil companies be sent to the riskiest places to drill rather than in ones where spills are much more easily contained and worker safety is that much greater.
Again, what do you care about human life, Levi? You’d rather eleven people die in a rig explosion than inconvenience a few caribou, just like you demand prison sentences for people who kill unborn animals and Federal subsidies for people who kill unborn humans.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 16, 2010 @ 8:25 pm - June 16, 2010
levi, Livewire is correct. “Drill Baby Drill’ was pretty much all inclusive. It meant dril in deep water. It meant drill in shallow water…. in the mountains…. In the valleys… Wherever oil can be found in a cost effective fashion.
Environmentalists are trying to shake off the fact that we are drilling in deep water because of government restrictions, claiming that we are deep drilling because there is no oil to be found anywhere else. This is just plain nonsense. Here is a quote that pretty much tells it like it is.
And the technologies that were in use at the time are quite dated. As we have seen, there MUST be a credible spill recovery plan before any new wells are drilled.
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 16, 2010 @ 8:52 pm - June 16, 2010
No he isn’t. Conservatives are pretending that “Drill Baby Drill” had some unspoken subtext that suggested that conservatives might be in favor of not drilling in deep water if oil companies were permitted to drill in coastal waters. Conservatives are strutting around pretending like this was something that they predicted and knew was going to happen and would have been able to prevent if only they had their way, but the truth of the matter is that conservatives want to drill in deep water and in coastal waters.
But conservatives will do and say anything to excuse any and all failures of the free market system in this country, and blaming liberals and environmentalists while ignoring the hundreds of well documented safety violations issued to BP over the years is to be expected. Every day we learn more about how BP was cutting corners and how the government was failing to conduct any meaningful oversight, and every day the picture of how this disaster came about is getting clearer and clearer.
However, for a conservative to admit that factors like profit margins and government non-intervention are directly responsible for this disaster is to undermine all of their economic and political ideologies of the past few decades. Blaming Democrats for actions undertaken decades ago that have no direct link to this particular incident was just like blaming the Community Reinvestment Act and poor minorities for the financial calamity from a few months ago. In both instances, the immediate history and actions of the current governments are completely ignored in favor of some long-term liberal conspiracy that just happens to reinforce some right wing, free market convention. Conservatives would prefer too have the obvious culprits, who are distorting markets and committing crimes, to get away with it because they’re more invested in believing the propaganda they’ve been fed then resolving issues.
It comes as absolutely no surprise to me that the conservatives’ answer to an oil spill of this magnitude is to simply suggest more drilling and less government regulation. Never interested in solving problems, always looking for a way to please those corporate overlords….
I’ve never heard anyone claim that there is no oil to be found in shallower waters or on the continent. How environmentalists are the bad guy here is beyond me when you’ve got a company with a rap sheet of safety violations and criminal negligence as long as BP’s and a government agency involved in drug and sex scandals whose corruption and inaction you can trace in the present day. Blaming environmentalists for this oil spill because they pushed oil rigs into deeper waters (the overwhelming preference of coastal Americans, by the way) makes about as much sense as blaming Henry Ford because he invented the automobile.
But we talk about politics all the time, let’s switch back to religion.
Comment by Levi — June 17, 2010 @ 12:14 am - June 17, 2010
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. You’re honestly submitting that this disaster wouldn’t have happened if there was less regulation of the oil industry? Your logic doesn’t make sense – you seem to be suggesting that BP sought exemptions and shortcuts when dealing with government regulators, and that they wouldn’t have taken shortcuts and sought exemptions if they were left to do it however they wanted?
Are you for real?
Comment by Levi — June 17, 2010 @ 12:21 am - June 17, 2010
Just as predicted, Livewire.
As we continue to see, Marxist Levi just isn’t interested in facts, only in spewing his leftist propaganda and demonstrating over and over and over again how hateful, jealous, and hostile he is towards the free market, profits, and capitalism.
Know who you sound like, Levi? Your buddy Hugo.
Know what happened when anti-capitalist, anti-profit, fascists like yourself got their way? Collapse and desperately begging the capitalists you bashed to come bail out your worthless behind.
It amuses me to no end that government drones like yourself who rationalize your surfing porn 8 hours a day on government computers and being paid twice the going rate for your labor really, honestly think you deserve your sweetheart roles.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 17, 2010 @ 1:22 am - June 17, 2010
It’s a proven fact that they did, Levi.
You know, facts – those pesky things always getting in your way.
From whom would they have sought exemptions, under the laissez-faire capitalism I advocate? Your question is contradictory.
But I already explained my larger point: Government regulation drives out self-regulation. Government regulation replaces the profit motive – the motive to deal with reality and do the best job possible, because that is the only way the company can make profits – with the motive to please and manipulate government regulators. That is also a fact, demonstrated time and time again by economic & business history.
If you’re too dumb to understand it, Levi, I feel sorry for you.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2010 @ 2:04 am - June 17, 2010
I don’t understand the environmental and economic issues of offshore drilling, shallow vs. deepwater. But like it or not, for the moment, drilling in shallow waters is not allowed for the moment. And if NDT is right, BP did donate to Obama, even though Democrats are not as well known as being supportive of off-shore drilling as Republicans. Now if Obama promised something to BP and did not deliver, well then join the rest of us who based their vote, at least partly, on certain promises that were not delivered.
BP could have decided to do business elsewhere, or wait until Republicans were voted in and allow drilling in shallow waters. But they made a choice to drill in deep water. A choice that may well have been worth it, because there is apparently a lot of oil there.
Since government was apparently lax in regulating BP and other oil companies in deep water drilling, BP had the opportunity to self-regulate. They apparently didn’t. They weren’t able to avoid an explosion, and obviously had no plan to cap the well should an explosion occur.
Comment by Pat — June 17, 2010 @ 7:22 am - June 17, 2010
Yes, I know that they did. I never said otherwise.
They wouldn’t have sought exemptions from any regulators, but they most assuredly would have cut corners to pad their profits. If a company is willing to compromise worker safety and violate industry standards when they’re at risk of being fined by the government, how does it make sense that they wouldn’t do those things if the possibility of a fine is eliminated?
That’s pathetic. So corporations are innately good and they will also choose the virtuous path, it’s that pesky government regulation that forces them to be corrupt, huh? The oil industry employs thousands of people and spends millions of dollars to influence lawmakers and regulators in pursuit of higher profit margins, so you take away the rules, and every company will automatically start doing things the right away?
You made the assertion that BP didn’t want a blowout, that it is going to cost them billions of dollars, and that their own sense of self-preservation would have prevented this disaster if only they weren’t forced to bribe regulators and cheat the rules. But it’s been demonstrated time and time again in recent years that corporations are fallible and will not always act in their own best interests – just like people. Of course, you would think that sustainability and some loyalty to the system in which they exist would get them to follow the standards that are designed to protect them, but they decided to save a few pennies so their quarterly reports were higher. BUT IT DOESN’T WORK LIKE THAT. You’re a naive little child if you think that these companies are navigating through the markets making 100% rational decisions about everything and that they’ve battle-planned every hypothetical consequence. There are millions of companies in the world and they’re all run by imperfect human beings – and you’re telling me that they should be allowed to make up their own rules as they go?
Suppose that we just abandoned the concept of speeding. Would you trust all drivers to self-regulate and do what is in their best interests, or would you expect some people to behave irresponsibly? What if we got rid of the drinking age and just asked people to self-regulate? Do you think teenagers would could be trusted in that scheme? Why don’t you leave your wallet lying on a sidewalk at a busy city intersection and just see how well your ideas about self-regulation work out.
Your comments about the profit motive are far off the mark, as well. You describe it as ‘the motive to deal with reality and do the best job possible, because that is the only way the company can make profits.’ That simply isn’t the case. The profit motive is maximizing profits while minimizing costs and says nothing about ‘dealing with reality and doing the best job possible.’ Many times, doing the exact opposite of what you said makes the company the most money. Why you have this Christ-like reverence for people in business doesn’t make any sense – have you never cut a corner in your entire life? Guess what? It happens. Were you born yesterday?
Comment by Levi — June 17, 2010 @ 9:25 am - June 17, 2010
Levi keeps trying to change the subject. Since he can’t face that there are no successful socialist countries he can name, he doesn’t want to admit that he was wrong on drilling, and now he wants to believe that all corporations are going to run over puppies and take baths in crude.
Levi, do you know WHY the President is threatening to take extralegal methods against BP? Because there’s a cap on damages from the Government. Cap and Trade? Writen by The same BP you’re blaming. Why is President Obama not using his actually appointed powers to bring in help?
Why is the government demanding BP pay others as the result of the government’s actions?
Again, I am posting the links for others to read, as you’ve admitted you don’t read anything that might contradict your viewpoint. You’ve admitted you can’t back up your statements, and shown time and again you’ll cling to your beliefs despite evidence to the contrary.
Now I fully expect you to go on about how great you are and proceed to insult me and claim I take your words out of context, despite linking to the full posts you make. I pity you, because lies, smears and yelling are all you can bring to an argument.
Aside, thank you Sonic, Pat, ILC on the Athiesm viewpoints. While I disagree with the premise, I do have a broader perspective now.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 17, 2010 @ 10:29 am - June 17, 2010
Bingo. We’ve seen the failure of government regulation – and of the Obama administration. That very failure is gushing oil into the Gulf as we speak. Yet Levi would seriously have us believe that we need more of it. Lame!
No, they most assuredly would have DONE THE THING THAT WILL MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFITS OVER TIME, A.K.A. THE RIGHT THING, BECAUSE MAXIMIZING THEIR PROFITS OVER TIME IS THE BUSINESS THAT THEY WOULD BE IN, THEN.
As opposed to the business they are in now, which is: Trying to survive the government regulators. Trying to guess what Obama will do next. Trying to simultaneously anticipate, please and manipulate their government masters.
Really, Levi – This should not be so hard for you to grasp.
You seriously think they did wanted a blowout? LOL
Levi, I thought you were trying to claim not to be a hater of capitalism.
What are the incentives built into the situation, Levi? You haven’t told me the whole picture. Would there be some system where the drivers are rated by the other drivers? Will drivers be able to drive, only if they maintain a good rating? Under laissez-faire capitalism, competition and the profit motive force effectively force businesses to maintain good “ratings” with their consumers, suppliers and the general public.
God, arguing with Levi is stupid and boring beyond words. I can’t finish.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2010 @ 11:06 am - June 17, 2010
I mean, the guy seriously suggests that making profits does not involve dealing with reality. Well, under the Obama corporate-socialist regime, in which the profits of the top Wall Street banks are effectively guaranteed to them by government, at everyone else’s expense… I guess that is true. But left-liberalism gave us that system, and it is wrong, and we the People do not have to keep it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2010 @ 11:13 am - June 17, 2010
You’re being obtuse. There are circumstances which should not be hard to imagine where profits can be maximized by cutting corners and doing things on the cheap. An oil rig isn’t a customer-facing operation, and if they can discretely save some money by nipping off a few expenses of the industry standard, the public won’t know anything about it. Of course it’s a risk and not every company makes such stupid decisions, but there inevitably be some company that will. Their calculus is simple; there’s never been a blowout, Exxon demonstrated you can survive an oil spill if worse comes to worse, and we’ll save X amount of money over Y amount of years in operating costs by not implementing every one of these industry standards. What is hard to understand about that? Just because a company is built to make a profit doesn’t mean they’re going to make every decision correctly and not take on needlessly stupid risk – and that’s why you NEED government regulation. Not the kind that Bush and Obama have been offering as of late, of course, but this type of disaster is only more frequent if you leave it up to them to decide.
More later….
Comment by Levi — June 17, 2010 @ 12:23 pm - June 17, 2010
Not quite, because even after getting an exemption, BP would be focused on the regulators – e.g., getting the next exemption, showing compliance with the exemptions they didn’t get, making the right
bribescampaign donations for basic self-defense, etc. It is the existence of the regulatory regime itself that is the problem – i.e., that gives companies the wrong incentives, changing how they earn profits from pleasing consumers to pleasing regulators.Government has a role under laissez-faire capitalism, a crucially important role. Government’s role is to prosecute actual crimes against life, liberty and property. And to provide courts in which private parties can redress broken contracts and other torts. So, what were BP’s actual crimes against life, liberty or property? Government should prosecute those, to the full extent of the law.
Sidebar, arguing with Pat is a pleasure because even when we aren’t going to convince each other, I know there is a decent human being on the other end, listening with goodwill.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2010 @ 1:47 pm - June 17, 2010
You’ve never heard the pronouncements of peak oil proponents? It’s not that there is “NO” oil, but that the well are out in deep ocean waters because there is little oil to be found.
Look, I’m not saying that enviro’s are “The Bad Guy”; there is plenty of blame to go around. And don’t get me wrong, I’m absolutely NOT absolving BP of any of the responsibility of this. That said, the reason that virtually all drilling takes place in deep water is demonstrably due to environmental restrictions.
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 17, 2010 @ 2:05 pm - June 17, 2010
I don’t understand the environmental and economic issues of offshore drilling, shallow vs. deepwater.
Well, the most straightforward point is this.
In shallow water, i.e. 250 feet, you can send down divers immediately to look at, cap off, weld, otherwise work with any accident that occurs.
You can lay boom without requiring ocean-going vessels.
You can isolate off the rig and work much more effectively since you’re not dealing with deepwater currents, weather, and whatnot.
And in terms of getting it started, you need twenty times less drill pipe, casing, equipment, rig size, etc. than you do when you’re drilling at twenty times the depth.
Since there’s no differentiation in the price of a barrel of oil based on whether it was extracted from deep or shallow water, but you are able to produce from shallow water much less expensively, your margin is much greater and much higher.
My family’s land sits in the center of a geologic formation that has oil, but it’s of fairly low quality and takes a lot of effort to extract. Unless the cost of a barrel of oil went over $40, we wouldn’t turn the well pumps on, because it would cost more in electricity than the oil you would get was worth; the margin for extraction, in other words, is extremely low and not worth it when other, better sources are available. But I can tell you that those pumps are humming now, because, in the absence of deepwater drilling, as soon as the oil supply starts to constrict, the price will go up, and those wells will be worth their cost. You the consumer will be screwed, because you are essentially now paying a surtax on oil for people to NOT drill in deepwater, but hey, it’s your money.
That’s the economics.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 17, 2010 @ 2:18 pm - June 17, 2010
Whoa, NDT. Aren’t your family trying to create a blowout or toxic event, as predictred by Levi’s ‘mental’ model of the world? Aren’t you busily cutting corners to spite your faces, because you are just THAT stupid, helpless, and in need of Barack Obama’s benificent guidance?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2010 @ 2:53 pm - June 17, 2010
LOL…yup, ILC.
It’s funny; only two of our wells have ever had a problem like this, and that’s why we put the wellheads in what amount to concrete bathtubs. If something blows, it goes shooting up and falls down into these; you just come along later with an industrial vac and clean it out.
The reason why we did it is pretty straightforward; the aquifer in the middle of the pool is only about 30 feet down, so if you let the gunk just flow around everywhere, it eventually percolates down through the soil and poisons your water.
Funny, my great-grandparents, with a fifth-grade education between them, figured that out back in the 20s, long before the MMS got anywhere near wells. It’s amazing what you can do with common sense.
Which is why, lacking any, Levi and his liberal ilk need gubmint to do the thinking for them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 17, 2010 @ 3:36 pm - June 17, 2010
No, of course I don’t think that. Stop clipping my statements mid-sentence for these taunting diversions, you’re wasting everyone’s time.
What part of free market do you not understand? Hell, not only will we get rid of speed limits in this system, how about we get rid of street lights, road signs, and lane markers? The only rules for entry are wether or not you can afford a car and gas. You can have drivers rating other drivers if you want to, but they’ll be utterly meaningless because there will be no rules about who can take to the roads and no one in any position to enforce usage of the roads.
Drivers will self-regulate, won’t they? They’ll be courteous and take turns and go the appropriate velocities at the appropriate times of day in appropriate conditions, because the motive is for each individual to get home safely, right? No one will endagner other themselves or other drivers by driving too fast, or following too closely, or driving drunk, or driving a clunker that pours out black smoke and drags a muffler on the ground, because everyone is always perfectly rational 100% of the time. The only reason you see any of these things occuring today is because of all of these pesky government regulations that are changing the incentive for motorists from “Get to Destination Safely” to “Don’t Get Caught by Speed Traps and Red Light Cameras.” In the modern socialist nightmare that are America’s government regulated roadways, drivers are practically compelled to break the rules.
The oil resources that these companies are trying to extract and sell for a profit are not their own – they are the federal government’s. The government has every right to set the terms for that extraction, especially in a region as environmentally and economically important as the Gulf Coast. Companies have proven themselves to not be 100% trustworthy when it comes to broader social considerations in the past, and this company in particular was very recently fined for criminal negligence. The government allowing BP to drill in the Gulf is akin to letting an unrepetent serial child molestor lead a group of children into the mountains for a camping trip.
Comment by Levi — June 17, 2010 @ 6:28 pm - June 17, 2010
That’s a terrible system that is actually far too close to the reality these days. The idea that there is no place for government regulation in the marketplace is anarchist insanity; a government whose sole charge is to run around doling out punishments for violators after the fact will quickly be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of environmental and economic disasters that self-regulated companies unleash.
Regulation is supposed to prevent these kinds of catastrophes from happening in the first place. That isn’t the only factor of course, companies also have incentives to do things that will continue making them money and receive good ratings from consumers, but you need all of these factors working together to prevent disasters from happening in the first place. The economic costs of dealing with corporate negligence and criminality after the fact are incredibly massive compared to the comparitively minor costs incurred that prevent these things from happening.
Businesses don’t always make the right decisions to maximize profits and they don’t always make decisions that are ethical. Most of the time, the impact on society is negligble and local because most businesses are small and medium sized. But when you’re dealing with sprawling multi-national corporations that have razor-thin margins of error in their operations that have far-reaching economic and environmental consequences, they have to be regulated. We can’t afford to lose this much oil, economic activity, and biodiversity, and putting faith in human-run corporations to always do the right thing is as crazy as putting faith in human-run religious institutions.
Comment by Levi — June 17, 2010 @ 7:22 pm - June 17, 2010
Ah, the amusement value of the little hypocrite Levi.
When ILC calls him out on his Marxist hatred of companies and his insistence that they want to unleash disasters, he whines:
And then what does he blabber out not a few paragraphs later?
The real problem here is that Levi desperately wants his government job where he can sit and surf porn websites for eight hours a day at twice the private rate. Hence, he and his fellow “progressives” who are living off the taxpayer teat demonize corporations and private business as evil.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 17, 2010 @ 9:20 pm - June 17, 2010
NDT, like I said: in Levi’s mental universe, business operators are malevolent idiots, stupidly yet gleefully rubbing their hands over the chance to do wrong! Danger Danger! Disaster lurks at every turn! The local dry cleaner would be THRILLED to dump toxic chemicals in the street! There is no human goodwill, no desire to do a good job, not even in a system where your financial incentives and customers are always pushing you there! Only people sitting in government sinecures have the slightest inclination to do anything right! LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 17, 2010 @ 9:38 pm - June 17, 2010
Well, there isn’t too much more to say other than that you two are complete and total morons that are incapable of discussion. Nowhere have I said anything to even remotely suggest that I believe companies are intentionally trying to wreak havoc, and all you bozos have done for your past few comments is jump pretending like that’s the crux of my argument. Almost every business in this country is run ethically by people that make responsible and smart choices, but as with anything else, there are some businesses that are not run to those standards that also have the capability to blow a trillion dollar hole in the economy or cause a devastating oil spill in the Gulf. The disasters caused by these companies are undoubtedly not intentional, but they were the inevitable results of their ill-advised and morally bankrupt business choices. They thought they could get away with it and for a time they did, but these things have a way of catching up to you. It’s the very definition of negligence, and this should not be hard at all to understand.
You morons have this preconceived notion about me that’s been drilled into your heads by your conservative media all-stars that says that liberals hate capitalism and business, and it’s preventing you from responding to the things that I’m actually saying. ILC cuts out a phrase of a sentence, deliberately misinterprets wording that a second-grader would understand, and now the two of you are flinging your poop back and forth instead of responding to the things that I’m saying.
It isn’t surprising – I’ve reached this limit with conservatives many times before where you just completely drop even the pretense of an argument and rely on cracking stupid jokes to one another until the thread gets buried. I’m submitting paragraphs at a time and the two of you have literally nothing to say at this point other than to repeat these inane taunts. Good job I guess – you’ve done exactly what you’ve been programmed to do.
Comment by Levi — June 17, 2010 @ 11:33 pm - June 17, 2010
Don’t worry, Levi. No one seriously believes you are making an intelligent argument. You’re simply lying, pathologically lying, over and over and over again as you try to spin yourself out of your contradictory statements and all the corners into which you’ve painted yourself.
As Livewire brilliantly put it above:
Now I fully expect you to go on about how great you are and proceed to insult me and claim I take your words out of context, despite linking to the full posts you make. I pity you, because lies, smears and yelling are all you can bring to an argument.
And he’s absolutely right. You are fact-free, Levi, dependent on lies, smears, yelling, and whining. You run from your own words and cry and scream when people ask you to provide facts, even as you demand them from others.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 18, 2010 @ 12:45 am - June 18, 2010
Correct. No one.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 18, 2010 @ 12:57 am - June 18, 2010
I understand that there are limitations in this medium, and that from time to time, someone will misinterpret something that somebody else says. that’s fine. there are times when people aren’t clear or specific enough and there are times when people just misread. if we were having these discussions face to face, odds are that we would be better able to clarify these misunderstandings very easily.
but if I clarify something more than once, if I specifically let you know that you’re improperly understanding my words or taking something the wrong way, and you just sit there deliberately repeating the misrepresentation which I am trying to correct, that’s when you’ve passed into stupid territory. I’ve said a number of times now that I don’t think companies are trying to have disasters happen, and your guys only response is to insist that yes, I do believe that. there’s no other way for me to take your abandonment of arguments than to believe that you simply can’t keep up with me.
Comment by levi — June 18, 2010 @ 6:44 am - June 18, 2010
Awww, poor Levi,
it comes down to
Me, ILC, Et al: Levi said this.
Levi: I didn’t say that!
Me: Sure you did (link)!
Levi: You’re taking my words out of context! I don’t care if you link to my words in context, where I said these things! You’re taking them out of context!
Me: How can I take them out of context when I link to your entire statement?
Levi: You’re a poopy head! I’m your moral and intellectual superior! You need me to think for you! Socialism works! I don’t need to provide any proof of my statements, and won’t read yours!”
Levi’s arguing skills are as complete as his counting skills. After all to Levi plenty equals zero. And it only took him 109 days to conclude that.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 18, 2010 @ 9:52 am - June 18, 2010
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/06/18/newfound-respect-for-elton-john.php
Comment by Ryan — June 19, 2010 @ 6:45 pm - June 19, 2010
I can’t believe I missed this. There’s This Guy…
Comment by Sonicfrog — June 21, 2010 @ 7:39 pm - June 21, 2010