Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 25, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Losing the Moral High Ground




The Sixth Extinction
War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Arts and Culture

Troy Jollimore on the God Debate

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 2, 2009

By Troy Jollimore

(Page 2)

On the other hand, at various points in the book the authors do seem to suggest that religious claims about God’s existence and nature are true, and that religion’s ability to provide such truths gives it an edge over science. “Faith,” they write, “provides certainty in a world where secular certainties are constantly being undermined.” Elsewhere they summarize, with apparent approval, William F. Buckley’s view of higher education in “God and Man at Yale.” Buckley, they write, “rejected the idea that the university was a mere education marketplace (especially a bazaar where all the stalls were run by socialists, atheists, and other bearded misfits). He believed that the purpose of education was not to keep students up to date, but to introduce them to eternal truths and provide them with the means for defending them.”

To defend religion on account of its ability to provide eternal truths (or, for that matter, truths of any sort) is a far cry indeed from defending the “reality” of religious experiences by pointing out that they are “real” to the people who experience them. Yet there are multiple passages in which Micklethwait and Wooldridge are most naturally read as asserting that religious beliefs are not just useful, but true—indeed more certainly true than scientific or other secular claims—and that faith is a valid path to religious knowledge. In discussing contemporary American Christianity, they write: “What matters in religion is after all the Truth, not attendance figures. […] The simplest defense of [megachurches] is indeed growth: modern management is bringing more people to God and providing more cash for the churches to spread his word.”

 

book cover

 

God Is Back

 

By John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge

 

Penguin Press, 416 pages

 

Buy the book

 

In these passages and others, “God Is Back” does seem to presuppose, or at least to want to presuppose, the existence of God and the validity of faith as a path to knowledge of ultimate reality. But why, then, include the “brain patterns” argument, and other attempts to legitimize religious beliefs in ways irrelevant to their truth or justification? If faith itself justifies religious belief, why bother with other types of argument, particularly when those supplemental arguments are so obviously lame? (There is, if not an answer, an explanation: As the authors say upfront, the book “is written by a Roman Catholic and an atheist.” Apparently, the two didn’t manage to get their stories entirely straight.)

For someone who wants to defend religion’s continued validity in the modern world, the appeal to faith can certainly seem attractive. After all, if faith is a legitimate path to knowledge, and indeed to certainty, then religion need fear nothing from modernity; no finding of modern empirical science can hope to shake from its foundations a belief that in fact has no foundations, but is simply held as a result of an unshakeable conviction on the part of a believer who has no interest in what she might actually have reason to believe.

The deep problem with this position, though, is that it undermines the authors’ compatibility claim. Faith, if accepted as legitimate, may shield religious beliefs from science, but how then to defend science against religion? If the two sorts of beliefs are established in entirely different ways then there can be no neutral way of reconciling them when they conflict, and so it is hard to see how they could be considered genuinely compatible. Of course, if science and religion never made conflicting claims, this might not trouble us. But that religion and science do make conflicting claims is a wearisomely familiar fact in light of, to take what is only the most obvious example, recent and ongoing debates about teaching evolution, creationism, “intelligent design” and so forth in American public schools.

At any rate, the appeal to faith is intellectually untenable, and the authors’ insistence that religion has an edge over science in the areas of truth and certainty is deeply wrongheaded and indeed ironic. The passage on Buckley cited above suggests that those who value eternal truths side with religion, while those who care only about being “up to date” will side with science. But no scientist would accept this characterization, because no scientist will cede to religion the advantage in the pursuit of truth (whether “eternal” or otherwise). The idea that it is a disadvantage for secular approaches that “secular certainties are constantly being undermined” is exactly the opposite of the truth: It is in fact because scientists are constantly trying to falsify their own claims that we can have a reasonable degree of confidence in the ones that we have not yet managed to falsify. (Ask any responsible scientist what it would take to make her give up her beliefs about any part of the world, and she will be able to tell you. Ask a typical religious believer what it would take to convince him that, say, Jesus was not the son of God, and you will succeed at most in irritating him—you will almost certainly get no answer at all.)

Faith, then, has a highly unfortunate double consequence: It increases one’s confidence in one’s beliefs, while simultaneously decreasing one’s grounds for confidence. Pace Micklethwait and Wooldridge, what faith provides is not in fact certainty, but rather the feeling of certainty.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 21, 2009 at 5:25 pm Link to this comment

May the Force be with you. Jedi, questions the idea of legons of angles, Jedi know what a legion is? So now the correction is large numbers of Angles, do they ride motorcycles and are hairy like Wonkas? Why would they be so hateful and do what man does to himself, seems like the competition would be bad for business? The Jedi way of defensive peace makes the Angles way look like a better way. May the force be with you.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 21, 2009 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

Believing in fantasies is the pejorative of the individual, one beleaguers as they want, to change the other, for the sales pitch is pitiful and insulting after the first time, by the tenth time amusement has diminished to vapor and time to call ones blarney what it is.  I feel the Jedi coming on.

May the Force be with You. Jedi says, when one utters they did not intend to do something for your own good plus they did not want you to suffer, they in fact did by the act of saying what was intended as they disavowed.  Jedi is insulted by the simple lack of logic from such stupidity and blindnes.

Why not just say “you will be sorry”,  “you shall suffer” instead of a big song and dance story where one sentence would have sufficed, but no! Legions of begots and begats, talking snakes, living in the belly of a large fish, two of every animal.  Jedi, says the Wizard of Oz was a better story, or one could move up chronology and suggest Harry Potter.

Jedi, would never force the Force on anyone, unless they are worthy and wanted to have the Force be with them.  Jedi would never shove the Force up ones arse, for that would be rude and painful.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 21, 2009 at 9:02 am Link to this comment

And if you aren’t careful, christian96, Lilith the Terrible will get you. For you have not demonstrated you are rational nor a Rational Christiain.  For surely if Shenonymous is Lilith, surely She recognizes that quite clearly.  Lilith just sits back and waits!  Lusting is a natural device for the propagation of the species, nothing more.  It is called “heat.”  Men corrupted the idea of lust because of their patronage to their male member and having no self-control of their beastly nature.  And they are angry they cannot control Lilith.  It would be beneficial to study biology and anthropology, and maybe zoology.  Oh, and the history of the bible beyond one cherry-picked reference.  Try reading with an open mind.

Trithoverlies – It appears you also believe and live your own fictions.  If God could have done all the damage you think is possible of a postulated generous and benevolent God, then that is not the God you speak of.  That God could never have destroyed what he so “lovingly” created.  But both versions, the god of love and the god of many hatreds are narratives devised by those who are sorely afraid of what life may not mean!  It may not mean life after death, it may not mean being taken care of by something outside of oneself, it might not mean eternal existence…it may not mean all the time invested into a fictional creation that you and the millions of other believers have bought into for thousands of years, ever since Paul that incredible misogynist invented Jesus Christ.

Everything you learned from the bible is wrong!  All the interpretations are just that.  Interpretations of intentional interpretations and more interpretations on top of that.  You have no idea of the evolution of the bible to which you bow below the surface of the earth.  It is the cult of fear and the cult of death that drives all the religious.  You don’t love women, you love the feeling you get from fear and you love death.  Death will take you to your vahalla.  You are among those who do not celebrate the earth or humankind.  You are among those who would rather use the pin-up doll of a fabrication to assuage and their bio-cellular fears.  The love of the fear of death.

The fact is there is no evidence at all of a life after death, save pitiful testimonies of near death individuals.  And first hand uncorroborated testimonies are always suspect of any truth to them.  So please die so that you may come back and lucidly advise us, in a laboratory, of course.  Or the other option is to join with the Jedis who has retired the FSM.

Report this

By Trithoverlies, April 21, 2009 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

Leefeeler,
I would wonder why you even chose to comment you surely don’t believe any of it but God Could have destroyed everyone that opposed Him again. But every time it rains there’s this covenant sign in the sky that reminds Him and Man that He will never wipe man from the face of the earth again. So when Jesus was about to suffer and die for you and me He remembered that and the number of angel that He could have called is not the important point. It’s that He didn’t that is the important point which I gues must have been missed by you. I wouldn’t laugh the tenth Legion thats just one Legion killed nearly 1.5 million Jews between 66 A.D. and 71 A.D. so twelve legions would have wipped out all in Judia, Summaria, Galilee, and the rest of the middle East at that time. What is a Legion one Roman Army Corp 4000 to 6000 men under arms so 12 legion would have been a sizable number between 48,000 and 72,000 and since we can’t even deffeat one fallen Angel Lucifer, 48,000 to 72,000 angels would have wipped out the world without breaking a swet, that should really say something. But maybe your heart has become so hard that you can’t hear God speak anymore if so I pity you and am saddened by your condition but its your choice to make not mine so please give me and others the same consideration I have chosen that said and done maybe you have chosen you way and if so I can’t change it that is between you and God and will play out which ever way you choose.
        Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
          John R. Bloxson Jr.
P.S. Jesus was making a statment about choosing to take our place on the cross we all deserve for our lies and hatred, and fornication, and Idoletry, and disobedeance to parents. How many times growing up did you not listen to what your parents wanted? I must have disobeyed them atleast thousands of times through the years and How many times have you looked at an attractive woman and though about having sex with her, fornication of the heart, how many times have you thought “I hate you” through the years well thats murder in the heart, don’t get me wrong we all have done these things so I am not picking on you I have been just as guilty and maybe even more so coming from having Taskmaster Sgt. for a father. You can deny it that is your right just as it is my right by the U.S Constitution and the Great Commission to proclaim the Gospel Message.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 21, 2009 at 7:05 am Link to this comment

“For I am the rational one”, says the one who is not mad, as the butterfly nets approach.

Accusations coming from those who preform the same actions they allegedly judge, seems more and more commonplace, with the big C implanted on their foreheads. Why is that?

Report this

By christian96, April 20, 2009 at 11:36 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous—-Lillith got Adam!  Lillith got Sampson!
Lillith got David!  But Lillith DIDN’T GET JOSESPH
and Lillith won’t get me because I am not only
rational, I AM CHRISTIAN RATIONAL!  A man must lust
after women and be disobedient to the COMMANDMENTS
(NOT SUGGESTIONS) OF GOD for Lillith to be successful.  I don’t lust after women and am obedient
to the COMMANDMENTS of God!  Being obedient to the
COMMANDMENTS of God is the pinnacle of LOVE!  I LOVE
WOMEN!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 20, 2009 at 10:29 pm Link to this comment

Ah yes the larch… we are as durable as each other.  I am as old as the Universe.  Every subatomic particle of my being are as eternal as is space and time of the past, present, and future. On cannot hide what is in plain sight.  There are only terrible times for those who wring their hands needlessly.  It does my infinite heart such good to see someone else providing some music, even if it is a little music-hall ditty. 

The story of Lilith is as far-fetched as all the other mythologies.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 20, 2009 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous is Lilith!? Well so where have you been hiding all of these eons? I have looked all over the 10 levels of Hell and Heaven to find you again. Yum, what a lovely time of coitus and claws! The power that doth tread the night. Thank you Christian 96 for that bit of datum. Centuries it has been and now the larch! Terrible times are here again, the skies above are dark again, terrible times are here again! [Sung to “Happy Days are Here again”]

Be seeing you in your nightmares!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 20, 2009 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

“Not the Jews Yes the religeous leadership conspired but Jesus said He could have
call 12 ligions of Angels to defind Him but for our sake He diddn’t”.

Let’s see, now I know were Hillary gets her logic.  Even though she voted for it, she said she hoped it would not pass. Glad it was 12 ligions of Angles instead of 13, for that could have been ment bad luck.

Report this

By Trithoverlies, April 20, 2009 at 9:21 am Link to this comment

For your imformation for the first 10 years it was mostly the Jewish elite persicuting to Jewish followers of the Way. but that changed radically as more gentiles became Followers of the Way so much so that they were barred from Rome with the other Jewish sects by the Emporer Claudius in 51 AD But the persacution of the Gentiles really got perculating under Nero in 64 AD in Rome but it than continued unabbated for the next 246 years and those being persecuted were nolonger Jewish but Gentile so we were warned those who call themselves by My Name will be persecuted I think you may of missed that part in your Sunday School Class or you world religions class. Read the following Scriptures Matt.10; 16-22 Underline in verse 22 “and you will be hated for MY NAME SAKE”  That was said to all who would come to believe in Christ Jesus not Judaism so you are wrong when you said it meant only the Jews. Matt.24:9; Luke 9:23-26;21:16-17;John 15:18-19. All of these verses don’t say that the hatred and persecution will be for the Jew only but for anyone who takes up his cross and follows Jesus the Christ.
So again where does it say in the New Testament that only the Jewish people will be persicuted what about the Christians in China Laos, Veitnam, The Muslim nations, Belarus, and Russia. even in some parts of South and Central America Christians are under persicution today!
              Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
                John R. Bloxson Jr.
P.S. It does say that unfortunately the false church will persicute the Jews because the Jews Killed Christ, which is actually unbiblical Jesus gave His lifes blood to remitt sin that means than that we are all guilty of killing Jesus Christ. Not the Jews Yes the religeous leadership conspired but Jesus said He could have
call 12 ligions of Angels to defind Him but for our sake He diddn’t.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 19, 2009 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment

Warning, warning, warning, christian96 is an escapee from an insane asylum!  Okay, I admit it.  I am Lillith!  Watch out for my fangs and claws christian96, I’ll eat you alive here as I did elsewhere.  You must be a xombie since you keep arising from the dead.  Maybe you should keep moving.  Except I am very good with my cross-bow at moving targets.  Just wwwwaaaatccccch out!  We don’t solve problems on this forum, we just eat them.  And beware if She should offer Her hand in friendship.  Course christian96, you would have to become rational.

Report this

By christian96, April 19, 2009 at 2:40 pm Link to this comment

I have been offline for two days while moving.  Have
you folks solved any of the world’s problems??WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!  SHENONYMOUS IS LILITH!

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 19, 2009 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment

“As for the MAJORITY of Americans being nominally some form of Christian? Well, in AMERICA that is EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN to be a standard of Law and Policy.”Dwight Baker

Another wild unfounded rant by you. But then Christians are told they will be martyred and oppressed in the future. [Only it was Jews that Jesus was talking about by the Romans.] The Pew poll showed 78.2% of the respondents (35,000) to be Christian. I hear the Christian God invoked by our elected officials all of the time, to a nauseating degree so “explicitly forbidden” is just bunkum. To the fundamentalist like yourself, if it isn’t 100% theocracy then it is suppression of your ‘God given right’ to control all that you see and hear.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 19, 2009 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

Unlike others, this may or may not be the last dispensing of wisdom from the Odor of the Jedi, under the arm pit of wisdom?

obi Wan Kenobi, a Jedi of known repute, says paraxial’s of truth and theory, can mean for the Jedi even a pungent pendent who may be pitiful by some lacking in logic with blinders on, the pitiful pundit can still dispel real truth, for wisdom of truth on occasion can be pitiful and extremely boring.  Jedi says, pitiful truth is far better than fantasies proclaimed and promoted as truths. Stories yelled from the highest soapbox may proviide entertainment for some but sadly perceived as truth by others, which can lead to unpleasantness. May the Force be with you.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 19, 2009 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

Leefeller’s allegory is a perfect portrayal of how mass movements get animated.  He has intuited an example from popular culture and cleverly lets you in on the mystery.  He is providing you with a great service, if you have the ability to read into metaphor, that is. 

The secret to successfully changing the mind set of a community, regardless of how big or small it is, is to assimilate then work change from the inside.  The Nazis did that, as well as Stalin’s brand of communism who would have gotten nowhere without the priming of Lenin.  It is the way to get the population to sign up on the dotted line for without the support of a great number of the population no mass movement has a chance in the proverbial hell.  Of course excessive force and coercion was involved but not at first.  The members of the SS, Gestapo, and the Russian’s KGB did not fall out of the sky.  They had to be convinced that the ideology was to their benefit.  It is a way to eat into the consciousness to bring the seditious ideas into the community from within then repeat over and over the desired solution. 

That also is how religions develop.  At one time humans lived in caves and did not have the religions we have in the world today.  Over 400 exist right now.  The three Abrahamic religions did not have their nascence until about 4000 give or take a thousand years B.C. beginning with Judiasm, then in about 33 B.C. Christianity’s son of god was crucified (assuming he was born in zero A.D. which always sounds so weird.  Nevertheless it took until about 65-70 A.D. for the first gospel (Mark) to be written, which made the assimilation of that religion to take place a longer time since they did not have radio, television, or the Internet yet, or magazines and newspapers, up to the time Constantine felt it was in his best political interest to embrace Christianity. It is hard to say when the NT of the holy book was widely available.  Books were made, by the handwriting of those who were literate. Then the population at that time couldn’t read so well.  The wealthy and cleric class were the ones who could read.  So common people had to wait for rock stars to show up bringing the word. or soldiers in or out of uniforms.  Same description for Islam, just a different rock star.  So I shall give my thanks to the intelligence of Leefeller and the rest of you who criticize ignorantly… well far as I’m concerned you know what you can do (it ain’t pretty), get extensively ejumakatid.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 19, 2009 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

Odor of Jedi does not believe in the concept of Prophets unless the meaning is to be teacher, mentor or muse. For achenes of Prophets of old were in the withholding of knowledge like a seed, as feeding of ignorance required such.
May the Force be with you.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 19, 2009 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

DWIGHTBAKER, April 19 at 10:35 am #

Inherit The Wind, April 19 at 10:13 am

STOP RIGHT THERE

THERE YOU GO AGAIN

JURORS AND JUDGES CAN THINK WHAT THEY THINK AND THAT IS THAT.

As for the MAJORITY of Americans being nominally some form of Christian? Well, in AMERICA that is EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN to be a standard of Law and Policy.

SO JUST GO AND TRY REAL HARD TODAY TO GET A LIFE WORTH LIVING.
*********************************

DwightBaker shows again why he’s the paradigm of Christian Charity, Mercy and Forgiveness.

NOT!

More like typical religious hypocrisy

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 19, 2009 at 10:24 am Link to this comment

Well Dwight careful casting aspersions since you fit the bill for a mind manipulator yourself. As for the “good news” you peddle well I have heard or read it all so it is hard to plant seeds in a luxurious grove of exotic flowers isn’t it. No an atheist’s flower bed of the mind aren’t barren as you may imagine but full of other growing things of beauty or ugliness but full of life and creativity.

Being born free of the religious impulse can be liberating for the mind and body. Living for life instead of a hokey “after-life”(sic) and a mindless drone existence doing make-work for eternity to an entity who craves constant fealty would be most unpleasant to me. Give me a million year life span and see what I can do!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 19, 2009 at 9:36 am Link to this comment

Jedi does not talk of Ancient times, for ancient times may be embellished upon and made to be what they were not.

Teaching of the Jedi is teaching of wisdom and may only be taught by teaching, not forced on the those unworthy or wanting to learn, by writing in a from of yelling, using all Capital letters. Jedi says, yelling is worthy of nothing but the unpleasantness of contempt. Jedi, believes pulling stings is not necessary for those seeking the truth for reality of wisdom requires resolute focus away from the antisocial yelling of imbeciles.  May the Force be with you.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 19, 2009 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

It should be known,  Jedi wisdom is all encompassing, Jedi says wisdom is not a god, nor is the Force only for the Forced sake.  Force came from before the the beginning, is here in the middle and will be past the end. 

Jedi of the order is the teacher, there are more than one, more than two actually their are a flock of Jedi. Jedi are not related because the Force does not sanction nepotism.

Jedi, says the dark force is more than meats the black eye, but has evolved into the opposite of the light force, some say the   force is with the light force, tho the dark force dose not agree.  May the Force be with someone,  please, so the the saying, May the
Force be with you?

Jedi believes the right to be dark forced, to be light forced or even rainbow forced is how it is, even so,  may the forced be with some of you.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 19, 2009 at 7:48 am Link to this comment

May the Force be with you. Jedi says, we should learn from our mistakes as well as our successes. Recently when Jedi got his ears caught in a car door, his short stubby arms couldn’t reach the handle, The force returned from holiday and said: “OBWAN, you idiot, what have you got us into again OB”? Jedi said, I did not do this on purpose as most would say “this is the Jedi way”, instead Jedi said I learned a valuable lesson, it could have been my head! May the Force be with you.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 19, 2009 at 7:13 am Link to this comment

DWIGHTBAKER, April 19 at 12:38 am #

Inherit The Wind, April 19 at 12:01 am

How can some be so out of bounds and not stay with the central core of the debate? The core was you using your example of a courtroom proceeding. And I worked toward that premises you set not me.

Now read your own word——-WORLD.

Therefore you shouldn’t pose antagonizing and polarizing questions based on a premise that is not accepted by vast majorities of the world.

So again you fall far short of making any sense in this debate for you are wrong again.

We live in the USA not China, Vietnam, not Iraq nor in the DR Congo or any other and no matter how hard you try to tie all those folks religious beliefs and practices to our majority in America, you will continue in my opinion make a fool of yourself.

Therefore I rest my case.
**************************************

Um, excuse me but YOU are the one who made a bizarre claim that I said all Christians were reprobates.  YOU are the one who went on a tangent.

As for the MAJORITY of Americans being nominally some form of Christian? Well, in AMERICA that is EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN to be a standard of Law and Policy. 

Plus, there now something like 10 million Moslems, about that many Jews, a HUGE growing number of Hindus AND Buddhists.  If you live in any region where there are lots of Asian immigrants (like either coast) you get VERY used to your friends, neighbors and colleagues following Eastern religions.  So I have friends and colleagues who are Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Sri Lankan, just to name a few.

In this part of America, Hannukah, Ramadan, and Chinese New Year are ALL a big deal, not just Xmas and Easter.  Public schools in MY town close for Yom Kippur (or 1/3 of the kids would be out).

In the small company I worked in, we even had a Sikh and a Jain working as programmers.  The Sikh worked with us a few times as a consultant and always wore a turban, color matched to his clothing of the day.

If you don’t think this is the “Real America” let me remind you that the attack on America of 9/11 had its biggest and worst event right here, 25 miles east of my house, at the World Trade Center.  The second biggest attack was at the Pentagon, just outside Washington DC, only 4 hours from here.  Plus the Statue of Liberty is right here in New Jersey, so we are VERY much “Real America” and are one of the original 13 colonies, as are our liberal neighbors of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware, Rhode Island, and now Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are going that way too.

Tangent? YOU are the one who asked a leading question of Night-Gaunt and I challenged its validity.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 19, 2009 at 12:28 am Link to this comment

Even I can tell when someone is being facetious so laugh at the joke or don’t but taking it seriously like that makes a joke out of you Dwight Baker.

I don’t say it to laugh at you but to help you in fact for I have no malicious thoughts to or about you.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 18, 2009 at 10:04 pm Link to this comment

May the Force be with you, for those who do not believe in the Force, the Jedi, says it will be their loss when the time comes, after the Force returns from holiday.

Jedi, says the arm pit of time has proclaimed the self righteous shall be turned away from riding the Jedimobile, for only the worthy shall ride with Jedi.
Jedi accepts cash. 

Learning the new ways of Jedi, will take time for most people not Jedi seem to be taller in stature and slower between the ears.  May the Force be with You.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 18, 2009 at 9:01 pm Link to this comment

“Just go on with your far out thinking that all People that love the LORD JESUS CHRIST are reprobates and you and some of your crew come up with another plan to get out nation back on track with some of you as the leaders. “
*************

Huh? Where’d you come up with this paranoid nugget?

All I said was there a lots of people who follow other religions who therefore don’t accept ipso facto the fundamental premise of YOUR religion.

Therefore you shouldn’t pose antagonizing and polarizing questions based on a premise that is not accepted by vast majorities of the world.

But when pushy fundamentalists like you get rejected for trying to shove you religious premise down everyone’s throat, you then holler “Christians are being discriminated against! Christians are being persecuted!”

No, Christians are being told to respect other peoples’ beliefs if they want respect for their own.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 18, 2009 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment

DWIGHTBAKER, April 18 at 9:39 pm #

Inherit The Wind, April 18 at 9:26 pm

Good way to put it in defense, but I never badgered him – nor is your objection valid either.  For in all law the basic law of conscience should rule first in the communed setting one is in——then common law—then what is practiced today by most attorneys is what I call the SEE SAW YAW OF LAW.

Meaning just what it implies. WHO HAS THE BUCKS RULES THE COURT AND JUDGE.
**********************************

No, it is a valid objection. You flat-out stated that N-G had to be either FOR “The Good News” or AGAINST “The Good News”.  That is based on YOUR premise that “The Good News” is factual.

As I pointed out, you “fact” of “The Good News” is challenged at its root that it is a fact.  It is challenged by EVERY religion other than Christianity, and by those who deny religion altogether.

To phrase a question based on an unestablished premise is to present a leading question.  It is NOT badgering—that is a different point of objection.

Your conscience may tell you that you must ask questions like this, in this way, but you’ll get no sympathy from ME that your behavior is acceptable “as a matter of conscience”.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 18, 2009 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment

DWIGHTBAKER, April 18 at 6:53 pm #


MY QUESTION does the good news of Jesus Christ as GOD and leading all men gentile and Jews alike to HIS LIGHT offended you?

*************************

The question itself is inappropriate.  It is what is called a “leading question”  such as “When did you stop beating your wife?”

In other words it makes the assumption that a certain premise is universally acknowledged to be valid and then asks the question based on that.

Your first premise is that Jesus is God and is leading all men (and women) to His light.

Since YOUR 2nd premise is that your 1st premise is a universally acknowledged truth it is fundamentally invalid and therefore you question is invalid.

In other words, Dwight, neither N-G, nor myself, nor any Jew, Hindu, Moslem, Jain, Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, Animist, Wiccan, etc. etc. accept your first premise as valid—meaning we flat-out don’t believe it, your question is now an invalid leading question. 
“Objection your Honor! Counsel is leading the witness.”
“Objection sustained.  The jury is directed to disregard the question.”

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 18, 2009 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment

A ground swill of 200 thousand plus people in England alone have registered their religion as Jedi , The necessary need for something newer than the 3000 year old dish rag religions for cleaning the windows of peoples lives, has been found. The Force as told by Jedi fills this need, clean the dusty old cobwebs from your religion with the Jedi. . The Force (which happens to be on holiday right now) is with you. 

The Jedi will share it’s wisdom and will not hide from you, for the Force is with you always, (except on holidays).  Miracles have abounded since the Jedi has shown the way of The Force, so when the Force returns from Holiday we shall see more beholding than ever seen before.  Woe be those who do not believe in the Force, as the Jedi has spoken.

Jedi speaks of non believers with sadness in his wallet. for the force will not be with them when the time comes, and the loss will be theirs.

Begetting, the Jedi warns seats are limited so keep the begetting to a low number and condoms are recommended, for when the Force takes us from this place to the golden rest stop in the sky,  limited space will demand first come first serve. So order your seats now, while supplies last. Cash preferred.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 18, 2009 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

You first answer all of those questions I posed to you in the various forums otherwise no. You won’t do so I don’t for you. Qid pro quo.

If you go to http://www.chalcedony.com you will find one of the chief sources of their thought on theonomy. That is rule by and through the Bible. J. R. Rushdoony was one of their chief thinkers and writers till he died. They will never call themselves ‘Dominionist’ but that is their aim. Google it and Christian reconstructionists and see what you find and get
back to me on that.

Unlike the Illuminati (1776-1789) this is still active and permeates our gov’t especially in the military and news agencies. Backed by some of the oldest and richest families for the express purpose of keeping and maintaining rule over literally everything. I doubt if they can fully succeed in controlling the world but they can take over here. Their missionary work includes infiltrating normal churches and moving them to their particular way of viewing things, called “steeple jacking.” I know Shenonymous is bored with my rants on that because such things can’t exist. If one doesn’t then they all don’t. One way to keep people from the truth is to litter the field with red herrings, some very obvious, others not so leaving the real one debunked with all the rest. Psychological warfare is used here as much as anywhere else.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 18, 2009 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment

Just because they put socialism in their name doesn’t make them automatically left wing. They were and are right wingers who were mostly Christian, conservative and agreed with many laws and ideas supported here in the USA right now. You are not the first Trith to try to flip the onus of all of the world’s most recent infamy on ‘liberals’ you know. You will find many Nazi flags and symbols mixed with the Lutheran cross and that wasn’t liberal by any stretch but your imagination. Google Nazi-Christian-symbols and see what you find. No Nazi would support the ACLU as you don’t. For the same reasons, same with homosexuals and abortion. Not what liberal think. Himmler, who believed he was an incarnation of Henry the Lion, was a different case and did not declaim his Christianity that I am aware. The SS were in fact a kind of Germanic order of Holy Knights patterned after the Jesuits in organization but mystic and chivalric in nature of the Crusaders. [That was why there were no chaplains in the SS.] Both the swastika and eagle are symbols of the sun. If you do find out more substantial information let me know.

Report this

By Trithoverlies, April 18, 2009 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt Nazism is just a little further to the left then Socialism and Comunism just a short bit further to the left than Nazism (or as it is called National Socialism). The D. H. S. says the danger is from the right, but the danger lies with left wing that wants the same thing that Radical Facist Islam wants Power and control. That is why the Ayatollah’s of Iran and Amahenijad want Nukes so they can bring the down fall of the West, so the Muhdi will come and rule the International Islamic Caliphate. Yes I am a Christian I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God not the stone block, or the statues of Buhdda, and Vishnue,ecetra… and By the way the Cross is vacant as is His tomb unlike the other founders of religions. I will defend your right to call me names unlike you on the left who want only their oppinions on center stage. There are liberals who are willing to discuss matters rather than call others names but they’re becoming less these days as your hate grows more virulent, and vicious. I believe in Jesus the Christ as the only way to heaven, but I can’t force you to believe in Jesus I can tell you why I believe show you what the Bible says; but I will never put a sword to your throat and command you believe or die. That is the differance between my conservative Christianity and Radical Facist Islam.  Whether you ever agree or not your right to descent is protected as is my right to speak out about my Beliefs. You have told me in words that my beliefs don’t count yet more Hospitals Universities Orphanages and Anti-Slavery groups have been founded and the earliest scientist were Christians so scientific analysis, experimentation were first widely done by Christians. I am freer in Christ then I was chained to the world. I tried to drink my self into hapiness for eighteen years, and Jesus set me free I have not taken a drope of Alcohole in 23 years now and am a better man for it. I see man differantly, as blinded by the world and sin, looking for the quik fix rather than the sure fix. They are told by religion that you must bow toward Mecca, or put a bowl of rice on your mantal, repeat a certian prayer, or pray five times a day, and if at the end your good outwieghs the bad you will get to paridise It is the manmade requirments to work your way that leave god out. And you never know when you have done enough good deeds to out wieghs the bad things we do daily. Lie cheat steal hate, curse God, worship self, or material things, money,or our sexuality. I will express my views as the constitution give me right to,” Congress shall make NO laws concerniong the free exersize of religion.”  but the left doesn’t agree with this and has attacked it with regards to Christianity. The Seperation clause was first given by the clerk of the chief justice in 1947 the main lie used by the A.C.L.U. This seperation cluase which came from the 1925 Soviet Constitution. They will allow Muslims their prayer time in our public schools but have suspended Christian students for bowing their head in silent prayer at lunch. Where is the A.C.L.U.‘s outrage at this seperation of Church and State. Is it only used to target Christianity. So call me a wing nut, a right winger a fundementalist, but it does’t change the fact that what I have just daid is true and you know it.
            Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
              John R. Bloxson Jr.
P.S. The Obama machine is now trying to stop Military, Fire, and Police Chaplins from praying in the name of Jesus Christ , its alright to pray in the Name of Buhdda, or Vishnue, or Allah but not Jesus the Christ so again where is the rightness in this?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 18, 2009 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt – Your last post says much of what I think.  But not that it is universally true that we can make things better.  Humans often are not able due to conditions beyond their control.  That is when hopelessness sets in.  If you said it is universally true potentially given the right environmental and social structure we can make things better, I would have no argument in the least.  I am of the same mind that our reality is human-centered.  And likewise, we uniquely cognizant animals hold the essential elements for both our destruction and our construction. 

If we can allegorically describe our existence as a “story,” a drama, then your paradigm of homo ex machina, that only humankind can save the day, I would completely agree.  The god, if there could be one, and it be a rational one (which is the only kind a god could be), the world would have a pre-condition of perfection and pain and suffering worldwide would be nonexistent and never would have existed.  No god from the machine would have had to have been invented.  The deus ex machine is in all accounts, a second-class plot device.  For humankind to solve their own sorrowful vicissitudes now that is a worthy piece of theater.  The stagecraft would be magnificent.

Yet I think in essence, people of the world when not under the yoke of any religious tyranny do feel the world is human controlled even when nature is violent.  They invent all kinds of shelter and protection, and help one another when altruism is working.  And, I think, that only needs the right nudge in the right direction by those who have seen the stage lights.  While humans are the ones responsible for many of the ills of the planet, it is not totally so.  The nature of the planet also contributes.  But, being that cognizant animal you spoke of, we hold it in our power to get the right lenses to see reality and fix the destructive behaviors.  Thank you for a most perceptive post.

This thing with the Dominionist is such a time waster.  It is akin to the other freaky group the Illuminati that have a cult following so counterintuitive to rational thinking.  I couldln’t care less what either of their belief pomposities say.  As I’ve said elsewhere, They are stuff for comic books.  And can be kept there by people who think with reason and not hysteria.  Personally I think both groups are insane.  No it is not growing faster than Islam.  Islam is much more organized and fanatically dangerous.  Take a look at the map of what Islam covers.  Take a look at the European countries infiltrated by migrating Islamists. It is a dogmatically forced medievalism on the Arabian peoples.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 18, 2009 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

ITWE—Perhpas where we are talking past one another, and it would be my fault, is that i just absolutely refuse to read anything more that is about “christianity”, particulary of the type touted here. I just sortve zone out when I even try to read it.. So when you refer to what christian96 or DWIGHT said, I’m sorry, but I just do not have time for that crap.

I agree that we can make things whatever we want to make them to be..we might have a different idea about what that is, but, yes , the human race has to change.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 18, 2009 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

“And not all men are called to go to the DR CONGO to bring a new light to the meaning of what MY KING left men like me to do.  For HE said “GO INTO ALL THE WORLD AND TEACH ALL MANKIND IN ALL NATIONS MY GOSPEL AND FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS THAT I HAVE GIVEN UNTO YOU.” “Dwight Baker

This is why I have real problems with Christianity is that it has this aggressive mandate. The Dominionists tweak it a bit to be not just evangelizing but subjugation of the world and all of its life. Slavery is okay because it isn’t condemned in the Bible as is killing the wicked which is anyone who doesn’t want to follow the “one true faith” just like the Crusaders of old and the Inquisition too for they will inquire and you’d better answer! They are already remaking vast populations of Latin America, Asia and Africa from a religious movement first started in the USA in the 1940’s. It is a “Second Reformation” movement or “Third Wave” that is also mystic and purgatory for removing demons from the land and people [mapping] and they accept the soul but consider the body to be a contaminate an will kill to ‘cleanse’ them of the contagion of demon possession, non-belief and wrong belief. It is growing faster than Islam right now. See http://www.talk2action.com/ for many stories on it. What Sara Palin follows & is little reported in the Dominionist owned news.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 18, 2009 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

At least one thing Ayn Rand said I agree with but it isn’t necessarily “Objectivism” but it is universally true and that is we can make things better. Even a kind of Heaven or Nirvana if-you-will but one where we are not idle but instead at our best creating. Hence an earlier statement I made at one of these forums—-it isn’t deity centered, it is human centered because in the things we control we make for all of us. Even if it was intended only for a select few or one. We hold the seeds of our destruction, but also of our own salvation. Homo ex machina not deus ex machina is the paradigm shift we need globally if we are to survive and keep our progress in knowledge and experience. [I think we had a previous industrial age perhaps 75,000 years ago and it was mostly lost to us except in certain stories—see the Vedas and other Hindu myths for that.] Those who believe still can but they must do for themselves and all of us on this far flung planet. There are no others to go to at this time.

All of our problems from climate change to population overload to food and water shortages are all our own fault. Shortsightedness in our species as a whole for short term gain. Relying too much on the animal instinct to produce more of us when food gets more plentiful. Call it a sort of automatic pilot, not the thing to do for a long term program.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 18, 2009 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment

How about even a nano-second, Night-Gaunt.  Even that might be too long.  Biology (the body) and psychology (the mind) seem to be the right ratio to begin to see reality.  Stories abound about the lot of men, or lotta men, or dick-head guys in biblical scriptures. 

“They can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature.” – now this is a statement of unusual quality.  Clearly seeing invisible qualities is quite the trick even for a god (only we would wonder why a god would need to “see” anything since allegedly it is an omniscient one.  Why bother having qualities if they are to be invisible anyway?  An understanding of what ‘quality’ is might show the folly in such a belief about the invisibles.  It is all predicated on the belief that the world was created and that some schizoidal deity (of both good and bad intentions) did the dastardly deed.  Inherent in the definition of god is that all is done intentionally.  Even if I believed in a god, I could not in my wildest imagination imagine that god to be other than good in all ways and not have allowed for one nano-second any trace of evil or suffering for the creation of what we think of as humanity.  Seems like some agreement on the nature of belief might be the next big thing to put on the table.

KDelphi, the rest of us on this forum cannot but help but read the minidebate going on between you and ITW.  As I re-read the disagreements, I can count at least four times where ITW complains how you do not read his comments.  And in reading your comments, he is correct.  So how are you going to check yourself to see if you address what he says?  I will continue to be interested in what you say, but the discussion will go nowhere unless you readjust your thinking.  My agenda is that I’m only trying to help the progress of our forum.  Seems like the rest of us has moved beond Ayn Rand.  Maybe not.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 18, 2009 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment

KD:

It is frustration at your continued refusal to read whar I’ve written and then attack ideas as mine that aren’t mine.  You even misinterpret them after you’ve claimed they are mine when they are not.

For example: Just now you argue that Rand’s idea of heaven on earth may be your idea of hell.  Fair enough, but totally tangential to my point and the subject of a different, albeit related, debate.

Which was that Rand argued, contrary to Christian96, that Earth CAN be heaven if only we make it so, whereas C96 argued that Earth is definitionally hell that we must pass through to get to heaven. 

Totally different than what you argued.  Yet a Marxist can and should agree with Rand’s basic point: We CAN make heaven here on earth.  The debate over whose vision of heaven on earth will actually produce it, is a totally separate question.

It is an almost deliberate misunderstanding that makes me nuts.  I know FolkTruther does it solely for the fun, though I suspect he believes at least 50% of the crap he posts, another LARGE percentage is posted just to p*** people off.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 18, 2009 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

You know, ITW—I might pay alot more attention to your arguemnts , and, likewise respect them more (as I do Shenonymous and Night Gaunt) if you refrained from calling me stupid and telling me what an idiot I am. Rand’s idea of “heaven on earth:” might be hell to me—espcially if capitslitst were in charge,.

I dont think that it is nonsensical to ask who the wood belongs to—MY wood, as in, what you said before—you used to live in a collective, but you had trouble telling which was MY chicken—I dont think that it belongs to you just because you say it does or because your great grnadfather killed someoen for it. You may think it is a stupid argument, but, it is certainly no stupider than defending laissez-fare capitalism today.

Good luck with that.

Report this
lastdaywatchers's avatar

By lastdaywatchers, April 18, 2009 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused.

CLAIMING TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME UTTER FOOLS INSTEAD!

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 18, 2009 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

Thank you Shenonymous even I reach my point of anger but am working on it. We can only do with what we have after all. I thought it was all of those fallen angels she was having a lust fest orgy with that was the male progenitor but not necessarily so. [Her offspring are also called lilim have the hind quarters of a donkey and wings and with sharp teeth that attack others because they have such a short lifespan. Is another story version.]But then weren’t the angels generally androgenous though not sexless? Though there were the “walking serpents” of the “Book of Enoch” that came down and had biblical congress with the daughters of men didn’t they. Why there is the warning of women to cover themselves too as not strike up the heat of lust not in men but in Nephilum or ‘Watchers!’ Though men in general are horny so-and-sos too. Someone bends over who is naked, male or female runs the risk of intimate relations with another man. Once the ‘god wand’ takes control it must be satisfied! I think why too many men think they have the devine right to rule over women. I for one have studied too much biology and psychology to believe that for a second.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 18, 2009 at 11:04 am Link to this comment

I shan’t be so rude, NG.  I forgive DWIGHT, as he is much more sanguine in temperament than I. And sometimes he is all over the map.  But I think we equally get our points out, well…in a manner of speaking.  Maybe not so equally graciously.  I do not wish to antagonize. 

I was very interested in your last post about Lilith.  Since you seem to know much more than I do, can you tell me who fathered her bird monster children?  Were they of virgin birth origin?  Sort of like Medusa, the Gorgon (variations on her story also abound), sworn enemy of the virgin goddess, Athena, because the Gorgon slept with Posiedon in Athen’s temple, actually gave birth to two heroic creations, from her blood drops sprung, fully grown, the winged horse Pegasus and the hero Chrysaor.  Pegasus, actually captured by Perseus who in turn murders the fabulous horse’s mother, and Chrysaor’s father is Poseidon.  so somebody lusted after her.  Her blood drops at her decapitation by Perseus, produced an army of serpents.  There are a variety of stories about this warrior woman.  I also did not know Venus and Lucifer were cross dressers.  Gee, all those Romans who loved Venus, hmmmm.  And poor Paris (in the Greek version) wasn’t helped much by Aphrodite.  He should have gone with the other virgin, Athena.  duh, was he as stupid as Adam?  Apparently so.

Yes, you are right, NIght-Gaunt, we must continue to search.  Never give up the quest.  Besides it is so much fun.  Archaeology is our guide, and auto-archaeology our path.  Now don’t you agree, DWIGHT, my new friend?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 18, 2009 at 10:41 am Link to this comment

“So when I read some of the things you write I am again puzzled what your real motives are.  I would like to think that you have not a good brain to think, but I prefer not to.” Dwight Baker

Don’t be supercilious with me, that is an insult by the act of saying so you either are a liar, self deluded liar or you can’t stand how I write but want to insult my intelligence that somehow bothers your ego than be truthful and forthright. Even though in the body of your writing you give faint praise to me then attack it. Others have done the same over time. It took me a while to understand what was going on. I was so oblivious in my early years—I am 51 in body but not mind. I specialize in nuance & detail. I also draw. You must do better or don’t do at all. ‘Help’ praise Shenonymous I am sure she will appreciate your interest. I know I am.

My education is mostly of the autodidact kind. “Auto” meaning on its own and “didact” which means to teach. Whatever interests me I research it for my own reasons. Philology, history, mythology, science covers most of it. I spread my poor little brain too thin but that is the impulse I have. Better than one for stupor of drink or reckless behavior eh?

Watch an episode of “The Big Bang Theory” it is my only favorite comedy show. I wish I knew the real life versions of those guys and gals.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 18, 2009 at 9:37 am Link to this comment

Supposedly Lilith produces offspring called Lilitu which have a 24 hour life span and are sub-intelligent and have the features of their mom. Birds claws and wings on a human body and are true monsters of the brainless and slavering mouth variety. The curse of JHVH or maybe El was that she could never be fulfilled as a mother with her children dying while she yet survives to prowl the night hunting for human children to pay back for JHVH’s curse on her she will transmit to JHVH’s creations. Payback is by a bitch! A super one who like Samma-El (shaitan/satan also “Lucifer” his old pre-revolution moniker) is the other example of how rebellion is punished by the All Mighty and Jealous and Compassionate One of the Heavens. Rah, he said lackedaisiacally.

Did you know that Lucifer is another name for Venus? Also an old name for matches too. The ancient Asserians had matches and fletchette grenades too! The past isn’t what we thought it was and never will be. The best we can do is to continue to search, study, catalog produce and advertise what it may have been like. The History Channel is very good about that.

Nimrod is now a metonym for “Great Hunter” in our lexicon.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 18, 2009 at 12:44 am Link to this comment

Hail DWIGHTBAKER– Reading your latest posts you are saying less but saying more!  A History of the Wife by Marilyn Yalom would be the better book.  What or who are you talking about at April 17 5:32 (speaking to Night-Gaunt but still esoteric)?

I didn’t forget Lilith.  Who could forget her?  Except the majority of the world!  Well…maybe not. Lilith is the first model for Victimized Womanhood.  She was also called a succubus who gives men wet dreams and is called a demoness who murders babies. Or she’s a goddess, the wife of Death.

The only reference to a possible Lilith in the Bible is Genesis 1:27 wherein it says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”  We hear a fullblown story of her in the Middle Ages Jewish folklore when she shows up the Alphabet of Ben Sirah.  After he was created, Adam was a lonely guy.  God, being a decent chap, created Lilith from the same dust (by the way) from which Adam was molded.  But they quarreled (oh boy, the first conjugal argument!); Adam [the perrenial domineering male] wished to rule over Lilith. But Lilith [a true militant feminist] was proud and willful (now what do you suppose “willful means?), oh oh, she dared to claim to be equal to Adam because she was created from the same dust (but only because!).  She left Adam and fled the Garden.  Go Girl!  God sent three angels in pursuit of Lilith. Yikes! They caught her and ordered her to return to Adam.  Fuck off, She refused, and said that she would henceforth weaken and kill little children, infants and babes. The angels overpowered her, and she promised that if the mother hung an amulet over the baby bearing the names of the three angels, she would stay away from that home.  Soooooo they let her go, Yip, yip, yipppieee! Then God created Eve to be Adam-mate [created from Adam’s rib, so that she couldn’t claim equality].  But much to God’s (and probably compliant Adam’s) chagrin, Eve turned out to do more damage to the Garden than Lilith ever dreamed of.  Oh well, ever since, Lilith flies around the world, howling her hatred of mankind through the night, and vowing vengeance because of the shabby treatment she had received from Adam. She is also called “The Howling One” a screecher.  But she has a voice like Bob Dylan.  She is also the demon Kisikil-lilla-ke in the Sumerian Gilgamesh.  The first true heroine.  And dear Eve is a comely second!  Our mom!  The Britannica entry is very lame.

Well, now that you mentioned him, Night Gaunt, Paul was a very interesting chap.  I’ll give some words of wisdom about that nasty guy Paul next time.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 17, 2009 at 7:29 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, April 17 at 4:35 pm #

ITW—It all depends on whom you think “owns” the wood that you made the tool out of in the first place…who decides? What if I had already put a fence around the tree and you cut it down anad make a tool? It is it both of ours? What if I wanted it to be firewood?

How can you say that a person , born on this planet, largley against their own will, owns NOTHING , frm the time they are born?

Were you born on the land that you took the wood from? Was there someone there already, that you killed to get the wood?

What if someone can kill you? Do they get your wood and tools?
******************************************

Now you are being argumentative (in the legal sense) and just plain stupid.

All these questions come down to value.  If no one values a thing, then “ownership” isn’t an issue.

Let me give you a simple example from about 45 years ago:

I was in grade school and a kid threw out a broken ball point pen. I picked up the broken, discarded pen, and fixed it.  Now he wanted it back because it was no longer broken, and, being bigger and older, took it from me.

All your questions on value, value-added, ownership, and the “right” to take by force are answered in this one little parable, which incidentally, is a completely true story, without exaggeration.

In fact, the core of ALL of Rand’s economic and productivity philosophy (at least what’s good in it) can be found in this little story.

BTW, KD—when Christian96 is telling us that THIS world, the ONLY one we know, is hell, and we must DIE to finally have joy, Rand says just the opposite: We can make heaven on Earth. This IS heaven if we just are willing to make it.

So, while Christian96 is telling you your ONLY hope for happiness is death (ie, nothingness), Rand is telling you your only hope for happiness is life.  Which makes more sense?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 17, 2009 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment

christian96, April 16 at 11:25 pm #

Inherit the Wind—-You say that a woman has a right
to her own womb.  Does the child in that womb have a
right?  Speaking of children in the womb, what if the
only way to get to Heaven was to come through this
hell-hole called earth.  In that case, millions of
children have been denied entrance into heaven just
because the ignorant self-centered woman aborting
the children wouldn’t allow them the opportunity to
get to Heaven!  YOU TALK ABOUT RIGHTS![

*******************************************

Ah. So a woman’s womb doesn’t belong to her, so therefore, it belongs to…YOU! In fact, EVERY woman’s womb belongs to…YOU!  Why don’t YOU suffer every woman’s pain of menses and childbirth?  Why not? It’s not hers, why should she suffer?

Does your penis belong to you? Do your eyes? Or do they belong to the woman who doesn’t own her womb?  My friend is having major surgery on his colon—but does it not belong to him? If not, why is HE suffering and not you.

See, if her womb doesn’t belong to her, then it MUST belong to someone else—and who is deciding who it belongs to?  Why…YOU!  Deciding who owns a thing is the same as owning it—trust me on this.  So you therefore own it.  And if you don’t own it, you aren’t responsible for it.  Yet pain means it IS yours and you ARE responsible for it.

You just don’t see that.

“What if?” “What if?” What if existence is merely a filip of a 4th dimension across two 3 dimensional membranes? MY explanation fits more of the existence’s facts than yours does—that you have to go through a womb and a vagina and be born in pain to go to heaven.  Does that mean my son born by c-section is automatically doomed since he didn’t come down my wife’s birth canal?

What if God DEMANDS that we all kill our first-born but we haven’t figured out how to figure it out?  That we haven’t got a prophet yet to tell us that?  Heck, the Aztecs and Mayans believed something similar. Heck, Torquemada believed something similar—that he had to kill any deviation in belief as heretics.

When you have no facts, you can hypothesize to your heart’s content.  And you want to make policy and law by those fantasies.

In the meantime either a woman owns her womb…or YOU do.  And believe me, you don’t.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 17, 2009 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment

ITW—It all depends on whom you think “owns” the wood that you made the tool out of in the first place…who decides? What if I had already put a fence around the tree and you cut it down anad make a tool? It is it both of ours? What if I wanted it to be firewood?

How can you say that a person , born on this planet, largley against their own will, owns NOTHING , frm the time they are born?

Were you born on the land that you took the wood from? Was there someone there already, that you killed to get the wood?

What if someone can kill you? Do they get your wood and tools?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 17, 2009 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

Anybody check out the “Civony” add above? Looks like a Polish equivalent to an Aloha Airlines add?

Report this

By christian96, April 17, 2009 at 11:41 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous—-“Crimes against women,” “Hatred of
women.”  Sounds like “performative utterances”
to me!

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 17, 2009 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, don’t forget the real first bride of Adam’s was known as Lilith who was made of the same stuff as Adam (or Adama) but she was robustly independent and would not listen to Adam so she left to cavort and fornicate with angels (demons) while JHVH used one of Adam’s ribs to make a more subservient bride—Eve. She however was comely and some would say devious in that she used her feminine wiles to entice Adam to take a bite of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil [One of the attributes of JHVH, the other was Immortality*.] That was used to explain why we are where we are. Lilith, the first feminist! Which explains why she is considered the first vampire. Eve did no better being punished twice for disobeying and the man only once.

*Elijah is and exception because he was tasked with a job he was to fulfill at sometime in the future.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 17, 2009 at 2:32 am Link to this comment

Crimes against women over the millennia humankind has walked the earth has been barbarous and heinous atrocities plain and simple.  The argument over a woman’s womb as her sanctity is inviolable regardless of what might be thought by any man.  Religion has brought the eternal humiliation of womanhood to be A Thing to submit to the will of men.  According to the holy books of Abraham, all sin, all error, all thirst for knowledge are attributable to that fateful choice of one alleged first woman, the mother of all humankind, Eve.  Po’ Adam, now mind you, was innocent: the First Fool, the first to Submit, he who taught Submission from the first.  And when that snake talks, for all snakes talk don’t they? who does the snake (a sexless entity since the snake is supposedly a disguise for de debble who was a sexless angel thrown out of heaven for not being submissive) talk to?  Why of course the one with a defiaint brain, the woman.

Hatred of women is a form of hatred of the intelligence that the Abrahamic God forbade.  That humans have any intelligence at all is directly blamed by the three major religions on our Eternal Temptress!  Forget about our Mitochontrial Eve, viz, the first genetically identified ancestral woe-man (an earned appellation).  I read recently in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that all woe-men are daughters of Eve and like her are seen as having the “very qualities” that the Abrahamic God tried to avoid (as if God had to “try” at anything, was not “omnipotent,” ah but I digress):  those qualities being inquisitiveness, curiosity, and they also generate the worst thing for man, desire!  The notion of Original Sin is That Sin committed by our First Mother.  We owe our entire existence to Our Mother, Eve.  For without her Sin, no children would have ever been born.  The Bible detests woe-men.  They hold only mothers and wives in exaltation. To assuage Eve’s Original Sin, woe-men for eternity must become wives and bear the children of their husbands.  They must never have time to be female. Do not forget that woe-man was made second in the Bible.  From all the choices available, she is fashioned from a rib no less, a lesser cut, could we say that which has the least amount of meat!  The subordination of woe-men begins in the Abrahamic comic arena with She Who Committed the Original Sin and Ate of the Tree of Knowledge! And curses to her body!  And all her unfertilized eggs.  My gawd! an unfertilized egg extols the virtue of the feminine not the mother!

Then we come to the horror of abortion.  Ah yes, the monotheistic God gets angry at planned parenthood, because Humans Know the Mind of God; for Catholics and Muslims, bearing children is the function, a “fixed horizon” I read recently. And Jews consider children to be the “condition of their survival.”  When something is spoken enough it is said to become believable.  It is called performative utterances.  Just saying something makes it reality.  It is said every life has an inherent and inalienable worth.  That is of course if those lives are of one’s own faith, for there was no compunction not to kill millions of Muslims under the last US Christian president, it was due to a whisper from his God!  That doesn’t go only one direction.  Muslims have killed millions themselves in the name of Allah.  I have heard it said that “every single human being is a child of God.”  Is that true?

So the questions are in the final analysis:  Are women evil by inherent nature? Are women only vessels for bearing children?  Are humans children of God?  Do all humans have the inalienable right to life?  Any kind of life?  Just how really really really ‘sacred’ is life?  And when exactly does embryonic cytoplasm become endo/ectoplasmically human?  The fact that women are human is a negligible fact and one that men (particularly religious men) off-handedly toss in the dumpster of life.

Report this

By christian96, April 16, 2009 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

Inherit the Wind—-You say that a woman has a right
to her own womb.  Does the child in that womb have a
right?  Speaking of children in the womb, what if the
only way to get to Heaven was to come through this
hell-hole called earth.  In that case, millions of
children have been denied entrance into heaven just
because the ignorant self-centered woman aborting
the children wouldn’t allow them the opportunity to
get to Heaven!  YOU TALK ABOUT RIGHTS!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 16, 2009 at 7:37 pm Link to this comment

“Isms” and “Ists” the necessity of filling pigeon holes,  simplistic thoughts in defining differences of people. Us and them, you and me, used to enlist the fostered distaste of contention. You and me is not as important as Us and Them, for the mass movement requires many, not the few. Complete lack of reason, seems a requirement.  Collective differences in agreement, tandem agreements to not be happy with life of the present, the government, the world. So not fair as perceived by the more than two.    Individual thought is frowned upon, groups find it necessary to make the individual become an oddity for the many make society in the minds of larger numbers, like the mob in Ox Bow Incident.    Constant stoking of these perceived differences to create credibility for the simple minded, this need to belong and not be alone, so as a flock or pack the instilled minds are one, so this is the tea bag movment?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 16, 2009 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

Well how to respond to your upright and literate decostruction of my writings? The first comment, SHOUTED as it was and ad hominem without evidence and full of emotion, should in polite company be ignored. I am sorry if I intimidate you, it is just me responding in my own way as you in your peculiar way do for yourself. No pretensions please?

The rest is junk and since you refuse to answer any of my questions then neither will I to your constant nattering like the buzz of knats, bothersome but no big deal.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 16, 2009 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

“Christianity was the worse threat facing America as said by Janet Reno, and now being repeated by Janet Napolitano in a report that has now began to leak out.  You and your Obamessiah can keep the change I will keep my guns, Christianity, Money, and Freedom thank you.”
        Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
          John R. Bloxson Jr.

Typical Trithoverlies, you are just another reich-winger Dominionist-type following the fascist herd without even finding out what is being talked about. It stressed “right-wing extremists” so if you are not you have nothing to worry about. Also “left-wing extremists” were also talked about. Do you fit either profile? If so then yes you may have something to be concerned about. It is actually true the Christian fundamentalist theocrats want to take over the USA and throw out the Constitution/Bill of Rights and replace it with Leviticus as the Law of the Land. Many of them on the airwaves and in print promote it but won’t acknowledge it directly if queried. As they should for they want a revolution, an overthrow of our republic, to return to the times of the 17th century theocracies here in N. America. They wax so nostalgic for it they confuse them with our own founding by Enlightenment schooled men in the 18th century.

First you lift your opponent way too high then rip them down to the very depths of Hell. A rhetorical device used to damage your opponent without facts to substantiate it. So are you and your vile volkische ilk with Obama even when he is keeping in place many of the Smirking Chimp’s (with Darth Cheney looming large behind him) draconian and un-Constitutional actions during the past 8 years!

How is pres. Obama attacking your Christianity, Guns, Money or Freedom? Please list for us where he has done so?

Report this

By Trithoverlies, April 16, 2009 at 1:11 am Link to this comment

Islam is the Government, Hinduism in India is the Government, Christianity on the other hand is a personal relationship with the Creator God of the Bible. Christianity does hold to curtian principles such as don’t practice a behavior that is always dangerious to the Body and soul. Don’t cheat others, don’t lie to them, don’t cheat on them, don’t hate since that is murder within the heart, Do not steal your neighbors belongings, do not committ adultery with your neighbors spouse. Gee what is wrong with treating each other with respect, what is wrong with having a solid foundation to build on over a foundation built on shifting sand one will keep you through the storms of life while the other will bring down the house on your head. So in the long run Christianity is good for modernity because it give it a solid foundation to build on, not like Positivistic Law which treats Law as something to be changed to fit a new Idea that when tested shows it for what it is garbage. Hitlers henchmen would have been set free since they were only following the laws of their society.  We are now beginning to see this same mentality developing here as one Judge appointed to the federal bench said “he could see a day when American common Law worked side by side with Sharia Law.” That is the Law of Slavery and we will have one, or the other not both together they are incompatable and Diametrically opposed to one another Secular Progressive you guys are going up a dead end Culdesac that will lead to slavery and Radical Facist Islamic Dictatorship, or as spoken of by Amahenajad and the Ayatollah Khamenei An Islamic Caliphate of the World. There will be no free exchange of Ideas in such a world and you will lose your head if you try to argue against Radical Facist Islam. So you guy’s need to come down out of the cloud into the real World where our very lives are at stake in a War not of our choosing but one which was chosen long ago where good battles evil. Evil is exactly what Radical Facist Islam is in all its forms Jamil Islam, The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hezbullah, Hamas, Wahabism, Radical Shi’itism, The Talhaban, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Queda to name a few. We are at WAR so stop thinking in the pre-911 mind set that claimed Christianity was the worse threat facing America as said by Jenet Reno, and now being repeated by Janet Napolitano in a report that has now began to leak out.  You and your Obamessiah can keep the change I will keep my guns, Christianity, Money, and Freedom thank you.
            Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
              John R. Bloxson Jr.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 15, 2009 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, April 15 at 6:37 pm #

ITW—You must have been very proud that there were Ayn Rand pics on posters today at the “Tea Parties”, protesting Pres. Obama’s budget.(or whatever the hell they are protesting or think that they are)

They are angry at the wrong targets, as Rand was.
*********************************************

Are you KDelphi’s evil twin or something?  How can any SANE person possibly infer anything like that from what I wrote?

**********************************************
I can see , from past things that you have said, why you would think that most things can be owned. A better question would be, in a moral society, should they be owned.
**********************************************

Yes, definitely things should be owned.  Let’s start with a woman’s right to own her own womb.  We have an inalienable right to own our own bodies, male or female. Also, if I pick up a piece of scrap wood and whittle it with an old bone into a flute, why do YOU then have a right to take it from me, or even use it?

**********************************************
If they should be owned, shouldnt some things be owned in common? Who decides who owns some things. Doesnt a person have a right to the necessities of life just by virue of being born?
************************************************

Provided by who?  Who has to do without? Who has to starve if there isn’t enough?  You see, you quickly get into replacing the currency of MERIT with the currency of NEED.  (right now we are suffering the effects of the third—the currency of CORRUPTION)

*******************************************
If a child has a right to certain things, at what age do you decide that they are “on their own”? Is it a certain behavior they display, or a certain religion that decides? Should one be able to enforce their beliefs about responsibility onto others? If the govt mandates that almost everyone pay into a program (like social security) does that make it a more viable program than any other that all pay into? (I’ve heard you deny social programs before but defend social security—doesnt make sense to me, except out of a Randian sense of self-interest).
*************************************************

You keep failing to ask the key question: Produced by WHOM?  It doesn’t just fall like manna from heaven.  Somebody has to make it happen by the sweat of their brow—whether it’s a strategic leader or a sweating bracero SOMEBODY has to do the work.  What’s to keep them from saying “No! I’ll only do JUST enough to feed just me and my family.”  Gonna whip’em and take his kids away because he won’t work for the ones that DON’T make enough to feed their kids?

********************************************
\ 42% of what everyone pays in taxes, now, goes for war and its related armaments. (It may be that, as the bailout is paid off, more wil actually go to Wall St—-that is who people should be protesting)In Ohio, I -pay plenty in property taxes, although no one in my immediate family (save when I was growing up)has ever benefitted from them.
*********************************************

Yeah, peace IS a hell of a lot cheaper than war. I’d like that too.

****************************************
I was wrong about the Zionist part (from what i read). I still think her “value” system was all screwed up and, I do not understand how you can adhere to her theories and not be a laiassez fare capitalist. If you are one, I dont know how you can be a Democrat.
******************************************

Because I’m not an unadulturated laissez-faire capitalist.  Haven’t you been paying attention?  You said once you didn’t read my posts.  Clearly you still aren’t and just GUESSING about what you think I probably wrote.

So I’m not wasting any more time on YOUR post.  You don’t read what I write and then just make up shit that you can pretend I said and then argue against.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 15, 2009 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

ITW—You must have been very proud that there were Ayn Rand pics on posters today at the “Tea Parties”, protesting Pres. Obama’s budget.(or whatever the hell they are protesting or think that they are)

They are angry at the wrong targets, as Rand was.


I can see , from past things that you have said, why you would think that most things can be owned. A better question would be, in a moral society, should they be owned.

If they should be owned, shouldnt some things be owned in common? Who decides who owns some things. Doesnt a person have a right to the necessities of life just by virue of being born? If a child has a right to certain things, at what age do you decide that they are “on their own”? Is it a certain behavior they display, or a certain religion that decides? Should one be able to enforce their beliefs about responsibility onto others? If the govt mandates that almost everyone pay into a program (like social security) does that make it a more viable program than any other that all pay into? (I’ve heard you deny social programs before but defend social security—doesnt make sense to me, except out of a Randian sense of self-interest).
\
42% of what everyone pays in taxes, now, goes for war and its related armaments. (It may be that, as the bailout is paid off, more wil actually go to Wall St—-that is who people should be protesting)In Ohio, I -pay plenty in property taxes, although no one in my immediate family (save when I was growing up)has ever benefitted from them.

I was wrong about the Zionist part (from what i read). I still think her “value” system was all screwed up and, I do not understand how you can adhere to her theories and not be a laiassez fare capitalist. If you are one, I dont know how you can be a Democrat.

Being intelligent just makes you intelligent. It doesnt make you correct, and, it doesnt mean that your theories will lead to any good. If they dont, they are only of academic interest, unless some zero mind picks them up and uses then to be selfish. It seems to me that most so-called Randians are only agaisnt programs that they themselves do not benefit from personally. The hell with society, and, then we get the rot of inner cities, the desicration of the VA, etc, like we did under the Bushes.

I heard one guy say, online, talking about universal heatlh care, “Hell, no I dont believe in SCHIP!! I’ve already got 4 kids on it!” Rand wouldve loved him . She led peopel like that around by the nose.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 15, 2009 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment

From what I have seen Ayn Rand was a type of psychopath that used, abused and disposed of people as she saw fit and wanted to embrace others in her cult of personality. Maybe not psychopathy, but perhaps with a Psychizotyple Personality Disorder which would have problems with social interaction, lacks deep empathy, excellent verbal skills and are prone to gandiose ideas like ” Objectivism” and spread it far and wide. Intelligence isn’t affected and could be enhanced as her’s were. I see that this type of thing if it occured some 2,000 years ago could have started a religion. Maybe Paul was just that sort of person who created Christianity as we know it. [Sythesized from Judaism, the Attis cult, stories of a Savior to come and his own visions…]

Report this

By christian96, April 15, 2009 at 12:48 am Link to this comment

Dwight——I worked several years with those in the
ivory towers but thank God I came down and rubbed
elbows with humans instead of ideas.  For example,
while teaching Educational Psychology, I noticed a
student who daily sat in the back of the class with
his head down.  One day after class, I ask him to join me in the student union for coffee.  I learned
he had just lost his father.  He was probably 21 or
22 years old.  Any age is a terrible time to lose a
parent but it is especially tramatic for a male at
his age.  Conflict often develops between a boy and
his father during the boys teens and early twenties.
This conflict often serves the purpose of pushing
the boy out of the nest and out on his own.  Then,
later in life the boy will come back to his father
(or mother) in a different type of relationship.  Well, this boys father died before he had the opportunity to come back in that different type of
relationship.  He was experiencing a great deal of
guilt over the death of his father because of some
of the conflict between them during his teen years,
conflict that had not been resolved.  I don’t know
anything about Gary Cherniss.  I guess I reacted more
to the ideas I have of many Industrial Psychologist.
I think they are more interested in money than people, which I know is a vague generalization.  I
hope you don’t take what I am about to say the wrong
way.  Your post are too long.  When some people see
the length they will not read what you have to say.
I know you are a loving caring individual who uses
your knowledge to try to make peoples lives better.
I think you would be more successful if you ask
yourself, “How can I accomplish my objectives by using less words?”  Perhaps more people would read
your comments.  Don’t misunderstand me.  I love you.
We are Christian brothers trying to make a better
world for all.  Some will listen and some won’t.
That’s the nature of people but you might be more
successful with shorter comments, as I contradict
myself by writing this essay! Ha!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 14, 2009 at 7:54 pm Link to this comment

“Given that values are not matters of subjective opinion but features of the world, the belief in a false value is tantamount to a denial of reality—and anyone who upholds a false value is morally responsible for the consequences of his or her thoughts. A Randian intellectual thus faces extremely limited options in dealing with people who espouse a mistaken or pernicious view. If unfamiliar with Objectivist principles, they may yet be brought to reason. This is worth pursuing if the person is young and has not yet thought through Rand’s ideas. But an adult who advocates, say, progressive taxation is in the grip of a malign psycho-epistemology that is probably irreversible—though this same person may well share the Objectivist stance on other issues, like abortion. To join with such people in political activity is unacceptable. That would implicitly sanction with them bad ideas. But so would any sustained dialogue, beyond the point at which it was clear they rejected Objectivism (and hence were morally culpable for all consequences of their reality evasion).”

This is either dogmatic attachment to a belief system, or, I would thnnk, any easy way out of admitting that there may be other opinions that make sense.
********************************

KD:
I think you are FINALLY getting to the point of understanding.  See, what you have illustrated is the Objectivist as Hypocrite.  To me, no TRUE Randian would take Rand’s interpretations as “Must be true.”  Yet they did.  And Rand, as the ultimate hypocrite insisted they do so, like a cultist leader.

But is the method itself flawed or did they just get caught up in her ego and cult of personality?  Could I have fought her in that arena? Probably not.  Successfully? No.  But I WOULD NOT HAVE STAYED!

Rand and her followers (especially those of Brandon and his psychology practice) assumed, like the Russian and Chinese Marxists they detested, that disagreement was a form of mental illness.

It was Rand’s own misuse of her tools that I reject!

Furthermore, while Rand laid down an interesting and fascinating interpretation of the economic society that led her to her conclusions, there were numerous pieces of the puzzle she left out either by ignorance or design.

For example: Who owns the air? Why do YOU have a right to dump poisons into air that blows over ME?  Rand didn’t understand the economic concept of a public good—something nobody can own.  She tried or hoped to force it into her market model.  Of course, it doesn’t work.  People dump their waste wherever it’s convenient for them, regardless of the DEADLY effects on others.  Rand never grasped this.

I can give myriad examples.  But the point is that analysis based on premises and logic isn’t flawed.  It only is when you cheat in the analysis, as so many do across the political spectrum.

Report this

By christian96, April 14, 2009 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment

Dwight—-As most psychologists, Gary Chernriss should
come down from his ivory tower and take a look about
him.  With the unemployment and underemployment rate
increasing in America, he may want to study the emotional effect upon society in general and the
family in particular on being unemployed and under-
employed.  Now, if he really wants to apply his
research(I’d be interested in knowing the parameters of his study) to industrial workers, I suggest he
take A SLOW BOAT TO CHINA.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 14, 2009 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment

She—Peace. I still agree with you on most stuff. I really was just trying to make a joke about Rand. I didnt/dont know that much about her. That is not unusual for someone not heavily schooled in philsophy, from what I read. But, even as I read more, as you know my feelings about laissez fare capitalism, you can understand why knowing MORE wouldnt exactly change my opinion, except that, yes, she was very complex, and, now it is hard to separate her from the followers who have interpreted her.

ITW—“Zionist” has become a term of opinion. It has nothing to do with her fear of communism. (I interpret it as someone who thinks that the “land of Zion” (Israel) belongs excelusively to Hebrews.) When truthdigger3 (I think?) said she was a Zionist, I said that I didnt know. From what i have read (not alot), many of her followers use her Jewish heritage to push Zionism. Israel was not so important to her. I might have been wrong in calling her a Zionist, but, many do not think that that is a bad thing, and, many define it differently. It is certainly not the case for all of Jewish heritage.

It is very hard to separate Rand from “Randions” nowadays, and from Ron Paulions, so I wont even try.(here is an example of some of the “zionist” thought I found) “A World Without Zionism” which quotes some bigots)

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
atlas_shrugs/2005/10/the_world_witho.html

But, I think that it is important to point out her subjective fear of “communism” (which many still possess), which is understandable , given her childhood. However , it is not understandable in this day, to the point of “fearing” progressive policies or “socialisms” as in the EU. I think that it is often used as a fear tactic, to get people to vote against their own best interests.

For intance, this may be what a true objectivist (?) would think of discussing the ideas with me or any liberal: (It begins by describing Kelley, who has tried to bring some of her ideas into popular consciousness)

“Given that values are not matters of subjective opinion but features of the world, the belief in a false value is tantamount to a denial of reality—and anyone who upholds a false value is morally responsible for the consequences of his or her thoughts. A Randian intellectual thus faces extremely limited options in dealing with people who espouse a mistaken or pernicious view. If unfamiliar with Objectivist principles, they may yet be brought to reason. This is worth pursuing if the person is young and has not yet thought through Rand’s ideas. But an adult who advocates, say, progressive taxation is in the grip of a malign psycho-epistemology that is probably irreversible—though this same person may well share the Objectivist stance on other issues, like abortion. To join with such people in political activity is unacceptable. That would implicitly sanction with them bad ideas. But so would any sustained dialogue, beyond the point at which it was clear they rejected Objectivism (and hence were morally culpable for all consequences of their reality evasion).”

This is either dogmatic attachment to a belief system, or, I would thnnk, any easy way out of admitting that there may be other opinions that make sense.

But, i think that Kelley was correct about it being pointless to argue her points. However, later, Kelley retracted and said that there WAS value in discussing with a profesor of Marxism, who was not, in fact “the same as Pol Pot”...lol on and on.

He was later shunned for this…whew!  http://www.mclemee.com/id39.html  (“The Heirs of Ayn Rand”)

 

Yes, I think you can separate some of her philsophy from her writing, and how it has been interpreted. I still dont know alot. But, she, herself, seemed to think that you were either an 1)Objectivist or 2) wrong. I dont think that I am either one. Since you dont follow her, philsophically, I gues you arent either.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 14, 2009 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

“God” won’t leave until the human species evolves away from the need for one and not before. So we need to stop arguing and protect each other’s right to not conform to anyone else’s religion. Or else we will have religious wars like now.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 14, 2009 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, April 14 at 12:54 pm #

Thrasymachuses? Last time I went to the doctor, he told me I had Thrasymachuses. He said I needed to cut back on Tequila, though I had already quit the salt, now all I can have is sucking on limes.

******************************************

Yeah?  My doctor said to cut out the lime and salt and switch to Chinaco Anejo.  He must get a cut but it’s GOOOOOOOOOOOD stuff! Wait! I feel a bout coming on!  Darn! I have to wait till I get home to get some relief!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 14, 2009 at 11:22 am Link to this comment

Leefeller, I have tears in me eyes from laughing.  Thank goodness you bring such mirth (also an affliction of the throat) to the forums.  Levity as you know is my sacred bull.  ‘Cept I have to watch out for the bull crap.  Oh boy, it takes special shoes with wings on the back.  Sorry about grandma/mom handbag thing.  The fear you instilled in me will keep me away from either of them for eternity!  Limes aren’t so bad.  Better than a rotten strawberry.  For a little idea of who Thrasy is check out Plato’s Republic.  Course it is a very very very long story.  Maybe good for bathroom reading, like a few other long books.  Book seven has the Cave Allegory, so it does have some metaphors worth looking into.  Also, try Satanic Verses, one of my favorite books of all time, but a very long one too, or the bath where I prefer to read.  Washing away all m’sins.  I suppose showers are more efficient but can’t read in the shower, well maybe some can???  I don’t like to be soooo absolute.

Maybe Rushdie wouldn’t have made the Imam’s day if the Imam had been drinking tequila Leefeller had to cut back on.  Fatwas, yeah, let them put the fear of death out there for speaking, and flush freedom of speech down the good old and useful shithole where many good and bad ideas get sluiced.  Yeah, freedom of the press and all that implies.  Reletared to obscurity.  Rushdie?  Probably not since his writing is extraordinary.  Haroun and Stories of the Sea is enchanting, and The Moor’s Last Sigh, beautiful.  It isn’t even so much the grand stories, most creative of course, but how he writes, so beautifully, the vocabulary and the knowledge behind so many subjects he infuses into the stories, that are an education in themselves.  I place him with Eco and Calvino (the latter being my favorite of all time, and eternity).  I find I am loving that word eternity since Leefeller brought it up on another forum.  I find I cannot stop saying it, gad, is it an affliction for all eternity? 

I feel a song coming on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQcow2IOELQ

The best is yet to come…..

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 14, 2009 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

No answer to the simple questions I posed directly then you are fine. Just say so or nothing at all. Don’t go on about nonsense and insult my intelligence with your non-answers and equivocations. I was just more direct with my little insult to you than you were to me. No more now. You are a waste of my time so I shall leave it at that.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 14, 2009 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

Thrasymachuses? Last time I went to the doctor, he told me I had Thrasymachuses. He said I needed to cut back on Tequila, though I had already quit the salt, now all I can have is sucking on limes.

By the way She, that was my grandmother who used her handbag to gain peoples attention, my mom was a thrower of things, usually clothes pins from her apron. She could throw with the accuracy of a professional baseball player. My long time suspicion is my dads bigotry and religious fervor may have been caused from many glancing blows to his noggin.

To this day I have a fear of clothes pins!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 14, 2009 at 9:37 am Link to this comment

She,

I’ll defer to you on Rushdie’s quality—I don’t know enough…but I still think he’d be obscure without the hype of the fatwa.  I’ve never heard that he’s the next Noble Laureate in letters…..

Still, a man has a right to write it—boring or fantastic.  And Stevens made excuses for the fatwa….

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 14, 2009 at 9:17 am Link to this comment

I disagree with you ITW on Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.  Far as I am concerned it is one of the great classics of modern time giving a fantastic insight into the battle between good (Gibreel aka Gabriel the Archangel, the real Messenger) and evil (Chamcha aka Shaitan, ah…de debble).  Story turns out pretty good for both.  Now that is interesting in itself.  Rushdie is one of the worlds greatest intellects who knows a whole shitload of stuff about the world and human nature, and could talk rings around just about anybody, cept maybe a run-off-the-end-of-the-mouth (do we know any of those?) ranters on TD.  If you haven’t read it, I suggest you do so and read very slowly to absorb the sorcery of his writing abilities.

I see the big pissing contest going on… again.  Guys will be guys.  A microcosm of why the world is in the shithole it is.  Reminds me of the reason why Leefeller whaps me on the head once in a while with his mom’s handbag.  ‘Cept I don’t believe in violence of any sort.  It is an act of exasperation.  But as Aristotle said, “give unto a thing only what it is worth.”  How much time and effort is it worth to knock one’s head against a concrete blockhead.  The Cat Steven’s story is only interesting en passant.  Just as he converted to Islam, many others (of the glamorous world of entertainment) have converted to Judaism, and even many more to Christianity.  The fact that he was detained is a function of the company he chose to keep.  In the time of now, Muslims are suspect, not because most of them are guilty of nothing except breathing and having a life, but because many of their compatriots have chosen to do violence to innocents, purposely, hiding behind their religion, and innocents, to do so.  There is no morality in that.  They are simply without varnish immoral.  They go against their own holy book.  So if Cat Steven’s makes choices that on the surface seems unjust when detained, it is because below the surface lies a history of fanaticism that scares the hell out of everyone else.  Ethnic profiling is a vile practice but then it is something that was forced, in this case, by the ethnic group’s beliefs that spawned his adopted though-claimed-benign-benevolent beliefs.  So how is the world to believe him when his adopted ethnics do otherwise?  Such profiling goes on in other areas such as by policemen against blacks, and homosexuals by right-wing extremists.  When cases become known, it either results in prosecution by the upholders of the law, or at the least, vilification by the public.  Either way, it does not go unnoticed.  What is justice?  Time decides.  Shall we all be Thrasymachuses and think brutality decides?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 14, 2009 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

<i>“Answering question from nighthawk I will try if he will simply cut and paste them again not a big problem for most.”—DB

You can read them again for this isn’t a spoken conversation. You are such a DICK. But a nice oozing type that is like a suppurating infection with occasional flare ups but if treated will eventually pass away. Crust over and fall off.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 13, 2009 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment

Let’s not forget that when Salman Rushdie had a fatwa issued blessing any Moslem who murders him (for writing the blasphemous “Satanic Verses), Cat Stevens publicly DEFENDED that very fatwa, a fatwa that STILL is in effect.

(of course they gave a pedantic, boring writing ENORMOUS press and book sales for dreary book that would have been FORGOTTEN in a year otherwise).

I never liked Cat Stevens’ music but until then I had nothing against the man per se.  Hell, I don’t like Barbara Streisand’s music one little bit and but I still think she’s a wonderful, gifted and extraordinary lady.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 13, 2009 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

I still enjoy Cat Stevens music, I listen to his LP when I feel the mood, his personal preference to not continue doing his music, is only a loss from my own selfish perspective. This is Bakers last post on religion, what does that mean?

Baker, if you answer Night Gnats question which he asked of you here, I may respond to your request which you asked on another post, though my comment there is cryptic which occasionally happens,  it is self explanatory,  I would be happy to expand on it if you fill the above contingency.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 12, 2009 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment

KD:

You don’t get it because you keep making the same mistake: Mixing up FACTS about Rand with INTERPRETATION.

I don’t really care if you want to believe Ayn Rand was really a Venusian sent here to create a new kind of saviour.  I just would rather you don’t start posting that as fact.

And I don’t like you repeatedly posting my views on Rand when, they are, in fact, YOUR MISINTERPRETATIONS and MISREPRESENTATIONS of my views.

Here’s what it reminds me of: Y’know, for all Star Trek fans, the GREATEST episode was, of course “The City on The Edge of Forever” with Joan Collins as Edith Keeler.  Collins went around the talk show circuit for YEARS stating that the character of Keeler was a Nazi sympathizer.  This drove Harlan Ellison, the story’s writer bat-shit because, of course there, is NOTHING in any version of the script that can be remotely interpreted that way.

So KD has gotten it in her head that Rand was a Zionist, despite there being NO evidence of that and MUCH counter-evidence.  And why? Because she was “a McCarthy red baiter” (or something similar).  This despite THE FACT that Rand quickly backed away from the McCarthyites and stayed far, far away from them.

Yes, what is right and wrong about Rand’s VIEWS are my opinion.  That is very true.  But the facts of her life are NOT opinions—they are facts.

But….KD has made this decision and suddenly, I’m the bad guy who made too much of it.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 12, 2009 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment

If one uses the idea that liberal is the same as commie, how does that jump to Zionist?  Ann Coulter is a Zionist because she is not liberal and increasingly obnoxious, I also found one of the first skin heads, Telly Savalas obnoxious, some may know him as Kojack, the lollipop thing was most annoying to me, so that means he was a Zionist.  Hope he still has some of his teeth left or he may really be a toothless Zionist.  Using stereotypes to label people,  things and nouns, can be a mistake, it seems some people just do not know the difference. 

It may also be good advice that people keep their fetishes to themselves, especially if they have one for Ayn Rand. I do not go around telling everyone about my fetish’s, though when I was younger, I had a fetish for a large German lady named Hilda the wife of a small guy named Manfred, but she never knew it, because I did not go around telling everyone about it and sure as hell did not put it in the newspaper

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2009 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi, how things snowball as Leefeller will testify (oh oh I may have just stepped into getting another handbag whap to the hade) create blinding snowstorms.  I have always read your posts, here, and on many TD forums and the old CD articles.  I think for much of that, we agreed though at times you did not see it.  If I have been involved somehow and wildly chaotic things start being said or some unfair criticism is levied, I will either defend myself directly and usually forcefull, or another in some indirect way.  We are each of us adults and responsible for ourselves whether we have equal skills at doing that or not.  I tend to be a philosophically sober logician and historian of a sort but I try to infuse dark or light humor and music when I can.  I find life far too gloomy to be without those two human actions.  For instance, here is a muy bueno Bob Dylan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49IzD9IE5Vc&feature=related

Just as DWIGHT offered to me I offer to you, here is my hand, peace.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 12, 2009 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment

ITW—When someone says I dont know what I am talking about, I dont just take their word for it—I try to find out what I can on my own. I still have a different opinion of Rand than both you and She, but you guys do know more about her than I do…

I am not the only one to think that she was a Zionist, and, testifying before the House Unamerican Activities, calling many Liberals Communists, quaifies as a McCarthyist to me, however good someone may think her philosophies were. I realize that there is a resurrgence ie her, mostly among Libertarians who follow Ron Paul , although they are apparently fighting among themselves. (good!)She would certainly have thought Pres. Obaam was a Communist ot Socialist , which is why I dont understand your support for her. But, apparently you support some of her theorums , and, not her politics.

I admit that you know more about her than I do. I wont admit that your opinions are correct—I dont know that they are.I could post links to people who agree with me or you. That wouldnt prove anything.

I just respectfullly disagree and admit that I didnt read all of your posts before responding before. I guess you would only be happy if I said that I agreed with some of her theories??

I was mostly puzzled about She, because , to be honest, I always respopected her posts, from what I have read. You and I usually disagree, except for a few issues. You do remember that I was responding to DWIGHT, so I never expected that there were so many toes in here to step on.

I just dont know how it got so personal.Maybe not for you. We just disagree on alot—thats ok. I still will read what you have to say, most of the time.

I see that you guys have moved on to another topic. Rand is alot more complicated than I had thought, I will say that. I just felt like I was being ganged up on.

I wasnt calling anyone here any names, and, since Rand is dead, I doubt that she took it personally, because she was always right. I am not. But, if I try to admit it here, I just end up being told to eat crow. And, I still dont feel that I was wrong about what I think of Rand’s personality or lifestyle. I dont believe that saying that she was Zionist or McCarthyist was wrong.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2009 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

I highly doubt that everybody has one, Leefeller.  Like scotch, enlarging repertoires is an acquired taste depending upon how much energy you want to put into it.  SInce you know how to spell it (or copied it), you can look up its meaning to see if it is something indeed you already have or really want to add to your life.  Repertoires can be a very heavy burden maybe requiring two mules or four pigmy ponies.  I think elephants would not be necessary, though elephants have larger repertoires for dancing than do the other beasties.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 12, 2009 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

I would add, Shuan Ti, Night-Gaunt to my repertoire of all the things I do not know, except I don’t think I have a repertoire?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2009 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment

I’ve just been smacked with a handbag, was I?  Well I’ve had my fun with the mythology business.

I didn’t know about Shuan Ti, Night-Gaunt.  A curious story indeed.  Fun to have in one’s repertoire.  I shall have to put that on my list of 10 things I didn’t know.  Thank you.  And I don’t know about your assessment of DWIGHT’s affection or understanding of moi.  He will probably get around to answering you.  You always appear to be most understandable.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 12, 2009 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, April 12 at 3:56 pm #

This reminds me of when I was a kid,  my grandmother who was quite old then,  broke up a fight between two sailors rolling around on the street by hitting them on their heads with her hand bag. Something just jogged me memory, she used the hand bag on me occasionally and it usually caught my attention.
***********************
So…you carry a handbag to hit sailors and daydreaming kids in the head with to bring them to their senses???? (head-scratch smilie)

KD: You made assertions about Rand that were wrong and I took you to task and SHOWED they were factually incorrect. OK. But then you went and said the same damn things all over again, and said things about me as well, that I had ALREADY denied. 

Now you are back STILL making false assertions about Rand and wonder…“Why are you so mad at ME?” as if you had your own little halo.

Guess what?  Neither I nor Shenonymous need your assistance and mediation.  Thanks for thinking of us, though.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 12, 2009 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

This reminds me of when I was a kid,  my grandmother who was quite old then,  broke up a fight between two sailors rolling around on the street by hitting them on their heads with her hand bag. Something just jogged me memory, she used the hand bag on me occasionally and it usually caught my attention.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 12, 2009 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

I merely wanted to insert that I had done some study on Rand. I had admitted I didnt know much about her, and, she sounds very complex, so I probably never will. I think she was a McCarthyist (that is NOT just my opinion!—she would probably have called Pres. Obama a Communist!)) bnd was intelligent, but, in my opinion, very warped from a rough childhood. I was just commenting that when you comment that someone doesnt matter, you are disagreeing with yourself. Rand always said ‘check your premises” as you must know. It was sortve a joke, ok? I used to enjoy getting comments form you to reply to..

ITW said that he had perhaps angered someone he usually agreed with, I was sortve maiing another joke.Not funny, ok. But personal to you??

ITW and I disagree alot. But, the few comments I made about Rand (not anyone here) have been blown way out of proportion. I have no idea why you have taken them so personally. You say that you think she was an awful person. (Rand—not anyone here!)You do seem to come off as “taching” quite as bit. Fine, when you used to just inform. Nowadays, you are so personally critical, that I have to wonder what has happened. I remember people disagreeing with you , as you now only allow ITW to do, and, your being a little more accepting.

No one likes to be lectured, unless theyre taking a class.

Peace, for gawd’s sake.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2009 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi I’m sorry but your comments strike me as quite reactive and adolescent. And weirdly patronizing.  If I want to reply to someone that is my preogative, I don’t wait for your permission. I never go to any trouble to make replies.  That is pretty obvious.  I have always welcomed constructive comments, when they have substance.  I even have disagreements but do not reduce myself to name-calling or treat anyone condescendingly.  Just as a cautionary, if you want to take my criticism as name-calling then I’m afraid you don’t have a very good grip.  What the f’ does spring break have to do with anything?  Well as you said, we have never met so it has to be something you said!  And what is this childish chatting with ITW over whether he and I get in a tussle? We are both grownups and can tussle if we wish, or not! I don’t think ITW worries about much but then I could be wrong.  You just seem to like to insinuate yourself and make irrelevant and mayyyybeee fiery comments.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 12, 2009 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

She—dont go to the trouble to reply to it , then. (“Check your premises!” What I say matters or it doesnt)Was it something I said, she, cause, see we’ve never met, and I dont think I ever insulted you personally. We just dont agree…jeeesh.  Just cant stop disciplining even on Spring Break…

ITW—Dont worry! If you and She get in a tussle, you can always agree on not agreeing with me and Folktruther! If your Greek mythologies start to clash, just fall back on what you both disagree with. You’ll always have that.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2009 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

ITW, I’ve no interest at all in what KDelphi does.  You can handle it.  My goodness, it is really quite minor and a waste of time.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 12, 2009 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, April 12 at 12:45 pm #

Oh, ITW, I have never accused you of all people of lying! That is Folktruther who does that, and I never believe it.  Thank your for the link and gee, I tried to cover most of the bases and hoped you, in your infinitely better wisdom than I, would fill in where I am faulted, again!  Yeah, Michael Wood would have been certainly another resource, but there is a tower of stuff to cover regarding Homer.  Sorry I don’t measure up to your standard of perfection.  I do beat my derriere for it though!  Was that self-depreciating enough?  I do recognize you like to show your dominance at just about everything.  How much bigger is your chest this time?
*************************************

I can deal with being wrong, I don’t like implications that I’m not truthful.  Now, why not see if you can figure out why the HELL KDelphi insists Rand was a Zionist?  I have NO idea where she got that from.

It amazes me how you can tick off even people who agree with you most of the time.  Like me. Must be a gift.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 12, 2009 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

Well Shenonemous, Dwight Baker not only likes you, he understands you! I just want him to understand and respond to me which doesn’t happen. Ah well mysteries still abound in this mysterious world. Others seem to understand what I write so I can’t necessarily blame myself this time.

Speaking of mythology, Shuan Ti is most mysterious and curious emperor of ancient China. He may or may not have been the fabled “Yellow Emperor” who lived on earth for some 100 years and instigated a rigid caste system and had machines (tripods) that appear to be of a technical nature (robots) and communicated with his home world via a booster beacon on the moon. Reputed to have four-eyes and some have speculated he was from the Regulan system and had come to earth to reigh for a time. A curious story to be sure and wonderful to use in fiction. I am still seeking more stories on him. Just a curious thing I have found by others. Bellitrix researcher I am.

Report this

By KDelphi, April 12, 2009 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

BTW—I did some reading up (No I will not read the entire Atlas) about Ayn Rand. I have determined that she was most certainly a Zionist. Whether that is good or bad is up to the individual.

Happy Easter, Passover or day to eat eggs or chocoalate or whatever you celebrate!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2009 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

Oh, ITW, I have never accused you of all people of lying! That is Folktruther who does that, and I never believe it.  Thank your for the link and gee, I tried to cover most of the bases and hoped you, in your infinitely better wisdom than I, would fill in where I am faulted, again!  Yeah, Michael Wood would have been certainly another resource, but there is a tower of stuff to cover regarding Homer.  Sorry I don’t measure up to your standard of perfection.  I do beat my derriere for it though!  Was that self-depreciating enough?  I do recognize you like to show your dominance at just about everything.  How much bigger is your chest this time?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 12, 2009 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous:

I didn’t lie about the History Channel, OK?  I JUST saw this show last night on HC.  Here’s a reference to the DVD.  Satisfied?

http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=70390&v=history_subject_religion
&SESSID=027be2d333e6ede9055809eecca275de

I found the EXACT name by looking in yesterday’s TV listing.

Not once do you reference Michael Wood and “The Search for The Trojan War.”

I’m familiar with Butler’s theory that Homer was a woman—it’s from the turn of the century and his translation is flowery and inaccurate.  He was tossing it out, I suppose to get himself to street cred and visibility.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2009 at 8:17 am Link to this comment

ITW:  It isn’t I who am holding the theory of a blind Homer.  Please direct your comments to all the historians who do hold that view.  I couldn’t care less if he could or could not thread a camel through an eye of a needle, had one eye like Cyclops, a hundred eyes like Argus Panoptes, or pissed on 10,000 trees.  Does it really matter to you that much?  Good grief.  No evidence against it either but for it are the many reports given by umpteen denizens of the time.  Why don’t you give up since you provide no evidence to the contrary.  Historian also argue he traveled during the Mycenaen period and was from various places of the Middle East.  I’m sure you and I could argue a myiad of theories on that topic.  As I pointed out, thank you, historians notoriously argue points especially ancient history where no records exist and conjecture comes from different sources.

Your comparison between Homer and Shakespeare regarding anonymous authorship of literary works is a continuously running joke that the Homeric poems were not written by Homer, but by another man of the same name?” For their oral provenance see the writings of Milman Parry.  One historian, Samuel Butler hypothesized a young Sicilian woman wrote the Odyssey (though not the Iliad), and this idea is also found in Robert Graves’ novel “Homer’s Daughter,” as well as Andrew Dalby in “Rediscovering Homer.”  Beliefs in what is not provable is so common it is comical.  Since Herodotus saw Homer as a rival, it is even quite possible he circulated stories about the rather obscure blind or not so blind poet.  You can read Hartog on the latter theory.  Some historians even say Homer did not exist, which I mentioned as well, but that the two great epics were written by a “committee.” Haha.  See Thomsa Slemen’s “Strange but True” chapter on Homer.  He reports the childhood of the young Homer, who were his parents and how he became blind.  Of course, surely Slemen’s scholarship must be wrong, right?  Calling “them” Homer might have suited the cognoscenti of the times.  The logic goes if there was no Homer there was no blind poet! 

Also check out Martin West and Gregory Nagy, historians of antiquity; “Homer” obviously, if he existed, traced his collection of stories from a wealth of traditional ‘oral’ stories.  Another historian you might checkout are Alfred Heubeck. As is often the case, names reveal character, which can more readily be seen in Native American Indian names.  It is theorized that Homer is a derivative of ho mê horôn which means “He who does not see.”  Others think it is signified from “Hómêréô”, another related verb, besides denoting “meet”, and Homer ‘known’ as a singing bard, can mean “to sing in accord or in tune.” Regardless someone had to put the tales together in a coherent form.  Two as it turns out.  There are other hypotheses which are available to investigation that do not have to be listed here as there is sufficient to show it is a contentious topic.  Without extant evidence, most of what we learn from mythologies we must infer what might have happened.  Archaeology sometimes helps towards a definitive knowledge, but even then it is iffy.

You are nearly right about Constantine’s political reasons to embrace Christianity but you gave it such short press that it is only a sound bite coming from you.  Hence a pronouncement rather than a piece of astute knowledge.  Also a common affliction of the commenters of blogs. Since I have studied it, I don’t need the better explication, but you would do service to others who might be visiting this forum.  I am unable to find any reference on the History Channel of the report of the tripartite miracle-experiences of the woman from Tecla.  It sounds like a story for skepticism if there was one, if you could provide more information I would appreciate it.  I found Leefeller’s verbal skit on it quite funny.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 12, 2009 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

While we are bringing up suppressed ideas, the game of baseball has used Homers name sanctimoniously for years. 

All thanks for the Homer History, it is always fun to learn something new especially from others, thank you.

One would ask why a person with the name Tecla was being burned at the stake?  They were just practicing, to see if they could do it, or was she trying out for the inquisition like on American Idol?  Of course the male lions vs the female lions story make sense, everyone knows female lions hunt for the food, while male lions lay around and act like the Pope.  I would like to know were they had a tank full of sharks for baptism, sounds like a practical Roman joke to me, along with the little known fact of a trail of set mouse traps on the way to the tank.

Paul Tecla, the confusion of she or he comes into question, Tecla may have been a cross dresser and the celibacy part was much appreciated by all concerened.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 12, 2009 at 6:43 am Link to this comment

D-B:

There was just LAST NIGHT on the History Channel an analysis of ALL the known scriptures that were in existence and suppressed by both the Council of Nicea and the Catholic Church. 

A particularly disturbing book suppresses was of Paul Tecla.  Tecla is an independent celibate woman who was (reputed) to be saved by God 3 times—when she was being burned at the stake, a cloudburst put out the flames.  When she was thrown into an arena with lions, not only did all the WOMEN in the audience, mostly pagans cheer for her while the men wanted her killed but a lioness put herself between Tecla and the male lions, protecting her.  Finally, when Paul refused to baptize her, she “baptized” herself, jumping into an entire tank filled with sharks…and a lightning bolt killed the sharks (how she wasn’t electrocuted is probably the TRUE miracle).  Apparently, in the early era, Tecla was the most important woman, barely second to Mary.

But since Tecla was a woman, implied that a woman COULD be a priest of Christ, was independent and not subservient, HER story was suppressed.  Not for God’s reasons, but for selfish mens’ reasons.

Another point they made was that the EARLIEST Christians weren’t a united sect—there were all kinds all in competition with each other and Constantine wasn’t responding to a recent issue but a 300 year old one.

Also, you should know that Constantine’s Christianity was nothing more than a cynical choice on his part to enhance his power.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 12, 2009 at 6:31 am Link to this comment

She:

Let go of the fiction that Homer was blind…it’s like “George Washington chopped down the cherry tree”...just a fable. No evidence of it.  And it’s meaningless.

There WAS writing in Greece called Linear B that existed from before the Trojan War, but the idea that ANY bard would know Linear B is hard to imagine. 

Remember: Homer is to Plato like Shakespeare or Marlow is to us—hundreds of years earlier.

Like Hamlet and Lear, the Iliad and Odyssey filled classical and Hellenic Greece with a whole cultural image they were coping with.  The stunningly beautiful plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides are, again, Greeks attempting to deal with the myths of Homer—like Tom Stoppard’s brilliant existential (and hilarious) take on Hamlet: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, written 400 years after Hamlet.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2009 at 12:53 am Link to this comment

Frank Goodman, Sr., before signing off for tonight (this morning), I wanted to make note of your contribution.

Giving your website link to Hebrew Mythology ample consideration, it turns out to be an amusement if one tries to find the home page of the web-owner. But nevertheless I checked out a number of the links listed at the top and found them interesting.  The author seems to give good references which always does my heart good.  Thank you as it provides an almost unending amount of information and further avenues for searching.  I still have to read what I‘ve printed out to absorb the literature and what it promises in terms of understanding.  What are your thoughts on the material?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2009 at 12:31 am Link to this comment

ITW:  Quite true what you say of Homer.  I see you have your literary harpoon out.  I like your Sooo let us continue with more minor criticism of our “blind” Homer, who I wasn’t really dismissing as much as talking about the nature of the mythology having a long oral tradition, textually written at a much later time.  Oral communication is more clear than written language, it is direct and gestures can be made to assist.  One of the primary senses of interpretation is to read, an action that takes place in the mind allowing a text to speak, to give written language a moment to revive the life of speech another time.

Traditionally Homer is portrayed as a blind minstrel wandering from place to place reciting poems that had come down to him from a very old oral tradition.  Several historians think that the two books as we now see them were not written by one person and were not put in writing until centuries after they took their present form.  Like much of investigative history, there are always disagreements about what happened, what certain people were “really” like, whether they were A students or C+ or flunkies.  The identity of Homer is one of those not settled.  Most historians think there was an actual Homer but not much is known or conjectured about his life.  His Greek name is Homeros, meaning hostage.  There is a theory good for another post about the origin of his name having to do with prisoners of war that might have some analogy to present history.

Most likely a great part of the epic tradition of the Illiad and Odyssey was constructed 200 or 300 years before Greece had an alphabet in the 800-700 B.C. So it is quite possible that Homer used earlier writings to help him, or he could have dictated his poems to someone else because of his blindness or because he was illiterate.  Whatever is the case, the stories of the two books were made consistent about the early 8th century B.C. making it easier for the reciters, the aoidoi, to perform at the festivals.  Reciting was a profession and some of the reciters were like rock stars. The structure of the poems were such that the rhythms and repetition of phrases facilitating the memorization.  Homer was the favorite of Ion, a reciter crafted for all eternity in a dialogue Plato named Ion.  We could go on another voyage, odyssey, about Plato and his works but that would take us very far afield.  Maybe some other time as I would most delight in that. Philosophers do not sit in lonely detachment, they They do not write books, they plant the seeds of love in the souls of man.  Plato, who himself was a poet gave up the art, had profound criticism of poetry and the arts in general as being devices of deception and exaggeration, the poets he said in the Ion are “interpreters of the gods.”  He particularly liked to jibe at Homer calling him an author of immoral narratives not fit for the education of children… One of his censures is Homer’s elaborate description of Hades in the Republic, “We must begin, then,...by cutting out all passages such as the following-‘...Ah then, it is true that something of use does survive even in the Halls of Hades, but with no intellect at all, only the ghost and semblance of a man,...”

In great literature there are several ways to read mining for everything that is there.  Setting the tales of the gods affecting and interacting with humans aside, Homer is a candidate for allegorical interpretation as well as grammatically for the language as used by the ancient Greeks. 

Homer was known for bringing riddles into his work. We all know the famous Riddle of the Sphinx and ironically, he supposedly died from not being able to answer one of his own riddles.  A likely story, but a great one.

ITW:  Taking advantage of the moment, I very much enjoyed your understanding “Homer” etc.  Thank you too. Maybe more another time.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 12, 2009 at 12:25 am Link to this comment

Now don’t go and get gushy DWIGHT.  Your persona on TD is more complex than you may think.  You seem extraordinarily calm and lucid in your very last posts.  There have been times when in your posts you seem most delirious, disorganized, off beam so to speak, in another place and even though you are writing something, it takes a great deal to see beyond the seemingly farrago. It seems you are trying to say things in simile or analogy but there are gaps and arcane phrases so that it is difficult to get to your meaning.  I even squint my eyes to read it again to see what did I miss?  For it does not congeal.  I ask “could this be on purpose?  What could he mean?”  Then, at other times, a rather different DWIGHTBAKER appears who puts things relatively coherent though sentence structure is anomalous.  When I read your posts I admit to thinking there is a second person writing, a second DWIGHT.  So let me try to reflect back a bit what you said.  You say you studied “with” a Hebrew Ph.D. 30 years ago.  You said you went to look for the truth not just to reinforce or fortify your already had beliefs.  That sounds like a worthy thing to have done.  My question, then, is, what conclusions did you come to from that study?  What truths?  Or Truth?  I assume the person you studied with was a Jew.  In what subject was his/her Ph.D.?  It seems when strong beliefs are held, it takes great fortitude to question them.  I call it slogging through heaps of self-reflections. I wonder if you would make a clear statement of what it is you are telling us.  BTW:  It is Joseph Campbell, not John.  I actually met and had an incredible conversation with Joseph Campbell once about Theseus, it was a remarkable experience.  I found your brief review of paganism to Christianity interesting and amazingly cogent.  Thank you.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 11, 2009 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment

Partly on the relationship between mythology, the books of religion, and Homer Simpson (possibly whose first name originally and allegedly came from a blind Greek bard of the same name, some say circa 850 b.c.).  Further meaning,,, The Homer of the epic poems did not actually “write” the stories but were written by later generations who wanted to preserve the fantastic tales of morality and immorality, and immortality. 
****************************************

Interesting assertion. “Homer”, whose name means something like “The Prisoner” was attributed to be blind much, much later and no serious scholar puts any stock in that part of the story.

To REALLY understand Homer’s two compositions is to understand how oral tradition hands down stories. The use of stock phrases “Rosy-fingered Dawn”, “bound sandals to his comely feet” (comely feet?  who sees a man’s FEET as anything more than a source of stinky socks?), “strode out looking like a god”, “When the inward meats were done”...“And each man had his fill”, etc, etc. act like a kind of mortar to the bricks of the story…a well-known story.  There a vase fragment in the Argos museum of the Blinding of Polyphemus, the cyclops, created in the early 7th century—no more than 200 years MAXIMUM after Homer reputedly lived.

http://seco.glendale.edu/ceramics/polyphemusdetail.html

Here is another version of the tale from the same museum on a different sherd.  I have a personal photo I took of this one, but this isn’t it!

http://www.sitesandphotos.com/catalog/actions-show/id-269808.html

So even if the tale of Homer isn’t vaguely true, we do KNOW that contemporary to the Odyssey, artwork was portraying it.

Then there are the mysteries: In the Iliad , Homer describes the fine, angled walls, that were buried 500 years before Homer’s earliest time and not seen again until the excavations of Dorpfeld and Blegen. Homer describes a weaker, older wall, found in the excavations—yet he could never have seen it.  There are other surprisingly accurate descriptions, like the AMAZING catalog of ships, many from places that had to be found.

Soooo, I think She’s dismissal of Homer is premature—not necessarily wrong, but not enough evidence to support it being right either.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 11, 2009 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment

I am taken by surprise, DWIGHTBAKER.  Not only do say you agree with what I said, can we be friends? you ask.  That has never been a request made of me, though I do have friends.  Since we are strangers, if you can be friends with an atheist, I can be friends with a Christian, to the whatever degree that might mean in the context of a TD forum.  Isn’t that what you mean?  I feel in some sense you presented a call to withdraw swords, but I am not one to have at the ready a (metaphoric) sword unless my personhood has been attacked.  My sword is usually sheathed.  I never ever mind sensible discussion of views different from mine.

Since I said quite a bit in my last post, you could say what it is you agree with!

Report this

Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.