 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.mrwiggleslovesyou.com/comics/rehab477.jpg
Well, some more firewood. It's genuinely fun though. :)
as was this (though I think I saw it here first):
http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/omnipotent-beings-correcting-their-mistakes.png
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:12:51 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> http://www.mrwiggleslovesyou.com/comics/rehab477.jpg
>
> Well, some more firewood. It's genuinely fun though. :)
>
> as was this (though I think I saw it here first):
> http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/omnipotent-beings-
correcting-their-mistakes.png
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> http://www.mrwiggleslovesyou.com/comics/rehab477.jpg
>
> Well, some more firewood. It's genuinely fun though. :)
>
> as was this (though I think I saw it here first):
>
http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/omnipotent-beings-correcting-their-mistakes.png
The cartoon mocks a Theology of Glory, a self-centered, Antinomian one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> The cartoon mocks a Theology of Glory, a self-centered, Antinomian one.
>
Perhaps. But, the reason it is pertinent is that while "some" may not
see it as the "correct" theology, its really hard to find many that
don't, on some level. There is even a concept dubbed, "Poe's Law", which
basically states that it is fundamentally impossible to make up
something absurd to mock religion, which some religious person, or often
group of people, don't **already** believe. For some of us, it kind of
calls into question the whole precept that their *is* a right way, and
that everyone isn't pretty much making things up as they go, then making
up more things to "explain" how what ever religion they claim to belong
to "fits" those made up ideas. To date, no one has been able to come up
with one "consistent" version or "any" religion, which didn't include at
least something that self contradicted, showed some level of irrational
hate towards some other group, or just flat out turned my stomach due to
its injustice and irrationality, with the possible exception of the
borderline "deist" types, who seem to cling to the idea of religion, out
of fear, tradition, or belonging, but otherwise differ from people like
me only in the same way that say someone else's mother differs from
mine, with regard to insisting on collecting teddy bears.
But, and this is important, the only reason such people are considered
"annoying" to people like me, is that they will all too often pick the
"vague" religion is good message up, and side with complete wackos, who
do believe things like those in the comic, because its easier to side
with the person "defending" the vague idea of religion, and take a look
at what they **mean** by religion and whether or not you really agree
with them about all the more **important** details of what they would
like the world to be like. Given the choice between, say, electing me to
office or some American version of Bin Laden, **most** will vote for the
later, out of defense of "faith", than will conclude that we are much
better off under a *possible* Nietzsche, than a *definite* Charles Manson.
If they stopped voting for the idiots, I wouldn't mind if they believed
in the Lords or Kobal, for all it would matter in the real world. But
they keep voting for people that think its 1309, not 2009, because,
"Well, at least they believe in the supreme ruler of the universe".
Yeah, but... that is *not* the thing(s) I, or anyone else on my side,
find the most irritating, its just what *they* claim we are so pissed
off about, to get you to side with them instead. Its bait and switch.
Any offense at all, including advocating murder and genocide (if not
committing it), can be trumped, in the minds of **too many people**, by
simply saying, "But, they hate religion, and want to ban it!", never
mind that the first parts is "because" of such behavior, and has nothing
to do with whether god exists or not, and the later is a blatant lie.
So, so long as Poe's law applies, and you literally can't "invent"
anything stupider than some believer already thinks is true, someone
needs to be printing cartoons to show just how stupid such thinking
actually is, and people like you will be showing up to babble, with all
evidence pointing to you being dead wrong, that, "Real believers are
nothing like that." Check again. Every poll ever taken, by "everyone"
shows that "most" believers think god is a vending machine, and more
than half of them think that said vending machine will pay off like a
slot machine if you push all the right buttons in life, or strike people
down some place else, in punishment, if they push the wrong ones. Right
or wrong, (and how do you really prove they are not, given that a
literally reading would imply they are, in a lot of cases), any other
form of "belief" is as much a minority as those that reject the whole
thing as insane in the first place.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
whoa, good thing it was just a cartoon, not an essay.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> whoa, good thing it was just a cartoon, not an essay.
Yes, well.. lol
Its hard to "explain" just why, "Its only mocking some 'silly' version
of religion, not a real one!", is stupid, without pointing out just why
it is, and thus, why you need such cartoons "to" point out how silly
such views are. Much like other stuff, say.. sciences that some people
don't like, it takes longer to explain why someone missed just *one*
point, than it takes for them to come up with 50 random points, and
claim those points disprove the concept, while getting even the "basics"
about them *completely* wrong.
Shorter version, "It takes almost no time for someone to crash a car,
but days to teach them how to build one, never mind *why* it works in
the first place."
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You place a lot of value in the predictive value, knowing what someone is about
based on subscription to a school of thought. There is little predictive value
for example, in knowing someone's worldview when they say they are a fan of
Martin Luther King, Jr.. Over the past decade or two, you had everyone from
Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott to Reverend Wright paying him some sort of lip
service or using his words to advance an end. But is there "no right way" of
looking at King's legacy? Does that mean that King's legacy has no specific
meaning to the informed person if Poe's law applies to his followers as well?
Come to think of it, Poe's law could also apply to descriptions of the working
of the internal combustion engine!
I never said the view of the cartoon wasn't a real or popular viewpoint. I'll go
out on a limb and say it could be a fairly accurate assessment of too many of
those who have cash to spend on TV shows. But realize that a sarcastic
student of the Theology of the Cross could make the same cartoon, just with
labels other than "Christian" and "Atheist".
Suppose you're driving down a road and see, at the same time, a speed limit sign
saying "40 MPH", a family of ducks, and a bunch of first-graders crossing the
road. Do you say, "I know that this sign is the accurate portrayal of the will
of the Mayor, therefore I can be assured he wants me to drive under 40 MPH
whenever I wish." You plow through the ducks and kids at 39.99 MPH. You only
looked at the law as an excuse to be an a-- and advance your own self
interests. You didn't turn over a few pages in the handbook and see the law
that says, "Oh yeah, don't run over kids and ducks, either." THAT is how the
Religious Right misuses the law of God.
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> gregjohn wrote:
> > The cartoon mocks a Theology of Glory, a self-centered, Antinomian one.
> >
>
> Perhaps. But, the reason it is pertinent is that while "some" may not
> see it as the "correct" theology, its really hard to find many that
> don't, on some level. There is even a concept dubbed, "Poe's Law", which
> basically states that it is fundamentally impossible to make up
> something absurd to mock religion, which some religious person, or often
> group of people, don't **already** believe. F
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> I never said the view of the cartoon wasn't a real or popular viewpoint. I'll go
> out on a limb and say it could be a fairly accurate assessment of too many of
> those who have cash to spend on TV shows. But realize that a sarcastic
> student of the Theology of the Cross could make the same cartoon, just with
> labels other than "Christian" and "Atheist".
>
True, but.. frankly, I would say that its a "lot" easier to keep the
"atheist" part and just tack on any other religion in place of the
former. And, you seem to miss my point. Its not the, "popular viewpoint
of those who have cash to spend on TV shows.", its the popular view
"period". If anything, the ones with neither cash to spend, nor a TV to
spend it on, are, if anything, worse, since they are far more insular,
less exposed to alternate views, and ***far*** more likely to subscribe
to the "literal truth", of what ever sub-cult of their religion they
happen to follow in their home town. The problem isn't what labels are
used, the problem is that if you put 100 random people in a room, 70 of
them will match the "Christian" or "Muslim", or what ever, in the cartoon.
> Suppose you're driving down a road and see, at the same time, a speed limit sign
> saying "40 MPH", a family of ducks, and a bunch of first-graders crossing the
> road. Do you say, "I know that this sign is the accurate portrayal of the will
> of the Mayor, therefore I can be assured he wants me to drive under 40 MPH
> whenever I wish." You plow through the ducks and kids at 39.99 MPH. You only
> looked at the law as an excuse to be an a-- and advance your own self
> interests. You didn't turn over a few pages in the handbook and see the law
> that says, "Oh yeah, don't run over kids and ducks, either." THAT is how the
> Religious Right misuses the law of God.
>
Sigh.. The problem is.. Well, this isn't wrong, its, as one person
phrased it, "Not even wrong". I.e., to be wrong, you at least have to be
in the same ball park as the truth. They hand pick all the bits they
"want" to be true, ignore all the parts they don't like, then shape
theology to what "they" want. So do you. Your world view just happens to
be more sane and humane than theirs is. See.. Lets take the whole Sodom
and Gomorrah thing, since that came up recently, when someone asked,
"What exactly what it they did there, which wasn't the same?" You might
opt to assume that the visiting angels where just treated really rudely.
Why, because the OT God might have smited two cities off the face of the
earth for something as dumb as clipping your toenails in public. It
isn't necessary to "read" or "imagine" anything else into it. You
"might" look a little harder and decide that these people where like
hippies, or something, and God didn't like their sexual freedom, pot
smoking, drinking, and general excess. That is also a legitimate
interpretation. But, the right, and everyone their "interpretation" was
derived from had to take the "literal" wording, and reinterpret it into
a pretzel, so that they could shoehorn on some other statements, made in
Leviticus, and turn those into a bit of a pretzel too, to get, "They
where having gay butt sex." While trying to find something on the
subject, I came across one of their "explanations". The entire thing
was, "Well, the Hebrew word blah means this, but we know it didn't mean
it in this case, and such and such a line could read to say this, but we
can conclude that it didn't, because, well, it would screw up our
conclusion, and so other bit *could be* read as saying this other thing,
but, of course, that wouldn't fit what we want it to say, therefor the
only *logical* conclusion is that they where punished for the Gay stuff!"
Your version is, as I said, more humane, but you are doing the same
thing. Jesus does something **completely** insane, like punishing a tree
for not bearing fruit and its allegory, which is only meant to show such
and such, not what "should" be done, or how you "should" act of
something/someone doesn't obey you. Yeah, you talked about slavery once
in a while, but its just morality lessons, and your are "supposed to
ignore" the fact that he opted to use slaves as an example, instead of
someone else. And so on.
I would much rather have you as a neighbor, than the wacko that did the
other right wing version of apologetics, but, neither of you is basing
your "morality" on religion. You are basing your religion on morality.
Which is why *you* would avoid running over the ducks and children,
while *they* would quite happily run them over, if they happened to also
see a sign saying, "God hates jaywalkers! BSticus 4:54", just before
spotting them. Their morality is that compassion is for those that
"conform", and the greatest compassion you can show for those that don't
is to either a) convert them, or b) save someone else from them. They
really don't "get" the concept at all. To them, as an example, the death
of half of someone's family in a plane crash is, "Gods way of saying you
shouldn't have run a lot of abortion clinics.", while, if the same
over-weight plane had been carrying 20 right wingers, it would be,
"God's will that they where in heaven, and a horrible tragedy." Empathy,
compassion, sanity, are all foreign concepts to people deep in the
throws of the belief that saving souls, converting heathens, and
absolute obedience to arbitrary authority lie at the "center" of moral
thought. Piety replaces everything human for these people, and is
believed, by not just the 10-15% on the far right, to be more important
than anything else, but also 60% of the "moderates". And, the joke is,
piety is no more "definable" without resorting to human arguments, human
derived morality, and human compassion and decency, than it was during
the age of Plato and Aristotle. Its a nonsense word, like tacking
"freedom" onto "fries", rather than "french" in order to somehow
"change" what the "fries" are. It doesn't change what is being
described, or how you make it, it just applies a meaningless label to
it, in an attempt to make an emotional appeal to it being "different" in
some qualitative sense.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
