1. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91859 by kade on November 29, 2007 at 1:11 pm

i agree with beth that sexual jealously, especially male sexual jealousy, is the cause of a good deal of violence.

and i know that it is incredibly irrational to want someone all for ourselves. i just don't see how these feelings can be rationalized away. the more i consider the question, the more i feel like a hypocrite for praising reason while harboring sentiments that are anything but reasonable.

in my experience, there is a moment in an intimate relationship in which my mind has ceased to "romp..like the mind of God", and there is what seems to be an irresitable urge to curb the promiscuous tendencies of her mind as well. of course, i would never use violence, or the threat of violence to do so.

and i treasure this moment, and i wouldn't trade it for the world. and on this point, to hell with rationality.

2. Christianity's Image Problem

Comment #76538 by kade on October 6, 2007 at 5:55 am

Only 44% of believers found Christianity confusing?

I have to give them some credit, because their cognitive faculties are much more deft than mine.

3. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70961 by kade on September 17, 2007 at 10:40 am

Bonzai-

I don't think there is a strong case for a "direct link" between violence and supernatural beliefs in general. I think a conversion to Jainism or Quakerism would tend to make one less violent.

Religion does tend to exacerbate conflicts, and sometimes is a direct cause of them. It does not follow that supernatural beliefs in general are malignant.

My point was that in a time when fundamentalists have the means and education to develop devastating weaponry, violent theologies are especially pernicious, even when the believers are small in number.

4. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70933 by kade on September 17, 2007 at 9:29 am

Yes, the point is not that all religous people are dangerous zealots, but that those that are dangerous zealots are a loud and lethal sort. It matters not that these people are a majority(though they certainly seem to be).

If even one person believes that his duty to God is to kill innocent non-believers, is that not one too many? If that one person, say had a Phd. and a unhealthy knowledge of commustible substances, would such a belief not warrant virulent widespread censure and reproach?

5. Enough religion. Stop shoving it down my throat

Comment #70407 by kade on September 15, 2007 at 11:15 am

"nobody, ever, has the right not to be offended."

I have not heard this particular sentiment put better.
However, I see this recent bout of squawking and squirming by religious folks to be a pathetic, though understandable and perhaps even romantic- were it not presented by such dreadful big-mouths as Bill Donohue-attempt to salvage some deference and decorum for a dying worldview that deserves neither.

6. The importance of doubt

Comment #66722 by kade on August 31, 2007 at 6:04 am

So did Graham Greene think the story of the resurrection was "authentic reportage" or "a powerful symbolic notion?"

Cornwell explains the entirely subjective way that Greene came to believe in the objective (or at least journalistic) truth of the story, and then goes on to say that he thought it was more symbolic than literal. My brain just fell out...I tried.

7. The kiss that brought immorality debate to a head

Comment #37691 by kade on May 5, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Maybe the president truly revered his teacher, and was not going to let some trifling tribal law curb his display of affection. This incident goes to show that teachers are venerated the world over, and that priests and educators will always be in conflict. Reminds me of a Victor Hugo quote....