Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Shuggy


251. Unorthodox Atheist

Comment #54142 by Shuggy on July 5, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Darcy wronte:

If our young friend wants to visit say the wikipedia page for Index Liborum Prohibitorum,
That's librorum, also known as the Index Expurgatorius.

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

- just one more outrage the Catholic Church will try to sweep under the carpet.

252. Unorthodox Atheist

Comment #54141 by Shuggy on July 5, 2007 at 3:19 pm

She also said that since the book was not in line with the school's curriculum, it was inappropriate for school. I then asked her what she meant by this: if I were to be reading it by myself on campus, would I be breaking a rule? According to her, yes. My English class is not allowed to read Grapes of Wrath because it was deemed unsuitable for non-AP classes by the school board. I happen to be a Steinbeck fan. I asked her if it would be inappropriate to read Grapes of Wrath in school. Her answer was, in my case, yes.
How can a place call itself a school that doesn't encourage reading as widely as possible?


("non-AP"?)

253. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #54140 by Shuggy on July 5, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Here in New Zealand, we've just had two series of tornadoes in three days - all in Taranaki, one of the most conservative provinces in the country. One on Wednesday wiped out - half a hardware warehouse. One did most damage in the town of Oakura, which is populated largely by retired people. I suppose God moves in a mysterious way....

254. At a Theater Near You ...

Comment #53994 by Shuggy on July 4, 2007 at 7:36 pm

Serious asked:

but has muslim *religious* leaders (as opposed to "community leaders") in the UK or elsewhere condemned the attacks?

I think not.
I don't understand Muslim leadership. It seems as though Muftis and Imams and Ayatollahs are all autonomous and can interpret the Qu'ran how they like - unlike ordinary Muslims. Now if they were Roman Catholic Jihadis, we'd know Whose Holiness to blame. Judaism seems to have the same non-hierarchy, but they've never been so disunited. I don't get it.

255. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53993 by Shuggy on July 4, 2007 at 7:20 pm

geckoman wrote:

It is particularly odd that Islam uses the promise of sex in Paradise as a reward, while it does everything to censure sexual practice on earth.
This suggests that a better tactic in the War on Terror might be to offer the pre-Jihadis their Paradisal reward here on earth and save them a lot of trouble. Sort of like the Flirty Fishing of the Children of God.

"Hey, Bomber-Boy, come over here and take off that vest (and everything else). Me and my 71 friends here can offer you everything they're promised, and you don't need to smear your liver and pancreas all over the road."


The Schuermannator wrote:
or the Celestial Teapot (much luv, Shuggy!)
Thanks Schuerman, but the credit belongs to Bertrand Russell.

256. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53875 by Shuggy on July 3, 2007 at 8:53 pm

I wonder if Thomas Sutcliffe reads this site:

41. Comment #53529 by Shuggy on July 1, 2007 at 11:55 pm
One diocesan bishop has even claimed that ... the introduction of pro-gay legislation, ha[s] provoked God to act by sending the storms that have left thousands of people homeless.
In other words, that Bishop's God is a homophobic, genocidal, capriciously malevolent bully. Um, now where have I heard those words before?
The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, according to senior Church of England bishops.
Isn't that exactly what the Jihadis say their works are? So can we add "terrorist" to RD's list?
Maybe I deserve a tipoff fee?

257. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53874 by Shuggy on July 3, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Science has helped me acquire a greater appreciation of God, the Supreme Designer and Creator of all that exists.
Interesting when the more we learn about nature through science, the less necessary any Designer or Creator becomes. If S/He/It/They used evolution to design us (or if S/He/It/They didn't), S/He/It/They chose a very inefficient, cruel and wasteful way to do it, and not do it very well. The "Supreme Designer and Creator" really goes with the 6000-year age and the earth at the centre, with man on top. Trying to have it both ways doesn't really work.

258. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53730 by Shuggy on July 3, 2007 at 12:33 am

Matthews is an idiot. He asked (in the last segment) "How do you [give your life in a war-front] without religion?" Hitchins said this insulted all those who fought for a secular constitution, and assumed that they would not have fought without religion. Matthews got all high and mighty about Hitchins not being God to know what Matthews' assumption was. Even Hitchins wasn't quick enough to say "You just told us."

259. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53553 by Shuggy on July 2, 2007 at 3:19 am

the great teapot asked

Does Sharpton not know that the s comes before the k in asked.
Where he comes from, it doesn't. This is only a problem if it leads to misunderstanding, as in "What's the time, Lizzie Borden?" "I don't know, I'll just aks Poppa."

260. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53529 by Shuggy on July 1, 2007 at 11:55 pm

One diocesan bishop has even claimed that ... the introduction of pro-gay legislation, ha[s] provoked God to act by sending the storms that have left thousands of people homeless.
In other words, that Bishop's God is a homophobic, genocidal, capriciously malevolent bully. Um, now where have I heard those words before?

The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, according to senior Church of England bishops.
Isn't that exactly what the Jihadis say their works are? So can we add "terrorist" to RD's list?

261. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53305 by Shuggy on June 30, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Single-handedly, Behe is taking on Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, John Maynard Smith and hundreds of their talented co-workers and intellectual descendants. Notwithstanding the inconvenient existence of dogs, cabbages and pouter pigeons, the entire corpus of mathematical genetics, from 1930 to today, is flat wrong. Michael Behe, the disowned biochemist of Lehigh University, is the only one who has done his sums right.
This, taken by itself, is just an appeal to authority. Everyone could be out of step except our Michael, the next Galileo. (Coupled with his publishing outside the peer-review framework, and his other egregious errors, though...) but
You think?
does cap it off nicely, and deserves to enter the memosphere (another great neologism) as an alternative to "Yeah, right." and "Not."


CJ22:
pwn3d
I (amazingly) understand and heartily agree, but don't see how that's an improvement on "pwned", since in predictive mode, you'd just hit "3[def]" twice for e, and - on a Nokia - have to hit it 4 times or hold it down for 3. (Or is "pwnd" - since the 3 is silent - constantly running away from comprehensibility?)

262. God Hates the World

Comment #53182 by Shuggy on June 30, 2007 at 2:20 am

I was going to say so too, Billy. I see from Google Maps that there's a Twatt in the Orkneys and on Shetland. Am I right that with 2 ts it's pronounced twaet (rhymes with cat), means "numbskull" and is only a little bit rude? I'm reminded of Ogden Nash's
The one-l lama is a priest,
the two-l llama is a beast,
and I will bet a silk pyjama
there isn't any 3-l lllama.

263. Rival to evolution may enter schools

Comment #53152 by Shuggy on June 29, 2007 at 5:12 pm

phasmagigas:

maybe it could include the 'wetapunga' cricket the worlds largest insect (well, one of them) in the discussion, afterall it means 'god of ugly things' if i remember correctly.

Wëtä are a kind of locust, and the wëtä punga (Deinacrida heteracantha) is indeed the giant wëtä. I have the greatest suspicion about this "god of ugly things" story: none of the references I could find have any authority; none of the several meanings of "punga" has anything to do with ugliness or gods. Wëtä is the name of the whole group of insects. The Mäori pantheon is very purposeful, as my first post indicated - what would a god of ugly things do or explain? Beauty is subjective and by many standards, the giant weta is a very handsome insect. My gut instinct says this is a modern myth, the kind of thing that tourist guides make up.

264. God Hates the World

Comment #53137 by Shuggy on June 29, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Just in case it gets lost, here again is Phelps' biblical justification for his stand, cut and pasted from the Westboro Baptist website,
http://www.godhatesfags.com/ :

# JESUS CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE.

* "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16.
* See also John 13:1, John 17:9, Ephesians 5:25, etc.

# ONLY GOD'S ELECT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO BELIEVE.

* "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." John 12:39,40.
* See also John 10:11,26, Matthew 11:25,26, Acts 13:48, Romans 9:19-24, etc.


In summary, sodomites are wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen. 13:13), are violent and doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19), are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22), are worthy of death for their vile, depraved, unnatural sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32), are called dogs because they are filthy, impudent and libidinous (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6; Phil. 3:2), produce by their very presence in society a kind of mass intoxication from their wine made from grapes of gall from the vine of Sodom and the fields of Gomorrah which poisons society's mores with the poison of dragons and the cruel venom of asps (Deut. 32:32,33), declare their sin and shame on their countenance (Isa. 3:9), are shameless and unable to blush (Jer. 6:15), are workers of iniquity and hated by God (Psa. 5:5), are liars and murderers (Jn. 8:44), are filthy and lawless (2 Pet. 2:7,8), are natural brute beasts (2 Pet. 2:12), are dogs eating their own vomit and sows wallowing in their own feces (2 Pet. 2:22), will proliferate at the end of the world bringing final judgment on mankind (Lk. 17:28-30), have been finally given up by God to uncleanness dishonoring their own bodies among themselves, to vile affections, and to a reprobate mind such that they cannot think straight about anything (Rom. 1:23-28), have wholly given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh (Jude 7), must be pulled as faggots from the fire (Jude 23), and have no hope of Heaven unless they repent (Rev. 22:15), which they can't do in their prideful state (Jer. 6:15). They need to hear this truth if they are to have any hope of penitence, faith in Jesus Christ and salvation (I Timothy 4:2-4).


I would still like to know if and why and how DR disagrees with any of this.

265. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #53008 by Shuggy on June 29, 2007 at 2:01 am

Writer: Rod Serling from the story "It's a Good Life" by Jerome Bixby, first published in the 1953 collection Star Science Fiction Stories No. 2.
Thank you, Wikipedia.

266. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #53006 by Shuggy on June 29, 2007 at 1:52 am

RabbitDynamite

Does anyone remember the twilight zone episode where everyone has too be happy in a town or a psychic boy will send them to the cornfield? That's what the fox news is like. Only with more stupid crap and patriotic chest-beating.
TemporaryAura
"It's a good thing you done, son, a real good thing.
Now wish it into the cornfield!"

I remember the story, but not on Twilight Zone. Wasn't it by someone like Ray Bradbury (Pohl? Sturgeon? Sheckley? - I'll goggle it in a minute and find out for sure), and called "It's a Good Day" I remember one of the things he turned someone into wasn't described, and that was the most frightening part of all.

267. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #53004 by Shuggy on June 29, 2007 at 1:44 am

Lamentz:

"The Miracle of childbirth" whenever i hear this statement im always reminding of the late Bill Hicks classic take on it.

"Childbirth is no more a miracle than going to the toilet and taking a crap...its a chemical reaction. End of story.

That's a bit of an oversimplification: topologically, the human body is a doughnut and craps are just what's left of the food that didn't make it through the walls, plus dead bacteria (and, presumably, live bacteria that didn't swim upstream fast enough).

On the other hand, the formation and then the detachment of the placenta, and the extraordinary transformation of the infant bloodstream within seconds of birth are, figuratively, miraculous - the miracle of evolution, with all its flaws. The extreme difficulty (and complexity) of human birth is an extreme example of the compromises that had to be made for us to have our extraordinary brains.

And the Catholic Church's answer to all those deaths in childbirth? "They've gone straight to Mary."

268. Egypt mufti says female circumcision forbidden

Comment #52994 by Shuggy on June 29, 2007 at 12:30 am

Gordon wrote:

To my knowledge this type of circumcision has been stopped.
Glad to hear it, but even the conventional kinds can be fatal, which is sort of worse than FGC.

Boy found dead after botched circumcision

A boy (15) has been found dead by fellow circumcision initiates near
Orange Farm, in the Vaal

June 25, 2007, 06:15
A 15-year-old boy has been found dead by fellow circumcision
initiates near Orange Farm, in the Vaal Triangle. Police say the boy was
among nine initiates circumcised by an illegal surgeon.

A postmortem will be conducted to establish the cause of death.

The other boys aged 15 and 16 have been sent home, while police
search for their surgeon. Yesterday, another initiate died in
Potchefstroom in the North West.

Since the start of the circumcision season, five initiates have died from
botched circumcisions in the Eastern Cape.

Yesterday, police arrested an initiation surgeon in connection with the
deaths of two of the five boys near Port St Johns. His accomplice, a
17-year-old boy who's believed to have run the illegal initiation school,
was arrested on Saturday.

Villagers believe witchcraft is to blame for the boys' deaths.

source: http://www.sabcnews.com/south_africa/crime1justice/0,2172,151431,00.html

Witchcraft, yeah, right.

Here's a followup to the original story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251426.stm
Egypt forbids female circumcision

269. God Hates the World

Comment #52949 by Shuggy on June 28, 2007 at 4:44 pm

we flee wrote:

106. Comment #52040 by Shuggy

" would hardly to be an exaggeration to say that RD and "Rev" Phelps are basically in agreement about the nature of the God of the Hebrew scriptures/Old Testament; "...one of the most unpleasant characters ... malevolent bully" only Phelps likes him. "


Again this is why the video was posted. RD and Phelps do believe in the same God.
RD does not believe in any God/dess/es! If DR hasn't understood that yet, one wonders what he thinks he's doing here.

They disagree about the same God. That's good. They're not at cross purposes. What's DR's problem with that?

I'm still waiting to see how DR justifies a theology that's any different from Phelps', given they use the same bible. I gave a whole raft of Phelps' quotes on an earlier page. How does DR rebut them, and "the Devil can quote scripture" doesn't cut it, because how are we outsiders going to tell the difference?
Dawkins needs the likes of Phelps to bolster his argument.
RD devotes precisely ONE paragraph of TGD to Phelps (pp 290-1). This is just silly: everyone picks the best examples of what they're arguing against to bolster their arguments. The question is, how does DR distance himself from Phelps?
Fundamentalists on both sides need each other.
How, exactly, does Phelps need RD? I don't know if he's ever mentioned him (Nor, so far as I know, did Falwell.) When your god hates America and you picket Coretta Scott King's funeral, you really don't need atheists.

270. Rudy Park Comic Strips

Comment #52705 by Shuggy on June 27, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Thanks, Fedler.

271. Sally on Sunday with Alister McGrath

Comment #52703 by Shuggy on June 27, 2007 at 8:18 pm

I won't download Real Player because it's so toxic. Please someone put it up as Quicktime or something.

272. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #52694 by Shuggy on June 27, 2007 at 7:09 pm

I never realised religious people took the "Life is a like a tin of sardines (it's very small and compact - and you can't seem to find the key)" sketch so literally.

The best of luck to him!

273. Rudy Park Comic Strips

Comment #52691 by Shuggy on June 27, 2007 at 6:51 pm

What's Maxim?

274. Rival to evolution may enter schools

Comment #52690 by Shuggy on June 27, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Intelligent design (ID) is one of a wide range of theories of origin currently taught as part of the Religious, Moral and Philosophy Studies (RMPS) SQA course,
I trust the theory of origin that Papatuänuku, the Earth Mother, and Ranginui, the Sky Father, were locked in an embrace until they were cruelly separated by their children, Täne (God of Forests and Birds), Rongo (cultivation and the peaceful arts) Haumia-tiketike (uncultivated foods) etc, over the opposition of Tawhirimatea (the God of Storms) and Tumatuaenga (God of War), will be given equal time on the Religious, Moral and Philosophy Studies (RMPS) SQA course, and doubtless there are indigenous Scottish theories, perhaps involving Ghoulies and Ghosties and Long-legged Beasties that ought also to be given equal time.

275. Egypt mufti says female circumcision forbidden

Comment #52675 by Shuggy on June 27, 2007 at 5:32 pm

It's ironic that Gordon was in the Yemen and his message has been followed by all those "NO! NO! Cutting little girls is oh so different from cutting little boys!" messages, because male circumcision in the Yemen was (at least in the 1920s) worse if anything. See
http://www.circumstitions.com/yemen.html

Here is the relevent section:

As will be seen from the accompanying photos, the whole of the skin from a point just below the umbilicus to the root of the penis, with all the hair-bearing area, and all the skin of the penis, as far as the scrotum, is removed. In some cases, as in photo No.2, a portion of the penile urethra is also removed, of course unintentionally. Several such cases of loss of a portion of the urethra, in one case fully one inch, have been treated at this hospital.

Case No.1, photo No.1, -- An Arab, aged 25, resident of Mugawiya, the slave of case No.2, was circumcised 12 years ago. The wound took about seven months to heal, resulting in left inguinal hernia, with extensive scarring. This man was operated on by Major M.S.Irani, I.M.S., the Acting Civil Surgeon, Aden, on 8th November, 1920, and was discharged cured on 25th November, 1920.

Case No.2, photo No.2, -- An Arab, aged 40, resident of Mugawiya, was circumcised 12 years ago. The wound took about two months to heal, resulting in urethral fistula two months after the operation, the fistula being situated at the root of the penis. This man was operated on 17th November, 1920, by Major M.S.Irani, I.M.S., The Acting Civil Surgeon, Aden, who secured a flap from the skin of the scrotum to form the floor of the urethra, taking over flaps from either side of the scrotum to cover up this inverted flap. The wound exhibited healthy signs of healing, but the man, being very anxious to see his native land, and, probably, his bride, left this hospital of his own accord, on 25th November, 1920, equipped with simple surgical dressings.

In short, MGC at its worst is worse than FGC at its "best", and as human rights issues, they are both the same.

Yes, it's good to see the Mufit of Egypt come out against FGC, but it's going to take a long time to eradicate the practice. Curiously, there is only one instance (a small tribe that gave up MGC) where there is FGC without MGC: clearly each "justifies" the other and if we could stop arguing about which is worse, we could eradicate both more quickly.

276. Egypt mufti says female circumcision forbidden

Comment #52419 by Shuggy on June 27, 2007 at 2:08 am

JonnyJ:

In regards to male circumcision, it is most definitely not the same thing as female circumcision,
They can be as similar as you want (eg surgical removal of the clitoral hood), but throughout the western world only the female operation is outlawed (except for pressing medical need), totally, and usually with explicit disregard for religion or culture. It's a complete double standard.
the procedure is not as dangerous
Dangerous enough:
http://www.pulsus.com/Paeds/12_04/Pdf/zwol_ed.pdf
sexual feeling or desire is not affected (once healed)
Feeling certainly is:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells
and there are some good reasons for doing it later in life like conditions such as phirmosis which are extremely common.
So do it later in life, when it's absolutely needed, which is very rare (lots of men are quite happy to have phimosis).
Also along my travels I've read about medical benefits such as lessening the liklihood of catching AIDs see below:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7791763
This has been widely debated elsewhere but in brief:
  • Cutting the studies short would lead to a spurious appearance of effectiveness
  • A greater proportion of circumcised men in Kenya got HIV than the control group in Uganda, so whatever they do in Uganda (such as campaigning against promiscuity) was more effective than circumcision
  • Circumcision is not cost-free or risk free
  • Some studies suggest that FGM would also reduce HIV
  • The circumcised men were treated very differently from the control group, possibly changing their behaviour
  • These scientific experiments may not replicate well in the field
  • It's going to be very hard to get the message clear, "this will have an epidemiological effect, but you are not now safe and must go on wearing the condoms"

277. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52284 by Shuggy on June 26, 2007 at 4:04 pm

The miracle of childbirth!? Is he (or was it she) kidding!? Tell that to all the millions of mothers and babies who have died in childbirth because peripelvic birth hasn't kept up with our enlarged cranium or bipedality.

See also
http://jitcrunch.cafepress.com/jitcrunch.aspx?bG9hZD1ibGFuayxibGFuazoxMzdfRl9vMS5qcGd8bG9hZD1MMCxodHRwOi8vaW1hZ2VzLmNhZmVwcmVzcy5jb20vaW1hZ2UvMTUyOTI2MjNfNDAweDQwMC5qcGd8fHNjYWxlPUwwLDM1NSwyNTYsV2hpdGV8Y29tcG9zZT1ibGFuayxMMCxBZGQsNjIsMTEyfGxvYWQ9bWFzayxibGFuazoxMzdfRl9tYXNrX28xLmpwZ3xjb21wb3NlPWJsYW5rLG1hc2ssTWFzaywwLDB8Y3A9cmVzdWx0LGJsYW5rfHNjYWxlPXJlc3VsdCwwLDQ4MCxXaGl0ZXxjb21wcmVzc2lvbj05NXw=

(or http://www.cafepress.com/wero.82544823)

278. Germany imposes ban on Tom Cruise

Comment #52271 by Shuggy on June 26, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Feuerbach:

Don't you people know that Tom Cruise has studied everything there is to know about psychology?

Flag as: [troll] [spam] [offensive]

I can't make up my mind which to flag it as.

279. Egypt mufti says female circumcision forbidden

Comment #52265 by Shuggy on June 26, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Deicide:

The Abrahamic faiths and the societies created or controlled by them have always been patriarchal in nature; if circumcision was truly damaging to male sexuality, these male-dominated societies would have gotten rid of the practice long ago.
Ritual circumcision is explicitly a way of taking the baby boy from the mother (that is part of the ceremony) and uniting him with the patriarchy. The question is not whether it damages sexuality (how could it not?), but whether the memetic benefit to the patriarchy is greater.
See http://www.circumstitions.com/meme.html for the memetics.
See http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html for its effect on sex.
See http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html for a comparison with FGM.

280. God Hates the World

Comment #52040 by Shuggy on June 26, 2007 at 2:25 am

http://www.godhatesfags.com/writings/20060331_god-loves-everyone-lie.pdf

is also relevant, but I warn you, there are 94 pages of it. It would hardly to be an exaggeration to say that RD and "Rev" Phelps are basically in agreement about the nature of the God of the Hebrew scriptures/Old Testament; "...one of the most unpleasant characters ... malevolent bully" only Phelps likes him.

281. God Hates the World

Comment #52038 by Shuggy on June 26, 2007 at 2:10 am

we flee wrote:

68. Shuggy thankfully brings some modicum of sense to the whole proceedings. Of course he is right. The Phelps completely negate the message of God loving the world – as every Christian believes.
Eek! What have I done? DR praises me! How can I be cleansed?

But I didn't say that. I asked if anyone (DR in particular) can explain how Phelps reconciles "You're not saved" with "For God so loved the world...". As for what "every Christian believes", if the Rev Phelps believes that Christ died for his sins, doesn't that make him a christian? If not, why not, and who says?

Since DR wouldn't help, I went to the horse's mouth, the Westboro Baptist website,
http://www.godhatesfags.com/:
# JESUS CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE.

* "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16.
* See also John 13:1, John 17:9, Ephesians 5:25, etc.

# ONLY GOD'S ELECT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO BELIEVE.

* "Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." John 12:39,40.
* See also John 10:11,26, Matthew 11:25,26, Acts 13:48, Romans 9:19-24, etc.


In summary, sodomites are wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen. 13:13), are violent and doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19), are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22), are worthy of death for their vile, depraved, unnatural sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32), are called dogs because they are filthy, impudent and libidinous (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6; Phil. 3:2), produce by their very presence in society a kind of mass intoxication from their wine made from grapes of gall from the vine of Sodom and the fields of Gomorrah which poisons society's mores with the poison of dragons and the cruel venom of asps (Deut. 32:32,33), declare their sin and shame on their countenance (Isa. 3:9), are shameless and unable to blush (Jer. 6:15), are workers of iniquity and hated by God (Psa. 5:5), are liars and murderers (Jn. 8:44), are filthy and lawless (2 Pet. 2:7,8), are natural brute beasts (2 Pet. 2:12), are dogs eating their own vomit and sows wallowing in their own feces (2 Pet. 2:22), will proliferate at the end of the world bringing final judgment on mankind (Lk. 17:28-30), have been finally given up by God to uncleanness dishonoring their own bodies among themselves, to vile affections, and to a reprobate mind such that they cannot think straight about anything (Rom. 1:23-28), have wholly given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh (Jude 7), must be pulled as faggots from the fire (Jude 23), and have no hope of Heaven unless they repent (Rev. 22:15), which they can't do in their prideful state (Jer. 6:15). They need to hear this truth if they are to have any hope of penitence, faith in Jesus Christ and salvation (I Timothy 4:2-4).

(My emphasis)

I think he's saying that by letting us gay folk be, the rest of you are condemned, whatever else you believe.

(I wouldn't even know where to find the grapes of gall...)

(Certainly, that Phelps is overcompensating for his own suppressed sexuality sounds about right to me - cf Ted Haggard)

282. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #52027 by Shuggy on June 26, 2007 at 1:12 am

What if a doctor decides for purely secular reasons that life begins at conception, or that human rights begin at conception? (I happen to disagree, but that's not relevant) While the Moral Zeitgeist is a good guide a lot of the time, it isn't all the time. There is a real dilemma here. (At the same time, these doctors seem to have behaved like Little Tin Gods.)

283. Supreme Court nixes suit over faith-based plan

Comment #51992 by Shuggy on June 25, 2007 at 8:32 pm

dlitt

avatar
With the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, President Bush says he wants to level the playing field. Religious charities and secular charities should compete for government money on an equal footing.

I guess the Freedom From Religion Foundation should apply for some of that federal pie.
"Some"? Half! Didn't they just say "equal footing"?

284. God Hates the World

Comment #51969 by Shuggy on June 25, 2007 at 5:46 pm

The orginal song was made famous by that well-known Christian father, Michael Jackson, and their parody might breach his copyright, or Sony's.

285. God Hates the World

Comment #51960 by Shuggy on June 25, 2007 at 5:01 pm

eirik said:

Dr. Dawkins has often used Steven Weinberg's famous quote about how it takes religion for good people to do evil; these loonies are evil people doing evil, and I think their religiosity is somewhat beside the point.
But in everything but this they are not evil people - the Thoreau doco shows they are Stepford Wives, basically good people with just this one crazed block of sh!t in the middle of their thoughtstream.

What I think underlines RD's point about child abuse is not so much the little girl, appalling as she is, because she obviously doesn't understand half the words she's singing and she may grow out of it, but the adults, old enough to know better, but brainwashed, half of them, by being brought up by Phelps.

Does anyone know how they reconcile this with John 3:16 - "He used to love the world but we did too much fag-enabling and now He's given up on us"? If so, when did that happen, and did He not put out some sort of warning? If so, what was it? Does DR (claim to) know?

286. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51785 by Shuggy on June 25, 2007 at 12:00 am

PaulEmecz wrote:

Inexorable - adjective, impervious to pleas, persuasion, requests, reason; "he is adamant in his refusal to change his mind" WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

I think, Shuggy, you do Mr Blackford a disservice. I would be very disappointed if this forum represented people who were 'impervious to reason'.

It was a very competent reply, Russell.

Of course I agree with your last statement.

The Shorter Oxford says "Unable to be moved or persuaded by entreaty or request (esp. for mercy), rigidly severe; immovable, relentless (lit. & fig.)." The meaning I had in mind was "unable to be resisted". Perhaps I should have qualified with "logically inexorable" but I claim a little flexibility in view of the context.

287. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51776 by Shuggy on June 24, 2007 at 10:01 pm

Russell Blackford - very well argued. I wish more posts were as inexorable as this.

288. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51757 by Shuggy on June 24, 2007 at 5:53 pm

ferfuracious wrote

"The omnipotent author of The Ten Commandments presumably doesn't worry about what people think,"


Allemang should have actually read the commandments, specifically:

""I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me..."

"Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

"Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..."

"Remember [zachor] the Sabbath day and keep it holy"
Huh? Proves his point. None of those shows any sign of worrying what people think, just orders them to think some other way. Especially "Thou shalt not covet", ie, thou shalt not want what thou wantest, a thoughtcrime impossible not to break.

If I'd been Moses and God said "I brought you out of the house of slavery" I'd say "Took your time about it, didn't you? Maybe if you hadn't sent all those plagues first AND hardened Pharaoh's heart, Pharaoh wouldn't have followed and we'd still be on good terms."

289. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51745 by Shuggy on June 24, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Kaiserkriss wrote:

Harper on the other hand is a pragmatist, who grew up in Ontario and moved to Alberta.
This is something I don't know about Canadian geography - what makes it pragmatic to move from Ontario to Alberta? I had the impression there were a fair few pragmatic people still in Ontario...

[Stockwell Day']s belief is equivalent to believing that the width of North America, from shall we say New York to San Francisco, is 7.8 yards
I have illustrated this (using an earlier figure - 28 feet) and it's on products at
http://www.cafepress.com/wero/2420941

290. In the name of the Father

Comment #51459 by Shuggy on June 23, 2007 at 2:17 am

He seems to think that religion is the root of all evil. It isn't.
Does he anywhere say "all" evil? I'd say of all people, CH is aware of other sources of evil.
The problem lies with us, especially when we are organised in groups with a dominant ideology, whether secular or religious.
So what's his solution? That we re-organise into groups without a dominant ideology, or not into groups, or abolish ourselves?

291. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51399 by Shuggy on June 22, 2007 at 4:21 pm

I wrote:

Aseity is asinine (and in a moment I'll think of another semi-homphonous adjective).
and Pewkatchoo offered
ARSEITY surely! The art of being a total retentive with no outside help
Thank you, I was too polite to think of it. And the adjective will be "arseitious"?

Aseity is arseitious. I like it.

Actually, Biz is just rewording Anselm's Ontological argument, refuted on TGD p80.

292. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51210 by Shuggy on June 22, 2007 at 12:48 am

Bizzaro Dawkins blurted:

To ask who created God is to ask who created an entity that by definition must possess aseity, or the property of non-contingency. The question makes no sense.

If the property makes no sense, the existence of the entity makes no sense. Aseity is asinine (and in a moment I'll think of another semi-homphonous adjective).

293. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51207 by Shuggy on June 22, 2007 at 12:40 am

I wonder, reading this, if there shouldn't be a codicil or subclause to Godwin's Law: Anyone who compares their opponent to Hitler* has lost the argument.

*or the Inquisition.

I think it is ironic that he does so given the incumbent Vicar of Christ on Earth, Pontifex Maximus His Holiness (what does that mean?) Joseph Ratzinger aka Benedict XVI stepped up from the direct lineal descendent of the Inquisition, the College for the Propagation of the Faith.

While the Inquisition no longer actually consigns heretics to the secular arm to be burnt, does it still claim the right to do so? Does anyone know? After all, the Catholic Church never actually admists it was wrong, it just consigns its old doctrines to Limbo.

294. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #50953 by Shuggy on June 20, 2007 at 4:30 pm

I like "Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime" too, so it's available as a bumpersticker, on mugs and T-shirts etc at http://www.cafepress.com/wero/3168086

295. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #50792 by Shuggy on June 20, 2007 at 2:27 am

AdrianB wrote:

I suspect the employer's Internet Police might get me with links like that!

That site always gives you warnings before it shows you any NSFW pictures, but it does use words like p*n*s and f*r*sk*n.

296. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #50720 by Shuggy on June 19, 2007 at 4:17 pm

AdrianB wrote:

It's a meme pure and simple.
Neither pure nor simple, it has elaborated itself into a memeplex:

http://www.circumstitions.com/meme.html

See especially the diagram

http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/meme-c-6.jpg

297. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #50586 by Shuggy on June 19, 2007 at 12:07 am

somersetsimon wrote:


I heard somewhere that the correlation between circumcision and AIDS prevention was statistical - there was no medical explanation. It's possible that the sort of men who were circumcised had different sexual habits that those who weren't.

The latest studies were Random Controlled Tests, ie they got a group of HIV- intact men and circumcised half of them at random then counted how many became HIV+. However: -
  • the tests were not (of course) double or even single blind, making them subject to experimenter effects, and there's no doubt that everyone involved very much wanted circumcision to be effective
  • Just taking part in a scientific project makes people behave differently. In the field, the effect is not likely to be so great
  • no effort was made to ensure the two groups were treated identically apart from the circumcision itself: the circumcised men were warned not to have sex for weeks after the operation and then to use condoms. Coupled with a painful and appearance-changing operation, that could well have affected their subesquent behaviour
  • The circumcised men in Uganda got HIV at a greater rate than the intact men in Kenya, so whatever else they do in Uganda is more effective than circumcision - probably their campaigns against promiscuity.
  • The tests were cut short because circumcision was looking good. If they'd been allowed to go full term, it might not have seemed so effective.

298. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #50560 by Shuggy on June 18, 2007 at 6:45 pm

thebigredmachine wrote:

It just so happens there seems to be legitimate reasons for subjecting infant males to the procedure in the absence of religion.
Protecting them against HIV 15+ years hence isn't one of them. With the high infant mortality in sub-Saharan Africa, the money and effort would be better spent making sure they survive till then.

You need to read "A Surgical Temptation" by Robert Darby
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226136450/intactivism .
He unravels the rise of circumcision and demonisation of the foreskin in 19th century England, from which the US took its cue. Many of the bogus claims still being made today had their origins then, and much of the "science" is no better.


Something I learnt from that book was that masturbation was so hated and feared that boys at public schools would be flogged and expelled if they were caught at it, losing their chance at a good education and a place in the Establishment. No wonder the middle and upper classes grasped at circumcision in the hope of protecting their sons from such a devastating loss.

For the intersection between Jewish circumcision and the US medical procedure, see "Marked in your Flesh" by Leonard Glick,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019517674X/intactivism

299. The Great God Debate

Comment #50419 by Shuggy on June 18, 2007 at 2:52 am

HH: But in your account of Socrates which I found compelling…

CH: …just extraordinary claims are made that are not verifiable, but extraordinary demands are made in their name upon us, which hold that because of this, there are things we mustn't do and things we must.

HH: Well, Socrates would make the demand upon…

HH is confusing the question whether Socrates lived, with whether the beliefs attributed to Socrates (such as the sinfulness of eating beans) were true.

The claim that a man lived who annoyed hell out of the Athenians by asking them questions they couldn't answer and then saying he couldn't either, so much so that they had him put to death to shut him up (and because he was inciting young people against their fragile democracy) is not an extraordinary claim. The claim that a man lived who was born of a virgin, was the son of god, performed miracles and rose from the dead is an extraordinary claim. Threatening people with Hell for not believing it does not make it any more true.

300. The Great God Debate

Comment #50089 by Shuggy on June 15, 2007 at 2:10 am

... the Gnostic Gospels almost have nothing that has to do with the actual life of Jesus. They're filled with all kinds of theology which if you believe it, you would believe to be quite inspired, and if you don't, you'd believe it to be quite silly. But they have virtually nothing to say about the historical life of Jesus.


The same could be said of the Letters of "St" Paul.
---
I don't think anyone who's read I F Stone's "The Trial of Socrates" would admire him.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Next