--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
In the democracy of the blind, only the blind are eligible for the job.
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:47:45 GMT
Joe, that's the most ignorant subject line I've ever seen you post. I'm
disappointed.
Christianity does not equal fundamentalism. There are 159 million
self-identifying Christians in the United States, representing 76.5% of
the population. Only 20 to 30 percent of those Christians are
evangelical fundamentalist Protestants.
If you actually look at the link you posted instead of just jerking your
knee, you'll notice that "occasional" church-goers actually favored
Kerry by a margin of 53% to 47%. Church-going Christians. Do you hate
*them*?
Fully 41% of weekly church-goers, and 35% of "more than weekly"
church-goers, favored Kerry. Do you hate *them*?
Fundamentalism -- fundamentalist evangelical Christianity -- is the
enemy, not Christianity.
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:24:02 -0800
--------
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:47:45 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
wrote:
>Zapanaz wrote:
>> http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
>
>Joe, that's the most ignorant subject line I've ever seen you post. I'm
>disappointed.
>
>Christianity does not equal fundamentalism. There are 159 million
>self-identifying Christians in the United States, representing 76.5% of
>the population. Only 20 to 30 percent of those Christians are
>evangelical fundamentalist Protestants.
>
>If you actually look at the link you posted instead of just jerking your
>knee, you'll notice that "occasional" church-goers actually favored
>Kerry by a margin of 53% to 47%. Church-going Christians. Do you hate
>*them*?
>
>Fully 41% of weekly church-goers, and 35% of "more than weekly"
>church-goers, favored Kerry. Do you hate *them*?
>
>Fundamentalism -- fundamentalist evangelical Christianity -- is the
>enemy, not Christianity.
Look at the big picture.
White, male, Christians elected Bush.
Look through the whole survey, what picture does it form? Not just
the religious statistics, the whole thing. Christians are a majority
of Bush voters, so we know a majority of Bush voters are Christians.
And so in the rest of the statistics where you see Bush voters you are
also looking mostly at Christians. You are seeing what they stand
for.
You might very well have a more sophisticated, reasonable view of
Christianity than many Christians, but don't think you're in the
majority among Christians. Open your eyes. Outside of the immediate
circle of people you know personally or through personal contact, what
do you see when you see a Christian?
They are clinging to a fantasy world where white is right and rules
the world. Where nobody is gay or gets abortions. Leave it to
Beaverland. Where Our way of life is the standard the world lives by
and all those heathen foreigners are a bunch of little Gunga Dins,
starry-eyed with their love of the noble White Man and willing to die
for him.
Where nobody gets high or does ANYTHING that they can't make sense out
of. Where nobody listens to any music more controversial than Pat
Boone or watches movies that aren't Fun for the Whole Family.
That isn't HOW they are, that's WHAT they are. People aren't like
that because they are Christians, they become Christians because they
are like that.
Yes, there are exceptions, but they are not the majority.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
That simple minded sfb snorted enough coke to build bin
Laden's mountain fortress. Let's see him stand before a
wartime tribunal.
- John Starret
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:41:07 GMT
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:47:45 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
> wrote:
>
>>Zapanaz wrote:
>>> http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
>>
>>Joe, that's the most ignorant subject line I've ever seen you post. I'm
>>disappointed.
>>
>>Christianity does not equal fundamentalism. There are 159 million
>>self-identifying Christians in the United States, representing 76.5% of
>>the population. Only 20 to 30 percent of those Christians are
>>evangelical fundamentalist Protestants.
>>
>>If you actually look at the link you posted instead of just jerking your
>>knee, you'll notice that "occasional" church-goers actually favored
>>Kerry by a margin of 53% to 47%. Church-going Christians. Do you hate
>>*them*?
>>
>>Fully 41% of weekly church-goers, and 35% of "more than weekly"
>>church-goers, favored Kerry. Do you hate *them*?
>>
>>Fundamentalism -- fundamentalist evangelical Christianity -- is the
>>enemy, not Christianity.
>
> Look at the big picture.
>
> White, male, Christians elected Bush.
>
> Look through the whole survey, what picture does it form? Not just
> the religious statistics, the whole thing. Christians are a majority
> of Bush voters, so we know a majority of Bush voters are Christians.
> And so in the rest of the statistics where you see Bush voters you are
> also looking mostly at Christians. You are seeing what they stand
> for.
A majority of Kerry voters are Christians, too. It's more complicated
than I think you want it to be.
> You might very well have a more sophisticated, reasonable view of
> Christianity than many Christians, but don't think you're in the
> majority among Christians. Open your eyes. Outside of the immediate
> circle of people you know personally or through personal contact, what
> do you see when you see a Christian?
Well, see, I'm surrounded by fundamentalists. The city I happen to live
in for the time being just so happens to be where one of the most insane
fundamentalist denominations, the Assemblies of God, has their "world
headquarters."
So I try not to make broad judgments about all of Christendom based upon
the actions of the fuckwits around me.
Fundamentalist evangelistic American Protestants are a very, very small
minority within Christianity, just as militant jihadist Saudi terrorists
are a very, very small minority within Islam.
You're picking the wrong battles.
> They are clinging to a fantasy world where white is right and rules
> the world. Where nobody is gay or gets abortions. Leave it to
> Beaverland. Where Our way of life is the standard the world lives by
> and all those heathen foreigners are a bunch of little Gunga Dins,
> starry-eyed with their love of the noble White Man and willing to die
> for him.
>
> Where nobody gets high or does ANYTHING that they can't make sense out
> of. Where nobody listens to any music more controversial than Pat
> Boone or watches movies that aren't Fun for the Whole Family.
>
> That isn't HOW they are, that's WHAT they are. People aren't like
> that because they are Christians, they become Christians because they
> are like that.
>
> Yes, there are exceptions, but they are not the majority.
You're clinging to a fantasy world where you're able to believe what you
want to believe about a very broad group of people who actually have
precious little in common. I'll show your viewpoint more respect when
you can explain to me how it makes you different from a NASCAR-loving
Pabst-addicted wife-beater who thinks all Muslims are terrorists.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:13:40 GMT
--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
> Zapanaz wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:47:45 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Zapanaz wrote:
> >>> http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
> >>
> >>Joe, that's the most ignorant subject line I've ever seen you post. I'm
> >>disappointed.
> >>
> >>Christianity does not equal fundamentalism. There are 159 million
> >>self-identifying Christians in the United States, representing 76.5% of
> >>the population. Only 20 to 30 percent of those Christians are
> >>evangelical fundamentalist Protestants.
> >>
> >>If you actually look at the link you posted instead of just jerking your
> >>knee, you'll notice that "occasional" church-goers actually favored
> >>Kerry by a margin of 53% to 47%. Church-going Christians. Do you hate
> >>*them*?
> >>
> >>Fully 41% of weekly church-goers, and 35% of "more than weekly"
> >>church-goers, favored Kerry. Do you hate *them*?
> >>
> >>Fundamentalism -- fundamentalist evangelical Christianity -- is the
> >>enemy, not Christianity.
> >
> > Look at the big picture.
> >
> > White, male, Christians elected Bush.
> >
> > Look through the whole survey, what picture does it form? Not just
> > the religious statistics, the whole thing. Christians are a majority
> > of Bush voters, so we know a majority of Bush voters are Christians.
> > And so in the rest of the statistics where you see Bush voters you are
> > also looking mostly at Christians. You are seeing what they stand
> > for.
>
> A majority of Kerry voters are Christians, too. It's more complicated
> than I think you want it to be.
>
> > You might very well have a more sophisticated, reasonable view of
> > Christianity than many Christians, but don't think you're in the
> > majority among Christians. Open your eyes. Outside of the immediate
> > circle of people you know personally or through personal contact, what
> > do you see when you see a Christian?
>
> Well, see, I'm surrounded by fundamentalists. The city I happen to live
> in for the time being just so happens to be where one of the most insane
> fundamentalist denominations, the Assemblies of God, has their "world
> headquarters."
>
> So I try not to make broad judgments about all of Christendom based upon
> the actions of the fuckwits around me.
>
> Fundamentalist evangelistic American Protestants are a very, very small
> minority within Christianity, just as militant jihadist Saudi terrorists
> are a very, very small minority within Islam.
>
> You're picking the wrong battles.
>
> > They are clinging to a fantasy world where white is right and rules
> > the world. Where nobody is gay or gets abortions. Leave it to
> > Beaverland. Where Our way of life is the standard the world lives by
> > and all those heathen foreigners are a bunch of little Gunga Dins,
> > starry-eyed with their love of the noble White Man and willing to die
> > for him.
> >
> > Where nobody gets high or does ANYTHING that they can't make sense out
> > of. Where nobody listens to any music more controversial than Pat
> > Boone or watches movies that aren't Fun for the Whole Family.
> >
> > That isn't HOW they are, that's WHAT they are. People aren't like
> > that because they are Christians, they become Christians because they
> > are like that.
> >
> > Yes, there are exceptions, but they are not the majority.
>
> You're clinging to a fantasy world where you're able to believe what you
> want to believe about a very broad group of people who actually have
> precious little in common. I'll show your viewpoint more respect when
> you can explain to me how it makes you different from a NASCAR-loving
> Pabst-addicted wife-beater who thinks all Muslims are terrorists.
That's an interesting position, that generalities get so broad as to be worse
than meaningless, they become dangerous. Among the Christians, I guess
that I have met a few weird Baptists, Mormons, Anglicans, Unitarians,
Jesuits, Franciscans, and barefoot Carmelites of the Discalced persuasion.
The Protestant mystics likely have more in common with Sufis than the Sunnis
do with the Amish, but it is tedious for me to try to parse while the Indian army
has half a million troops on the Pakistan border, and both the Pakis and the Hindus
are locked and loaded with their dirty little nyooks. I'm betting on Gonesh in the
fifth race, win, place, and/or show. Aaaaaaaand, they're off! It's Bubblegum,
Wrapped Around the Pole, and Toilet Paper wiping up the rear. What a race!
What a finish, ladies and gentlemen!
Correspondent:: "Kevin Cunningham" Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:35:06 GMT
--------
"Cardinal Vertigo" wrote in message
news:n14rd.26107$Rf1.8039@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Zapanaz wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:47:45 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Zapanaz wrote:
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
>>>
>>>Joe, that's the most ignorant subject line I've ever seen you post. I'm
>>>disappointed.
>>>
>>>Christianity does not equal fundamentalism. There are 159 million
>>>self-identifying Christians in the United States, representing 76.5% of
>>>the population. Only 20 to 30 percent of those Christians are
>>>evangelical fundamentalist Protestants.
>>>
>>>If you actually look at the link you posted instead of just jerking your
>>>knee, you'll notice that "occasional" church-goers actually favored
>>>Kerry by a margin of 53% to 47%. Church-going Christians. Do you hate
>>>*them*?
>>>
>>>Fully 41% of weekly church-goers, and 35% of "more than weekly"
>>>church-goers, favored Kerry. Do you hate *them*?
>>>
>>>Fundamentalism -- fundamentalist evangelical Christianity -- is the
>>>enemy, not Christianity.
>>
>> Look at the big picture.
>>
>> White, male, Christians elected Bush.
>>
>> Look through the whole survey, what picture does it form? Not just
>> the religious statistics, the whole thing. Christians are a majority
>> of Bush voters, so we know a majority of Bush voters are Christians.
>> And so in the rest of the statistics where you see Bush voters you are
>> also looking mostly at Christians. You are seeing what they stand
>> for.
>
> A majority of Kerry voters are Christians, too. It's more complicated
> than I think you want it to be.
>
>> You might very well have a more sophisticated, reasonable view of
>> Christianity than many Christians, but don't think you're in the
>> majority among Christians. Open your eyes. Outside of the immediate
>> circle of people you know personally or through personal contact, what
>> do you see when you see a Christian?
>
> Well, see, I'm surrounded by fundamentalists. The city I happen to live
> in for the time being just so happens to be where one of the most insane
> fundamentalist denominations, the Assemblies of God, has their "world
> headquarters."
>
> So I try not to make broad judgments about all of Christendom based upon
> the actions of the fuckwits around me.
>
> Fundamentalist evangelistic American Protestants are a very, very small
> minority within Christianity, just as militant jihadist Saudi terrorists
> are a very, very small minority within Islam.
>
> You're picking the wrong battles.
>
>> They are clinging to a fantasy world where white is right and rules
>> the world. Where nobody is gay or gets abortions. Leave it to
>> Beaverland. Where Our way of life is the standard the world lives by
>> and all those heathen foreigners are a bunch of little Gunga Dins,
>> starry-eyed with their love of the noble White Man and willing to die
>> for him.
>>
>> Where nobody gets high or does ANYTHING that they can't make sense out
>> of. Where nobody listens to any music more controversial than Pat
>> Boone or watches movies that aren't Fun for the Whole Family.
>>
>> That isn't HOW they are, that's WHAT they are. People aren't like
>> that because they are Christians, they become Christians because they
>> are like that.
>>
>> Yes, there are exceptions, but they are not the majority.
>
> You're clinging to a fantasy world where you're able to believe what you
> want to believe about a very broad group of people who actually have
> precious little in common. I'll show your viewpoint more respect when
> you can explain to me how it makes you different from a NASCAR-loving
> Pabst-addicted wife-beater who thinks all Muslims are terrorists.
What's wrong with Pabst? Huhh?
Rev. Doc. Junior Mints
Anti-Pope of Atlanta
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:27:18 GMT
--------
Kevin Cunningham wrote:
> "Cardinal Vertigo" wrote in message
> news:n14rd.26107$Rf1.8039@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> Zapanaz wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:47:45 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Zapanaz wrote:
>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
>>>>
>>>>Joe, that's the most ignorant subject line I've ever seen you post. I'm
>>>>disappointed.
>>>>
>>>>Christianity does not equal fundamentalism. There are 159 million
>>>>self-identifying Christians in the United States, representing 76.5% of
>>>>the population. Only 20 to 30 percent of those Christians are
>>>>evangelical fundamentalist Protestants.
>>>>
>>>>If you actually look at the link you posted instead of just jerking your
>>>>knee, you'll notice that "occasional" church-goers actually favored
>>>>Kerry by a margin of 53% to 47%. Church-going Christians. Do you hate
>>>>*them*?
>>>>
>>>>Fully 41% of weekly church-goers, and 35% of "more than weekly"
>>>>church-goers, favored Kerry. Do you hate *them*?
>>>>
>>>>Fundamentalism -- fundamentalist evangelical Christianity -- is the
>>>>enemy, not Christianity.
>>>
>>> Look at the big picture.
>>>
>>> White, male, Christians elected Bush.
>>>
>>> Look through the whole survey, what picture does it form? Not just
>>> the religious statistics, the whole thing. Christians are a majority
>>> of Bush voters, so we know a majority of Bush voters are Christians.
>>> And so in the rest of the statistics where you see Bush voters you are
>>> also looking mostly at Christians. You are seeing what they stand
>>> for.
>>
>> A majority of Kerry voters are Christians, too. It's more complicated
>> than I think you want it to be.
>>
>>> You might very well have a more sophisticated, reasonable view of
>>> Christianity than many Christians, but don't think you're in the
>>> majority among Christians. Open your eyes. Outside of the immediate
>>> circle of people you know personally or through personal contact, what
>>> do you see when you see a Christian?
>>
>> Well, see, I'm surrounded by fundamentalists. The city I happen to live
>> in for the time being just so happens to be where one of the most insane
>> fundamentalist denominations, the Assemblies of God, has their "world
>> headquarters."
>>
>> So I try not to make broad judgments about all of Christendom based upon
>> the actions of the fuckwits around me.
>>
>> Fundamentalist evangelistic American Protestants are a very, very small
>> minority within Christianity, just as militant jihadist Saudi terrorists
>> are a very, very small minority within Islam.
>>
>> You're picking the wrong battles.
>>
>>> They are clinging to a fantasy world where white is right and rules
>>> the world. Where nobody is gay or gets abortions. Leave it to
>>> Beaverland. Where Our way of life is the standard the world lives by
>>> and all those heathen foreigners are a bunch of little Gunga Dins,
>>> starry-eyed with their love of the noble White Man and willing to die
>>> for him.
>>>
>>> Where nobody gets high or does ANYTHING that they can't make sense out
>>> of. Where nobody listens to any music more controversial than Pat
>>> Boone or watches movies that aren't Fun for the Whole Family.
>>>
>>> That isn't HOW they are, that's WHAT they are. People aren't like
>>> that because they are Christians, they become Christians because they
>>> are like that.
>>>
>>> Yes, there are exceptions, but they are not the majority.
>>
>> You're clinging to a fantasy world where you're able to believe what you
>> want to believe about a very broad group of people who actually have
>> precious little in common. I'll show your viewpoint more respect when
>> you can explain to me how it makes you different from a NASCAR-loving
>> Pabst-addicted wife-beater who thinks all Muslims are terrorists.
>
> What's wrong with Pabst? Huhh?
Nothing, really. If you're not too snotty about taste, PBR is perfectly
serviceable. Beats Cook's any day of the week. I TAKE IT ALL BACK!!!
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:57:40 -0800
--------
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:41:07 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
wrote:
>You're clinging to a fantasy world where you're able to believe what you
>want to believe about a very broad group of people who actually have
>precious little in common.
I was struggling to answer this coherently but nenslo crystallized my
ideas nicely by giving me something clear to disagree with.
I don't believe that "all Christians are ..." anything, I know there
are exceptions like you and many others. The unitarian ministers who
married my step brothers (two different ministers and two different
step brothers) (and, married them to other people, right? Not married
them to one another) were very good examples, the first one I
genuinely respected on a religious level and the second at least had a
sense of humor.
And I'm not saying otherwise. What's knee-jerk, really, is to label
me as being prejudiced because I am addressing a group. Labelling any
kind of group is politically incorrect, but as a result we end up
pretending that groups don't exist. But they do, and we know they do,
or they wouldn't be groups.
There is a strong political and social movement in this country (the
US), which is "conservative" and largely nominally Christian. It
really has nothing to do with Christianity in any philosophical sense,
but then, very little of Christianity ever has. Those two books I
recommended earlier that was really the overall point of them, the
divergence between what Christianity was almost certainly originally
intended to be against what it actually became.
I meet and talk to intelligent, reasonable Christians like you and at
least a half-dozen others I've met, mostly online. I know that not
all Christians are this, that, or the other and I wouldn't say that
they were. I am not prejudiced if being prejudiced means making a
judgement on somebody based on the group they are in before giving
them the chance to make their personal beliefs and tendencies known.
But if being prejudiced means making an observation about a group, as
a group, then I am prejudiced and I think only an idiot isn't. Groups
have characteristics.
I think the description I came up with, if a little vague, probably
does apply to most Christians. The intelligent Christians I meet seem
to me to spend a lot of time telling me "well, not ALL Christians are
like THAT" in response to one or another manifestation of the worst
aspects of reactionary, "conservative" Christians. I mean the vast
majority of what I SEE of Christians is ignorant, the apparent vast
majority as far as numbers of people following one course of action.
The numerical majority of Christians I see represented online, in the
news, and in my rare personal meetings with them seem to me to embody
all of the intolerance, herd behavior, superstition and mindlessness
that I associate with the worst of Christianity. Worse, I really get
the impression that most of the worst are not vocal or representatory
with their beliefs at all, outside of a safe group who they know will
agree readily with them. There is at least one usenet newsgroup
which, I think, is set up to automatically cancel messages crossposted
to that group. Granted, given the level of trolling on usenet, that's
not a bad idea, but it is the only group I have ever encountered which
is that unwilling to allow any negative opinions to rear their heads.
What Nixon called "the Silent Majority". And while I hate to say it,
I think Tricky Dick was more right than people acknowledge with the
idea of the Silent Majority. In the seventies people thought the idea
of the Silent Majority was bullshit, an obviously self-serving
fantasy. There was a huge amount of very intelligent and
well-presented criticism of the war in the late sixties and early
seventies (beyond the violent riots that people associate with the
period), it seemed unlikely that the only ones who didn't express
their opinions would all happen to agree with Nixon.
Since then though I think that's exactly what happens. The "Silent
Majority" will mindlessly follow whatever the Government says is
right, however obviously it is wrong. And will likewise follow the
dominant idea of religion. Personally I think it's the same behavior,
what Nietzsche called "slave ethics". to keep your head down and do
what the dominant force tells you to do without complaint. To me that
is what the so-called "conservative" movement is all about. Whether
the master is the government or God, following without thinking and
without complaint is considered a strength. It's the kind of ethic
that defines the "moral strength" of the conservative. Another
interesting statistic in the page I linked was the votes by declared
affiliation; look how many avowed republicans voted democrat, versus
the number of avowed democrats who voted republicans. Conservatives
know how to FOLLOW. Slave ethics.
So I think politics and religion go hand-in-hand with the right wing.
I could certainly be wrong, it's possible that the numerical majority
of Christians are not what I am describing above. Based on what I've
seen though I don't think it's too unreasonable a possibility that I
am describing the majority.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Tyler Durden : You're not your job. You're not how much money
you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the
contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking
khakis.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:14:49 GMT
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:41:07 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
> wrote:
>
> >You're clinging to a fantasy world where you're able to believe what you
> >want to believe about a very broad group of people who actually have
> >precious little in common.
>
> I was struggling to answer this coherently but nenslo crystallized my
> ideas nicely by giving me something clear to disagree with.
>
> I don't believe that "all Christians are ..." anything, I know there
> are exceptions like you and many others. The unitarian ministers who
> married my step brothers (two different ministers and two different
> step brothers) (and, married them to other people, right? Not married
> them to one another) were very good examples, the first one I
> genuinely respected on a religious level and the second at least had a
> sense of humor.
>
> And I'm not saying otherwise. What's knee-jerk, really, is to label
> me as being prejudiced because I am addressing a group. Labelling any
> kind of group is politically incorrect, but as a result we end up
> pretending that groups don't exist. But they do, and we know they do,
> or they wouldn't be groups.
I wrote a paper about attitude clusters because people have 'em.
I think that if people are entirely neutral about everything, they feel
like a nice round ball. But nobody's neutral about everthing, so they
have varying surface topology/topography--And attitudes are linked,
too; interlinked in a cluster(fuck).
*Attitude cluster: An attitude cluster is a group of related opinions or
beliefs. It is difficult to challenge one specific attitude without
challenging the entire cluster.
Addressing a group might be like trying to talk to a corporation:
it is a fictitious entity.
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:57:18 GMT
--------
In article <41AD0CF8.1A32248D@ranunculus.org>,
Konig Pruss, GfbAEV wrote:
> Addressing a group might be like trying to talk to a corporation:
> it is a fictitious entity.
Yeah, like "All you Subgeniuses are crazy fucking paranoid loonies with
awful breath and even worse manners!" I resent such blanket statements:
I brush & floss dependably and my breath attracts hummingbirds. The fly
swatter was disappointing, but I got marvelous results by dipping the
end of a stun gun in Karo syrup. Anybody want a bag of dead hummigbirds?
I figure I have about 50 of the little bastards in there.
--
HellPope Huey
Two steps away from the rubber room,
but this linoleum sure is nice!
I feel like a fugitive from the law of averages.
- William H. Mauldin
"Did you see that???"
"That depends... what did you see?"
- "Static Shock"
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:07:43 GMT
--------
HellPope Huey wrote:
> In article <41AD0CF8.1A32248D@ranunculus.org>,
> Konig Pruss, GfbAEV wrote:
>
> > Addressing a group might be like trying to talk to a corporation:
> > it is a fictitious entity.
>
> Yeah, like "All you Subgeniuses are crazy fucking paranoid loonies with
> awful breath and even worse manners!" I resent such blanket statements:
> I brush & floss dependably and my breath attracts hummingbirds. The fly
> swatter was disappointing, but I got marvelous results by dipping the
> end of a stun gun in Karo syrup. Anybody want a bag of dead hummigbirds?
> I figure I have about 50 of the little bastards in there.
>
Nope! There here is a totally homogenous group if there ever was one.
Altogether the same in differentness, entirely homogenized; and 4%
butterfat.
Where's the Ovaltine? Pure, wholesome chocolatey goodness, with warm
fuzzy things floating in it.
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:33:01 -0800
--------
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:57:18 GMT, HellPope Huey
wrote:
> Yeah, like "All you Subgeniuses are crazy fucking paranoid loonies with
>awful breath and even worse manners!" I resent such blanket statements:
>I brush & floss dependably and my breath attracts hummingbirds.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but hummingbirds don't have leathery
wings and ichor-dripping fangs.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
For ten years Caesar ruled with an iron hand.
Then with a wooden foot
and finally with a piece of string.
- Spike Milligan, The Goons
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:56:56 GMT
--------
In article <1abqq0hmgul2vn3ohm11ki3ooo2n9915pb@4ax.com>,
Zapanaz wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:57:18 GMT, HellPope Huey
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, like "All you Subgeniuses are crazy fucking paranoid loonies with
> >awful breath and even worse manners!" I resent such blanket statements:
> >I brush & floss dependably and my breath attracts hummingbirds.
>
> I hate to be the one to tell you, but hummingbirds don't have leathery
> wings and ichor-dripping fangs.
Ooooooo, you make me so MAD!!
No, really, what about the bag of birds? No takers?
--
HellPope Huey
Two steps away from the rubber room,
but this linoleum sure is nice!
I feel like a fugitive from the law of averages.
- William H. Mauldin
"Did you see that???"
"That depends... what did you see?"
- "Static Shock"
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:07:33 GMT
--------
HellPope Huey wrote:
> In article <1abqq0hmgul2vn3ohm11ki3ooo2n9915pb@4ax.com>,
> Zapanaz wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:57:18 GMT, HellPope Huey
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, like "All you Subgeniuses are crazy fucking paranoid loonies with
> > >awful breath and even worse manners!" I resent such blanket statements:
> > >I brush & floss dependably and my breath attracts hummingbirds.
> >
> > I hate to be the one to tell you, but hummingbirds don't have leathery
> > wings and ichor-dripping fangs.
>
> Ooooooo, you make me so MAD!!
>
> No, really, what about the bag of birds? No takers?
>
How 'bout a bag of doorknobs?
Correspondent:: "Paul E. Jamison" Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:51:46 -0600
--------
; "GfbAEV" wrote in message
news:41AD3570.1E305C48@ranunculus.org...
>
> HellPope Huey wrote:
>
> > In article <1abqq0hmgul2vn3ohm11ki3ooo2n9915pb@4ax.com>,
> > Zapanaz wrote:
> > > On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:57:18 GMT, HellPope Huey
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah, like "All you Subgeniuses are crazy fucking paranoid loonies
with
> > > >awful breath and even worse manners!" I resent such blanket
statements:
> > > >I brush & floss dependably and my breath attracts hummingbirds.
> > >
> > > I hate to be the one to tell you, but hummingbirds don't have leathery
> > > wings and ichor-dripping fangs.
> >
> > Ooooooo, you make me so MAD!!
> >
> > No, really, what about the bag of birds? No takers?
> >
> How 'bout a bag of doorknobs?
>
What, will the bag of doorknobs take the bag of birds?
Paul
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:00:48 GMT
--------
"Paul E. Jamison" wrote:
> ; "GfbAEV" wrote in message
> news:41AD3570.1E305C48@ranunculus.org...
> >
> > HellPope Huey wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1abqq0hmgul2vn3ohm11ki3ooo2n9915pb@4ax.com>,
> > > Zapanaz wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:57:18 GMT, HellPope Huey
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah, like "All you Subgeniuses are crazy fucking paranoid loonies
> with
> > > > >awful breath and even worse manners!" I resent such blanket
> statements:
> > > > >I brush & floss dependably and my breath attracts hummingbirds.
> > > >
> > > > I hate to be the one to tell you, but hummingbirds don't have leathery
> > > > wings and ichor-dripping fangs.
> > >
> > > Ooooooo, you make me so MAD!!
> > >
> > > No, really, what about the bag of birds? No takers?
> > >
> > How 'bout a bag of doorknobs?
> >
> What, will the bag of doorknobs take the bag of birds?
>
> Paul
I can see where all of those little needle-like beaks could be painful.
The bag of doorknobs comes from a drawing of a spider web with flies,
the artist said that it might also be a bag of doorknobs--
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:36:10 -0800
--------
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:14:49 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
wrote:
>
>
> I wrote a paper about attitude clusters because people have 'em.
>I think that if people are entirely neutral about everything, they feel
>like a nice round ball. But nobody's neutral about everthing, so they
>have varying surface topology/topography--And attitudes are linked,
>too; interlinked in a cluster(fuck).
>
>*Attitude cluster: An attitude cluster is a group of related opinions or
>beliefs. It is difficult to challenge one specific attitude without
>challenging the entire cluster.
that makes sense.
People think in associations, clusters. I don't think you -can- take
on any idea or thought without it affecting all your others, more or
less holographically.
It would be strange to me if people didn't tend to cluster in
ideological groups.
>
> Addressing a group might be like trying to talk to a corporation:
>it is a fictitious entity.
I agree .... there may be no individuals in a group who hold the ideas
of the group. Probably that's why people invented ideas like Satan.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Man made booze, God made poison ivy -- WHO DO YOU TRUST?
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:48:53 GMT
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:14:49 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I wrote a paper about attitude clusters because people have 'em.
> >I think that if people are entirely neutral about everything, they feel
> >like a nice round ball. But nobody's neutral about everthing, so they
> >have varying surface topology/topography--And attitudes are linked,
> >too; interlinked in a cluster(fuck).
> >
> >*Attitude cluster: An attitude cluster is a group of related opinions or
> >beliefs. It is difficult to challenge one specific attitude without
> >challenging the entire cluster.
>
> that makes sense.
>
> People think in associations, clusters. I don't think you -can- take
> on any idea or thought without it affecting all your others, more or
> less holographically.
>
> It would be strange to me if people didn't tend to cluster in
> ideological groups.
>
> >
> > Addressing a group might be like trying to talk to a corporation:
> >it is a fictitious entity.
>
> I agree .... there may be no individuals in a group who hold the ideas
> of the group. Probably that's why people invented ideas like Satan.
>
Satan is neither a group nor a corporation, although there are various
kinds of Satanists and Satanic groups. The Catholic Church is a
corporate entity, and before the pedo scandal, had quite a lot of
real estate. You can't buy real estate in Heaven, but inside of a
Dog, it's too dark to read.
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:30:39 GMT
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:41:07 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
> wrote:
>
>>You're clinging to a fantasy world where you're able to believe what you
>>want to believe about a very broad group of people who actually have
>>precious little in common.
>
> I was struggling to answer this coherently but nenslo crystallized my
> ideas nicely by giving me something clear to disagree with.
>
> I don't believe that "all Christians are ..." anything, I know there
> are exceptions like you and many others. The unitarian ministers who
> married my step brothers (two different ministers and two different
> step brothers) (and, married them to other people, right? Not married
> them to one another) were very good examples, the first one I
> genuinely respected on a religious level and the second at least had a
> sense of humor.
>
> And I'm not saying otherwise. What's knee-jerk, really, is to label
> me as being prejudiced because I am addressing a group. Labelling any
> kind of group is politically incorrect, but as a result we end up
> pretending that groups don't exist. But they do, and we know they do,
> or they wouldn't be groups.
>
> There is a strong political and social movement in this country (the
> US), which is "conservative" and largely nominally Christian. It
> really has nothing to do with Christianity in any philosophical sense,
> but then, very little of Christianity ever has. Those two books I
> recommended earlier that was really the overall point of them, the
> divergence between what Christianity was almost certainly originally
> intended to be against what it actually became.
>
> I meet and talk to intelligent, reasonable Christians like you and at
> least a half-dozen others I've met, mostly online. I know that not
> all Christians are this, that, or the other and I wouldn't say that
> they were. I am not prejudiced if being prejudiced means making a
> judgement on somebody based on the group they are in before giving
> them the chance to make their personal beliefs and tendencies known.
>
> But if being prejudiced means making an observation about a group, as
> a group, then I am prejudiced and I think only an idiot isn't. Groups
> have characteristics.
>
> I think the description I came up with, if a little vague, probably
> does apply to most Christians. The intelligent Christians I meet seem
> to me to spend a lot of time telling me "well, not ALL Christians are
> like THAT" in response to one or another manifestation of the worst
> aspects of reactionary, "conservative" Christians. I mean the vast
> majority of what I SEE of Christians is ignorant, the apparent vast
> majority as far as numbers of people following one course of action.
> The numerical majority of Christians I see represented online, in the
> news, and in my rare personal meetings with them seem to me to embody
> all of the intolerance, herd behavior, superstition and mindlessness
> that I associate with the worst of Christianity. Worse, I really get
> the impression that most of the worst are not vocal or representatory
> with their beliefs at all, outside of a safe group who they know will
> agree readily with them. There is at least one usenet newsgroup
> which, I think, is set up to automatically cancel messages crossposted
> to that group. Granted, given the level of trolling on usenet, that's
> not a bad idea, but it is the only group I have ever encountered which
> is that unwilling to allow any negative opinions to rear their heads.
That's a very well-developed example of what cognitive scientists call
the observer fallacy (if I remember right), and it's a classic example
of why "common sense" is often dead wrong. Goes like this: Most of the
apples I've seen are red, therefore most apples must be red.
> What Nixon called "the Silent Majority". And while I hate to say it,
> I think Tricky Dick was more right than people acknowledge with the
> idea of the Silent Majority. In the seventies people thought the idea
> of the Silent Majority was bullshit, an obviously self-serving
> fantasy. There was a huge amount of very intelligent and
> well-presented criticism of the war in the late sixties and early
> seventies (beyond the violent riots that people associate with the
> period), it seemed unlikely that the only ones who didn't express
> their opinions would all happen to agree with Nixon.
>
> Since then though I think that's exactly what happens. The "Silent
> Majority" will mindlessly follow whatever the Government says is
> right, however obviously it is wrong. And will likewise follow the
> dominant idea of religion. Personally I think it's the same behavior,
> what Nietzsche called "slave ethics". to keep your head down and do
> what the dominant force tells you to do without complaint. To me that
> is what the so-called "conservative" movement is all about. Whether
> the master is the government or God, following without thinking and
> without complaint is considered a strength. It's the kind of ethic
> that defines the "moral strength" of the conservative. Another
> interesting statistic in the page I linked was the votes by declared
> affiliation; look how many avowed republicans voted democrat, versus
> the number of avowed democrats who voted republicans. Conservatives
> know how to FOLLOW. Slave ethics.
American conservatism is an ideology that's been around, in some form or
another, for much longer than the fundamentalist revival. The notion of
a moral order or an inherently just hierarchy is central to American
conservatism and has been for some time. It just so happens that
conservative principles can easily be described in terms of
fundamentalist principles, thus mobilizing a fairly significant little
minority.
> So I think politics and religion go hand-in-hand with the right wing.
> I could certainly be wrong, it's possible that the numerical majority
> of Christians are not what I am describing above. Based on what I've
> seen though I don't think it's too unreasonable a possibility that I
> am describing the majority.
It's true, the numerical majority of Christians are not what you're
describing above.
Nixon's "silent majority" was pure political rhetoric. Political
conservatism as it's practiced by most of the GOP and fundamentalist
Christianity are two separate ideals, which somehow become overlapped in
the minds of a very vocal minority's minds through either brilliant
political strategy or blindingly dumb luck.
They appear to go hand in hand because American conservatives have found
a certain voice, if you will, which lets them talk about political
conservatism within the context of fundamentalist Christianity. They've
mapped conservatism onto the religion.
The thing is, the ideals of the progressive movement can be mapped onto
mainstream American Christianity pretty easily. The vast majority of
Christians don't go to church all that often, but they still have pretty
strongly held beliefs which are extremely compatible with progressive
ideals. No political leaders are talking to them in the language of
religion, but they're a sleeping giant waiting to be awakened by the
right leader.
Moral Politics by George Lakoff articulates all this pretty well from a
cognitive scientist's point of view.
If the silent majority really did mindlessly follow whatever the
government said was right, then how did the GOP pull off its 1994
takeover of Congress? What happened was that the right finally figured
out how to frame its ideology in the language of fundamentalist
Christianity and communicate its values to the fundies, counting on the
support of that minority to swing close Congressional elections
nationwide. It worked.
Progressives can do the same to mobilize mainstream Christians. They
just haven't figured out how yet, and haven't had a leader with the
vision or balls to attempt a mainstream Christian articulation of their
ideology. The DNC has clung to an almost purely humanistic
articulation, which works in many other democracies but hasn't done too
well here lately.
If there is hope, it lies with the Christians. So try not to hate on
'em too hard, because we'll need 'em. Soon.
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:55:08 -0800
--------
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:30:39 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
wrote:
>That's a very well-developed example of what cognitive scientists call
>the observer fallacy (if I remember right), and it's a classic example
>of why "common sense" is often dead wrong. Goes like this: Most of the
>apples I've seen are red, therefore most apples must be red.
>
People free from this fallacy would never be so foolish as to believe
apples are red.
>American conservatism is an ideology that's been around, in some form or
>another, for much longer than the fundamentalist revival. The notion of
>a moral order or an inherently just hierarchy is central to American
>conservatism and has been for some time. It just so happens that
>conservative principles can easily be described in terms of
>fundamentalist principles, thus mobilizing a fairly significant little
>minority.
>
I will let you work out "fairly significant little minority" on your
own time.
>
>They appear to go hand in hand because American conservatives have found
>a certain voice, if you will, which lets them talk about political
>conservatism within the context of fundamentalist Christianity. They've
>mapped conservatism onto the religion.
>
Well go back above, what I am saying about "slave ethics". They map
because they FIT.
>The thing is, the ideals of the progressive movement can be mapped onto
>mainstream American Christianity pretty easily.
I agree completely. But nobody has done it in any significant way.
Nobody. Period.
yes it can be done in theory. I will think further about it when I
see it.
>The vast majority of
>Christians don't go to church all that often, but they still have pretty
>strongly held beliefs which are extremely compatible with progressive
>ideals. No political leaders are talking to them in the language of
>religion, but they're a sleeping giant waiting to be awakened by the
>right leader.
>
Waiting and sleeping quite peacefully.
>Moral Politics by George Lakoff articulates all this pretty well from a
>cognitive scientist's point of view.
>
>If the silent majority really did mindlessly follow whatever the
>government said was right, then how did the GOP pull off its 1994
>takeover of Congress? What happened was that the right finally figured
>out how to frame its ideology in the language of fundamentalist
>Christianity and communicate its values to the fundies, counting on the
>support of that minority to swing close Congressional elections
>nationwide. It worked.
>
>Progressives can do the same to mobilize mainstream Christians. They
>just haven't figured out how yet, and haven't had a leader with the
>vision or balls to attempt a mainstream Christian articulation of their
>ideology.
Look, what I mean is like this.
Yes, progressive or even radically progressive ideas certainly can be
expressed in Christian terms, in terms of one interpretation of
Christianity.
Personally, I think that would be a vastly more accurate fit to what
Christianity was probably intended to be, and could be, than
conservativism. I think it's fairly obvious, really, if you want to
take even the highly bowdlerized bible the last bit seriously, that
the character called Jesus was a radical and a progressive. You
haven't read the Elaine Pagels book yet, have you?
I agree completely.
But that doesn't change what I am saying or even address it. I am
arguing that the majority of Christians do not see Christianity in a
progressive or radical way. They never have.
I have argued why I think so, but all you have done so far is say "no
you're wrong".
Why do you think the majority of Christians are progressive? Or in
any event, not reactionary? I've said why I think they are, why do
you think they aren't?
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life"
- Solid Jackson
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:31:17 GMT
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
> But that doesn't change what I am saying or even address it. I am
> arguing that the majority of Christians do not see Christianity in a
> progressive or radical way. They never have.
>
> I have argued why I think so, but all you have done so far is say "no
> you're wrong".
>
> Why do you think the majority of Christians are progressive? Or in
> any event, not reactionary? I've said why I think they are, why do
> you think they aren't?
Statistics, man. Don't make me cite sources; I'm sure you can use a
research database as well as I can. Only 20 to 30 percent of American
Christians are fundamentalists (depending on who's doing the asking).
They just aren't a majority.
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:21:18 -0800
--------
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:31:17 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
wrote:
>Statistics, man. Don't make me cite sources; I'm sure you can use a
>research database as well as I can. Only 20 to 30 percent of American
>Christians are fundamentalists (depending on who's doing the asking).
>They just aren't a majority.
You, not me, were the one who said that fundamentalists are the only
ones who are reactionaries.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
13. When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend.
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:29:17 GMT
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:31:17 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
> wrote:
>
>>Statistics, man. Don't make me cite sources; I'm sure you can use a
>>research database as well as I can. Only 20 to 30 percent of American
>>Christians are fundamentalists (depending on who's doing the asking).
>>They just aren't a majority.
>
> You, not me, were the one who said that fundamentalists are the only
> ones who are reactionaries.
If that's what you took from what I was saying, apparently I was failing
to communicate adequately.
Correspondent:: polar bear Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:42:57 -0800
--------
In article , Cardinal
Vertigo wrote:
> Zapanaz wrote:
>
> > But that doesn't change what I am saying or even address it. I am
> > arguing that the majority of Christians do not see Christianity in a
> > progressive or radical way. They never have.
> >
> > I have argued why I think so, but all you have done so far is say "no
> > you're wrong".
> >
> > Why do you think the majority of Christians are progressive? Or in
> > any event, not reactionary? I've said why I think they are, why do
> > you think they aren't?
>
> Statistics, man. Don't make me cite sources; I'm sure you can use a
> research database as well as I can. Only 20 to 30 percent of American
> Christians are fundamentalists (depending on who's doing the asking).
> They just aren't a majority.
Gentlemen. This is not the time or place for comparative analysis.
Our job is not to evaluate the merits of one belief system vs another.
Our job is to MOCK THEM ALL, for truly they are ALL worthy of derision.
Amen
pb
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:02:07 GMT
--------
polar bear wrote:
> In article , Cardinal
> Vertigo wrote:
>
> > Zapanaz wrote:
> >
> > > But that doesn't change what I am saying or even address it. I am
> > > arguing that the majority of Christians do not see Christianity in a
> > > progressive or radical way. They never have.
> > >
> > > I have argued why I think so, but all you have done so far is say "no
> > > you're wrong".
> > >
> > > Why do you think the majority of Christians are progressive? Or in
> > > any event, not reactionary? I've said why I think they are, why do
> > > you think they aren't?
> >
> > Statistics, man. Don't make me cite sources; I'm sure you can use a
> > research database as well as I can. Only 20 to 30 percent of American
> > Christians are fundamentalists (depending on who's doing the asking).
> > They just aren't a majority.
>
> Gentlemen. This is not the time or place for comparative analysis.
> Our job is not to evaluate the merits of one belief system vs another.
> Our job is to MOCK THEM ALL, for truly they are ALL worthy of derision.
>
> Amen
>
> pb
Yay! The voice of Reason! Finally. Pra"Bob"
Correspondent:: nenslo Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:52:00 -0800
--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
>
> Zapanaz wrote:
> > http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
>
> Joe, that's the most ignorant subject line I've ever seen you post. I'm
> disappointed.
>
> Christianity does not equal fundamentalism. There are 159 million
> self-identifying Christians in the United States, representing 76.5% of
> the population. Only 20 to 30 percent of those Christians are
> evangelical fundamentalist Protestants.
>
> If you actually look at the link you posted instead of just jerking your
> knee, you'll notice that "occasional" church-goers actually favored
> Kerry by a margin of 53% to 47%. Church-going Christians. Do you hate
> *them*?
>
> Fully 41% of weekly church-goers, and 35% of "more than weekly"
> church-goers, favored Kerry. Do you hate *them*?
>
> Fundamentalism -- fundamentalist evangelical Christianity -- is the
> enemy, not Christianity.
It is made more clear to me with every passing day that it is
REACTIONISM of every kind - left, right, religious or atheist, or any
other kind - which is the enemy of humanity and the greatest plague upon
the face of the earth. As Joe Cosby demonstrates, Reactionism causes
people to attribute their dislikes to a hastily labeled group, to treat
anyone they label as a member as that group as if they are all alike
(treating an entire class of people as if they are all alike is what
PREJUDICE is) and to mistake their opinions and emotions for facts and
reason. Giving over our minds to reactionism is turning off the
rational faculty and acting solely on emotion, which is what STUPIDITY
is. Fundamentalism's primary flaw is that it values belief, and
obedience to a hierarchical authority, more highly than reason, thus
encouraging reactionism.
Correspondent:: Zapanaz Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:18:47 -0800
--------
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:52:00 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>(treating an entire class of people as if they are all alike is what
>PREJUDICE is)
Treating an entire class of people as if they were not a class of
people is what politically-correct airhead thinking is.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
It is not a lack of love,
but a lack of friendship
that makes unhappy marriages.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:03:05 GMT
--------
Zapanaz wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:52:00 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>
> >(treating an entire class of people as if they are all alike is what
> >PREJUDICE is)
>
> Treating an entire class of people as if they were not a class of
> people is what politically-correct airhead thinking is.
>
Oh, yeah! Well, just ask anybody; I got no class!
Correspondent:: "iDRMRSR" Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:09:59 -0500
--------
Treat every race and religion with respect...even the ones that don't
deserve it.
[*]
-----
Correspondent:: "iDRMRSR" Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:12:29 -0500
--------
Treat every race and religion with respect, even the ones that don't deserve
it.
[*]
-----
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:36:06 GMT
--------
iDRMRSR wrote:
> Treat every race and religion with respect, even the ones that don't deserve
> it.
"We must respect the other guy's religion, but only to the same degree
we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are
brilliant." (or something like that) - some wiseguy
Correspondent:: Rev DJ Epoch Date: 1 Dec 2004 15:09:51 GMT
--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote in
news:G_ard.1842$955.1158@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:
> iDRMRSR wrote:
>> Treat every race and religion with respect, even the ones that don't
>> deserve it.
>
> "We must respect the other guy's religion, but only to the same degree
> we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are
> brilliant." (or something like that) - some wiseguy
>
I respect any other person's religion as long as they respect MINE. When
they tell me "Your God is a false god and because of that you are condemned
to goto Bayonne, NJ when you die" I just bitchslap them with a rubber
chicken and say "My God commanded me that thou should be smited with our
Most Holy symbol for pooh-poohing our beliefs."
...and the wheel goes round and round.
--
The Church of Our Lady of Prepetual Motion
Cathedral, Carwash and Dancehall- Home of the Traci Lords Memorial Brothel
Rev. DJ Epoch - proprietor and janitor
Divine Southern Redneck Yeti Clench Recruitment site: http://revdjepoch.COM
"If you want my delusions, you'll have to pry them from my cold,
dead hippocampus with a grapefruit spoon."
-- HellPope Huey
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:54:47 GMT
--------
Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
> Cardinal Vertigo wrote in
> news:G_ard.1842$955.1158@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> iDRMRSR wrote:
>>> Treat every race and religion with respect, even the ones that don't
>>> deserve it.
>>
>> "We must respect the other guy's religion, but only to the same degree
>> we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are
>> brilliant." (or something like that) - some wiseguy
>>
>
> I respect any other person's religion as long as they respect MINE. When
> they tell me "Your God is a false god and because of that you are condemned
> to goto Bayonne, NJ when you die" I just bitchslap them with a rubber
> chicken and say "My God commanded me that thou should be smited with our
> Most Holy symbol for pooh-poohing our beliefs."
>
> ...and the wheel goes round and round.
I agree.
From a Christian perspective, "do unto others as you would have them do
unto you" precludes that shit. If you don't want others trying to cram
their religion down your throat, try not to cram yours down others' throats.
Missionary work is supposed to focus on actually helping people, not on
trying to convert them.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:11:43 GMT
--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
> Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
> > Cardinal Vertigo wrote in
> > news:G_ard.1842$955.1158@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:
> >
> >> iDRMRSR wrote:
> >>> Treat every race and religion with respect, even the ones that don't
> >>> deserve it.
> >>
> >> "We must respect the other guy's religion, but only to the same degree
> >> we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are
> >> brilliant." (or something like that) - some wiseguy
> >>
> >
> > I respect any other person's religion as long as they respect MINE. When
> > they tell me "Your God is a false god and because of that you are condemned
> > to goto Bayonne, NJ when you die" I just bitchslap them with a rubber
> > chicken and say "My God commanded me that thou should be smited with our
> > Most Holy symbol for pooh-poohing our beliefs."
> >
> > ...and the wheel goes round and round.
>
> I agree.
>
> From a Christian perspective, "do unto others as you would have them do
> unto you" precludes that shit. If you don't want others trying to cram
> their religion down your throat, try not to cram yours down others' throats.
>
> Missionary work is supposed to focus on actually helping people, not on
> trying to convert them.
In Islam, the Prophet (pbuH) said this each morning when He left up
out of the house: "Protect me from the foolishness of other people and
let me not be led astray; let me not be foolish with other people nor
lead anyone astray."
It's sort of like The Golden Rule, but more specific.
Farther East, each person has a unique path in life;
right is that which helps a person on their path, wrong
is that which hinders progress or deflects a person from
their path.
Busca su camino--
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:22:32 GMT
--------
König Prüß wrote:
>
> Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
>
>> Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
>> > Cardinal Vertigo wrote in
>> > news:G_ard.1842$955.1158@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:
>> >
>> >> iDRMRSR wrote:
>> >>> Treat every race and religion with respect, even the ones that don't
>> >>> deserve it.
>> >>
>> >> "We must respect the other guy's religion, but only to the same degree
>> >> we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are
>> >> brilliant." (or something like that) - some wiseguy
>> >>
>> >
>> > I respect any other person's religion as long as they respect MINE. When
>> > they tell me "Your God is a false god and because of that you are condemned
>> > to goto Bayonne, NJ when you die" I just bitchslap them with a rubber
>> > chicken and say "My God commanded me that thou should be smited with our
>> > Most Holy symbol for pooh-poohing our beliefs."
>> >
>> > ...and the wheel goes round and round.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> From a Christian perspective, "do unto others as you would have them do
>> unto you" precludes that shit. If you don't want others trying to cram
>> their religion down your throat, try not to cram yours down others' throats.
>>
>> Missionary work is supposed to focus on actually helping people, not on
>> trying to convert them.
>
> In Islam, the Prophet (pbuH) said this each morning when He left up
> out of the house: "Protect me from the foolishness of other people and
> let me not be led astray; let me not be foolish with other people nor
> lead anyone astray."
>
> It's sort of like The Golden Rule, but more specific.
>
> Farther East, each person has a unique path in life;
> right is that which helps a person on their path, wrong
> is that which hinders progress or deflects a person from
> their path.
I agree, and feel compelled to mention that those teachings aren't
incompatible with mainstream Protestant Christianity.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:38:38 GMT
--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
> König Prüß wrote:
> >
> > Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
> >
> >> Rev DJ Epoch wrote:
> >> > Cardinal Vertigo wrote in
> >> > news:G_ard.1842$955.1158@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:
> >> >
> >> >> iDRMRSR wrote:
> >> >>> Treat every race and religion with respect, even the ones that don't
> >> >>> deserve it.
> >> >>
> >> >> "We must respect the other guy's religion, but only to the same degree
> >> >> we respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are
> >> >> brilliant." (or something like that) - some wiseguy
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I respect any other person's religion as long as they respect MINE. When
> >> > they tell me "Your God is a false god and because of that you are condemned
> >> > to goto Bayonne, NJ when you die" I just bitchslap them with a rubber
> >> > chicken and say "My God commanded me that thou should be smited with our
> >> > Most Holy symbol for pooh-poohing our beliefs."
> >> >
> >> > ...and the wheel goes round and round.
> >>
> >> I agree.
> >>
> >> From a Christian perspective, "do unto others as you would have them do
> >> unto you" precludes that shit. If you don't want others trying to cram
> >> their religion down your throat, try not to cram yours down others' throats.
> >>
> >> Missionary work is supposed to focus on actually helping people, not on
> >> trying to convert them.
> >
> > In Islam, the Prophet (pbuH) said this each morning when He left up
> > out of the house: "Protect me from the foolishness of other people and
> > let me not be led astray; let me not be foolish with other people nor
> > lead anyone astray."
> >
> > It's sort of like The Golden Rule, but more specific.
> >
> > Farther East, each person has a unique path in life;
> > right is that which helps a person on their path, wrong
> > is that which hinders progress or deflects a person from
> > their path.
>
> I agree, and feel compelled to mention that those teachings aren't
> incompatible with mainstream Protestant Christianity.
Well, I agree with your agreement; and I get more from finding
commonalities than small differences.
If your are on a journey of a thousand miles, and each step you
take is half as long as the one before, you may still be moving
toward your destination but you will never arrive. On the other hand,
if you plant half a field of poppies, and each day it doubles, pretty soon
you will have enough opium to float on a cloud to China.
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:54:04 GMT
--------
König Prüß wrote:
> Well, I agree with your agreement; and I get more from finding
> commonalities than small differences.
Jefferson said "he who steadily observes those moral precepts in which
all religions concur will never be questioned at the gates of heaven as
to the dogmas in which they all differ."
> If your are on a journey of a thousand miles, and each step you
> take is half as long as the one before, you may still be moving
> toward your destination but you will never arrive. On the other hand,
> if you plant half a field of poppies, and each day it doubles, pretty soon
> you will have enough opium to float on a cloud to China.
Truly you speak with the voice of "Bob."
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:07:16 GMT
--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
> König Prüß wrote:
>
> > Well, I agree with your agreement; and I get more from finding
> > commonalities than small differences.
>
> Jefferson said "he who steadily observes those moral precepts in which
> all religions concur will never be questioned at the gates of heaven as
> to the dogmas in which they all differ."
>
> > If your are on a journey of a thousand miles, and each step you
> > take is half as long as the one before, you may still be moving
> > toward your destination but you will never arrive. On the other hand,
> > if you plant half a field of poppies, and each day it doubles, pretty soon
> > you will have enough opium to float on a cloud to China.
>
> Truly you speak with the voice of "Bob."
A temporary abberation, I assure you. I don't have the gift.
Correspondent:: Frere Jean Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:42:33 +1100
--------
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:47:45 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
wrote:
>Christianity does not equal fundamentalism. There are 159 million
>self-identifying Christians in the United States, representing 76.5% of
>the population. Only 20 to 30 percent of those Christians are
>evangelical fundamentalist Protestants.
That's about 30-50 million fundies.......
THAT IS SCARY!
Fr J B
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:03:00 GMT
--------
Frere Jean wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:47:45 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
> wrote:
>
>
>>Christianity does not equal fundamentalism. There are 159 million
>>self-identifying Christians in the United States, representing 76.5% of
>>the population. Only 20 to 30 percent of those Christians are
>>evangelical fundamentalist Protestants.
>
> That's about 30-50 million fundies.......
>
> THAT IS SCARY!
Yeah, no kidding. But better to take on 30-50 million than 159 million.
Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:17:40 GMT
--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
> Frere Jean wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:47:45 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Christianity does not equal fundamentalism. There are 159 million
> >>self-identifying Christians in the United States, representing 76.5% of
> >>the population. Only 20 to 30 percent of those Christians are
> >>evangelical fundamentalist Protestants.
> >
> > That's about 30-50 million fundies.......
> >
> > THAT IS SCARY!
>
> Yeah, no kidding. But better to take on 30-50 million than 159 million.
I read that among industrialized countries, the US has the highest
percentage of
religious. And church activity is declining.
Correspondent:: drdark@37.com (DoktorDark)
Date: 1 Dec 2004 12:20:43 -0800
--------
My own take on Christianity sucking is the forgiveness bullshit.
Catholics teach that some guy in a dress, pretending to be Jesus, and
probably molesting kids as a sideline, is empowered to forgive our
sins. Aside from the sheer absurdity of such a concept, let's examine
its behavioral & societal consequences.
The Code of Hammarabi equated the law to be enforced in this world,
not some next world, as "an eye for an eye", essentially. Eastern &
other religions posit the laws of karma, wherein you get back what you
generate, in this or another incarnation. Wicca has karma with
interest: what you do comes back to you 3 times.
If you were Hitler, which system would you choose to subscribe to?
Surely, one where you can gas 6 million, go to confession, followed by
Holy Communion, then croak & be with God in Heaven forevermore? What
type of true believer would YOU want to do business with? I vote
Wiccan first, karma-ite 2nd, & Christian dead last for the above
rationale.
The very types of individual & societal selfishness, greed, &
irresponsibility that are promoted by a "forgiveness"-based morality
are exactly why conservative fundies don't give a shit about the
environment: Jesus will "mop & glow" it up in the New Heaven and the
New Earth come Revelation time. And whatever they do as individuals
will be forgiven them by Jesus. What more lazy and irresponsible
theology of morality could be conceived of? None by my reckoning. And
the consequences of their misbehavior & irresponsibility live on,
suffered by all.
I say kill them all & let Bob sort 'em out!
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:49:30 GMT
--------
DoktorDark wrote:
> My own take on Christianity sucking is the forgiveness bullshit.
> Catholics teach that some guy in a dress, pretending to be Jesus, and
> probably molesting kids as a sideline, is empowered to forgive our
> sins. Aside from the sheer absurdity of such a concept, let's examine
> its behavioral & societal consequences.
Is your beef with Christianity as a whole, or Catholicism specifically?
> The Code of Hammarabi equated the law to be enforced in this world,
> not some next world, as "an eye for an eye", essentially. Eastern &
> other religions posit the laws of karma, wherein you get back what you
> generate, in this or another incarnation. Wicca has karma with
> interest: what you do comes back to you 3 times.
>
> If you were Hitler, which system would you choose to subscribe to?
> Surely, one where you can gas 6 million, go to confession, followed by
> Holy Communion, then croak & be with God in Heaven forevermore? What
> type of true believer would YOU want to do business with? I vote
> Wiccan first, karma-ite 2nd, & Christian dead last for the above
> rationale.
>
> The very types of individual & societal selfishness, greed, &
> irresponsibility that are promoted by a "forgiveness"-based morality
> are exactly why conservative fundies don't give a shit about the
> environment: Jesus will "mop & glow" it up in the New Heaven and the
> New Earth come Revelation time. And whatever they do as individuals
> will be forgiven them by Jesus. What more lazy and irresponsible
> theology of morality could be conceived of? None by my reckoning. And
> the consequences of their misbehavior & irresponsibility live on,
> suffered by all.
A valid criticism, but you're burning a straw man. The theology you're
talking about isn't Christian at all.
Yes, the concept of repentance is an important one, but when mainstream
Christian theologians talk about "repentance," they don't just mean
"saying you're sorry you fucked up." Repentance means acknowledging you
fucked up AND, most importantly, doing everything in your power to keep
from fucking up again.
True repentance requires making a change in your life; it means making
yourself a better person. Very different from the "oops, my bad" sort
of repentance you're talking about. Say what you will about Paul of
Tarsus -- his writings, like the writings of any other influential
thinker, have been used to justify a lot of fucked-up shit, and he was a
product of his times just as we all are -- but he talks about the very
important concept of repentance a lot in his letters ("faith without
works is dead," and all that).
Please make an effort to understand things on a deeper-than-superficial
level before you take it upon yourself to offer criticism of them.
--------
According to Cardinal Vertigo :
>DoktorDark wrote:
>> The very types of individual & societal selfishness, greed, &
>> irresponsibility that are promoted by a "forgiveness"-based morality
>> are exactly why conservative fundies don't give a shit about the
>> environment [...]
>
>Yes, the concept of repentance is an important one, but when mainstream
>Christian theologians talk about "repentance," they don't just mean
>"saying you're sorry you fucked up." Repentance means acknowledging you
>fucked up AND, most importantly, doing everything in your power to keep
>from fucking up again.
Doesn't matter. If you wait until late enough in life to "repent",
you don't have *time* to fix things up. But that doesn't matter: baby
Jebus lubs you anyway. And so your children inherit the shit.
Karma works better. Even the Jewish idea of doing good works to make
up for the bad ones is better than "undeserved kindness of God".
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. -
People are supposed to die for freedom. Not the other way around.
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 22:20:19 GMT
--------
Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to Cardinal Vertigo :
>>DoktorDark wrote:
>>> The very types of individual & societal selfishness, greed, &
>>> irresponsibility that are promoted by a "forgiveness"-based morality
>>> are exactly why conservative fundies don't give a shit about the
>>> environment [...]
>>
>>Yes, the concept of repentance is an important one, but when mainstream
>>Christian theologians talk about "repentance," they don't just mean
>>"saying you're sorry you fucked up." Repentance means acknowledging you
>>fucked up AND, most importantly, doing everything in your power to keep
>>from fucking up again.
>
> Doesn't matter. If you wait until late enough in life to "repent",
> you don't have *time* to fix things up. But that doesn't matter: baby
> Jebus lubs you anyway. And so your children inherit the shit.
This is why some Christians like to talk about being "born again."
Thanks to fundamentalism, the phrase has gotten a lot of bullshit
associated with it lately, but the basic idea behind being "born again"
is that you simply dedicate yourself to trying to do the right thing in
any and all situations. You do the best you can, and when you fuck up,
you try not to let it happen again. That's all there really is to it.
But if you haven't made a personal decision to try to do the right thing
whenever possible, then no, the concept of "repentance" won't mean much
or be applicable in any positive way.
I think we've all known people who were habitually thoughtless or
destructive and were always apologizing for it. After you put up with
them for a while, you get sick of hearing the polite apologies. You
start thinking that if they were really sorry about whatever they were
doing, they'd CUT IT OUT and make an effort to be a better person
instead of just offering constant apologies but never changing their
behavior.
Christian repentance is about having an apology actually mean something.
It's about sincerely saying "I'll do my best to learn from that and not
to let that happen again" instead of just tossing off "hey, my bad."
> Karma works better. Even the Jewish idea of doing good works to make
> up for the bad ones is better than "undeserved kindness of God".
The whole point of religion is that it should be applicable to your
life. If you've found something that works better for you, and you've
noticed it makes a positive difference in your life, then more power to
you: run with it.
If you're not comfortable with Christianity in any form, so be it -- and
viva la difference. We all have to find our own path.
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:05:52 GMT
--------
In article <56be7db3.0412011220.4e7b74e1@posting.google.com>,
drdark@37.com (DoktorDark) wrote:
> The very types of individual & societal selfishness, greed, &
> irresponsibility that are promoted by a "forgiveness"-based morality
> are exactly why conservative fundies don't give a shit about the
> environment: Jesus will "mop & glow" it up in the New Heaven and the
> New Earth come Revelation time. And whatever they do as individuals
> will be forgiven them by Jesus. What more lazy and irresponsible
> theology of morality could be conceived of?
Funny... if you just change a couple of key words, that sounds ever so
much like the SubGenius dictum.
--
HellPope Huey
Anyone who claims to be a nihilist before they're
about 30 should be force-fed Uncle "Bob's"
Old-Fashioned Arthritis Remedy & Snake Bite Curative
until they think Smurfette is at their feet, begging
for a chance to give them oral pleasure.
"... I am not afraid of priests.
They have tried upon me all their various
batteries of pious whining, hypocritical canting,
lying and slandering."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Evil does NOT wear a BONNET!"
- "Cats & Dogs"
http://www.roadragecards.com/
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:08:03 GMT
--------
HellPope Huey wrote:
> In article <56be7db3.0412011220.4e7b74e1@posting.google.com>,
> drdark@37.com (DoktorDark) wrote:
>
>> The very types of individual & societal selfishness, greed, &
>> irresponsibility that are promoted by a "forgiveness"-based morality
>> are exactly why conservative fundies don't give a shit about the
>> environment: Jesus will "mop & glow" it up in the New Heaven and the
>> New Earth come Revelation time. And whatever they do as individuals
>> will be forgiven them by Jesus. What more lazy and irresponsible
>> theology of morality could be conceived of?
>
> Funny... if you just change a couple of key words, that sounds ever so
> much like the SubGenius dictum.
SHH!
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:11:35 GMT
--------
In article <8Nfrd.1867$NQ5.1680@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
> Frere Jean wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:47:45 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Christianity does not equal fundamentalism. There are 159 million
> >>self-identifying Christians in the United States, representing 76.5% of
> >>the population. Only 20 to 30 percent of those Christians are
> >>evangelical fundamentalist Protestants.
> >
> > That's about 30-50 million fundies.......
> > THAT IS SCARY!
>
> Yeah, no kidding. But better to take on 30-50 million than 159 million.
Aw, what's the difference? You're gonna be so sore after the first 3 or
4 million, a billion ain't gonna make it any worse. Yes, Jesus loves
you, but SHUT UP anyway.
--
HellPope Huey
Anyone who claims to be a nihilist before they're
about 30 should be force-fed Uncle "Bob's"
Old-Fashioned Arthritis Remedy & Snake Bite Curative
until they think Smurfette is at their feet, begging
for a chance to give them oral pleasure.
"... I am not afraid of priests.
They have tried upon me all their various
batteries of pious whining, hypocritical canting,
lying and slandering."
- Thomas Jefferson
--------
"Zapanaz" wrote in message
news:cj9pq0ha37hqshuncthqlopf43epjfsa5b@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Thanks.
void()
KILLBOT.target.set {
SemiEducated, Married, Gun Owning, Evangelical Xtian white males who attend
church regularly, are between 30 and up, who make more than $USD 50000 a
year, to whom moral values are of paramount importance.
}