Why do I suspect that you spent the entire day reading the Lego bible. I used tremendous force of will to stop. But you, you might need a program or something.
Believe it or not, I didn't. But I did go for the gory bits.
But, the parts of the bible that match our common sense intuitions about morality have much to teach us.
There was a movie dramatizing this (not just this, but it included this sequence) taking place in sub-Saharan Africa, but, I can't remember what it's called.
I can remember that I thought it was good.
You know, I really need to meet more (and more annoying) Christians; I feel like I'm missing out on the authentic American experience.
The best-flayed glans gang oft astray.
Checl out Jay Pinkerton's "Back of the Bible." It'll make you plotz.
http://www.jaypinkerton.com/backofthebible.html
you know, I've read Genesis, and I don't remember this at all. I may need to go back and review.
Yikes. I need to bone up on my Burns.
You mean agley/astray? Meh, no one remembers that.
I would have spelled it "aglee." Which would have been worse on many levels.
NTM he left out "of mice and men". I don't see how you could forget "gang aft agley" if once you knew it; it's rather distinctive (I would havfe expected "awry" as a mistake, too).
I left out "of mice and men" deliberately, since I couldn't adapt it well enough to the circumcision theme.
But now I'm imagining Andy Kaufmann lip-synching to the theme song from "Mohel Mouse".
Don't buy the gribenes from Lefty the Mohel, SB.
Qui w-lfs-niet ipsos w-lfs-nes?
It's "o' Mice an' Men". Those elisions? Distinctive.
Sorry, Ben. That came out pettier than I intended.
See what I'm saying? Sort of makes Galactic Overlord Xenu sound downright reasonable.
Dude, look at the middle-east today; do you really doubt shit this crazy could have happened three thousand years ago?
Huh? Of course. I'm just saying, see, Christianity is fucking weird, too. For every Tom Cruise, a Mel Gibson.
Galactic Overlord Xenu: probably non-existent. Crazy middle-easterns who practice auto-circumcision as social bonding/prelude to massacre: entirely likely.
Ah, but the God who commands auto-circumcision and massacre: probably non-existent.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. All I'm saying is what I've been saying: that Christianity is creepy too, probably as creepy as Scientology.
People are creepy. Religion is a symptom, not the disease.
All I'm saying is what I've been saying: that Christianity is creepy too, probably as creepy as Scientology.
LOUIS: Any religion that's not at least two thousand years old is a cult.
Kushner, Angels in America, 1992
All I'm saying is what I've been saying: that Christianity is creepy too, probably as creepy as Scientology.
No, Kriston, what you are saying is that you are a heathen who fears not the firey hell-demons that will consume you in the Afterlife.
FWIW, I've heard at least a few priests say that it is not necessary to believe in the literal truth of the Bible to be a Christian. (And apparently there is one near me that says that it is all clearly hokum and we should admit it to preserve the Church; but that actually creeps me out.)
You'd still be hard pressed to find a sizable Christian denomination that acts as strangely as the Church of Scientology. Strange as the Bible may be, at least they give you the book from the start.
FWIW, I've heard at least a few priests say that it is not necessary to believe in the literal truth of the Bible to be a Christian.
This is not just a few priests -- I believe that it's either official Catholic doctrine, or at least what basically all Catholics believe. Most Protestants too. Biblical literalists are a very particular group of Christians, neither the majority not the mainstream.
Yup. I'm pretty sure the Jesuits don't think it's literally true.
I should make the Old/New Testament distinction. My understanding is that it's fairly mainstream Christian to regard the New Testament as accurate, miracles and all, even if not necessarily perfectly inerrant, but only particular groups of fundamentalist Protestants think of the Old Testament as inerrant.
Qui w-lfs-niet ipsos w-lfs-nes?
That should be "quis".
w-lfs-no, w-lfs-nere, w-lfs-ni, w-lfs-nus.
The movie I was thinking of is La Genèse.
Christianity has certainly become more flexible on the question of the Bible's literal truth over 2,000 years; frankly, I think it's a testament (if you will) to the applicability of the Biblical message to the human condition that the religion has survived in spite of its bogus material. I suppose Scientology is able to maintain a high noise-to-signal ratio as it were by requiring its adherents to be brainwashed before they get to hear the good stuff.
"Mainly because Jews haven't gotten in my face about what an awesome book they've got."
It was never clear to me that God was a terribly nice dude, myself.
I'm pretty sure the Jesuits don't think it's literally true.
c'mon. Jesuits are all closet atheists.
As for my take on the larger issue of abu-Labs's post, I think it just a scheme by god to make sure no one had a bigger dick.
Sorry to intrude. I usually just lurk, but I have a small point. I remember asking a religious friend about what the hell that story could possibly mean and he had an almost decent explanation: Notice that the two sons who go apeshit get passed over in the succession. Without the story, it wouldn't be clear why a younger son gets to be boss later on. So there is a strong implicit criticism of their behaviour, even if it sounds like a casual recounting. Their behaviour is at least bad enough to disqualify them from a leadership position.
Not sure if that's true, but if it is it does bring them a *bit* closer to our own sense of what is proper. And perhaps they even come out looking better in some ways. I can totally imagine George W. Bush having played exactly the same trick on a rival frat in his wild youth, but I doubt it would have hurt *his* leadership chances if the story had broken during the election.
(My apologies in advance if this turns out to be a bogus explanation.)
But by definition, God has a perfectly sized dick. I am going to hell.
I'm not sure if we want to be serious or flippant about this (or possibly, we don't really care enough either way) but: I've seen a fair bit of irreverent behavior from Jesuits, and certainly they're my favorite Catholic clergy.
Nevertheless, I think the Church is doctrinally reasonably clear about the Bible.
... since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.
Which is to say, reasonably clear that it wants to leave some wiggle room:
However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
Whole thing here.
(Have you noticed the Vatican has one rockin' homepage btw?)
Protestants, your mileage may vary. Individual Biblical interpretation licensed but incorrect interpretation may subject you to stoning or exile from the colony.
Than which no bigger can be conceived. Save me a seat.
47 to 45. 46: isn't there a lot of to-do about how the OT isn't to be taken literally, because the new Covenant overturned parts of the old one? Does this vary from sect to sect?
Is infinite size the perfection of the divine cock? Might the perfection of the divine cock not be a finite size (maybe, say 42 light-years long)? And if god's cock is infinitely big, is there room for the rest of god? (In addition to these serious questions, there's an angels/head joke in here somewhere.)
A perfectly sized dick isn't one than which no bigger can be conceived, Weiner.
I think god's dick is all things to all women, and changes shape to be just right depending on whom he's boning.
W/d No, no, he's insecure, loves compliments. You'll probably become his "bitch". There's a place for you, too, Matt.
My thesis gains credibility when we reflect that perfect means complete. God's penis completely fills whomever he's with, just right, neither more nor less.
Yes, while God's cock may be finite, God's sexual prowess is surely infinite.
there's an angels/head joke in here somewhere.)
How many angels can work on the God head before one of them has to move to the balls?
God's sexual prowess is surely infinite.
Ergo, praying is like your friend calling you during sex?
wait, 56 doesn't make sense. 56 doesn't make sense!!
56: Who's having it? You or your friend? Or both? With each other? That's a true symbol of modern alienation.
Ogged, why must you be such a little bitch?
While I can't be certain, I'm confident it has something to do with the fact that I read about 200 attempts to be funny every day.
God has a perfectly sized dick.
God is omnipudent.
This brings to mind serious theological questions, of which I am woefully unprepared to address. It seems that the "god is perfect" school stems from "god is infallible" and perhaps other interpretations of the bible. However, if one comes to a belief in god through a variation of belief in Intelligent Design (not uncommon, I think) then I don't see any reason to assume perfection or infallibility. Which actually seems more compelling, because this is intuitively not the Best of All Possible Worlds, or Ogged's mom would call more often.
Do you think His cup runneth over, then?
ATTEMPT 178 and it's not even noon!
63: Hume runs something like that argument against the Argument from Design in Dialogues concerning Natural Religion--if we can conclude by an analogy with artifacts that the universe had a maker, shouldn't we conclude by analogy with makers of artifacts that the maker was a committee? And imperfect? Etc.
Given the social anxiety that attends commenting here, I should be clear that I'm not *displeased* with the attempts to be funny, given that a surprising number of them are successful, and make me laugh out loud--it's just that my sense of what's not funny (eg, Michael), has been honed to a fine edge.
what's not funny (eg, Michael)
Tout court? That's cold, man, cold.
I thought that "god is perfect" had more to do with finality and platonism than infallibility.
Unfunny is my online persona. In person, I'm hilarious.
Your online persona contains both Unf and Unny? Interesting.
So is everyone else sitting around quietly freaking out about Sandra Day O'Connor being a Justice no more?
Freaking out? Why, just because the country's fucked for the next thirty years?
So, can God have an erection so large that even he can't lift it?
God has a perfectly sized dick
I don't know that Dobson is perfectly sized, but eye of the beholder and all that.
I worry that Dems are going to support a "Torture Memo" Gonzales nomination. Which would be as cynical an act as I can imagine without more coffee.
I say it's John Cornyn, for maximum soulless evil.
I think this is interesting:
"An O'Connor resignation was not one we took seriously," said C. Boyden Gray.... It makes me nervous," he said. "I'm not sure we are as prepared for an O'Connor vacancy."
"as prepared" suggests Gray thinks whoever they had lined up for Rehnquist's slot (or Scalia's, assuming he became CJ on Rehnquist's retirement) or Stevens's seems somehow unsuitable for O'Connor's. Why? Because it's not a woman? Or because it's not a moderate?
No, it means the talking points they'd mass mailed to Drudge and Fox News were about why the liberals were evil for blocking the Chief Justices replacement, not an Associate Justices.
Slol Erner - I thought there was a wide consensus that Antonin wasn't going to be appointed Chief, since it means two confirmation processes.
No, it means the talking points they'd mass mailed to Drudge and Fox News were about why the liberals were evil for blocking the Chief Justices replacement, not an Associate Justices.
Heh. Well, that's why I'm slo. And further on that point, I suppose there's nothing the WH thinks it can't do, so why not two confirmation hearings, so long as it's remaking the world in its image?
This is an authentic question--since the first wave of appointments (Powell, Whitman, etc.), has Bush nominated any moderate for any high-profile post? Danforth, maybe? "Not a woman" I could see.
Actually, I guess I count Ridge as a moderate. Incompetent, but a moderate Republican. But I think there's no worry that these guys have any moderates on their short or extra-long list. (From what I hear Michael McConnell might be a reasonable choice--conservative but actually principled. I'm predisposed in his favor because he's a former colleague of former colleagues who seem to think he's OK.)
How seriously should we take the campaign to overturn cases like Wickard v. Filburn -- the ones that gave Congress the power to pass New Deal legislation and federal business regulations (like, say, minimum wage)? Is that really possible? Can anyone tell me?
LB, I'm looking at you.
Too busy to reply in substance, and I don't have much of an informed response other than "Geez. I don't think so, that'd be crazy." Idealist is one of those people, a Federalist Society member and all that, so he would know better than I would.
79. I think the WH would like to see itself as omnipotent ('gotta lotta political capital to spend', etc.) but also likes to win. Sometimes these two wishes come into conflict. The draggy Bolton nomination proved an unpleasant surprise (more so since really, who cares who's the UN ambassador?) and so, we're led to believe, was the filibuster 'deal'. Under such circumstances, the WH might prefer to get someone through quickly rather than put forward the justicial equivalent of John Bolton.
Or possibly, my name is Pollyanna.
Joe D, don't you think Bush/Rove would only appoint someone they thought likely to do that if they expected the Democrats to return to power anytime soon. Otherwise, they'd be doing something that would limit their power, and that's as anathema to them as anything could be.
The country would be great if we just returned to the glory days of the 90's. The 1890's.
Is your fleshly rod the wrong dong for the job? Then look no further than God's plenary johnson—as if you could! It's the be-all, the end-all, the one size fits all. Whether you're hankering for a mighty axis mundi, or a holy pole to raise a big, ecumenical tent, the Lord God of Hosts has the unit for you.
We return now to our regularly-scheduled handwringing, already in progress.
But, the parts of the bible that match our common sense intuitions about morality have much to teach us.
Um, it should be noted that the Shechem incident is not portrayed in the Bible as a good thing. See verses 5 to 7 here.
Apropos of nothing, I note that in the Soundgarden song "The Hand of God" we are informed
The Hand of God
Has Got a Ring About the Size of Texas
Working from this as our starting point, I think we can assume that the wang of God is approximately the size of the earth. The peehole of God is probably about the size of New Jersey.
My thesis gains credibility when we reflect that perfect means complete.
So you think God's not circumcised then?
Why would god be circumcised? That makes no sense. He doesn't need to covenant with himself.
But the sons of Jacob seemed to be upset not so much that their sister was raped, but that it was done by one of them uncircumcised dudes.
So if God is uncircumcised, then how are supposed to feel about that whole Mary incident?
I wonder if it has yet been addressed in Christian theology whether God was at least considerate enough to make Jesus look like Joseph, to avoid embarassing questions.
There's a great Joe Frank show that I wish were free online so I could tell you to listen to it, in which Joseph reflects on having been cuckolded. He knew his wife was a social climber, but with God?
I'm pretty sure the reason Mary came up with the "God done it" story was that she had a strong premonition that Jesus wouldn't bear much resemblance to Joseph.
Aren't you glad we have timestamps?