Life, The Universe, And Everything; Continued

[Grandpa Harley]

BTW, Dano...

 

I could insult you if you like You may not deserve the ordure, but at least it's handed out by someone who can spin an ear ringer when motivated (I was raised by a venom of sarcastic cynics... scary as it sounds, my mother, may the dark Gods smile upon her and her spawn, is actually the most darkly cynical and sarcastic person I know... I've seen normal people stagger away looking as surprised as if she'd jammed a thumb in their eye. I'm used to her...)

[dano]

What the fuck has the weather to do with anything, Dip Shit?

Dano,

You're bright, articulate, and appreciated. Especially when you're coherent. Feel free to offer your thoughts, with or without the profanity.

Buddy

 

 

I hate to have to tell you this, Dim Wit but I don't need your permission!

[BuddyFerris]

... Since I'm somewhat conservative on core issues, you'll probably accuse me of fundyisms along the way, if you haven't already. My beliefs include the bodily resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth, the literal resurrection of Lazarus, etc. ^*

 

I'd like to think I don't qualify as rigid and intolerant. We'll see.

Buddy

 

^{*Included for Dano; he's bored.}

Why?

Because you said you were bored. Why else?

[Grandpa Harley]

Hey, you can take it and like it... He's been telling me off all damn day...

[dano]

BTW, Dano...

 

I could insult you if you like You may not deserve the ordure, but at least it's handed out by someone who can spin an ear ringer when motivated (I was raised by a venom of sarcastic cynics... scary as it sounds, my mother, may the dark Gods smile upon her and her spawn, is actually the most darkly cynical and sarcastic person I know... I've seen normal people stagger away looking as surprised as if she'd jammed a thumb in their eye. I'm used to her...)

 

That's the sweetest thing I have ever heard said, about one's Mother. Mine was a female version of our own, Mr. Condescension!

 

How nice it must be to be Grandpa Harley!

[dano]

... Since I'm somewhat conservative on core issues, you'll probably accuse me of fundyisms along the way, if you haven't already. My beliefs include the bodily resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth, the literal resurrection of Lazarus, etc. ^*

 

I'd like to think I don't qualify as rigid and intolerant. We'll see.

Buddy

 

^{*Included for Dano; he's bored.}

Why?

Because you said you were bored. Why else?

 

You have a severe disconnect, between your reading comprehension and your literary endeavors!

[Grandpa Harley]

she's sweet looking and white haired too... looks like she'd bake apple tarts for the local kids in a Norman Rockwell painting. Like my late Father, a force of nature. Since she's arthritic, I suggested she tried to get an 'assisted living' grant... I got the look...for a moment I was in the 19th Century, in a shack somewhere in the Pacific North West, in the dark of winter. It was like she'd stopped cleaning a buffalo rifle and spat tobacco juice on the floor before she snarled, 'I dun't need no stinkin' Federales nosin' in my business'

 

I think there are some tribes in Outer Mongolia that have a phrase that has the depth of meaning that I'd need in 'Fiercely Independent' for it to match how she feels about such things.

 

She likes Jean-Claude Van Damme and Stephen Segal films (and has worn out three copies of the first few Dirty Harry movies on VHS. Bro and I got her a DVD...)

 

I love her dearly... and she reckons that neither my brother or I have turned out 'too bad'... she supposes.

 

I know... it's like 'Leave It to Beaver'...

[BuddyFerris]

Posted by: Sparrow Sep 20 2007, 10:44 AM

Ok Buddy,

1. You profess to be a christian, yet from reading your numerous postings, without your actually denying it, you don’t seem like much of one. You have some ideas that are certainly not doctrinal and definitely not biblical. Since the Bible and the doctrine form the very essence of the Christianity, much of what you say indicates that you have some weird “Christianity without Christ†belief. Perhaps I’m wrong, but whatever you call I think I’d like to understand.

Sparrow,

I thought I'd resurrect your opening query, now that the brouhaha has died down a bit. I won't make you go back through the posts to find what it was that prompted your curiosity. If something occurs to you, I'd be happy to respond to it.

 

Meanwhile, I'm interested in the brand of Christianity you left behind, and what triggered your move, if you care to retell it.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

she's sweet looking and white haired too... looks like she'd bake apple tarts for the local kids in a Norman Rockwell painting. Like my late Father, a force of nature. Since she's arthritic, I suggested she tried to get an 'assisted living' grant... I got the look...for a moment I was in the 19th Century, in a shack somewhere in the Pacific North West, in the dark of winter. It was like she'd stopped cleaning a buffalo rifle and spat tobacco juice on the floor before she snarled, 'I dun't need no stinkin' Federales nosin' in my business'

 

I think there are some tribes in Outer Mongolia that have a phrase that has the depth of meaning that I'd need in 'Fiercely Independent' for it to match how she feels about such things.

 

She likes Jean-Claude Van Damme and Stephen Segal films (and has worn out three copies of the first few Dirty Harry movies on VHS. Bro and I got her a DVD...)

 

I love her dearly... and she reckons that neither my brother or I have turned out 'too bad'... she supposes.

 

I know... it's like 'Leave It to Beaver'...

I can't quite see June Cleaver and Van Damme, but it's a great description anyway. 'Rugged individualist' is the phrase we used.

[Grandpa Harley]

doesn't cover her properly... a little too welcoming to strangers...

 

I think there may be a word in Klingon

 

 

The Van Damme thing she claims I corrupted her...

[dano]

Posted by: Sparrow Sep 20 2007, 10:44 AM

Ok Buddy,

1. You profess to be a christian, yet from reading your numerous postings, without your actually denying it, you don’t seem like much of one. You have some ideas that are certainly not doctrinal and definitely not biblical. Since the Bible and the doctrine form the very essence of the Christianity, much of what you say indicates that you have some weird “Christianity without Christ†belief. Perhaps I’m wrong, but whatever you call I think I’d like to understand.

Sparrow,

I thought I'd resurrect your opening query, now that the brouhaha has died down a bit. I won't make you go back through the posts to find what it was that prompted your curiosity. If something occurs to you, I'd be happy to respond to it.

 

Meanwhile, I'm interested in the brand of Christianity you left behind, and what triggered your move, if you care to retell it.

Buddy

 

Let me Be perfectly clear. I am not speaking for Spatz, but I will hazard a guess.

 

It's because she would be intellectually dishonest to believe something that is illogical, irrational, asinine and just plain silly, now that she is a grown up lady!

[Grandpa Harley]

I think she's told the story before.

[dano]

I think she's told the story before.

 

I know but that's part of the Buddy system. Pretend that you never heard what someone said, and just go on with the cluster fuck as if he didn't have a clue.

 

Buddy has to talk to us now, that he has left "Christians Are Us", and found people who are still in possession of their brains.

 

He's addicted. It's like sweet fresh air to him. He's alive again, not like te old days when it went like; "The scripture says, uhhuh, uhhuh, uh huh,......... "

[Kuroikaze]

Hey, K,

My mistake, I'm sure. Of course I don't think fundamentalists are a whack job minority. Oh, wait a minute, I do think they're a whack job minority. Am I supposed to not think that??? Don't tell me I've been thinking wrong all these years, since the day I found out the Bible didn't allow women to wear skirts with hems above their ankles.

 

Let's broaden the definition boundary for ourselves just a bit, K, by noting that your fundamentalist category probably includes some generally conservative folks that really wouldn't call themselves fundamentalists. Classical fundamentalism, at least the way I would use the term, is rigid legalism plus an intolerance for any other perspective. You seem to include conservatives in the same category to some degree.

 

Since I'm somewhat conservative on core issues, you'll probably accuse me of fundyisms along the way, if you haven't already. My beliefs include the bodily resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth, the literal resurrection of Lazarus, etc.^*

 

I'd like to think I don't qualify as rigid and intolerant. We'll see.

Buddy

 

 

Of course they they are a minority, and crazy as well. I said as much in my post, but, again, you seem to think they wield no political or social power...I disagree, I have yet to hear any evidence from you to show that they don't.

 

And yes, I probably would include conservative Christians in that group in most respects. Perhaps fundamentalist isn't even the right word to use (though I can't think of a better one), in the end I disagree with who I disagree with, it doesn't if they call themselves fundamentalist Christians, or fluffy cute bunny Christians, if they worship the God of the bible, or the great Zarquan. If I don't like their beliefs (particularly when they think there is something wrong with me for disagreeing) I'll let them know where they can shove all their self righteous attitudes.

[Sparrow]

Posted by: Sparrow Sep 20 2007, 10:44 AM

Ok Buddy,

1. You profess to be a christian, yet from reading your numerous postings, without your actually denying it, you don’t seem like much of one. You have some ideas that are certainly not doctrinal and definitely not biblical. Since the Bible and the doctrine form the very essence of the Christianity, much of what you say indicates that you have some weird “Christianity without Christ†belief. Perhaps I’m wrong, but whatever you call I think I’d like to understand.

Sparrow,

I thought I'd resurrect your opening query, now that the brouhaha has died down a bit. I won't make you go back through the posts to find what it was that prompted your curiosity. If something occurs to you, I'd be happy to respond to it.

 

Meanwhile, I'm interested in the brand of Christianity you left behind, and what triggered your move, if you care to retell it.

Buddy

 

 

Hi Buddy,

 

I'll come back to this during the day.

 

Thanks

 

Willa

[BuddyFerris]

A mate of mine (Brian Keene) wrote this in 05...

THE END OF THE WORLD AS THEY KNOW IT (2005)

Yesterday, somewhere in Connecticut, two men got married. They received their official Civil Union license, along with all the legal rights that any other married couple benefits from. I imagine that they kissed and said I love you. Then the sun went down on another perfect day.

And despite this, the world didn't end. Behold, a pale horse did not show up, and an angel didn't blow a trumpet or open seven seals. The rivers did not run red with blood, the seas didn't boil, and locusts didn't storm the local Wal-Mart. The world kept turning. Married couples were still married when they woke up this morning. Children laughed and played. People went to work. A dog chased a cat. And all was right with the world.

The sanctity of marriage is still just fine.

What is marriage, at its core?

"Well Brian, it's a pact you make before God—"

Let me stop you right there and call bullshit on that bullshit. A pact before God? Which God? Do married Muslims make a pact before the Christian God? Do married Christians make a pact before the Hindu God? Do married atheists make a pact before any God?

"Well, then it's a slap in the face to traditional marriage."

Surely you jest. How, exactly, is it a slap in the face to traditional marriage? Because two people with the same kind of sexual organs enjoy saying, "I love you" and would like to take care of each other, support each other, share their lives with each other, grow old together, and maybe share a tombstone fifty years from now? That's a slap in the face to your own marriage? Why? Is it because maybe, deep down inside, you can't say the same things for you and your spouse?

What is a traditional marriage, anyway? My second marriage was held in a vineyard, where Cassi and I exchanged both Celtic-pagan and 'traditional' Protestant vows. Why? The first part was to make us happy. The second part was to make our families happy. Our minister was female. Both our ceremony and reception were held outdoors. Coop, Mike, Mikey, Big Joe, and Jason wore tuxedos. Nothing about it was traditional (especially that last bit).

When a member of the Ororo tribe shows up at the hut of his future spouse, delivers a goat, and then takes his beloved away to his own hut to consecrate the marriage—is that any less traditional than doing the fucking Chicken Dance during the wedding reception at the local VFW?

"But Brian, think of the children!"

I am. These two men in Connecticut can adopt a child, and show it love, tuck it in, read it a story, feed it, nurture it, care for it, support it, teach it right from wrong, pick it up when it falls down, and help it grow into a fine human being. And God (any god, take your pick) forbid something should happen to them, now they can legally assign that child as their beneficiary.

Yeah, that's much worse than growing up in an orphanage.

Rosa Parks passed away recently. I'm sure that even my youngest readers are fully aware of her contributions to our society. A portion of our society was afraid of Rosa Parks. Afraid of what she represented. But she, and others like her, put their lives on the line so that African-Americans could have the same rights as everybody else. People died for those rights. They died because a certain segment of our society didn't want, "those uppity niggers having the same rights as the rest of us." "It's a slap in the face to traditional democratic values," they cried. "Think of the children!"

Today, we are faced with a similar struggle. Homosexuals would like to enjoy the same rights as everybody else in America. But a certain segment of our population is threatened by that. And we need to support the homosexuals in their struggle. I don't care if you're straight or gay. Don't care if you're Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Wiccan. Don't care if you're a conservative or a liberal or a moderate, or a writer or a reader or an editor. You need to stand fast and speak out loud. Make sure your voice is heard, because if you don't, then the voices of intolerance and hatred will drown you out.

I'm not talking about joining hands and singing "Kumbaya." I'm not talking about Political Correctness run amok. I'm talking about simple, basic human rights. The right to hold the hand of someone you love, the right to share your life with them, and the right to make legal decisions together. The right to say, "I love you."

I promise you that your world won't end. Your marriage won't be destroyed.

But maybe some of the walls that separate us will be.

And that's a good thing for everybody.

Especially the children...

I make no apology for posting this again...

I'm sorry, I missed this on a page turn. Well written; reasonable. Makes you wonder why we don't neutralize the emotional harangue and deal with single component issues more often; like fairness or justice or equality of opportunity. How might we go about presenting concepts without the ideological overtones that are almost guaranteed to provoke hostile response. I'm sure I know the answer, but I just got up and apparently my brain isn't working. Buddy

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Of course they they are a minority, and crazy as well. I said as much in my post, but, again, you seem to think they wield no political or social power...I disagree, I have yet to hear any evidence from you to show that they don't.

 

And yes, I probably would include conservative Christians in that group in most respects. Perhaps fundamentalist isn't even the right word to use (though I can't think of a better one), in the end I disagree with who I disagree with, it doesn't if they call themselves fundamentalist Christians, or fluffy cute bunny Christians, if they worship the God of the bible, or the great Zarquan. If I don't like their beliefs (particularly when they think there is something wrong with me for disagreeing) I'll let them know where they can shove all their self righteous attitudes.

Good morning, K.

Take it down a notch and notice that I'm agreeing with you. The (religious) fundamentalists alone wield little if influence in the US. Political and religious conservatives, on the other hand, comprise 85+ million US voters.

 

For those with a sociological bent, demographics are a fascinating source of underlying cultural information.

 

For instance, in the UK, the conservatives are perhaps the largest block of voters these days. Does that mean that the country has conservative political AND religious leanings?

 

In the US, where around 80-90% believe in God, and some similar percentage believe that Jesus was God or the son of God, political and religious conservatism are quite visible at the polls. You'll notice though that the believers are spread across the spectrum of political issues so that they are equally visible with liberals on the left for many issues. 1 2

 

Does this clarify your complaint target a bit? Is it the fundamentalists? Is it the political conservatives or the religious conservatives? Or perhaps the conservatives and the moderates as well, if you're hoping for a fully liberalized agenda.

 

If I understand the issues upon about which you have concerns, your complaint may well be with 30 to 90% of the US population. Thoughts? Does this suggest specific issues which can be defined in political or religious terms?

 

Genuine question, not criticism.

Buddy

[Kuroikaze]

Take it down a notch and notice that I'm agreeing with you. The (religious) fundamentalists alone wield little if influence in the US. Political and religious conservatives, on the other hand, comprise 85+ million US voters.

 

*shrug* I wasn't angry, just telling you where I stood.

 

 

For those with a sociological bent, demographics are a fascinating source of underlying cultural information.

 

For instance, in the UK, the conservatives are perhaps the largest block of voters these days. Does that mean that the country has conservative political AND religious leanings?

 

In the US, where around 80-90% believe in God, and some similar percentage believe that Jesus was God or the son of God, political and religious conservatism are quite visible at the polls. You'll notice though that the believers are spread across the spectrum of political issues so that they are equally visible with liberals on the left for many issues. 1 2

 

Does this clarify your complaint target a bit? Is it the fundamentalists? Is it the political conservatives or the religious conservatives? Or perhaps the conservatives and the moderates as well, if you're hoping for a fully liberalized agenda.

 

If I understand the issues upon about which you have concerns, your complaint may well be with 30 to 90% of the US population. Thoughts? Does this suggest specific issues which can be defined in political or religious terms?

 

Genuine question, not criticism.

Buddy

 

The line between politics and religion blur when it comes to this topic. I'm not a democrat if that is what you are asking, I disagree with almost as many ideas in their agenda as I do with republicans, and I think both political parties are full of lying sons of bitches anyway, to make it clear, I dislike both Clinton and the current president about equally (though for different reasons)

 

I don't really like the words conservative and liberal because they are such buzz words that they often lack any real meaning. I'm also not sure I get the distinction you are making between "fundamentalist" and "conservative" Christians. I just have an aversion to Christians (or other dogmatic religionists) shoving their beliefs down my throat. I choose my enemies on a case by case basis, I may agree with a Christian on one issue and not on another

 

If you have a religious "conservative" who is trying to force children to learn "creation science" in classrooms...well I don't like his agenda no matter what you call him...which was the point of my last post.

 

You seem to be using "fundamentalist" in the most reserved sense of the word, that is the 19th century movement that started as a response to Darwinism, or perhaps only people who go around holding up signs that say "god hates fags," that doesn't tend to be the way that word is defined around here, so get over it, word are just words and getting caught up in a semantic argument seems pointless to me, I'd rather just move on.

[BuddyFerris]

The line between politics and religion blur when it comes to this topic. I'm not a democrat if that is what you are asking, I disagree with almost as many ideas in their agenda as I do with republicans, and I think both political parties are full of lying sons of bitches anyway, to make it clear, I dislike both Clinton and the current president about equally (though for different reasons)

That's OK; I'm not a Republican.

I don't really like the words conservative and liberal because they are such buzz words that they often lack any real meaning. I'm also not sure I get the distinction you are making between "fundamentalist" and "conservative" Christians. I just have an aversion to Christians (or other dogmatic religionists) shoving their beliefs down my throat. I choose my enemies on a case by case basis, I may agree with a Christian on one issue and not on another

Not that it matters, but from a social viewpoint, the division usually occurs on the 'tolerance' issue; is there room for others to have a different view and live in the same society.

If you have a religious "conservative" who is trying to force children to learn "creation science" in classrooms...well I don't like his agenda no matter what you call him...which was the point of my last post.

Ah. 'Force' being the operative element. I can see your point and probably agree. Public education is an extension of government, and government may not play that kind of shell game.

You seem to be using "fundamentalist" in the most reserved sense of the word, that is the 19th century movement that started as a response to Darwinism, or perhaps only people who go around holding up signs that say "god hates fags," that doesn't tend to be the way that word is defined around here, so get over it, word are just words and getting caught up in a semantic argument seems pointless to me, I'd rather just move on.

I can accept that; thanks for clarifying your usage. In the absence of some correlation to a mutually accepted usage, communications does tend to run amok. I don't have any problem at all with where you stand; just trying to figure out where that is. Didn't care for Clinton, not overly impressed with current Bush, not optimistic about next Clinton, nor optimistic re the two party options which seem to be two separate piles of the same processed fodder. Move on, we shall.

 

OK, with my focus adjusted then, I presume your hope for the future is a secular world with secular government and freedom from religious and political oppression. I can live with that. Is it necessary also to stamp out religions in general, or is there a place for them? Just curious... (just curious if I get squelched or get to stick around in your future world).

Buddy

[Vigile]

is there room for others to have a different view and live in the same society.

 

Are you asking that intolerance be tolerated?

[BuddyFerris]

is there room for others to have a different view and live in the same society.

 

Are you asking that intolerance be tolerated?

Vigile,

Although not within the context of the preceding discussion, you've proposed an astute question. What shall we do with the frothing, intrusive, intolerant members of society who insist on forcing their ideology onto others and insisting that others are completely wrong unless they comply? Careful, it's a trick.

Buddy

[Rime]

Yes, Buddy, there are secular fundies. No contest. And we shouldn't allow that more than the religious type.

 

The tricky part is how do we make the rules?

 

A lot of religious people think it's a conspiracy to destroy Christianity with the theory of evolution. Even though its mechanics are valid and (as far as I know) the theory does not require indoctrination in origins science, and that those interested can pursue it. On their own. And that as we learn more, it changes in subtle ways.

 

Prayer in schools is another one. Apparently, it's necessary for a teacher to lead the children in prayer. I get the usual "The others can pray however they want," but I'm not satisfied that this is being neutral and fair. Besides, it was because Christian children were picking on non-Christians because they weren't saying the right prayers... theirs.

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, though, it'll be 20 years ago next year that I graduated from high school.

[Vigile]

is there room for others to have a different view and live in the same society.

 

Are you asking that intolerance be tolerated?

Vigile,

Although not within the context of the preceding discussion, you've proposed an astute question. What shall we do with the frothing, intrusive, intolerant members of society who insist on forcing their ideology onto others and insisting that others are completely wrong unless they comply? Careful, it's a trick.

Buddy

 

Ah Buddy, you can't kid a kidder. I'll side with free speech every time, no matter how much it disgusts me. What I will also do is side with free speech and other personal protections against those who would seek to rob them from others. In other words, I personally won't tolerate those who seek to interject their own personal beliefs onto the lives of others through force. This seems like human moral rule number one to me. Precluding homosexuals from forming the type of union they see fit is an abuse of their rights imposed on them by mob rule. No one has a right to not be offended btw. Others are free to their disagreements, but they should not be free to impose their opinions via the legal system as they do now.

 

Note: Here's the first time I noticed using the word "should" that I've been accused of abusing.

[Grandpa Harley]

"For instance, in the UK, the conservatives are perhaps the largest block of voters these days. Does that mean that the country has conservative political AND religious leanings?"

 

To explain British politics... We have Three major parties who comprise the Parliament - Labour, Conservative (note capital C) and Liberal Democrat. Labour is more or less the equivalent of extreme left wing Democrats in the US. The Conservative Party is diametrically opposed to most of what Labour stands, and is more or less the equivalent of extreme left wing Democrats in the US. The Liberal Democrats are sort of mid-way between the two extreme parties and the party is more or less the equivalent of extreme left wing Democrats in the US.

 

and yes, they're all supposed to read the same. By and large, what you chaps call 'conservative' the bulk of the UK regard as dangerously right wing, and what you chaps call 'liberal' as 'probably more right wing than we'd like' We have NOTHING like your 'conservatives' and, from the outside world's POV there isn't any distinction between political conservatism in the US and insane fundy clap trap, since we see the same talking heads dropping the god bomb most of the time... Name one mainstream conservative Atheist...

[Legion]

Note: Here's the first time I noticed using the word "should" that I've been accused of abusing.

Well, I wouldn't be so direct as to accuse you of abusing the word Vigile. I just said I've noticed that you use it frequently.

 

How much sense does it make for me to say, "You should not say should"? You're a political animal. You're going to say "should".