>> ^Morganth:

Why? Because when the government does nothing these people shouldn't care about their neighbor?They shouldn't try to practice what they believe and care for people like Jesus did?>> ^NaMeCaF:
I think the scariest thing about this whole story is the fundamentalist christian groups running the rehabs.



Oh no, don't get me wrong. If they sincerely were just helping them recover from their addiction then more power to them. What I have a problem with is the fact that they don't just do that, they brainwash the addicts and fill their heads with fundamentalist christian crap and breed more of these nutcases who go on to do the same thing, and like a big snowball effect, their numbers grow and then you end up with another America.

i'm little more qualified than you in this area..in this case im an ornithologist and you're some guy who saw daffy duck..this is a huge issue in the church right now..over half the church is roiled in complete apostacy..


Well... yeah. It's cool that you've figured out true Christianity but you have to understand you're not the only one who thinks so (and you can't all be right). Do you think you know the Bible better than, say, an Eastern Orthodox priest? You don't. Oh God how you don't. I've seen nothing in your posts to demonstrate more than a passing, only-my-denomination-which-isn't-really-a-denomination-it's-just-the-truth understanding of the Bible or Christianity in general - whereas Dr. Priest has been studying his whole life, and not just the Bible but delicate moral arguments reflected upon for centuries by a unified body. And he's praying for God to bless all Orthodox Christians. He's specifically excluding you from his prayers because you're a nutcase apostate - just like you're allowing into definition only the Christians you want based on the criteria you got from your nutcase, exclusive, non-Christian (according to 80% of the world's other Christians) teachers/pastors/whatever.

Think you know your Bible better than a devout Jehovah's Witness? Again, you don't. Dude has been arguing with other Christians 4 hours a day his entire life. He's 100% confident that he's gonna live on Paradise Earth talking to pandas, eating watermelon, and not having to hear anything from you ever again. He believes something radically, radically different than you and he's using the same book (well, mostly the same anyways) to support his wacky-by-any-objective-measure belief. I don't think JWs have a natural reading of the Bible - but I don't think "mainstream American Christians" have one either, and to the extent they do it 100% isn't reflected in their behavior or politics. Jesus's politics were so far to the left of Democrats and Republicans, it doesn't even compute.

Guys in this video? They have just as much claim to Christianity as you. You think his fruits are rotten? Obviously he doesn't think so. He thinks he's saving souls from homosexuality. That's, like, super awesome mangosteen tasty-time fruit. Does he show "love, one to another"? He thinks so. He thinks he's showing ++extra love because he's willing to do the uncomfortable and be the only one to reach out to these kids and save them from everlasting sorrow. I think he has a really good shot at you, in fact: why don't you want to help these kids? If you believe homosexuality is an abomination (which you'd better), isn't it worth some discomfort now if it has any chance of turning them on the right path? Is it because you've been corrupted by modern liberal values? He's so sad that, like, 60% of modern Christians have left the true path and opened themselves to worldly influences/the devil.

Me? I think a true follower of Christ would welcome anyone to call themselves Christian if they believed in Christ and showed love one to another - and certainly wouldn't attempt to exclude other Christians based on their affiliations, ritual foibles, or doctrinal quibbles. From first Corinthians:

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?


Unfortunately, though, it doesn't work to build a normal religion on top of Christ's teachings, because his teachings prohibit all the ways a normal religion works: divisions, shame, sanctimony, self-righteousness, greed, hate-for-those-different. How can you really get a crowd going if you're just telling them to be nice, accepting, and peaceful without stoking their egos, inflating your authority as a preacher, claiming an exclusive connection with God and truth, suggesting doubt is of the devil, and simultaneously making the congregation feel unworthy because of their secret sins? So modern Christianity (in all its wacky rainbow) just have to make do and shoehorn Jesus into "religion" (the same psychological tricks that have been used throughout history to subjugate people).

But I don't know why I'm talking to you (and I suppose mostly I'm not). I don't have any expectation that you're discussing in good faith or that you're at all permeable to reason. I've seen your beliefs on science before, and they're clear, clear signs that you're not interested at all in considering anything that doesn't already fit with your beliefs.

In fact, just to be sure I don't have to hear your moronic rebuttal or something, I'll give you an easy excuse to not talk to me because I'm oh-so-mean-and-bad: I think you're a fantastic moron.

By the way, i downvoted this video, because Behe doesnt deserve the platform. He's lying about biology, and he KNOWS he is lying. All his arguments (basically just one) was pulverized by real scientists in the Dover trial RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS EYES, he was shown flagellums with missing parts, people explained how things evolve new functions etc. and he was forced to accept that "intelligent design theory" is no more scientific than astrology.

From Wikipedia:

Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough"

The guy is a deluded fraud and a liar who is completely unwilling to understand or accept evolution in the face of the overwhelming evidence that has been, on occasion, personally presented to him.

Instead of doing what any scientist and reasonable person would do, and discard his long-since disproven nonsense, he keeps trotting out the same baloney, in an attempt to fool people who know nothing about biology.

He is also, according to his own son, religiously retarded on other levels, when his son became an atheist, he basically forbade him to talk to his younger siblings. (http://breakingspells.net/son-of-michael-behe-discusses-his-atheism/)

Religious, deluded, dishonest nutcase

So what you're saying is that he's a standard person. Some things you agree with...some things you don't.

Wow...its a good thing we have this system where there are checks and balances in place so that the president has limited power.

There are things he's absolutely dead on about, but there are things he's an absolute nutcase about. The fact that he sired Rand Paul scares me a bit. but right now I'm totally for his anti-war stance so if he can get us out of three wars..I'll gladly put up with his nonsense about the gold standard and de-regulation.

@entr0py

If it's good enough for Fox News it's good enough for me!

I just liked the seriousness that Huckabee showed and calling him doctor somehow made his claims more credible. God damned nutcases.

The "Left" and "Center" better start buying up mega-media corporations if anyone wants to stop this kind of drivel. It's designed to go nowhere, just as illustrated by bobknight33. Beck is ridiculous to all but an ignorant borderline nutcase.

It's funny how so many jobs demand "computer-literacy" but that definition is pretty fast and loose. On the rare occasions I've had to call my ISP I just hope they appreciate how easily I can change TCP/IP settings. I like to imagine when my next call comes through they're clamouring to take it

I recall working on an internal support desk where one of the staff calling in had this ISDN line or something. Thing is "he" was a "she", going through some sort of change or whatever. The gender of the voice was really hard to pin so could lead to some awkward moments until you identified who it was. But worst of all they were an idiot anyway.

Oh and another time, someone who had LEFT called up the desk and tried to get support. Because she lived nearby she asked if I could come over and fix her computer. Bizarre. I just assumed she was a lonely nutcase.

Here's another angle on the event...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM&feature=player_embedded

Now - when an unidentified, unauthorized person makes a mad dash with an object in their hands at a political figure in a vehicle then you sort of have to expect a bit of manhandling. Imagine if some random Bush supporter had made a similar dash at President Obama, for example. You think just maybe that security & aides would dogpile the breach until "the package" was confirmed safe? I'm surprised this nutcase got off as easy as she did.

Also consider the source. This is a MoveOn.org neolib flake with a documented history of radical behavior. As a publicity stunt this loser runs up with a trophy. Whatever. But when that objective fails she runs whining to favorable left-wing media outlets like MSN to peddler her non-story as a "woe is me" tale of Rand Paul violence. And look how freaking HAPPY she is to be on MSN hawking her balony. She's not upset. She's happy as a clam. This went better than she hoped. So boo-hoo cry me a river, toots.

Show me the video of Democrat volunteers wrestling down Republican protesters? Show me the video of Democrat candidates not condemning violence started by one of their own ... one party has a clear propensity for violence, the other does not.

You mean the Democrat party, right? Because they're the main offenders for voter intimidation, violence, and shenanigans. Democrat union thugs intimidate voters at the ballots, and even target them at their homes. Democrat supporters beat up poor black guys at rallies. Rather than condemn the sleaze, Democrat politicians act as apologists for this behavior. And hey - how about that great Etheredge vid where he manhandles a blogger? "Who are you?!?" indeed.

Examples you say?

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2010/09/29/violence-hatred-and-thuggery-by-liberal-extremists-against-conserva
tives-so-wheres-the-media-video/

And please no whining about the source. Yeah it's a conservative blog, but all its doing is linking youtube videos. Sorry man - but if you imagined up a world where only Repblicans are mean jackholes then you had to do it by ignoring documented fact.

I don't think the act of three airplane-hijacking nutcases is indicative of anything in particular, other than that there are airplane-hijacking nutcases running around loose.

I don't think the act of one throat-slitting nutcase is indicative of anything in particular, other than that there are throat-slitting nutcases running around loose.

Glad to hear everything's okay in RL!

So, to answer your first question, yes, I have read the Bible and many Buddhist sutras (particularly the Lotus Sutra). I'm familiar with some parts of the Koran, but have not read it in its entirety. What knowledge I have of Hinduism comes from Hindu friends.

Your interpretation of these religious texts is that they promote an obedience to a God or gods. For sure the Buddhist sutras do not, as most sects of Buddhism do not believe in sentient gods per se but in an innate (non-sentient) life force that we all share. But leaving that issue aside, I don't see how you can't have both themes (love thy neighbor/obey god). You couched it as an "either/or" solution, but why does it have to be? There's no logical reason why you can't follow your individual deity and treat other humans with compassion and respect. In fact, in most cases the themes go together--by treating other people with compassion and respect you are following the commands of your deity.

But let's take it further than that. I'm just going to quote you here: Of course you dont have to [interpret the Bible that way], and most religious people dont, read or interpret it that way. Wouldn't you agree that if most people don't interpret the Bible as a form of control, then really your interpretation is not the representative of Christian belief? For certain some people do interpret those religious texts as you have-- fundamentalists, for instance. But I would hardly consider them the majority of religious people or the average representative of religion. In short, just because you’ve interpreted a particular religious text in a particular way, it doesn’t mean your interpretation is by any means “correct” or mainstream.

On a side note, I agree with you that there's a lot of f'd up stuff in many religious texts. Take the Old Testament for example and the bloodshed and wars described within it. However, we’re looking at religion as a whole--not just superficially at the religious text but how that text is interpreted and how the people who follow that religion conduct themselves in daily life. One problem with this, as I mentioned in the last post, is that the most vocal nutcases are usually the ones that you see in the media and not your "average" religious person, so it is easy to form a biased perception of virtually all religions if you’re not associating with members of that particular religion on a daily basis. If you ask the majority of Christians what the major theme of the Bible is, you’ll almost certainly get some answer regarding love and redemption—not your interpretation or violence and control.

To address your second question about empirical evidence about the benefits of religious belief--there's lots. I don't have time now to find all the links. You’ll just have to Google it. I've seen the studies--legit ones on both physical and psychological health published in JAMA and other peer-reviewed sources--and they were enough to convince me. Very few counter-examples have been published with the exception of a recent one in 2010 that showed a correlation between religious belief and obesity, but it was such a small sample size that it could have been a chance finding or attributable to other factors (it drew its participants predominately from African-American /Hispanic communities which typically have worse health-care access than other ethnic groups).

Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at your next argument about MLK. You seem to be stating that it wasn’t MLK’s religious beliefs that prompted him to take action. All I need to do to refute this is point you to any biography of the man or his numerous speeches where he clearly states that his religious beliefs have led him to believe in both the moral imperatives of equality for all people and non-violence as a means of achieving this. Was religion the thing that made him what he was? Absolutely. Same with Ghandi. And Mother Theresa. And the Dalai Lama. And a host of other people who have attempted to or succeeded in changing the world for the better.

Next, let’s talk about the Hitchen’s challenge. I find the challenge ridiculous. Why should religion have to be somehow separate from daily life? All religions are deeply concerned with secular life—with how we live and act. Furthermore basic psychology tells us we don’t act because of any one reason but due to a complex interaction of many reasons, some of which are conscious and some unconscious, and which in the end are in our own self-interest. Hitchen’s challenge is a straw-man argument—replace religion with some other construct such as democracy or music and you will be equally unable to find anyone who meets that challenge (by promoting democracy you protect your own rights; musicians may love music but even they need to sell songs in order to pay the rent and will compose for money).

I think equally ridiculous is the argument that things such as genital mutilation have no other possible explanation or cause than religion. Wouldn’t misogyny be a much better and more rational explanation than religion? Clearly religion is used to fuel the misogyny but it would certainly be a mistake to assume that the misogyny couldn’t exist without religion. Let’s take another example—the Spanish Inquisition. The cause of that tragic slaughter was clearly secular in nature—having finally wrested the southern part of the country from Muslim rule, Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unify a country in which many different religions co-existed. In short, religion didn’t cause the Spanish Inquisition; plain old political power-struggles did. Religion was simply the vehicle through which it was carried out.

And this is really what I’ve been saying all along—that religion is not, as you keep painting it as, the cause of humanity’s problems. It is a tool—a tool that, can be used for great good or great evil. As the folks at religioustolerance.org state: “Religion has the capability to generate unselfish love in some people, and vicious, raw hatred in others. The trick is to somehow change religions so that they maximize the former and minimize the latter.”

Later on, they go on to state that they feel that religion overall has a positive effect on society. That pretty much sums up my view of religion. If you do away with religion, you throw out the baby with the bath water. You lose the Martin Luther King Jr.’s, the Ghandi’s, the Mother Teresea’s, the Dali Lama’s of the world. It’s too a high a price to pay. For me, it’s all about dialogue—talking with others, getting them to see the common ground we all share, respect each other, and, as they said on their website maximizing the good and eliminating the bad.

As long as we keep talking—as you and I have been doing through these threads--we will keep moving forward. But I believe the instant dialogue ends—the instant you demonize the” other” and refuse to engage with them--you’ve planted the seeds of the next conflict: the next Spanish Inquisition, the next Bosnian massacre, or the next 9/11.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Stephen Colbert, Basil Marceaux, Tennessee, guns, nutcase' to 'Stephen Colbert, Basil Marceaux, Tennessee, guns, nutcakes' - edited by volumptuous

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Actually, my favourite character was Richmond the Goth - I thought Noel Fielding played this well. "The Dinner Party" episode was hilarious. "I only drink Absinthe".

Roy and Moss are characters I care about- but I agree that they could invest more in the actual character development- and story some story arc please! If Roy broke up with his GF in the first episode- why is it never mentioned again? I also agree that Katherine's character is a real weak link.

>> ^Deano:

Hey, let's not be like that - I don't mind anyone getting a kick out of a sitcom and I'm not going to rant on them if they don't like say, Seinfeld. But let me get a little more specific as to why I feel the I.T Crowd hasn't really worked.
I agree those eps had their moments but you're probably looking at the very, very best bits there. The Outing relied on broad, farcical humour which you can't use to sustain a series and had nothing to do with the situation of the show (which is supposed to be where the humour comes from).
But mostly I don't see where the gags are most of the time. Having a bloke pretend like he's from The Matrix and not giving him any jokes means you're putting A LOT on the actor. And most of the time this show does not get the balance of jokes and performances right.
In The Final Countdown Roy doesn't want to be mistaken for a window cleaner by an aquaintance. But because the antagonist is so sketchily drawn along there isn't anything at stake nor is there a payoff. And like most of the principals the guy playing Roy doesn't have the comedic acting chops to pull this off. A similar situation in Seinfeld would have worked because Jason Alexander (this would be a George situation) can turn average material into gold. And I'm beginning to wonder what Katherine Parkinson is supposed to be doing - her character doesn't develop and her storylines are as flimsy as can be.
It's interesting that Linehan co-wrote Father Ted which was much better than the I.T Crowd and is solely responsible for this.
I'll say this again - the best thing about the show is Matt Berry. He's clearly having fun and has a character that could go places. The show should be about him or some similar nutcase and the guys in the basement should be peripheral characters. I'm glad that Noel Fielding and Chris Morris appear to be gone as they were bloody awful.

>> ^kymbos:
Haven't seen the new series, but there are a few episodes of the earlier series' that are as close to perfect comedy as it gets. The one where they go to see Gay - the Gay Musical is brilliant, and the one where the boss starts going out with the woman who used to be a man. And the one where the old boss dies and they have his funeral.
If you don't find it funny (in general), I honestly pity you.

Hey, let's not be like that - I don't mind anyone getting a kick out of a sitcom and I'm not going to rant on them if they don't like say, Seinfeld. But let me get a little more specific as to why I feel the I.T Crowd hasn't really worked.

I agree those eps had their moments but you're probably looking at the very, very best bits there. The Outing relied on broad, farcical humour which you can't use to sustain a series and had nothing to do with the situation of the show (which is supposed to be where the humour comes from).

But mostly I don't see where the gags are most of the time. Having a bloke pretend like he's from The Matrix and not giving him any jokes means you're putting A LOT on the actor. And most of the time this show does not get the balance of jokes and performances right.

In The Final Countdown Roy doesn't want to be mistaken for a window cleaner by an aquaintance. But because the antagonist is so sketchily drawn along there isn't anything at stake nor is there a payoff. And like most of the principals the guy playing Roy doesn't have the comedic acting chops to pull this off. A similar situation in Seinfeld would have worked because Jason Alexander (this would be a George situation) can turn average material into gold. And I'm beginning to wonder what Katherine Parkinson is supposed to be doing - her character doesn't develop and her storylines are as flimsy as can be.

It's interesting that Linehan co-wrote Father Ted which was much better than the I.T Crowd and is solely responsible for this.

I'll say this again - the best thing about the show is Matt Berry. He's clearly having fun and has a character that could go places. The show should be about him or some similar nutcase and the guys in the basement should be peripheral characters. I'm glad that Noel Fielding and Chris Morris appear to be gone as they were bloody awful.


>> ^kymbos:

Haven't seen the new series, but there are a few episodes of the earlier series' that are as close to perfect comedy as it gets. The one where they go to see Gay - the Gay Musical is brilliant, and the one where the boss starts going out with the woman who used to be a man. And the one where the old boss dies and they have his funeral.
If you don't find it funny (in general), I honestly pity you.

Hey, let's not be like that - I don't mind anyone getting a kick out of a sitcom and I'm not going to rant on them if they don't like say, Seinfeld. But let me get a little more specific as to why I feel the I.T Crowd hasn't really worked.

I agree those eps had their moments but you're probably looking at the very, very best bits there. The Outing relied on broad, farcical humour which you can't use to sustain a series and had nothing to do with the situation of the show (which is supposed to be where the humour comes from).

But mostly I don't see where the gags are most of the time. Having a bloke pretend like he's from The Matrix and not giving him any jokes means you're putting A LOT on the actor. And most of the time this show does not get the balance of jokes and performances right.

In The Final Countdown Roy doesn't want to be mistaken for a window cleaner by an aquaintance. But because the antagonist is so sketchily drawn along there isn't anything at stake nor is there a payoff. And like most of the principals the guy playing Roy doesn't have the comedic acting chops to pull this off. A similar situation in Seinfeld would have worked because Jason Alexander (this would be a George situation) can turn average material into gold. And I'm beginning to wonder what Katherine Parkinson is supposed to be doing - her character doesn't develop and her storylines are as flimsy as can be.

It's interesting that Linehan co-wrote Father Ted which was much better than the I.T Crowd and is solely responsible for this.

I'll say this again - the best thing about the show is Matt Berry. He's clearly having fun and has a character that could go places. The show should be about him or some similar nutcase and the guys in the basement should be peripheral characters. I'm glad that Noel Fielding and Chris Morris appear to be gone as they were bloody awful.

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Haven't seen the new series, but there are a few episodes of the earlier series' that are as close to perfect comedy as it gets. The one where they go to see Gay - the Gay Musical is brilliant, and the one where the boss starts going out with the woman who used to be a man. And the one where the old boss dies and they have his funeral.

If you don't find it funny (in general), I honestly pity you.