BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: John P
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 06:19 PM

Guest from Sanity, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I haven't objected to anyone referencing anyone. Mrzzy made a reference to a character in a novel called Nessus and then asked if anyone recognized the reference. I did. The only other Nessus I know of is a centaur from Greek mythology who killed Hercules, probably the source for the name in the novel. If it's important, can you elucidate?

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 06:31 PM

Nessus is 'insane' because he is NOT an abject coward. The rest of his race err WAY over on the side of caution.

crazy, ain't it?

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 06:33 PM

If I was in error, then pardon me. From the context of the posts, I thought one of you,(and I don't remember which one), was supplanting the name of Jesus, with the name Nessus. Again, if that was in error, then the assumption was wrong....but if not, let the shoe fit. It just seems that in posts past, when someone references the name of Jesus, whether pro Christian, in their political 'inclinations', or not, those whose anti-Christian political, bents, start jumping all over him/her. If this was not the case, ok...but I thought it incumbent upon me to clarify.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 12:51 AM

Not yet gfs. I have dial-up as I live in a remote location and it is slow as (?). But I will give it a try when I have a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 12:15 PM

I'm still barefoot. I brought up Nessus because he's the best example I could think of for culture determining sanity. Nessus, remember, WAS insane, it wasn't just that he thought he was.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 01:06 PM

From Wikipedia:

"Nessus is a male (of the second type, his species has three sexes) character in Larry Niven's Known Space universe, of the species Pierson's Puppeteer, a herbivorous species noted for two heads whose mouths act as capable hands. Pierson's Puppeteers are technically advanced in most of the physical sciences.

Nessus, like all Puppeteers ever met by humans, is insane by Puppeteer standards. Those who are sane are far too sensible (read "cowardly") to go off-world or interact with non-Puppeteers. Nessus demonstrates traits that in humans would be diagnosed as schizophrenia, manic-depressive disorder, displacement, and at times, extreme suggestibility.

Nessus is featured in the short story "The Soft Weapon" (printed in the 1968 collection Neutron Star) and is also one of the expeditionaries to the Ringworld in the 1970 book of the same name. Nessus is a central character in the novels Fleet of Worlds and Juggler of Worlds, set almost 200 years before Ringworld."

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: John P
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 03:53 PM

If I was in error, then pardon me. From the context of the posts, I thought one of you,(and I don't remember which one), was supplanting the name of Jesus, with the name Nessus. Again, if that was in error, then the assumption was wrong....but if not, let the shoe fit. It just seems that in posts past, when someone references the name of Jesus, whether pro Christian, in their political 'inclinations', or not, those whose anti-Christian political, bents, start jumping all over him/her.

Guest from Sanity, would you consider changing your name to Guest from Paranoia?

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 04:43 PM

Now John, was that Nessus-airy?

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 05:03 PM

Nessus lives!

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: John P
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 05:44 PM

Now John, was that Nessus-airy?

Hee hee. Sorry, probably not. I remain, however, astonished by the imagination that produced that post from this thread, and I found the "let the shoe fit" part offensive, since there's no evidence of that particular shoe fitting on anyone here.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 06:21 PM

No, it's more like "if the suit fits..." case.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 06:30 PM

IT is really islly -- in my humble opinion -- to try and make an argument that something as remote from the commons of experience as religion can be called "real" in the normal sense; the term hinges on agreements about what is, and the reported territory is uniformly described as being beyond the sphere of common agreement. That's why it is a totally useless platform for a social strucxture, obviously--it is not of the world.

But that does not mean that a religious proposition is a delusion in the sense of an insane perception, merely that it is an "Other" perception.

It is problematical to differentiate between such perceptions and the kind of plastic self-hypnosis that people resort to under stress, though. That's why the whole subject is seen as so "iffy" by some folks.



A

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Apr 09 - 08:10 PM

Hey, what did you do??...Skip over the apology??..and what is the 'paranoia' stuff?..Perhaps YOU ARE delusional..or maybe Obama was correct, in Europe, apologizing for the 'American arrogance'.
Hey Amos, I actually 'reference Obama..You should be proud of me...unless that's arrogance is a part of pride....Yikes, can't escape!!!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 11:31 AM

Hey Slag, Did you ever get to watch those yet??

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 12:14 PM

I didn't skip over the apology, if that was addressed to me--I was just commenting on topic for once.

Thank you for referencing Obama. It beats hanging your hat on Paul by a country mile.


A

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 12:50 PM

Which Paul?

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 01:39 PM

Oh, surely I meant Paul Anka, or possibly the Beatle...



A

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 01:53 PM

Be it noted that it wasn't Charles Dickens who said "The law is a ass," it was Mr. Bumble, one of Dickens' fictional characters.

So I guess it was REALY Bilbo who said "The road goes ever on"; Peter Parker who said "My spidy senses are tingling" and Jabba the Hut that said "Your Jedi mind tricks will not work on me".

Blimey just what DO we pay these writers for???

Exactly who was it that said "Some people don't half talk bollocks", then?

:D (eG)

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 01:58 PM

Well, on here..you never know!!!

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 02:02 PM

"Mr. Brownlow: The law assumes that your wife acts under your direction.
Mr. Bumble: If the law supposes that, then the law is a ass, a idiot! If that's the eye of the law, then the law is a bachelor. And the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience. "

Oliver Twist (by DIckens, obviously)

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 02:19 PM

Great post, Amos......Besides, you were quoting another writer.......(wink)

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Janie
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 04:50 PM

Something to reflect upon. Any thread here on Mudcat regarding religion becomes lengthy, and usually passionate - regardless of whether one is "fer" or "agin." So many so sure they are right and the other is wrong. Some tolerate differing perspectives, but few accept different perspectives.

And yet people (both "fer" and "agin") express surprise and dismay at the amount of violence in the world done in the name of -or against - religion.

Fertile ground for understanding the self, and then, perhaps, understanding others. What plays out here is a microcosm of what gets played out in the 3-D world. There is a difference in degree, but that is all.

This not a critisism. After-all, our community is a microcosm of society. At least of Western society.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Janie
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 04:59 PM

Oops. Left out 1. a disclaimer that I have not carefully read the thread, but have skimmed it, noticing when it approaches the "brink" of not listening to each other, only to observe people pull back, and 2. based on that skimming, the observation that this thread, while lengthy, is remarkable in the over-all acceptance and civility of the discussion. Perhaps because it does not too much delve into the religious belief systems of individual posters.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 05:09 PM

Gfs, Yes, all of about 12 seconds of the first. One: I'm not "joining" You Tube to download the thing. Two: with dial up you wait 20 to 30 seconds to hear one to two seconds of the song at a time. Tedious doesn't begin to describe the process. Three: I don't really have the financial luxury of getting Hughes net or some other gradated wireless provider at this time. Four, she seems to have a lovely voice and I recognize the scripture. five: I just don't have the time or the patience to hear it piecemeal...but I get your point and understand what you are saying and for that I thank you. Sorry if I sound a little cranky. I probably am.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 06:50 PM

No problem. Perhaps when you get around a faster system. By the way, I didn't recall any scripture in either song.
Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 04 Apr 09 - 11:57 PM

re "Christ In Me(the Deer's Cry)" begins with Matthew 28:20b "...lo, I am with you alway(s), even (un)to the end of the age ( "world", KJV although "age" or "ages" is the proper Greek translation). The video response was without any written text as far as I went.

I have been around plenty of deer and have never heard a deer cry. At best they will occasionally bleat of huff and a buck in rut will snort but they are rather mute animals on this continent.

With regards to all the foregoing and in an attempt to turn this back to the topic at hand, mis-defining or redefining terms so as to create a secret language (a form of isolating victims) is a fraud that can lead to the delusion of the targeted victim. Misdirection, a little equivocation, a little skewing and those who do not know or understand logic or the power of language (never mind the rhetoric) become trapped in a form of applied external insanity. They do not have the wherewithal to resist. Add social and familial pressure and the uneducated, the innocent children and all caught in the drag lines may fall victim to the delusion. Maybe I can raise (once again, sigh) the spectre of Adolf. He addressed real problems. He appealed to pride of race and nation. He championed release from the international humiliation which had been foisted upon Germany.

It is the leader's duty to define REALITY and then deal with it. If the reality is not clearly defined or intentionally twisted then the path is toward destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 12:04 AM

O-o-o-h yeah, it does....sorry....if you are away from your computer, for a while, I'd let it load....methinks you may like it....a who-o-o-o-ole lot!...and I don't particularly like religious songs at all! But this, is a little different. May even become amongst your favorite! the other one is great too...a breath of fresh air!...and not puerile!! GfS

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 03:36 PM

I just learned something interesting from a fundamentalist acquaintance; there are actually just 360 days in a year. He says someone proved it to him recently with Biblical references. I haven't had the chance yet to ask him if he can point out chapter and verse for me. He has never been diagnosed as mentally ill or mentally deficient. I've heard a whole lot of fundamentalist "truths" in my life, but this one was new to me; I don't know if there is any basis for it in literalistic Bible interpretation, or if it simply came from someone who has been sniffing too much glue.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 03:58 PM

frogprince, Hare Krishna, Hare Hare!!...and 'Kumbayah', for good measure!

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 04:31 PM

"... just 360 days in a year..."

umm-hmmm.. and pi=3

"...proved it to him recently with Biblical references."

from false premises, anything follows.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 10:06 PM

I believe it was those rascally Babylonian fundamentalists who started all this 360 day stuff. 360 degrees in a circle and all, which has no rhyme or reason being there. 52 weeks in a year, 12 signs of the Zodiac ( well, OK 13 but who's counting?) 13 cards in a suit, 4 suits to four seasons, Tarot, Zoroastrianism and you say a Christian fundamentalist claim this was THEIR idea? Well apple pi my eye. Oh, and ask Papa George, it's pronounced "pee"!

In a curved universe it just may equal 3.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 10:45 PM

Oh, he wasn't claiming that Christian fundamentalists originated the idea; I guess the idea would be that some fundamentalist he knows "rediscovered" it in the Bible recently. I think it was supposed to come from the Old Testament. That would allow at least three possiblitlies. 1. There is evidence in the Old Testament of belief in a 360 day year; it filtered in from the Babylonians. 2.There is evidence there for that belief, which was derived from some other source. 3, also entirely possible; my acquaintance just got the "fact" from someone who wasn't even competent at literalistic fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Further drift; actually, competent fundamentalist interpretation in an oxymoron. If you're a fundamentalist, the Bible is inerrant. Therefore, it's consistent throughout; in history, morality, details of prophetic forecast, and everything else. To make the Bible absolutely consistent, you have to twist the plain language severely on a regular basis.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 10:53 PM

...is an oxymoron.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 09 - 11:40 PM

Toquing one's thoughts around in order to make the Bible inerrant is a real good way to undermine a mind seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 12:45 AM

I scarcely see a fundamentalist accepting YOUR definition of fundamentalism. Inerrancy and mathematical precision do not belong in the same arena. Granted some (or even many) so called fundamentalists DO make such errors but they are not spokesmen for the various groups who make their fundamental beliefs known. What hath Jerusalem to do with Athens?

PBS ran a program concerning how people learn. Part of the experiment took place at MIT, no less, on graduation day. It was sponsored by Harvard. The interviewer had a AA battery, one short piece of copper wire about 6 inches long and an appropriate flashlight bulb. He asked at least a half dozen new MIT engineering grads if they could make the bulb light up. All but one could NOT! So, do we judge MIT by its alumnus? Is it fair to knock their school because some of it's participants couldn't make a simple electrical circuit?

You make a straw man of fundamentalism because you do not understand it and many pew sitter fundamentalists do not understand just what they believe either. You can't judge it solely by its constituency.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 11:36 AM

These days I'm a pew sitter. I'm from a fundamentalist background. From 1960 through 1963 I was enrolled in Moody Bible Institute, Chicago. Moody has always been a bastion of fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism asserts that several historic doctrines are "fundamentals", absolutely essential to the Christian faith. Of these, I've found only one to be unique to fundamentalists, distinguishing them from other relatively conservative Christians. That one is the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.

At Moody, we were taught to defend the Bible against claims that it contained errors and inconsistencies. Generally this involved narrative details which could, in fact, easily be explained plausibly; decidely "straw" problems, by comparison to the numerous substantial problems that we simply managed not to see.

We were not taught tbat a year is 360 days long; I've never heard that one before in my life. Nor were we strictly held to creation in 7 24 hour days, as taught by just a small fraction of fundamentalists so far as my experience indicates. I am not trying to paint fundamentalist Christians as a mass of people at that level of mentality.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 12:18 PM

PBS ran a program concerning how people learn. Part of the experiment took place at MIT, no less, on graduation day. It was sponsored by Harvard. The interviewer had a AA battery, one short piece of copper wire about 6 inches long and an appropriate flashlight bulb. He asked at least a half dozen new MIT engineering grads if they could make the bulb light up. All but one could NOT! So, do we judge MIT by its alumnus? Is it fair to knock their school because some of it's participants couldn't make a simple electrical circuit?

With one piece of wire, if that is interpreted rigorously and no cutting is allowed, neither could you, probably. It is not impossible (you could stick the bulb in the ground or something) but how would you complete that circuit with only one connector? THe battery requires a return path to its negative terminal from the second filament contact on the bulb, now?


A


A

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 12:30 PM

Amos? Hellooo;

Touch the positive nubby on the end of the battery to the contact in the center of the bulb base. Hold the wire from the other end of the battery to the flange of the bulb base. Oooh, look: miraculous! : ).

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 12:40 PM

Alternative method: hold a propane torch on the bulb until it's glowing hot...

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 12:46 PM

Ah, damn; sometimes I think too much and my brain folds up on itself! Thanks, FP, for deflating an unnecessary bubble.



A

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 01:33 PM

Hey guys, The calender year in the Bible was a lunar year, the one we use now is the Gregorian calender. What's the big deal?? Actually, to steal a quote from Janis..'It's all one big day!'

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 01:43 PM

There's a physical thing called a year, something like 365.3 days long if I recall correctly, whicch is why the calendar adds in a leap year every fourth round. This is just physics; no-one can miss the number being greater than 360, no matter what any diatribe says, if they perform rigorous measurement. Having a loosey-goosey map does not mean you live in a loosey-goosey territory.



A

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 02:17 PM

Banned in Boston!

(Any chance you can learn from that?) Joe Clone

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 07:35 PM

Absolutely!!..Well sorta' It just confirms what I've known all along...that when someone comes on and tells it like it is, (even while obviously teasing)..you'd censor them. I bet you 48 years ago, you would have censored this: http://www.mudcat.org/blickifier.cfm

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 07:38 PM

Being so 'hip and 'liberal', you would have even banned this...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8SfiCnwF28

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 07:50 PM

Oh, horseshit.

Why would anyone want to ban that???

Your version of telling it "like it is" just happens to have gaps in it big enough to drive the Vatican through, is all.

Fix those, and all will be well.

A

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: frogprince
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 07:55 PM

Gfs, I don't know how anyone could refute those last couple of posts...because I don't know how they could make any coherent sense of them, to know how to respond. What else would you like to claim "would have been censored"? Lawrence Welk? Joe McCarthy?
Bulwinkle? In a word, "what are you "on" about?

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 08:48 PM

Actually sorta pissed off! Back in 1962-63 radio stations were banning that song..it was too, 'un-American' was the excuse. It countered the status quo.....it was upsetting, and 'not quite the same, as the Kingston trio'..(a nice 'safe group' of folk singers). So I tell some of you the truth on here, and in the post deleted, joked with Amos), and I guess it wasn't 'Safe' enough....I know my posts run contrary to the 'Johnnie come lately crowd'..I know they are unsettling...but so was the spirit of the earlier protest songs!!!!! A whole group of you are as 'asleep' as the parents of the 'baby boomers' were, when that came out!...You've lost your edge, and stand for being a watered down version, of what it was folk singers did, in turning this country upside down, back them!..Now you ARE the 'establishment'...and a far more complacent version of the first!!!! Where's your spark??? Too busy, being what you rebelled at?????? Too Afraid?? Jeez! Shake things up a little! There was a time when we stood up against the corruption in our government, and forced government policy to end a war....now?...now, its a joke! we're still arguing about the bullshit that is being fed to us, by the same people, and think you're accomplishing something! Ya' might as well get so mad, you'd throw your Martinis across the pool!
Art, Remember the 'Ice House'?? Lloyd Thaxton?? the concerts at Griffith Park? 'The Troubadour'?? 'The Ranch'(recording studio, in Malibu)? Hangin' in Topanga, with Crosby, with his orange Harley??..and who it was, The Byrds sang back up for?? Yeah, I was there!!..So I'm not overly impressed, that its all gone soft! Actually, we may have met back then!! We've all just gave up, for the 'easy life' and gone through, husbands, wives, and families, with complete abandon, because frankly, some just got too fucking lame, to handle it! Remember the expression, "Turn on a lame, and what you get, is a 'turned on lame'"???
Oh well, had a great time...never sold out!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 08:53 PM

Frogprince, I understand your post....the one that would have made it coherent, was deleted. It was just a harmless, tongue in cheek quip, meant for Amos, in reference to an earlier post. Now, you just have the other ones. Sorry, it doesn't make sense, now.

Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Apr 09 - 09:09 PM

If it was a harmless quip, you can always ask Joe Offer to replace it. It obviously crossed some sort of line.
Mudcat has rules about what is tolerated, and even though some posts are in that gray area where it is hard to decide, this is not a Democracy!...though you have been here long enough to know that 'censorship' is applied pretty lightly as a rule.