|
29 Mar 09 - 09:24 PM (#2600138) Subject: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Mrrzy Check out this article in today's Washington Post. Apparently this cult deliberately starved/thirsted a 16-month old to death for not saying Amen; then they carried his dead body around in a suitcase for months, waiting for his resurrection; now Mom is facing murder charges which must be dropped if the poor kid actually does come back to life. There are phrases like these: Her attorney, Steven Silverman, said the doctors found that her beliefs were indistinguishable from religious beliefs, in part because they were shared by those around her. (para break) "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion," Silverman said, describing the findings of the doctors' psychiatric evaluation. and Silverman said he and prosecutors think Ramkissoon was brainwashed and should have been found not criminally responsible; prosecutors declined to comment. Although an inability to think critically can be a sign of brainwashing, experts said, the line between that and some religious beliefs can be difficult to discern. (para) "At times there can be an overlap between extreme religious conviction and delusion," said Robert Jay Lifton, a cult expert and psychiatrist who lectures at Harvard Medical School. "It's a difficult area for psychiatry and the legal system." ??!? Comments? |
|
29 Mar 09 - 09:34 PM (#2600142) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: SINSULL Yes - what about the other children in the cult? Is anyone protecting them from religion or delusions? |
|
29 Mar 09 - 09:42 PM (#2600144) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Rapparee You'd think that after some months in a suitcase they'd be pretty sure the kid was dead and going to stay that way. Murder is murder. |
|
29 Mar 09 - 10:10 PM (#2600149) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Greg F. And then, there's religion AS delusion... |
|
29 Mar 09 - 10:20 PM (#2600153) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Riginslinger Pretty much the same thing, I'd say! |
|
29 Mar 09 - 10:29 PM (#2600156) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Kent Davis The definition of the term "delusion", from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), of the American Psychiatric Association, specifically excludes religious beliefs. So, yes, according to the APA, "it's not delusional if it's religious". I strongly doubt that ANY religion requires starving a child to death. Sounds more like a convenient excuse to me. Kent |
|
29 Mar 09 - 11:17 PM (#2600179) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos But the DSM has been a political document since its first edition. The fact that a group can agree on something does not mean it is not a delusion, or they would be no need for the psychiatric terms from mass hypnosis and mob-think. It is not true to say "IF religion==>THEN not delusion" It is not true to say "IF religion ==> then Delusion", either. Nor is it true to say "If delusion==> THEN religion." There are such thing as religious experiences, as well as religious delusions, and these may be intersecting sects. This while subject was well covered by William James, for goodness' sake. Make an article of unquestioned faith about space-time by asserting anything of a spiritual nature is delusion is really adventurous, as well as being illogical. A |
|
29 Mar 09 - 11:36 PM (#2600185) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: frogprince Recipe for disaster: Take a psychotic individual who combines delusions of grandeur and at least some measure of charisma. Add even one other person who is at best unstable enough to be very vulnerable and suggestible. Hope against hope that no one dies a horrible death. Now we'll have some people here pretty much implying that this is what is to be expected of anyone in the world with religious faith. I don't know that there is any way to even try to reason with that level of bitter hatred. At the same time, I don't know that you can say that a belief isn't religion because it's been hopelessly twisted by a demented individual or group of demented individuals who have gravitated together. So go ahead; fight it out. The people involved in this incident are totally incompetent, whether from lack of intelligence or lack of sanity. They're also totally culpable for the horrific death of a little child. I have no idea how to sort out the legal definitions. We've just lost a good friend to murder-suicide; he was the perpetrator; it had nothing to do with religious belief, and he had never been suspected of anything more threatening than a degree of emotional immaturity. I have no stomach right now for the kind of exchange I anticipate here. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 01:17 AM (#2600206) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: M.Ted frogprince--You have my condolences on the loss of your friend. The loss of a friend, for any reason, is painful enough, but the circumstances you've described make the burden many times more difficult to handle. I wish you strength in coming to terms with the many and conflicting thoughts and feeling that must come. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 04:07 AM (#2600239) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: theleveller Surely, religions rely on delusion for their very existence. Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs/delusions unless they impact adversely on other people – especially children. By 'impact' I mean everything from physical and mental abuse to evangelising – which can, in itself, range from mildly annoying or extremely disturbing, depending on individual circumstances. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 05:59 AM (#2600279) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Jack Campin I see from the Washington Post story that the mother had been in the ROTC, i.e. had already had plenty of practice in blindly obeying immoral and murderous orders. I guess the American justice system doesn't regard following the military hierarchy as delusional either. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 06:32 AM (#2600288) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: bubblyrat At the end of the day,no amount of legislative obfuscation or beaurocratic self-importance can mask, alter,deny,ignore,or justify the fact that this person has committed an horrific ,obscene,unthinkable and COMPLETELY unforgivable or excusable crime, whatever her beliefs or motivations might have been, and,therefore,she MUST forfeit her own life . Never mind HER beliefs ; what about the "beliefs" of the MAJORITY of the rest of us ?? Which is that she should die, I think you'll find,although,sadly,our so -called "civilised " governments would never agree. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 11:13 AM (#2600441) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Mrrzy Must forfeit her life? Not on your nelly. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 12:04 PM (#2600472) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Wesley S Sigh - Yes - Let's find the unusual nut cases out there that use religion as an excuse for their whacked out behavior and use that as the yardstick to claim that all religion is bad. That's using logic. Two and two equals five. And all folk singers play the banjo. I know that because I saw Pete Seegar once on TV. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 12:23 PM (#2600482) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: wysiwyg Delusion and religion are neither an either/or thing nor a both/both thing. One can be religious and rational, and one also can be religious and delusional. One can be rational and not religious. One can also be both rational and delusional. They are apples and oranges that can be bagged separately, or together. Unless, of course, when relied upn as a convenient excuse to renew old thoughtlessnesses. :~) From eithew "side" of the ageless debate. It's essentially a narcissistic loop with no out: "You're more XXX than I am." "No, YOU are." "You don't repect meeeeee...." "NO, YOU do not respect MEEEE..." There is actually life outside this locked-tight, narcissistic argument mode. It's a nice one, actually! :~) ~Susan |
|
30 Mar 09 - 01:29 PM (#2600551) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Mrrzy What worries me is the idea that you can have delusions that aren't labeled as such if others share the delusion. That's what the article said - she wasn't delusional to believe her son would be resurrected because so did the rest of the cult. Wesley, I don't see anyone but you saying what you're afraid of people saying... I think you're jumping the gun on thread hijacking. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 01:44 PM (#2600566) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Wesley S Mrrzy - It's just past experience with these types of threads. You've pretty much said in that past that anyone who has a belief system for a God or a higher power is delusional. That all of us are in the same boat. No qualifiers, no delineations. Jim Jones and me are just two peas in a pod. Both guilty of thought crimes. If I've put words in your mouth set me straight. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 02:17 PM (#2600594) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Art Thieme At best, religion is wishful thinking. We don't wanna die, so we won't. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 02:22 PM (#2600600) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: artbrooks No, the article did not say that "she wasn't delusional to believe her son would be resurrected because so did the rest of the cult." Her lawyer said that. Lawyers say all kinds of strange things in an effort to get their clients off. Oh yeah...and "the mother had been in the ROTC, i.e. had already had plenty of practice in blindly obeying immoral and murderous orders." Well, no - she had been in high school junior ROTC. The most immoral order she probably ever had to follow was to clean under her fingernails. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 03:09 PM (#2600643) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos It's not a matter of whether we are going to die or not--there's plenty of evidence everybody takes that ride. The question is how you define the ride. A |
|
30 Mar 09 - 03:09 PM (#2600644) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Little Hawk About a good 50% of everyone's beliefs are delusional. That applies to both the religious and the non-religious in this world. They sure enjoy pointing out the others' delusions, however. It makes them both feel way superior. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 03:19 PM (#2600657) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Dave the Gnome Believing that your imaginary friend told you to kill your neighbour is delusional yet believeing that god told you to do it is not. No wonder they say the law is an ass... DeG |
|
30 Mar 09 - 03:43 PM (#2600678) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Little Hawk The law is an imperfect attempt to deal with absolutely EVERYTHING that goes wrong...or might go wrong...in an immensely complicated human existence filled with millions of unique and unpredictable individuals who might do anything at any time. It will never provide the perfect solutions we all yearn for. Therefore, I find your characterization of it as "an ass" to be cynical, self-serving, and pointless. You're just blowing off steam. That, of course, is the main form of activity people indulge in around here most of the time, so why should I be surprised? You're all in a state of delusion uniquely your own, and yet you spend your days pointing the finger at somebody else and saying: "He's so delusional." We're all delusional. It's the basis of the human ego to be delusional. It delights in its delusions. The more honest among us might have the decency to admit it, but that's a very rare thing. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 04:28 PM (#2600710) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Doc John When does a system of belief become a religion? For example, will vegetarianism or environmentalism become religions? Or even football. These systems especially in their more extreme forms certainly share the characteristics of a religion, such as blind faith. Does there have to be a god? When I go to a conference, I often recieve a form about dietary requirements; it's not about allergies etc but are you a vegetarian, are you Jewish etc. No, I'm just a fussy bugger: but that doesn't count, it seems. And when does a religion become a mental illness? Disordered thinking, delusions, hallucinations etc are shared by schizophrenia and certain religious systems. And how do I start a religion? I want believers to give me lots of money and be surrounded by beautiful priestesses. You need charisma: I'd better forget it! Doc John |
|
30 Mar 09 - 05:53 PM (#2600777) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos How the brain creates God, from New Scientist. An interesting sidebar. A |
|
30 Mar 09 - 06:41 PM (#2600808) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Spleen Cringe About a good 50% of everyone's beliefs are delusional And what good percentage of everyone's utterances are confidently presented as if they were self-evident truths... and without a shred of evidence? Must try it. It also allows you the advantage of appearing to take the moral high ground without actually doing anything to get there. Little Hawk, are you offering lessons in this technique? Meanwhile, back amongst the sinners, I would put it to you that the various belief systems at the hearts of our many religions and variants of religions are not so much delusional as contested. As for the woman in the article, the only thing we can categorically say at present is that she was not right on some level. Whether this was due to the cult she was in or pre-existing issues or something entirely different, none of us here can say. It's a profoundly horrible story. Not one you'd want to remedy by demanding further blood is shed, though. |
|
30 Mar 09 - 09:52 PM (#2600904) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Dave the Gnome Therefore, I find your characterization of it as "an ass" to be cynical, self-serving, and pointless Not my characterisation. I don't mind being likened to Charles Dickens but doubt very much if I ever will achieve his fame. Cynical? Maybe, but true. Self-serving? If you mean it was used to underline a point then, yes, I suppose so. Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Pointelss? As pointless as starving a child to death in the name of god? Maybe, but it does less harm. As to blowing off steam. Not at all; just stating my opinion. I would not get annoyed over anyones mental condition. Unless they told me that I had to take notice of their imaginary friends as well:-) Cheers DeG |
|
30 Mar 09 - 10:33 PM (#2600923) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Kent Davis Amos, As a psychologist and as a physician working at a mental health center, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the DSM is, and always has been, political. I never said or implied otherwise. In answering the question asked in the title of this thread, I first gave the answer the APA would give, when I said, "The definition of the term "delusion", from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), of the American Psychiatric Association, specifically excludes religious beliefs. So, yes, according to the APA, 'it's not delusional if it's religious'." When physicians make a diagnosis, they don't normally just make up their own personal definitions, nor do they just follow common informal usage. If a given diagnosis has an "official" definition, they will generally use that definition. The term "delusion" has an "official" definition. A person may be, shall we say, "reality challenged" and yet not meet the standard definition of "delusional". My PERSONAL answer to the question in the thread title is that the whole dispute is nothing but a legal red herring, that the "religious" angle is nothing but a lawyer's excuse. Kent |
|
30 Mar 09 - 11:28 PM (#2600954) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Bee-dubya-ell I think some folks are missing the point here. The fact that the court decided that "She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion," is not in any way a finding that favors the woman's defense. It would be far better for her if she had been found to be delusional. If she were delusional, her actions could be defended on mental health grounds. But "She was following the precepts of her religion," is not a viable defense in this country. We do not live in a theocracy. Our legal system does not allow abdication of personal responsibility based upon religious belief. That's why her attorney is trotting out the "brainwashing" defense. To get her off, he has to prove that she is mentally impaired. If she did it because of religious belief, he has no defense and she's guilty. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 12:51 AM (#2600983) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos "The law is a ass was not Dickens. It was, I think, Lord Berkeley, iIRC. Handing out official therapeutic positions codified in an essentially political document, Kent, is the tragedy of trying to make physicists out of psychologists and calling them psychiatrists. I mean that it creates an arbitrary, ill-founded framework of perception which is, itself, delusory in many instances. Maybe psychiatry itself is a sort of bad-tempered religion... ;>0 A |
|
31 Mar 09 - 01:12 AM (#2600994) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: mrdux actually, it is from Dickens: "'If the law supposes that,' said Mr. Bumble, 'the law is a ass — a idiot.'" -- Oliver Twist |
|
31 Mar 09 - 01:57 AM (#2601007) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Slag Gee, Dickens' spirit has been raised but no one has got around to Hitler yet. Why the delay??? If it's from Obama then it certainly CAN'T be delusional... can it??? There are nut jobs in every human endeavor and for every nut job there are hundreds, if not thousands, who do NOT think; they just follow. Every great scientist who has discovered a new approach or way of looking at the phenomenon has been branded "delusional" by some colleagues or other faction of mediocrity. The poor innocent in the luggage might be likened to Schrodinger's Cat. It's status was unknown and unknowable by the delusionals who carried it around. To them, like Schrodinger Cat, it was both alive and dead. They just didn't have sufficient information ( for them, that is) to make the determination. Had they really believed the child dead would they have carried it around in a suitcase? That seems to me to be the real question in this matter. OK fellas... have at it! |
|
31 Mar 09 - 04:41 AM (#2601058) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Jack Campin This isn't about religion, it's about authority. The mother was obeying orders from her leader. No different from one of Our Boys obeying orders to take out an Afghan wedding party. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 09:50 AM (#2601230) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: artbrooks The case has not gone to trial. The court hasn't decided anything. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 09:55 AM (#2601232) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: john f weldon In the words of Bob Dylan... God said "Abraham, kill me a son!" Abe said "God, you must be puttin' me on!" (..where'd he get that anyway?..) |
|
31 Mar 09 - 10:28 AM (#2601269) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Mrrzy You may be right, Wesley, but we haven't gotten there yet with this one! No, just kidding. Of course there is a difference between people who believe in reality and have faith in deity, and those who believe that deity can contradict reality. I have always held that my issues are with the latter, not the former. My issue with this particular article is that they are actually arguing in a 21st century court of law that because her delusion (and nobody is saying that the belief that the kid would come back to life wasn't delusional in actual point of fact) was shared, it wasn't delusional in actual point of LAW. That is scary. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 10:45 AM (#2601283) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,the sad prophet God moves in mysterious ways. (the all time favorite explanation for psychotic delusions) |
|
31 Mar 09 - 11:56 AM (#2601350) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Alice US courts are still woefully ignorant about destructive cults. child abuse and deaths in religious cults "CHILD Inc. reports on and opposes religion-based child abuse and neglect. Some religious groups have justified severe beatings, rejection of medical care, starvation, forced marriages, child labor, slavery, isolation, exorcism rituals, and sexual molestation as religious practices." snip "Nevertheless, state and federal governments have created many religious exemptions allowing parents to withhold some medical care from children, almost entirely because of Christian Science lobbying." Alice |
|
31 Mar 09 - 11:58 AM (#2601352) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Alice More from the CHILD Inc web site: quote "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedom, but does not confer a right to abuse or neglect children. The leading case is Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), in which the U. S. Supreme Court ruled, "The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or child to communicable disease, or the latter to ill health or death. . . . Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves." |
|
31 Mar 09 - 12:00 PM (#2601353) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Art Thieme I think "the leap" is where we go wrong. That's where the wishful thinking comes onto it. To the extent that it is a chasm we leap over, it does seem to me that the chasm is a wide one. Personally, I will almost never say "I BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE." I prefer "I THINK that is true"---and only after some serious ruminations from my point of view. Art |
|
31 Mar 09 - 12:19 PM (#2601370) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Jack Campin they are actually arguing in a 21st century court of law that because her delusion (and nobody is saying that the belief that the kid would come back to life wasn't delusional in actual point of fact) was shared, it wasn't delusional in actual point of LAW. That is scary. And American soldiers who shoot up Afghan wedding parties argue that because they're part of a humungous state-funded bunch of thugs who all think the same way, they aren't murderers. That's a hell of a lot more scary. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 12:37 PM (#2601390) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Uncle_DaveO Just remember that the legal process is NOT about truth; it's about PROOF, under a systematic order of evidence presentation. A trial court is NOT "a court of justice" but "a court of law", which is a different thing altogether. "Justice" is subjective thing, and the rule of law has as one of its chief aims to arrive at resolution of controversies by as nearly objective means as the rules can contrive. Many a judge issues--HAS to issue--judgments with which (s)he philosophically would disagree in his/her private capacity. It is mainly because of the near-universal misunderstanding of the points in the three paragraphs above that so many of our population are contemptuous or dismissive of lawyers and the courts. Dave Oesterreich |
|
31 Mar 09 - 01:09 PM (#2601410) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Bee-dubya-ell To reiterate my point above: Nobody is arguing, has argued, or will argue that the woman is innocent because she acted based upon her religious convictions. That doesn't fly in US courts. Christian Scientists are not allowed to withold life-saving medical treatment from their children. If they do, they go to prison. Satanists are not allowed to hold human sacrifices. If they do, they go to prison. Muslims are not allowed to kill their sisters for having premarital sex. If they do, they go to prison. So, stop acting like the finding that the woman is not delusional, but acted upon a religious conviction, is going to keep her from prison. It's not. It's what's going to send her and her cohorts to prison. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 01:12 PM (#2601412) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Don Firth Muttered aside: 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. What an author puts in the mouths of one or more of his characters may or may not reflect the author's own beliefs. Don Firth |
|
31 Mar 09 - 01:37 PM (#2601424) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Uncle_DaveO Nice point, Don. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 02:22 PM (#2601460) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Bill D I still remember when Christian Scientists were withholding medical treatment from children.....and there were court battles over their right to do so. I am not sure how far the law now goes to decide 'exactly' what degree of 'faith' is permitted before medical treatment is required. The whole issue of where regular religious beliefs leaves off and delusion begins is always awkward, because it operates on a continuum! The Heaven's Gate group was almost universally admitted to be delusional cult led by a charismatic personality. The Christian Scientists seem to be borderline, while the Jehovah's Witnesses, with their unusual beliefs about the nature of Heaven, seem to be, legally at least, on the 'safe' side. And Catholics, with belief in transubstantiation, are judged to be quite sane...by most. All we are really arguing about is the gray areas..... and the details of the argument depend on our individual sensitivities to 'grayness'. And, in almost all debates about subjective issues, we find unstated premises behind folks' overt claims, beliefs and opinions. Often, it all depends, as the old saying goes, on "whose ox is being gored". When one person or group sees a potential for a court ruling or new law, even if not directed specifically at them, to interfere with their perceived 'rights' or behavior, they object. We see this in debates over gun laws; over red light cameras; over roof color rules in gated communities...and BOY do we see it in debates that might affect religious rights! In guns, traffic laws & roof colors, there are at least obvious standards and reasons to refer to....that can be POINTED at. In religious debates, the ultimate claims are not subject to any test, and have thousands of years of cultural norms as shelters. In a totally neutral, scientific analysis...(theoretically), of course any non-'provable' belief suffers from some degree of delusion! But the courts and laws are created & administered by humans who almost always have some of the 'un-stated premises' in their own belief systems. What it all comes down to is similar to the old definition that "a trial is a legal procedure to determine who has the best lawyer". Until reason is TAUGHT in enough places to replace 'wishful thinking', we will always have these quandaries. The most egregious cases, like this one about this poor child, will get 'justice', and less clear abuse will continue be ignored. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 02:54 PM (#2601500) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Bill D If anyone needed another example to my points, today's Washington Post has an article about those wanting MALE circumcision banned, versus those who consider it required. an excerpt: "It is a sensitive issue. Pun absolutely intended. * * * How intactivists define circumcision: a cruel, traumatic and unnecessary surgery (the American Academy of Pediatrics says the benefits are not sufficient enough to recommend the procedure) that causes enduring sexual and psychological injury to a helpless infant who can't give his consent. How much of the medical community defines circumcision: a simple, nearly painless operation that removes an obsolete part of the body that can increase a man's susceptibility to infections and sexually transmitted diseases (circumcision reduces the risk of getting HIV by 60 percent, studies show). How religion defines circumcision: as a covenant with God, as conveyed to Abraham. It's a lopsided fight, but each side has doctors and lawyers. Each side has data. Each accuses the other of denial. One side is labeled as a bunch of baby-cutting sex criminals. The other is labeled as sex-obsessed, fanatical loonies who are duping the public. "We don't want to understand this," says Van Lewis, who has protested infant circumcision in Tallahassee since the '70s and helped make Florida one of 16 states that no longer publicly fund circumcision. "We're living in denial as a nation. Of what we've done to ourselves." |
|
31 Mar 09 - 03:02 PM (#2601508) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Little Hawk Spleen Cringe, you asked: "Little Hawk, are you offering lessons in this technique?" Yeah. $30 an hour. Contact me at your convenience. ;-) As Jack Campin so aptly pointed out, it's not about religion, it's about authority. People do all sorts of destructive and insane things on the basis of obeying some authority...regardless of whether or not that authority happens to be a religious one or not. And therein lies the problem. Most people are followers, and the people or authority systems they choose to follow can be extremely unreliable. To quote Dylan again: "Don't follow leaders" |
|
31 Mar 09 - 03:11 PM (#2601514) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Little Hawk People will do anything if some form of authority they have decided to obey without question tells them to. Anything. Consult the records of history for proof of that. It almost defies imagination what has been done by people obeying the authority of... their leader their superior officer their mother/father/teacher their president their pastor their doctor their lawyer their gang leader their boss their wife or husband their party leader their holy book their political manifesto their local officialdom their club policy their "friends" etc. To incessantly blame it all (or practically all) on religion simply indicates that one has a serious emotional problem regarding the issue of religion, and should probably seek some kind of counseling to deal with it. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 03:53 PM (#2601545) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Mrrzy I chose not to have my boys circumcised (not circumsized, as I tried to type...) and am now sorry, but the data weren't in about AIDS at the time. Also, secular authorities, at least, exist... |
|
31 Mar 09 - 04:27 PM (#2601581) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Bill D dear 'guest'... unsigned posts are NOT allowed in the BS area. Yours may be deleted. Please identify yourself. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 04:42 PM (#2601595) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Had they really believed the child dead would they have carried it around in a suitcase? That seems to me to be the real question in this matter."" I can't help thinking that any rational human being would be equally bothered by the idea of carrying a LIVE child around in a suitcase. I don't know about the clinical niceties of their condition, but I would classify them as certifiable nut jobs, without hesitation. Don T. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 04:48 PM (#2601601) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos The relationship between religion and delusion is probably that they are both functions of social construction, meshes of agreement about reality and perception. As such they can easily be seen to be intersecting sets, but NOT identical ones. A |
|
31 Mar 09 - 04:51 PM (#2601607) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Alice Kent, then you have not learned about the many bizarre religions people have started. In the USA, anyone can start their own religion. Many crimes done in these groups go unreported because the victims are too afraid to go to the law. Did anyone read what I posted? |
|
31 Mar 09 - 05:05 PM (#2601623) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Yes Alice, I did, and IMHO you are correct. Waco, Texas, involved some people making life and death choices for others, and there was that other one years back, in which the number of deaths by poison, on the instructions of a religious leader, ran into three figures. Anyone may legitimately make him or her self a martyr, but it is nothing less than murder to force that choice on others in the name of religion, or for that matter, any cause. Don T. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 05:13 PM (#2601629) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Spleen Cringe Yeah. $30 an hour. Wow! Sign me up now! Is that, um, Canadian Dollars? |
|
31 Mar 09 - 05:34 PM (#2601648) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Alice From CHILD Inc, the watch dog group regarding child abuse in religions. The link is in one of my previous posts. quote: This is a partial list of churches whose members have let children die since 1980 because of their religious beliefs against medical care: * Faith Assembly * Followers of Christ * Christian Science * Church of the First Born * Faith Tabernacle * End Time Ministries * The Believers' Fellowship * Faith Temple Doctoral Church of Christ in God * Church of God of the Union Assembly * Church of God Chapel * Jehovah's Witnesses (Their only objection today is to blood transfusions.) * Jesus through Jon and Judy * Christ Assembly * Christ Miracle Healing Center * Northeast Kingdom Community Church * "No Name" fellowship * The Source end quote This does not include the groups in which children were harmed or killed because of the religious ideology about punishment, starvation, sex with children, etc. Alice |
|
31 Mar 09 - 06:03 PM (#2601677) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Slag One of the key features of an abuse case is the isolation of the victim(s). It is true of spousal abuse, child abuse, crimes against persons and of religious abuse. No wonder Christ told his followers that men who do good, speak truth are like a city on the hill or a lighted candle. Doers of evil hide their works, at least until they have obtained ultimate authority it seems (cf Hitler and ilk). |
|
31 Mar 09 - 06:14 PM (#2601688) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Bill D A simple search on ONE of the items in Alice's list is enough to make you gasp... so many... |
|
31 Mar 09 - 06:30 PM (#2601696) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Stringsinger "Faith is believing in something you know ain't so"............Mark Twain Not everyone will agree with this. But we have the right to discuss it. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 06:46 PM (#2601713) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T People also have the right to believe as they wish, String. It is only when they try to foist that belief on others who are, for one reason or another, unqualified to make an informed choice that they become a problem. And you know it isn't limited to religious faith. How many people around the world believe wholeheartedly in little green men from Mars, or wherever? Mark Twain got that one absolutely wrong. Faith is believing in anything for which it is not possible to produce PROOF, or DISPROOF. It is implicit in the definition of faith that you CANNOT KNOW it ain't so. Don T. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 07:55 PM (#2601758) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Nickhere I think recent events have shown all of us to suffer from mass delusion - i.e we have all believed in the financial system up to now. We have all agreed that a scrap of paper with a few pictures and numbers on it was intrinsically worth 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 or whatever dollars / euros etc., or that those digits and zeros in the computer represented real value. As long as we all agreed to believe in it, there was no delusion and had I walked into a bank and burned up some stacks of paper pictures, I would have been jailed. And to some extent we all still believe in it. So are we delusional or not? If we all believe in it, it seems to work quite well. If we don't, it doesn't. But our mass belief produces tangible results, equally our disbelief produces tangible results. Maybe the real question is not whether we are delusional (can we be 100% sure of ANYTHING in this world, or can we argue about it in circles forever) but which 'delusions' are worth bothering with. |
|
31 Mar 09 - 07:55 PM (#2601759) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Alice Mark Twain was actually an interesting skeptic de-bunker. His comments about faith need to be taken as they were meant, tongue in cheek. Example, Mark Twain's caustic attack on Christian Science and its founder, Mary Baker Eddy, whom he described as "the queen of hypocrites." From "The Toadstool Millionaires", chapter 8 Mark Twain was but one of many Americans who, during the post-Civil War expansion of the nostrum traffic, objected to a particular type of effrontery on the part of patent medicine men. Among the "blessings" of 19th-century civilization which Twain's Connecticut Yankee carried back to King Arthur's England was outdoor advertising. Knights went about sandwiched between tabards emblazoned with slogans for prophylactic toothbrushes. Other knights wielded paint-pot and stencil-plate to such good effect "that there was not a cliff or a boulder or a dead wall in England but you could read on it at a mile distance" an urgent appeal to purchase shirts "which were regarded as a perfect protection against sin." |
|
31 Mar 09 - 11:54 PM (#2601861) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Donuel "Assumptions are more dangerous and deadly than facts. Facts can be checked but assumptions are kept on faith" |
|
01 Apr 09 - 12:05 AM (#2601866) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Kent Davis Just to clarify a few points: 1. As Bee-dubya-ell has already twice noted, religion would not be a viable defense in this case. The lawyers may turn to that defense in desperation, but it really won't fly. In the U.S., there is no absolute freedom of religion. There is freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, and there are prohibitions against Congress establishing a national religion or imposing a religious test for public office. There is no religious right to starve one's child to death. Children who have been born can't be legally killed. 2. The cases Alice mentions are cases of denial of consent for medical treatment. They are sad cases, certainly, but they have nothing to do with this case. This case is not about denying consent for care. 3. Being delusional, in the medical sense of the term, is not the same as being "crazy". In medicine, a person who is delusional has beliefs that are tenaciously held, without legitimate evidence, and in spite of evidence to the contrary. The opinions of people held to be authorities "count" as evidence for purposes of the definition. A person who believes, for example, that reincarnation occurs, or who believes that humans evolved from fish, or who believes Joseph Smith was an honest man, or whatever, is not diagnosed as being delusional, even if the physician happens to disagree with those beliefs. I hope the rationale for this is obvious. 4. Being insane, in the legal sense, is not the same as being "crazy", nor is it the same as being delusional. A person who is insane lacks criminal intent because he does not realize what he is doing. Suppose my wife smiles at the mailman and, based on that, I conclude they must be having an affair. Suppose I then sneak over to his house and kill him. Would I be considered insane? No, because I knew what I was doing. Suppose, however, that I thought the meter-reader was a Nazi soldier come to take my family to the gas chamber. Suppose I killed him, as I thought, to protect my family from imminent danger. Would I be considered insane? Yes, because I did not know what I was doing; I did not realize I was killing an innocent meter-reader; I thought I was saving my family from the gas chamber. 5. The religion angle still looks like a red herring to me, a lawyer's way of confusing the issue. Kent |
|
01 Apr 09 - 12:49 AM (#2601883) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: M.Ted A shocking number horrible crimes are committed by people of with no particular religious affiliation, though some of us prefer not to dwell on them-- |
|
01 Apr 09 - 02:11 AM (#2601901) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Slag ...and pardon the thread drift, but Donuel! Define what knowledge is. Define absolute knowledge. Aristotelian logic was the begin-all and end-all for thousands of years. Ether HAD to exist. On and on. We cannot exist without assumptions. Every time you get behind the wheel of your car you have to assume to some degree that the other drivers are going to obey the rules of the road, that they are sane and sober and free of suicidal impulses, etc. and you know THAT ain't true and yet you drive and chat and DO NOT pay attention to every driver as though he may come across the double yellow at you. So much of life is faith and not all of it warranted. |
|
01 Apr 09 - 04:00 AM (#2601937) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Knowing a bit about the subject, on both sides, here's how I'd call it: If, in fact, they were 'Christian Science' folks, and believed in a resurrection, The resurrection would apply to those Christians who obeyed the two foremost commandments of Jesus Christ, which were, to believe 'in the One who sent Me, (God), and to LOVE one another, as yourselves', He later expounds on that, as "love one another, as I have loved you'. Quite a few segments(read:denominations), of the Christian faith, seem to circumnavigate those two commandments with 'supplementary' addendums, in their 'dogma'. ie, technicalities, as to Baptisms, assembly, communion, so on and so forth. This is something they do, to 'justify' themselves, and appear 'righteous' to themselves, IN PLACE of obeying to commandment to LOVE! That being said, I personally don't see, how allowing your child to die, and carrying it around in a suitcase, for months, falls into the realm of ..'doing unto others, as you would have them do unto you'. Christian scientist have supplanted obeying the love commandment, with the 'faith healing' focus, as stated above. As to the resurrection of the child, that may happen, but their lack of love, or obeying the commandment to love, if left 'unrepented', would mean that they might not necessarily be in it. So, by their own admission, they have failed to meet the criteria, of what Jesus said would qualify them to be called His own. However, Jesus also said, (referring to children), 'Who so ever should offend one of these, it would be better for him, to tie a millstone around their necks...and it should be better for them to have never been born' Get the idea? Its very similar to our own Constitution. Stay within the bounds of its guarantees, do not infringe your rights onto someone else's, including the government infringing on yours, and you have freedom, for all. Once you get, umm...'overly self indulgent' with one portion over another, to where it is distorted, you then begin to infringe your WILL over someone else's rights. ....That's a 'no-no'!! It is in there, where all the confusion stars, such as we have seen, in recent years, and increasing, as time goes on. Perhaps a little less 'over reaching' in that area, would clean up, our views on the policies we would impose on other fellow Americans. I hope this will not become a point of contention! From all indications, these people should be charged with child neglect, if not murder, or manslaughter, possibly involuntary manslaughter,...in my (sometimes) humble opinion! Regards, GfS |
|
01 Apr 09 - 04:14 AM (#2601944) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Nickhere, I agree with your post, as well. |
|
01 Apr 09 - 08:54 AM (#2602128) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Alice As I said, the list "does not include the groups in which children were harmed or killed because of the religious ideology about punishment, starvation, sex with children, etc." |
|
01 Apr 09 - 09:17 AM (#2602144) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Alice Here is an excerpt from a more complete description of the cult case of One Mind Ministries at http://www.rickross.com/reference/onemind/onemind14.html "She insists that her daughter was also a victim and was coerced into starving Javon. "The leader of the cult -- Queen Antoinette -- made the decision. She was the one that said, 'Do not feed him,' and would beat Javon and put him in a back room." The child was denied food and water and became thin with dark circles under his eyes, according to a statement of charges filed by Detective Vernon Parker. When he stopped breathing, cult members were instructed to pray around Javon's body, according to Parker. "The Queen told everyone that 'God was going to raise Javon from the dead,'" according to the document. "That resurrection never took place." Cult member Bynum then rented a silver Chevrolet Impala and drove to Philadelphia with other group members and the corpse, according to Parker. After being evicted from a Red Roof Inn, they lived on the streets before meeting Samuel Morgan, an elderly man who allowed them to stay at his home for one week. Leaving behind the suitcase, cult members moved on to Brooklyn, where three cult members were arrested on accusations of assaulting an officer who was attempting to retrieve a child involved in a custody dispute from their home. Javon's body was finally discovered after Baltimore police received a tip from a caseworker with New York's child welfare authority." |
|
01 Apr 09 - 10:26 AM (#2602206) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Donuel These cases are a problem for both law and religion but neither are the cause. The cause is mental illness. Mental illness can be caused by either nature or nurture or both. It could be organic or it could be a learned acquision. For example a normal person can "learn" mental illness as a result of solitary confinment in as little as 90 days. Religion is no defense for murder but can be instrumental in learning insanity or excusing true insanity as some sort of spritual posession by ignorant church authorities. For a judge weighing the possibliity of learned insanity from an organic disease, the most humane sentence for those involved in murdering a child is a life sentence to a psychiatric prison hospital with the possibility for parole. Many psychotics and social psychopaths have a very high self esteem, controling behaviors and claim a personal relationship with god, or the devil. Their defense is typically "God (or the devil) told me what to do". The least humane punishment is the death penalty which is too deeply flawed to ever be enforced justly. A jury trial may give results far afield from law or proof. Somtimes the law is ignored and a community agreement on punishment or innocence is as simple as "he had it comin" which has been a very successful defense for some admited killers in Texas. |
|
01 Apr 09 - 12:00 PM (#2602297) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Alice I never said religion is the "cause". There are many reasons why people start destructive cults. Many cult leaders have narcissistic personality disorder. Contrary to popular opinion, most people recruited into a cult do not have a mental illness. Rather, they are at a vulnerable time in their life when whatever the cult is offering as bait hooks into the vulnerability of the recruit. The "dark side" of the group is not usually apparent during the recruiting process. Cognitive dissonane and other problems may arise as part of the cult involvement, but cults generally want highly functioning people to exploit. Intelligent, hard working recruits are the most valuable. If someone has problems, they usually get dumped from the group, unless they are a source of income like disability payments, social security, or something like that. Destructive cults are not all based on religious ideology - some are political, some can be business oriented (follow me and you will become rich), some are based on racism (white supremist, etc.) and many are "therapy" cults, led by psychologists or self proclaimed counselors who create their own idea of therapy and involve a group of people around them. Many cults in America have been called "mom and pop" cults, where there are one or two strong leaders who involve a small group of followers, and the group acts below the radar. If you want more info on destructive cults, you can PM me. |
|
01 Apr 09 - 12:01 PM (#2602300) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Alice that should be cognitive "dissonance", not "dissonane" |
|
01 Apr 09 - 12:14 PM (#2602311) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I think you should re-read my post. It certainly draws the distinction between, what following what Jesus said, and where people 'go astray', and to what is a valid 'discipleship' of Jesus, and where people just make up their own shit, for whatever they feel suits them...for whatever reason....both religious, and for good measure, political. Regards, GfS |
|
01 Apr 09 - 12:23 PM (#2602321) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Mrrzy She may not be mentally ill; she was just brought up to believe the impossible, so she did. She is mentally ill now, though, if not just from shock. The majority is always sane, as Nessus, the mad-because-brave Puppeteer pointed out. Sanity is a legal term. |
|
01 Apr 09 - 12:28 PM (#2602328) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Yes, I know that already, and pointed that out months ago! |
|
01 Apr 09 - 02:48 PM (#2602456) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Hey, I just thought of something.....What IF the baby was resurrected, came back to life, only to suffocate in the suitcase???? Its still child endangerment!!!!! |
|
01 Apr 09 - 03:03 PM (#2602469) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: John P People also have the right to believe as they wish, String. It is only when they try to foist that belief on others who are, for one reason or another, unqualified to make an informed choice that they become a problem. - Don T Does this include teaching their children their religious beliefs? I think recent events have shown all of us to suffer from mass delusion - i.e we have all believed in the financial system up to now. - Nickhere There isn't much real comparison between "believing" in our financial system and believing in a god. Our financial system exists and we can all verify that. I, for one, have never believed in its functionality. In fact, I was sure that this day would come as soon as Reagan and the Republicans started deregulating. A shocking number horrible crimes are committed by people of with no particular religious affiliation - M Ted Yes. So? Do you think anyone is saying differently? We cannot exist without assumptions. Every time you get behind the wheel of your car you have to assume to some degree that the other drivers are going to obey the rules of the road - Slag Again, there is a huge difference between assuming that most of the people around you are sane and believing in a god. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. Besides, I assume that all the other drivers on the road are poised to kill me and I drive accordingly. Comparing making assumptions with having a belief is like comparing apples to fish. I believe in the existence of Hong Kong, even though I've never seen it. But then, there is evidence for the existence of Hong Kong. Please don't try to make the word "belief" mean the same thing in two very different circumstances. |
|
01 Apr 09 - 04:13 PM (#2602514) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Little Hawk All human beings naturally pass on their multitude of beliefs (religious, political, scientific, educational, and social beliefs of every kind) to their children. It happens automatically, whether or not the parents give their active attention to the matter, because children tend to imitate and take for granted whatever they see happening around them in their early formative years. (and they often rebell against much of it later, in their adolescent years) If you want to try to play God and do something about that in a legislative sense and step between parents and their children, all I can say (sarcastically) is..."Good luck!" (and I hope you do not succeed in messing with too many other people's lives in the process) One's exquisite judgements about what is right and wrong and best in every single sense and situation in life are best applied to oneself, not aggressively foisted upon others. So what I'm saying is: Religious proseletyzers...leave me and others alone. Anti-religious proseletyzers...leave me and others alone. Government and political proseletyzers...leave me and others alone. Medical and marketing proseletyzers of all kinds...leave me and others alone. And if I have mispelled the word proseletyzers...forgive me my imperfections. |
|
01 Apr 09 - 04:27 PM (#2602534) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Stringsinger Dawkins "The God Delusion" covers this idea well. People can be deluded without being crazy. Religion constitutes a labeling. I don't think that labels define people very well. I consider what people do over what people believe. Interesting stat: Top group in US, Catholics. Second, Baptists. Third group, "Nones" meaning none of the above. Secular. These were determined by recent polls. |
|
01 Apr 09 - 05:00 PM (#2602565) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Little Hawk, Hello, once again!... 'proselytizers' is the correct spelling. |
|
01 Apr 09 - 07:27 PM (#2602678) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Slag Guest from sanity! Your absolute distillation of the essence of Christ's conditions for inclusion into The Kingdom leave me a little dubious of you knowledge of Christian theology. What about "Ye must be born again!"? Or "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven... . Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And I will say to them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." In all fairness to you though, you have enunciated what is commonly called the law of the believers. I would only argue that it is a condition of the saved and not a saving act. The saving act was Christ's alone (see Ephesians 2:8-10). Yes LH, 50 lashes with a Bible place marker. If you're going to resist proselytizing (or ...'ising, if you're a Brit) ya gotta know how to spell it. It kinda funny, ironic, that I am not much of a joiner either. My sales resistance is second to none. I prefer logic where logic is called for, am an avid fan of the sciences and I try to be an independent thinker. And as such I argue with the religious communities as much as I do with the non religious. Well, it keeps life interesting. |
|
01 Apr 09 - 07:32 PM (#2602681) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Ah, Slag...in the context of your reply,, you mentioned 'Being born again'...ok, then understanding John14:15-20 should be a snap!....wink! |
|
01 Apr 09 - 09:51 PM (#2602737) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Slag Without question, Guest from Sanity! I wish you had membership so i could pm you as we are getting quite far afield. However, all in John: 6:63, 8:47, 10:27-28, 12:48, all of chapter 14 with emphasis on 16-18 as you noted, 15:16 and 17, 17:14-17. |
|
01 Apr 09 - 10:45 PM (#2602755) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos The majority is always sane, as Nessus, the mad-because-brave Puppeteer pointed out. Sanity is a legal term. It is also a technical term describing mental and spiritual states. In that context, the majority is NOT always sane; witness the 2004 election. In that context there are a lot more important criteria than mass agreement. A |
|
02 Apr 09 - 01:40 AM (#2602807) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Amos, In your context that would be an adjective, and as an opinion, but not used in a legal or professional capacity. Just how one side or the other would describe how they 'felt' about the turnout. Hey, I'm still giving Obama the credit of the doubt.....so easy...but I'm a'watchin' 'em....still he has not gained back any trust....just watchin'..! |
|
02 Apr 09 - 03:25 AM (#2602834) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos There is such a thing as sanity. It is not just opinions. My remark about the election was an example of a large mass of people agreeing on something that they got wrong, somehow. History is fill of mass agreements not closely tied to reality. A |
|
02 Apr 09 - 03:34 AM (#2602839) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Slag, Once in a while, I post a link, that I think certain people would enjoy, (even Amos, has liked them...so I cut him slack...wink!).So here is one for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiXM5X34B0Q I tried getting two, performed by the same group, but every time I come back here, the reply box is empty..so here is just one. I'll post the other, sometime later. Enjoy! Warmest Regards, GfS |
|
02 Apr 09 - 03:37 AM (#2602840) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Slag, and/or Amos, Here's the other. I think Amos saw this one, and enjoyed it. www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfO6JpR5Ip8 |
|
02 Apr 09 - 11:15 AM (#2603151) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Mrrzy Anybody recognize the Nessus reference? |
|
02 Apr 09 - 11:29 AM (#2603164) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiXM5X34B0Q (The Deer's Cry) www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfO6JpR5Ip8 (The Voice) |
|
02 Apr 09 - 12:04 PM (#2603181) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: John P I certainly recognized the Nessus reference. One of my favorite literary characters. An interesting example of an individual from one culture acting like people from another culture, and therefor being considered insane by his own culture. Of course, he considered himself insane as well. |
|
02 Apr 09 - 01:39 PM (#2603257) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Amos, Thanks for straightening out the links for me. My thing at this end was having a problem doing it...though, it has in the past. Mrrzy, and JohnP, In posts past, depending on the subject being discussed, I've 'referenced', Adlai Stevenson, Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Frank Zappa, Vladimir Lenin, Bob Dylan, Robert Hienlien, among others. That being said, I find it,...umm, ..shall we say, 'curious' that you should take exception to me referencing 'Nessus'...in a thread regarding religion. Perhaps you, are the one 'delusional' in a phobic sort of way? Take it easy....unless you feel it more appropriate, that in this thread, I should be 'referencing' Barney Frank, Pelosi, Timmy Tax Cheat, Chris Dodd, or Rush Limbaugh. Whether you like it or not, 'Nessus' as you prefer to call him(phobic?), is considered by most historians, as the most influential religious figure, in history. Why not reference him?? You reference him every time you date a check! Puzzled Regards, GfS |
|
02 Apr 09 - 02:36 PM (#2603315) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Art Thieme I just date chicks! (These days I've no checks to date...) Art |
|
02 Apr 09 - 02:44 PM (#2603328) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos You're "chic" is dated, Art, but your art is still chic. |
|
02 Apr 09 - 02:45 PM (#2603329) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Aw, such a pity...no checks, no chicks....Hey, Art, I just gave you a line!...(wink) |
|
02 Apr 09 - 05:59 PM (#2603463) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Slag MMMMmmmmWaaaah! |
|
02 Apr 09 - 06:13 PM (#2603474) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Hey Slag,..Did you listen to the vids? |
|
02 Apr 09 - 06:14 PM (#2603476) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity... ..Oh yeah,....100! |
|
02 Apr 09 - 06:19 PM (#2603481) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: John P 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? |
|
02 Apr 09 - 06:31 PM (#2603494) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Bill D 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? |
|
02 Apr 09 - 06:33 PM (#2603496) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
03 Apr 09 - 12:51 AM (#2603683) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Slag 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. |
|
03 Apr 09 - 12:15 PM (#2603977) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Mrrzy 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. |
|
03 Apr 09 - 01:06 PM (#2604005) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos 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." |
|
03 Apr 09 - 03:53 PM (#2604099) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: John P 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? |
|
03 Apr 09 - 04:43 PM (#2604142) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Slag Now John, was that Nessus-airy? |
|
03 Apr 09 - 05:03 PM (#2604156) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Bill D Nessus lives! |
|
03 Apr 09 - 05:44 PM (#2604172) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: John P 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. |
|
03 Apr 09 - 06:21 PM (#2604187) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Slag No, it's more like "if the suit fits..." case. |
|
03 Apr 09 - 06:30 PM (#2604195) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos 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 |
|
03 Apr 09 - 08:10 PM (#2604237) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
04 Apr 09 - 11:31 AM (#2604533) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Hey Slag, Did you ever get to watch those yet?? |
|
04 Apr 09 - 12:14 PM (#2604558) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos 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 |
|
04 Apr 09 - 12:50 PM (#2604574) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Which Paul? |
|
04 Apr 09 - 01:39 PM (#2604614) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos Oh, surely I meant Paul Anka, or possibly the Beatle... A |
|
04 Apr 09 - 01:53 PM (#2604627) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Dave the Gnome 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) |
|
04 Apr 09 - 01:58 PM (#2604632) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Well, on here..you never know!!! |
|
04 Apr 09 - 02:02 PM (#2604636) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos "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) |
|
04 Apr 09 - 02:19 PM (#2604646) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Great post, Amos......Besides, you were quoting another writer.......(wink) |
|
04 Apr 09 - 04:50 PM (#2604720) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Janie 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. |
|
04 Apr 09 - 04:59 PM (#2604722) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Janie 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. |
|
04 Apr 09 - 05:09 PM (#2604726) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Slag 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. |
|
04 Apr 09 - 06:50 PM (#2604764) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity No problem. Perhaps when you get around a faster system. By the way, I didn't recall any scripture in either song. Regards, GfS |
|
04 Apr 09 - 11:57 PM (#2604868) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Slag 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. |
|
05 Apr 09 - 12:04 AM (#2604873) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
05 Apr 09 - 03:36 PM (#2605155) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: frogprince 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. |
|
05 Apr 09 - 03:58 PM (#2605174) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity frogprince, Hare Krishna, Hare Hare!!...and 'Kumbayah', for good measure! |
|
05 Apr 09 - 04:31 PM (#2605192) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Bill D "... just 360 days in a year..." umm-hmmm.. and pi=3 "...proved it to him recently with Biblical references." from false premises, anything follows. |
|
05 Apr 09 - 10:06 PM (#2605372) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Slag 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. |
|
05 Apr 09 - 10:45 PM (#2605384) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: frogprince 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. |
|
05 Apr 09 - 10:53 PM (#2605387) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: frogprince ...is an oxymoron. |
|
05 Apr 09 - 11:40 PM (#2605403) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos Toquing one's thoughts around in order to make the Bible inerrant is a real good way to undermine a mind seriously. |
|
06 Apr 09 - 12:45 AM (#2605419) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Slag 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. |
|
06 Apr 09 - 11:36 AM (#2605659) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: frogprince 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. |
|
06 Apr 09 - 12:18 PM (#2605692) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos 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 |
|
06 Apr 09 - 12:30 PM (#2605699) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: frogprince 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! : ). |
|
06 Apr 09 - 12:40 PM (#2605710) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: frogprince Alternative method: hold a propane torch on the bulb until it's glowing hot... |
|
06 Apr 09 - 12:46 PM (#2605714) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos Ah, damn; sometimes I think too much and my brain folds up on itself! Thanks, FP, for deflating an unnecessary bubble. A |
|
06 Apr 09 - 01:33 PM (#2605736) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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!' |
|
06 Apr 09 - 01:43 PM (#2605746) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos 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 |
|
06 Apr 09 - 02:17 PM (#2605786) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Banned in Boston! (Any chance you can learn from that?) Joe Clone |
|
06 Apr 09 - 07:35 PM (#2606066) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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 |
|
06 Apr 09 - 07:38 PM (#2606071) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Being so 'hip and 'liberal', you would have even banned this...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8SfiCnwF28 |
|
06 Apr 09 - 07:50 PM (#2606083) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos 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 |
|
06 Apr 09 - 07:55 PM (#2606089) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: frogprince 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? |
|
06 Apr 09 - 08:48 PM (#2606121) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
06 Apr 09 - 08:53 PM (#2606125) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 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. |
|
06 Apr 09 - 09:09 PM (#2606139) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Bill D 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. |
|
06 Apr 09 - 09:19 PM (#2606148) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Hey, Bill, it was so silly, it wouldn't be worth it...and it probably did cross a line(risque). I was only offering an explanation to frogprince, as to why my other posts made no sense. Thank you, though. Regards! GfS |
|
07 Apr 09 - 09:53 AM (#2606470) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: MaineDog The problem is not so much with Christianity as with some of the people who are drawn to it: The poor can feel justified in their poverty and crap on the rich; The sexually challenged can feel justified in their fears or impotence and crap on those who are successful. The emotionally fragile can find people who will stroke them all the time. Mediocre musicians can often get to play in front of an audience who will appreciate them. The uneducated can dump on the educated and find Bible verses to justify their ignorance. The lazy can say "I don't need to work because that would deny the Lord's provision." The sick who are afraid of doctors can say "Jesus will heal me" and so get to Heaven sooner. When people start forcing others into these errors, we get real problems. I've seen many of them first hand. In a thorough reading of the Bible, the "contradictions" point to a middle path of sensibility on most issues, and the reasonable can find their way thru. Many sincere Christians believe that God will never contradict his written Word (the Bible) with a prophecy or leading. If you think god has called you to do something stupid, like abuse a child, you should back off, spend some time reading the Bible to determine if that instruction came from God or from the devil! MD |
|
07 Apr 09 - 10:59 AM (#2606527) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Wesley S The problem is not so much with Christianity as with some of the people who are drawn to it: The problem is not so much with ___________ as with some of the people who are drawn to it Fill in with : Atheism Republican Party Democratic Party Black and White movies Foreign Countries Vegans Witchcraft Antique Cars Taylor Guitars Or fill in your own boogie man.... |
|
07 Apr 09 - 11:00 AM (#2606530) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos YEah!! ESPECIALLY Taylor guitars.... A |
|
07 Apr 09 - 11:12 AM (#2606538) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Wesley S It's well known that Taylor guitars give some of their profits to Scientology..... |
|
07 Apr 09 - 12:02 PM (#2606576) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos And vice-versa. Think of all those stary-eyed buskers... |
|
07 Apr 09 - 12:06 PM (#2606579) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: MaineDog I suppose we could put hospitals on the list of undesirable institutions because they too attract sick people. Hospitals attempt to cure sick people with their own techniques (drugs, surgery, radiations, etc.) However some patients don't get cured because they insist on clinging to their dangerous lifestyles : overeating, smoking, excess drinking, crack, whatever. So, should some nay-sayers blame hospitals for the problems of their patients? Maybe for a lack of counseling, or education, or insufficient followup, but not for the fact the the hospital can cure certain types of cooperative patients. MD |
|
07 Apr 09 - 12:37 PM (#2606603) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Mrrzy My, we have strayed far from the topic. What was that deleted post? Is there something wrong with me that the rest actually made sense? |
|
07 Apr 09 - 12:57 PM (#2606616) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos Picnics are notorious for attracting ants. They are responsible, therefore, for the deforestation of the Amazon. It stands to reason. A |
|
07 Apr 09 - 06:03 PM (#2606882) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Maine Dog, I completely understood your post, and where you're coming from. I agree, an am encouraged. |
|
07 Apr 09 - 09:32 PM (#2607007) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Mrrzy Hmmm - does drinking mother's milk cause crime, since almost all criminals drank mother's milk? |
|
07 Apr 09 - 10:02 PM (#2607028) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Bill D I think that's Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle |
|
08 Apr 09 - 12:53 AM (#2607084) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Bill, I keep tellin' them, that 95% of all forest fires are caused by trees!! |
|
08 Apr 09 - 05:51 AM (#2607167) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Penny S. The Egyptians, and they had a lot of influence on the OT, believed in a 360 day year. They were, however, aware, that there were 365 days (I think they were not aware of the quarter), and told a tale of one of the gods envigling 5 extra days out of it by gambling with the light of the Moon (may not be quite accurate here) in order that new gods should be born, after Amun had cursed the mother with not being able to bear children on any day of the year. The resulting children were Isis, Osiris, Set, Nut and A.N.Other, and the extracalerary days festivals. This would create problems for a monotheist society. Try doing maths with 365.24....... and the wish of the two cultures to use 360 becomes obvious. And using a pi of 3. Penny |
|
08 Apr 09 - 11:50 AM (#2607382) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Mrrzy Right. And the Jews can't eat carnivorous birds, like the bat. |
|
08 Apr 09 - 01:28 PM (#2607438) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Wesley S Ah - Bat's aren't birds..... |
|
08 Apr 09 - 01:49 PM (#2607451) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos But clearly, sir, some of these birds are bats. A |
|
08 Apr 09 - 01:54 PM (#2607454) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Pelosi is a bat..who'd want to eat her?????????? |
|
08 Apr 09 - 02:32 PM (#2607463) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos That's a bird of an off-color, clearly, and possibly bats. A |
|
08 Apr 09 - 03:45 PM (#2607524) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Wesley S Tasty Bat 1 Tasty Bat 2 |
|
08 Apr 09 - 03:52 PM (#2607529) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Amos My, Wes, you have too much time on your hands!!! A |
|
08 Apr 09 - 07:12 PM (#2607689) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Mrrzy Right, Wesley, but the Torah says that... |
|
08 Apr 09 - 07:16 PM (#2607691) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity From: Amos Date: 08 Apr 09 - 03:52 PM My, Wes, you have too much time on your hands!!! What??..On his hands????? |
|
08 Apr 09 - 07:19 PM (#2607692) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Riginslinger Well, at least they look tasty! |
|
08 Apr 09 - 07:41 PM (#2607700) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Well, certainly a lot better than those babes, Hillary(ious), and Pigfacey.,,Sorry, I meant Ms. Clinton (Ms.-short for miserable), and our Windbag of the House, Pelosi,...you know, the one with the armed guards, who wants to take away your evil guns..(her's aren't evil), and who flies around constantly in private biz jets, and now requisitions the military, to fly her around, while promoting the peasants and serfs, to pay carbon footprint taxes...what a crock of shit!!! Some of you still don't get a clue, and think this mental case is on your side, speaking for you??..Its down right laughable, if it wasn't so pathetic! |
|
08 Apr 09 - 08:07 PM (#2607708) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: Bill D wow, GfS,,,sometimes you just, as my Mom used to say, "talk to hear your head rattle" |
|
08 Apr 09 - 08:15 PM (#2607714) Subject: RE: BS: It's not delusional if it's religious? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity wow, GfS,,,sometimes you just, as my Mom used to say, "talk to hear your head rattle" You should have paid attention to your mom!!!!! Now look at you!! |
