Religion Matters: Take 3

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:53 pm

Post moved to ... Off Color Religion Matters.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:27 am

Another installment of Jesus & Mo nails it.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:41 am

Their nature and character of their beliefs makes honesty, equity and integrity extremely difficult for certain types of believers to muster.

ttf_John the Theologian · Tue Mar 08, 2016 5:42 pm

Some food for thought in this link:

http://theweek.com/articles/610948/why-many-scientists-are-ignorant

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Tue Mar 08, 2016 6:02 pm

The eliminative materialism point is pure straw man, but the scientists mentioned have demonstrated an odd kind of apparent disdain for philosophy in their philosophizing. It seems there's got to be a purely semantic component to that which is key, or that they're targeting certain specific areas of philosophy, but I'm not completely sure about that.

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:11 am

Yeah, the paragraph on that bit at the end in the important place where one intuitively expects a summary to be is quite a shame, and not worthy of the rest of the article. I strongly suspect it betrays an axe being ground by the author - so I Google him, and... oh yes, he's coming at this from a fully convinced Christian angle, Catholic to be precise. That seems to have led him into this particular silliness; it would be a much stronger article without that unjustified attack. I suppose that when one is taught to root for the home team in all circumstances regardless of relevance, a dirty kick starts to seem like an option when you are dealing with the 'opposition'. But it is tiresome indeed when an artificial 'opposition' has been identified simply in order to rail against it. As Byron said, much more briefly, "pure straw man".
It's kind of funny... I clicked through to another article by the same author. Same pattern again - lots of reasonable and informed prose, then dropped into the middle a rabid religious attack. Kind of funny, but more kind of sad.

That aside...

An error of categorisation that I often see, amongst specialists and non-specialists alike, is to carve up the pursuit of knowledge into rigid categories with walls between them. This article simultaneously points out the absurdity of that way of thinking while remaining keen on the demarcation of these classifications itself (e.g. in the paragraph beginning "There's obviously").

It isn't always the case that etymology tells us profound things, but I think that in this case it does. Compare the words "Philosophy" and "Science". "Love of knowledge, pursuit of wisdom; systematic investigation" versus "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information; assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty". These are words whose precise meanings have slid around somewhat over the centuries, but the sense is clear - both Philosophy and Science are technical terms describing the ordered acquisition of knowledge.

The way the words have come down to us, they carry different connotations of knowledge-seeking. Bearing in mind that the tradition of inquiry that we today understand as our modern scientific endeavour was once known as Natural Philosophy, we note that "science" is the younger term, first emerging in Mediaeval Europe, while "philosophy" of course goes back to the ancient Greeks, who were so far ahead of their times in these ways. What we today call "science" would have been thought of as some subset of "philosophy" by those ancients, and it is still valuable to think of it that way. A subset that grew and grew until it budded off on its own, for sure, but the thoughts that intellectually spurred its modern outgrowth in the 17th century are deeply relevant today. The 'wall' between science and philosophy is porous - if philosophy is the thinking out of possibilities, what is theoretical science but the philosophy of experimental science? And on the other side of the circle, where does mathematics end and philosophy begin? Logic, for example, is a subject that straddles the boundary of the two.

I have some sympathy with where the article begins. People who love being respected for their knowledge more than they respect the humble pursuit of knowledge tick me off too (we see some of them here on TTF on trombone topics). Maybe one has relevant knowledge or maybe one doesn't; but don't try to impress people with titles - that just distorts the dialogue. I call myself a scientist or a physicist because it communicates clearly to people the basic shape of what I do for a living. I do not do it out of some desire to impress on them that my opinion is worth listening to; if the logic found in my words doesn't convince them of that, then my opinion is indeed not worth listening to. An appropriate level of humility is an essential tool in all this for all concerned - and there are those, even some highly successful, that fail to acquire it properly.

I would file the words of Bill Nye in a subsection of my already bulging "Oh look, someone is speaking who thinks that being on TV makes them important and their words profound" folder. Guff not worth paying attention to - except that there are people out there who will believe him without questioning, a public intellectual danger resulting from a failure over many years to teach schoolchildren how to properly inquire.
Neil deGrasse Tyson seems to have said some unjustifiable things about philosophy in general. The interview quoted has him deriding the point of debating some famous old semantic saws, which strikes me as akin to criticising physics for some Mediaeval dead end that was decided to be nonsense donkey's years ago. This is more of a pity - someone afforded a public platform on the basis of actual knowledge contribution using it to play undergraduate games of topic favouritism.
Stephen Hawking's invocation here I see as making him the victim of quite a common misunderstanding scenario in the public reading of thoughts originally given to a smaller circle. In the reported remarks, he is suggesting that the rich fields of the philosophies of modern science are being neglected by a set of philosophers that are more interested in other (perhaps more traditional) directions of mental inquiry. This is not doing philosophy down, it is pointing out fertile ground for it to move into. But because the language used has some superficial similarities with the language used in an actual doing-down, those who either misunderstand or want to misrepresent (I wouldn't care to guess which of those the article author has done) will publicise an unflattering stretch of an interpretation.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:44 am

A lot of the backlash is also agendas preventing people from seeing the more obvious angle for the angle they find by following their sacred cows around. Bill Nye didn't misrepresent Descartes, he was talking about the way philosophical discussions on cogito ergo sum often go. Same thing for most of the rest of his admittedly kind of rambling in his response to a direct question from a fan. When I've heard Tyson get after philosophy it seems more about philosophy detached from science. The same may be true of Dawkins--I'm less familiar with his popular speech. But criticism of these comments is certainly fair. Tyson's comments stand out to me because they seem very inconsistent for him to be coming from him. That tends to be an indication that some questioning is in order, not that our initial impressions--the view from behind our ow baggage--is the best description of what he's trying to say. So the criticism in this vein isn't all unjustified and/or invalid, it's just that most of it I've seen and heard does seem to leave quite a lot of axe head material behind. Where there's room for interpretation, it will be used against them.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:38 am

Barmaid to Jesus & Mo:
Would it be fair to describe your respective religions as cults? ...

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Mar 30, 2016 5:05 am

This Jesus & Mo lays things out a bit more clearly than many will probably be comfortable with.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Sat Apr 02, 2016 11:28 am

Again ... a sentiment a great many believers can wholeheartedly agree with, and do.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:15 am

Another good example of how religion works as an ideological enzyme to transmute obviously unethical mental constructs into validations in the minds of those who have a large or active enough amount of that enzyme (or in other words, how it covers for those who don't take honesty seriously enough to think in a functionally critical, non-egocentric manner). Note that the primary objection comes from fellow believers who find the petty imposition of institutional self-affirmations trivializing, lacking true respect, putting self above reverence ... all that sort of selfish form over substance stuff.

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:41 am

This makes me chuckle gently.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:26 am

Another good Jesus & Mo.

Inspired by: http://www.expressandstar.com/entertainment/showbiz-news/2016/04/14/beardy-weirdy-citizen-khan-branded-islamophobic-by-mp-rupa-huq/

If you take something too seriously to find any humor in its absurdities or eccentricities (or whatever), you should probably think about that.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed May 18, 2016 5:00 am

Jesus & Mo explain their theory of (religious) evidence.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Sun May 22, 2016 11:29 am

University of Miami Establishes Chair for Study of Atheism
- Secularism and Nonreligion (new academic journal)
Pitzer College in California Adds Major in Secularism
--
- In the Bible Belt, Offering Atheists a Spiritual Home
- More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Mon May 23, 2016 2:59 am

There is something peculiar about studying a philosophical viewpoint that is defined by not having a particular distorting slant. A culture less aggressively permeated by Christianity than is the USA's I feel would be less likely to create courses in these particular terms. But the listed course content looks interesting - indeed, "The Bible as Literature" - that's not so far from what we're doing here in the Bible-reading thread (or at least, what I'm doing).

We also see the 'comfort blanket' effect in the 'atheist church' link. To me, this seems an utterly bizarre concept, one that must be enabled by there being such an enormously widespread feeling that going to church is a good thing that not attending something that looks like one just feels wrong. But it is making people that feel awkward feel less awkward, which can only be a good thing. Again, this simply wouldn't arise in a place where religion was less aggressively promoted.

But it is easy to forget over here how socially hard those in the US that don't do religion have it. A small, non-statistical, and ultimately trivial anecdote, but one that gauges the level to which Christian behaviour is expected and societally enforced: A friend who moved to the US went along to a community band rehearsal and got a lift back afterwards who someone pleasant who turned out to be a Christian pastor of some sort, who elicited her religious views, then responded to her brief and disinterested "I'm not religious" with 50 miles of Christian proselytising. As I recall, she didn't return to that band, and in a quiet and minor way the prevailing explicitly Christian context was reinforced. As one of those interviewed in an above link implies, when "What church do you go to?" is seen as an acceptable conversation opener and "None" is not seen as an acceptable response, the stage is set for discomfort.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Mon May 23, 2016 5:46 am

Quote from: MoominDave on May 23, 2016, 02:59AMThere is something peculiar about studying a philosophical viewpoint that is defined by not having a particular distorting slant. A culture less aggressively permeated by Christianity than is the USA's I feel would be less likely to create courses in these particular terms. But the listed course content looks interesting - indeed, "The Bible as Literature" - that's not so far from what we're doing here in the Bible-reading thread (or at least, what I'm doing).It's mostly just humans being the social species we are, really, but the stuff that makes religious social groups religious creates some pretty restrictive and generally negative baggage--probably mostly enabling kinds of things like the veneration of Bronze Age social ethics and the illusion of absolute certainty or validation from an alleged/presumed Ultimate and Absolute Authority.

Quote from: MoominDave on May 23, 2016, 02:59AMWe also see the 'comfort blanket' effect in the 'atheist church' link. To me, this seems an utterly bizarre concept, one that must be enabled by there being such an enormously widespread feeling that going to church is a good thing that not attending something that looks like one just feels wrong. But it is making people that feel awkward feel less awkward, which can only be a good thing. Again, this simply wouldn't arise in a place where religion was less aggressively promoted.I don't think it's about making social groups that mimic religious social groups so much as that those are the social groups that have monopolized the market, so to speak, to the point that it's hard to recognize what's really going on underneath all the window dressing. Perceptually the window dressing becomes the nature and character of the social group simply because it's distinct and prominent and worshipfully revered. When that basic character and nature also thoroughly monopolize the social group market ... well, there it is. Even when other groups develop that could serve all the same social functions that churches do, they don't, because for too many members those functions are served and those needs met by a church group.

You still really don't find much communing in the US outside of a church environment though--at least certainly not here in the South. I've been visiting home more frequently lately though, and out in the SF Bay area in California there does seem to be a much greater general sense of community. I'm still not entirely sure it's not more about being on vacation and back home and out of the South (not that I don't appreciate the South--I've lived here significantly longer than I lived at home--but it's just not home, not my culture), but I hear the same kinds of testimonials from "outsiders" as well.

I'm also kinda beginning to think that the basic character of a culture has a lot to do with how they drive, because driving is inherently about sharing a common resource, and in a very visceral and immediate kind of way--no goading from a preacher to be good and donate--that sort of thing, just raw, applied, individual social nature with a false sense of isolation to prevent coercion or social group contamination of individual inclinations. At any rate there's a pretty striking difference between driving habits in GA and N. CA. In GA it's more a competition not to give up any time or pavement in front of you and oblivion regarding what's behind or more than 30' or so ahead. In CA it's more about cooperation. The difference is probably only striking when you're paying attention to that sort of thing, because it's more of a shifted Bell curve kind of situation. I'll put it this way--in the SF Bay Area zippering is the predominant behavior. In GA the predominant inclination of the large majority is to tightly hug the arse of the car in front to secure that few feet of road ahead--keep it from being taken--and to actively prevent zippering if at all possible without making actual contact with the car attempting to merge (not uncommonly only giving in under duress if the merger is aggressive enough to force the issue). In fact in GA attempting to merge from a lane that's ending is largely seen as rude and met with hostility if it's not done very, very early. If the zipperers can be held off and forced to sit there idling for an hour or more, all the better--serves 'em right.

Quote from: MoominDave on May 23, 2016, 02:59AMBut it is easy to forget over here how socially hard those in the US that don't do religion have it. A small, non-statistical, and ultimately trivial anecdote, but one that gauges the level to which Christian behaviour is expected and societally enforced: A friend who moved to the US went along to a community band rehearsal and got a lift back afterwards who someone pleasant who turned out to be a Christian pastor of some sort, who elicited her religious views, then responded to her brief and disinterested "I'm not religious" with 50 miles of Christian proselytising. As I recall, she didn't return to that band, and in a quiet and minor way the prevailing explicitly Christian context was reinforced. As one of those interviewed in an above link implies, when "What church do you go to?" is seen as an acceptable conversation opener and "None" is not seen as an acceptable response, the stage is set for discomfort.We can always just get involved with the Unitarians or the Episcopalians ... heh.

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Mon May 23, 2016 5:59 am

Quote from: Baron von Bone on May 23, 2016, 05:46AMIn fact in GA attempting to merge from a lane that's ending is largely seen as rude and met with hostility if it's not done very, very early. If the zipperers can be held off and forced to sit there idling for an hour or more, all the better--serves 'em right.

Heh, we have plenty of these idiots here too, disregarding the law and the posted signs instructing them to merge in turn. I think the British love of queueing is tied up with it.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Mon May 23, 2016 7:54 am

Quote from: MoominDave on May 23, 2016, 05:59AMHeh, we have plenty of these idiots here too, disregarding the law and the posted signs instructing them to merge in turn. I think the British love of queueing is tied up with it.

When we lived in Germany the zipper cooperation was very comforting. You'd see the sign Bitte Einfedeln (I think, going from memory here) and everybody would alternate one car from each lane.

Knowing this would happen meant you didn't have to try and get in early - postponing the zipper until the last possible spot avoids a more general slowdown that occurs farther back, and is absolutely the most efficient way to do it, PROVIDED you have some confidence they will let you in at the end.

ttf_doubleslyde · Post by **ttf_doubleslyde** » Tue May 24, 2016 4:00 pm

Hi All.
Here is a tidbit to snack on while you contemplate traffic.
One can be technically right as to fact and everlastingly wrong in the truth.
Ta Ta

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Tue May 24, 2016 8:18 pm

Quote from: doubleslyde on May 24, 2016, 04:00PMHi All.
Here is a tidbit to snack on while you contemplate traffic.
One can be technically right as to fact and everlastingly wrong in the truth.
Ta Ta

One can also formulate a presumption that shields itself from facts ... as long as one can also seal off the issue of what we can and can't know, and what we do and don't actually know, and how that inherently shapes what are and what aren't reasonable beliefs about reality.

ttf_MoominDave · Post by **ttf_MoominDave** » Wed May 25, 2016 1:12 am

Quote from: doubleslyde on May 24, 2016, 04:00PMHi All.
Here is a tidbit to snack on while you contemplate traffic.
One can be technically right as to fact and everlastingly wrong in the truth.
Ta Ta

Hi doubleslyde. Do you know, I don't think I can recall even once reading a post of yours that I felt that I actually understood? Perhaps we could snack more effectively if you explained what you mean further with some examples.

ttf_doubleslyde · Post by **ttf_doubleslyde** » Sat May 28, 2016 4:17 pm

Hi MoominDave,
I appreciate your honesty! The tidbit is quite clear to me, but that's just me. Ex: facts are facts, knowing the reason for the facts would help come closer to understanding the truth.
Hi BVB It is what you believe about the facts that make them ring true or not. There's that religious word "belief" again.
Oh well different strokes for different folks!

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Tue May 31, 2016 5:41 am

This is a good explanation of why, until very recently in history, conservative Christians were separatists
(and why they would still be today if they were true to their alleged principles):

The Tragedy of Patriotic Worship, or: We Have a Different Memorial Day

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Tue May 31, 2016 2:33 pm

Quote from: Baron von Bone on May 31, 2016, 05:41AMThis is a good explanation of why, until very recently in history, conservative Christians were separatists
(and why they would still be today if they were true to their alleged principles):

The Tragedy of Patriotic Worship, or: We Have a Different Memorial Day

What do you mean by separatists? Sitting in a cave by yourself, or on a pole or in a hole kind of complete separation? Or joining a dedicated community of like minded people and not having anything to do with this outside world like a monk? Or leaving the established church? Or something else? I'm guessing that you have a specific meaning in mind and are also probably assuming that America is the default context of location and history.

To me it sounds like the writer is not advocating that conservative christians should not associate with other people or patriotic ceremonies, but that they shouldn't conflate the American civil religion which includes patriotism and perhaps worshipping the military, with Christianity.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Tue May 31, 2016 4:59 pm

Quote from: drizabone on May 31, 2016, 02:33PMWhat do you mean by separatists?
As in the separation of church and state.

ttf_doubleslyde · Post by **ttf_doubleslyde** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 7:11 am

In a mother's womb were two babies. One asked the other: "Do you believe in life after delivery?" The other replies, "why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later. "Nonsense," says the other. "There is no life after delivery. What would that life be?"

"I don't know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths."

The other says "This is absurd! Walking is impossible. And eat with our mouths? Ridiculous. The umbilical cord supplies nutrition. Life after delivery is to be excluded. The umbilical cord is too short."

"I think there is something and maybe it's different than it is here" the other replies,
"No one has ever come back from there. Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery it is nothing but darkness and anxiety and it takes us nowhere."

"Well, I don't know," says the other, "but certainly we will see mother and she will take care of us."

"Mother??" You believe in mother? Where is she now?"

"She is all around us. It is in her that we live. Without her there would not be this world."
"I don't see her, so it's only logical that she doesn't exist."

To which the other replied, "Sometimes when you're in silence you can hear her, you can perceive her. I believe there is a reality after delivery and we are here to prepare ourselves for that reality...."

Makes you think, hey? What reality are you creating for yourself? A negative one or a positive one. Your choice.
It's always your choice.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 9:23 am

Quote from: doubleslyde on Jun 02, 2016, 07:11AMMakes you think, hey?
Actually, no. Babies in the womb can't talk. In fact they'll be out of the womb about a year before they acquire that ability.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:16 pm

It's always striking to me, how many people can confuse catchy phraseology for veracity when it affirms their beliefs or ideology--same for vagueness and profundity (the Deepak Maneuver). It's all so highly and blatantly selective. That's also very telling. The catchy phraseology is only "confused" for veracity or profundity if it's being used to promote already cherished ideas.

That same kind of highly selective acceptance or rejection is also more or less how religious faith works, and why it's so obvious they're both actually useless and meaningless other than as affirmations--cognitive enzymes that artificially enable the digestion of the desired menu of ideas.

What's striking is how it demonstrates so clearly that the user hasn't ever taken any real responsibility to actually vet his or her cherished notions (or has maybe done so to a carefully limited degree) and has no intention of doing so, instead opting for self-deception through turns of phrase. Form over substance.

I'm not sure how that can really work very well at all though--how it can truly satisfy the need it's being used to fulfill--how it can really silence natural doubts and questions and such, and that may explain why so many are so anxious about affirmations like protecting "under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and the like--part of why so many feel such a strong need to do the church schtick at every opportunity.

ttf_ddickerson · Post by **ttf_ddickerson** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 3:03 pm

It amuses me that those that don't support life after delivery, agree with the baby that doesn't believe in life after delivery.

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Thu Jun 02, 2016 4:12 pm

Quote from: Baron von Bone on May 31, 2016, 04:59PM
As in the separation of church and state.

Well I agree with you then. (But don't tell anyone, people might start to talk)

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 5:21 am

See what you've got wrong about atheists.

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:49 pm

People will enter the "Tomb of Jesus" for the first time in 200 years.

Interesting, but probably of no theological significance.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/workers-will-enter-the-holy-rock-the-tomb-of-jesus-for-the-first-time-in-200-years-20160621-gpopin.html

ttf_John the Theologian · Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:09 pm

Thought some of you might find this for a chuckle of a different sort interesting. The Babylon Bee is mostly for evangelical insiders, but this one can be appreciated by all.

http://babylonbee.com/news/historical-critical-scholar-doubts-authorship-paper-wrote/

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:45 pm

I liked

http://babylonbee.com/news/heathen-driver-spots-jesus-fish-eating-darwin-fish-repents/

and

http://babylonbee.com/news/hillsong-united-introduces-controversial-new-fifth-chord/

Although the first one stretched the bounds of credibility a bit too much.

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:13 am

http://babylonbee.com/news/new-prayer-app-delivers-electric-shock-every-time-user-says-just/

This one is my favorite. Anyone who's been to that kind of service knows exactly why! Er, just exactly why.

ttf_ddickerson · Post by **ttf_ddickerson** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:35 am

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 23, 2016, 07:45PMI liked

http://babylonbee.com/news/heathen-driver-spots-jesus-fish-eating-darwin-fish-repents/

and

http://babylonbee.com/news/hillsong-united-introduces-controversial-new-fifth-chord/

Although the first one stretched the bounds of credibility a bit too much.

hey, you're over there with them, have you heard them use it yet?

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 2:10 pm

Interesting ...

An old friend just sent me that heathen driver link and I told him it looked like he'd gotten the article from The Onion and camouflaged it himself with the Babylon Bee dressings.

ttf_drizabone · Post by **ttf_drizabone** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 4:17 pm

Nah, 5 chords is just too radical for me. There's nothing in the KJV to support using 5 chords. If 4 chords were good enough for Paul they are good enough for me. And 5 is getting too close to 6, and if you had to play 3 songs with 6 chords it would be 666. That would be too much.

Actually, the guys that run our band are jazz muso's. They try and use all of the chords in every song.

ttf_ddickerson · Post by **ttf_ddickerson** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:27 pm

Quote from: drizabone on Jun 24, 2016, 04:17PMNah, 5 chords is just too radical for me. There's nothing in the KJV to support using 5 chords. If 4 chords were good enough for Paul they are good enough for me. And 5 is getting too close to 6, and if you had to play 3 songs with 6 chords it would be 666. That would be too much.

Actually, the guys that run our band are jazz muso's. They try and use all of the chords in every song.

Use all the chords? At the risk of being unbiblical? Dang, those jazzers!

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Sat Jul 09, 2016 7:39 pm

Missed this one when it happened--kinda surprised it wasn't a prominent story.

Pope Francis Says [All] Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 5:07 am

For many this spiral just keeps on spinning without any outside interference (whether it's actually there or not, it doesn't get to the inside, so to speak--that's what traditional applied religious faith is).

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Jul 20, 2016 6:17 am

Far religious right wing types won't be able to see this one.

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:26 pm

Jesus & Mo & Moses explain the US Christian Persecution Complex, in a nutshell.

ttf_John the Theologian · Tue Sep 06, 2016 5:20 pm

Since this thread has been inactive for a while except for BVB's occasional post, I thought I'd add something for those who are philosophically inclined or like debates instead of something along the lines of another Jesus and Mo cartoon.

A while back I mentioned that I believed that the presuppositional apologetics method with's transcendental arguments were the strongest for Christian theism. I recently came across these debates online. They feature Dr. Greg Bahnsen (PhD in philosophy from U of Southern California) and Dr. Gordon Stein, the editor of The American Rationalist magazine. Bahnsen was a student of Cornelius Van Til and one of the clearest proponents of presuppositional apologetics.

I have included both the audio to the debate these two did at U-Cal Irvine and a written transcript of the debate. The audio is long-- over 2 hours- so be forewarned. I found following along in the written transcript helpful as I listened. I've also included the closing arguments of another debate Dr. Bahnsen did-- with another atheist proponent, Edward Tabash, for those for whom 2 1/2 hours isn't enough. I've also included biographical links to Bahnsen and Stein.

Needless to say, I believe Bahnsen has the clearly stronger position; He is an infinitely better proponent of the position than I could ever be. Here are the links for your own perusal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anGAazNCfdY

http://andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/Bahnsen-Stein_Transcript.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ0sP_EzOVo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Bahnsen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Stein

ttf_John the Theologian · Tue Sep 13, 2016 7:20 am

For those who like religious cartoons, here's a link to Christian believer who has some pretty funny cartoons-- some are satirical of Christian insiders, while some are satirical of non-Christians. Worth a look at if you like religious cartoons with a bit of gentle bite.

Here's the link to his homepage:

http://adam4d.com/

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:30 am

Jesus & Mo explain faith some more ...

ttf_doubleslyde · Post by **ttf_doubleslyde** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:29 am

Unbridled self-will and unregulated self-expression equal unmitigated selfishness!

ttf_Baron von Bone · Post by **ttf_Baron von Bone** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:30 am

Another gem from one of the dudes who can be most counted upon to get everything precisely upside down and bass ackward (the next to last paragraph sums up this proud show of vapidity nicely).

ttf_timothy42b · Post by **ttf_timothy42b** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:03 am

The comments at that link almost make one despair for the future of humanity.