Wednesday, June 15, 2005

finding neo


Bigbro said:
Fundamentalism is about 'not needing an explanation.'

Oh, sure, there are those weekly explanations of a particular scripture that is pretty much explained the same way it was explained the last time the subject came up, but that's merely repetitiveness. Rote helps one not forget a lesson so as that lesson never changes regardless of the century in progress.

It all comes down to not needing an explanation. Not having to muddle about with explanations makes it all that much easier for everyone involved. Kind of like going to a Halloween party where no one wears masks


well, i'm afraid that i have to beg to differ with a couple different things here. i don't think that fundamentalism is as much about not needing an explanation as it is about presuming that a literal interpretation of scripture is the only explanation worth considering. this is probably why there is this whole problem with the weekly 'explanations' being all the same. it would be hard to take anything non-literal to fundamentalist masses without someone crying 'foul!'

i also disagree with the idea that not having to muddle about with explanations makes it all that much easier for everyone involved. it is the ethnocentric presumption that no one has to explain anything or be somehow intellectually and spiritually accountable to anyone or anything else that results in so much really bad theology. people make wild logical leaps from idea to idea, like neo in the matrix- as if denying the fact that there is gravity and believing that it has no hold upon him will, in fact, release him from its causal grip. arguing that spirituality need not be in any way connected to the physical world causes me to ask 'why do we have to bother with physical existence then?'

the 'merrily merrily merrily, life is but a dream' approach to the interrelation of our spiritual and physical existences is probably only easy on those who subscribe to it. it drives a lot of other people crazy on both sides of the line drawn by Jesus in the sand. it is as much a source of frustration to those who, although holding to a faith in the same means of approaching God, differ from its spin on conclusive evidence, as it is to those who do not hold to this faith at all.

nobody likes being judged, or having their faith relationship (or non-relationship for that matter) with God through Christ presumed about, and a hardline of faith against a really fuzzy line of logic or reason can blur many things that are worth talking about in favour of details that become huge arguments for general disbelief. since we discovered in the garden, figuratively or literally, that to truly understand the difference between good and evil we simply needed to experience a little bit of evil first hand (and thus seperate ourselves from the holy realm, driving a necessary chasm between the temporal physical and the eternal spiritual forever) and then deal with the consequences of our decision-making, we've wrestled with the apparent disparity between our intellectual capacity for reason and the whole of existence which appears to be not only very very big but, at times, very unreasonable as well.

where it goes all wrong for me is when there are rectifiable differences that are stubbornly ignored. you find a neo in the most surprising places, often wearing some very familiar faces.

a bunch of us were all grappling with an entirely different issue the other day when a dear friend of mine surprised me by launching some SCUD missile logic into an otherwise really engaging round-the-table discussion. he said 'i have trouble with people who say that they believe the bible as long as it agrees with science... i believe science as long as it agrees with the bible, no further.' from here he shared his belief that the whole carbon-dating process is an atheist conspirator's distraction and that the earth is only six thousand years old and so on.

now, this guy is awesome and i love him dearly, but because i knew that we'd just get into an argument that would go round and round and take over the meeting from there on, i left it alone in spite of the fact that i vehemently disagreed with his position. what made me uncomfortable was the feeling in me that, because i was silent, those around the table would think i agreed. easier for everyone else? maybe, but that collective ease came at the price of my own personal peace.

you see, recently i posted a bit on 'five things i don't get.' this was one that almost made my top 5 list:
why people see creation theories and evolution theories as diametrically opposed and in all ways contradictory. a theory can't prove or disprove God. it can only strengthen your faith in its hypothesis.

but here's where the "darwin/TRUTH" picture above comes in. i very strongly agree with this image, but not in the way my friend thinks, judging from my silence that day. you see, i think truth is a way bigger fish than any one theory, and that, if we are to cut open the TRUTH fish, we'll probably find the partially digested remains of the darwin fish inside its entrails. some of the theory will have made truth stronger, and some of it will have already become deep-sea excrement.

once again, the challenge for me is to be able to tell the difference, being careful to clean the fish thoroughly before i throw it onto my barBQ wrapped in foil to be cooked and served to my friends as a the maincourse of a well-balanced meal.
***

disclaimer: i know that it sounds like i'm doing a lot of judging of my own here... please forgive me for this. i have not yet found a way to articulate objections objectively.

Labels: , , , , ,

28 Comments:

Blogger marcythewhore said...

Neurotheology
Tip of the hat to Fell for pointing me to an interesting article on Wired: This Is Your Brain On God. The article is about Michael Persinger, a 1969 American draft-dodger turned Canadian scientist who now works in the emerging field of “neurotheology” which seeks to uncover a biological basis for subjective religious experience.

Persinger has tickled the temporal lobes of more than 900 people before me and has concluded, among other things, that different subjects label this ghostly perception with the names that their cultures have trained them to use - Elijah, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, the Sky Spirit. Some subjects have emerged with Freudian interpretations - describing the presence as one’s grandfather, for instance - while others, agnostics with more than a passing faith in UFOs, tell something that sounds more like a standard alien-abduction story.

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/06/15/neurotheology/

6/16/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

http://www.socratus.com/


Religion & Physics, Philosophy & Science. XXI C

2005 @ Copyright Israel Sadovnik
Last Update: 26.05.2005.

Give it a look at your convenience. If anything strikes your fancy etc.....

6/20/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

Road Warrior Consciousness

Every so often I get in the middle of one of those conversations pitting Republicans against Democrats and to escape I simply say, “I’m not into the duality of political suicide.”

Both sides support a Holy Oil War, and in neither a Holy War or an Oil War can civilians earning less than fifty thousand dollars a year hope to survive. I don’t care how many ‘How great the green planet looks’ feel-good commercials Exxon and Mobil put out, the climate is changing right before our eyes.

And if you can show me an organized religion that won’t take an under the table payoff to kill off the other organized religion, let me know how it is that they manage to keep themselves hidden and safe from lynching.

A long time ago in actor’s years there was this up and coming actor named Mel Gibson who everyone thought was Australian but who had been born in Brooklyn not far from where Al Capone had been born. Long before Mel Gibson figured out that he could make tons of money by making a movie that tapped into the sado-masochistic tendencies of fundamentalism, Mel Gibson made the ‘Road Warrior’ movies that analyzed where civilization was headed after many Holy Oil Wars.

For those of you who don’t remember the ‘Road Warrior’ movies, Holy Oil Wars end up leaving civilization in a vast desert populated by nomadic motorcycle riding clans shooting multi-tipped crossbow darts at each other while competing for ounces of gasoline stored in empty whiskey bottles.

In a ‘Road Warrior’ movie nobody brought up the subject whether they were Republican or Democrat of if they supported the war in the Mideast or anything so arcane, pedantic and anachronistic as those topics.

Yes, most of so-called civilized and overpopulated society is heading toward ‘Road Warrior’ Consciousness, which is basically a step removed from ‘Global Warming’ Consciousness, and no wonder conversations about ‘What is consciousness’ fall into the domain of useless banter.

As Alan Watts put it, to try to define Consciousness is like biting your own teeth.

While at the same time you wonder how is it that the immediate cosmos surrounding us is evolving into an Age of Consciousness as we try to hold onto what is left of this little insignificant blue-green planet located in the backwaters of a medium sized galaxy on the spiral end etcetera etcetera etcetera………………

If we’re going to create in our minds all these forms of Consciousness, let’s at least try to imagine something other than something Walt Disney might sell us tickets to ride on and try to get a grip on how this entity we’ve named Consciousness has come to so widely discussed as an alternative to Holy Oil Wars………………fred call aka bigbro

6/20/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

jollybeggar said: i also disagree with the idea that not having to muddle about with explanations makes it all that much easier for everyone involved. it is the ethnocentric presumption that no one has to explain anything or be somehow intellectually and spiritually accountable to anyone or anything else that results in so much really bad theology.

I laughed: Maybe it's because there are so many people trying to explain theology that there isn't anything called good theology anymore.........fred call aka bigbro

6/20/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

Elmer Gantry is the story of a young roughneck who abandons his early ambition to become a lawyer and embarks on a career in the ministry. The opening sentence of the novel, “Elmer Gantry was drunk”, introduces one of Lewis's least likeable protagonists. While an undergraduate in an obscure denominational college, Elmer discovers that he loves to be the center of attention. While he is drunk one day in a small town near the college, he is lead to defend a classmate who is preaching on a street corner. Elmer beats up an irreverent heckler and then says a few words in support of religion. From that point on, the classmate and members of the faculty identify Elmer as a candidate for the ministry and try to convert him. In spite of the fact that he is tempted by the social position the ministry would offer, Elmer resists because he does not feel “the call” to preach, but at a crucial point he is converted, more by the power of raw whiskey than by his faith. After graduation, he moves on to a Baptist seminary.

Elmer is ordained a Baptist minister and licensed to preach after two years in the seminary, but he fails to graduate when he is dismissed after seducing a young woman and going on a drunken spree. He channels his power of persuasion into a secular field, selling farm implements, but he misses the attention that he received as a preacher. His chance to return to preaching comes when he meets Sharon Falconer, a successful itinerant evangelist. Elmer serves as her manager and becomes her lover but loses both her and his position when her new tabernacle is destroyed by a fire which kills Sharon. After a brief period as a “New Thought” evangelist, Elmer becomes a Methodist minister. He marries wisely and moves up from a small congregation to one of the largest in Lewis's imaginary Midwestern city of Zenith. There he builds up a large following, first by instituting his “lively Sunday nights”, which consist mostly of secular entertainment, and then by crusading against all of his former favorite vices, especially drinking and prostitution. Elmer is nearly defeated by a husband and wife who entrap him in a compromising situation and then attempt to blackmail him, but he is saved by a clever lawyer and returns victorious to his congregation. He is last seen admiring the ankles of a choir singer who will undoubtedly be his next conquest.

6/20/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

http://tholosofathena.blogspot.com/

Saturday, June 18, 2005
INTERVIEW OF JUBAL DURFEE (Part II)
Continuing my interview of Jubal Durfee, whom I met at the gun show (See Part I below.) To recap: Jubal is in his mid-thirties, active in Republican politics in his little hometown of Bee Keeper, Arkansas. He was at the gun show to buy his son a birthday present--a brand new AK-47 assault rifle. Billy just turned fifteen. The boy took off to look at guns while his father and I sat in the café and chatted.


THOLOS: What is your thinking about God, as far as His position on this war is concerned? Do you basically believe that God is on our side?

JUBAL: What other side is there?

THOLOS: What about people in other countries. Maybe they think God is on their side.

JUBAL: Well, I think they’re in for a disappointment.

THOLOS: Are you saying God only loves Americans?

JUBAL: No, I think He loves everybody alike. But He demands faithfulness. He’s a jealous God. He wants everybody on His team. If you’re not on His team, then He just figures you’re lost to the Devil, and there’s nothin’ he can do to help you. And that applies to Americans as much as anyone else in the world.

THOLOS: Do you think God was on our side in the Vietnam conflict?

JUBAL: Of course I do.

THOLOS: Why do you think we lost that war?

JUBAL: Well, I don’t think we lost, really. I mean, we pulverized the holy fuckin’ shit out of ‘em, didn’t we? We killed a couple million of those little gook bastards, whereas we only lost about fifty-four thousand on our side. Does that sound like we lost? Don’t sound like it to me. I just think we got weak, that’s all. We let the dopers, the hippies, the fairies and the radicals, like George McGovern, have their way. So, we pulled out early. Nixon was on the right track, though.

THOLOS: You mean, with his bombing campaigns?

JUBAL: You bet.

THOLOS: So you think we should have continued bombing them?

JUBAL: I just think you have to be willing to do whatever it takes to win people over to Jesus.

6/20/2005  
Blogger jollybeggar said...

both the elmer gantry story and the jubal interview remind me of 'the apostle' starring robert duvall. it is a tragic story of a man of passion who mistakes his passion itself for a spiritual calling. when he is preaching, he is a passionate preacher, when he is loving he is a passionate lover, when he is crusading he is a passionate crusader and when he is fighting another human being (whether using his fists or a baseball bat to carry out the retribution) he is a passionate fighter. at the film's end, having served his passions at the expense of everything else in his life, the misguided character is completely bankrupt in every way, for passion burns heavy fuel.
***

bigbro said:
"Maybe it's because there are so many people trying to explain theology that there isn't anything called good theology anymore"

you know, as i read this i agree...
it's not the explaining of a systematic or personal theology so much as the describing of it.

still, because the word theology takes it's etymological roots from 'theos' (meaning 'of God') and 'logos' (meaning 'science' or 'knowledge')we should be able to say that in order to for a theology to be 'good' it should somehow be reasonable. somewhere in there we need to acknowledge that there are things we do not (and cannot)know and embrace the whole 'faith is the essence of things unseen' idea without swinging hard to the right and simply blasting away hoping to hit something (preferably someONE)big enough to be called 'God.'

because God is the author of both faith and reason, i think it's important to subscribe to both in order to be balanced.

having said this, however, i know that when pressed beyond what i can comprehend i default to faith because i'm not always the most logical calculator in the drawer.

6/20/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

No problem, cause Sinclair Lewis and Robert Duvall will both burn somewhere in one of Dante's circles of hell. I've got to go find out which circle it is, later. Probably the cirle for actors like John Wilkes Booth..dans

6/21/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

In case you are wondering where the talented and intelligent people spend their eternity in hell..........


The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri

CANTO IV
Limbo, the Good Pagans
"They did not sin: yet even their just merits

35 Were not enough, for they lacked baptism,

The gateway of the faith that you profess.



"That is Homer, the majestic poet.

The next who comes is Horace, the satirist;

90 Ovid is third, and Lucan last of all.



I saw Electra, with many companions,

Among whom I noted Hector and Aeneas,

And Caesar, in armor, with his falcon eyes.



I saw Camilla and Penthesilea,

125 And on the other side I saw King Latinus

Who sat with his daughter Lavinia.



I saw that Brutus who banished the Tarquin,

Lucretia, Julia, Marcia, and Cornelia,

And by himself, I noticed Saladin.



130 When I lifted up my eyes a little higher,

I saw Aristotle, the master-knower,

Seated with the family of philosophers.



All look up to him, all do him honor;

There also I saw Socrates and Plato,

Nearest to him, in front of all the rest;



135 Democritus, who ascribes the world to chance,

Diogenes, Thales, Anaxagoras,

Empedocles, Zeno, and Heraclitus.



I saw the worthy categorizer of herbs,

140 Dioscorides, I mean; and I saw Orpheus,

Tully, Linus, Seneca the moralist,



Euclid the geometer, Ptolemy,

Hippocrates, Galen, Avicenna,

And Averroes, who wrote the Commentary.

6/21/2005  
Blogger jollybeggar said...

kinda interesting...

raphael's "school of athens" (circa 1510)has many of the same great thinkers in it as this ring of hell. dante and raphael were hardly contemporaries: dante was born over 2oo years earlier. it is as if raphael sought to redeem or otherwise immortalize these figures by assembling them in one place where they would be revered- having been assembled two centuries earlier by dante in hell's limbo.

peter blake and michael cooper did the same thing 457 years later using the likenesses of the beatles' greatest intellectual influences for the cover of sgt pepper's lonely hearts club band... great thinkers the likes of karl marx, edgar allen poe and aleister crowley would no doubt have been deposited into, at the very least, dante's limbo for thought crimes (if not further down the spiral) had they been alive at the time of the poet.

6/21/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

--- In evolutionary_consciousness@yahoogroups.com, jerriais@b... wrote:
> I have a definite moral problem here. All I can see is that if anybody deserves to rot in the lowest pits, it is Ruggieri for betraying his friend and then murderng the entire family in such a gruesome way. I must be a very immoral person.
>

I think it's called the Divine Comedy because nobody deserves to be in hell because hell is a manmade connivance. It's like a man with absolutely no mechanical knowledge telling someone to go sit for eternity in the race car he just built, and the race car is nothing but an empty cardboard box the mechanically inept man happened to find in an alleyway..........bigbro





>
>
>
>
> A moment of literary madness from bigbro,just in case you ever asked yourself if
> Dante had ever reserved a circle inhell for the likes of Hannibal Lecter, the
> Donner Party or members of theNight of the Living Dead and other
> cannibalnotables..........bigbro
>
>
> Count Ugolino and Archbishop Ruggieri werefriends, conspiring together to
> overthrow their government. However, Ruggierihad other plans. He seized control
> of the city and imprisoned Ugolino with hissons and grandsons in the "tower of
> hunger."
>
>
>
>
> "In the land where the rule is An Eye for an Eye, the Blind lead the Blind" -
> Gandhiji.

6/22/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

........why people see creation theories and evolution theories as diametrically opposed and in all ways contradictory. a theory can't prove or disprove God. it can only strengthen your faith in its hypothesis...........

Simple answer: A Darwinist can accept a Creationist's belief system, but a Creationist can't accept a Darwinist's belief system.

It comes back down to Fundamentalism again: "My way or no way....and don't ask me no questions!"

A philosophical thought on the Humvee: Why is it that the Humvee is the most feared vehicle on American highways but in Baghdad the Humvee is used for batting practice by insurgents?....bigbro

6/23/2005  
Blogger jollybeggar said...

not so simple answer, man:

i am a creationist who accepts darwin's theory as feasible. they are not contradictory theories; in my view they are complimentary. that was the whole point of this blog... that the TRUTH about the origin of life on planet earth is probably larger than any one theory will permit. elements of each theory fill the belly of the TRUTH fish.

people need to learn to listen more and presume less. the leap to a conclusion requires much less neo-type dexterity that way.
***
as for humvees, i'll take the new batmobile... now THERE's an all-purpose ride!

6/23/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

......i am a creationist who accepts darwin's theory as feasible.........


I don't know what Bible you're reading but if you came down to this part of the world and said that they'd lynch you....No, they'd tar and feather you and then lynch you. No, they'd make you go to extra Sunday School sessions then tar and feather you and then lynch you.

And after they lynched you they'd forgive your soul that is burning in hell.

Where I come from you ain't not Fundamentalist Christian if you can say "i am a creationist who accepts darwin's theory as feasible."

Apparently you haven't a clue how things work in the White House.....bigbro

6/23/2005  
Blogger jollybeggar said...

you might have said that i'm a fundamentalist, big guy, but i never did.

anyway, you are right- i have no idea how things work in the house of white- apart from cnn and michael moore, which are both purely objective sources, we only get the edited highlights on canadian news. (being sarcastic.)

dude, we've been discussing this one since darwin made his voyage to galapagos and came back a certifiable heretic in the eyes of many...

however, more recently, there was an engaging discussion on matthew's blog that went this very direction. rather than rethink and retype, i'll just quote myself...
***
icarus said: "If truth is our aim, then any idea we think has validity, we will put through every obstacle we can find"

right on- put it through the gauntlet.

as for liberal interpretations of the bible, i guess i'm not sure what is liberal and what is just desperately clinging to something you believe to be essentially true without checking your brain at the door or winking at things that wink back.

inconsistent or inconsequencial? that's a gauntlet prompt.

7 days? okay:
"Our country has entered a new day..."
does this mean a 24 hour period or an epoch and phase?

Adam means 'first man' but does this mean that he is the very first homo sapiens sapiens, or simply that the story of God and man begins personally, presenting a relationship that is (either figuratively or literally) fractured by one person's willful rejection of provisional love?

clearly, i'm no master of apologetics. i just think that to interpret things literally is to limit what the bible has to say to me on any given day. is that liberal? (I'm not sure that the opposite of literal is liberal anyway)it probably seems to be, but at least i can sleep at night.
***

the whole post and discussion is found at www.mbleslie.com/blog/2005/03/evolution-debate-rolls-on.php
***

as for tarring and feathering in sunday schools where you come from, it has always made me sad to hear tales of how the bible belt feels across someone's back. it's not that way everywhere... God's grace is the point, not how people can misuse it to further their own quests for power. please do not let people's freely-willed failings affect your picture of the God who has agreed to abide by that free will for awhile.

6/25/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

jollybeggar said...
you might have said that i'm a fundamentalist, big guy, but i never did.


No, I said that you are not a Fundamentalist if you can justify two schools of thought. Fundamentalists are in lockstep to only one school of thought.

You could have saved yourself a little debate energy had you taken the time to read what I said rather than think you read what I said.

One more time with feeling from the beginning: Fundamentalism is about not having to ask any questions.

Think about it and try again....bigbro

6/25/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

as for tarring and feathering in sunday schools where you come from, it has always made me sad to hear tales of how the bible belt feels across someone's back.


The nice thing you got going for you up there in Saskatchawan or wherever it is you are is that you don't have to keep up with American news (until we decide to nuke your country...then it's too late).

The United States Congress just the other day passed a law that it is illegal to lynch black people.

Took them a while to get around to passing that little law. And more than a few black people have already been lynched and the law doesn't do them much good at this juncture. But never let it be said that the United States Congress doesn't take care of the American people, every last one of them, living or dead, sooner or later.....bigbro

6/25/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

clearly, i'm no master of apologetics. i just think that to interpret things literally is to limit what the bible has to say to me on any given day. is that liberal? (I'm not sure that the opposite of literal is liberal anyway)it probably seems to be, but at least i can sleep at night.


Can't rememeber my asking you to apolgize for anything.

Look, the closest I've come to Saskatchawan is I give tennis lessons to one of the owners of the Ottawa Senators Hockey Team and another friend of mine has won two Grey Cup CFL chamionship as a quarterback.

From what I do know of your surroundings you have probably got more moose than you have automobiles. Maybe not, it might be a close count.

I know for damn sure you guys have more moose than you got missile silos, and we got more missile silos than we got moose left in the lower 49 states.

Hell, we got more missile silos than we got forests left in the lower 48 states.

Life is different in different parts of the world. What you call Fundamentalism in Saskatchawan is how you know it to be, but what I was telling you is how Fundamentalism runs the White House and I'm trying to give you a clue as to how the White House runs those pesky missile silos.

When gasoline hits five dollars a gallon down here about this time next year, war is likely to break out in more places than Iraq.

What Bigbro has to say to you is this: I can chop wood and shoot a gun and kill any three year old bear you can toss at me....and do you guys up there have an extra gunport I might be able to man.

I figure that in your part of the country we ought to be able to hold off a small sized army using only a couple of decent deer rifles.

When them Southern Baptist Fundamentalist Brown Shirts decide they want your country, you may want to think twice about turning that other cheek.

But it's your truck, your decision. I never said you had to apologize for anything.

It'd be nice if you listened and maybe took some good advice once in a while.........bigbro

6/25/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

thanks for bringing some warm laughter into the comments here... it's been a bit heavy lately.

Geesh! You need more Oprah where you are at.

Oh, okay, you want lighthearted.....

This fundamentalist Christian couple felt it important to own an equally fundamentally Christian pet. So, they went shopping.
At a kennel specializing in this particular breed, they found a dog they liked quite a lot. When they asked the dog to fetch the Bible, he did it in a flash. When they instructed him to look up Psalm 23, he complied equally fast, using his paws with dexterity. They were impressed, purchased the animal, and went home (piously, of course).

That night they had friends over. They were so proud of their new
fundamentalist dog and his major skills, they called the dog and showed off a little.

The friends were impressed, and asked whether the dog was able to do any of the usual dog tricks, as well. This stopped the couple cold, as they hadn't thought about "normal" tricks.
Well, they said, "let's try this out."

Once more they called the dog, and they clearly pronounced the command, "Heel!"

Quick as a wink, the dog jumped up, put his paw on the man's forehead, closed his eyes in concentration, and bowed his head.

...........bigbro

6/25/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

Change a Light Bulb
ow many charismatics does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one since his/her hands are in the air anyway

How many Calvinists does it take to change a light bulb?
None. God has predestined when the lights will be on. Or... Calvinists do not change light bulbs. They simply read out the instructions and pray the light bulb will decide to change itself.

How many Baptists does it take to change a light bulb?
CHANGE???????

No. Really, how many Baptists does it take to change a light bulb?
At least 15. One to change the light bulb, and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad.

How many neo-evangelicals does it take to change a light bulb?
No one knows. They can't tell the difference between light and darkness.

How many Church of Christ does it take to change a light bulb?
Six men. One to authorize the change; two to look up the scriptures to see if it's something Jesus or Paul would approve of; and three to keep the women in submission, i.e. keeping them from giving advice, instructions, or usurping authority over the men.

How many Pentecostals does it take to change a light bulb?
Ten. One to change the bulb and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.

How many TV evangelists does it take to change a light bulb?
One. but for the message of light to continue, send in your donation today.

How many fundamentalists or independent Baptists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one because anymore would be compromise and ecumenical standards of light would slip.

How many liberals does it take to change a light Bulb?
At least ten, as they need to hold a debate on whether or not the light bulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the light bulb they still may not change it to keep from alienating those who might use other forms of light.

How many Anglicans or Catholics does it take to change a light bulb?
None. They always use candles.

How many campfire worship leaders does it take to change light bulb?
One. But soon all those around can warm up to its glowing.

How many Episcopalians does it take to change a light bulb?
Ten. One to actually change the bulb, and nine to say how much they liked the old one.

How many United Methodists does it take to change a light bulb?
We choose not to make a statement of either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb however, if in your own journey you have found that a light bulb works for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship to your light bulb and present it next month at our annual light bulb Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way,long-lived, and tinted; all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence through Jesus Christ.

No. Really, How many United Methodists does it take to change a light bulb?
Undetermined. Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved-you can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Church-wide lighting service is planned for Sunday. Bring bulb of your choice and a covered dish.

How many Presbyterians does it take to change a light bulb?
None. Lights will go on and off at predestined times.

How many Nazarenes does it take to change a light bulb?
Six. One woman to replace the bulb while five men review church lighting policy.

How many Lutherans does it take to change a light bulb?
None. Lutherans don't believe in change.

How many Amish does it take to change a light bulb?
What's a light bulb?

How many Unitarians does it take to change a light bulb?
We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if, in your own journey, you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship with your light bulb, and present it next month at our annual light bulb Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life, and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.

How many Jehovah's Witnesses does it take to change a light bulb?
None. The lights are on, but no one's home.

How many Mormons does it take to change a light bulb?
Five. One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.

6/25/2005  
Blogger jollybeggar said...

so it comes to this:
10 fun reasons why bigbro and jollybeggar may very well be the same person with a multiple personality disorder

1) neither bigbro nor jollybeggar have ever called jollybeggar a fundamentalist.

2) neither bigbro nor jollybeggar actually read posts carefully enough, choosing instead to skim and make remarks.

3) both bigbro and jollybeggar feel that others should listen to them when they pontificate.

4) both bigbro and jollybeggar write stuff like 'had you taken the time to read what I said rather than think you read what I said.' which makes sense if you read it twice.

5) both bigbro and jollybeggar think that bigbro is smarter.

6) both bigbro and jollybeggar find the 'heel' joke funny.

7) both bigbro and jollybeggar know grey cup champions personally.

8) both bigbro and jollybeggar find spelling saskatchewan difficult without looking at it written down.

9) both bigbro and jollybeggar seem to be the only people reading jollybeggar's blog most days.

10) both bigbro and jollybeggar have corresponded via blog with fredcall, dans_inferno, and marcythewhore... although the whole thing about posting comments from another person's hyperlink seems a little bizarre- especially when one person's writing starts sounding like another one and then the two of them start arguing and then there is silence and, well, how many personalities are we really talking about? LOL
***

by the way, 'apologetics' isn't actually about apologizing, it is about articulating reasons why a belief system is sound. seems like a bit of a misnomer, but oh well.

blessings all round!

6/25/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

To anyone who may think that Jolly Beggar is my evil twin shadow....believe me, Jolly Beggar is no where near evil enough to be MY evil twin shadow.

As to your statement that no one else is reading our posts except you and me, thought you might enjoy this comment someone sent me about our exchanges: "I don't understand this thread at all, but I like the fact that Fred has a friend called "Jolly Beggar"."

And I'm not kidding you at all. Someone who is reading our exchanges actually sent me that comment...and it damn near made me wet my pants and fall on the floor...but it damn sure made my day.

Furthermore and so on as for your assumption that no one else is reading our exchanges, take this wisdom as Gospel: “In Cyberspace you never know who is watching.”

Allow an example: About a week ago I received an email from someone I didn’t know. A very bright fellow, a history professor at a university in Washington state. Unfortunately this gentleman suffers from a debilitating form of MS. He told me that he is bedridden from 80-90% of his day. He wrote to sort of thank me for giving him laughs.

Apparently he has been reading my posts for some time without my really being aware of the affects my words had on him. He wrote to tell me that he was thankful for the laughs I provided for him.

There you go, Jolly Beggar. This gentleman had been having a good time at my expense without my knowing.

If I said that his words made all my writing that much more worthwhile to me, well, that would be an understatement. Not only was I flattered that someone with a high degree of intelligence and education complimented me on being funny, on top of all that, and more, he said that I made his day a bit more enjoyable.

Obviously I couldn’t have done that had I known that I was trying to do that for someone anonymous to me up to a week or so ago.

Don’t be so sure you’re not being watched in cyber space.

I'm learning that for reasons very personal to individuals, they are reading but not necessarily juming in with comments all the time…………….bigbro

PS....You're not as stupid as you think you are.....bigbro

6/26/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

7) both bigbro and jollybeggar know grey cup champions personally.


It wouldn't be Danny McManus, would it?....bigbro

6/26/2005  
Blogger jollybeggar said...

well isn't it a strange world when we actually take great comfort in the idea that someone is watching us? seems kinda vain or sad or whatever when you think about it. still, i read you loud and clear with the whole "his words made all my writing that much more worthwhile" bit... writers write that readers would read- blogging is literary codependence at its best. it seems a bit like being in old school pirate radio or something- broadcasting in faith that somebody is receiving the transmissions.

well great! thanks for that fred. it's nice to learn that out there in cyberspace there are people who benefit in some way from the exchanges between other people- humourous or otherwise. call it intellectual voyeurism? whatever.

i wonder what would happen if everyone was required to somehow read or listen to anonymous conversations between other human beings- would people's perspectives grow, or would they just become further innoculated against meaningful conversation?

ah, but what is meaningful anyway?
(ecclesiastes 1.2)LOL.

but mcmanus? nope... both of my friends are former saskatchewan roughriders: dale west and jim hopson... both of them are educators, which is how i came to know them.

6/27/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

Pearl Harbor and 911: It’s the Economy, Stupid.

As readers may have noted, Bigbro is putting together a time capsule for future societies to figure out who we were, what we did during the 21st century and where we disappeared to in a nuclear cloud cover.

Then again, most readers haven’t noticed that Bigbro is putting together a time capsule because in cyber space there is so much to read that probably nobody reads anything. Most readers are busy studying naked photos in the adult profiles.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary_consciousness/message/3023

6/27/2005  
Blogger jollybeggar said...

there are naked photos in the adult profiles?

6/27/2005  
Blogger dans_inferno said...

jollybeggar said...
there are naked photos in the adult profiles?


Only if you look. Technically, if you don't look they aren't there.

Hell, philosophically if you don't look they aren't there.........bigbro

6/28/2005  
Blogger jollybeggar said...

gotcha ;-)

6/29/2005  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home