Pharyngula

Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 27, 2009 6:42 PM

The confusion is good: it's supposed to make you swoon with awe-filled (awe-ful?) mystery.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 27, 2009 6:50 PM

I have some sympathy with the Trinity problem, partly because once you start trying to make sense of a person as having "one mind," the plurality of minds, thoughts, and drives within a "single person" becomes a serious problem.

Human distinctions are to a considerable degree constructs which don't map especially well to "reality." Of course the Trinity doctrine exploits and muddles further the legitimate questions.

Nevertheless, number within complex phenomena such as "minds" is not as simple as anti-Trinitarians often want to make it out to be.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 27, 2009 6:53 PM

Someone please send Jesse to North Dakota.

Posted by: Jack | October 27, 2009 6:54 PM

At least he...err, they... are still using P-Zed's model!

Posted by: CJO | October 27, 2009 7:01 PM

It's supposed to be incomprehensible. Religions just don't work without "mysteries" devised so as to defy common sense but also to be systematically invulnerable to disproof. Proselytize for a religion that didn't contain such elements, and people would be like, what's the point? I already believe all that.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | October 27, 2009 7:07 PM

Yeah, but if JC and Daddy'O want to understand the mysteries of the trinity, shouldn't they include the Holy Spook in the discussions? Or was the Spooky One hiding in the curtains?

Posted by: Bob Jacque | October 27, 2009 7:34 PM

The only way I can understand the idea of the Trinity is with the help of the T.V. show Avatar: The Last Airbender. In the show, most humans can manipulate the elements of Air, Water, Earth, and Fire, with various forms of Kung Fu. Of all the people, one is the Avatar, who has the power to bend allo four elements, plus communicate with 'spirits'. The one in the show is named Aang. Aang is his own identity, his own thoughts, memories, likes and dislikes. However, since he is the Avatar, he also is reincarnation of all the past Avatars, and so has their memories and skills that he can access at any time. In Christian terms, that would probably be the Son (Aang) and the Father (all the past lives of the avatar). There is, however, a third part to this Avatar, and that is the Earth Spirit (Aang is actually the Avatar of the Earth Spirit). The Earth Spirit is what gives him the power to bend all elements, what allows him to be reincarnated repeatedly, and what gives him access to all his past lives. While all these three elements are are one person, they are all separate at the same time. That's the only way I can understand this christian junk.

Posted by: Lion IRC | October 27, 2009 7:41 PM

Hi Gregory Greenwood,
Let's keep counting how many posts come in (not including the ones by PZ Myers) and see if "no atheist will give such drivel the time of day"
In my experience "the Trinity" is a significant preoccupation of theists and atheists alike.
Pity for all of us that it is only FULLY comprehended by God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit - who never argue about it.
Lion (IRC)

Posted by: aratina cage | October 27, 2009 7:45 PM

In my experience "the Trinity" is a significant preoccupation of theists and atheists alike.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 27, 2009 7:51 PM

God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit -

Posted by: turnipthebeets | October 27, 2009 7:53 PM

Jesus is Canadian! HA! Take that, Joseph Smith

Posted by: Lion IRC | October 27, 2009 7:55 PM

Hi aratina cage,

Defining atheists? Real, pretend, strong, weak, angry, sad, funny, curious, Christian atheists, moral atheists, amoral atheists - they tend to define themselves - but they ALL call themselves ATHEISTS.

In a cute book by Rohan Candappa (The Curious Case of the WMD) The fictional “Tony Blair” describes the Trinity as being like a rock band.
God writes the lyrics, The Holy Spirit plays the music and Jesus is the Lead Singer.

Lion (IRC)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 27, 2009 7:58 PM

In a cute book by Rohan Candappa (The Curious Case of the WMD) The fictional “Tony Blair” describes the Trinity as being like a rock band. God writes the lyrics, The Holy Spirit plays the music and Jesus is the Lead Singer.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 27, 2009 8:00 PM

The fictional “Tony Blair” describes the Trinity as being like a rock band.

Posted by: Biology Blogger | October 27, 2009 8:03 PM

There is only one trinity. Dawkins-Hithcens-Harris. (Sorry Dennett, not enough room.)

Posted by: LRA | October 27, 2009 8:11 PM

Mmmmmmmm. Jesse/Jesusssssssssssssssssssss!!!!! :)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 27, 2009 8:13 PM

The Trinity was an attempt by early Christians to make Jebus a god without demoting Yahweh. Like so many religious ideas, much hand waving and tap dancing is involved.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 27, 2009 8:17 PM

Hi Lion IRC (what does IRC stand for anyway?),

Funny, right when I read your reply, I happened to be watching the homeopath rambling on from the Physics! thread and she said, "And tonight, my neighbor lets his dog poop in my yard, literally." Coincidence?

PS - It appears YouTube just went down for maintenance.

Posted by: Carlie | October 27, 2009 8:35 PM

If Jesse is the trinity, at least three of us can share, right? Although I wouldn't complain if I got stuck with the Mr. Deity portion, either...

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | October 27, 2009 8:49 PM

Insightful Ape wrote (about Lyin' Irk):

You're missing the point here.

I'm yet to see anything from Lyin' Irk which indicates that he/she is capable of grasping the point of any of the original posts. It's like someone's hooked up a Random Inanity Generator.

Posted by: JediBear | October 27, 2009 9:12 PM

If you really think about it, copying consciousness (what many folks call transhumanism) rapidly gets you into this territory as well.

Posted by: Lorence | October 27, 2009 9:23 PM

I agree, Avatar's a good comparison, but I think Jadzia Dax is stretching it a bit - she actually IS two living entities. What about Paulus Atreides, the Kwisatz Haderach?

Posted by: flyonthewall | October 27, 2009 9:25 PM

didn't that faux jesus from the the jesusland theme park in Bill Maher's movie Religulous describe it as water having 3 states solid, liquid and gas.

i didn't quite get that, who's the liquid?

Posted by: Chris | October 27, 2009 9:36 PM

I really dislike this writer, what do you guys think?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/holy-post/archive/2009/10/27/michael-coren-a-church-and-its-haters.aspx

Posted by: H. Broderix Wu-Peddle of the Gölpost-Schifft Institute | October 27, 2009 9:45 PM

@ flyonthewall

i didn't quite get that, who's the liquid?

Typical materialist — eternally unfamiliar with the Liquid Christ, may His divine Fluid Mechanics propel us ever outward as ripples on the river of time.

@ Samia

The link is in French, just checking if you guys can handle it...

::faux-mystic persona drops with disconcerting rapidity::
Whaddathahell French?!?!
::hawks up a big'un::
Now listen here, ya little varmint. This here's a 'Murikan site, what's writ out in plain perfect English. Don't you go foulin' it up with yer pinky-out, fruitty-tuitty, froggy-bottomed, tail-turnin' gobbledygook!

I rest my case.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 27, 2009 9:56 PM

Smoggy Batzrubble @ 40:

... all he'd really like is a bit of good, sold, fleshy corporeality and just one the chance to see whether fucking is really as great as all the sinners make it appear.

They do?

How?

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | October 27, 2009 10:09 PM

Piltdown, you aren't doubting a claim made by another Christian, are you? How is that even possible? After all, he's got access to just as many verifiable facts as you do.

Posted by: Paul Murray | October 27, 2009 10:12 PM

The trinity has only ever really been defined in terms of what it is not. That is, the development of the doctrine has been a list of heresies - modalism and so on. What's left is basically void of content. To "belive the doctrine of the trinity" isn't to belive anything in particular, except to assent to some nonsense phrases.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | October 27, 2009 10:18 PM

Theologians aren't the only ones playing with this concept. Lawyers use it as well. When three people buy a piece of property together, they can each end up with an undivided one-third interest. Too much thinking about this is similarly dangerous.

Maybe it was Lucy that was the lawyer who created the incorporation papers for Trinity, Inc, Unlimited. Incorporation, heh.

If I'm right, that explains a lot of things, including how as compensation for her work, she gets to associate with all the interesting people. You can be sure there's none of that horizontal mambo stuff happening up in Heaven.

Posted by: IaMoL | October 27, 2009 10:27 PM

Real atheists NEVER engage in discussion with me.

Santa, the Tooth Fairy and God are all human constructs. You want to claim any one of these is real, please provide empirical evidence.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 27, 2009 10:31 PM

And, lyin troll derails another thread.....

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | October 27, 2009 10:33 PM

Lyin' Irk wrote:

Real atheists NEVER engage in discussion with me.

Probably for the same reason they don't try and nail jello to the wall. Perhaps when you present something (anything) worth engaging with you might actually be responded to.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 27, 2009 10:39 PM

Standing in front of the water-stain Mary are Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and James Randi. Our own un-holy trinity. It is a very cool pic indeed.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | October 27, 2009 10:55 PM

Dear Brother Lion IRC @ 58,

I am just a vessel of the Lord, anointed to witness for Him. I have never blasphemed the Holy Ghost, it wasn't I who said that the Lord's Spirit is most potent in a shot class with ice and a twist of lemon! Nor did I wax sexual about being entered by the Holy Spirit, and euphemistically speaking in 'tongues'. I find it profoundly hurtful that you should question my work for Jesus. But Pharisees, Sadducees and Busybees abound, and I've been hammered with the "No True Christian" tag often enough to know that the biggest hammer often has the smallest wood. So before you go 'busting' me, why don't you check to see that your own Christian cherry is still intact?

As for my Dear Brother Pilty, while I can't speak directly for the Holy Ghost on "whether fucking is really as great as all the sinners make it appear", I do know that he was utterly miffed when Jesus joined up with God to impregnate his own mother and left the wafting one out of the lascivious loop.

For myself, I remember as a godly young Christian man that thanks to the Biblical terrors hammered into my impressionable brain I was riven with guilt the first time a slipped my shaking hand down the front of my true love's cotton panties and encountered there a downy bush and warm, moist cleft and touched it in such a way that my love gave a small noise, like a cooing dove, and nipped my left earlobe with her perfect pointed white teeth. In fear of damnation for dirty behaviour, terrified of ending up in petting purgatory, I withdrew my daring digit and shrank away, to our mutual disappointment. The next day my love left me for a sinner who know how to bring her to multiple climaxes, loved to lick her labia, and had the good sense to take appropriate measures to ensure that pleasure didn't result in pain.

Like most Christians, thanks to my upbringing I've lived a life of stunted sexual development and confusion between what is sinful and what is sacred. Add to that the tender ministrations of those child rapists at the Christian Brothers' Orphanage and Sodomy Academy, and I don't get much from the Song of Solomon other then the stench of brimstone and perdition.

The Bible's stone age strictures about sex have caused more misery, mutilation and mayhem than you could shake a prick at. Millions of hacked up penises, deaths in childbirth, persecution of sexual minorities, exploitation of innocence, and the sad submission of women can all be laid at the pages of God's perfect book. No surprise that Jesus preferred to take a length or two from a fisherman than enter into such a travesty as a Biblical marriage.

Let me know if you want more, Brother Pilty. When it comes to the Biblical travesty of our normal sexual urges, I can add plenty of extra chapters.

Yours in Envy of Secular Sex
Smoggy

Posted by: God | October 27, 2009 11:10 PM

I've noticed that real theists NEVER engage in a discussion with Me.

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 27, 2009 11:32 PM

"Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal"

A fancy way of saying "1=3, only not really".

Posted by: Britomart | October 28, 2009 12:15 AM

IRC, for aratina and those who want to know, is Internet Relay Chat. I hang out on the Undernet in a channel called #atheism. We have been around nearly 15 years now. To get there, you need an IRC client, and WIKI of course has a lovely comparative list here. I use the same nick here that I have there, so please come and say hello. I am on 24/7 but not always at the keyboard, so please be patient as that's the general rule now. Folk are welcome to come make conversation, listen, or just lurk and read what happens later.

As for Lyin Lion I am quite irked at his claim that "Real atheists NEVER engage in discussion with me." He's had a batch of us trying to discuss with him for months, perhaps years even, everything from what the bible says about slavery, what it says about cleanliness, ... a whole long list of topics. He's done little else but put his fingers in his ears and go LaLaLa. Hes clueless about good debate, thinks that the reason there is a rule that the positive claimant has to provide the evidence is there because we are lazy. Hes clueless about logical fallacies, you have seen just a touch of that here. He has an amazing habit of disappearing when hes been boxed into a corner. Then he will come back a few days later claiming victory. I don't think he will be here long. In the mean time, hes good for demonstrating to silent lurkers what a doofus looks like. We don't often boot him, his boundless enthusiasm for a completely mistaken view of parts of the bible can be quite amusing.

Or put him in the kill file if he irks you.

Thank you kindly

Posted by: bastion of sass | October 28, 2009 12:41 AM

aratina cage wrote:

I thought Lion's IRC stood for something more Christiany.

No matter what else IRC may stand for, in Lion's case, I'm convinced it also stands for Irrational Ridiculous Christian.

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2009 1:34 AM

Or put [Lion IRC] in the kill file if he irks you.

The way he's been going, with his massively hypocritical concern-trolling ( with bonus argumentum ad Hilteram/Naziam ) and deeply pathetic inanity, I predict that PZ will put him in the global kill-file in a month or so... or even less.

Perhaps even in a week.

He will not be missed. He is not capable of learning, let alone thinking, from your description.

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2009 2:28 AM

When you kill/ban/censor someone without warning they say its because you are running away from a debate, boxed in a corner, can't think of a reply.

I'm glad you agree that religious people have been running away from the request for evidence of a personal God for the entire history of the existence of religion.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | October 28, 2009 2:49 AM

When you kill/ban/censor someone without warning they say its because you are running away from a debate, boxed in a corner, can't think of a reply.

Finally, you're willing to discribe your religion accurately for a change!

Posted by: eddie | October 28, 2009 3:34 AM

Britomart on Lion, IRC - "He has an amazing habit of disappearing when hes been boxed into a corner."

Maybe he can come over-by and teach Rhology a thing or two.

Posted by: arensb | October 28, 2009 4:00 AM

Samia @ #14:

The link is in French, just checking if you guys can handle it...

Ben oui. On est quand même pas tous des bobets ici.

Quand j'ai lu le nom « Servet », je me suis demandé si c'était de là que venait le nom de la Servette. Selon un des articles sur Wikipédia, oui. C'est intéressant. On apprend quelque chose de nouveau tous les jours.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | October 28, 2009 4:12 AM

Owlmirror asked (of Piltdown Man):

Define "Christian".

Oh, this should be good [goes to find popcorn].

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | October 28, 2009 5:55 AM

Dear Brother Pilty @ 82

My Christian upbringing included reading the New Testament, sleeping with the New Testament, being spanked on my bottom by Brother Padraic's New Testament, and in a winter of deprivation, wiping my ass with pages from the New Testament (I did stick them back after I'd used them). I have also frequently discussed aspects of the New Testament in my daily devotions with Jesus and he reluctantly confirms (see here and here) that he was present as part of the Trinity when his mother was impregnated.

Not even God can have it both ways Pilty. If Jesus and God are indivisible then the boy was pumping his end when Mary was knocked up. The Blessed Virgin's oldest son has a bit of explaining to do whatever way you spring it.

And before you splutter away about some angel managing it, let's be clear about the birds and bees implications of such a thing (i.e. who's the REAL fucking father? Perhaps it was Joseph playing fast and loose with his man-meat after all. Or maybe Mary had just found a new way to pay Zac the baker's old meat stick for the family's daily bread stick).

Next you'll tell me that God magicked a sperm that wafted down and impregnated Mary. Well that sounds like some really high-end fertility treatment to me. Why didn't he just use a turkey baster? So now what? It was the Holy Ghost, was it? Why is God's Divine Essence slipping between the labia of an underage girl to knock her up any more palatable?

Fact is, Pilty, there's no proof that your version of the immaculate deception is any more kosher than mine. And frankly I'd put money on mine, given that Jesus talks to me directly on a regular basis, and he happens to think you're a self-satisfied turd.

As religions prove, if you say something often enough for long enough, no matter how stupid it is, the credulous start repeating it as gospel truth. So stand back, because Smoggy's got God's own version of the Bible, straight from the Holy Horse's mouth, and my version plays a hell of a lot better to the masses than yours does. My God says theology shmology, throw off superstition, eat bacon, drink good booze, and enjoy a friendly mutual fuck whenever you can get one.

AMEN

Smoggy Batzrubble
GOD and JESUS and the PARACLETE'S Missionary to the Atheists

PS The fact you can't even imagine the erotic charge of having a sweet girl's teeth nibbling you adolescent earlobe is a more compelling argument for Christians being sexually deprived than any I could make.

Posted by: David B | October 28, 2009 6:16 AM

Despite the risk of making a fool of myself, I'll have the temerity to try to explain my own speculation on the value of the doctrine of the trinity to Christianity.

Which is that it serves the same role within Christianity as the koan serves in Zen Buddhism, or a mantra serves in other eastern or quasi-eastern sects.

That is to say that if a practitioner of either contemplates something nonsensical for long enough, then the mind can chase its tail, so to speak, in such a way as to produce a subjective experience easily mistaken for profound religious, or spiritual, experience.

Further, that this process can be assisted by the expectation that this sort of mental exercise will result in some mental experience, and further assisted by positive reinforcement from priests, meditation teachers, peers, or whatever following the experience.

The sort of thing, in fact, that Derren Brown can elicit from people who are suggestible, and did so in his 'instant conversion' which used to be on youtube.

David B

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 28, 2009 7:36 AM

When you kill/ban/censor someone without warning they say its because you are running away from a debate, boxed in a corner, can't think of a reply.

Posted by: Richard eis | October 28, 2009 9:20 AM

-Define "Christian".-

Make double popcorn because then they need to define "true christian" as well. Technically easier until another christian sees it...

Posted by: raven | October 28, 2009 10:44 AM

Despite the risk of making a fool of myself, I'll have the temerity to try to explain my own speculation on the value of the doctrine of the trinity to Christianity.

Maybe. The main function seems to be to maintain the illusion that xianity is monotheistic. It isn't really. The main branches believe in god, jesus, the holy ghost plus satan and myriads of angels and demons roaming the world doing stuff. How many supernatural agents does a religion need to be considered polytheistic? More than one is enough, I reckon.

Strangely enough, some xian sects aren't Trinitarian whatever that means. For the Mormons, jesus is just a dead person, the brother of everyone else including you and satan.

Xianity is only monotheistic if you pretend it is.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 28, 2009 11:31 AM

Ya know, as much as I don't like Islam it seems to me to be more self-consistent than Christianity. As least it doesn't say a certain person was his own father and his own son.

Posted by: Dreamer | October 28, 2009 1:39 PM

#5:

Someone please send Jesse to North Dakota.

Sorry, he has to come to Oregon first.

Never before have I so wanted to "know" Jesus . . .

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 28, 2009 2:02 PM

MAJeff, I know you need to revive your inner slut, which the wastelands of North Dakota have sent into hibernation, but really, you must learn to share.

I may not share well, but I do play well with others.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 28, 2009 3:38 PM

Properly speaking a Christian is someone who belongs to the Church established by Christ. The term is also commonly used to refer to members of pseudo-Christian sects.

I'll assume you mean the catholic church...

So anyone belonging to the catholic church is a Christian and no one else is?

Posted by: Satan | October 28, 2009 4:17 PM

Ooh, look -- it said "come upon thee!! How could you have missed such a golden opportunity, o great blasphemer?

How could Smoggy be a blasphemer when he gets his revelations straight from his God?

It did occur to Me that another way of describing the Trinity was similarly ... visceral to Smoggy's usual output. Consider: Jesus, the divine spark, maps to a seed, which is to say, a single spermatazoön. Therefore, the Father maps to the testes (=testament, how droll), the source of seed. And of course, the Holy Spirit maps to the shaft that transmits the seed to the ovum.

Amusing, isn't it? The Trinity of the membrum virile...

Of course, it's all nonsense. The incorporeal, immaterial, and ineffable God does not fuck with humans, except in the purely metaphorical sense.

Posted by: Steven Mading | October 28, 2009 4:24 PM

So far, you've been guilty of Concern Trolling

Now, of course, he also has no apparent moral qualms about blatantly lying to try to make his point, but that's a totally different type of trolling from concern trolling.

Posted by: Satan | October 28, 2009 4:32 PM

That's not the first time I've been called a prick (twice over, I note), nor will it be the last.

Hindus make a positive fetish of it!

Posted by: Steven Mading | October 28, 2009 4:35 PM

To make a good analogy clarifying my above example: I think that the church getting parishoners to say that god is one and three at the same time serves the same function as the interrogator trying to get Captain Picard to say "there are 5 lights".

Posted by: Tom Coward | October 28, 2009 5:12 PM

Not to pull this thread back to the subject, or anything, but this is one of the best episodes yet (IMO). Loved the running scorecard. Ding! Ding! Ding!

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | October 28, 2009 7:03 PM

Dear Brother Piltdown Man @ 104,

"Ratzbubble"? What a wounding riposte. You call yourself a "christian" and yet you molest my name by changing it to mean (in the tongue of my father) "a meathead who has sex with deformed camels". How hateful and unchristian of you!

And for your information I'm not ignorant of "the Holy Ghost's role in the Incarnation". As I pointed out above He (the ghostly one) is still God, and it still makes me squeamish to think that the deity liked to target little girls as part of its plan for world domination. Particularly, given (as Dan helpfully explained above) the essential unity of the Trinity. And in my book "the power of the most High" overshadowing Mary sounds a lot like a profound power imbalance prefacing coercive rape.

I'm also concerned that you, a professed Christian, seem to have an antenna attuned to such phrases as "come upon thee". If you want bukkake you've come to the wrong place, pervert!

And, sure, joke about what "Brother Padraic" did to me--typical behavior of a Catholic apologist for Priestly child abuse. That said, it's no wonder you can't see anything with your head inside your pitch black pot. Pull it out for a minute "Piltdown Man" and see the show of hands for who maintains the most "tiresome online persona".

Still, Pilty, your information about being a "proud father living in sin when I converted" is the most interesting thing you've said in the whole time you've been on this blog. Who did you sin with? Not the person you fathered I hope? It's well documented that you extreme religious types tend to rail hardest against the secret sins you most enjoy.

Last but not least, it is indeed true, Dear Brother Pilty, that I am full of piss and wind. But I have the advantage of my piss and wind being real, testable, measurable and scientifically logical. You, on the other hand, are full of transubstantiated wine and the wind of the Holy Spirit, and all that earns you is justly deserved hilarity at your expense for an excess of 'stupid' and a life frittered away believing fairy stories.

Who is more boring, d'ya think?

Smoggy
AMEN

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 28, 2009 7:20 PM

Smoggy, the first rule of Catholicism is: bitches ain't shit.

Does this mean Dr. Dre is god?

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 28, 2009 7:56 PM

Smoggy Batzrubble @ 117:

And in my book "the power of the most High" overshadowing Mary sounds a lot like a profound power imbalance prefacing coercive rape.

Except that there was no coercion. Mary said Yes.

And, sure, joke about what "Brother Padraic" did to me--typical behavior of a Catholic apologist for Priestly child abuse.

I wasn't joking about priestly child abuse. It's just that you've given me no reason to believe Brother Padraic ever existed.

Still, Pilty, your information about being a "proud father living in sin when I converted" is the most interesting thing you've said in the whole time you've been on this blog. Who did you sin with?

"Living in sin" is a somewhat archaic expression for cohabitation.

It's well documented that you extreme religious types tend to rail hardest against the secret sins you most enjoy.

Well I should hope so!

You, on the other hand, are full of transubstantiated wine and the wind of the Holy Spirit, and all that earns you is justly deserved hilarity at your expense for an excess of 'stupid' and a life frittered away believing fairy stories.

How am I frittering away my life by believing what I do? It's not as if my beliefs make me feel miserable or consumed by self-hatred. I'm having a ball. And so what if my beliefs turn out to be false and death is a final oblivion - I won't be around to feel foolish.

Who is more boring, d'ya think?

Dunno. But I know I'm not bored.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | October 28, 2009 11:13 PM

Pilty wrote:

Properly speaking a Christian is someone who belongs to the Church established by Christ.

You might as well have said 'a Christian is someone who believes what I believe', since it's as objective a definition as what you wrote.

But you didn't. So, what you need do now is provide evidence (objectively verifiable evidence - i.e. other than the bible) that Christ - even if we let you get away with assuming he existed - that he established a church, and where he explicitly (and unequivocally) specified what that entails in terms of beliefs, actions and so forth.

You must do so without the bible because every other sect and denomination that shares (to a greater or lesser extent) your nonsensical, broadly-similar beliefs uses the bible to not only justify their interpretation as correct, but to illustrate why yours (and all others that aren't theirs) is wrong.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | October 29, 2009 5:12 AM

Kel @ 122:

Except that there was no coercion. Mary said Yes[citation needed].

Wait, what?

The Gospel according to St. Luke: And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.

Janine @ 124:

If god came to you in the middle of the night, wanting to shove his elephant sized penis up your well lubed rectum, do you believe you are in the position to say no.

Classy as ever Janine.

And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

Wowbagger @ 123:

... what you need do now is provide evidence (objectively verifiable evidence - i.e. other than the bible) that Christ - even if we let you get away with assuming he existed - that he established a church, and where he explicitly (and unequivocally) specified what that entails in terms of beliefs, actions and so forth.

Why do I need to do all that? I'm not an apologist. I don't come on this blog to issue demands or appeals to accept the one true faith. If I see someone making a statement about Catholic doctrine that I recognize as being factually incorrect (eg "the Pope has abolished Limbo"), then I might well post a rebuttal. If I see someone making a particularly tendentious remark about traditional morality (eg "disapproval of homosexual acts is just a mask for irrational hatred of homosexual people"), then I might well challenge it. But the truth of the Catholic faith as such - like the existence of God - is not something I feel inclined or qualified to argue for. We all have our own reasons for believing or not believing this or that.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 29, 2009 7:32 AM

Cognitive dissonance much or were you simply never that sharp to begin with?

Posted by: paradoctor | October 29, 2009 3:03 PM

Whether or not a Trinity exists, it's clear that the _doctrine_ of the Trinity doesn't exist. If someone says that there is such a doctrine, then ask that person what it is.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | October 29, 2009 7:44 PM

But the truth of the Catholic faith as such - like the existence of God - is not something I feel inclined or qualified to argue for. We all have our own reasons for believing or not believing this or that.

Nice try. You come here and dispense your 'wisdom', considering yourself an authority on what is and isn't true about your god, your bible and your religion; that you suddenly turn around and in a faux-meek voice beg us to accept that you aren't 'inclined or qualified to argue for' - when it's all you do, all the time - is pathetic.

There's isn't a Christian alive who's 'qualified' to argue for the faith or the existence god, since not one of them has anything but a tiresome work of poorly-edited fan-fiction to justify any of their claims; it doesn't, however, stop them from pretending otherwise - at least until called on it, that is.

In short: if your butt can't cash the cheques, keep your mouth from writing them in the first place.

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 29, 2009 9:30 PM

Properly speaking a Christian is someone who belongs to the Church established by Christ.

Are there any Churches that don't claim to be the Church established by Christ?

I ask only for information.

The term is also commonly used to refer to members of pseudo-Christian sects.

Indeed?

Define "pseudo-Christian", then.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 29, 2009 9:56 PM

Janine @ 132,

If god Joe Pesci were to come down to have sex with you, do you have in you to say "NO"?

Fixed that for you.

Define "pseudo-Christian", then.

It's a sort of on-demand notruescotsman thing I think, any act committed by a christian that in the 4th century would have appeared cool and dandy and in the 21st just looks totally stupid can be excused by that person being a "pseudo-Christian". Very handy.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 29, 2009 10:44 PM

!?!

Sorry, Janine. It's not just Catholicism, but most of human society and history...but women don't matter as anything other than suckers of men's cocks, vessels for men's sperm, incubators for men's fetuses, or raisers of men's children....or, "bitches ain't shit."

hate it, hate it, hate it. I've spent the week worrying about friends going through surgery removing uterine fibroids and cancerous breast lumps and lymph nodes. But, their only value in "true faiths" is as incubators. Sorry, but these are human beings, being both mothers and not mothers. They are embodied humans, experiencing physical pleasure and danger. I seriously doubt the misogynists would get how much it meant for my friend with breast cancer to have her lover kiss her cancerous breast alongside her back and her stomach before her surgery, to make love to a body that both included and could exist without that piece of flesh.

The fucking virgin fetishists might claim they love women because of their "adoration" of a particular virgin, but their fetishism of her virginity erases the humanity of women. I may not desire women sexually, but I have a far greater appreciation of feminine sexuality in its multiple forms than these hideous misogynists can imagine. I love women not because of some anti-human obsession with purity, but because I love actual women.

[My typing sucks ass--in a bad way--and is taking way longer than usual because of a mandoline accident tonight, so apologies for fuck ups. Also, I apologize for going in a potentially strange direction, but women I care deeply about--who have been raised in the woman-hating tradition of Roman Catholicism--have been going through this shit are affected by the misogyny of that vile institution...The Roman Catholic Church, and its hateful apologists and virginity fetishists have nothing of value to say to me as a gay man, or to ANY woman.]

Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 6, 2009 6:00 PM

Wowbagger @ 131:

You come here and dispense your 'wisdom', considering yourself an authority on what is and isn't true about your god, your bible and your religion

I don't claim to be an "authority" on my religion; I just know more about it than the average atheist. Or so it seems from reading Pharyngula.

you suddenly turn around and in a faux-meek voice beg us to accept that you aren't 'inclined or qualified to argue for'

Actually I was aiming for an exquisitely subtle combination of faux-meek and faux-arrogant.

- when it's all you do, all the time

To the best of my recollection I have hardly ever, if at all, argued for the truth of Catholicism or the existence of God. I have frequently asserted them while indulging in polemical rants. I have frequently implied them in the course of arguing against the possibility of a coherent atheist ethic. That's about it.

Owlmirror @ 133:

Properly speaking a Christian is someone who belongs to the Church established by Christ.

Are there any Churches that don't claim to be the Church established by Christ?

The term is also commonly used to refer to members of pseudo-Christian sects

Define "pseudo-Christian", then.

Do I have to spell it out?

Shaggy Rotzbabble @ 134:

the people who die of aids because of lies our Church tells about condoms; the people whose abuse as children our Church covered up; the third world countries shackled to poverty by our Church's strictures against birth control; the girls and women denied the right to "have a ball" because they are treated as subordinates to men and their life chances are accordingly limited; the people suffering from disease who are denied cures because of our Church's opposition to stem cell research; the girls who have fallen pregnant through rape who are denied abortions and face death in childbirth; women suffering post-natal depression and severe physical trauma through pregnancy who are denied the succor of birth control and terminations of unwanted and lethal pregnancies; the homosexuals and lesbians yada-yada

Reminds me of an old Doonesbury cartoon about an operation to transplant the heart of a liberal into the body of a conservative. "How will we keep the heart from bleeding during surgery?"

MAJeff @ 137:

I've spent the week worrying about friends going through surgery removing uterine fibroids and cancerous breast lumps and lymph nodes. But, their only value in "true faiths" is as incubators. Sorry, but these are human beings, being both mothers and not mothers. They are embodied humans, experiencing physical pleasure and danger. I seriously doubt the misogynists would get how much it meant for my friend with breast cancer to have her lover kiss her cancerous breast alongside her back and her stomach before her surgery, to make love to a body that both included and could exist without that piece of flesh.
The fucking virgin fetishists might claim they love women because of their "adoration" of a particular virgin, but their fetishism of her virginity erases the humanity of women. I may not desire women sexually, but I have a far greater appreciation of feminine sexuality in its multiple forms than these hideous misogynists can imagine. I love women not because of some anti-human obsession with purity, but because I love actual women.

You arrogant popinjay.