…and this is a 
Man, those visits to Fargo and Maine sure stirred up a lot of people. I've just been getting an unusually large volume of mail lately, and it's about evenly split: half are saying "Yay, I'm going to read your blog every day!" and the other half are "You're going to burn in hell!" It seems appropriate, then, to at least acknowledge this flood by posting one of them.
Nate is trying to pull a Ray Comfort on me. There's a reason why people call Comfort "Raytard", so he really isn't the right person to emulate.
You
Hi Paul,
The ten commandments:
1. No other God's…. even yourself.
2. No idols… none!
3. Take God's name in vain…. Never.
4. Keep the Sabbath day… every week!
5. Honor you father/mother…?
6. You shall not murder… Jesus said to hate your brother is to murder…. Ever hate anyone?
7. You shall not commit adultery… Jesus said to lust after a woman is the same… Lust?
8. No stealing… ever stole anything.. even minor?
9. Bear false witness?
10. No coveting… ever!How did you do? If you are like everyone else you probably failed to keep 8-10 of these. Not a good sign for anyone that believes in God. I guess for now the easier thing to do would be to put him out of our lives. Of course in the end we will have to face the music no matter what we believe… or maybe Jesus faced the music for those who do believe. He can change your life as he has many. God is calling you.
How did you do with the ten commandments?
With love,
Nate Stead
Whoa. Slapped down with the Ten Commandments. No one has ever tried to do that to me before.
- Not only do I have no other gods, I have no gods, period. I ace this one and deserve extra credit. Score: 1½.
- Idols, are you kidding me? Of course not. No idols, no fetishes, no funny costumes or hats, no rituals, no hymns, no saints. I'm completely free of that nonsense. Score: 2½.
- There is no god, so no name to take in vain. And what does that mean, anyway? When I say, "Jesus was a deluded kook whose suffering does not excuse anyone's sins", I'm not taking his name in vain at all. Score: 3½.
- "Keeping the sabbath" is another nonsensical idea. Sure, I keep it; it's a day on the calendar, it's awfully hard to lose. But if you mean I have to be like those crazy fundamentalist Jews who don't even flip a light switch on Sunday, no. I hope this guy isn't serious about wanting to establish that kind of principle for everyone. I'm gonna give this one to myself. "Keeping" a day is so vaguely defined and even Christianist kooks differ in what it means. Score: 4½.
- Of course I honor Mom and Dad. I love 'em to pieces. Easy. Score: 5½.
- I have never murdered anyone. Never even killed anyone. And the commandments specifically say "murder", not "hate", so I reject your redefinition. Score: 6½.
- Likewise, I've never committed adultery. And once again, you don't get to redefine the commandment to mean, "Think Raquel Welch looked hot in that wetsuit". Score: 7½.
- No, I haven't stolen anything, either. I make a reasonable wage, have relatively few material requirements, and haven't needed to steal. I know, this wanker is probably going to redefine stealing to mean "Watched Indiana Jones snatch away a jeweled idol in a movie and thought it was cool" to mean I broke both #2 and #8, but I reject that fatuous word game, too. Score: 8½.
- No, I don't lie, either. It's so much easier to tell the truth. Oh, there were probably a few negligible childish fibs once upon a time, but I've never harmed people with a lie, or tried to use a lie to get away with something. Score: 9½.
- Uh-oh, caught me. Yes, I covet stuff all the time. I walk into bookstores and lust after so much stuff; I've got a long Amazon wish list, and I like my computer gadgets. So?
So, I score 9½ out of 10, and most Christians, by Nate's admission, score 0-2. That has to sting; here he's dreaming of someday watching the heathen burn in torment from a ringside seat in heaven, but I do better at following the commandments than he does!
But wait, I know Ray Comfort's schtick, so I know what comes next. God has given us these 'laws' that are virtually impossible to keep, so everyone breaks them at some time, but it's OK, because if you accept Jesus in your heart, it gives you license to break all these laws, and still get into heaven. If you're a Christian, you can lie, steal, commit adultery, and even murder, and still get divine approval. And if you follow every single one of the ten commandments, but don't love Jesus, you still get sent to hell.
So what good are these commandments? The people who think the source is credible also get carte blanche to break them, and the only people who are expected to stick to them are the ones who reject the Bible…and they are damned anyway!
So, Nate, I suggest you take your ten commandments and stuff them up your nether orifice. Sideways. No lube. And look! There's no commandment against it!
Comments
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
October 1, 2009 8:50 AM
Man, when those antibodies attacked I so wanted to be an immunoglobulin, just for a few minutes. Formative. But, uh, sinful? *shrug*
Posted by: Steven Carr
|
October 1, 2009 8:55 AM
I would like to see Ray Comfort question people.
Ray. Have you ever told a lie? Ever in your life?
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - Yes , we have.
Ray - That makes the Gospel writers LIARS. By their own words, they are liars who should repent of their lies. Oh wait. The Gospel writers weren't liars. Can I start again?
Posted by: Dahan
|
October 1, 2009 8:56 AM
Dizzying logic. Truly. I suspect after some amount of thought, his next letter to you will contain Pascal's Wager.
Posted by: gadow
|
October 1, 2009 9:02 AM
I would be interested in hearing this guy's take on the Bible:
So he said, "You shall not murder… Jesus said to hate your brother is to murder…" Jesus also said that if you do not hate everyone in your family, you cannot be his disciple. Therefore, only murderers can be real followers of Christ?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 1, 2009 9:04 AM
or maybe Jesus faced the music for those who do believe.
So, Nate is acknowledging he's done something so evil he thinks another person needed to be murdered in order for him not to be punished.
I don't ever want to meet Nate.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
October 1, 2009 9:05 AM
Dahan,
I don't think that anyone has deconstructed Pascal's Wager better than Homer Simpson:
Posted by: gadow
|
October 1, 2009 9:08 AM
Oh, and Dr. Meyers, you are biologist and you know the importance of putting different critters into the right category. Fundaloony Jews will not flick a light switch between sunset on Fridan and sunset on Saturday. No Sundays are involved.
Posted by: charley
|
October 1, 2009 9:22 AM
That's funny, no phone messages or email and I don't hear a thing. You mean he only communicates through smug morons?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 1, 2009 9:31 AM
O RLY?
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 1, 2009 9:33 AM
7/10 ish. Depending on your flavour of christian.
Not bad I think.
But do I get extra credit if I felt bad about one of the remaining 3 afterwards...;p
No wonder i'm merely only a flying monkey compared to his squidliness.
Posted by: Ted Dahlberg
|
October 1, 2009 9:33 AM
That's the problem with getting locked into a long term contract with a service provider. God should have checked the fine print.
Posted by: whydowebelieve
|
October 1, 2009 9:42 AM
Wait... you weren't convinced by the ten commandment conviction tactic? Damn, I'll have to try something new on you atheists. Guess I'll have to buy more Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron how-to-convert-atheists products! ;-)
Posted by: Stogoe
|
October 1, 2009 9:43 AM
I try to keep both sabbaths every week, and it's not because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me. Weekends are a treasured gift from organized labor, to be spent away from my job to relax and recharge my sense of self-worth after 40 hours of will-crushing drudgery.
Of course if you like your job you may feel differently.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 1, 2009 9:45 AM
-Guess I'll have to buy more Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron how-to-convert-atheists products! ;-)-
I wonder if that has ever actually worked... using Ray Comfort to convert an atheist?
Posted by: leepicton
|
October 1, 2009 9:46 AM
Fundies have had the overall wonderfulness of their ten commandments harped at them since childhood. It is doubtful many of them have ever had them analyzed, much less done it themselves; any sane person knows only three of them are any good (and highly unoriginal), and the rest are either (jealous) god-centered, or nanny type advice. All in all, a highly deficient set of "rules." George Carlin does a nice deconstruction of them if I recall correctly.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
October 1, 2009 9:47 AM
(Shatner delivery on...)
Must... resist... obvious... double... entendres...
(/Shatner delivery off...)
Posted by: whydowebelieve
|
October 1, 2009 9:50 AM
@#14
I suspect Comfort/Cameron's products turn more people into atheists.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
October 1, 2009 9:52 AM
I laugh at that e-mail. That's a person that has a rather childish view of human nature and the ten commandments. Unfortunately, it's one that is shared by most religious adults, in whatever form those proscriptions happen to take.
Kind of sad really.
Posted by: shaunotd
|
October 1, 2009 9:54 AM
Lightweight! I do my best to keep all three.
Posted by: Roameo
|
October 1, 2009 9:58 AM
Having spent a decent chunk of it arguing with telco's, you guys just made my day.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
October 1, 2009 10:02 AM
... aaand somewhat more seriously...
It strikes me, reading these, how very nakedly obvious is the attempted manipulation, here.
The hope is, simply, somehow to get you with guilt. To achieve psychological power over the object of your attentions by making them feel bad, base, weak, inferior... The hope is they have a low or fragile enough self-esteem that this will work, put them in your power...
Ah yes, my child, you like to look at naked women/men, don't you... This makes you weak, this makes you dirty...
But *we* can clean you, we can hold you up. You *need* what we're selling, therefore...
News flash, to anyone falling for it: enjoying looking at naked bodies of either sex does not make 'dirty'. And it only makes you 'weak' the same way that your deep desire to breathe makes you weak... Insofar as yes, if they take away the oxygen, you will rather miss it... But this kinda comes with that whole doing metabolism thing.
Having a little control over the expression of both desires has its merits, of course... Y'know... So you don't get slapped with sexual harassment suit due to pursuing sexual partners not the least bit interested in this. And so you don't drown after attempting to breathe while underwater. But getting all uptight about the rather unescapable reality that this does take some effort, turning this into self-recrimination the way outright predators like assholes like this are shamelessly encouraging, that's just setting yourself up for their eating you alive.
Don't be a chump. Don't fall for it.
And have some self-respect, fuck. Nothin's gonna screw with their attempts to screw with you like that will.
(/Oh, and the only thing *really* disgusting here is that attempted manipulation. Your appreciation of genitalia, naked stomachs, or whatever it might be doesn't even come close, if y'ask me.)
Posted by: sqlrob
|
October 1, 2009 10:07 AM
Three??? Or is that rounding error because of the start of day difference?
Posted by: alopiasmag
|
October 1, 2009 10:10 AM
Awesome PZ! BTW.... That guy is a hypocrite. I bet he looks at other women. Hell, he probably has more chance of cheating to his wife! The bastard.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
October 1, 2009 10:15 AM
Reading these smarmy diatribes just makes me want to break as many commandments as I can. And since all I have to do for the murder one is get cheesed off at someone, then I can do it all from the comfort of my room. Pretty nice, really. And then when someone says "Jesus died for your sins," I say, "Well that was stupid of him."
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
October 1, 2009 10:22 AM
Something I noticed: nearly every one of them has that little smarmy "ever?" or "reeeally?" at the end. Except the fifth commandment, like he suddenly realized that although he was in a big display of impugning an atheist's morality, it would still be out of line to imply that the atheist didn't love his parents. That's right, little man, keep PZ's momma out of it, 'less you wanna get your ass whupped right here right now.
Posted by: sqlrob
|
October 1, 2009 10:25 AM
*mumble*I'm a bad athesit*mumble*
I have lots of idols. Bast, Set, Horus, Sobek, Cthulhu, Nyrlathotep. All from this proud provider of religious statuary.
Posted by: E.V.
|
October 1, 2009 10:26 AM
Not just guilt AJ, but shame.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
October 1, 2009 10:30 AM
They *do* really try to make it easy, don't they... Nice of 'em...
I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm breaking at least most of 'em right now... 'least the way slimy wanks like this would try to define it...
'Kay, so no 'other' gods is pretty much impossible. I guess I could stick up a tribal totem somewhere in here just as a gesture on the idols thing...
Stealing especially is one would take some effort I'm not sure I'm up to. And let's face it: it just ain't neighbourly... But hey, would taking an extra straw from the coffee shop when I get my espresso maybe count?
(/And let's face it: the only reason he didn't try that 'wanting to counts' bit there, too, is because coveting's already in there.)
Posted by: Ec5618
|
October 1, 2009 10:31 AM
@charley
Actually, God is on Wave now. He's just been waiting for a communication medium that could contain Him.
So yeah, he'd been limited to communicating through smug morons *until now*.
Posted by: Susan
|
October 1, 2009 10:32 AM
Nice! I love it when we get to score our own exams. I am printing this one out to give to the next group of Godbots who knock on my door. I even get a 10 1/2, because I covet, but my neighbors have really bad taste, so I don't want anything they've got. Go, me!Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
October 1, 2009 10:48 AM
Back when I lived (mentally) in fundy-land, the people I hung with made a fairly clear distinction between OT and NT obligations, ie. most of the specific commands in the former didn't really apply as such (the important stuff all gets repeated in the Gospels or Epistles). Thus, no one was a strict "Sabbath-keeper" (either Saturday or Sunday). So seeing the Raytard try to make that one (or the 10C's in general) part of his pitch strikes the *ex-Christian* in me as hopelessly misdirected, let alone my current atheist self (who finds it simply laughable).
Yo, Evangelicals: dump this loser, and his sidekick too. He's an embarassment to your side.
Posted by: Dahan
|
October 1, 2009 10:51 AM
Sin is only relevant if you believe in relgion, it's just a construct of each one made up according to their rules. Since I don't believe in a god and don't follow a religion, I can't sin. Therefore, I score a million six on this stupid little test. Hah! Beat that!
It's kind of like as if you're in the stands watching someone play baseball and they walk up to you and tell you that you just struck out. Sorry buddy, it's only you that have done that. I just watch from the sidelines.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate
|
October 1, 2009 10:53 AM
What, not even Billy?Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
October 1, 2009 11:07 AM
Ah, the ol' "atheists really do believe, but they just deny it so they can look at porn" schtick. I suppose a semi-reasonable assumption if you consider here in the West we've been so surrounded by god-soaked doofuses (doofi?) for so long there's little chance one has escaped without having the ten commandments barked at you from some yappy poodle or another.
But what do people like Nate think about Hindus? Surely he's heard of a billion-large subcontinent called India? Does he really think all Hindus believe in YHWH deep down inside but deny it because it's so much fun to feed milk to Ganesha? What about them, Nate?
More importantly, what does that say about your God Nate, that He appears capriciously, and only to those who've already heard his message? Does He not care about His children He deemed unimportant enough to be born in India? What about China? What about those in the Yucatan in the middle of the Mayan Classical period? Do they lose points for believing in Kukulcan when God couldn't be bothered to send a messenger their way?
Or do you simply put those thoughts out of your mind, Nate? Do you whitewash that whole problem away by chanting 'He works in mysterious ways' or do you damn them all with some half-assed story that they're simply some lost tribe of Israelites who somehow sinned in some way somewhere long ago so egregiously that their children and their children's children should be damned for all eternity because God didn't deem them worthy of Jesus' message of salvation? (Curious that the bible doesn't air whatever dirty laundry the pre-Indians and pre-Mayans must have to suffer such a fate, isn't it Nate?)
These are really questions you should be asking yourself, your pastor/preacher/priest, and your friends and relatives that believe, Nate. That is, if you think your bible stories can stand up to the scrutiny.
Yours in actually taking theology seriously,
Brownian
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 1, 2009 11:10 AM
Do Jews and Christians really worship the same God?
Jewish God: The Law is His greatest blessing. A great sign of His favor that He gave it to the Jewish people.
Christian God: The Law is a curse. It exists to prove you deserve eternal torture.
Both propositons are plenty irrational, but where did folks get the idea that "Old Testament Jehovah" was the mean one?
Posted by: JBabs073
|
October 1, 2009 11:15 AM
You are my hero.
Thanks for some more really good ammo. :)
Posted by: Iris
|
October 1, 2009 11:20 AM
There's another classic takedown of the 10 commandments by Anne Nicol Gaylor, founder of Freedom From Religion Foundation, at http://ffrf.org/nontracts/10comm.php.
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
October 1, 2009 11:28 AM
"281 tricks to irritate an atheist"
I realise some have probably seen this site before, or at least have heard some, if not most, of the arguments thrown our way .. but damn it made me snigger.
http://onclepsycho.canalblog.com/archives/2004/06/05/35086.html
Posted by: formosus
|
October 1, 2009 11:39 AM
No other god is... what? As vain and petty as yours? You may have a point there. No other god's killed as many people as yours? I'm not too up on comparative religion, but i'd say mr. Yahweh is sure in the running for 'most people killed'. This is a fun game!
Posted by: Romeo Vitelli
|
October 1, 2009 11:42 AM
"So, Nate, I suggest you take your ten commandments and stuff them up your nether orifice. Sideways. No lube. And look! There's no commandment against it!"
Oh dear, and you were doing so well up to this point. Counseling someone to engage in "unnatural" sex acts is still worth a trip to Dr. Satan's Health Spa and Sauna. See you there!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 1, 2009 11:45 AM
Oh dear, and you were doing so well up to this point. Counseling someone to engage in "unnatural" sex acts is still worth a trip to Dr. Satan's Health Spa and Sauna.
But it's no unnatural. PZ specifically mentioned avoiding the use of humanly produced lubricants. It's all natural.
Posted by: barbarienne
|
October 1, 2009 11:45 AM
::head scratch::
If I accept his expansions of the 10 commandments (i.e. "hate" qualifies as "murder"), I've broken every single one. Repeatedly. I continue to break most of them again and again.
So what?
Stunning, really. These people seem to believe that their silly list is some sort of absolute truth that no one can escape from, in much the same way that no one can escape from, frex, the law of gravity.
Except, of course, we all escape from it every day. The sky is candy-striped! Hah! There! I just told a lie!
If only I could flap my arms and fly so easily.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
October 1, 2009 12:00 PM
I love 'em, CunningLingus! These are my favourites:
Of course, he forgot "282) Host a blog requiring registration and use a horribly inconsistent registration process wherein TypePad only lets one sign in ~50% of the time of the ~50% of the time that it shows up as an option at all"
Posted by: Bas
|
October 1, 2009 12:01 PM
5. Honor you father/mother…?
6. You shall not murder… Jesus said to hate your brother is to murder…. Ever hate anyone?
Wait wha?
Gospel of Thomas 55:
"Jesus said, "He who does not hate his father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me.""
I'm even more confused than I already was.
Posted by: Creature of the Universe
|
October 1, 2009 12:18 PM
I think the Ten Commandments should be whittled down to the Two Suggestions (respect your mom and dad and it's best to be honest and faithful to your significant other) – everything thing that really matters (lying, robbery, murder) is already covered in law and secular ethics.
Posted by: raven
|
October 1, 2009 12:20 PM
This one always confused me. What other gods? You mean there are more than one? The OT implies that there are other gods. They just aren't our gods.
Between the "other gods" and the hordes of angels and demons roaming the earth; monotheism, my ass.
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 1, 2009 12:21 PM
I wonder how Nate would feel if he were to discover that his 10 commandments were rip-offs the Egyptian Book of the Dead?
Posted by: Romeo Vitelli
|
October 1, 2009 12:25 PM
"I wonder how Nate would feel if he were to discover that his 10 commandments were rip-offs the Egyptian Book of the Dead?"
He'd just argue that the Egyptians ripped it off of the Israelites. Those wacky Egyptians were always stealing stuff from the people they enslaved.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
October 1, 2009 12:25 PM
Abdul Alhazred says:
OMNEG, exactly! I wonder why do people keep calling Old Edition YHWH the mean one and New Edition YHWH the nice one.
I mean, sure, OTGod could unleash a famine or three, turn some chick into a salt pillar* for turning around or give you leprosy, but he isn't the one sending you to hell for eternity! And he isn't the one demanding EVERYONE worship him!
*Unrelatedly, the salt pillar incident, beyond all others, reveals Genesis as an etiological story. All that hoopla to explain a ruined town and a salt pillar on a hill.
Posted by: gyeong-hwa
|
October 1, 2009 12:30 PM
Back in those days each tribe had their own god. Yahweh is just one out of many provincial gods. And each one of those tribes believed that their god was the One True God (tm). Here the Israelites are trying to claim that their tribal god is the one true god. They just have the advantage of writings.
So yes there were multiple gods, and Yahweh is still jealous of them (despite being omnipotent.)
Posted by: jdhuey
|
October 1, 2009 12:31 PM
Over at Ziztur's place there was an interesting piece on the 10 commandments. (Hint: those stone tablets don't have the the commandments you think they have.)
http://www.ziztur.com/2009/09/ye-old-10-commandments.html#comments
Posted by: Aquaria
|
October 1, 2009 12:33 PM
I love to make fundie heads spin when they try to pull that "our laws are based on the Ten Commandments" by telling them that the religion clause of the First Amendment is in direct violation of the First Commandment. The wording of it makes it clear that an American can put other gods before YHWH. You can believe in Ganesh, Vishnu, the Great Mother, Zeus, Apollo, Aphrodite, Woten, Thor, all of them, any combination of them, or none of them--Take your pick, it's perfectly cool. No retaliation, no punishment from the government. In fact, your rights are (theoretically) protected.
If our country was founded on Xianity, that part of the First Amendment would not exist. It would say instead, "the right to worship the sociopathic zombie shall not be prohibited."
Posted by: Margaret's Cat
|
October 1, 2009 12:34 PM
It never gives me the option to use TypePad at first. Hit "sign in" without filling in anything and it will give you an error message and the option to use TypePad. TypePad says you can sign in with either your user name or your email. It has never let me in with my user name. It usually lets me in with my email.
Posted by: Godfree
|
October 1, 2009 12:53 PM
It took me an inordinately long time to figure out who "Paul" was.
Posted by: bobxxxx
|
October 1, 2009 12:57 PM
Fuck off Nate Stead. You're no better than a Muslim terrorist.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
October 1, 2009 1:03 PM
I think the Ten Commandments should be whittled down to the Two Suggestions (respect your mom and dad and it's best to be honest and faithful to your significant other)
Bullshit.
That commandment has made it easier for generations of parents to resort to abuse, to justify the abuse, and shift the blame to the victim (the brat deserved it for sassing/disobeying me--the commandment says he must respect me!). The commandment has made it easier for society to ignore/disregard signs of abuse when they do arise, and, worst of all, made it harder for children to stand up for themselves, even to seek outside help, when they must.
Posted by: MikeM
|
October 1, 2009 1:13 PM
Well, I've never plowed with an ox and an ass tied together, so that makes me better than this guy already.
Deuteronomy 22:10. Look it up yourselves.
I wonder if there's an avenue in heaven where people who've obeyed this edict get to live; or if you don't, what happens? Eternal torment?
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 1, 2009 1:23 PM
IaMoL #27 wrote:
Perhaps one of the reasons Christians think that the sensed need for divine forgiveness for sin is universal has to do with common memories from childhood, of being "bad." Human infants evolved a desire to please the mother, and also evolved desires to take things, explore, mess their pants, and rebel against paternal authority. What two year old hasn't been obsessed with all the mental and emotional ramifications of "no-no?" Our guilt, shame, and guilty delight over No-no goes way back in our psyches.
Christians, who reify abstractions, overstress emotions, interpret events egocentrically, and attribute agency to anything more complicated than a rock, of course interpret memories of feeling ashamed in front of mommy and daddy with being ashamed in front of a giant, cosmic, invisible Parent. We may now be able to rationalize our past from the standpoint of an adult, but don't we all just know we are still really naughty? Must be a God, then.
Posted by: amphiox
|
October 1, 2009 1:24 PM
"mr. Yahweh is sure in the running for 'most people killed'"
Now, now, let's be fair. Mr. Yahweh's direct mortality count is exactly the same as that of every other god. Zero.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
October 1, 2009 1:34 PM
If hating someone were equivalent to murdering them, the Secret Service would have arrested me sometime in 2003.
Posted by: RickR
|
October 1, 2009 1:36 PM
Sastra: your post makes me feel all......... dirty.
Posted by: NixNoctua
|
October 1, 2009 1:52 PM
Only a woman? Lusting after men isn't the same as adultery? I mean, I'm guilty of both, but I guess straight women and gay men are off the hook, huh?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 1, 2009 1:55 PM
I've never seen a creationist that didn't--more or less constantly when evolution was at issue. Ad hom attacks are the way they keep people from listening to sense and evidence.
Now I should note that this particular meaning of "bear false witness" probably was not what is meant by the 9th commandment, but it is the meaning given to it by most Xians, frequently even extending it to prohibit all lying.
The only way they can reconcile their dishonesty with their beliefs is that most are such sheep that they just believe whatever their shepherd tells them. So most aren't actually lying in the stricter sense, rather their whole lives lack integrity and truth.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 1, 2009 1:57 PM
So, according to Nate, all my years of whoring around are cool because I didn't do anything with a woman. And I guess I can covet my neighbor's ass so long as I don't covet his donkey. Now, if only I had covetable neighbors.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
October 1, 2009 2:06 PM
Fast Fact for Nate: IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD, WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND ALL YOUR SOUL AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU BELIEVE HE IS THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN & EARTH, AND DID IT IN 6 DAYS, 6,000 YEARS AGO. YOU WILL STILL BURN IN HELL FOR AN ETERNITY! ALL THAT MATTERS IS YOU GOT TO HAVE JESUS AS YOUR SAVIOR.Making Christianity the only religion I know of that condemns people to eternal punishment who actually and sincerely believe in and worship their Creator.
Posted by: kiki
|
October 1, 2009 2:07 PM
I don't murder, steal, lie, take God's name in vain, or work on Sunday, but I do regularly rape and torture people. Those two aren't in the commandments, so I guess I'm cool with Jesus!
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 1, 2009 2:11 PM
Also Islam.
But already you know who they got the idea from.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 1, 2009 2:18 PM
I do regularly rape and torture people. Those two aren't in the commandments, so I guess I'm cool with Jesus!
You're also good with the French and Polish governments
OK, maybe not the French anymore:
http://www.inentertainment.co.uk/20091001/roman-polanski-french-government-drops-support/
Bu the Polish government? You're still cool.
Posted by: Zifnab
|
October 1, 2009 2:18 PM
#63:
So, way back in the day, they didn't have a lot in the way of investigative or detective work. If someone got murdered or beaten or something got stolen, the sheriff or magistrate would roll into town and ask the residents who did it. And if all the residents singled some poor innocent guy out, he got lynched same as if he'd been guilty.
People figured out really quick that this was a shitty judicial system, but they didn't feel like they had a lot of other options. If neighbor A gets stabbed in the dead of night and his horses are stolen, and neighbor B and C claims neighbor D was the thief/killer, no one could really afford to NOT believe this lone witness, because it was only a matter of time before one of them was next.
So they passed a religious mandate that basically boiled down to "Don't lie when an official questions you!" and, much like "Don't kill people" and "Don't lust after your neighbor's hot wife", it was obeyed about as much as you'd expect.
Posted by: Adam C.
|
October 1, 2009 2:22 PM
Have you looked at commandment 10 recently?
Because it doesn't say Thou shalt not covet. It says you shouldn't covet ''your neighbour's property''.
That's rather a difference. I always thought that these sorts of people were against lying, but I guess not.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
October 1, 2009 2:28 PM
#67 Abdul Alhazred
I was referring to the fact that salvation in Christianity comes from "accepting" Jesus. Worshiping God is not a sufficient condition for salvation.
Islam may have "conditions" to be met but not another entity you must worship INSTEAD of God.
I always found that the Godhood of Jesus is more than slightly blasphemous & heretical. That "3-leafed clover" analogy is a crappy rationalization.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 1, 2009 2:29 PM
Good point about coveting.
And of course the neighbor's wife is his property, too.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 1, 2009 2:36 PM
There's a really bad and illegal porn movie in that comment somewhere.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
October 1, 2009 2:36 PM
... and I've been reading it again and again... and again... and again... and again...
(Aaaaaand then I lost interest...)
Somewhat more seriously, it's been said before, but I'll say it again:
The church is all about mission creep, really...
I mean, sure, prior to condoms and the pill, prior to relatively safe procedures immediately pre- and post- conception to prevent the birth of a child you know you're in no way equipped to raise... Prior to DNA tests that could establish who was the daddy, there was a certain obvious utility to making people properly anxious about sex. Between the existence of STDs and humans being pretty much fertile year-round, there's one hell of a mess you can make if you just screw to your heart's content... So sure, the natural need for some restrictions is going to be there anyway... (As it still is, in fact, tho' in subtly changed ways)... And sure, that's going to grow up with religion, flow into and out of it...
But it's almost instructive about the seductive nature of power, innit, how certain religions dealt with that when the real game started to change...
I mean, what, revise the rules intelligently, accomodate what else is possible, get real about all this given that this isn't the first century anymore?
As if. There's this whole hegemony of guilt and anxiety we're so used to, so pathologically attached to, now, after all... One we built up well *past* its utility in the first place because it was one hell of a way to rake in the converts, remember...
Besides which, jobs are on the line, pal... And we *like* playing the way we have... You asking us to learn new tricks? We don't do new tricks... 'Least not too obviously, anyway...
Besides which: we went and said these laws came from our eternal god. You suggesting he might be seen apparently changing his mind?
Oh, no no no no no... We can't have that...
Better, let's say he's against all *that* stuff, too... And to hell with what it does in impoverished countries. To hell with women married to persons carrying AIDS... To hell with the lot of 'em...
Sure, we talked ourselves into this corner with our own BS, here... But as *if* we're ever going to admit it... Not while being complicit in another few millions deaths is still a perfectly good alternative to that, anyway...
So sure: mission creep. Even if it had a certain arguable utility once that that certain institutions moralize about certain rather bizarre proscriptions, now that those institutions have become an end unto themselves, they'll just as readily turn around and blow a mighty hot wind in an effort to confuse anyone who'd listen about the very sensible approaches they know very well undermine the leverage that utility once gave them...
(/Shorter: it makes as much sense to expect the RCC to deal realistically with sex as it does to expect a man who's got himself elected four times in a row on a law-n-order platform to get real about the drug war.)
Posted by: MolecularJake
|
October 1, 2009 2:44 PM
I guess Nate isn't up on his ancient greek. Luckily my good friend has a PhD in ancient literature....
#3 was actually about breaking an oath or a promise you made to another man. Break all the promises you want to as long as they are made to women. (The bible says they are the weaker sex after all.)
I believe the original text of #7 says that a man shouldn't sleep with a married/engaged woman. It gives no prohibition of a married man sleeping with however many women he feels like as long as she isn't already paid for, I mean married.
#8 is really about stealing. It originally said that it's not a nice thing to kidnap someone and sell them into slavery for no good reason.
#9 was actually talking about perjury in a court of law. Lie all you want to!!!! (Just not to a judge.)
There's a nice breakdown of the 10 commandments at religioustolerance.org. They say pretty much the same thing so I'm not sure if he just read them off of there...
Posted by: Twewi
|
October 1, 2009 2:52 PM
At first I was mildly upset that PZ would group fetishes in with all those like there was something wrong with them, but then Wikipedia told me there was another meaning. :P
Posted by: Victor
|
October 1, 2009 3:34 PM
One thing I have noticed is that the extremely religious do seem to do quite poorly on the ol' Ten Commandments checklist. Worse than the non-religious or merely socially religious, anyway. Odd.
Posted by: RickR
|
October 1, 2009 3:39 PM
"One thing I have noticed is that the extremely religious do seem to do quite poorly on the ol' Ten Commandments checklist."
It seems apparent to me that the 10 C's aren't for xians, they're for everybody else.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 1, 2009 4:13 PM
No other God's what? There's a word missing here. Either that or Nate is unaware of how to use an apostrophe properly.
Posted by: Grant N
|
October 1, 2009 4:38 PM
If you were vetted against the ten dogmatic directives (don't even bother thinking about the other 200+ diviner's whims) during Roman times, would you then be considered X-rated?
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
October 1, 2009 4:44 PM
Yeah, a lot is in the exploitation of shame for unavoidable human aspects (being human, having sexuality, having meat-based processes, being in an unequal society, etc...). I still get a morbid kick out of the "lust, huh" quotes, because it allows me to point out that considering how crucial they consider the avoidance of lust to be, that they have unfortunately put themselves in the position of placing me, an asexual trans poly woman above every last one of their sinning asses. Who's your pure trans mommy? That's right.
But yeah, they sadly don't believe any of it and like to play the game of "oh, I'm just as much of a sinner as you are, ah ha now that we've admitted you are a filthy sinner who deserves hell, I am the only one moral enough to provide the secret key out of it."
And ditto on hating the honor thy father and mother shit. I have great parents. I love them to death and would probably walk over coals for all they have done for me in love and support. But see, they earned that shit. My partner had a family of wingnuts who taught her that nothing was worth it without familial approval and that she owed that loyalty no matter what. Aa she torments herself about her sexuality, her ambitions, her desire to no longer be haunted and crazy from their abusive raising, she still feels the iron grip of that so-called commandment.
Fuck. That. Noise.
Posted by: pr1ttyricky
|
October 1, 2009 4:48 PM
I think it's so funny how Ray Comfort et al. try to pin you down with the "10 commandments checklist."
"Oh, so you've told a lie once before when you were a little kid? Well, that means you're a liar and you must repent."
Well, I've also told the truth at least once or twice before, so by the same logic I clearly must be honest too? What happens then? Where do we honest liars fit into this rubric?
Posted by: E.V.
|
October 1, 2009 5:10 PM
He's just using the American Standard here comes an s mark. There is also a Standard American keystroke function to render ly of morpheme adverbs invisible as well as the second o in too. And you just thought most Americans were shitty at grammar (AS:grammer) and punctuation.Posted by: Radioactive afikomen
|
October 1, 2009 5:57 PM
What makes not using electricity for a day out of the week "crazy"? Oh, and plenty of liberal, definitely non-fundamentalist Jews do that, too.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 1, 2009 6:13 PM
I missed Pascal's Wager on my first reading of Nate's screed.
Posted by: R. Schauer
|
October 1, 2009 6:28 PM
The commandments to me are the front-end, "neon-lights" of the protection scam. Kinda like a red-herring, only twisted, in a deviously psycho-kind-of-way.
Break a commandment, did you? Pay indulgences and off you go to heaven...or did Martin Luther change all that? Tithe? Pray for redemption? Believe? Faith? Grace? WTF? I can't remember any longer...and there are way too many twisting turns for me to follow. Here's my money, PZ...go buy some computer gadgets. That'll work.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid
|
October 1, 2009 10:00 PM
I had the good fortune today to meet a gentle woman who was down on her luck. It had been a rough 18 months with no job and a deadbeat ex and a move to a part of the country that was cold and hostile, that promised employment and friendship but provided neither. She told me that she felt she was being punished. Punished?, I asked. She felt that she had done something wrong and that this was her punishment for it. I tried to persuade her that it doesn't actually work like that, and I think she wanted to believe me, but she came from a part of the country where if you break a commandment, you're going to get a whoopin'. it is hard to fight 50 years of backcountry teaching and ignorance, but it is so important to try. this ignorance is equated with love in that particular culture, which is why Nate Stead (above) signed off "with love", because it is with love that you'll get your whoopin. well, short end of it, I said, Honey I don't think it works like that, that you do something wrong and then somehow you get punished for it. That sounds like the way a drunken husband or some other abuser might treat you, for some unknown and unknowable wrong interpretted from some incompressible scribblings said to be from thoushands of years ago. But that's not the way IT actually works. I hope I gave her a ray of hope, but I don't know. It's obvious she was looking for something.
As an aside, does anyone else think it strange that words that are written in stone can change their meaning as much as Mr. Stead changed them up above?
Posted by: SQLRob
|
October 1, 2009 10:06 PM
And the rational reason for that is....
Posted by: Dianne
|
October 1, 2009 10:46 PM
I believe the original text of #7 says that a man shouldn't sleep with a married/engaged woman.
Ha! I told you, marriage is evil. You can't sleep with someone after you've married them (well, you can't if you're Christian or Jewish), it says so right there. Unless you left out something, it does not say no sleeping with a woman married or engaged to someone else, but simply don't sleep with a woman who is married or engaged. Free love: even Yahweh approves.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 2, 2009 12:08 AM
RickR @ 78
Ya think??
http://www.texaskaos.com/diary/6029/washingtons-religious-boardinghouse-for-unholy-holies
Posted by: Radioactive afikomen
|
October 2, 2009 2:34 AM
@SQLRob:
Pardon me, I was unaware that I needed to base my personal lifestyle choices around "rational reason". (As opposed to irrational reason? rational unreason?)
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 2, 2009 2:55 AM
The ten commands are general bullshit. The first four demand obediance to the invisible authority. Reads like "obey the earthly ministers" to me.
Keep holy the sabbath? Yah, right, none of the god-fearers obey that one, the sabbath is mostly a shopping experience if one is not actually working, in violation of the stone written law.
Honor the mother and father, for they are the indoctrinators. (My parents were worthless, nothing to honor there).
Commands 6-10 leave altogether too much out...rape, genocide, slavery, but coveting is a real problem...
Posted by: spoom
|
October 2, 2009 4:14 AM
Try following the sexy commandments. I'd like to see these erected in the courthouses and classrooms They're just as hard, erm, difficult, to, um, maintain.
1. Thou shalt have no other gods... in bed.
2. Thous shalt have no idols... in bed.
2. Thou shalt take the lord's name in vain... in bed.
4. Thou shalt keep the sabbath day... in bed.
5. Thou shalt honor you father/mother... in bed.
6. You shall not murder… in bed.
7. You shall not commit adultery… in bed
8. No stealing in bed.
9. You shall not bear false witness... in bed.
10. No coveting... in bed.
Posted by: Radioactive afikomen
|
October 2, 2009 5:23 AM
@Kamaka:
Ah, the unrepentant cynicism of a bitter atheist.
Posted by: PhysicistDave
|
October 2, 2009 5:57 AM
Sastra wrote:
> Perhaps one of the reasons Christians think that the sensed need for divine forgiveness for sin is universal has to do with common memories from childhood, of being "bad."
So, those of us who rejected religion from an early age were the perfect kids?
Could be. I actually was an awfully obedient child (in retrospect, I wonder if it might not have done me some good to be a bit more rebellious).
Attending a Baptist church (they proudly called themselves “fundamentalist”) for eighteen years, through my entire childhood, never caused me to believe in this “sin” thing – my attitude was: just do the right thing, and there’s no problem.
Is there some deep temperamental difference that caused some of us exposed to the full-court press of Christianity to never go for it?
I did think for many years that their God was real, and that did worry me: the God they described to me sounded clearly insane. I actually considered the possibility that there was a “real” God who was not nuts and who was superior to their “Heavenly Father” (thereby personally re-inventing a form of gnosticism).
Dave
Posted by: Rebecca
|
October 2, 2009 6:03 AM
I wrote a blog piece recently on how the 10 commandments pretty much fail the validity test for any modern society.
http://rebeccas-opinions.blogspot.com/2009/08/ten-suggestions-or-royal-law-of-love.html
It was fun
Posted by: SEF
|
October 2, 2009 6:20 AM
@ PhysicistDave #95:
It does have some plausibility to it. Not only do I have myself as anecdotal example but there's even a workable mechanism for it.
Rejecting religion and religious claims requires one to exceed some threshold of combined intelligence, education and intellectual honesty. The more intelligence one has, the less education (including basic experience of the real world) is needed; but honesty, with oneself as much as with others, is always a key component. One has to really care about the truth in order to routinely bother to consider whether or not something is true.
A knowingly and carefully truthful child, who also won't accept falsehoods from others, would fit the pattern of being both less gullible to religious lies and well-behaved (apart from in the specific instance of refusing to believe the religious liars!) - ie orders of magnitude better than the scum trying to indoctrinate said child. Hence why atheists generally do so much better even on the "10" commandments than theists do.
Posted by: kiki
|
October 2, 2009 7:27 AM
(As opposed to irrational reason? rational unreason?)
None of my business, of course, but I think the poster was using 'reason' in the sense of 'a cause, explanation or justification', not as in 'logic or rationality'. So yes, you can indeed have irrational reasons for doing things - such as, y'know, not using electricity for one day of the week because a bunch of guys 2000 years ago who'd never heard of electricity decided that an imaginary magical king said you shouldn't work on that day, and then more recently another bunch of guys decided that that included using electricity.
So, grammar Nazi FAIL.
Posted by: SQLRob
|
October 2, 2009 9:50 AM
Exactly.
Why isn't using an ancient book (older than 2000 in this case, since we're talking OT) apply to something that in concept didn't event exist at that point considered crazy?
And why not take things to a further extreme? It takes work to remain standing. Why aren't they required to stay lying in bed all day? At least be consistent.
Posted by: Radioactive afikomen
|
October 2, 2009 12:11 PM
@SQLRob:
How to put this? It's about feelings. If I feel like it's a nice tradition to follow, I follow it. There isn't supposed to be any logic to it.
Posted by: SQLRob
|
October 2, 2009 12:24 PM
Tradition != not crazy.
Posted by: Radioactive afikomen
|
October 2, 2009 12:44 PM
You're absolutely right. Clearly, my learning Hebrew ('cause it's tradition and all) is evidence that I am crazy. (Along with the way my mother taught me to make apple pie, I presume.)
Posted by: Radioactive afikomen
|
October 2, 2009 12:55 PM
I'll elaborate on what rankles me so much about PZ calling me "crazy":
So that it's it, huh. Reaching out and flicking the light switch qualifies me as crazy. Because I don't use electricity for a day out the week, I get shoved in the same box as people who murder others in the name of God.
Hence my objection: PZ Myers has so grotesquely stretched the definition of "crazy" as to make the word meaningless.
Posted by: SQLRob
|
October 2, 2009 1:04 PM
It's also true that tradition != crazy.
You go out of your way to please a boogeyman. Yeah, that's crazy, he's not watering the meaning of the word down.
Posted by: CJO
|
October 2, 2009 1:12 PM
And why not take things to a further extreme? It takes work to remain standing. Why aren't they required to stay lying in bed all day? At least be consistent.
You didn't take your reductio. far enough. I mean, why not kill yourself? What's with all this blood circulatin' and breathin' eh, Jews? That's it. To be "consistent," they'd have to commit suicide... every Sabbath.
No, the deal with "work" has to do with the land, more like, with the relationship to the means of production and the staff of life. These are the things required to keep the human world operating. God demands of Jews that they set aside a day to reflect on him, and his world, to the exclusion of the "workaday." (Electricity was included under the prohibition against "lighting a fire" on the Sabbath.)
Now, there is no reason for it, because there is no god. Don't get me wrong. I just get kind of tired of sort of hypocritical expectation that if the Law is not "consistent" in the eyes of someone who typically has given the matter about 30 seconds' thought, then it's stupid, or ludicrous, or self-defeating in some way. Pointless, yes, because there's no Yahweh to care, one way or the other. But inconsistent? I don't think so.
Posted by: amphiox
|
October 2, 2009 1:28 PM
#103: "Reaching out and flicking the light switch qualifies me as crazy"
No. But if the sole reason for reaching out and flicking that light switch is because it is written in a 5000 year old document of questionable provenance that an all-powerful supernatural entity took the form of a burning bush on top of a mountain in the middle of a desert and told an exiled goat-herder that it was forbidden from him and all his followers and descendents to light a fire on one particular day out of every seven, then YES, THAT IS CRAZY.
Posted by: Radioactive afikomen
|
October 2, 2009 1:35 PM
Except I'm an atheist. I'm just one of those evil, backstabbing ones whose sole purpose is to undermine the Glorious Revolution. (What do you call them again? Oh yeah, "accommodationists".)
Posted by: CJO
|
October 2, 2009 1:52 PM
Except I'm an atheist. I'm just one of those evil, backstabbing ones whose sole purpose is to undermine the Glorious Revolution.
Hey, I dig it. I know other secular Jews who keep the Sabbath and the dietary laws. For my part, I was trying to explain the tradition to those who were so reflexively derisive of it, for what I view as the wrong reasons. Not coming from a family that ever kept such traditions, and not believing in god, obviously I see no point, that is all.
My family has its own pointless traditions, like precisely how to eat corn on the cob (my sister is an apostate) and passive aggressiveness.
Posted by: SEF
|
October 2, 2009 2:21 PM
@ Radioactive afikomen #103:
No, you don't. You're just crazy (to some degree), not (necessarily) murderous. Not all crazy people are murderous. That's a big part of why there are different words for the two separate things.
There isn't some simplistic single dumping box, where all the occupants are supposed to have every feature one finds unappealing while all the members of one's in-group are instead paragons of virtue - that's probably the theist in you doing the "thinking".
Posted by: ereador
|
October 2, 2009 2:48 PM
@#31:
They are all an embarrassment to their side. As reality-based types, we construct accounts of our perceived and measured realities, but we are aware that we are constructing them, and we change the accounts every time there is new information. And we actively seek new information. We understand there is no legitimacy in insisting on untestable claims.
I have gotten to the point that I won't even talk to these people when I'm in a less than charitable mood. My mind is a "no meddling" zone, which is not to say I am not open-minded. I just no longer tolerate jackasses trying to get me to consider their ideas, once again for the nth time in my life, on the grounds that I ought to remain open-minded to the notion of fairy tales as reality. Proselytizers want only to meddle; it is purely a power game, as others have pointed out.
At any rate, I could not take the commandments test because I do not do commandments. I am in perpetual revolt; maybe I have a case of Satan, along with my sinusitis.
Posted by: amphiox
|
October 2, 2009 2:52 PM
"They are all an embarrassment to their side"
That's because their whole side is an embarrassment. The moment anyone joins their side, they automatically become an embarrassment.
Posted by: ereador
|
October 2, 2009 2:57 PM
Indeed, amphiox.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 2, 2009 3:15 PM
ereador @ 110
Yah, the "you can't prove god doesn't exist" bit.
The whole god myth is so obviously a bunch of made-up shit it deserves no consideration whatsoever.
Posted by: E.V.
|
October 2, 2009 3:43 PM
Reads like "obey the earthly ministers" to me.
or "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 2, 2009 4:06 PM
I don't think an atheist Jew playing pretend on Friday night is crazy.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 2, 2009 4:35 PM
On NPR just now...The use of shabat (automated) elevators is a gross violation of the sabbath.
Nah, that's not crazy.
Life without shrimp or bacon? That's crazy (and stupid).
Posted by: CJO
|
October 2, 2009 4:55 PM
The use of shabat (automated) elevators is a gross violation of the sabbath.
As I vainly tried to point out above, you're missing the rationale behind the Sabbath laws. The prohibition against "work" is not against "physical activity" but against "productive activity" or "all the normal things a person must do every day to provide sustenance for themselves and their family." It's a matter of setting aside a day that is oriented toward divine, holy things, rather than the business of human needs. How does riding an elevator violate the spirit of this?
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 2, 2009 5:13 PM
I dunno. Ask the kooks in Israel who handed down this edict. OK, pushing a button to ride an elevator is "work", I kinda get that. But getting on an automated elevator (that automatically stops at every floor) is a violation of the sabbath? Seems irrational to me.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 2, 2009 5:20 PM
Linky to crazy edict:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113436909
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 2, 2009 5:28 PM
'Cause the mouthpieces of Da Lawd have so deemed it. Da Lawd works (or woiks, if you prefer) in mysterious ways. Climbing stairs is not work, riding an automatic elevator is.
Posted by: CJO
|
October 2, 2009 5:32 PM
Okay, thanks for the link. I misunderstood before, thinking you were saying it was your opinion, when you were reporting what the Rabbis said. All is clear. (Except why the rabbis think God wants little old ladies to walk up and down stairs.)
Posted by: Kamaka
|
October 2, 2009 6:39 PM
I misunderstood before
Such is the intertubes.
So, kooky rabbis, does it violate the sabbath to give the little old lady a piggy-back ride up the stairs?
More seriously, Israel is a case study of the weird (and nasty) outcomes of religious accommodationism.
The "god said" settlement issue comes to mind.
Posted by: DLC
|
October 3, 2009 12:24 AM
why do you Christians hate Shiva so much ?
You know you really do believe in the true gods, so why go on denying it ?
Why do you Atheists hate Cthulhlu so much ? you know you're just denying his existence because some incident made you angry at him.
IA IA CTHULHLU FTGN! !!!11!
Posted by: Jeff Eyges
|
October 3, 2009 11:49 AM
@110: I have gotten to the point that I won't even talk to these people when I'm in a less than charitable mood.
Me too, and I'm never in a charitable mood.
@121: (Except why the rabbis think God wants little old ladies to walk up and down stairs.)
The Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jews are just as batshit insane as the Christian and Islamic fundies. You just don't hear much about them because they're radically xenophobic, and don't (outside of Israel) get involved much in public affairs or politics. The gentile world is irrelevant to them.
In Israel, they've been a problem for decades and are becoming increasingly violent and reactive. For example, they'll commandeer public buses and insist that women sit in the back. There was a much-publicized case last year in which a woman (Modern Orthodox, at that) refused to comply, and a group of black-hatters beat her up along with an Israel soldier who came to her defense. There have been other cases in which they've gone after young women who they felt weren't dressed modestly enough. Even rightward-leaning Modern Orthodox people are scared to death of them.
Unfortunately, the Israeli govt. does little to nothing to curb them, as they constitute a powerful voting block.