Cool! I'm looking forward to hearing it. It looks like it is 83 MB with a somewhat slow server connection, so I might be downloading for a while....

- Josh

hehe...um...yeah, server...right. Cox caps uploads (they suck), but it's not like i'm going to post that file forever.

Strangely enough, The Amazing Spider-Man issue released directly after September 11th 2001 is the most moving, emotionally real, and truly cathartic response to that day of any that I've read.

One can find truth in the most interesting places, it seems.

Took the dialect quiz, Josh. I was very confused by the section involving the word "anymore." Do you know where the hell they sat shit like that?

No, I do not.

Kitty Wampus!!!!

ok folks, I was getting my photoshop on today and made these gems.
http://64.49.221.207/pix/grnegsnspm/Ben.jpg
http://64.49.221.207/pix/grnegsnspm/Scout.jpg

Enjoy. I know I did.

Re: Subject For 10/29/02

I don't know why I keep getting myself into these religious topics, but here I am, once again.

So, a group lobbied something that upset some people, and they got a lot of angry, poorly thought out mail. In other news: scientists have just announced that the sky is blue. There's no story here. I could generate an equal if not greater amount of angry, hate-filled email by announcing that Tolkien is overrated, Ghandi had some serious personal flaws in regards to his treatment of his family, or that I didn't vote for Gore during the last presidential election. People have always had their sacred cows, and they always will. I'm for a degree of gun control, I support women's rights, and I believe in tighter regulations regarding the behavior of big business. Still, there are people who believe in the same things that I do that I would be ashamed to be associated with. I feel the same way about Christianity.

There are a lot of people, on both sides of the religious debate, that say that you can't take some parts of the Bible, and leave others. The problem with this theory, though, is that, while the Bible is a book, it is more accurately many books. It's a collection of writings from a lot of people, written over a lot of years. Since it contradicts itself in several places, you have to assume that at least some of it is wrong. That's where the split happens. Some people are going to follow whatever part of the Bible suits their agenda, some people are going to follow whatever section seems most truthful to them, and some people are going to get fed up and throw the entire thing out. I've been in all three of the above-mentioned camps at one point or another; at the moment, I'm firmly in the second. Assuming that all of it is wrong because some of it is, in my opinion, is as dangerous as assuming that all of it is correct because some of it is true. Judging one statement in the Bible based on the statements that surround it (often made by different writers, during entirely different eras) would be like judging something that Ralph Nader said based on something that Bush said, because they'd both run for the same political office. There's no connection, except for the one that people have created by lumping them all together, and that's a mistake that's as foolish for the Bible's critics as it is for it's followers.

The Bible shows a remarkable amount of social change and growth from the beginning to the end. In my mind, the greatest tragedy of the Christian faith was that everyone seems to believe that that change is finished. Jesus was the all-time king of social revolutionaries, but the revolution got hijacked. Same as it ever was. Somehow, I doubt that the United States of today much resembles the one that Jefferson dreamed of, and although I don't agree with Marx, I feel can't help but feel pity for the man whose dream was so perverted by others.

"There's one hole in every revolution, large or small. And it's one word long -- people. No matter how big the idea is they all stand under, people are small and weak and cheap and frightened. It's people that kill every revolution." - Warren Ellis, Transmetropolitan

Christianity had the chance to make the world a better place. If it can get over itself, it still does.

-Bob Mike Hitler

Edited by author 12-08-2002 06:26 PM
Bob Mike,

I really appreciate that you get into these religious discussions with me. I find them highly rewarding.

On to the topic. I think your "Tolkien is overrated" analogy fails in several places. First, Tolkien apologists do not claim, as many Christians do, that they have a unique claim on morality and charity. Many (most?) Christians are fond of confusing "Christians should be kind and charitable" with "only Christians are kind and charitable". These are called "Christian virtues", and when a culture moves away from Christianity is it considered to have been morally corrupted. So it is quite reasonable to point out when non-Christians behave reasonably and Christians do not.

Second, you are completely correct that the Bible is contradictory, composed of many books, written by fallible people, and at least partially wrong. You will find no argument from me. But it is important to note a couple of points. Paul, perhaps the strongest voice in the Christian New Testament, writes that "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16, my emphasis.) "Yes," you might say, "but Paul was wrong." But that's exactly my point. Paul was wrong. Despite the internal claims of the universal correctness of Scripture, and despite the surrounding cultural claims of the universal correctness of Scripture, it just isn't.

You write that "Assuming that all of it is wrong because some of it is, in my opinion, is as dangerous as assuming that all of it is correct because some of it is true." But that's not what I'm doing. It is certainly possible to compile a "Good Parts version" of the Bible. You can do that with The Communist Manifesto too, or Nietzche, or any of Ayn Rand's writings, maybe even with Mein Kampf. That's fine. There is truth in Homer even if none of the battles and voyages ever actually took place, and there is certainly truth in Tolkien, overrated or not, even though the entire setting is fictional. But the problem is using Biblical inclusion as some sort of sign of ultimate truthfulness. Whether the Christian apologist claims that the entire Bible is true, contradictions and all, or that simply the "truthful to them" portions are, the problem is the same: no more credence should be allotted to the claims because they came from Scripture.

"Elves exist because Tolkien wrote about them" is an absurd statement. So, for that matter, is "Mountains exist because Tolkien wrote about them." The moment we deal with a human author, the moment we deal with stories, the moment we consult a fallible or metaphorical document, we have lost any claim to exclusive truth. I believe in Mountains because I have seen them, have studied them, have climbed them, and have a consistent world-view that allows, even implies, their existence. I disbelieve in Elves because I have not seen them, I have not seen any studies of them, I have never met them, and my world-view is just fine, probably even better, if I do not postulate a race of slim, sylvan, language-using humanoids with a fondness for hiding.

Some treat the Bible as a bare philosophy. It suggests ways to behave, provides reasons that resonate with the reader, and instills the person with a feeling of meaningfulness. That person is fully capable of discarding all of the mythological nonsense (literal non-sense) surrounding this philosophy. That's fine: that person can follow the ethic of Jesus, another person can follow Tolkien's dwarven ethic, and I can follow Thoreau's and Kant's, or what have you. But few people stop there. They say Christianity is correct because the Bible proclaims so and they say the Bible is correct because God, the über-trump card, inspired it.

And this is what I meant by "put down your Bibles". I meant, "Don't appeal to Scripture for evidence of truth." Go ahead and make your truth claims, if you wish, but do not do so by appealing to a book, or set of books, the prevalent errors of which are established.

Christianity, at its best, advises admirable actions: concern and care for others, self-sacrifice, charity, compassion, and love. At its worst it suggests despicable actions. And frequently, in my opinion, it does so for the wrong reason. I disagree that we should be self-sacrificial so that we may be "first" in heaven. I disagree that we should love others because we are loved by God. But the fact that we can even get to this point in the discussion is heartwarming. Too frequently conversations are hijacked by threats of damnation or murder, name-calling, or disparaging remarks about one's character. In my opinion, the revolution you hope for, the revolution we hope for, will not come through the graces of a deity. It will come through the hearts and the consciences of man. Those who consider the Bible an inspiration to charity and compassion, and not a tome of ultimate truth and a source of hate, have my blessing.

"A revolution is not the overturning of a cart, a reshuffling in the cards of state. It is a process, a swelling, a new growth in the race. If it is real, not simply a trauma, it is another ring in the tree of history, layer upon layer of invisible tissue composing the evidence of a circle." - Kate Millet

Unload your shotguns. It's time for revolution.

- Josh

Edited by author 10-30-2002 10:58 PM
Evan, regarding /m116:

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you on this. I really like it, especially the second half. Specifically:

• The beat at 23:20
• The "For some reason I've been given a second chance" sample
• The high-pitched synth after 36:20
• The Spanish guitar and piano after 41:00, then your cool blend of the guitar until 43:00
  

It seems like it took a lot of work. I'm looking forward to hearing more, and to listening to this repeatedly.

We don't need people to monitor our elections! Look, see in the end the right person won! Plus, we like invented democracy so who is Russia to be telling us how we should do our voting! I mean... we invented voting, right? It's all part of the American Dream, and I'll be damned if some Albanian tells us how to do it!

Like Albania is a real country anyway. I bet we could bomb the hell out of them if we wanted to.

GO USA!

Here's an article that the Onion published during the last presidential election. Somehow, it seems relevant to the topic.

By the way, I hope to continue the religious discussion when I have a bit more time. Unfortunately, we just got GTA: Vice City, so time's at a premium rught now.

Peace. You are loved.

- BMH

I've been spending some time helping my clients to fill out their absente ballots over the past couple of days. Of the 21 who have ballots about 8 know about the canidates, party systems, and have a general idea about the propositions. Despite the many hours I've spent explaining different parties to the others, the other 13 or so are generally voting for the person whose name they like the best. The thing is I am so much happier with this than the other situation that happens around voting times. Some of the parents of the clients think they can just use their adult child's ballot as a second chance to vote. I had one mother yell at me because I let her son fill out his own ballot this year, which is probably the first time this 53 year old has gotten to independenlty make choices about his voting.

Even if a choice is nothing more than picking a name that they like, at least its their choice.

~Jenn

Edited by author 11-04-2002 06:38 PM
I've been posting a local message board devoted mostly to electronic music and the scene here in SD, but also has areas for more serious posts. The majority of the time the posts are psuedo-intellectual philosobabble that makes me want to drag people into a classroom, chain them to a desk and at least force them to go through the motions of thinking...but sometimes you can find some gems. There is a current thread on California elections that has caused my head to bang upon the desk while screaming, "Read, think, then talk!"

There is a person whose entire line of reasoning is that Davis is for sale, and anybody else would do a better job. It gets better. In order to make this happen he suggests voting for the Green party candidate (Peter Camejo), but not so that the Green party will get more votes...but rather to take votes away from Davis so Simon will win.

"vote green....it will take more votes away from davis...

hopefully it'll take more from davis than simon...tho its not looking good"

WHAT?!?

He can't possibly be serious??? After replying I find out that he is. I pointed out that asking a liberal to vote more liberal in order for a conservative to win was a quite stupid thing to suggest

"Do you realize how stupid that sounds? 'Vote for a liberal so a conservative will win! If you can't have what you want you might as well get completely screwed!'"

...at which point he called me stupid right back

"uhhh do you realize how stupid YOU sound buddy?

lets take is slow here....2 liberal candidates...one might win, one has no chance....sooooo if a bunch of liberals vote for the guy that CANT win it takes votes AWAY from the one who can...and hopefully the conservative will keep the votes he already will get...cause peter kamayo wont take that many votes from him...giving him a better chance to win....

honestly the green candidate OR simon is better than davis...liberals and conservatives alike can see his track record SUCKS.....

but believe what you want" (sp left uncorrected)

Read, think, then talk!

This person treats me as if I'm slow. I pointed out a contradiction and I'm the slow one? Granted, I didn't reply in the most polite way...but still. I don't like to toot my own horn (ok, well...maybe a little), but I'm far from slow. This person doesn't quite get that they just quoted me right back to me, agreed with it, and called my objection stupid. Read, think, then talk!

What really hurts is that he's going to vote with this rational. I understand that the right to vote must be protected, and that everybody's voice should be heard. It is an individual choice...but my brain hurts every time somebody who has the capacity to think wusses out and hides behind the "anybody else" curtain.

It's the afternoon of Nov 4th, and I still haven't decided who I'm going to vote for in the California gubernatorial. I am sure that I'm voting for a liberal candidate, and that if I cast my vote for them it means one thing: I want my support for my cadidate and thier values to show.

Party politics in the United States is in desperate need of reform. Voting and representation of values are no longer tied. I think we need to move away from a two party system. It's screwing conservatives and liberals alike. If somebody wants to vote for a Reform party candidate [shudder] shouldn't thier idealogical vote be shown as well?

As I understand it the UK and others have a multiple party system where if your candidate doesn't win they can cast your vote for another candidate. This makes sense. We're voting for people to make our government decisions, if we can't get what we want shouldn't we at least get the next closest thing (or what our candidate believes to be the next best thing)?

I don't want to vote more liberal and end up with a conservative because of it...at the same time I want to encourage more liberal politics. At the moment I don't see how I can have both...but the openness of the California ballot is temping...maybe it's time for me to read, think...

Edited by author 11-04-2002 08:48 PM
interesting post script... http://www.demochoice.org

Certain word pronounciations mystify me. The one I've been thinking about a lot, most recently, is the word "comfortable." When I read it, it looks like there's a fort in there. And then an a. That looks to me like a four syllable word.

However, it seems most of us (including me, for most of my life) say this word "comfterble." How did this happen? And can we fix it?

~Dave

"Hey Josh! Let's build a fter in your bedroom with couch cushions!"