Wrong time of year, but good joke:
The Stanford Nutting Holiday Special is just like EVERY single Catholic Family I know! Merry KwanzaHaunakahRamadan to you too!
I'm Outside the Autistic Asylum!
RSS Feed link
The crazy stuff I can't post anyplace else
Introduction to Wonko the Sane and Outside the Asylum, which this blog is named after.
45 comments:
And sadly, the grand majority of CCD teachers I had in the 1970s were just like Stanford Nutting and his nephew/catechumenate Tommy- "Jesus was nice and you should be nice too" was the majority of the Catholic part of my education.
The atheist grandmother insists on our being randomly arranged subatomic particles, which I think is the Achilles heal of new atheism. While I see all religions that I am aware of as mostly nonsense, I see no way for us to be here due to a series of random events The concept of intelligent design has some merit as long as the designer is not God. God is a name that is already taken by a fictional character who, among other things, is credited with the creation of the universe. The designer would lack all the other attributes of the fictional God such as it existing as the Trinity.
I'm pretty sure the atheist grandmother in this comedy piece is a fictional character who, among other things, is credited with a bad stereotype of the new atheism.
I have to ask though: Why *must* the designer lack the other attributes? What in evolution, say, removes the possibility of the Trinity (especially since, trinitarian creatures do exist in nature)?
There is no conceivable reason for the true nature of the intelligent designer of the universe to be known to a greater extent by people living hundreds and thousands of years ago than by us today. We have every ability to discover the nature and attributes of the designer through modern science as opposed to relying on philosophies and beliefs of the ancient past. If scientists and theologians came up with a concept of a divine trinity today, I would put more credence in it than I would in something handed down from our less enlightened ancestors.
From that standpoint, what is the conceivable reason for doing archeology at all in the first place?
After all, by your standards where the modern is all that counts, there should be no reason to know the past.
Except, of course, the past WERE scientists and theologians, every bit as capable as the ones we have today- perhaps even more so (maybe I'd have more respect for Dawkins if _The God Delusion_ was five volumes and nearly 500 chapters, with cross references, footnotes, and quotes).
If anything, "modern science" has lost the ability to philosophize to that extent- and "modern man" has lost the attention span needed to read it.
"From that standpoint, what is the conceivable reason for doing archeology at all in the first place?"
People think that the stories have some truth to them and that God chose to walk among in the past (which conveniently can't be verified or disproved). Relics and holy places are good for business.
No, I mean what is the reason for archeology from YOUR form of atheism, if all knowledge from the pre-modern (usually the pre-industrial era, but correct me if you have a different line for "modern") era is worthless?
In fact, for a slightly different definition of Modern- as Post-Roman rather than Post-Industrial revolution- the doctrine of the Trinity *did* come from the modern thinker Augustine of Hippo.
You don't have to have religious reasons for archeology. Atheists can be interested in history for its own sake.
That's a stretch to call Augustine a modern thinker. Bertrand Russell would be a modern thinker. C.S. Lewis, Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, etc.
But history plays *NO ROLE* in atheism from your above definition. If it wasn't discovered by a "modern thinker", to you it might as well be garbage, so why even learn about history?
Atheists enjoy learning about history for its own sake. There's nothing unusual about having interests in past civilizations. Why would an atheist want to ignore history?
Your comment fragment "modern science as opposed to relying on philosophies and beliefs of the ancient past. If scientists and theologians came up with a concept of a divine trinity today" would suggest that an atheist who has an interest in history is in danger of losing his atheism, at least if he's looking at actual history instead of some modernist made up model of it.
" an atheist who has an interest in history is in danger of losing his atheism, at least if he's looking at actual history instead of some modernist made up model of it."
There is nothing in the history of the world that in any way cause me to lose my atheism. The more I learn about history, the more certain I am that religion is a crock.
If that is true, why are you so afraid of the theologians and scientists of the past, and religions of the past? Why are you so afraid that you have to deny that they were as intelligent as you?
"...why are you so afraid of the theologians and scientists of the past, and religions of the past?"
It's not that I am afraid of them. I just think we know more about the world around us today than we did centuries ago. Modern science has enlightened us. We know that the ancient religions with their various gods were wrong. Eventually, we will know that today's religions are wrong as well.
Modern science is anti-enlightenment. It is the darkness of barbarism reborn.
Gosnell showed us that with his scientific infanticide. And there are many, many other events where science, without religion, has been shown to be more wrong than even the most primitive pagans.
So once again, the data of even recent history is against your conclusion.
Gosnell wasn't representative of modern science. You take the word of ancient scripture over that of modern science. This leaves you without a firm grip on reality.
Gosnell, Oppenheimer, what's the difference? Greed makes fools of all. Not a year goes by that you don't find some modern thinker deciding that ethics don't matter.
Had that problem back in the day too, but they had to at least dress up the scandal and make it look within reason, lest some rich kid reject his father's wealth, go running out of the church naked, and then proceed to create trouble for the next 500 years.
"Not a year goes by that you don't find some modern thinker deciding that ethics don't matter."
Not true. Ethics is a key component of modern thinking. It is in morals that the controversies arise. Especially sexual morals where the Church and modern society have their differences.
If ethics truly was a key component in modern thinking- then we wouldn't have human clones right now, and Nagasaki would never have been bombed.
Ethics is at best an afterthought in modern thinking. Sometimes a very distant afterthought. Modernist ethics is no more than rationalization after the fact and NEVER holds up research for long unless forced by law.
And your modernist sexuality is just the attempt by the rich to exterminate the poor and free up resources- nothing more. There is no higher purpose to modern sexuality at all.
"If ethics truly was a key component in modern thinking- then we wouldn't have human clones right now, and Nagasaki would never have been bombed."
Ethics is a key component in evaluating human cloning. Modern thinkers have opinions on it. It is viewed as ethical despite the views of the Catholic Church, which gets hung about things like this because of its ideas about the human soul (I assume). The A-bomb saved American lives that would have been lost in an invasion of Japan. There weren't any better options for ending the war unless you consider our surrendering to be a better option.
"And your modernist sexuality is just the attempt by the rich to exterminate the poor and free up resources..."
Yeah. I really don't understand how that accomplishes that or if there is really such a conspiracy as that. But I can't see getting worked up about people having a more healthy attitude to sexuality than what the Catholic Church would impose on us.
"Ethics is a key component in evaluating human cloning. Modern thinkers have opinions on it. It is viewed as ethical "
In that case, your ethics is worthless.
"The A-bomb saved American lives that would have been lost in an invasion of Japan. There weren't any better options for ending the war unless you consider our surrendering to be a better option."
That's the lie we tell ourselves, in reality, all we needed to do was give assurance that the emperor wouldn't be tried for war crimes and the Japanese would have surrendered a year earlier. It was the only condition they were asking for in the peace talks.
Which, oddly enough, was exactly the condition on surrender *after* dropping the A-bomb as well. Nuclear weapons are unnecessary and dangerous.
Seems to me your ethics is rather, well, unethical and ridiculously immoral.
And as for the modernist sexuality, this document has told me ALL I need to know on the subject:
US Population Growth and Family Planning including the faulty 1970s math that failed to live up to the correct predictions for world population.
And finally, " people having a more healthy attitude to sexuality"
I don't consider spreading STDs and sexual slavery to be more healthy. In fact, you have a rather strange definition of "more healthy" in this area that simply does NOT fit the facts.
You are so judgmental. I live a completely ethical life.
"Except when you promote spreading disease and encourage your son to be a homosexual."
Are you for real?
I'm getting my threads a bit confused, but I could have sworn you wrote that the only thing we needed to do for Same Sex Attracted people was "accept the lifestyle" instead of warning them of the dangers of that lifestyle.
This to me seems to be an extreme parenting error.
"This to me seems to be an extreme parenting error."
I was going to ignore this remark, but I feel I should offer a response. I can't help but wonder what you would do if you learned that your child was gay. I can only imagine the psychological harm that you would inflict on that child.
If I learned that my child was gay (actually, I've got the opposite problem- I am going to have severe issues trying to keep myself from becoming a grandfather before I am 50, which is an odd thing to say considering I delayed parenting on the advice of liberals until after I was 33) I would tell him he's loved and accepted- but that due to his same sex attraction, the safest thing for him to do would be to stay celibate. I would then present him with ALL of the evidence of the harm that homosexuality causes, plus the censored research into gender confusion psychology.
In other words, exactly the opposite of what my parents did with me when I was being hit on by predatory gays and being rejected repeatedly by the females I was attracted to.
"due to his same sex attraction, the safest thing for him to do would be to stay celibate."
So, then marriage would not be an option unless both partners chose to remain celibate. What would you do if he ignored your advice? Would you fear for his immortal soul?
Immortal soul would depend on his conversion later in life- the best we can do as parents is sew the seeds for that one.
But I would be *very* worried about his mortal body, and I would find it extremely hard to trust any partner he fell in lust with.
Probably just like I'm acting with his precocious heterosexuality; I'm trying to get to know all of his girlfriends and make sure they're good people too- but with special needs it's really hard (especially the girl he says he wants to marry-H. has a lower functioning form of autism than I do, as well as ocd and other issues that prevent even adequate communication at times. And the girl who wants to marry him, J. who is always begging her parents to come over to our house, and who is struggling to learn modesty).
So, do you have any discussions regarding the use of contraceptives during premarital sex? Given that he is likely to have premarital sex, would you be opposed to his use of a condom or his girlfriend taking the pill or using some other firm of contraception?
Yes, and I told him the truth- that condoms often fail (Consumer Reports tests showed a 2% failure rate for the most expensive Trojans and a whopping 40% failure rate for Planned Parenthood freebies, which they then stopped using and shipped to Africa instead as "AIDS Prevention"- what a joke), the pill is an industrial poison that could kill the girl (and does cause cancer) and that the best form of contraception is to have a third person in the room (works in marriage too- the Family Bed form of contraception kept us from even using NFP in reverse for 6 years).
And that you should *ONLY* have sex after marriage and when you want a child.
In other words, the TRUTH instead of screwing him up by lying to him like my parent's generation did in the sexual revolution. Our society would have been better off if that had never have happened, but since it did, TOTAL transparency is the answer- including confessing our own sins to our children.
"condoms often fail (Consumer Reports tests showed a 2% failure rate for the most expensive Trojans and a whopping 40% failure rate for Planned Parenthood freebies"
That is an exageration. Here is the truth:
"The test conducted by Consumer Reports involved inflating the condoms to a certain air pressure. Most could hold up to 38 liters of air. The Planned Parenthood Honeydew? It broke 12 out of 120 times (%10) at pressures below 25 liters. The article doesn't speculate as to the reason for this low performance."
Your attitude toward sex is antiquated and unhealthy.
Besides, the Consumer Reports data has been verified by peer review. Just not from anybody you would accept data from, because you're prejudiced to only accept the lies that the pro-condom people tell.
"And that, in and of itself, is unhealthy to the point of being psychopathic. "
I don't consider accepting the views of Planned Parenthood to be unhealthy and certainly not psychopathic. I think you are very extreme in some of your judgments of others.
"because you're prejudiced to only accept the lies that the pro-condom people tell."
I can't believe you get so worked up about condoms as if there something so terrible about using them.
When arguing against the genocidal mania of Malthusian Eugenicists, especially after the example of the holocaust, no judgement is too extreme. It is time to stop sacrificing humanity at the holy altar of the progressives.
I find the logic of the anti humanists to be no more worthy of respect than an Aztec throwing his enemies off the pyramid.
"It is time to stop sacrificing humanity at the holy altar of the progressives."
I don't always understand your analogies. Who is sacrificing humanity at a holy altar?
The people who are causing the genocide that has taken 55 million lives in the United States since 1973. The idiots who think the world would be better off with fewer people. Those who promote war, the death penalty, contraception, abortion euthanasia, and a disordered economy.
In other words, those people who put progress and profit above people- on both sides of the political spectrum. Liberty is not worth it, and when freedom and choice lead to genocide and bigotry, it is time to oppose freedom and choice.
It is time to say, we will not take your evil any more.
"Liberty is not worth it, and when freedom and choice lead to genocide and bigotry, it is time to oppose freedom and choice."
What would you recommend instead of freedom and choice?
Either a strong universal morality OR extreme local autonomy with economic segregation between cultures and value systems.
The second would be far more interesting, because it would enable experimentation in value systems.
But for it, the economic segregation would need to be total, and the citizenry of any one jurisdiction be kept small.
Post a Comment