The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life last year surveyed 35,000 American, and found that 70% of respondents agreed with the statement “Many religions can lead to eternal life.” Even more remarkable was the fact that 57% of Evangelical Christians were willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to salvation, since most Christians historically have embraced the words of Jesus, in the Gospel of John, that “no one comes to the Father except through me.” -sorce

I can wrap my head around a persons faith. They have a level of confidence in validity of the bible. I can not except the superiority of any book especially when the claims should transcend words thus nullifying the sacredness of print. If I’m to believe that Muhammad, Jesus, Vishnu or Buddha flew up into the sky, I’m going to need a little more than millennial old testimony. What I fail to understand is how a peson who bases their belief off of the stories in a book can allow their belief be counter to that word. Without any intent of condensation and no gentler way to say it, it appears to be a mental disorder or evidence of cherry pickin’

I’ve been accused of being a Christian hater because of the “caustic” language in my arguments against religion. I understand why a person who’s personal identity is superseded by Christianity would think that. I find the belief that I’m going to go to an eternal torture prison for not worshiping a ghost or come back as a cockroach repulsive. Especially when “what I’m not doing” isn’t bad according to the logical principled ethical base of self ownership and passive reciprocity. I do hate the Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. However, I don’t hate John, Mahoud, Kumudavati or Chan Khong, for I need more reason than their alegance to a religion they were most likely born into. What it takes is if John tells me I’m bad for not doing something.

I don’t see any problem with the “good” side of religious belief. Daydreaming about chilllin’ with the creator of the Universe and an eternal life of bliss with all your friends and familly on cloud nine really can’t be topped. And if the believer believes there is no one way to get there, their belief is relatively harmless to the rest of the species. I bet the results from the survay are missleading though. When a believer was asked if another religion could lead to non-damnation, they might have assumed the other religions were variations of Christianity. My first thought was that those that answered with the liberal many paths answer weren’t actually even theists. It’s such an agnostic answer. Although I’m happy with the many path answer I actually have more respect for the Orthodox believers of the doctrines I dispise. A more revealing question would be to ask if they believe a peace loving atheist will escape the firey pits of hell.

New Atheists and the Neocons - What do they have in common? Both of them took a proudly triumphalist posture just as their perceived popularity began to visibly collapse. Neocon boasting of a permanent Republican majority was still being bruited about only two years before the 2006 electoral debacle, while as I noted in TIA, atheist identification and popularity have actually taken declined since the New Atheist literary wave began:

“Most Americans believe that angels and demons are active in the world, and nearly 80 percent think miracles occur, according to a poll released yesterday that takes an in-depth look at Americans’ religious beliefs. The study detailed Americans’ deep and broad religiosity, finding that 92 percent believe in God or a universal spirit — including one in five of those who call themselves atheists.”

Best-selling books can, but don’t necessarily, prove the popularity of the views contained within those books. In some circumstances, it is the reverse that is more likely the case, after all, the fact that I own more than a few New Atheist books doesn’t indicate that I agree or even think well of the arguments contained within them. It is, of course, quite funny to see yet more evidence that so many “atheists” define atheism so broadly as to include belief in God. But they’re entirely rational… just ask them.

And of course, in nearly half the major cases, the New Atheists ARE Neocons. Both Harris and Hitchens fit the bill rather nicely; they’re not conventional Republicans, but they support American military adventurism in the Middle East. Hitchens, in fact, is very nearly a true Neoconservative as defined by the elder Kristol, considering his former Trotskyite politics.

Aren’t you the Christian who believes in Polytheism?

Eaglewood said, Bunny boy shows up. How ya doin’ Robert? Yes a good number of Christians understand that there are many gods but that there is only one G_d. The Creator Jehovah.

Hi Eaglewood. I’m doing fine. Getting ready to hit the west coast for some plein air painting. I had no idea that many of the Monotheists were Polytheists. So what makes a god a god?

Vox said, All Christians believe in polytheism. Note the definition:

the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.

Christians worship one supreme Creator God. Not only does this worship not conflict with belief in the existence of many lesser gods, but the latter is quite literally Biblical. If Christians did not believe in the existence of other gods, there would be no need to capitalize God.

Now, you can certainly attempt to get pedantic, but you’ll lose. You’ll soon find yourself attempting to deny that what is by any atheist definition “a god” is not “a god”.

So what makes a god a god?

This is a reasonable definition:

“(lowercase) one of several deities presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.”

I would add: “supernatural” and “that is worshipped, propitiated or otherwise entreated for action by human beings or other sapient beings.”

MarkkuKoponen said,

@So what makes a god a god?

Whatever receives worship, be it sentient or not, is a god. For example:

Phl 3:19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.

Not all Christians believe in Polytheism. That is a fact. I’ve asked around because when I read what you wrote about Christians believing in “lesser” gods I just couldn’t believe it. The majority of the Christians I asked believe in only one God.

I’m also curious to know what lesser gods you and Eaglewood believe in.

Eaglewood said, It looks like Vox beat me to it Robert.

It is the simple understanding of who you worship. While there are many gods competing for this worship, Christians undstand there is only One worthy of that worship.

MarkkuKoponen said, @”The majority of the Christians I asked believe in only one God.”

That is because the Bible uses the word in two senses. Remember, the original was in all-caps, so they couldn’t differentiate with the capitalization of the first letter like we can.

See here, were both meanings occur very close to each other:

1Cr 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God (THEOS) but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods (THEOS) many, and lords many,)

So, only one THEOS, but THEOS many and lords many. It’s the same word, and the meaning has to be figured out by the context.

Eaglewood said, I will name one and that is Lucifer, his pride in thinking he was as great or even greater than Jehovah caused his fall. Even the Bible refers to him as the ruler of this planet.

Belief does not equal worship. I believe you exist yet I would never worship you.

I know that Christians believe in the Devil, which to me sounds like it has a lot of the characteristics of a god. But I assume that you believe in more than two gods. My question is what other gods do you believe in? Gods as individual agents.

If you don’t believe in them as individual agents can they really be used in that context. If they’re all so much less than “G”od, why call them gods. Why not ghosts or spirits?

MarkkuKoponen said, There is a very important difference to the kind of polytheism where you worship only one god however.

In polytheism, the gods are all essentially the same, and the worshipper arbitrarily chooses one. In Christianity, the other gods are usurpers, and gods only in that they receive worship. They are the creatures, and the True God is the creator.@”If you don’t believe in them as individual agents can they really be used in that context. If they’re all so much less than “G”od, why call them gods. Why not ghosts or spirits?”

That word was chosen in the Bible. Ain’t much we can do about it.

whoschad said, I think the problem here is that you guys are thinking two different concepts when you use the noun ‘god’.

Paul explains it pretty well in the 1Corinthians quote that was just posted. Just because there are many that are CALLED gods, doesn’t mean there actually are many TRUE gods.
Roberts zero eyes Again, what is a lesser god? Or a false god that is a god.

My question was begging for names. If some Christians believe that they’re many gods but are of such in significants that they remain a swarm identity I suppose that will have to do.

MarkkuKoponen said, @”Again, what is a lesser god? Or a false god that is a god.”

I would never use the words “lesser god” since that would imply quantitative, not qualitative difference.

A false god is someone or something that receives worship, but does not deserve it.

Vox said, @”The majority of the Christians I asked believe in only one God.”

You failed to pay attention. Ask them if they believe in only one god. And then, you might wish to ask them who the god of this world is.

@”I’m also curious to know what lesser gods you and Eaglewood believe in.”

The prince of this world, among many others. I also believe in Moloch.

Eaglewood said, @”I know that Christians believe in the Devil, which to me sounds like it has a lot of the characteristics of a god. But I assume that you believe in more than two gods. My question is what other gods do you believe in? Gods as individual agents. - If you don’t believe in them as individual agents can they really be used in that context. If they’re all so much less than “G”od, why call them gods. Why not ghosts or spirits?”

I believe the main reson comes down to whether or not someone worships said spirit. there are a number mentioned in the Bible, such as Molech, or Baal. I believe these and others that are not in the word such as some of the Hindu gods are real individual agents just as Lucifer is an individual agent. Jehovah does not control these agents so they are by definition independent. That still does not make them worthy of worship in my book. The fact that they do get worship only goes to show they do have power to deceive.

Be careful there Robert because Vox did warn about being pedantic.

whoschad said, @”Again, what is a lesser god?”

If you want my opinion (some here would disagree with me perhaps though), I’d say that there aren’t any lesser gods. There exist entities that are supernatural, but they aren’t REALLY ‘gods’.

But, on the other hand, I would say that any object that a person imbues the attributes of ‘Lord’ to could be called ‘god’.

Hasemorder, if you are an atheist (I don’t know if you are or not), then the person you follow is yourself. You have set yourself up in the position that the TRUE God should be in. Therefore you are your own ‘god’. (This may or may not be the case with you, I don’t know)

Eaglewood said @”Hasemorder, if you are an atheist (I don’t know if you are or not), then the person you follow is yourself. You have set yourself up in the position that the TRUE God should be in. Therefore you are your own ‘god’. (This may or may not be the case with you, I don’t know)”

If I may, I will answer that. Robert and I have a long history. He is an atheist with some “interesting” ideas. Some long time readers will know him as The Southside Rabbitslayer.

MendoScot said, I’ve told you before, Vox, stop poking the monkeys. You know what they fling.

And on a related note, more grist for the mill.

@ I said, The majority of the Christians I asked believe in only one God.

@@ Vox said, “You failed to pay attention. Ask them if they believe in only one god. And then, you might wish to ask them who the god of this world is.”

@ I said, I’m also curious to know what lesser gods you and Eaglewood believe in.

@@ Vox said, “The prince of this world, among many others. I also believe in Moloch.”

I did mention the dark prince in my inquires. The Christians I asked stated that they believe he is not a god. I also mentioned things like money and power. Again, they stated they were not gods even though they get worship.

I’m getting the impression some think I’m being a pedantic sh*t thrower. That’s not my intention and I’m sorry if I was interpreted that way. I’m simply fascinated with the polytheist Monotheist train of thought.
Quote

whoschad said, I like the quote by Michael Lindsay in regards to this study as it appears in Christianity Today:”I think [the study] really underscores the sense that the issue with religion in America is not that Americans don’t believe in anything, it’s that they believe in everything”

Vox said, @”Be careful there Robert because Vox did warn about being pedantic.”

I was only warning him in the sense that it would be simple to out-pedant him on this. I don’t have any problem with his questions, they’re perfectly normal ones. Of course, the fact that many Christians think they’re monotheists is no more relevant to the substance of Christianity than the fact that many “atheists” believe in God is to the substance of atheism.

The difference is that a Christian who thinks he is a monotheist is merely a mistaken Christian, whereas an atheist who believes in God is not truly an atheist.

The difference is that a Christian who thinks he is a monotheist is merely a mistaken Christian, whereas an atheist who believes in God is not truly an atheist.The problem is that there is no word for what Christianity is. To speak of polytheism would be very misleading, since the religions that we generally understand as polytheistic believe, that there is no fundamental difference between the different gods. Even if a polytheist chooses one god, his religion gives no grounds for saying that those other gods aren’t true gods.
Quote

@”I did mention the dark prince in my inquires. The Christians I asked stated that they believe he is not a god. I also mentioned things like money and power. Again, they stated they were not gods even though they get worship.”

You might wish to ask them, then, why he should demand worship from Jesus Christ and be able to offer the kingdoms of the world without any meeting any protest regarding his ability to do so. In what is arguably the most chilling verse in the Bible, Jesus later tells “now the prince of this world is coming to kill me”. Money and power are not gods, except in the metaphorical sense. Mammon, on the other hand, is a god, as is Allah.

It might also be a good idea to confirm that they understood that you meant “god” and not “God”.

Starbuck said, That poll this article is referring to I believe also reported that a very large majority of Christians (especially Catholics) believe there is more then one way to enternal life(heaven). 56% of evangelicals and 79% of Catholics. That got my attention. So the next time you go to Church, remember that more then half oif all the people attending Churches in this country are believing a heresy, i.e. false teachings…

numskulls… Proof positive that most Christians don’t read the Bible and will fall for anything that sounds good.

zeno said, @”If you don’t believe in them as individual agents can they really be used in that context. If they’re all so much less than “G”od, why call them gods. Why not ghosts or spirits?”

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

Because it seems to be the terminology God uses.

Allah will suffice.

Thanks Vox.

Vox said @”Allah will suffice.”The interesting thing about Allah is that there is no shortage of archeological evidence that he was worshipped by the Arab tribes in Mecca prior to prior to 610. He reportedly had three divine daughters, Al-at, Al-uzza, and Al-Manat. From a Christian perspective, there’s no reason to doubt that Allah is a deity, the relevant question is whether he is identical to Jehovah, the god that Christians worship as the Supreme Creator God, or not.

Mendoscot said, @”I’m getting the impression some think I’m being a pedantic sh*t thrower.”

Not at all, Hasemorder. Stick around and you’ll see what happens. Of course, you may have noted that while telling Vox not to poke the monkeys, I also handed him a stick.

Whoschad said, @”The difference is that a Christian who thinks he is a monotheist is merely a mistaken Christian”

Semantics aside, as long as everyone understands what God himself says on the matter, it’s not a problem:

“This is what the LORD says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let him foretell what will come.

Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

Eaglewood said, I don’t think you were crossing the pedantic line yet either, just adding to Vox’s warning that there are those out there that have no problem following that bunny trail so to speak. We have been down many bunny trails ourselves and I think we both know where each other stand.

I am glad to see that things are going well for you. Is your art selling well?

Sort of OT for all of Robert’s interesting idea’s he is quite a good artist, and if I could afford it I probably would have bought one of his paintings already.

Jason said, The first commandment in the 10 Commandments is:

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me”

Why would God choose to make that the first commandment, or any commandment, if there were no other gods in the first place?

whoschad said, @”Why would God choose to make that the first commandment, or any commandment, if there were no other gods in the first place?”

Right after Isaiah says there is only one God he says this:

“Who shapes a god and casts an idol,
which can profit him nothing?”

Isaiah then goes onto explain that these ‘gods’ are nothing more than the wood they are fashioned out of:

“From the rest [of the wood] he makes a god, his idol;
he bows down to it and worships.
He prays to it and says,
“Save me; you are my god.”

God’s commandment is to not do that.

Vox said, @”Isaiah then goes onto explain that these ‘gods’ are nothing more than the wood they are fashioned out of:”

Pretty active blocks of wood, then, to interact with Jesus. Strange, too, that they should rate so highly on God’s list of Commandments….

whoschad said, @”Pretty active blocks of wood, then”

Perhaps some of these idols represent certain ‘principalities and powers’, but to say that they are all actual gods goes too far. if I constructed an idol of post-it’s here at my desk, it does not follow that there is some kind of Post-It god specific to my creation.

I think that de-throning God would naturally be at the top of the list of commandments. Whether you are dethroning Him for something that actually exists or doesn’t is secondary.

Pa kur said, So a god has supernatural power, is that right? But God is all knowing and all powerful and sticks all his enemies in hell to burn forever. Can the other gods do that? I don’t think so. In that sense there is only one all knowing, all powerful, hell-stuffing God. The others are just temporary, puffed up, fallen angels with delusion of godhood.

MarkkuKoponen said, @”Pretty active blocks of wood, then, to interact with Jesus. Strange, too, that they should rate so highly on God’s list of Commandments….”

Why is the non-sentient object of worship less god than the sentient one? Of course, in contemporary language it would be, but that is not grounds for saying that it is so in Biblical language. Why is the belly only a metaphorical god, whereas a malevolent spirit is that in a literal sense?

As for the second question, if I were God, I would take more offence if someone traded me for a piece of wood, than for a relatively powerful spirit.

whoschad said, I think Pa Kur gets it about right. If you want to use the word ‘gods’ the way C.S. Lewis does, then it’s not a problem:

“[God] said that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him—for we can prevent Him, if we choose—He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine.”

I just personally think that this kind of language is more influenced by Platonic thought rather than Hebrew. The idea is spot on though.

superninja said, In terms of what is going on in the heart of the individual, there is no difference between the belly and the demon.

The thing is, however, the demon is sentient and can accept worship, perform acts, confer power, while the belly cannot.

The NeoCons and Atheists also want to (re)make man in their own image. The most dangerous philosophy of all.

As an artist with no gods I can tell you there is at least one who doesn’t see fit to remake mans image. 0_o

MarkkuKoponen said @”The thing is, however, the demon is sentient and can accept worship, perform acts, confer power, while the belly cannot. ”Yes, naturally they have differences, but the real question is if those differences are relevant to the Biblical definition of the word “god”. I have so far not seen textual reasons to say that the use was metaphorical with “belly”. It would be, if Bible was written on modern English, but there should be separate reasons to say that “theos” or “el” imply sentience. One definition for “el” is:

2) mighty things in nature

And theos:

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

Dread said, “So, too, whoever trusts and boasts that he possesses great skill, prudence, power, favor, friendship, and honor HAS ALSO A god…” - Martin Luther.

The dictionary definition of atheist…

a·the·ist - n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Luther proves for us here, that THERE ARE NO ATHEISTS!. Unless, you persist to believe that you deny the existence of yourself. Which for me and others, is quite, quite fine. Do what you wish…

au·tism - n. A psychiatric disorder of childhood characterized by marked deficits in communication and social interaction, preoccupation with fantasy, language impairment, and abnormal behavior, such as repetitive acts and excessive attachment to certain objects. It is usually associated with intellectual impairment.

an abnormal absorption with the self; marked by communication disorders and short attention span and inability to treat others as people

Many here, can say with confidence, (along with Luther et al) We rest our case. There can be no further refutation without altering definitions to suit one’s purpose (agenda)…

MarkkuKoponen said, The reason this question is important is that it will answer whether Christianity should be called polytheistic or monotheistic, since we don’t have a perfectly accurate word.

We don’t have the liberty to use “god” in two or more different senses when using those words. We need to decide, which sense the “theos” is used in *theism, and if the false gods are gods in that sense. If they are, Christianity is polytheistic, and if not, it is monotheistic.

Rex Little said, @”That poll this article is referring to I believe also reported that a very large majority of Christians (especially Catholics) believe there is more then one way to enternal life(heaven). 56% of evangelicals and 79% of Catholics. That got my attention. So the next time you go to Church, remember that more then half oif all the people attending Churches in this country are believing a heresy, i.e. false teachings…”

According to Christians of my acquaintance, you’re not really a Christian unless you believe that the only way to heaven is through Jesus. So it’s not just atheists who have a problem with definitions.

My guess is that if someone calls himself an atheist but believes in God, he thinks that atheism means you disagree with all forms of organized religion. An incorrect definition, sure, but understandable.

@”From a Christian perspective, there’s no reason to doubt that Allah is a deity, the relevant question is whether he is identical to Jehovah, the god that Christians worship as the Supreme Creator God, or not.”

I’ve always been under the impression that “Allah” was simply the Arabic word for “God”. Muslims believe that Allah is infinite, omniscient, omnipotent and the creator of the universe, don’t they? Sounds the same as Jehovah to me. Muslims and Christians just disagree as to how this being wants to be worshipped, and what offspring It may or may not have produced.

Perhaps someone here know the answer to this: when an Arabic-speaking Christian refers to God, what word does he use? (This isn’t a “quiz question”; I don’t know the answer, and would like to.)

MarkkuKoponen said, @ “Perhaps someone here know the answer to this: when an Arabic-speaking Christian refers to God, what word does he use? (This isn’t a “quiz question”; I don’t know the answer, and would like to.)”

If I recall correctly, they have traditionally used the word Allah for Yahweh, but somewhat recently there has been a trend of using some other word, which I don’t remember, to avoid confusion.

Starbuck said, Allah is derived from an old ancient sun god the Arabs whorshipped. It is a false god.

superninja said, I think it depends on the context. It can be dealing with one’s heart, internal, in order to point out people are not properly aligned with God.

But obviously in some cases it’s dealing with external forces which have authority and are considered the enemy. They are deliberately attempting to direct people away from God.

Pa Kur said, I read before that Allah was an ancient MOON god, one of the reasons for the crescent symbol — a holdover from ancient moon times.

Allah is quite different from the triune God, the Elohim of the Bible. “Let us make man in OUR image.” Three, yet one God. Can your finite mind grasp that?

Chris Black said, @”The reason this question is important is that it will answer whether Christianity should be called polytheistic or monotheistic, since we don’t have a perfectly accurate word.”

Henotheists. Christianity is a henotheistic religion:

Main Entry: heno·the·ism - n. the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods

MarkkuKoponen said, @”: the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods”

But a Christian’s views are immensely different from, say, a Greek who has arbitrarily chosen to worship one particular god that he happens to like. That Greek would be a henotheist, but he would have no logical grounds to say that other gods aren’t real gods, which is what follows from Christianity.

I think that the difference between a Christian and that kind of henotheist is much, much bigger than the difference between a polytheist and that henotheist.

superninja said, Islam is a mixture of pagan Arab religions and Talmudic Judaism interacting within backdrop of Roman Catholic influence.

Islam has almost nothing in common with Christianity, despite protests to the contrary.

They do not believe in original sin, therefore they deny Jesus Christ.

Chris Black said @”I think that the difference between a Christian and that kind of henotheist is much, much bigger than the difference between a polytheist and that henotheist.”

Both terms could describe Christianity depending on what each of them means. Christians are henotheists if henotheism allows for one Almighty God and a myriad of other deities of lesser power. This could also be polytheism, since polytheism allows for an Almighty as well. It seems that, at this point, we’re basically arguing over which term sounds cooler.

nienna said, ::raises hand::

For what it’s worth (precious little around here), I believe that there is a real “Baal” and “Moloch.”

Also, I think Artemis is an actual goddess, as she has been known in religious throughout history and has had different “names.”

I don’t think that reason they aren’t worshipped openly now negates their existance, they’re either quietly doing their work or active under another name.

I think you misunderstood the suicide bomber example. He wasn’t saying that the parents literally worshipped Moloch, but the act was worship in itself. Moloch hates children and revels in their suffering, so many ills that children suffer may be attributed to him: abortion being the most blatant.

Anyway, I’m sure everyone thinks I’m loony now.

Other pagan deities I “believe” in (but not worship):

Testalcoalt (Aztec god)
Aztec goddess who became reincarnated as Guadallupe
Most major Hindu deities
Allah (the ancient arab moon good)
Zeus/Jupiter
I think some gods in polytheism are recycled. That is to say, Zeus may be Baal.
And I don’t meant to insult any catholics, but I am almost certain that most “virgins” and “saints” are pagan gods and goddess with new names.

I know that it is forbidden for Catholics to pray TO them, but what is done in theory and practice are to entirely differen things. I’ve met too many Catholics attribute their healing/prayers answered/protection to “La Virgen” or “St. Joseph,” ,etc.

Does anyone have a theory as to why your creator god made the other gods?

Zeno said, To provide humans with an experience of which gods you don’t want to worship. Contrast and Compare, the road to Wisdom.

Supernija said, He did not create them as gods. He allows them to operate with authority over those who wish to remain outside of God’s authority. So, in essence, what I am saying is that they are your rulers.

They prop themselves up as gods because they are decievers. That’s what their leader is most known for, you know.

T14 said, Atheists believing in a world spirit or whatever is fairly absurd. Equally absurd is a Christian who believes this - “70%, including a majority of all major Christian and non-Christian religious groups except Mormons, say “many religions can lead to eternal life.”

Face it, the threat to your system of belief is not the atheist in Harvard square. It is the suburbanite attending a mega-church with a go-cart track. Joel Osteen, not Chris Hitchens, is the face of your faith’s demise.

@”They prop themselves up as gods”

“as gods”?

So those gods aren’t really gods in your book?

superninja said, *sigh* they are gods, little g, as they receive worship.

Chris Black said, @”So these gods aren’t really gods in your book?”

I think this should help….

god:

-not the One True God, Jehovah
-a sentient being that both receives and accepts worship
-worshiped directly or indirectly by human beings (one’s stomach is not a god in the literal sense, as it may indirectly receive worship, but it is not sentient and supernatural, nor can it accept worship)
-has limited supernatural power
-known to be violent, bloodthirsty, deceitful, murderous, sexually depraved, and/or downright evil by those that worship them; this is not to say that so-called “benevolent” deities are not gods (as they are happily redirecting worship from Jehovah onto themselves), only that they are not as blatantly obvious about their demonic nature
-may directly or indirectly receive sacrifices (ex: a suicide bomber would be a sacrifice to Allah; and abortion would be a sacrifice to Moloch)
-may or may not assume the identity of another known and worshiped deity (it is debatable as to whether or not Moloch and Allah are the same being, although it seems most likely that Allah is Lucifer)

Ex: Satan, Moloch, Baal, Zeus, Allah, the Norse gods, the Aztec and Mayan gods, the Hindu gods.

[Note: Demons, not angels, are gods. Angels would not want to be called gods because 1) only Jehovah is worthy of worship, 2) they would not accept worship, and 3) to be worshiped as a god would misdirect worship away from Jehovah. Though they have supernatural power, this alone is not enough to fit the bill of a ‘god’, as a god must also receive AND accept worship.]

Any problems?

….So a god is a supernatural agent who is dependent on the existence of Humans and their act of giving sinful worship. Which implies that the gods require Human belief for their existence. It’s much clearer now. But I’m still puzzled why the Creator god would chose to make such monsters, He sounds like a tricky devil to me.

That smart guy, Carl Zimmer, has written an article on those smart molluscs, the octopus. I like that his conclusion is that we can’t really judge their intelligence, because it is different than our own.

That’s the same answer I give to questions about the existence of intelligent life in the universe. I suspect that it’s there (but rarer than most astronomers seem to think — intelligence is an extremely uncommon adaptive strategy here on Earth, as is probably likewise elsewhere), but that it will be radically different in intent and action than our own, as different as we are from a squid, or a dolphin, or an elephant, to name a few forms that have evolved large brains. Often, the question of alien intelligence is more like, “Are there people like us out there?”, and I think the answer to that one is clearly no, almost certainly not. There are too many alternative pathways.

I think that life is far rarer than most science enthusiasts assume. I know the numbers are big and there most certainly are many planets with water and the proper temperatures in this enormous universe. But the actual conditions that are required for replication to begin is in my guess very, very rare. However, once replication does begin convergence seems highly probable. Heads with sight, sound and smell detectors are going to be vital in any environment. Legs for locomotion and arms with hands are essential for environment manipulation. We’re so close in abstract terms to all the vertebrate mammals. Nearly identical when you use relativity as a judgment.

I also believe in an infinitely cycling universe because of the conservation of energy. Therefor, I think that life emerging from non life is inevitable when limited time isn’t a consideration. So even though I’m an atheist and don’t give any credence to personal reincarnation, I believe that there are indeed “people like us” out there, a “divine” natural design. The real question is when.

Stephen Wells said, Why would a head be vital to the gas giant airbags of zebulon-B, whose senses operate at radio wavelengths and whose intellect is dispersed among the swarm? Or to the megaclams of Gwflhrx, whose perimeter is studded with a thousand eyes and whose nerve ganglia are safely protected deep within their mighty shells?

J said, Sorry PZ, but that’s way too broad to actually mean anything substantial. What are you talking about when you say “people”? Bipedal and two-eyed, with penises and vaginas? Nobody subscribes to that notion of extraterrestrial life.

On the other hand, some traits of human life which are special on Earth (e.g. language) might conceivably have evolved many times in the observable Universe. Maybe they’re what Dan Dennett calls “Good Tricks”, which are prone to being converged upon independently.

Even within the swarm there are individuals and the head is a most efficient way to give the body the ability to navigate. I’ll have to give the megaclams of Gwfhrx more thought but I don’t know how far they would get manipulating their environment. Environment manipulation, I think, is a fair way to judge intelligence. Too much manipulation by the highly intelligent might be a good sign of idiocity.

J said, Sorry PZ, but, “Often, the question of alien intelligence is more like, “Are there people like us out there?”, and I think the answer to that one is clearly no, almost certainly not. There are too many alternative pathways.” [is] way too broad to actually mean anything substantial. What are you talking about when you say “people”? Bipedal and two-eyed, with penises and vaginas? Nobody subscribes to that notion of extraterrestrial life.

On the other hand, some traits of human life which are special on Earth (e.g. language) might conceivably have evolved many times in the observable Universe. Maybe they’re what Dan Dennett calls “Good Tricks”, which are prone to being converged upon independently.

Even within the swarm there are individuals and the head is a most efficient way to give the body the ability to navigate. I’ll have to give the megaclams of Gwfhrx more thought but I don’t know how far they would get manipulating their environment. Environment manipulation, I think, is a fair way to judge intelligence. Too much manipulation by the highly intelligent might be a good sign of idiocity.

@J “Nobody subscribes to that notion of extraterrestrial life.”

I do.

J said, @”I do.”

Only a lunatic would insist that extraterrestrial intelligence has to be two-eyed, bipedal, etc.

I didn’t insist it had to be. I said that I think their is a high probability. Less is more most times. Two eyes are all that’s required for stereoscopic vision. And I would be pleasantly surprised to discover the evolutionary path of a one legged land animal. Hoppidy hop hop.

RamblinDude said, Oh, so many possibilities! I rather hope that the answer to the question “Are there people like us out there?” is “no”. Here we are on the verge of space exploration and all our money is going into warring with each other.

It’s seems probable that we live in a predatory universe, but honestly, I hope there aren’t many other intelligent species out there “like us” or all that smartness will end up blowing up the damn galaxy in the rush to enslave and dominate.

My guess is that the Galactic Federation has quarantined us because the other worlds have no desire to be subjected to french fries and Jesus.

There is something fascinating, though, about the fact that in our little corner of a big, impersonal universe, we have the capacity to imagine other kinds of intelligence. Weird.

Perhaps the ultimate demise of every highly intelligent species isn’t war but their united world particle physics research gone horribly wrong.

Alex said, I have heard it more than once that other beings would be totally different. I don’t understand that. Sure, there are many pathways, but the physics and chemistry that are required for human (or like and kind) level of development are very fine filters. In my view, it almost forces convergence. Now I’m not saying that primates are the only functions capable of intelligence. Nature’s first try on Earth were dinosaurs. That experiment ended prematurely. Furthermore, Earth offers a huge assortment of environments. Just about every extreme imaginable. We’re just now able to contemplate similar environs on other worlds - mostly moons around the Jovians. And yet with all that diversity we only find creatures like us to support intelligence. Bipedalism is not random, nor is 5 point symmetry. Sure there are other types of symmetry, but symmetry is still significant and apparently necessary for many things.

I guess I haven’t come across a convincing argument as to how or why intelligent life would look so much different than what we already experience. And I don’t mean to argue from ignorance. I am open to all information. If anyone can offer information other than just anecdotal assumptions that life must look so different I would appreciate it. I find it fascinating.

Chris Crawford said, Let me present a REALLY weird line of thinking:

Assume that there exists a species with enough intelligence to create technology. It will then create technology to alter its environment in such a manner as to improve its living conditions (on earth, for example, homo sapiens came up with agriculture as a means of altering its environment to improve its living conditions.) Each improvement in its living conditions will increase the population of that species, which will in turn permit greater specialization of effort. That greater specialization of effort will permit faster development of new technologies that further improve the environment. Therefore, you get a virtuous circle in which the population grows at an accelerating rate, creating technology that expands at an accelerating rate. However, as its environment-altering technologies expand in scope and complexity, the second-order consequences of these environment-altering technologies must increase in complexity even faster than the technology itself changes (because the technologies are getting bigger in scope AND interacting with each other). The rate of change of the second-order is therefore greater than the rate of change of the population. Accordingly, at some point the species will find itself altering its environment at a rate faster than it can adapt to the changes. After only a short period of this situation, the species must find itself in a situation in which it is no longer adapted to its environment — and we all know what happens to a species whose environment changes in such a way that it is no longer adapted to that environment.

To put it another way, let’s think in terms of evolutionary time scales. Do you really think that earth 10 million years from now will still have homo sapiens?

It truly would be ironic if the condom is what brings salvation to humankind.

RamblinDude said, Do youthink that earth 10 million years from now will still have homo sapiens?

No. With our advances in bio-genetics and such, we will eventually be able to control our own evolution and adopt whatever suit of flesh strikes our fancy. Primate bipedalism will be so blasé.

Except for the appendix, I think we’re perfect. Blazé Bourgeoisie.

J said, @”I didn’t insist it had to be. I said that I think their is a high probability. Less is more most times. Two eyes are all that’s required for stereoscopic vision. And I would be pleasantly surprised to discover the evolutionary path of a one legged land animal. Hoppidy hop hop.”And do you think there’s also “high probability” that they would have anything resembling a penis and vagina? There’s no reason you should be so confident. As best, it’s an interesting guess.

Yes there is a reason I think that a penis and vagina is likely. When a species reproduces sexually the goal is to get a seed into an internal egg. The penis is really nothing more than a stick prob. And the vagina is a glorified hole. I can even intelligently guess at reasons why the the nuts and clitoris are highly probable in completely separate evolutionary chains.

I have no doubts about the validity of evolution. The molecular evidence and witnessed micro evolution and mutation is quite sufficient. There’s no god planting junk DNA or burying the fossils to deceive us. But seeing as though radio carbon dating is only functional up to 60K years and the fact that only a tiny fraction of all the life that has existed on earth will be found in a fossil form means that the history of our evolution will always have a certain level of speculation involved. But from what I’ve read about the subject, a great deal of the “facts” of evolutionary history is already intelligent guessing.

Brownian said, @”seeing as though radio carbon dating is only functional up to 60K”

That’s why God invented lutetium-hafnium dating, potassium-argon dating, rhenium-osmium dating, rubidium-strontium dating, samarium-neodymium dating, uranium-lead dating, uranium-protactinium dating, uranium-thorium dating, paleomagnetic dating, fission track dating, and thermoluminescence, among other techniques.

Tulse said, @”there is a reason I think that a penis and vagina is likely. When a species reproduces sexually the goal is to get a seed into an internal egg.”

Many fish and plants use external fertilization (e.g., female salmon lay eggs, then male salmon swim over them secreting sperm). And even in species where that is “the goal”, you don’t always get penises (the males of some species, such as spiders, insert their sperm via manipulators that are separate from the sperm producing organ). It’s also the case that even when eggs may be held internally for development, they are not held internally via a vagina (think of all the animals that brood their young in pouches, or where the males brood the young in their mouths).

And all this presumes that alien life will involve “sexual reproduction”, at least in a manner that we know it. (There may be other mechanisms used to promote genetic shuffling, for example — bacteria don’t have sex, yet readily incorporate foreign genetic material.)

J said, @”Yes there is a reason I think that a penis and vagina is likely. When a species reproduces sexually the goal is to get a seed into an internal egg. The penis is really nothing more than a stick prob. And the vagina is a glorified hole. I can even intelligently guess at reasons why the the nuts and clitoris are highly probable in completely separate evolutionary chains.”

Reminds me of a Sherlock Holmes novel. You’re indulging in pure speculation and asserting unwarranted confidence in your conclusions.

I could easily contest your notion that a “stick probe” is a Good Trick. Maybe, for instance, genetic information is on Planet X fired over moderate distances. (I accept that there are fairly good reasons for supposing they’d be sexually reproducing.)

Try as you might, you can’t prove using this a posteriori method that various physical properties of humans were inevitable. I have no problem with your taking an interesting, informed guess. But it’s absurd to say, “Two eyes, two legs, and a penis or vagina are all highly probable features in any intelligent organism.”

J said, Many fish and plants use external fertilization (e.g., female salmon lay eggs, then male salmon swim over them secreting sperm).
Yes, exactly. And bear in mind that evolution on Earth has been subject to all sorts of constraints which mightn’t be in place on an alien planet. There could be all sorts of novel, effective, non-Earthly ways of transmitting genetic information.

amphiox said, I think some kind of stereoscopic sense organ(s), some organ for manipulating the environment, and some means of communicating with others of its kind, would be highly likely in any intelligent and technologically capable lifeform.

How similar/analogous these things on an alien would be to our human equivalents (eyes, hands, language, etc) is an open question. It’s difficult to make meaningful hypotheses when you have a sample set of one.

Quiet Desperation said, Primate bipedalism will be so blasé.

No, they will be retro, and hugely popular once a century or so.

Egaeus said, I’d say that while intelligent life may be very different from us, there would likely be some similarities between us and an intelligent organism capable of developing technology:”Breathing” gases: A liquid environment is not amenable to fire. Fire is necessary for pretty much all of our technology, and it’s difficult to imagine a case where technology could arise without it.

The “5 senses”: It seems that the ability to develop technology would rely on the ability to perceive the environment. Most of these would seem to be the minimum necessary to do this, though taste/smell would be the most variable, and other means to do this, such as say electromagnetic communication instead of hearing, would seem unlikely.

At least 2 “hands”: The ability to manipulate objects would seem to be necessary for developing technology.

Without those, it would seem that developing advanced intelligence on par with humans would not provide an evolutionary advantage. Of course, I am subject to my biases, but I see no reason that natural selection would work differently anywhere else.

@”Reminds me of a Sherlock Holmes novel. You’re indulging in pure speculation and asserting unwarranted confidence in your conclusions.”

That sounds to me like what a lot of evolution history is. Without being able to compare the genome of ancient animals aren’t we left with a lot of unwarranted confidence in many conclusions?

I obviously don’t completely grasp the method of dating fossils. And I did know that there were other radioactive decay methods but I assumed that carbon was the only one that’s used to date animals because that’s the end of the carbon 14 and 12 equilibrium exchange ratio.

At any rate, I’m kind of shocked at the almost hostile response I’ve received from speculating that the human form is one of great natural and eternal significance. What if rephrased it so as to say that we follow a significant template? Would that be better;)? You people make me feel like a fundie. A radical Naturalist, that’s cool.

I also think aborting post 7 week fetuses is murder and I even have reasons for that. I better put on my bloggetproof vest.

J said, @”[Pure speculation] sounds to me like what a lot of evolution history is. Without being able to compare the genome of ancient animals aren’t we left with a lot of unwarranted confidence in many conclusions?”Much less speculatory than what you’re doing, for plenty of reasons. The genetic machinery of life on other planets may very well be entirely different from what we have on Earth. And while it seems a good bet, it’s nowhere near certain that intelligent life has to be sexually reproducing.

Your educated guesses are intriguing and were fun to read, but I think calling them “very probable” is definitely going to far.

@”Much less speculatory than what you’re doing, for plenty of reasons.”

I’m well aware of that. All of my “evidence” is purely metaphysical. At least evolution has fossils and DNA.

Anyway, perhaps I’m missing something, but how is this relevant?

I know I’m missing something. I don’t know how a rock can be dated. The elements that make the rock can, but doesn’t that only date when the elements that composed the rock were made?

CJO said, How we date rocks, from the USGS:When igneous rocks crystallize, the newly formed minerals contain various amounts of chemical elements, some of which have radioactive isotopes. These isotopes decay within the rocks according to their half-life rates, and by selecting the appropriate minerals (those that contain potassium, for instance) and measuring the relative amounts of parent and daughter isotopes in them, the date at which the rock crystallized can be determined. Most of the large igneous rock masses of the world have been dated in this manner.
Most sedimentary rocks such as sandstone, limestone, and shale are related to the radiometric time scale by bracketing them within time zones that are determined by dating appropriately selected igneous rocks

That’s just a short explanation. Follow that link for specifics, with examples.

Thanks

kcrady said, imagine a race of intellgent, social cephalopods who evolve a way to take in, manipulate, and exchange DNA similar to the way bacteria do. Perhaps initially using DNA molecules the way we use pheremones. At some point, their ability to do this becomes highly sophisticated. They develop a “sense organ” that lets them percieve the shapes of these exchenged molecules, and perhaps also evolve the ability to spread them via retroviruses.In time, they develop a kind of animal husbandry that includes “tasting” the genomes of tamed animal species. Instead of an “Industrial Revolution,” they have a “Genetics Revolution,” in which they discover how to intentionally manipulate the genomes of other species. So, if they want a vehicle, they genetically engineer a fast-swimming fish to incorporate a carrying pouch with a large enough “window” (derived from eye-lens material) for them to see through, and little appedages inside the pouch the cephalopods can manipulate with their arms as controls.

Someday they could develop “jellyfish blimps” to explore the atmosphere and land surface of their world. I imagine getting into space would be more difficult for them than for us. Even so, I can imagine a huge, high-altitude “jellyfish zeppelin” with a large surface area for solar energy collection that uses bioelectricity for propulsion in a manner similar to the mechanism of a Myrabo disk. If it is able to generate enough energy to overcome air resistancce in the upper atmosphere, it could conceivably accelerate gradually until it reached orbit or escape velocity.

Once in space, it could maneuver around the inner solar system, where solar energy is abundant enough to provide power. If the aliens’ mastery of genetics is advanced enough, they might be able to launch diaphenous jellyfish-like ’starwisp’ probes or engineered microbes out into the rest of their solar system and beyond.

None of this seems physically impossible to me. I am not a biologist or physicist, so maybe there’s some limiting factor I’m unaware of.

On the other hand, we humans with our vaunted fire haven’t done so well as space explorers. We sent a few members of our species to the nearest available rock for short visits, then turned the job over to machines. Apart from some magic “antigravity” physics, the economics of space travel will always favor machines over humans. Machines are getting smaller, lighter, and smarter all the time. Astronauts (and the tons of oxygen, water, and food they need to survive) aren’t. As long as you’ve got to throw stuff out of the back of a spaceship to get anywhere, smaller/lighter is better.

My guess is, if we ever see an “alien,” it’ll be a lot more likely to look like V*ger (or maybe a microscopic machine or genegineered bacterium) than like a “bumpy-headed human.”

This thread is like a conversation with the alien creators of Star Trek and Steven Hawking. The producers complain that all the aliens look too humanoid demanding more pizza monster types. Steven counters stating that what we really need to do is grow humans outside of the mother so the brain size isn’t limited to the birth canal.

I admit that I don’t know that much about evolutionary biology. I do understand the basic facts and implications. Random mutations occur in the copying process of DNA. If that mutation is detrimental the individual will have less favorable odds of succeeding in life, which objectively is reproduction. If that mutation is beneficial to the current environment, even in the most insignificant amount, that lineage will have more favorable odds of succeeding. I have no problem letting the abstract parts of my mind witness the development of the eye from pond scum, but I have a difficult time seeing current birds as little dinosaurs. I have relatively high confidence in the professional evolutionary biologists determination that the birds are little saurs. The abstract parts of my mind is also able to see quite easily that the fossil record is never going to give enough physical evidence of where everything came from. But I never needed that, all I needed was the fact of random mutation and statistics.

As an artist, I might not be a master of biology but I am a specialist of design. That’s my job. I take Carbon, TiO2, cadmium, cobalt and others, mix them up on a surface and design images for viewers to enjoy. If you were walking in the desert and came upon one of my paintings you would look at it and intuitively know that there was a designer behind it. That is called a truism. It’s obvious that the desert didn’t weave a canvas, refine pigment and arrange it is such a way as to make an illusion of an island sunset. So, as an expert on design, I thought that I could propose a supplement for the science classes of Louisiana. That is the only “legitimate” argument against evolution so far proposed. Just look at your opposable thumbs. Isn’t it a truism that, that couldn’t have happened, by the awesome power of Natural Selection?

The smartest person on television, Ben Stein, stated that evolution doesn’t explain why the laws of thermodynamics are what they are. I agree with him completely, they certainty do not. However, I think he’s implying that the entity that designed thermodynamics also designed the Bonobo. I’ve studied the design structure of thermodynamics which can be summed up as, ——-. I would like to quote someone now. Arnold Sommerfeld: “Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don’t understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don’t understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn’t bother you any more.” Cheers and this foreign bud is for you. I would, and obviously will, like to incorporate into this paragraph that I think the the +1 of Zeroth law of thermodynamics was realized before the heat sink. I abstract an ancient dude watching a camp fire thinking, “That wood turned into heat, sound, light, gas and dust. But nothing was lost.”

I’m tired of countering the religious with logic and facts. It just seems entirely pointless to say that we, the naturalists, need more reason than, “Duhhhh, don’t you see?”. Therefor, I thought that I would capitalize on duhhh. Duhh is awesome. Duhh is better than a mathematical proof. Duhh is, I think therefor I am. After studying the “design” of the boring laws of established physics and math, 1=1, and the intricacies of the human brain, one brain is more complex than the entire known universe, I have concluded that there could not be one individual designer. I’m sure you may ask how I know that. My answer is duhhh. As a designer myself, I have made everything from complete non representational vomit to photo realistic graphite drawings. But throughout all of my work, no matter how diverse it may be, there is a fingerprint, a signature which reveals who the author was. Ahhh, duhhhh, it’s Robert Sutton’s work. What more Pollock proof do you need?

In conclusion: I would like this work to be included in the supplemental work for young Louisianan scientists. If you look at the design of a rock and the design of an animal part, you must instantly conclude that there were multiple designers. Or the highly improbable possibility that a single designer of everything is currently suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder. However, claiming that the Almighty is suffering from a mental disorder, which might send you strait to hell, is not a good odds option to consider. Thus logically concluding that it’s highly improbable that a supreme being is mentally deficient, we must except that there are a multitude of designers leads us to determine that if any faith is correct it is the polytheists. Will the real Shiva please stand up! Intelligent designers: when Sutton’s mind meets the far right. The mantra is: “Sutton Sutton, he tastes like mutton.”

A Republican chairman for the Senate Transportation Committee said, “I didn’t see a constitutional problem with it… We have other plates with religious symbols on them and phrases like ‘In God We Trust.’ Just because it’s a cross, some very closed-minded people don’t believe it should be on a plate.” Burn them at the stake, they don’t believe!

In South Carolina there are around 200 specialty plates which endorse everything from Square Dancing to the Homophobic Boy Scouts of Gaymerica. The state charges up to $70 dollars for the plates, with the profit benefiting the sponsor. Since no “organization” is sponsoring the Christian plate, the State plans on placing only a surcharge of $5 to counter the cost of making it.

New Orleans is one of the most religious cities in the Nation. I drive in a sea of metallic Jesus fish and see more rosaries dangling from the rear view than any person with a repugnance to religion should have to endure. Jesus fish and crosses have even started showing up on business signs. As if anyone needs any more of a reminder of how many people believe, than the gazillion churches saturating the city.

But it’s far better to live in a world were people are free to express how willing they are to be indoctrinated, worship magic books, and believe in ancient super heroes than live in an oppressive state. I’m not going to not go to your business if you believe in Jebus. I’m going to go to the company with the best price and service. That’s the American way… er, I mean that’s the intelligent way, so maybe not exclusively American.

Why do these freaks need Jesus on their license plate? For that matter, why do people want to have Square dancing on their license plate? The issue is pretty sAmpl to me. A license plate is the property of the State. Consumers may buy it from the government, but it remains the State’s domain. It’s like a social security number for your car. There shouldn’t be anything but numbers, letters and perhaps a symbol of the State on a license plate. I hope the Christians ruin it for everyone, even the “Surfrider Foundation”. Then Americans will have to change their way of life and live with bumper stickers promoting their thing.

After g00gling “nothing is impossible” for a quick briefing on the search returns, I ran into god. I wasn’t planing on writing about god but it seems as though his omnipresence is hard to escape. Nothing is impossible with god with quotes, returns 60 thousand results. I watched the first video which was from Facing the Giants, a Christian promotional movie who’s plot follows a boring but classic underdog story about American football. It earned an impressive 10 million for the minuscule budget is was made with. I believe the budget was due to the volunteer cast and the return must of been an act of god’s money managers. I watched the you-tube clip as the coach worked on convincing his team that it was god who helped them kick the giants asses because of all the petitioning they made to the lord. And that got me thinking about Reverend Hagee’s remarks about god sending Katrina to New Orleans because of the gay pride parade.

A few posts back I wrote, “god could not make a law that he could not brake.”, which is a refined version of the “could god make a mountain that he could not move?” question. It begs the argument about god as he is defined: the all powerful, all knowing, all loving creator of everything. I can completely understand why believers in god would think that he works through us and nature. There is a staggering amount of strange and mysterious things that happen down here on our little blue planet. And people who believe in an interactive god would naturally use their derivative skills to interpret the will of god. It’s frightening to watch Hagee as he condemns New Orleans, not directly for the fairly high percentage of homosexuals we have, but for the huge number of Christians that “allow” them to be here.

That got me thinking about a world in where god actually does work his intent. I’ve decided that if there is a god he has got to be a trickster. His personality is more akin to the definition of the devil. And I’m not only referring to “bad” things that happen in life. If we are to assume that we can derive gods will from acts on earth, than those acts should at least be somewhat clear. Otherwise he’s not communicating at all, he’s playing the fool. Hagee thinks that Hurricane Katrina was sent here on the day of the Gay pride parade as a sign that he disapproves of homosexuality. A completely rational stance for a person who derives there reason from nonsense. I think that the hurricane came because of warm gulf water and winds from western Africa.

The Christian writer Vox Populi recently asked atheists why they don’t believe in god. From his vast network of blogfoolafans he ascertained the following reasons: Argument from: Sub-optimal design, insufficient evidence, lack of scientific evidence, failure to be impressed by religion, inability to believe, unfamiliarity, material utility, post-trauma disorder, accident of circumstance, unconvincing arguments.

Apparently non of these anti-arguments are convincing to him. But to be fair he most likely doesn’t believe that hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans to punish the homosexuals. But why not? Why wouldn’t a living god punish those who he doesn’t like. Isn’t that why Jesus pleaded against his skillful persecuters, “They know not what they do”. Or is god so busy that he would rather let the devil do the work for him in the after world? That doesn’t sound like an all powerful or guiding god at all. This world would be much different if god were acting on it and that’s evidence based reason to believe that god does not exist or that he’s a trickster who likes fucking with our heads. Perhaps god doesn’t like the less intelligent because he makes his intent so difficult to deduct and his managers are trained to keep the flock from skeptical thought. If we lived in a world were he sent Hurricanes to San Fransisco and earth quakes to New Orleans when too many people get their gay on, I think far less people would find it impossible to have faith.

Nothing must be god’s MOA.

Hagee said, “All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the Day of Judgment, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.”

The mass’s audio/video was creepy but the excellent quality of the air conditioning ruined the mode a bit. I would have preferred my dead language and blood talk to be accompanied with at least a little bit of Caribbean humidity. The priest said that in the Pope’s “Catholic home country of Germany” the Corpus Christi celebration was accompanied by the military, soldiers genuflecting and a 101 gun salute to the lord and savior. I don’t want to presume that Hitler used the feast known as the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ for his advantage, but I bet the probability is fairly high. He used whatever he could, including the hate the belief in divine riotousness can produce.

How dare Hagee associate Catholics with the Democracy of Germany during Dein Reich komme; and identify the True Church as the Great Whore of Babylon as found in his book “From Daniel to Doomsday”, which connected the Ancient Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church: “The evidence would point to Rome…It was Rome where Nero wrapped Christians in oily rags and hung them on lampposts, setting them ablaze to light his gardens. It was Rome that orchestrated the Crusades where Jews were slaughtered…It was Rome that orchestrated the Inquisitions throughout the known world where “heretics” were burned at the stake or pulled in half on torture racks because they were not Roman Catholic.” (pp. 10-11)

During the service I discovered that it was two boys first communion. I haven’t witnessed one of those since my own, 20 years ago. I must say that I was rather shocked at how the priest applied group pressure to the two boys. He said to them that if they eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, also know as bread and wine, that they would be given gifts far greater than any amount of gold or silver. In front of the entire church he pointed them out and asked if they promised to pursue a life in Christ. It sickened me to see a grown men manipulate young boys with the support of 8 altermen and a full congregation.

There must be something in the air.

The Sunday paper’s cover story revolves around twenty-three year old Katie Tutwiler. She was born in New Iberia and was “aggressively courted” by Jews in New Orleans to move here and pump up the community. She was given 1,000 dollars and a free membership to the private pool in uptown. There she’ll be meeting other young Jews.

Katie is only “nominally” Jewish but luckily she has the purity of blood. Her father was Episcopalian and mother a “nonobservant” Jew. She is shopping for a religious identity and describes herself as a religion “seeker”. She’s “in play”. Thus she qualifies for the “newcomers program”. That program has devoted $180K to recruit new Jews to New Orleans. The newcomers program is only one of the initiatives Jews here are executing. The “strategic plan” is a $24 million blueprint to inflate the Klan by getting some babies made.

Due to her sweet blood, the lucky lady is also eligible for Birthright, a free vacation to Israel, funded by the Israelis. The program promotes strong racial identity with this bullshit insanity. Her religious shopping does include the occasional Catholic Mass but I have high confidence that she’ll chose bagels and locks over vanilla wafers.

“The area’s Jewish leaders agree that the 35 percent or so of displaced New Orleans Jews include some of the community’s elder elite, including many of its most reliable donors. But sociologist Weil’s research found a good deal of residual prosperity: Working from income disclosures from 60 percent of 800 respondents to his survey, Weil estimated a mean family income of $180K annually” - The Times Picayune.

I was shot from the Bunker with: “What do I think about Hagee withdrawing his endorsement of John and McCain denouncing John. Even though McCain fought for his endorsement in March; you will recall that Huckabee was also in the race at the time… Huckabee also fought for the endorsement but McCain won”

Unfortunately I didn’t remember who Huckabee was. I’m bad with names and have uncontrollable brain freezes when idiots run for office. Huckabee has stated in the past, “Politics are totally directed by worldview. That’s why when people say, ‘We ought to separate politics from religion,’ I say to separate the two is absolutely impossible”. Huckabee believes in biblical inerrancy, which is that the bible in its original form is totally without error. Obviously I have a permafrost problem.

John Hagee recently said of McCain’s denouncement, “I’m tired of these baseless attacks of fear; they have become a distraction in what should be a debate about important issues. I have therefore decided to withdrawal my endorsement of senator McCain and remove myself from any active role in the 2008 campaign.” But John stated that he had renounced, repudiated, Hagee’s comments and already rejected the endorsement. I’m still a little confused about the egg. In the past Hagee has said some controversial things, such as the holocaust’s point was to drive the Jews to Palestine and Catholicism is the great Ho. Who’s on first is still a mystery to those who care about Chickens.

What do I think about the endorsements/dénouements? I think presidential candidates should pass notes to the people they seek approval from. On that note should be the words “Do you like me, check yes or no.” Once the box is checked there’s no going back, the two are either enemies or officially BFF.

Voting because of an endorsement, which works or they wouldn’t do it, means that the voter doesn’t trust their own judgment about the candidate but trust the endorser’s judgment. Religious endorsements are so powerful because in the church people put blind faith in the “book of ultimate truth” and the interpreter of it. After all, if a person is going to trust a pastor to keep them from the fiery pits of eternal torture, a factless and baseless attack of fear, wouldn’t the sheeple trust the pastors choice for president? Celebrity endorsements slam me to the floor. Why anyone would care who an actor, a person trained in creating deception, votes for, is beyond my comprehension.

I actually think that Huckabee’s statement about the impossibility of separating government from religion is a far more of an outlandish statement than the realist ate prize the original Abrahamites got via the holocaust or the truth about the Catholic Church being the Biggest of Big Daddy’s pimps. Hagee obviously just doesn’t understand that Cui bono is not proof of anything but he does seem to understand how to use Protestant fear of Catholicism to fill pews and his pockets.

The blog bunker said, “This plays into the larger point of what this conversation was supposed to be, in that, should a candidates faith really matter… Why has religion exploded in the 08 elections?”

A person’s faith should matter because of what that faith will cause a person to do. Most American Christians have no problem understanding why a “radical” Muslim’s beliefs should matter, if that Man were to run for president. But Christians see their faith as important for politicians because they believe that Jesus invented the golden rule. Thus to be a good person you must be a least a “little” Christian. The golden rule existed long before Jesus stepped onto the stage and actually existed in a far more refined passive form from Confucius, “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others”

True followers of Christ should not vote, leaving those things to the heathens. And take god off of our means of trade. Jesus said, “Whose head is on this fucking coin?” The people who wouldn’t think for themselves answered, “The Imperadør’s.” Then Jesus said, “That’s right, gods omnipresence does not extend to metal. Give therefore to the Imperadør the things that are the Imperadør’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” -Matthew 22. Perhaps I’m confused; maybe Jesus was telling his flock to vote for atheists, god’s will doesn’t need votes.

If everyone were non pagans we’d all wear magic cloths made of daisies and trade in pebbles. We would live in beautiful secular anarchy with magic stores full of free shit. Everyone would have a food replicator from the Starship Enterprise. Jesus said, “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them… “And why do you [even] worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ or ‘who should we vote for’ for the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself.” -Matthew 6

I wish I would have had a little breifing befor the interview.

Comments from The Tome of Communism
“It’s their world” Video of post K, posted by Lord Omar

Blogger Woozie said…
This is a classist, perhaps geopolitical, problem. Not a racial one. Broke white people elsewhere on the gulf coast, especially in Mississippi, got a whole bunch of nothing too. That’s a story you don’t hear.

I know and appreciate greatly they didn’t do this in the video, but way too many people make the post Katrina situation a racial problem when it simply is not. Great video.

Blogger Lord Omar said…
Certainly explains taking pot shots at rescue helicopters.

Blogger Woozie said…
Who took pot shots at rescue helicopters?

Blogger leslie said…
Everything in the United States is racial.

Rest assured, it will never happen again. The meditation gardens will keep the water at bay (LOL!!!!) better than any damn levees.

Blogger Lord Omar said…
Who took pot shots at helicopters? I thought you watched the video. Christ, your retention is worse than mine.

Blogger Woozie said…
In my short time here I haven’t seen it.

I remember the guy talking about helicopters and boats shooting over to St. Bernard’s Parish and I think he said “shooting” once before but I didn’t think at the time he was talking about firearms shooting.

Blogger Imperadør Hasemörder said…
Propaganda.

Mixing the issues of our Federal disaster response, the war in Iraq, illegal workers, the current reality of the regular job market and rebuilding before levee #5 is in place panders to the emotions.

The response was reprehensible for the world’s SuperNation. Not because not enough people were being picked up off of roofs, but because it would have been so easy to drop water, heat shelter and food to the huge clusters of people.

The war in Iraq is, was and will be retarded.

The government has no business in the job market. They do have a responsibility to make sure employers are legitimate and insured. But I know them Mexicans are paying rent (even if they live like coocoroachas) which contributes to property tax and they pay sales tax both of which go strait to the city. I wonder why our chocolate mayor wasn’t mentioned?

I just watched a Nation Geographic movie about keeping people safe at the bottom of active volcanoes… Ahhh ahh… whatever.

New Orleans will never be the same and that’s a good thing. We had concentrated poverty which bread a generation of welfare state dependent, ignorance and crime ridden neighborhoods which the police couldn’t step foot in without being shot. Now our economy is primarily based around tourism and service. I lived in Key West 10 years ago and couldn’t find an apartment under $850. That’s the reality. I lived in paradise and didn’t get paid shit. I moved to were the work paid better. If enough talent rejects the level of pay/work, pay will increase.

The true tragedy of the day is not the thousands of families that are now living in better situations spread over the country adding to the Jambalaya melting pot. The tragedy is the jump in property tax of the homes that were built above lake level which is squeezing out the middle class.

“Certainly explains taking pot shots at rescue helicopters.”

Nothing explains taking shots at rescue helicopters. - IMHO

Blogger Woozie said…
*cucarachas

And yeah shooting rescuers seems quite counterproductive, especially since “their lives weren’t worth any more or less than ours”. Just makes it more likely the shooter won’t get picked up.

Blogger leslie said…
It’s called “rage” and believing you’ve suddenly been given an opportunity to get away with something you’ve always wanted to do, which is strike out. At anything.

These are people that were prohibited from crossing a bridge to dry land, and people who had guns pointed at them by people supposedly there to help them.

Fear is a strange bird.

If you think of New Orleans as a small-scale United States, it all starts to make sense.

Blogger Lord Omar said…
I am not condoning taking pot shoots at rescue helicopters, however I am recognizing that if certain folks are being passed over for assistance so that the more affluent can be served first, then I can understand where desperate frustration may lead to violence. If a tsunami ravaged the area where I live (a very real possibility given the proper weather conditions) and search and rescue personnel were by-passing rural Overton in attempt to pick up people in the more to-do neighbourhoods of town, there’d be more than a few shots fired in response.

Blogger Imperadør Hasemörder said…
A bridge is dry land. All of I10 is a bridge. The question is why didn’t the Feds, with their gazillion choppers, drop vast quantities of water, food and heat-tarps on the bridges.

How the hell would a victim of a storm know if they were being passed over for others? I’m pretty sure there was some attempted system to the rescues and it didn’t have anything to do with how much money the neighborhoods were worth.

Blogger Woozie said…
Les: Yeah I understand that. My response was the level headed one to O’s comment that was apparently taken out of context by moi and Nero. After living with the woman my mother is I understand emotion trumps rationality in many a situation.

O: Ditto

Nero: They probably didn’t think of it. Or they would have dropped it for more affluent folks first.

Well when the helicopters fly over their neighborhood with no one in them towards another one, and then fly back from the horizon with people in them, the remaining stranded put together two and two.

Blogger leslie said…
The question is why didn’t the Feds, with their gazillion choppers, drop vast quantities of water, food and tarps on the bridges.

And the Mississippi is a toilet and a bed and it magically barfs up diapers and medicine and cooler air?

Blogger Lord Omar said…
@ Robert. Your question would be better asked of the people who say they waited 3 days on roof tops for help. You don’t think the more affluent would have been helped first? That is naive. Sweet, but naive.

Blogger Imperadør Hasemörder said…
There are two Roberts here. Perhaps the naive woozie and his guess that choppers pass people with guns pointed at them having something to do with it is correct.
The point is, it was a massive disaster. Most of the people with means evacuated, therefor it’s safe to assume that everyone in New Orleans after the storm either was a little nutty and didn’t heed the warnings or were poor without transportation.

But to think the Feds have enough helicopters to pick everyone off of their roofs simultaneously is naive. They had to be following some sort of system and I’m sure that meant flying over people. Why that system included dropping people on bridges to dehydrate and roast, just like they were doing on their roofs, is what boggles me.

The Mississippi is a toilet to almost half the country, it’s also New Orleans source of drinking water. Enjoy your next glass of water.
Blogger Raspootin said…
Actually I don’t think the guy in the video was talking about affluent.

St Bernard Parish (Chalmette) is 99% lower income white.

Lower 9th - as you know 99% lower income black.

Do I think the decision on who was rescued first was based on skin tone? I dunno but there sure were a lot of black people stuck at the Superdome and Convention Center.

And at the two above locations there definitely was NO reason whatsoever that medicine, diapers, water and MREs could not have been dropped.

I think the people were held at those locations under false pretense. The areas surrounding both were not flooded and easily accessable to someone leaving or the military getting in.

I still do not understand why the military did not bring these people supplies and let them suffer while the whole world watched.

That IMHO is a disgrace.

Blogger Woozie said…
Even if the pilots saw the guns, I don’t think they would have been too worried about some guy with a .45 bringing down a Blackhawk. On top of that, I sincerely doubt these shootings were widespread.

Truth be told I don’t know what fucked up down there. All I have are suppositions, theories, and talking points. Only the people who fucked up know what fucked up.

Blogger Imperadør Hasemörder said…
The majority of New Orleaniers were black. The overwhelming majority of people living here without means to evacuate were black. No matter how the response happened it would appear to be racists.

St Bernard Parish has a prison and an oil refinery. It also was more in line for storm surge damage. It smelled disgusting after the storm. I wouldn’t be surprised if the rescuers prioritized that area because of elevated risks.

Woozie’s right. Non of us here have enough information to make clear judgments on why things went so wrong. All we know for sure is that for being the most powerful Nation on earth we did aheckofa shitty job keeping our citizens from senseless suffering.

Blogger Woozie said…
But it doesn’t make sense for the response to be racially motivated in New Orleans, but universally terrible elsewhere. By the same token if St. Bernard and the Lower Ninth are of comparable economic status the classist argument doesn’t make much sense either.

Fuck, I want to see the coast guard’s rescue plans.

Blogger leslie said…
Helloooooooooo they new a levee failure was imminent. They did nothing to prevent this from happening. They “flushed the toilet” so to speak and gave a lot of poor black people a one way bus ride out. Homeowners. Taxpayers. People of color. What further information do you need?

When you walk around and see what’s being rebuilt and what isn’t…what neighborhoods are ghost towns and which are thriving…the way things were handled sure feels intentional.

What fucked up was 1) the Army Corp of Engineers 2) George Bush 3) America.

Blogger Raspootin said…
I would like to think that nothing was racially motivated, but I do remember during Hurricane Georges Marc Morial locked a bunch of people in the Superdome and would not let them out until the majority or the white home owners got back in town.

The Hurricane did not hit, and he kept them in there for 3 days…

On a national response level I do not think there was anything racial about it. I jut think that our resources (National Guard) were in Iraq and Homeland Security had no idea how to handle a national disaster. Top that with FEMA being under Home Land Security and you have an unavoidable disaster become a catastrophic event.

Like Leslie says, the whole issue could have been circumvented if The Army Corps of Engineers had done their job properly and also if promised monies from the Federal Government had been used and delivered for the purpose of Coastal Restoration and Levy repair. I am sure that more Highway funds are delegated to Houston each year than what was promised and never delegated to Louisiana over the past 10 years.

All about politics and priorities gone amuck? Yes I think that about sums it up for me.

Blogger Imperadør Hasemörder said...
Did the Corps choose to build half a city under sea level? Are they to blame because I can’t live on the moon? Are people going to blame them when California falls into the Pacific?

The city should have had enough buses to shuttle everyone out of the bowl that couldn’t afford to do so by their own means. And we all know damn well that most of us poor suckers wouldn’t step foot on a bus full of stinky strangers for a 4 day ride of hell, every time we’re ordered to evacuate. But at least that way the blame would be squarely on the people who chose to risk it.

The disaster was our response to the conditions as it presented itself. There was no way to predict the future. Every city should feel a little uneasy about what happened even if they don’t have a mother nature bulls eye painted on their self.

The conspiracy theories about racial cleansing and convenient gentrification are just bullshit. New Orleans is a gem of history, a living museum. It was only a matter of time before it became an expensive place to live. I payed $850 a month 10 years ago to live in a shack in Key West. It was difficult but I never wondered why.

Again what sucks is the middle class in the “thriving” parts of the city who have had their property tax go out of control to make up for the lost taxes of lake bed homes.

Blogger Woozie said…
Did the Corps choose to build half a city under sea level?

It’s always the French who fuck things up

Blogger leslie said…

Blogger Woozie said…
I smell flamewar.

Blogger leslie said…
I just bought a house 2 blocks out of the Quarter, two blocks from the river (that would be a “thriving” area, yes?) and the property taxes are 1/8 of what I pay in New York state.

Really. What the fuck ARE you talking about?

There absolutely was a way to predict toppled levees. They are knee-high for fucksake. And the reality of the aftermath is not a “theory”.

Blogger Imperadør Hasemörder said…
I’ve seen that photo. Why blame Bush? Shouldn’t the blame be on Nagan or Blanko? Why aren’t the people on the busses?

Because Wiggah, Us poor ass folk living in the cracks ain’t gonnah hop on no bus with crack heads.

That’s not true though. I would have got on the bus for Ivan and Katrina. But it seems as though the city failed in some organizational way.

I’ve been watching small business’s drop like flies. I don’t consider that thriving, the neighborhoods are surviving…

I left the city a month before the storm. The Marigney was already turning into Key West, if you get my drift. It was definitely getting out of my price range. Where did you live in NY? The upper east side?

Blogger leslie said…
Because Wiggah, Us poor ass folk living in the cracks ain’t gonnah hop on no bus with crack heads.

That is so offensive on so many levels. Are you the guy on Royal Street who told me I should quickly cross to the other side when I see black men walking towards me?

Yes, that’s it. The city failed in an “organizational” way. Much like your school teachers.

Blogger Woozie said…
I’m fairly sure Robert’s not a racist…

Blogger Imperadør Hasemörder said…
How dare you say that! O_o

Blogger leslie said…
You used the term “thriving”.

I live (not lived) in the Village. I own property upstate.

And no, I don’t get your drift. Is that a gay slur now? You don’t like the house colors? You’re offended that people pick up after their dogs? Corner coffeehouses? What?

I know…you only feel like a REAL artist if you’re pondering your imagined insanity squatting in a dumpy apartment in mid-city and resent people with jobs who choose to (and can afford to) keep their living spaces up?

You are a loathsome fucking creature. Still.

Blogger Woozie said…
Your experience with him is mostly, if not entirely, contained in this thread. Can you really call him a loathsome fucking creature off of that, keeping in mind all of this is an internet argument over something neither of you know the whole truth about?

Blogger leslie said…
I don’t think he’s a racist. I think he’s a moron.

But implying that all poor black people are crackheads is pretty fucking racist.

Blogger Woozie said…
He’s weird, not racist. Trust me.

Blogger leslie said…
My experience with him goes way back to before I knew this blog existed.

And there is no such thing as “truth”. If there was, people wouldn’t argue.

Blogger Imperadør Hasemörder said…
I love people who think I’m a moron. And people thinking I’m a racist makes me chuckle all they way back to mitochondria eve.

Blogger Woozie said…
How is there no such thing as truth?

Blogger Imperadør Hasemörder said…
How do I know you Leslie? I’m dieing to know.

Blogger Lord Omar said…
Heh heh heh

Blogger Raspootin said…
Leslie, I am sorry because I do hate to agree with his lordship, which is lording over all these comments.

But WTF? How long have you lived here? Are you just stupid or naive?

Go to New Orleans metroblog and sign up, you would be perfect! They are death ridden with poor writers.

You are a good writer so just DO it! Why not? You know so much and have opinions that share a common base with these folks. Perhaps you are even one of them, sounds a lot to me like it.

PS I have lived here a Long time and you need to get out of your poor this poor that attitude. What you think, want you want is not is not what it is here, not going to happen. If you can not accept this city for what it is, you have no place in it.

When I moved here in the late 80’s to go to college at Tulane, I was kind of shocked at the Black and White racisms: I came from London and thought I knew so much better. Well reality check from even my black friends said I was wrong: It is here, it is even more prevalent with black on black, but black to white/ white to black also. Sorry to burst your bubble; came down to help out us poor folk did ya? Makes you feel like your life is meaningful? Lovely – but get reality or you will not last past your fifth mortgage payment.

PS Nancy Marshall chose to raise my property taxes 100% guess she is not your assessor. Well, as I walk every day I can tell you by gentrification (oohh is that mean, its racist or just god damn class associative)? I have no idea except she raised the property tax so high without basing said assessment on a failing housing market that is driving people out. There are more homes in my uptown neighborhood than I have ever seen in my life here on sale. Black and White home owners.

Maybe you can get some of your buddies from up North to move down here and make New Orleans a better place with people who really understand property taxes and have a high standard of living. Perhaps you should warn them that they can not send their children to public schools, the roads are shit oh yes and that no corporation not even a fortune 50 let alone 500 wants to invest here, so they may have to take a 50% pay cut, but what is that when compared to just giving one for the team?
Blogger unokhan said…
enough buses

Blogger Woozie said...
They’re commies, they don’t know anything. Don’t you know how things work here in America?

Blogger unokhan said…
the cubans realize the wheel has already been invented, they put it to good use, and don’t spend years wondering acrimoniously why it hasn’t been invented yet. it’s that simple.

Blogger Imperadør Hasemörder said…
I’m willing to bet, that even after all that’s happened, if the city started practicing evacuation on buses for people without cars during hurricane threats, hardly anyone would get on them. I’d be fascinated to see the results.

This is America. Each family deserves a helicopter, with cold drinks, of their own!

Maybe I am “a loathsome fucking creature”

Blogger leslie said…
PS I have lived here a Long time and you need to get out of your poor this poor that attitude. What you think, want you want is not is not what it is here, not going to happen.

Well said. I cannot even begin to conjure a response to that gem.

1) I have no mortgage. I paid cash. What would my not buying the particular load of crap you’re selling have to do with me not making a mortgage payment anyway? And how does one “get reality” exactly?

2)I have no idea what metroblog is and just based on the name, I’m not interested. Thanks, though.

3) Fuck your territorial bullshit. You don’t know me or what motivates my choices. You don’t know where I’m from, where I’ve lived, or what my life experience is.

4)The urban crime statistics you’re spewing are no different there than here. And whatever point you’re attempting to make has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.
And maybe research the NYC public schools situation (or hell, maybe that of the whole USA) while you’re Googling “NYC potholes”. At least you have a hurricane to blame for your crumbled infrastructure.

Accept the city for what it is? What might that be? What you’re going to tell me it is? What it’s been for you? You who doesn’t even understand our system of government or how the electoral college works is going to tell me something I’m too naive and stupid to comprehend?
Thank you.

Your carpetbagger scenario is also off base. My mother was from the south and half of my family lives down there.

My “buddies from up North”? Is the civil war still going on? Do you know how idiotic you sound?

Can you point out my “poor this poor that” attitude? Is it where I said I won’t cross a street based on the skin color of an approaching person? You’re right. That was pretty awful of me. I’ve never had a single problem down there and I’m REALLY fucking white, so go figure. Maybe people who walk around in fear with nervous body language give off something that invites trouble. How’s that? I tend to believe that. But you can have the last laugh if I wind up with a bullet in my head. Fair enough?

PS, your words are incapable of bursting my bubble and my life already has meaning. Furthermore, I’ve no interest in helping you. You are too far gone. TFW, ONE DEAD IN ATTIC, so to speak.

…still looking for the part where you agreed with Omar, btw.

ONE DEAD IN ATTIC

LOL!!!!!

I really hope that didn’t go over your head, but just in case…I’m calling you braindead, see…

funny, right?

Blogger Imperadør Hasemörder said…
Leslie, I’m King, God, Lord and Emperor. Where do I know you from? Is that 1/3 slice of face on your blog yours? I don’t recognize it.

Cash for a house in the Marigney? Nice. Let’s hook up. I’ve been looking for a sugar mamma. You were wrong about me “only feel[ing] like a REAL artist if [I’m] pondering [my] imagined insanity squatting in a dumpy apartment in mid-city” I’m perfectly happy making paintings in a mansion or on