151. Comment #85325 by Estragon on November 5, 2007 at 1:41 pm

People I love you an all, but I know when the train's leaving the station. In fact I'm writing my own flea book:

Recasting the Spell: Why Dennett is Phenomenally Unnatural.


watch this space . . .

Other Comments by Estragon

152. Comment #85344 by Mr DArcy on November 5, 2007 at 2:14 pm

I'm all in favour of the fleadom of expression. The more these parasites commit themselves, the more material is exposed to "DEUSICIDE"! the wonder cleaner of the mind. If not satisfied, we guarantee your money back.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

153. Comment #85345 by windweaver on November 5, 2007 at 2:14 pm

I sent Tina Beattie this article:
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php
and asked her how she could reconcile her feminist ideals with belief in Christianity. Here is her response:


Thank you for taking the trouble to contact me and for forwarding this website to me. I think it's important to recognise that feminism is a very broad term with many different interpretations - as indeed is Christianity. Of course I don't think it's possible to reconcile all forms of feminism with Christianity, but it's my faith in the doctrines of creation, incarnation and redemption which first encouraged me to explore some of the arguments and insights of feminism, and these continue to help me in my own reflections on what it means to be a human made in the image of God. But I also think it's important to challenge the kind of ill-informed polemics which inform feminisms such as that represented in the link you sent me, and I do not deny that some feminists are irrationally hostile to all forms of religion. In fact, I'm going on Woman's Hour this week to debate with a feminist who says that women cannot coherently remain within religious traditions.

I wouldn't accept an argument from either feminists or Christians that the two are irreconcilably opposed to one another. Much of my work to date has represented a sustained struggle to create a space of informed dialogue between the two.

With all best wishes,
Tina.

Other Comments by windweaver

154. Comment #85347 by BaronOchs on November 5, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Corylus enjoy your cakes, and I look forward to your response to the book, with full reference to its relevance within a neo-nietszchean post-paradigm!

:-)

Other Comments by BaronOchs

155. Comment #85350 by Diacanu on November 5, 2007 at 2:25 pm

I think it's important to recognise that feminism is a very broad term with many different interpretations - as indeed is Christianity.

Ah, so she either goes with the definition of feminism that doesn't mean equal rights of women, or she goes with the definition of christianity that doesn't say women are second class, or she makes up an imaginary version that's a slippery grey streak in-between that allows her to jump back and forth between the conflicting thought trains.

In other words, she bullshits herself.

Figured as much.

Other Comments by Diacanu

156. Comment #85366 by smithyboy on November 5, 2007 at 3:11 pm

I appreciate there will be good reason for banning Calvin/Wee Flea, but ideally it would be best for everybody to be allowed to have their say. So can somebody tell me what trolling is? (Sorry if this has been covered before, but I'm pretty new to the site (which I think is great, by the way)).

Calvin/Wee Flea: (if you are still there) you obviously are intelligent and like to follow through the logic of what you believe. Unfortunately the logic always goes round in a circle and you have to take at least one leap of faith to make the whole edifice work. My guess is you have realised that and you justify your leap of faith (partly at least) by asserting everybody else, even the atheists, take their own leaps also. Trouble is, the edifice you believe in doesn't make sense on its own terms (the god of love hates homosexuals etc) and doesn't tie up with things you know (or suspect) to be true from other sources (that all living creatures came about by evolution, etc). I would encourage you to try stepping outside of the edifice for a while and setting the intellect free. I did, and life has been much better ever since. You'll also find you were wrong and atheism does not require a leap of faith of the kind required by religion.

Other Comments by smithyboy

157. Comment #85367 by Dr Benway on November 5, 2007 at 3:14 pm

phil rimmer: But, Dammit, Dr B, how are we newbies ever going to learn to hunt if the prey don't come near us? We're big boys...and girls, and we've got our mates round us.....

Oh I'm sure you'll get your chance to argue with Robinson, either as himself or a sock puppet. Check out his web site if you can't wait. He will enjoy the attention from a Dawkins token - particularly if he can imagine Dawkins reacting in some manner to your dialog.

Maybe he's just done awful things I haven't seen. I'll shut up.

Robinson is a slow, insidious awful rather than an obvious awful. Like bad acting. Or cheese in a can. Or polyester suits. Slow toxins don't kill quickly. But this isn't necessarily a plus.

http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/076791581X

Other Comments by Dr Benway

158. Comment #85381 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 4:15 pm

There's cheese in a can!!!

Sick, sick, sick world.

I'll console myself with the Sociopath Next Door.

'night

Other Comments by phil rimmer

159. Comment #85404 by Dr Benway on November 5, 2007 at 6:40 pm

Evidence-based opinion: 158 of you don't have one.

Eh? This isn't a thread about David Rubinstein, the notorious Dawkins stalker, aka the wee flea?

Do forgive please.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

160. Comment #85433 by monkey2 on November 5, 2007 at 9:10 pm

M_Roche

Calm down it's only a commercial. The book isn't launched until tomorrow is it. All publicity is good publicity. The more she sells the bigger your present will be at Christmas. If sales are bad you might find a copy wrapped up for you under the tree.
Once you've read it and informed your mother-not-yet-in-law of what is wrong with it over boxing day turkey leftovers, perhaps you could let us know.

I had to laugh at your "twilight reason" piece - 158 comments on a book no-one can possibly have read. If you had read all the thread you would know that Dr. Benway's back and the Wea Flea has been banned, again! We now know who the famous atheists are on the front cover. We've read an e-mail from your mother-not-yet-in-law on the subject of feminism and Catholicism and... oh read it yourself

Now what were you saying about the 158 commenters

Not reviewing the evidence. No critical analysis. No informed argument. The worst kind of specious judgement. Textbook example of prejudicial opinion. The 158 don't have an evidence-based opinion and finally......

No one likes a hypocrite.

Actually I like you because you tell your mother-not-yet-in-law what is wrong with her books.

Other Comments by monkey2

161. Comment #85440 by kevin_2050 on November 5, 2007 at 10:24 pm

That's a nice rendering of Professor Dawkins as Jesus. His expression is mild, and the halo most becoming. That monkey on his shoulder is a dead ringer for the Holy Spirit: just the way Leonardo would have painted it if he'd dared!

Other Comments by kevin_2050

162. Comment #85441 by windweaver on November 5, 2007 at 10:25 pm

There absolutely is a "twilight of reason" when there are 158 comments on a book no-one can possibly have read, as it isn't launched until tomorrow.

M_Roche, I'm flabbergasted by your comment(assuming this isn't some kind of joke). I've just re-read the entire thread and almost no-one has passed comment on Tina's book. Many of the 158 comments are just playful banter.

Other Comments by windweaver

163. Comment #85443 by jefferson on November 5, 2007 at 10:38 pm

LOL fleas. That was funny.

Other Comments by jefferson

164. Comment #85479 by BaronOchs on November 6, 2007 at 1:50 am

M_Roche I read her review of Root of all Evil and was not impressed. I did dig this up when this thread was posted but I got bored:

http://www.womenpriests.org/body/beattie3.asp

Other Comments by BaronOchs

165. Comment #85486 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 2:21 am

There absolutely is a "twilight of reason" when there are 158 comments on a book no-one can possibly have read, as it isn't launched until tomorrow.

As for me, I was just providing a poor review of the title. If I read it correctly, it is associating an attack on religion with a "twilight of reason". Even this is pretty strange, considering the following quote from Martin Luther:

"Vernunft ... ist die höchste Hur, die der Teufel hat."

Roughly: "[reason] is the Devil's greatest whore"

It is richly ironic to consider attacks on religion to be a threat to reason.

Whatever the content, it seems that Beattie has a habit of writing books with (unintentionally?) ironic titles, such as "New Catholic Feminism: Theology and Theory".

Other Comments by steve99

166. Comment #85501 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 6, 2007 at 3:09 am

Thanks Epeeist, Steve99, Phil Rimmer, and Timnea for your comments to my post 92 or #85131. I think the consensus is that there is no good answer to the question on what ethical standards can an atheist appeal to. Now I wonder if it is clear what the implications of this are. After all moral thought plays a huge role in human discourse, and indeed without such standards much of what atheists say about morality is rendered incoherent. For example Dawkins in his debate with Lennox (as well as in TGD) approvingly points out the evolution of the moral Zeitgeist, but actually he lacks the standards on which to base the claim that the moral Zeitgeist has in fact improved. In the same debate he says that if reality as described by atheism is hideous it gives us something to rise above. This sounds fine, but it seems atheism does not offer any standards for deciding which way is up in the first place. Indeed atheism does not even offer grounds for judging that atheist reality is hideous. Any way you look at it atheism renders morality arbitrary, and indeed renders all evaluative or normative thought incoherent.

Now, again, an atheist may claim that that's how reality is, and if we don't like it then too bad. But the point is that atheism's implications render it a much less attractive and indeed a much more dangerous worldview.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

167. Comment #85503 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 6, 2007 at 3:17 am

Cowalker (post 133 or #85237):

I don't disagree with anything in particular you write, but it seems to me you misunderstood the question in my post 92 or #85131. In your post you describe how moral behavior and moral beliefs have evolved through time; but the question is on what grounds can an atheist judge that that change was positive. What standards can an atheist appeal to for making that judgment?

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

168. Comment #85504 by Diacanu on November 6, 2007 at 3:19 am

DG-

You are not a philosopher. You are just some guy with diarrhea of the mouth.

I wish I knew what magic words I had to say to shake you of your egomaniac delusion.

Other Comments by Diacanu

169. Comment #85505 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 3:20 am

Comment #85501 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Any way you look at it atheism renders morality arbitrary, and indeed renders all evaluative or normative thought incoherent.

So tell us whether allowing the mother of a pair of new born twins to die because she refuses blood is coherent, tell us whether valuing a woman as only of the worth of half a man is coherent. Tell us why slavery was proclaimed as god given by the Christians of the antebellum south and is now regarded as beyond the pale is coherent.

Tell us why making assertions time after time after time without any observational evidence is coherent.

Give us some evidence for your "objective morality" and how we would recognise it. Give us some evidence that your idealistic theism provides better (whatever that means) morality than that put forward by the likes of Aristotle or Spinoza.

Other Comments by epeeist

170. Comment #85509 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 3:27 am

Comment #85504 by Diacanu

DG-

You are not a philosopher. You are just some guy with diarrhea of the mouth.

Diacanu - we get the occasional theist on the site such as Mark Taunton and Paul Emercz (sp?) and possibly ADH. While we may think they are mistaken they nevertheless can argue their position cogently.

We get others such as devolved, Bizarro Dawkins and revcort who, to be blunt about it, are nutjobs.

DG crosses two camps, he is obviously reasonably educated but is as closed minded as the second set. He uses different tactics though, while the likes of devolved drop a post then cut and run DG just keeps on posting. And as steve99 has said, he has a reset button which just starts him at the same point over and over again.

Other Comments by epeeist

171. Comment #85510 by Quetzalcoatl on November 6, 2007 at 3:29 am

Dianelos-

But the point is that atheism's implications render it a much less attractive and indeed a much more dangerous worldview

So what if it SEEMS less attractive? That doesn't mean we should act as if it's not true. I'm sure every atheist finds the IDEA of a loving creator God and a blissful afterlife at least slightly attractive. But that doesn't mean it's true, nor that we think it is.

And dangerous? More so than "interpreting" holy books, the views of which change depending on what sect you belong to? Such "interpretations" cost young mothers their lives, and lead believers to condemn whole groups of people just for being born with a certain sexual proclivity. There is little (if any) objective morality to be found within the Holy Books of the Gods.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

172. Comment #85511 by Diacanu on November 6, 2007 at 3:30 am

epeeist-

Well, it's his reset button which convinces me he's either got some frightening glitch going on, or he's just a time wasting troll.

Either way, I've only been here a couple weeks, and have already tired of having good conversations interrupted by a guy with a jabbering jaw, and the memory of a goldfish.

Other Comments by Diacanu

173. Comment #85513 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 3:38 am

Now, again, an atheist may claim that that's how reality is, and if we don't like it then too bad. But the point is that atheism's implications render it a much less attractive and indeed a much more dangerous worldview.

Pressed the reset button yet again? How tiresome.

It is better to be uncertain about morality and negotiate what is right and wrong with others than to assume divine guidance, when you have no no way to be sure what that guidance is, or how to recognise it (and no, what you feel to be right won't work for this, as it is dangerous if you are a psychopath).

Atheist: "I am not sure, I will talk it over, and come to some kind of agreement with others."

Theist 1: "I find bits of holy books that back up my feelings, therefore those feelings are not only right, but holy, and damn those who question them."

Theist 2: "I kind of want there to be absolute right and wrong, and for reasons I can't explain, the existence of an invisible and undetectable intelligence makes this the case. Even though I can't detect this intelligence, and have no way of knowing its mind, I will just assume that what I feel, deep down, is right."

By all possible standards of decency, the first approach is the more honest, and the more moral one. The last one is just plain nuts - loopiness wrapped up in philosophy.

Other Comments by steve99

174. Comment #85517 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 3:50 am

Comment #85513 by steve99

By all possible standards of decency, the first approach is the more honest, and the more moral one. The last one is just plain nuts - loopiness wrapped up in pseudo-philosophy.

Sorry steve99 - I think a slight modification is necessary.

Other Comments by epeeist

175. Comment #85519 by Diacanu on November 6, 2007 at 3:55 am

I'm sorry, does snapping at DG make me a "shrill fundamentalist atheist", now?

Am I going to turn into Pol Pot now?

Other Comments by Diacanu

176. Comment #85520 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 3:55 am

Comment #85501 by Dianelos Georgoudis

But the point is that atheism's implications render it a much less attractive and indeed a much more dangerous worldview.

But the point is that QM's implications render it a much less attractive and indeed a much more dangerous world view than Newtonian mechanics.

But the point is that naturalistic ontology's implications render it a much less attractive and indeed a much more dangerous world view than that of idealistic theism.

Other Comments by epeeist

177. Comment #85521 by Logicel on November 6, 2007 at 3:57 am

epeeist wrote: DG crosses two camps, he is obviously reasonably educated but is as closed minded as the second set. He uses different tactics though, while the likes of devolved drop a post then cut and run DG just keeps on posting. And as steve99 has said, he has a reset button which just starts him at the same point over and over again.
______

Since there is not an ignore button at this site, I have trained my eyes to skip over any post written by the prolific DG, because after reading many posts by him, my conclusion is that he is a narcissist of frightening proportions, with said narcissism held together by astounding hypocrisy (Christianity, the particular brand of religion he embraces, though he distorts it beyond recognition via his customized idealistic theism--just to fit him and his needs--espouses selflessness, and as DG is a mind-boggling narcissist who regards himself as the center of the universe, he has no business in regarding himself as one). He reminds me of a rhum baba, he is just as soaked with the religious interpretation of his choice, as the baba is with rhum.

Other Comments by Logicel

178. Comment #85522 by Diacanu on November 6, 2007 at 4:03 am

I like the imagery of someone being besotted with theological bullshittery.

Be a good cartoon for someone to draw.

Other Comments by Diacanu

179. Comment #85524 by Diacanu on November 6, 2007 at 4:10 am

Speaking of theological bullshittery, is it just me, but do you, when trying to read a long ass ramble of apologetics kind of glaze out, and just start hearing in your mind's ear, the cowardly lion going "I DO believe in spooks! I DO believe in spooks!! I DO I DO I DO believe in spooks!!"?

Seems to me it would be a good title for a parody of a flea book.

"I DO believe in spooks!!".

Other Comments by Diacanu

180. Comment #85528 by Logicel on November 6, 2007 at 4:18 am

Sorry Diacanu, when reading a long ass ramble of apologetics kind of glaze out, I usually get so bored I nod over my keyboard, running a risk of concussing myself, so I usually keep a small pillow close by, and prop it over the keyboard when commencing such a read, and when finished I take a short nap on said pillow. Works for me. Keeps me sain and sauf.

Other Comments by Logicel

181. Comment #85533 by dogkcuf on November 6, 2007 at 5:13 am

Extraordinary desperation requires extraordinary gasping

Other Comments by dogkcuf

182. Comment #85540 by Dr Benway on November 6, 2007 at 5:59 am

Dianelos:

This sounds fine, but it seems atheism does not offer any standards for deciding which way is up in the first place.

No a priori standards doesn't mean no standards at all. Humans still can negotiate behavioral standards and can set mutual goals for the future.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

183. Comment #85549 by clodhopper on November 6, 2007 at 6:22 am

DG

At the risk of putting some of our friends into a coma....will you please answer the old Euthyphro dilemma: Is what is commanded by God moral because it is commanded by God, or is it commanded by God because it is moral?

Other Comments by clodhopper

184. Comment #85551 by Timnea on November 6, 2007 at 6:23 am

Dianelos

"he (Dawkins) lacks the standards on which to base the claim that the moral Zeitgeist has in fact improved"

Not sure that's true.

Are you suggesting the bible (gods word), is the moral compass that led us to today's ethical values. Better read the bible again Dianelos because it looks more like a moral "hand break" than a compass. I think its clear we have our morality today despite of the bible, and religion in general, not because of it. Have you stoned any one recently??

"it seems atheism does not offer any standards for deciding which way is up"

Secular states of Sweden and Finland look to be good high points on a moral compass and the ethics of the bible, particularly the old testament (again the word of god), would be a huge leap back to the dark ages and could define a low point. Sure there could be other low points but the bibles misdeeds should be sufficiently low for the purposes of our humble compass.
Now that we have a calibrated moral gauge and compass Dianelos, I have a question for you.

There are some pretty low ethical standards required by god in the bible. (I'm being kind there). Assuming, and hopefully, your moral values are better than those, how do you manage to transcend them?

Other Comments by Timnea

185. Comment #85556 by Dr Benway on November 6, 2007 at 6:47 am

Dianelos: Assuming, and hopefully, your moral values are better than those, how do you manage to transcend them?

Dianelosity, the condensed version:

1. Morality is objective, as it is instantiated in the person of God, who is perfect virtue.
2. We perceive God via introspection, in a manner mindful of "the whole of our experience."

In sum: Dianelos' subjectivity is actually objective reality. He smells a bad smell, we all smell it. He dislikes a movie, we all dislike it. Unless we're being bloody minded or daft, of course.

M_Roche: Evidence-based opinion: 158 of you don't have one.

I hope you now see the errors in your post:
1. 158 comments do not equal 158 people.
2. The vast majority of comments are tangential to Ms. Beattie's book.
3. The few reactions to the cover design, title, and apparent thesis of the book are perfectly justified.
4. Specific reactions to the arguments in the book are pending.

The God test isn't a Scantron. You don't get points for answering "no God" without showing your work. How do we know you didn't just copy that answer from the smarter guy sitting next to you?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

186. Comment #85558 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 6:59 am

In sum: Dianelos' subjectivity is actually objective reality. He smells a bad smell, we all smell it. He dislikes a movie, we all dislike it. Unless we're being bloody minded or daft, of course.

And, to summarise a theme of hundreds of past posts, this is where Dianelosity fails so badly. It presents arguments which are supposed to question physical objective reality, but they actually question virtually all objective reality. There are only two realities that could survive: perfect determinism (which is rejected by Dianelosity because lack of free will is 'absurd') and some sort of magic reality where God has to keep stepping in oodles of times each nanosecond and just about everywhere to deal with all those confusing quantum problems and stuff.

Dianelos keeps showing us these big philosophical guns that can shoot holes in naturalism, and then he goes and shoots himself in the foot (as the aim is not that accurate), but bites his lip and in a pained voice declares that it did not hurt.

Other Comments by steve99

187. Comment #85564 by bluebird on November 6, 2007 at 7:38 am

Logicel, your analogy of D.G. with a baba au rhum is delicieux. Gives new meaning to a chef saying "you'll be amazed how much rum the cake can soak in". :)

Other Comments by bluebird

188. Comment #85565 by clodhopper on November 6, 2007 at 7:43 am

".....This means that we need to cultivate a much greater awareness of both the limits and the oppressive effects of a debate dominated by the opinions of a small clique of white English-speaking men staging a mock battle about rationality and God, which fails to address the most significant humanitarian questions of our time. This includes the many different roles played by religion in sustaining and generating hope, meaning and creativity, without which we would be less than the humans we are."

Oooo...how good it feels to be dominated in such a small manly clique.

Would you care enough to turn up and discuss this Tina?

Other Comments by clodhopper

189. Comment #85567 by Bonzai on November 6, 2007 at 7:53 am

Timenea,

Are you suggesting the bible (gods word), is the moral compass that led us to today's ethical values. Better read the bible again Dianelos because it looks more like a moral "hand break" than a compass. I think its clear we have our morality today despite of the bible, and religion in general, not because of it. Have you stoned any one recently?

DG does not believe in the Biblical morality, yet he seems to be some kind of "Christian". He picks and chooses those parts in the NT that he likes, deliberately misunderstands science and grafts everything to some "theistic ontology" with the glue of faulty logic. It is fucked up.

Other Comments by Bonzai

190. Comment #85568 by Bonzai on November 6, 2007 at 7:57 am

clodhopper,

Where did that quote in post 189 come from?

So is she saying these "white men" are less than humans?



Other Comments by Bonzai

191. Comment #85571 by epeeist on November 6, 2007 at 8:11 am

Comment #85568 by Bonzai

So is she saying these "white men" are less than humans?

And why are they speaking English? Surely they should be speaking Italian or Latin since she is presumably referring to Catholicism.

I think she should get Ann Widdecombe to give the pope a good talking to.

Other Comments by epeeist

192. Comment #85573 by clodhopper on November 6, 2007 at 8:18 am

Bonzai: it's here...

http://tina.beattie.googlepages.com/books

Of course they're not human silly....just look at them!

Other Comments by clodhopper

193. Comment #85580 by robert s on November 6, 2007 at 8:45 am

why are they speaking English?

She's referring to the 'new atheists'.

Other Comments by robert s

194. Comment #85585 by LookToWindward on November 6, 2007 at 9:20 am

Did anyone listen to Tina on Sunday Worship on Radio 4? She was talking about Mother Teresa and issued such a classic it should go down as one of the most profound theist statements ever issued. She was talking about Mother Teresa's anguish over losing any feeling of the presence of God in her life for 50 years. She said

"Sometimes God's presence is most intensely experienced as a form of absence and yearning."

There you have it. God must be present /precisely because/ he feels so completely absent.

Stunning. It just makes your jaw drop, doesn't it?

The link to listen again (go to 23 minutes in):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/sunday_worship/

Other Comments by LookToWindward

195. Comment #85588 by BaronOchs on November 6, 2007 at 9:45 am

LookToWindward, the idea that god can only be experienced as absence has been around for a long time, probably got its best expression in meister eckhart. The fact it sounds obviously ridiculous to you might (arguably) be a sympton of how the difficulty the idea presents to religious orthodoxy has been played down.

For the argument it is subversive and still of relevance see perhaps

"Don Cupitt, Mysticism after Modernity".

Other Comments by BaronOchs

196. Comment #85612 by lpetrich on November 6, 2007 at 12:11 pm

From post 189 by clodhopper:

.....This means that we need to cultivate a much greater awareness of both the limits and the oppressive effects of a debate dominated by the opinions of a small clique of white English-speaking men staging a mock battle about rationality and God, which fails to address the most significant humanitarian questions of our time. This includes the many different roles played by religion in sustaining and generating hope, meaning and creativity, without which we would be less than the humans we are.

clodhopper, where did you get that quote from? It seems almost too absurd to be worth commenting on. Tina Beattie seems like she is dismissing atheism as a white male thing. This makes me wonder what she thinks about the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Taslima Nasrin. And what she thinks about the mostly-male or all-male hierarchies of the major religions. How can she call herself a Catholic feminist theologian in good conscience when her Church insists on an all-male priesthood and leadership?

And I do think that it's a legitimate point that we ought to read the "flea" books before saying much about them. Has anyone here done so and reported on what those books contain? Is there anything new in them? :)

Also, she seems to concede toward the end that she considers the religion business make-believe, that God is Santa Claus for adults.

Other Comments by lpetrich

197. Comment #85620 by clodhopper on November 6, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Ipetrich: see 193.

C'mon! Get to grips with Feminist Theology...it's the new Klack...Pettle....Bot.....oh bollocks!

http://www.womenpriests.org/body/beattie3.asp

(In which Ms Beattie accuses the Catholic Church of having a bigger cock than even Dr Benway....but you you need a severe case of penis envy to read that far in).

Other Comments by clodhopper

198. Comment #85625 by clodhopper on November 6, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Oh....and we're the oppressors now! That's rich.

Other Comments by clodhopper

199. Comment #85648 by Bonzai on November 6, 2007 at 3:18 pm

In which Ms Beattie accuses the Catholic Church of having a bigger cock than even Dr Benway....

Am I on the South park channel? :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

200. Comment #85654 by BMMcArdle on November 6, 2007 at 4:56 pm

DG #167

Now, again, an atheist may claim that that's how reality is, and if we don't like it then too bad. But the point is that atheism's implications render it a much less attractive and indeed a much more dangerous worldview.

There, there, now don't you worry. Drink your warm milk and I'll tuck you in and tell you a story....
There is an indescribably powerful and intelligent being called God who is in existence prior to the dawn of time. For whatever reason, he decides to create the universe and pays particular attention to planet Earth. Having created the universe, Earth and all the species on it, he decides to focus all his attention on a collection of tribal groupings in the Middle East, in particular the Israelites who are his 'chosen people' and who he obsesses over, while apparently ignoring the rest of the world's population. He lays down numerous often primitive and arbitrary moral and ceremonial laws, then gets involved in inner tribal politics and land disputes, inciting acts of brutality, war crimes, genocide, and rape along the way. Fast forward to the Middle East under Roman occupation and God decides it's time to put in an appearance. By mystical means he comes to earth in human form, being born of a virgin. He becomes incarnate as a Jewish male and wanders around what is today Israel-Palestine, imparting pithy social commentary (but never giving any systematic explanation of how such ideas might be made politically useful), engaging in faith healing (removing 'demons' from people), magic tricks (such as walking on water and raising a dead man), and ranting on and on about sin, eternal punishment for the majority of the world's population, and the impending end of the world. He gets himself crucified, in order that he can sacrifice himself to himself for our good. A few days later he walks out of his tomb and wanders round with some of his followers (noticeably not bothering to make himself known to anyone but those who already believed in him), before 'ascending' into 'Heaven', to wait for the time when he will return to raise every human who has ever lived in bodily form for judgement, then cast most of us into a pit of fire and take a select few into his 'kingdom' for eternity where they will live happily ever after. (Edmund Standing)

Other Comments by BMMcArdle