February 2012 Screwballs

[Requiem]

Screwball to cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. He wrote a book in which he answers questions of any kind on the christian faith (both by believers and non-believers); one of them asked him why did Jesus give his life for us, and "what he was hoping to accomplish by doing that" (possibly the most important question one could ask about christianity).

His answer? Two pages. Full of babble, and no coherent answer (something like "ehhhh, it's a tough question, debated from the time of Anselm" etc).

I mean, is it so hard for a CARDINAL to answer so basic a question about the faith?

The only good thing about him is his name. Seriously.

[Sparko]

So my suspicion, that The Pixie is a literalist fundy, is true?

probably just when it suits him to act like it.

[lilpixieofterror]

probably just when it suits him to act like it.

I have noticed he does have a tendency to take the most literal saying of a word or phrase possible (such as when I asked him how long I got to beat something into his head and then he accused me of promoting violence ).

[lilpixieofterror]

I didn’t mention this earlier, but I think this is pretty screwball worthy comment from The Pixie in response to this:

I understand it just fine, the problem is The Idiot, I am using your definitions you want to throw forth for Raphael and showing how absurd you are being because I do not think any amount of evidence is going to work for you. Do you understand this yet or do I need to stop thinking you are smarter then you let on and thus treat you like a kid and lead you to every little answer yourself? Do you see what I am trying to do yet or do I need to bash you upside the head

And The Pixie shows his fundy literalism here:

[/i] "Love your neighbour as you love yourself", but what he meant was insult your neighbour and threaten him with violence until he comes around to your way of thinking.

Got to love black/white fundy atheist literalism.

[Challenger Grim]

He is actually just trying to mock Mountain Man because MM said that Jesus resurrecting could be an unknown natural process and mentioned how jelly fish can regenerate, purely as an example. So now pixie is mocking MM with that thread as far as I can tell, by taking it completely literally.

Oh ok. Standard atheist incapability to grasp the principle or miracles. ssdd

We're getting too many pixies around here. I had to catch myself on which one was being referred.

[One Bad Pig]

probably just when it suits him to act like it.

This. He'll consistently take whichever interpretation looks worse for Christianity, however incoherent it makes his overall position look.

[Challenger Grim]

This. He'll consistently take whichever interpretation looks worse for Christianity, however incoherent it makes his overall position look.

"Which 'he' do you mean?"

"All of them."

[jpholding]

Little Miss Black Screen is here; just to prepare you for the sort of stupidity you'll encounter if you try to get through her thick skull, here's what she says about my "fundy atheist" vid:

At the beginning when he is listing the 'funny' things a 'fundy Atheist' is, most of it is just a mistake bold headed people will make, Atheist or not, most of the things in the beginning I hadn't even heard of honestly, in the next part, he explains he didn't make the phrase, this I understand I heard it long before I heard of him. In the paper article that pops up it says "A story or Joke" meaning a fiction where a quote "character" calls himself a fundamental Atheist, this is written by what I assume is a Jewish writer, considering it's a Jewish magazine. In the 2000 book it is what I assume a religious person writing the book, again assuming. As far as I see he gave no real evidence of Atheists using the phrase first.

Uh yeah. Never mind the one from (atheist philosopher) Barnhouse's 1975 book, describing O'Hair as a fundy atheist; and then "assuming" -- uh, how about CHECKING instead of just "assuming", Little Miss Black Screen? The author/collator of that 2000 book (Who's Who in Hell), Warren Allen Smith, is NOT a "religious person"; he is an atheist humanist, and in fact, a signer of the Humanist Manifesto. But no, Little Miss Black Screen thinks that all she has to do is ASSUME and she's made an argument, and she's done.

And these people wonder why they have zero credibility.

[Manwë Súlimo]

I mean, is it so hard for a CARDINAL to answer so basic a question about the faith?

He's a cardinal? Obviously its because he's bird-brained.

[jpholding]

Reader sends this Facebook exchange, screwball to "A" (an atheist, I think):

A: I personally think the bible has been written and rewritten so many times by corrupt individuals and leaders who've had their own agenda over the past 2,000 years that - yes - most of it is far more fiction that fact, in my personal opinion. Is it a good moral guide? Certainly. But word-for-word a true account of history? I tend to not believe so.

In addition, I'm constantly bombarded daily with opinionated images and statements that often times offend me. 99 percent of the time I disregard them. I don't have the time or patience to take people to task when it comes to their personal beliefs and to be honest, I doubt my words would have little impact in changing how they feel. Besides, it's certainly not my place to tell others what they should or shouldn't post on Facebook. But I am sorry to family and friends that find it offensive. I will be more thoughtful when it comes to what I post online in regard to how it may come across to others.

B: That shows your ignorance of textual evidence for New Testament Manuscripts (if you are just referring to that part of the Bible) because the closest greek manuscripts are within the disciples of Christ's lifetime. If you are referring to the Old Testament. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered the earliest old testament manuscripts were about 850 A.D... but the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed that about 95% of it was uncorrputed for 1000 years, and the stuff that was was grammatical and didn't change any of the meaning.

A: ...I don't think all the books of the Bible (new or old testament) were written the days, weeks or even years after incidents allegedly took place. But please, feel free to correct my "ignorance" if you know with absolute certainty that a scribe was on location capturing each and every statement and action made by Jesus as it took place.

Also, despite your claims, there are those who still argue that some verses were altered over time, with some additions/deletions being made by the scribes who hand-wrote the book. Some would even argue that many of the stories of the bible were contrived or borrowed from similar incidents and stories that can be found in the mythos of other cultures from other eras.

I'm no longer going to discuss this. Again, apologies to any who took offense. Faith is something that is personal and should be respected and I'm sorry for trivializing it by putting up a post that mocks another's belief - especially one that so many friends and family share.

B: I was correcting your statement about "I personally think the bible has been written and rewritten so many times by corrupt individuals and leaders who've had their own agenda over the past 2,000 years that " I could debate many other single historical facts, but that wasn't the reason for my post about your ignorance the manuscript dating and "rewritten so many times." My faith is something that is personal, but historical criticism is not!

[Benson Shays]

Reader sends this Facebook exchange, screwball to "A" (an atheist, I think):

Looks like somebody's opinion just swallowed a grenade made of facts.

[Raphael]

I missed this last month but screwball to UK "ethicist" Dr. Anna Smajdor

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bra...-use-artificia

LifeSiteNews

NORWICH, U.K., January 23, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In remarks that critics have said are disturbingly reminiscent of Aldous Huxley’s famous dystopian novel “Brave New World,” a UK ethicist has argued that since pregnancy causes “natural inequality” between the sexes, women must be liberated from the “burdens and risks of pregnancy” through the use of “ectogenesis”, or artificial wombs.

“Pregnancy is a condition that causes pain and suffering, and that affects only women. The fact that men do not have to go through pregnancy to have a genetically related child, whereas women do, is a natural inequality,” writes Dr. Anna Smajdor in an article that recently appeared in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.

“If there were a disease that caused symptoms and risks similar to those caused by pregnancy, I contend that it would be regarded as being fairly serious, and that we would have good reasons to try to insure against it,” argues Smajdor, who lumps pregnancy along with “diseases” that continue for many months, such as the measles….

For Smajdor, the issue is simply a matter of sex equality: “Either we view women as baby carriers who must subjugate their other interests to the well-being of their children or we acknowledge that our social values and level of medical expertise are no longer compatible with ‘natural’ reproduction,” she concludes.

© source where applicable

and http://www.annasmajdor.me.uk/ectogenesis_final.pdf

Dr Annas Majdor

for expectant mothers, the fact of encompassing another life in their bodies often takes a serious toll on their autonomy…. Not only this, but their abilities and rights to make decisions about their medical care are at risk of being overridden in favor of the interests of the unborn child.
...
With regard to the safety of ectogenesis, I assume for the purpose of this argument, that sufficient research would need to be carried out to establish this.

© source where applicable

h/t Tom Gilson

[Benson Shays]

In a conversation about the original meaning of the creation accounts, my online buddy says:

You know, the fact that there can even be an argument surrounding the language used in the Bible really sorta undermines the authority of the Bible. For one, it shows you how interpretable the entire thing is, no matter what language you are using, and how no one today can possibly pretend to know what the author originally meant. You can put forward interpretative understandings of the Bible, but there is no way to verify that such is objectively true. And it also reminds us of how language evolves, and how such a process mirrors the process of evolution.

Why look for truth in a book, when the worlds all around you?

[fm93]

He's a cardinal? Obviously its because he's bird-brained.

No, he was just flying high.

[jpholding]

I have an interesting update to the Pope Leo X matter -- and that bogus encyclopedia reference. Turns out the EB cite is real, but it doesn't make Skeptics who use the quote (or anyone else) smell any better. My article now reads:

Warning three: A small number of sites (many fewer, though, since I first wrote this article years ago) do give a citation, which looks like this:

(Encyc. Brit., 14th Ed. Xix, pg. 217).

No one, however, actually picked up a 14th Ed. Of Britannica and found this quote. Britannica's 14th edition was printed from 1929-1973. I had photocopies made, with the help of an alert reader in the UK, of the page where this quote is supposed to be (14th edition, Vol. 19) and it does not contain the article on Leo X, which is actually instead in Vol. 13. Vol. 19 is from "Raynal to Sarreguemines" and p. 217 is the middle of an article on Respiration. Nice pictures of a pigeon's lungs and a goat's branchiole, but no Leo.

The actual Leo article from pp. 926-7 of Vol. 13 says a lot about Leo's lackadaisical attitude towards spending, but has no mention of the "fable" quote either way.

As an added note, the 15th edition of Britannica, which I have access to, does not say anything about this quote in its article on Leo, and I have received a copy -- from an associate in a New Zealand library -- of the 11th edition article, which also lacks the quote. Britannica does not know about this quote at all.

Update. January 2012: With a pointer from our research assistant "Punkish," I have now found information indicating that Britannica did contain this quote, but for the source within it came from, it may as well not have been there are at all. It is quoted in the article on the Renaissance, which was authored by John Addington Symonds, who merely quotes it in passing as a "witty epigram" of Leo's repeated by others. He does not give any source for the quote, and there seems to be very little reason to give Symonds credence in the matter; he was a literary critic and a poet, not a historian (and we might add, for what it is worth, seemed to have an unhealthy interest in young boys). Symonds' reference does little to aid in the validation of the originality of the quote -- and also does not excuse persons offering the bogus Britannica quote without checking it.

Watch out for too-happy Acharya drones only telling part of the story.