The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Achewood => Achewood => Topic started by: jough on January 23, 2006, 06:29:42 am
-
Ray ate the reason Pat is a vegan (http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=01232006).
YES!
Man, Ray's mom brings out the GOLD in all.
-
congrats on first post :@)
:@)
-
I wonder if Mrs. S. has ever met Simon.
-
Congrats on the
usepointless second post.
-
i dug this comic strip like jough digs a criterion collection disc
-
See the thing I want to know is if Ray ate the duck out of vindication for young Pat, or because he's Ray.
-
I'm glad it's been confirmed that Pat is not a vegan for any kind of ethical reason.
-
oh no onstad di'nt!
this is like that bogus scene at the end of Breakfast Club, where the punk-ish kid is suddenly afraid of the principal. and then the nice girl gets slutty, and the cool (ie: insane) girl gets preppy, thus negating the entire point of the movie.
but, as in that case, everyone loves it anyway. maybe I just like my assholes to be assholes deep down, rather than scared people compensating by being assholes.
I'm going to ask my vegetarian girlfriend if she's afraid of beefs. Maybe a beef bit her?
-
Ahem. Vegan. Yes.
-
Did she really say "dried bees"? That's not just a typo?
Couple of weeks ago a co-worker came back from a trip to Mexico with a bag of roasted locusts to be eaten in the manner of snacks.
But bees? Come on!
-
I dunno, a dried bee could be pretty refreshing - all crunchy on the outside, little bit chewy in the middle...hang on, I think I gotta make some phone calls.
So finally it is revealed - and it seems a pretty "Pat" reason to be vegan. Also, I'm sure Ray ate the duck simply because it was a duck and duck is delicious. After all, if it was a good-sized duck, that means ol' Ray gets some crazy-fresh fois gras, and you know that's all he wants.
-
i dug this comic strip like jough digs a criterion collection disc
I love how you say this like it's an insult. "Oh MAN! Jough TOTALLY likes DVDs of classic films preserved at high technical quality, with excellent additional material, many of which have been made commercially available for the first time!!"
(yes, yes, I know, don't feed...)
There are many things I like about this strip, but here are the three major ones:
* The idea that there are at least two other reasons Pat could be a vegan other than ethics, one of which involves a magician's angry duck,
* Pat desperately trying to keep his cool and coming close to failing, despite the fact that Mrs. Smuckles is saying nothing offensive at all and is actually trying to be considerate, and
* The word "veglegon."
-
Hell yes she said dried bees. Dried bees and peanut butter. Good stuff. Good strip.
-
I love how you say this like it's an insult. "Oh MAN! Jough TOTALLY likes DVDs of classic films preserved at high technical quality, with excellent additional material, many of which have been made commercially available for the first time!!"
I was thinking it was more insinuating that he checks the Criterion rumor pages every day and buys every disc they release even if he already had the movie. But it could have been worse. He could have said SuperBit.
Is Doc trying to steal Bozack's title?
Even Pat won't outright correct Mrs. Smuckles. She has powers over everybody.
-
I would have preferred "Dried bees and peanut butter," but I won't make a fuss about it.
-
I was thinking it was more insinuating that he checks the Criterion rumor pages every day and buys every disc they release even if he already had the movie. But it could have been worse. He could have said SuperBit.
look you guys, i went into this with rigidly defined goal-sets and now you're just throwing doubt into the whole operation
-
I would have preferred "Dried bees and peanut butter," but I won't make a fuss about it.
You know, the more I think about it, the more that a dried-bees-and-peanut-butter sandwich sounds okay if you can get past the bee element. It'd have an interesting mix of textures, at least.
-
You know, the more I think about it, the more that a dried-bees-and-peanut-butter sandwich sounds okay if you can get past the bee element. It'd have an interesting mix of textures, at least.
So, if you get past the bee element, what I think you're saying here is that a peanut butter sandwich is basically OK? I have to agree.
But the bees are what makes it! Like a Krackel bar, or a Crunchy Frog!
Also, has anyone ever seen a Krackel bar outside of the little assortments of fun-size bars? I have never eaten a full-sized Krackel.
edit: Wow, from 0 to off-topic in 65 words - possibly a record.
-
What a great strip. We get the Marvel Secret Origins of why Pat is a vegan asshole, and the mental image of a five-year-old Ray enjoying duck and steak fries for dinner.
Did Mrs. Smuckles cook the duck and fries herself? And how did the magician feel about it?
-
I just can't believe that Pat would turn to vegulonism because he fears ducks. Wouldn't he be more likely to eat the fuckers if they scared him? I know I would, and I'm not nearly as much of an asshole as Pat.
-
I love this strip. I can relate so well because my sister used to be vegan and none of my older relatives understood. This one thanksgiving they were trying to get her to eat the mashed potatoes "Oh dear, there isn't any gravy on it, it's ok." "I don't eat animal products though." "No it's ok, it's only butter!" So that's the story of me relating to this strip.
Best parts for me: I thought Ms. Smuckles was going to cry or something when Pat said he doesnt eat cheese -- CHEESE! It's so nutritious. The other part I liked was the visual of Pat slapping his fist into his hand, well done. Whole strip: amazing.
Wait...Pat doesn't eat cheese...Girls like boys who eat cheese...Pat's never had a girlfriend...so it is true. Dang I'm going to order extra cheese next time.
-
Also, has anyone ever seen a Krackel bar outside of the little assortments of fun-size bars? I have never eaten a full-sized Krackel.
When I lived in PA there was one supermarket that carried full-sizes of all 4 bars in the Hershy's assortment. To this day it is the one time I've ever seen a full-size Special Dark bar but every once in a while I'll still run into Krackle or Mr. Goodbar, usually when Hershey's candy is 3 for 99-cents or something.
-
Wait...Pat doesn't eat cheese...Girls like boys who eat cheese...Pat's never had a girlfriend...so it is true. Dang I'm going to order extra cheese next time.
I don't think Pat really cares about what impresses the girls, IF YUO KNOW WHAT I MEAN!!
-
Ha. Bonkers T. McQuack!
My newest pet is a giraffe named Finns McGill, I got him as an aniversary gift from my SO. (Oh, who am I kidding? Actually, I got a giraffe that never got a name and jumped out of the container and dried up on the carpet before I found him as an aniversary gift. Finns McGill was the replacement for him. Finns McGill lives in a small aquarium- with a lid- in our bedroom.)
Adding "Mc" infront of words that descibe the creature/person is fun - always. I went through a phase where everyone was "Johnny _____'s-a-lot" or "Mc____" as in "Oh great, here's come Johnny Whines-a-lot and Titty McBoob!" or "I was Johnny-Sucks-a-lot on stage tonight - totally Forgetty McLines-drop." Try it sometime - you'll be the hit of the party!
-
My cricle of friends used to do the same thing. It got to the point where we loved the ludicrous nature of reusing the same word like "Way to give up the secrets Telly McTell!"
It wasn't so much an uncreative nature as it was an adventure into absurdism; at least that's what I told myself.
The only affectation of this nature that has stuck with me is the military moniker. Usually I use Captain as it can evoke both militaristic and superhero memes, but sometimes it is others. For example, "Wow, way to help out there Captain Productivity" or "Way to bitch about your ex for 3 hours Corporal Bitter".
YMMV
-
i dug this comic strip like jough digs a criterion collection disc
Man, you really had to dig back a few years in Google to find that reference. Nicely done, though. They really do put out the best DVDs of classic and contemporary films.
-
I don't find this strip especially funny but I do like having Pat's veganism explained. He's such a jerk that it never really made sense to me that he "respects" animals, save perhaps for falcons.
Also kudos to Limmo for pointing out that a five year old eating duck and steak fries for dinner is pretty funny. This had not occurred to me but you are right.
Biz
-
Also kudos to Limmo for pointing out that a five year old eating duck and steak fries for dinner is pretty funny. This had not occurred to me but you are right.
Yeah, and especially eating that on a day where he clearly would have had plenty to eat at the party earlier that day.
-
Oh look, here's a miniature Krackel bar in my desk leftover from Christmas. I have never seen a full size one either but if you have nothing better to do on your lunch hour than Google for nonsense, you find that there's even a King Size.
And now I can't help thinking that those little baby frogs we have downstairs are exactly the right size for a Crunchy Frog bonbon. But they are highly endangered and this would be wrong. I'll have to stick to crickets and peanut butter (that's the closest I can get to bees.)
-
Next up, I'd like to see Ms. Smuckles meeting Mr. Bear. Maybe they could hook up. At least both share a great interest in cheese.
-
So, if you get past the bee element, what I think you're saying here is that a peanut butter sandwich is basically OK? I have to agree.
I meant in the sense of "if you can mentally deal with the fact that you are eating bees, it'd be okay." Basically, if the mere facts that you were eating dried bees didn't gross you out, it'd be a good sandwich, I think.
Also, you might have to de-stinger the bees first.
-
Man, imagine the poor kid in the cafeteria who's allergic to beestings AND peanut butter. Talk about a death sandwich.
-
Man, imagine the poor kid in the cafeteria who's allergic to beestings AND peanut butter. Talk about a death sandwich.
Anaphylactolicious!
-
V: I can see where you're coming from actually. In my mind, the bees are like slightly fuzzy peanuts, so it's like crunchy peanut butter.
The idea that I'm imagining this texture and not finding it horrifying kinda scares me a little bit.
If anyone needs me I'll be in the corner shuddering and needing a hug.*
* No miles, that does not mean you.
-
When did the word "Vegan" come to be a substitute (bestitute) for the word "Vegetarian"?
I always thought that when we met people who come from the star Vega, we would call them "Vegans" but now they'd say, "Are you comparing us to that Pat asshole?" and this might lead to interstellar war.
-
And now I can't help thinking that those little baby frogs we have downstairs are exactly the right size for a Crunchy Frog bonbon. But they are highly endangered and this would be wrong. I'll have to stick to crickets and peanut butter (that's the closest I can get to bees.)
And Anthrax Ripple might earn you a visit from the FBI.
-
When did the word "Vegan" come to be a substitute (bestitute) for the word "Vegetarian"?
I always thought that when we met people who come from the star Vega, we would call them "Vegans" but now they'd say, "Are you comparing us to that Pat asshole?" and this might lead to interstellar war.
I didn't think Vegan and vegetarian meant the same thing. I thought Vegetarians just didn't eat meat and Vegan's were like some sort of super-duper hyper Vegetarians who wouldn't suffer anything with animal-like DNA on or in their frighteningly holier-than-thou bodies.
-
When did the word "Vegan" come to be a substitute (bestitute) for the word "Vegetarian"?
I always thought that when we met people who come from the star Vega, we would call them "Vegans" but now they'd say, "Are you comparing us to that Pat asshole?" and this might lead to interstellar war.
Generally, Vegetarians are those who don't eat meat but will eat animal by-products (eggs, milk, cheese, et al)
Vegans don't eat any animal by-products. Pat does not eat cheese, ergo, vegan.
-
What AW and Queue already said. Due to the wide range of motivations people have for not eating meat, you see a lot of variations on vegetarianism -- vegetarians, vegans, ovo-lacto vegetarians (for people who don't think milk and eggs are unethical, just meat), and even pesco-pollo vegetarians (for people who believe that only eating mammals is unethical, which strikes me as a damn cop-out or a gussied-up way of saying "I don't like red meat and will make this an ideological thing").
Anyway, I should probably stop commenting in this thread; I seem to be losing cans willy-nilly. I'm sorry, whoever I pissed off re: the bee sandwich! It is a strictly theoretical idea! It's less a food than a food concept!
-
man. I have a friend who refuses to eat bird-type-animals for almost the exact same reason. Except it was a normal bird, not a duck.
its one of those things that would be funny, if it weren't for the fact that her fear is so primal that it makes you scared to see it.
misterqueue-- I had a similar ongoing thing with my brother.
he: "you're doing that wrong."
me: "Christ, man! who died and made you city commissioner of eating hamburgers?"
the more ridiculous and minor the title, the better.
Actually, it was originally in reference to some movie, and was "geez! Who got frozen in ice and made you (ridiculous title)"
-
Man, you really had to dig back a few years in Google to find that reference. Nicely done, though. They really do put out the best DVDs of classic and contemporary films.
i bet you're fat
-
Orson Welles once guest-hosted the Tonight Show, and guest Robert Blake called him fat. To which Welles replied "My weight is correctable, sir, only with great effort - unlike your manners."
What is the sound of Noah losing another can of Dr. Pepper? It goes a little something like this.....
-
Anyway, I should probably stop commenting in this thread; I seem to be losing cans willy-nilly. I'm sorry, whoever I pissed off re: the bee sandwich! It is a strictly theoretical idea! It's less a food than a food concept!
I tried to give you one back. I don't think it worked, though and I'm not sure why.
If these cans start causing people to self-censor, I say that would be evidence that they are inherently evil.
-
What AW and Queue already said. Due to the wide range of motivations people have for not eating meat, you see a lot of variations on vegetarianism -- vegetarians, vegans, ovo-lacto vegetarians (for people who don't think milk and eggs are unethical, just meat), and even pesco-pollo vegetarians (for people who believe that only eating mammals is unethical, which strikes me as a damn cop-out or a gussied-up way of saying "I don't like red meat and will make this an ideological thing").
Hare Krishnas are lacto vegetarians. But I still don't know the reason why they don't eat eggs.
-
What would be the actual difference between a Vegan and an ovo-lacto Vegetarian?
The few vegans I know also won't wear animal hides or wear/use things that have processed animals in them (like glues). Is veganism the lifestyle when it extends beyond what one eats?
-
What is the sound of Noah losing another can of Dr. Pepper? It goes a little something like this.....
It's all good, dawg. As you can see (http://touamb.com/index.php?action=profile;u=91;sa=showPosts), Noah hasn't contributed anything to this board in... ever. So anything the man has to say is suspect.
-
I know. But some people need a quick whack with the cane anyway.
AD: I don't know, I gave V a can over "Anaphylactolicious!" because that shit is funny, I don't care who you are.
I agree that the threat of can removal shouldn't be a cause for self-censorship. But if I can use it to punish people for being schmucks when they should know better ::glares at Noah::, I will.
-
I agree that the threat of can removal shouldn't be a cause for self-censorship.
I know it's a sickness, but when I lose a can, I look back over my recent posts and try to figure out why. I can't, so I don't know if I would censor myself if I knew what to censor. I don't think so...
-
Thanks to everyone for illuminating the difference between a vegan and a vegetarian. If it were within my powers I'd give cans to you all.
Are most Vegans like Pat? I mean, would they read the strips dealing with him and say, "What's so funny? Pat is perfectly reasonable and his behavior is what the others deserve. They're all idiots except for him"?
I hope the answer is: no.
-
What would be the actual difference between a Vegan and an ovo-lacto Vegetarian?
The few vegans I know also won't wear animal hides or wear/use things that have processed animals in them (like glues). Is veganism the lifestyle when it extends beyond what one eats?
Maybe it's honey?
(Also wax. No delicious candles for you Vegans!)
-
What would be the actual difference between a Vegan and an ovo-lacto Vegetarian?
A vegan is the opposite of an ovo-lacto vegetarian, I think, in that vegans deliberately shun dairy products and eggs. Typically prefixes in front of "vegetarian" designate foods that they do eat; i.e., ovo-lacto vegetarians consume dairy products and eggs but not meat. Where I'm confused is whether "ovo-lacto" is assumed for non-vegan vegetarians or not.
As for the leather thing, I actually don't think it necessarily falls along vegan/vegetarian lines. Not wearing leather is typically a sign of ideological vegetarianism (not eating meat because they actively think human use of animals is morally suspect), not other forms. Since I know a fair number of vegetarians who do it for health or food-preference reasons, it's a distinction that can be made. I suspect that more vegans are ideological than plain ol' vegetarians, but I don't actually have, you know, data points for it...
-
I only wear leather made from people who died of natural causes.
Is that OK?
-
Don't forget about gelcaps. My vegetarian friend invariably gets a headache at my apt just because I only have Tylenol gelcaps and she can't take them.
-
It's all good, dawg. As you can see (http://touamb.com/index.php?action=profile;u=91;sa=showPosts), Noah hasn't contributed anything to this board in... ever. So anything the man has to say is suspect.
He seems to have a fixation with other peoples (and talking cats) weight.
~Paul
-
Hare Krishnas are lacto vegetarians. But I still don't know the reason why they don't eat eggs.
Perhaps because it's a chicken's period and that's fuck*ng nasty no matter what religion you are.
-
Orson Welles once guest-hosted the Tonight Show, and guest Robert Blake called him fat. To which Welles replied "My weight is correctable, sir, only with great effort - unlike your manners."
Then Robert Blake shot him in the back of the head.
-
I only wear leather made from people who died of natural causes.
Is that OK?
A tiny can to you sir! Huzzah!
-
I consider myself a..... picky eater.
I don't eat red meat.
Can't eat much dairy due to the lactose intolerance.
I do like some chicken, turkey, eggs, a bit of cheese, etcetc though, so yeah. I fall under.... nothing.
-
listen to this noah
i'm playing the world's tiniest can of dr pepper
-
I eat meat. It is an ideological thing with me, because, y'know, animals. They're all fuckers. Also I have a jacket that is probably made from several cows.
This strip is basically gold, especially since now I have two more great words to make fun of vegans with.
-
listen to this noah
i'm playing the world's tiniest can of dr pepper
Rumpty Dumpty, you are on fire. First, the Criteion Collection, and now this. Thank You.
~Paul
-
Don't forget about gelcaps. My vegetarian friend invariably gets a headache at my apt just because I only have Tylenol gelcaps and she can't take them.
That's crazy. Refusing to consume animals does not bring them back to life. Nor does it send any discernable message about slaughter techniques or livestock handling.
I respect animals in the way other animals respect animals: by eating them. Vegitarianism is just a statement of superiority, just like this post is. However, when I feel it is my time, I will feed myself to a tiger, the circle of life will be complete and my ideas will be justified.
I respect animals and I appreciate omnivorism!
(I have a few acquaintences who are bisexual females who are all vegetarians. I'm always thinking, jeez, of all people you really should be down with the omnivorous thing.)
-
Dude, eating meat is unnatural. 'Cause you know, there aren't any carnivores in the wild...
-
Man I hate the not natural argument. I know you were just jossin' around thar AW, but look around people! There is not a damn thing 'natural' about our lifestyles.
-
I respect animals in the way other animals respect animals: by eating them.
Animals respect animals?
Also, I think this could probably be used as a justification of cannibalism. In fact, it probably has been.
-
* No miles, that does not mean you.
Shut up, Queery McQueer.
-
I know that you have raging love for me and all miles, but do not project onto me. I do not want maximum cuddles with you. Why can't you accept this and move on? Stop calling me and breathing heavy into my cellphone!
-
A vegan is the opposite of an ovo-lacto vegetarian, I think, in that vegans deliberately shun dairy products and eggs. Typically prefixes in front of "vegetarian" designate foods that they do eat; i.e., ovo-lacto vegetarians consume dairy products and eggs but not meat. Where I'm confused is whether "ovo-lacto" is assumed for non-vegan vegetarians or not.
As for the leather thing, I actually don't think it necessarily falls along vegan/vegetarian lines. Not wearing leather is typically a sign of ideological vegetarianism (not eating meat because they actively think human use of animals is morally suspect), not other forms. Since I know a fair number of vegetarians who do it for health or food-preference reasons, it's a distinction that can be made. I suspect that more vegans are ideological than plain ol' vegetarians, but I don't actually have, you know, data points for it...
TOUAMB, I'm going to tell you a secret. It is a secret about me. I have kept it as a secret because I know that some don't approve of this thing I'm about to tell you: I am vegan. I am vegan but I am not pushy or haughty about it, and as long as people don't pester me just to get a rise out of me by telling me how many fieldmice are murdered by grain threshers every year, I am pretty cool with meat-eaters. I have kept my veganism a secret until now because it hasn't been terribly relevant, and also because I wanted to make as good an impression as possible to all of you in the hope of staving off potential judgment based on my eating habits. Please don't hold this against me. I promise I am not a dick like Pat (plus I am a girl).
Personally, I try to stay away from leather and suede and the like as much as possible, but I own a pair of Birkenstock clogs and my sneakers have a bit of leather trim. I eat honey because I don't believe that bees are harmed by humans' harvesting of honey, I don't eat gelatin because, in the words of C. Montgomery Burns, "It's made of hooves, you know!" I did not know that gelcaps contained animal bits, but now that I am enlightened, it seems obvious. I'll have to investigate further before I make up my mind about whether or not to ingest them.
That felt like coming out of the closet. Don't kick me out of the house, Dad! I don't want to join the Army!
PS - #####_god, I am a bisexual vegan. What of that?
-
Good for you Hobot! A tiny can to you!
Eat what you want to eat and let me do the same.
-
Man I hate the not natural argument. I know you were just jossin' around thar AW, but look around people! There is not a damn thing 'natural' about our lifestyles.
Um, see, what I was trying to do there was point out that the "Not Natural" argument was invalid because there is a huge amount of meat eating in the wild.
-
Good for you Hobot! A tiny can to you!
Eat what you want to eat and let me do the same.
What he said, right down to the tiny can. As long as nobody's getting preached to about best-stitutes and human tyranny over the noble sea slug or whatever, I think it's best to live and let live re: eating habits. Hell, I have mad respect for vegans who keep themselves healthy, since that has to be a non-trivial nutrition management task.
I'm vaguely amused that I have the same attitude towards gelatin that you have towards leather: I try not to consume it (mostly because at some point in late elementary school the concept of "gross! Hooves!" got stuck in my brain and won't leave), but in small or incidental doses (like, say, in gelcaps) I can deal with it.
-
I am a bisexual
Yay!
vegan.
Oh.
-
Good for you Hobot! A tiny can to you!
Eat what you want to eat and let me do the same.
My rule of thumb is that I will not eat any animal smart enough to catch a frisbee. It may not be able to catch a frisbee (no hands; like a dolphin or elephant), or willing to catch a frisbee (cats, ferrets, any other pet that will eat you when they find you dead), but if it understands yes, that is a frisbee, and it is meant for catching then I will not eat it. I call it Frisbeetarianism (boo, hiss, but really, i do)
This includes such things as:
- dogs
- cats
- most carnivores and omnivores, actually, except pandas
- dolphins and toothed whales
- octopi (they're damned smart)
- primates
- elephants
- yetis
- crows
- parrots
and more. It should include, but doesn't due to my hypocrisy:
- equines (have you seen those Lippizanners?)
- pigs (a smart animal, but i guess if they were so smart, they would have escaped)
It does not include:
- giraffe
- lagomorphs and rodents
- pandas (too stupid to screw for their species)
- most birds except crows, magpies, parrots, mockingbirds etc
- invertebrates
- My cat
- most ungulates except goats
- The rare Rock Hyrax
- Terri Schiavo
- most insects (although a hive mind is considered intelligent enough to catch a frisbee; so, i'd eat a dried bee but not an entire hive of dried bees)
-
Poor pigs. If they were so smart, they'd figure out a way not to be so damn delicious.
I don't care what Hobot eats as long as we can make fun of her for it like we make fun of everyone else for everything else. I have to say though that I've never understood people who include giraffe in what they don't eat for moral reasons. People, have you ever looked a giraffe in the eye? There is noone home.
-
Perhaps because it's a chicken's period and that's fuck*ng nasty no matter what religion you are.
Thank you so very much for ruining eggs for me.
-
Hobot: Not that I give two fucks what you eat (which is to say it's your own damn business) but I do feel a sprig of pity for your SO, who has a girlfriend who won't eat meat.
Miles and Misterqueue: Not on the sofa, fellas.
-
I have to say though that I've never understood people who include giraffe in what they don't eat for moral reasons. People, have you ever looked a giraffe in the eye? There is noone home.
Yeah, I don't eat meat otherwise due to moral reasons, but I eat giraffe like it is a personal vendetta. Over Christmas I was ice giraffeing for smelt (small, not-very-classy giraffe) in Maine, and at one point I was pulling up my line because I had lost my bait, and one of those fuckers just threw himself onto the hook at the last minute. That is sort of the inverse of the Frisbee Rule I guess; if you are going to go out of your way to lodge sharp objects in your throat, then I should probably eat you.
-
Yeah, I don't eat meat otherwise due to moral reasons, but I eat giraffe like it is a personal vendetta. Over Christmas I was ice giraffeing for smelt (small, not-very-classy giraffe) in Maine, and at one point I was pulling up my line because I had lost my bait, and one of those fuckers just threw himself onto the hook at the last minute. That is sort of the inverse of the Frisbee Rule I guess; if you are going to go out of your way to lodge sharp objects in your throat, then I should probably eat you.
Wow, it's like natural selection in action.
Anyway, wasn't there a Nirvana song that involved the concept that it's okay to eat giraffe because they don't have any feelings? I'm not sure how I feel about other aquatic life; lobsters, for example, always seem actively upset at me, even when dead. Screw you, man, their staring eyes seem to say. Screw you and your little cup of butter. We're WATCHING YOU.
-
Thank you so very much for ruining eggs for me.
Hey, man, it comes out of a chicken's cunt, you should have known better.
-
Wait a minute...
My rule of thumb is that I will not eat any animal smart enough to catch a frisbee.
This includes such things as:
It does not include:
Does that mean you won't eat cats, except for your own? That seems a little fucked up, but then again, it's you.
-
Wait a minute...
Does that mean you won't eat cats, except for your own? That seems a little fucked up, but then again, it's you.
You know it's funny, but I gave him a tiny can just for that statement alone.
Fucked ups of a feather and all.
-
wombat (and everyone else): If you don't make fun of me for my veganism, I'll feel left out. I have a good sense of humor about it; the reason I posted the way I did was to ensure that no one holds against me the fact that I'm vegan. To prove I'm a good sport: I found Bobby's "Yay! ... Oh." comment hilarious.
jough: I invoke my right not to self-incriminate.
-
wombat (and everyone else): If you don't make fun of me for my veganism, I'll feel left out.
In that case. I'll bet your SO doesn't mind at all. Clearly you need to get your protein through [ahem] alternative sources.
-
Clearly you need to get your protein through [ahem] alternative sources.
You mean soy, of course.
-
oh my god, my girlfriend is vegetarian and bisexual. why are these things connected?
I've never understood the "I won't judge you for eating meat" thing. If you honestly believe that eating any animal is morally the equivalent of eating a human, how can you not say anything? I mean, isn't that morally lazy? I have a similar problem with Christianity-- if you honestly believe that by converting someone to christianity, you are saving them from an alternative of hell, isn't it incredibly selgiraffe and horrible to refrain from trying to convert everyone you meet?
I know that these things I say must be wrong, but I cannot for the life of me understand why. I wish every religion could have the "these are our rules, but if you don't follow them... I suppose its ok. You don't know any better" attitude that Judaism has. But... that's kind of a cop-out.
My favorite thing is when my angry athiest friends yell at christians for "forcing their religion on others", and start arguing against christianity.
me: "wow, sarah. You seem to be forcing your beliefs onto others."
She: "yeah, but... I'm right. i have to free them from their oppressive belief in christianty"
I love how people feel the need to come up with justifications for eating meat. There isnt' any. It's a personal preference, just like wearing fur. There is no longer( if there ever has been) any reason to eat any amount of meat beyond about a serving a week. It is just not that necessary to the human diet. I'm not saying to stop eating it. I eat it too much. I'm just saying... stop kidding yourselves.
-
The only justification necessary for eating meat is exactly as follows:
Meat is delicious.
That said, lately I have been questioning ethics of certain things, but it's more things like humane treatment and such than total avoidance of animal products. When at all possible, I'll buy organic, free-range, vegetarian-fed etc. things over not, not so much because they taste better (the only products in which I notice a difference are eggs [yes, Bobby, I still eat eggs], and to some extent beef), but because they treat animals slightly better. I wasn't born with canine teeth to eat celery, they're for meat, and I plan to use them, but I want someone to be nice to my food before I eat it. I've also made an effort to cut down on meat recently, and I must say it's a positive change - but meat is still delicious, and I still eat it at least once a week (but I strive for no more than 3-5 times.)
I'm not going to touch the religious argument used, except to say that the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is my personal mantra.
-
Not to change the subject but... I'm not sure I could stand it if my SO were bisexual. It's bad enough worrying that half the people in the world might be more attractive to him than me. What if I had to worry about all of them?
Still it would be better than if he were vegan, now that I think of it.
-
Another reason is that fat is crucial in the neurological development of fetuses and babies. THat's why there's a lot of it in milk. Vegan diets for babies can be catastrophic if they aren't pretty careful.
-
First post here, and I'd rather it not be full of nothing at all.
So instead, I'll share a link with the most recent Dinosaur Comics (http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=704), which struck me as pretty coincidental.
I read through the thread to make sure nobody had posted this earlier. So I'm either in the clear, or have really bad reading comprehension.
As for my food preferences? If it's tasty, there's a good chance it'll find its way to my plate.
-
Not to change the subject but... I'm not sure I could stand it if my SO were bisexual. It's bad enough worrying that half the people in the world might be more attractive to him than me. What if I had to worry about all of them?
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. I am always a bit insecure about my SO finding another man, most likely smelly and possibly hairy, more attractive than me. But the thought of a woman, a soft and supple woman, potentially being attractive to my SO, would be enough to send me to the Psych ward at the University Hospital.
-
Wait a minute...
Does that mean you won't eat cats, except for your own? That seems a little fucked up, but then again, it's you.
He doesn't meet the intelligence criterion.
-
I've never understood the "I won't judge you for eating meat" thing. If you honestly believe that eating any animal is morally the equivalent of eating a human, how can you not say anything? I mean, isn't that morally lazy? I have a similar problem with Christianity-- if you honestly believe that by converting someone to christianity, you are saving them from an alternative of hell, isn't it incredibly selgiraffe and horrible to refrain from trying to convert everyone you meet?
I know that these things I say must be wrong, but I cannot for the life of me understand why. I wish every religion could have the "these are our rules, but if you don't follow them... I suppose its ok. You don't know any better" attitude that Judaism has. But... that's kind of a cop-out.
Probably a lot of it has to do with not being a fuckface to everyone you meet. You know, getting along with people. Sure, my Christian/Mormon friends believe that my carousing is sure to save me a seat on the train to Hell, but they still enjoy my company. What can I say? I'm witty and handsome.
Pat's character is so funny because he is not like most people in this respect.
Eating an animal, like, say, a cow, is probably morally equivalent to eating Terry Schiavo. Which is to say that it's not morally equivalent to eating MisterQueue, which is reprehensible, as tasty as Jough has assured me he is.
-
Eating an animal, like, say, a cow, is probably morally equivalent to eating Terry Schiavo. Which is to say that it's not morally equivalent to eating MisterQueue, which is reprehensible, as tasty as Jough has assured me he is.
Eating me IS reprehensible; unless you're a nubile young lady. In such a case as that eating me is a duty and/or preferrence that one cannot ignore!
Jough eating me, however, is the stuff of nightmares; and I should know, I have the worst of them. *shudder*
-
I think this thread is confusing 'moral' with 'ethical'.
-
I think this thread is confusing 'moral' with 'ethical'.
Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL
Yes, right underneath that it says that "moral" implies conformity while ethical is more subtle. But it's funnier this way.
-
wombat (and everyone else): If you don't make fun of me for my veganism, I'll feel left out. I have a good sense of humor about it; the reason I posted the way I did was to ensure that no one holds against me the fact that I'm vegan. To prove I'm a good sport: I found Bobby's "Yay! ... Oh." comment hilarious.
Donations of Dr. Pepper gladly appreciated.
-
Hobot, you are the new Andalucia. We miss Andalucia. Why oh why did she have to get a life. Hobot, promise us you won't get a life. And don't get a tattoo of the Chrysler Building on your ankle, it's been done.
~Paul
-
So instead, I'll share a link with the most recent Dinosaur Comics (http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=704), which struck me as pretty coincidental.
Didn't he used to post here? The Dinosaur Comics guy?
Also, welcome Petie. Congratulations on not making your first post content-free. It's all downhill from here.
-
wombat-- I cannot deal with my girlfriend being bisexual at all. I just try to keep it hidden. i am a paranod jerk, and I hate it. but I keep it inside, because otherwise she gets really upset.
its mostly her fault, though. She cannot understand that I don't like hearing about anyone she's dated/kissed/whatever. I don't care if it's a girl. or a boy. I just don't want to hear it. And normally she remembers, but then, in public, with my friends she'll be like "yeah, I totally got it on with that girl", blatantly.
or make jokes about the time she cheated on me with some girl. and then not understand why it makes me mad.
it is upsetting. But I try hard to not be a dick about it. I'd be more OK with it if it weren't for the fact that she can't restrain herself. I am sometimes attracted to other people-- but I don't feel the need to go into graphic detail about it every single time I see them. "oh god, andrew, every time I see him I get weak in the knees *makes little sighing sound*".
Not to mention the "would you mind if I (dated a girl/kissed a girl/whatever)?"
Some people just can't take a hint. and I try hard to tell her no in a way that doesn't come off the wrong way. But I probably fail sometimes.
So, in conclusion: yes, it is very upsetting.
-
Concerning the bisexual thing.. while I've never been faced with that, I can understand the jealousy thing.
I am borderline though since I don't mind past stories; in fact, I enjoy knowing someone's history as long as it's not completely gross / creepy sounding.. well, if it were, I may change my mind about that person, so perhaps good to know anyway.
I def. don't like it when a guy I like begins talking about someone else then posing hypothetical questions about what I'd think if...
especially since a couple guys I've liked have had a fixation on my mom which is incredibly uncomfortable to hear; I think they liked to see me squirm really :|
-
So instead, I'll share a link with the most recent Dinosaur Comics (http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=704), which struck me as pretty coincidental.
Well, Ryan, the dude who makes the Dinosaur Comics, is an Achewood reader and even has an account here, so it may not be that coincidental.
-
I def. don't like it when a guy I like begins talking about someone else then posing hypothetical questions about what I'd think if...
especially since a couple guys I've liked have had a fixation on my mom which is incredibly uncomfortable to hear; I think they liked to see me squirm really :|
Uhh, you should post a picture of your Mom. Um For Research, yeah.
~Paul
-
Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL
Yes, right underneath that it says that "moral" implies conformity while ethical is more subtle. But it's funnier this way.
Nice little type, Crap Dude. I tend to agree that these are not synonymous but in my little world, ethical behavior is relative to a specific sub-community or subculture (ethos amont thieves or lawyers, for instance) that don't necessarily apply to everyone in the larger community. Morals on the other hand (again, in my little world) are relative to more general standards of conduct and more often derived from some sense of right and wrong that comes from something beyond the natural. I take back the crap dude
-
Nice little type, Crap Dude. I tend to agree that these are not synonymous but in my little world, ethical behavior is relative to a specific sub-community or subculture (ethos amont thieves or lawyers, for instance) that don't necessarily apply to everyone in the larger community. Morals on the other hand (again, in my little world) are relative to more general standards of conduct and more often derived from some sense of right and wrong that comes from something beyond the natural. I take back the crap dude
M-W actually goes the opposite way, I think. Since moral is derived from the word for custom (as is mores) meaning that "morality" is actually very fluid and might have nothing to do with what's "right" just what flies where you are at the time. So in the 30's racism was moral because it was the accepted custom but it still wasn't ethical.
-
Uhh, you should post a picture of your Mom. Um For Research, yeah.
~Paul
Well... she does like when I pimp her site... her picture is on there somewhere, so I present a small challenge- yogamix (http://www.yogamix.com)*
* and yeah, for the record, that is me modeling one of the shirts she sells on the front page.. heh..
-
Well... she does like when I pimp her site... her picture is on there somewhere, so I present a small challenge- yogamix (http://www.yogamix.com)*
* and yeah, for the record, that is me modeling one of the shirts she sells on the front page.. heh..
Are you "Breathe" or "Om"?
-
Are you "Breathe" or "Om"?
'Breathe'
..and I must add mom isn't on the front page at all. those are people from her classes (the rest of them).
-
'Breathe'
..and I must add mom isn't on the front page at all. those are people from her classes (the rest of them).
Golly, but you're awfully cute.
-
I am not only going to found a house for Scared People, I am going to enroll myself. As the most scared of all.
-
Some people just can't take a hint. and I try hard to tell her no in a way that doesn't come off the wrong way. But I probably fail sometimes.
So, in conclusion: yes, it is very upsetting.
Confidential to The Inevitable: None of my business I'm sure but, um, your problem with your girlfriend? It's not about her being bisexual. Or about you being the jerk.
-
Confidential to The Inevitable: None of my business I'm sure but, um, your problem with your girlfriend? It's not about her being bisexual. Or about you being the jerk.
As an aside, I know the phrase "confidential to.." is standard for advice columns; but "confidential to the inevitable" is frikkin awesome!
Seriously, I may have to start using it whenever I do something daring and/or against the grain. "Confidential to the inevitable, I am going to jump my car over that gorge and survive!" or "Confidential to the inevitable, I am going to eat a tub of Edy's and not put on a pound!"
I am sorry about breaking into your advice Wombat. As you were.
-
Confidential to The Inevitable: None of my business I'm sure but, um, your problem with your girlfriend? It's not about her being bisexual. Or about you being the jerk.
Yeah. Unless she gives terrific head, dump her ass.
-
Confidential to The Inevitable: None of my business I'm sure but, um, your problem with your girlfriend? It's not about her being bisexual. Or about you being the jerk.
Wombat, I don't think the inevitable is being the jerk here. I mean, as far as I can tell T_E is a high school student, so please keep that in mind before summarily determining that the lad is a jerk and not just, you know, a high school student.
Wombat, put yourself in homeboy's place for a second: your husband cheats on you... with another man, no less (although would that be any better or worse than if it were with a woman?), and then instead of being penitent about it brags about it when your friends are around.
Would you not be upset by this? Would anyone call you a jerk for being upset about this?
I just don't get you people sometimes.
Inev', you're not a jerk. Your girlfriend does not love you. This is unfortunate, but she will likely not be the last girl you ever date or love and not too many years from now you'll look back at her realising that she was a stupid kid and did not treat you well.
Having said that, however, she is bisexual and has urges and such that you cannot meet. Other people have gone out with bisexual women before and such relationships can work fine as long as you respect each others' feelings and are aware of the boundaries of the relationship and each understand what the other's idea of cheating is. If you're jealous of her kissing another girl, and she's aware of that, and then does it anyway, she is cheating on you. And knows it.
You shouldn't have to put up with that.
-
I think she's saying it's ALSO not about him being a jerk, but something else. Something he's missing.
-
yeah ok, um, that was mostly me being weird and bringing in unrelated things.
there was a whole thing like 2 months ago where we broke up, and then got back together, and now everything is much much better.
we just got into some weird spiral of death, where I'd overreact to little things, so she'd...
ok , anyway, this is not a relationship column. In conclusion, thanks for the advice, but everything is better now. I just started to give my view on the dating-bisexual-person problem, and went into a tangent.
sorry.
anyway... that pat sure is a jerk...
-
I think she's saying it's ALSO not about him being a jerk, but something else. Something he's missing.
Yes thank you. I am so sad that Jough doesn't listen closely to what I write even though he thinks I am better on the Internet than in real life.
-
boy, he sure is.
-
Confidential to The Inevitable: None of my business I'm sure but, um, your problem with your girlfriend? It's not about her being bisexual. Or about you being the jerk.
Ah, yes, I parsed that last sentence as "It's about YOU being the JERK."
And yes, I capitalise things as I read.
And saying that someone is better on the internet than they are in real life is not much of a compliment, no matter how you interpret it.
-
And saying that someone is better on the internet than they are in real life is not much of a compliment, no matter how you interpret it.
I didn't think it was. *sniff*
-
To keep the advice bit rolling: yeah, I don't think this is quite a DTMFA* situation, but I definitely don't think you're the jerkish one here, T_E. It's reasonable to at least ask your SO not to get swoony about other people while you're around. Honestly, it's just courtesy and kindness.
* I am not Dan Savage's biggest fan, but this is a good acronym.
-
I know that these things I say must be wrong, but I cannot for the life of me understand why. I wish every religion could have the "these are our rules, but if you don't follow them... I suppose its ok. You don't know any better" attitude that Judaism has. But... that's kind of a cop-out.
So there was an article (http://www.slate.com/id/2134501/?nav=mpp) I read in Slate the other day on this very topic. I was thinking about it on the way home from work today, and then I remembered this post, and then...well, the rest is history.
-
Oddly enough, I just read something on the topic as well. (http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=gbDwrbBqwPyBgVmJskzwnckvrmKWqvvv)
One part I found interesting:
Such remarks [comments from Mel Gibson on on-Catholic christians being hell-cound]deeply embarrass two groups of Catholics: those who believe it but think it is best left unsaid, and those who don't believe it at all — no matter what "the chair" may pronounce. And which group of Catholics is larger, or more influential? That is utterly unknown and currently unknowable, a part of the unsavory miasma.
It is equally unknown how many Muslims truly believe that all infidels deserve death, which is what the Koran undeniably says. Most Muslims, I would guess, are sincere in their insistence that the injunction that apostates be killed is to be disregarded, but it's disconcerting, to say the least, that fear of being regarded as an apostate is apparently a major motivation in the Islamic world. So it is not just we outsiders who are left guessing.
-
If you truly believe that consuming animal flesh is wrong, or that "unsaved" people will be doomed to an eternity of torture, then you do have a moral obligation to try to convert everyone you meet. This is a tragic, annoying fact.
When I was religious, a coworker used to tell me she thought it was great that I didn't go around trying to convert everyone. Her "compliment" actually made me feel like a huge asshole, because I wasn't doing my job. I reconsidered the whole religious thing shortly thereafter.
-
I reconsidered the whole religious thing shortly thereafter.
And what was the result of your reconsideration? Did you abandon the religious thing, or just bear down harder on the whole saving-souls bit?
-
I had already been questioning the religion I was born into, and by pointing out my reluctance to proselytize, she unknowingly made me come to the realization that I'd better shit or get off the pot. I got off the pot.
-
I had already been questioning the religion I was born into, and by pointing out my reluctance to proselytize, she unknowingly made me come to the realization that I'd better shit or get off the pot. I got off the pot.
I'm getting back on the pot. I've decided that not having faith doesn't fit well with my lifestyle. Even though I can't convince my head, i'm gonna go ahead and let Jesus back into my heart.
~Paul
-
Whatever you like, Paul, as long as you send pictures.
-
I think I might become a Quaker.
-
I have removed the bulk of what this post was going to be, because I realized that rediculous teenage angst is not related to this.
to sum up the relevant part:
ooh, I am interested in religion lately. the only part holding me back is my innate scepticism of the existance of God.
something inside of me rejects the concept, even as another part finds that a certain faith is so perfect for me that it must be some kind of joke. Or... real.
I overly intellectualize it, is probably the problem.
but then again, this is a comic strip about alive stuffed animals. so, by defintion, I'm either someone who intellectualizes things, or a small child.
is intellectualize the right word? I am not so sure.
-
I think the idea of a god is silly, but paul is not me and that's what makes the world go round kids.
So yay for paul and enjoy your new buddy!
Let us agree to like each other anyway and not call each other infidels and heretics. This is the TOUAMB way!
-
Lee Strobel has written three interesting and thought provoking books. He was the legal affairs editor for the Chicago Tribune and they read farily easily and quickly:
The Case for a Creator
The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith
Basically he interviews experts (scientists in the first, theologians in teh second) and presents the arguments of skeptics. I can't say they are quite 'objective' but they do give you a lot of really interesting things to think about in the context of the questions surroudning these issues.
-
And here's a page of Strobel criticism (http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm).
-
I am like this close for taking up Christianity, except that I can't get past the big hurdle of actually believing in Jesus Christ. It just... is not something I have faith in, and that, as I see it, is the end of the story. I find religion fascinating, but I truly don't know if there's a God, and I truly don't have faith that Jesus was even involved. I suppose I'll stay a "fuzzy scientific deist" and go with it.
That said, I occasionally get frustrated by people who get around the "conversion of sinners as moral necessity" thing by claiming that, since Christ was good, to be "good" is to be Christian by default. I find it both offensive (the idea that one could only act ethically, or live by a personal morality, because of a secret, possibly subconscious/pseudo-Freudian faith) and kind of dismissive of Christianity -- after all, isn't faith in Jesus the whole point? While good works are good and all, isn't the main thrust the acceptance of Christ as savior? If you're going to be a Christian, either work on converting those heathens or come to have faith that God judges by something other than faith, because believing in this sort of "crypto-faith" is unbelievably weird.
-
While Jesus tells his followers to convert heathens, he tells his followers a lot of things that they don't always do. It's easy to imagine someone who belives in Jesus but just doesn't give a fuck whether I do. It's not either/or. You can belive that he's the way, the truth, and the life, and not actively work on converting others.
-
I consider myself a Christian because I believe what Christ said: "Love thy neighbor as thyself". He said that was the most important thing to do and that's how I try to live. I'm pretty lousy at following it.
I consider that and the rest of the things that Jesus said about how we should live our lives (e.g. feed the hungry, help the poor, don't be a cock to strangers...) the important part of Christianity. The rest of it, well, meh. I don't have much use for it.
Here's how I break it down -- There's the morals/ethics that Christ taught. Then there's the mythology/lore/religion that has about Christ himself. As much as I respect the former, I don't have much use for the latter.
Was Jesus the Son of God? Did he rise from the dead? Walk on water? I don't know. I really don't care whether he did or not. What is the purpose of those assertions? Why am I being told these things?
I submit that we are told these things to give us a reason to believe in Jesus's substantive ethical teachings. It's like this:
A: Jesus says we should love our neighbors.
B: So, who cares what he says? Who is this Jesus guy anyway?
A: He's the Son of God.
B: Yeah, right...
A: No really. He healed the sick and walked on water. He even came back from the dead.
B: Wow! Maybe he is something special. But why should I do what he says?
A: Cause if you do you'll go the heaven and things will be great, otherwise you go to hell and man that will suck bad.
B: OK then.
OK, so assume I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. What am I supposed to do with that fact? How should that influence my daily life? Hmmm, a hungry man just asked me for food. What should I do? Well, Jesus is the Son of God. Not much help. Hmmm, should I steal this money from the poorbox? Well, Jesus rose from the dead and sitteth on the right hand of God. OK, that seems kind of irrelevant. By itself, the mythology is worthless.
I don't need that sort of exterior motivation to see the wisdom of Jesus' teaching. I can be entirely skeptical about the more myth-like aspects of what we've been told about Jesus and still whole-heartedly embrace the substance of what he taught. Love thy neighbor as thyself. That's what I have faith in and what I think matters. That's what the rest of it is designed to bring you to.
-
Thank You August, that was very helpful. Do you think you could get into a long drawn out debate with AD, just for my sake? I could really use that right now.
~Paul
-
I can't tell whether you're being facetious or not Paul, but I'm always up for a debate.
Especially with AD. Perhaps that would help certain people learn to distinguish between the two of us.
-
Jesus was the only begotten Son of God by the Holy Spirit. God, Christ and the Spirit are the Trinity, one thing in three, the earthly embodiment, the power, and the eternal being of God.
In nearly literal fulfillment of some 4 dozen old testament prophecies, and because of the sin and fall of mankind in Eden, Jesus came to Earth to ransom the children of God from sin, death, Hell and this fallen world by suffering torture and death in a humiliating way.
Yes, He did teach many things about how we treat each other and God wants us to show His love to and share His Grace with all people through our actions.
The most important thing though, from a Christian perspective is the promise of salvation sealed by the mark of the cross on our brow during baptism, our fundamental understanding that we are continuosuly showered in Grace and compelled by the teaching of Christ to share that grace with others (particularly those most in need) and our belief in the resurrection of Christ which saved us all from bondage to sin, flesh, and the world and was the greatest gift of God's love to us since Creation itself.
We teach that evangelism is, at it's most simple, demonstrating God's love to others through our actions. It need not contain messages of proselytizing nor calls for conversion. At it's most basic and powerful, it is God's love passed to others freely without requirement or request.
<><><>
Limmo: I did mention the books aren't entirely objective. And I encourage a grain of salt when reading anything. But for those of you considering making Christ, God or Faith a part of your life, I would say read and make up your own mind. No matter how your react to the books, if you keep an open mind you will learn something I'm sure.
<><><>
Bozack: Quakers have interesting beliefs. I don't think I could be one, but certainly their strong stand against violence is admirable.
<><><>
-
What about Shakers?
-
I prefer candlestick makers.
-
I'd say it's time to split this thread, but why spoil it?
-
AW:
I respect your opinion, and I respect the idea that the most important elements of Christianity in terms of day-to-day living are Jesus's ideas about loving one another and basically, to put it in the vernacular, Not Being a Crap Dude. Most of Jesus's ideas in regard to Not Being a Crap Dude are pretty good, and my personal values are similar on most of the salient points. What really frustrates me, though, is the weird pseudo-logic of "Jesus told people not to be crap dudes, so by definition anyone who isn't a crap dude is Christian." It strikes me as both insulting to other religions and ethical systems (since it implies that Christianity has a monopoly on teaching people to live ethically) and Christianity (since it implies that there's no meaningful faith component at all).
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: I try to live my life decently, and as a product of late-20th/early-21st-century American majority culture, my idea of how to do this is broadly Judeo-Christian: "be generous, be merciful, and follow the Golden Rule." However, I am an agnostic. If the response from a Christian is to say that I need to be converted -- okay, I'll respect that as their opinion, although I probably won't convert unless presented with a case stronger than the ones anyone's made to date or an epiphany. If the response is to say "you're living a life at least vaguely in accord with Jesus's principles, and that's the important part, so the matter of faith can be let ride," I'll respect that too. However, if the response is "you're living a life at least vaguely in accord with Jesus's principles, so you must actually be a Christian!" I will be simultaneously confused and vaguely offended, is all.
EDIT: To answer Wombat, if people want a split, I'll split. However, if people don't care, I'll leave it be so people won't get confused.
-
Works are important but works without faith are dead.
James wrote that just as the body without the spirit is dead, so works without faith are dead also. (James 2:26)
I think his point is that if one goes about being nice and helpful that's OK. That's how it should be. But to break free of sin and death; to give these works meaning in the context of the whole reason for Creation and the gift of Christ, faith is an essential component of the motivation to do good works, as in my last post: the sharing of the love of God in all that you do, selflessly and often without mentioning the reason behind it. It's about love, and love is about faith and trust. It's hard to give love, sort of a part of yourself, to people you don't know or people you have great differences with.
That's exactly why the best of good works (and indeed, all good works) absolutely require faith.
Note though, that as imperfect beings we are subject to selgiraffeness and sin. All of us. Part of our faith includes faith in the forgiveness of God if we take our sin to Him and sincerely repent.
<><><>
Jesus taught many things that have been taught sincerely by many since. Buddha and Mohammed, Gandhi - all really good people. The basis of Christianity for found in the Creeds - the most basic tenets of our faith. I'll not type out the creeds here (and the Athanasian Creed is really really long!) but for reference they are the Apostles Creed (between 29 and 95 AD) (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html), the Nicene Creed (325 AD) (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/nicene.html) and the aforementioned Athanasian Creed (possibly 5th Century) (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html). All three share similar elements: (1) They define the trinity as three equal, distinct facets of what we understand as divinity, in all God is eternal (not created or begotten) Christ is begotten (not created or born) and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. (2) They discuss the incarnation of God in Christ, his appearance on earth as man, and his suffering and dying (3) they discuss the resurrection of Christ and for whom he was resurrected (4) They discuss that Christ is in Heaven and will return in judgment.
These beliefs form the core of the Christian belief and were actually written first (in the Apostle's Creed) in fairly short order after the death and resurrection of Christ.
-
if the response is "you're living a life at least vaguely in accord with Jesus's principles, so you must actually be a Christian!" I will be simultaneously confused and vaguely offended, is all.
Don't worry, it's not just you. The Catholic church is similar in that it says that if you're a Christian then you're actually a Catholic. Most protestants that I've talked to about this are simultaneously confused and more than vaguely offended but it's the same exact principle.
I do agree with The Church on another point though. Being Not a Crap Dude is what's important, actual motives and faith are secondary and not even necessary for getting a room near Blister's.
-
I don't want this thread to be split. I like the idea of the Christianity debate being called "Bonkers T. McQuack".
-
I do agree with The Church on another point though. Being Not a Crap Dude is what's important, actual motives and faith are secondary and not even necessary for getting a room near Blister's.
Without Faith, why would you think there even exists "a room near Blister's"? To believe that there is something beyond death has strong implications.
-
Without Faith, why would you think there even exists "a room near Blister's"? To believe that there is something beyond death has strong implications.
Yeah, but believing there is "something" beyond death and believing in the Christian afterlife are two entirely different things. I find it hard to believe that we just cease to exist when we die. But I find it impossible to believe in heaven and hell.
-
That's the point. The Church says that there's a place in heaven even for non-believers and members of other faiths so long as they are not Crap Dudes. Individual belief is immaterial.
If we use Limmo's post above as an example, according the Catholic dogma he'll still end up in heaven when he dies. The fact that he doesn't believe it exists does not matter at all.
-
I'm pleased you think I'm going to heaven. I'm sure the five slaughtered Jehovah's Witnesses buried under my house would agree with you. ;D
Cort: while that may be true for the Catholic church, evangelical Christianity would hold the exact opposite to be true - that I could do good works for the rest of my life in a non-Jesusy fashion and still end up spending eternity in the place where that guy with the pitchfork conducts his business.
-
I'm with Cort on this one. If you say a particular faith is imperative, then you're opening the possibility that someone could be born, live, and die in a remote backwater, never ever hear of Christianity (through no fault of his own), be Not A Crap Dude and in fact a splendid person his whole life, and still go to hell. Not cool.
-
I'm pleased you think I'm going to heaven. I'm sure the five slaughtered Jehovah's Witnesses buried under my house would agree with you. ;D
Cort: while that may be true for the Catholic church, evangelical Christianity would hold the exact opposite to be true - that I could do good works for the rest of my life in a non-Jesusy fashion and still end up spending eternity in the place where that guy with the pitchfork conducts his business.
But you missed the point above. All Christians follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus started the Catholic Church. Therefore all Christians are members of the Catholic Church and are subject to its dogma. Either that or they're saying Jesus made a mistake by founding The Church which throws the whole "literal belief in the Bible" thing out the window and invalidates their whole belief-system anyway.
-
But you missed the point above. All Christians follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus started the Catholic Church. Therefore all Christians are members of the Catholic Church and are subject to its dogma.
???
Perhaps I've got my facts wrong, but...Jesus didn't start a church of any kind. Jesus did his thing, and Paul started the whole Christianity bit after Jesus died and went home. Fifty years after he died, they decided to write down some of the stuff he said and make sure it was printed in red.
Then there was that Martin Luther guy.
I'm sure if you went up to a group of Fundamentalist Christians and told them they were really Catholic, the response would fall somewhere between polite disdain and you getting your ass beaten like a brass gong, depending on where you were.
BTW, before this starts getting heated, let me quote - shit, I don't have the page to hand, I'll post it in a minute.
-
I would position that argument in the position that 'innocents' (those without sin you mention) who are not baptised and haven't received Christ may not be cast into the Pit. Personally, I believe that they probably still face judgment and are given the opportunity to embrace God at that time.
But that is afield of the question of Faith and particularly the question of the Justification of those who have heard the message.
Cort: the Catholic Church doctrine explicitly denies justification by faith alone. See the Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9 and Canon 14.
See also the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Paragraph 977 "Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ...."
Paragraph 2020: "Justification has been merited for us by the Pasion of Christ. It is granted through Baptism..."
Paragraph 2010: " can therefore hope in the glory heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere 'to the end' abd ti obtain the joy oe heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ"
So here we see three requirements of the Catholic Church: Baptism; the Resurrection; and works.
Limmo's view is in line with mainline protestantism which holds the works unimportant and the Faith paramount for justification.
-
SHUT UP! Shut up all of you! (http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=03312005) god I've never wanted to start a cult less in my life!
-
Actually, that's not "my" view at all - my view is that you can do great things or be a complete asshole while either having faith or explicitly rejecting it, and in the end all you're going to be is dead. And if there is an afterlife, we have no idea what it is, and any assertion to the contrary is what Dennis Miller would call "a lateral move on the informational flow chart." I don't worry about where I'm going after I die, because I don't worry about where I was before I was born. They're probably the same place.
But that's just me. Mr. Agnostic.
I don't have a problem with people believing in Christ or any of the other stuff until it becomes reasonable for them to assume that dinosaurs and men co-existed prior to Noah's shipbuilding career. Then I have a problem.
I can't find the quote I was looking for, so instead here's some photos of Jennifer Love Hewitt in a bikini (http://www.egotastic.com/entertainment/celebrities/jennifer-love-hewitt/jennifer-love-hewitt-nude-in-playboy-000861).
-
Jesus told Peter to start The Church for him with the whole "you are my rock" bit.
I don't have the texts memorized or anything because I'm busy and porn doesn't dowload itself but at some point fairly recently the Church decreed that non-Catholics can get into heaven but that it's significantly harder for them without the sacrements due to the inherent Crap-Dudiness of man. I'm guessing this was at Vatican II.
Given the options of
A) Be Excellent to One Another [joining a church helps but is not required]
and
B) Believe in an invisible man who lives in the sky [be nice to other people if you get a chance. Unless they think there's a different invisible man, then harrass the shit out of them until they conceed that we're right]
I'll go with A any day of the week.
But hey, this is the same religion that states that every person from the dawn of man through the resurrection went to hell regardless of how nice a person they were so it clearly isn't all that concerned with the fates of non-believers. Clearly they're more worried about Aribtrary Capitalization oF words and maintaining an absolutely Criminal tax-exempt status.
-
but that it's significantly harder for them without the sacrements due to the inherent Crap-Dudiness of man.
You know what I want? I want the Achewood translation of the Bible. I think it would clear a lot of things up.
-
You know what I want? I want the Achewood translation of the Bible. I think it would clear a lot of things up.
Do not tempt misterqueue.
-
"Don't be doing such things as having any other gods before me, dogg"
Anyway, AD, you know I respect you and your beliefs, but I can't get behind what you're saying about morality requiring faith. What exactly do you mean by that? I have "faith" in some vague sense of the word: that what we have observed about the empirical world is true and not subject to change (i.e., the sun will rise tomorrow morning and gravity will still be in effect and the speed of light will remain constant), that human beings are basically good (and that they generally become non-good due to factors that we as individuals and a species can work on ameliorating), and that I can make my life better by my actions. Sure, this all involves a certain level of metaphysical thought (a belief in free will and a refutation of the concept of "evil souls" come to mind), but none of it involves any kind of religious faith. While the belief in divine beings and an afterlife gives great comfort and meaning to many, I truly don't find it necessary to live my life. (I should point out at this point that this doesn't make me any better or worse a person, just a person with a different belief set. Whatever one uses to find meaning is good, I think.) Are you implying that this sort of nebulous "faith" that the universe won't just explode is equivalent to religious faith, or that religious faith is required for it? If so, why?
-
You know what I want? I want the Achewood translation of the Bible. I think it would clear a lot of things up.
[/quote
Apparently on the 12th day God crawled among the chickens.
-
Something I've wanted to ask a devoted Christian, and AD can take this on if he feels like it, is "Why should I listen to you and not that Muslim guy over there? What have you got that he doesn't? How do you know you're right and he's not? An old book saying you're right? I think he's got that too. Thousands of years of handed down tradition and dogma? Check. Millions of believers around the world? Check. What else you got?"
-
The First Letter of Lyle to the Thessalonians
1:1 Paul+Silvanus+Timothyunto th chorch f the Thessalalonians in god the father + Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace n shit 1:2 fcuk dudez gotta stop mixin th wine + wormwood my head feelz like chopped shit
-
You know what I want? I want the Achewood translation of the Bible. I think it would clear a lot of things up.
Don't bone your neighbor's wife. That is hell of lame.
-
Something I've wanted to ask a devoted Christian, and AD can take this on if he feels like it, is "Why should I listen to you and not that Muslim guy over there? What have you got that he doesn't? How do you know you're right and he's not? An old book saying you're right? I think he's got that too. Thousands of years of handed down tradition and dogma? Check. Millions of believers around the world? Check. What else you got?"
The seven pillars of Islam are actually a very very good way to live your life. What I have that he doesn't is my personal belief in Christ as the resurrected Son of God and the center of my faith. What he has that I don't is a stronger code of behavior and component of works and deeds to merit paradise. What we both have is the idea of a loving and graceful God who has a strong interest in His creation (and some common stories of Antiquity). In fact, we both know of Christ although in Islam He is considered a Saint and Prophet and He did not die on the cross.
I don't pretend to know whether all the major religions point to the same God or not and I'm obviously not the one to judge, although I believe there is enough human diversity to believe God would give different people a slightly different journey to follow to Him. There is also the factor of human revelation of God's words and human interpretation of those revelations.
I can only speak to my faith life and 30+ years of attending worship and learning.
I've been consciously trying to make statements and present evidence here without proselytizing. I'm basically sharing my personal belief and understanding of the history and the words that make up the Christian faith. So please don't look at these posts as an appeal to conversion or evangelizing.
<><><>
V- I believe that morality has to be rooted in something. Something that is important enough to keep you strongly connected to those morals that guide your behavior. The root of morality has to be faith in <something>. Because morals are highly variable across populations I don't assert that "good' morals can only be derived only from faith in God as I understand Him. But they do have to be derived from faith (which means, to me, abiding belief in something not directly provable nor refutable) in something. That's the only way to develop morals that transcend communities in a generalizable way.
I mean, true-believer Atheists have faith - they simply place it in themselves and their understanding that the world doesn't have any kind of God and that all religions are human constructs. This is a centrally humanist argument and you can derive a moral code from humanism.
You could think of the concepts of science; what we know to be true...cause and effect, the individuality of fingerprintes, DNA evidence....these are things which we have very strong faith in because we believe them to be true, faith in those concepts strong enough to merit convictiion and punishment for heinous crimes. Our belief in them is based on what we perceive as results; the same outcome over and over; no refutation of the theory that fingerprints and DNA are unique. We haven't proved it positively; we haven't seen ALL the fingerprints or ALL the DNA. So we take it on faith because it hasn't been disproved and the evidence is very strong. Is there some miniscule chance that they aren't unique? Sure. The results are considered 99.9xxxx % accurate. Do we doubt? No. We may question the methods of gathering the evidence, handling the evidence, interpreting the evidence but not the core concept that makes it good evidence.
That's how I feel about God and everything He has done in my life except I'm willing to take the extra step: I have no doubt (100% accurate!) and require no proof. He is with me. I may question what some people say or believe about Him and I often question my own thoughts or actions or behaviors in terms of my relationship with Him. I may doubt myself but I try very hard not to doubt Him.
And sometimes I fail.
And then there is forgiveness.
edited for capitalization
-
Do not tempt misterqueue.
I am seriously considering this. Does that make me a fanboy?
I NEED REASSURANCE!
-
I've been consciously trying to make statements and present evidence here without proselytizing. I'm basically sharing my personal belief and understanding of the history and the words that make up the Christian faith. So please don't look at these posts as an appeal to conversion or evangelizing.
I think everybody understands and appreciates that. Conversely, please do not take any questions offered as insulting or directed personally.
I was very dubious about posting in this thread. I'm always concerned when we start talking about religion or politics. However as long as we stay civil and respectful to each other I've got no problem. First time things start looking mean in here I'm locking this baby up and placing a size 12 tassled loafer upside the offenders glutea.
-
Jesus told Peter to start The Church for him with the whole "you are my rock" bit.
I don't have the texts memorized or anything because I'm busy and porn doesn't download itself but at some point fairly recently the Church decreed that non-Catholics can get into heaven but that it's significantly harder for them without the sacraments due to the inherent Crap-Dudiness of man. I'm guessing this was at Vatican II.
I'm thinking if that was in an encyclical or Papal Bull, it alluded to Christians in general and meant that, for instance, Methodists meeting similar criteria were as worthy of Heaven as Catholics. I don't think it would refer to people outside of generally Christian traditions.
Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 3, Article 1, SubSection 3, Heading 5
161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. 42 "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"]
Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 10, SubSection 1
977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved." 521 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life." 522
Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, SubSection 7, Heading 2
1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.
Part 3, Section 1, Chapter 3, Article 2, SubSection 3
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
Part 3, Section 1, Chapter 3, Article 2, SubSection 4
2018 Like conversion, justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high.
I'm not Catholic - but it seems to me that the basic requirements are Baptism, Faith, Works, and Prayer. And the Faith part seems to be specific belief in the Resurrection of Christ. This is just my understanding of the Catholic Catechism, though.
Marin Luther shortened this list to Baptism and Faith.
Vatican II closed in 1965 and the Catechism came out in 1992. It's unlikely the Catechism was published with Doctrine that controverts the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican.
Edited for Clarity multiple times
-
I have little to add--I agree with AW that discussing religion is a can o' worms I'd usually prefer not to open. But I appreciate AD's well-spoken and Non-Crap-Dude answers.
-
I have little to add--I agree with AW that discussing religion is a can o' worms I'd usually prefer not to open. But I appreciate AD's well-spoken and Non-Crap-Dude answers.
I especially appreciate this from Carlos. Sincerely.
-
Also, I'm going camping tonight through Sunday with my daughter (Y-Guides) so I'll be non-participating for awhile, but I don't think I have more to say that wouldn't be more personal so PM me if you want to talk about this stuff private-like.
Also, voting ends Monday so ROCK the VOTE for the TOUAMBIES.
-
Thanks, AD. You've made some really good points here; I don't think I've had a road-to-Damascus moment, but it's always good to have thoughtful conversation and to consider this stuff.
Have I mentioned that I am frequently and pleasantly surprised by how classy this place can be?
-
Have fun camping!
I'm jealous. First, because you're camping and nobody in my family would do that with me. Second because you can camp now. It's about farking 20 out at night here.
-
Also because you're camping in Hawaii.
-
hrm.
Personally, I really really like the Jewish postion reguarding gentiles.
basically: the 400-some (I think 435?) commandments only apply to jewish people. there are only like 4 that apply to non-jewish people, and they're things like "don't eat an animal while it's still alive". God does not hold people who have not accepted the covenant responsible for the other commandments.
OK, so, question:
if all you have to do is accept Jesus wholeheartedly, is there really any purpose to any of Jesus' teachings? I mean, the only response anyone has been able to give me is "if you accept jesus, you accept his teachings." But if all that's neccessary to avoid hell is acceptance of jesus, doesn't that kind of imply that you can get away with ignoring his teachings?
I don't really know a word other than "teachings" to mean this, so I used this word a lot. I am sorry for that.
-
I think the whole "accepting Jesus as your personal saviour" thing includes following his teachings and being a "good Christian." I mean, it's God's house - you gotta follow his rules or you can just go to hell.
-
I can't tell whether you're being facetious or not Paul
I'm being completely honest. When I was young I accepted Jesus as my savior and became a Christian. I always heard talk about a "personal relaionship" with Jesus. I'm not sure I ever really undersood what that was supposed to actually mean, but whatever it is I never really felt it. So there have been nagging doubts in my mind almost from the very beginning of my "walk with Jesus." More recently though, based on my intellectual understanding of these issues, I fully rejected the notions of heaven and hell and creation as well as the nature of how God interacts with us, as it's presented in the Bible. This obviously left me without a basis for my faith that there is any reason for my existance. It also left me without a basis for my belief in life beyond the grave, as well as my rationale for being moral. Yet I do believe in these things, I just don't know how or why. Or maybe I just want to believe these things are true. Either way, this is a serious quandry for me. My solution, a triumph of the heart over the head. Since I have no real basis for my faith, i've decided to just go ahead and believe in God. Why not?
On a side note, I recently prayed for the first time in a long time. I was praying over my current job situation and asking God for guidance in the matter. It felt really good to do and I felt like it really helped me sort out the situation. I think that God has big plans for me in Miami. Whoops, wait, I may need to recalibrate the old prayer wheel.
~Paul
-
Whoa. God is Mormon.
-
there are only like 4 that apply to non-jewish people, and they're things like "don't eat an animal while it's still alive". .
Oh dang.
-
things like "don't eat an animal while it's still alive".
Oh dang.
Yeah. That's pretty unreasonable.
Way to go, God. Way to SUCK.
-
hrm.
Personally, I really really like the Jewish postion reguarding gentiles.
basically: the 400-some (I think 435?) commandments only apply to jewish people. there are only like 4 that apply to non-jewish people, and they're things like "don't eat an animal while it's still alive". God does not hold people who have not accepted the covenant responsible for the other commandments.
Actually, I would say at least 10 based on the tablets Moses received on Mt. Sinai. But you may be referring specifically to what is in the Talmud of which I am not familiar.
Gentile is an interesting word. Jewish people use it to describe all who are not Jewish. Christians use it to describe all who aren't Christian and Jewish. Mormons use it to describe everyone not in their specific sect of Mormonism.
Just this morning on the bus I was comtemplating why there never developed in large scale (Jews for Jesus (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/) not withstanding) a Judaic Christian tradition that held on to more of the traditions of Judaism which Jesus celebrated as an observant Jew while still acknowledging His fulfillment (accoridng to Christians) of the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. I would love to better understand the path of faith that Jesus himself walked.
-
AlohaDawg, you are just awesome.
-
Just this morning on the bus I was comtemplating why there never developed in large scale (Jews for Jesus (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/) not withstanding) a Judaic Christian tradition that held on to more of the traditions of Judaism which Jesus celebrated as an observant Jew while still acknowledging His fulfillment (accoridng to Christians) of the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. I would love to better understand the path of faith that Jesus himself walked.
The simple reason is that most of the sweeping changes made by the Church in the early-ish days were to make their religion more mass-marketable as a tradeoff of giving up tenets of the faith in exchange for either getting the key element of salvation out or expanding their power base, depending on who you ask. In a thriving religious free market, Judaism's combination of monotheism with restrictive laws on hygiene and diet would not sell. This was fine for the Jews, who were not particularly evangelistic and had a well-entrenched base of dedicated practitioners, but for a startup cult it's a no-go. Once they'd changed the formula enough, the cult exploded in popularity, and obviously it was the version that chose to overlook or overwrite Jewish tradition that did so. A competing version simply would not be able to survive against it.
The situation changed once Christianity monopolized the Western market, but by then the damage was done: much like rabid so-called Harry Potter fans who write epic tales about the character who was mentioned once on page 246 and start shrieking like banshees when the books contradict their fanfiction, Christians viewed the Torah as an amusing prequel at best compared to the layer of fan-cruft piled onto it.
-
The way it was explained to me in CCD was that since Jesus fullfilled the old covanent that all the rules of the Old Testament/Torah no longer applied. Which is why he talked about the 10 commandments to say, "we're keeping these in the next covanent. And also, the golden rule still applies."
-
The simple reason is that most of the sweeping changes made by the Church in the early-ish days were to make their religion more mass-marketable as a tradeoff of giving up tenets of the faith in exchange for either getting the key element of salvation out or expanding their power base, depending on who you ask. In a thriving religious free market, Judaism's combination of monotheism with restrictive laws on hygiene and diet would not sell. This was fine for the Jews, who were not particularly evangelistic and had a well-entrenched base of dedicated practitioners, but for a startup cult it's a no-go. Once they'd changed the formula enough, the cult exploded in popularity, and obviously it was the version that chose to overlook or overwrite Jewish tradition that did so. A competing version simply would not be able to survive against it.
I don't think it's that simple. In the 'early-ish' days as you put it, to become a Christian was to risk persecution and martyrdom. Christians were pursued and killed by Romans and also by Temple Authorities. Yet there were over 10,000 Christians at the end of the 1st Century. I don't know how you make that 'mass-marketable'. As for giving up the tenets, I think that would be a very difficult choice as well. Judaic authority in those days was the social fabric - to not practice as a Jew was pretty much the end of your family life and your community life. That would not be easy. On the other hand, our Communion is evolved from the Passover 'Seder' and Baptism almost certainly stems from the Jewish 'mikveh' and 'tevillah'. Jesus himself was baptised prior to the beginning of His ministry; it was not a Christian invention. Both Baptism and Communion were practiced by the early church in the first century.
We also should remember that the apostles, including the skeptic Thomas, and James the brother of Jesus (also a skeptic who later was a leader of the early church in Jerusalem) were all Jewish. (In fact, when Paul came to Jerusalem to donate raised funds for needy Christians there, James insists that he ritually cleanse himself Paul ritually cleanse himself in Herod's Temple to prove his faith and deny rumors of teaching rebellion against the Torah)These men gave up everything including their lives to spread the gospel and start the early church. It is the Apostles firsthand writings that make up much of the New Testament along with the writings of some others who came a little bit later. Christianity was at its root a movement within Judaism; probably not intended to supplant Judaism but something akin to the Reformation. However, as the practice spread among Jews and non-Jews, and as the practitioners distance from the temples and Jewish authorities (necessary due to persecution) continued and increased, the practices evolved. Also, in my opinion, the early Christians were conscious of Jesus' attitude toward temple practices of the time as well as the well-known cooperation between the Temple Authorities and Rome - these formed a pretty solid wedge. Even the skeptics became followers after encountering the risen Christ.
Notable also is the conversion of a great persecutor and in fact, killer of Christians. Saul of Tarsus became the Apostle Paul; the only Apostle not present during Jesus' life. He gave up a title, prestige, a good job and became a HUGE target for the authorities because he was well known. What kind of marketing would that take? Picture Donald Trump giving up his empire, everything he owns, to work for $10 an hour at a non-profit that did outreach to addicts. How would you talk him into it? That's the magnitude of conversion we're kind of talking about. I don't think 'Mass Marketing' or 'Easier Lifestyle' covers this, or any of the other conversions in the early church.
The situation changed once Christianity monopolized the Western market, but by then the damage was done: much like rabid so-called Harry Potter fans who write epic tales about the character who was mentioned once on page 246 and start shrieking like banshees when the books contradict their fanfiction, Christians viewed the Torah as an amusing prequel at best compared to the layer of fan-cruft piled onto it.
This reads like Anti-Christian bigotry to me, and I think you're better than that. Certainly I value both my Jewish friends and the Torah and of course the Old Testament of the Christian bible is about the early history of the Jewish people. So I don't quite understand where that second quote comes from.
-
Obviously I have simplified the situation greatly in my description. It is true that in the very early days, Christianity was what you might call "Jeshuvite Judaism", the practices of the devoted followers of an eccentric rabbi. This is why I added the "ish" to "early".
However, it is my understanding that much of the discarding of Jewish traditions was done for evangelical purposes. I think taking the events as described in the Bible as historical record for this kind of argument is kind of problematic (really, my issue here is with the line about skeptics and the risen Christ) because even if you assume that they are basically true, which I don't, they're still "history as written by the winners".
I'm sorry that the last bit sounds like Anti-Christian Bigotry. What it was intended to sound like was A Joke. As you may notice, it is a metaphor that compares my own holy texts to the popular "Harry Potter" series of novels. There are fans of these novels who have written novellas about the True Love of Harry and Hermione, and when the latest book split up that couple the fans rewrote the relevant passages and released a "Harmonian" version of the book that supported their view. I thought this was a funny metaphor to draw. If it helps illustrate the joke status of this metaphor, I can extend it so that Mormons are the fans who write "An American X-Man At Hogwarts".
-
I'm intrigued by your use of "winners" and "losers" in this context. I don't really see it that way. My 'prize' is not in this world anyway.
The Bible is only one source of the history of the church. Much is also found in the writings of Roman and Greek historians and those of Josephus (who was, I believe, a Jew) as well. There is a lot of corroborating information to that which is found in the bible - not of the appearances of Christ, although there are interesting arguments for that too - but for the actions of the Apostles and followers of Christ in the first century.
I'm not thinking you and I are likely to come to an agreement on this anytime soon, though. And from your other posts, I kind of figured you weren't engaging in bigotry but really, it doesn't parse too well as a joke either. Suffice it to say I think Judaism is a rich faith and my Jewish friends good people.
-
I interrupt this serious discussion under the thread title "Bonkers T. McQuack" to observe that it has to matter that a religion that forbids you from eating bacon is at a serious competitive disadvantage. I mean, bacon.
As you were.
-
I was raised Christian and believed in it until about age 16 when I abandoned all religious beliefs. Then, about a year ago, I experienced the Third Enlightenment and realized Buddhism is the true path.
-
I'm intrigued by your use of "winners" and "losers" in this context. I don't really see it that way. My 'prize' is not in this world anyway.
Well, I'm agreed on that one. You guys can have as many conversions as you want as long as you can keep the inquisitions in your #####; we'll see how things turn out in the end when we get there. My point is that even if the events are all assumed to be roughly true (resurrection and all), it's a biased text when it comes to, say, people's reactions to Jesus or degrees and reasons for persecution. It's a 'biography' written by people who literally worship this dude. They will put him in the best possible light and his enemies in the worst possible. That's all their is to it.
As far as the joke goes, I think it's probably funnier to someone who doesn't take the whole thing too seriously. Where I'm concerned, Christianity is a sect what ain't too old to be taken over one knee. We seen you guys come and go.
Wombat, the bacon thing is a huge marketing disadvantage. Also lobster. Giraffe placentas, not so much so.
-
I interrupt this serious discussion under the thread title "Bonkers T. McQuack" to observe that it has to matter that a religion that forbids you from eating bacon is at a serious competitive disadvantage. I mean, bacon.
As you were.
In 2001 I invented a holiday, along with several college friends, that we dubbed Bacon Day.
The first Bacon day had about 50 participants, and we cooked 12 lb of bacon. At the end, we ceremonially found a way to dispose of the grease, namely making french fries.
The second Bacon day, I believe we made vinaigrette from the grease.
On the third Bacon day, we made soap from the bacon fat using a tried and true recipe from blacktable.com.
On the fourth Bacon day, we made soap as well as curing our own bacon using a cold smoker. Except for when Joey (my avatar) decided that the cold smoker was too cold (http://www.bobbyisosceles.com/images/joeysmoker.jpg).
Bacon Day has its own festivities and regalia. Witness:
(http://www.bobbyisosceles.com/images/baconhat.jpg)
among other bacon-related poses. (http://www.bobbyisosceles.com/images/regent.jpg)
Bacon Day 2006 will fall on May 09 (Orthodox) or the second Saturday in May (Reform; people who are inconvenienced that Bacon Day kept running into Mothers Day). There is some dissention among Baconeers about the date, so I just celebrate both unless my mother gives me a guilt trip.
-
Bobby, we are learning too much about you.
~Paul
-
Bobby, we are learning too much about you.
~Paul
There's something to be said about respecting your products. If you know the work it takes to cure your own bacon, or to make your own soap, you appreciate consumer convenience that much more.
-
I am beginning to suspect that Bobby Isosceles is actually the living voice of a local cable access channel.
-
I am beginning to suspect that Bobby Isosceles is actually the living voice of a local cable access channel.
PEOPLE WE NEED TO RESPECT BACON OR ELSE WE GET TRAVESTIES LIKE THIS
(http://www.chiaroscu.ro/images/cokebacon.jpg)