So, just what are we talking about?

[Occhidiangela]

The issue with Paris Hilton on the cover, bonbos apes are unusual in that they mate face to face, rather like some humans, rather than via the more common canine modality seen in most other mammals.

FHM is hardly a scientific journal, but the photos of elephants mating in that mag are fun to scan and send to your office mates when preparing information for "high level" meetings. (Elephants mating is a term I and others use when the higher-ups have some "important for the fate of the known universe" meeting. :P

[Vandiablo]

Or was it 'Semi Carnally . . . Sarah Connally?'

Eric the Half a Bee!! part of the Cat License sketch!!

Wow, at least three MPQ's in one thread, and only one of them is from Grail. (The other was the Luxury Yacht / Throat Warbler Mangrove, which BTW the way I mentioned in our "how do you pronounce your moniker?" thread.)

-V

Take it away, Eric the Orchestra Leader!

singing! a-one two three...

is this hive employee-ee
bisected accidentally
one summer afternoon by me
a freak of a menagerie?
NO! he's Eric the Half a Bee

[Vandiablo]

bonbos apes are unusual in that they mate face to face, rather like some humans

Whaaa...? Face to face??? I've never thought of that!

heh... The later of my two high-school girlfriends, who was never sexually active until a few years after we broke up, said that she'd never do any sexual action unless it was "natural", meaning that animals did it. (Funny the things you remember about people...) Which of course may have meant that she wanted me to pounce on her, grab the back of her neck in my teeth, and all the rest, only I was of course too young and stupid to realize this. Judging by her kissing behavior, she probably meant that she was only going to lie still while her partner did everything. I guess her words would indicate that face to face would be unnatural (until she found out about bonobos!) and would only copulate for procreative purposes and only in the "looking for contact lense" position.

-V
http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

[whyBish]

proving beyond any reasonable doubt that any combination of letters in English can be silent and the rest pronounced at will.  Any language that has the concept of spelling is a prime candidate for reform -- or abandonment :)

So we should all speak pictographic languages instead of pictophonetic ones? :P

[--Pete]

Hi,

So we should all speak pictographic languages instead of pictophonetic ones?

As I look at the screen of my computer, I see icons. Many, many icons. Soon, we'll be dreaming in icons -- and that *is* a nightmare ;)

Of course, part of the problem is trying to spell a Germanic language with a Latin alphabet. Part of the problem is freezing the spelling but continuing to change the pronunciation. Part of the problem is stealing words from other languages, but keeping the other language's spelling for the word (wouldn't "shatowe" make more sense?).

But the main part of the problem is that if we were to regularize the English language (perhaps generating an appropriate alphabet to do so), browbeaten children of anal parents would no longer waste their childhood at spelling bees. And the demise of any form of competition is looked upon here in the USA as a far greater evil than universal ignorance (which is actually praised).

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Evolution has nothing at all to do with the existence of god, and the relationship of any person with that belief.

It has everything to do with fundamental, literal-Bible, Christianity.

The more primitive superstition one mixes into one's theism, the worse that science makes religion look. The more rational the approach to religion, the more it can coexist with the observable facts.

However, unlike the Catholic Church, I cannot see how evolution and original sin can coexist. And without original sin, I have a hard time understanding the rational for Christ's existence. Much like the "we did if for the Iraqi people" when the WMD failed to show up, the "died for our sins" is a post hoc rationalization used to explain His ministry when His prediction of the coming of the Kingdom of God during the lifespan of His contemporaries failed to materialize.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I cannot fathom the "original sin" concept either. I can understand the "god is pure goodness" and thus, cannot coexist with souls allowed to be corrupted by their own free will. Evil, then being a necessary part of allowing mankind free will. My understanding of the Christan viewpoint is that Christ cleanses souls of sin and allows them to enter into the presence of God. At the time of Christ, there were many sects who attempted to lead "perfect" lives by the laws of the Torah. Christ spoke out radically against those "hypocrites" that were strict adherents to the law, but had no love of God, and no love of humanity.

But I know many Catholics who do not really believe that un-baptized babies go to hell due to "original sin".

[kandrathe]

Or my favorite -- Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern schplenden schlitter crasscrenbon fried digger dingle dangle dongle dungle burstein von knacker thrasher apple banger horowitz ticolensic grander knotty spelltinkle grandlich grumblemeyer spelterwasser kurstlich himbleeisen bahnwagen gutenabend bitte ein nurnburger bratwustle gernspurten mitz weimache luber hundsfut gumberaber shonedanker kalbsfleisch mittler aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm

[--Pete]

Hi,

But I know many Catholics who do not really believe that un-baptized babies go to hell due to "original sin".

I'm at a loss of how to handle this.

Catholic doctrine is that original sin exists, that the reason we needed Christ was to atone for that (and only that, our own sins *we* can atone for once the way was open) and that anyone not baptized does not go to heaven. They postulate heaven for the saved, hell for the damned, purgatory for the fixer-uppers, and limbo for those that never got a chance.

*That* is doctrine. And accepting that doctrine is what makes a Catholic a Catholic instead of a Lutheran or a Baptist.

When someone says "many Catholics do not accept this or that doctrine of the Catholic Church", I know that that is, in a way, often true. But, in another way, it is not true. It is not true because those who do not accept the doctrine of the church they claim to espouse are not members of that church, they are heretics to that doctrine. And I am frankly sick and tired of people claiming to be some form of christian but having no damned idea of what they are claiming. That's like claiming to be a capitalist but not believing in a free market. Or a socialist claiming that government should not meddle in our private affairs.

The number of people who claim to belong to some religion or other, who defend their "beliefs" loudly, but who have no idea of just what they are claiming to believe in when they take on a label is amazing. People, and Americans in particular, accept a religion the way they accept a sports team -- uncritically, passionately, and for no rational reason. And then they substitute social interaction for dogma and call that religion. And wonder why those that actually think about all this consider them fools.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

You may find it interesting that in Italy, as of 1998, where I encountered some of the most casual and self confident Catholics I have ever met, the Jehovah's Witnesses and United Church of Christ have active, and successful, evangelical movements that are apparently effective. I wonder who they are finding, other than the two Jehovah's Witnesses who rang the buzzer to my house one fine Sunday Morning in 1997. (After I gifured out what they wanted and who they were, I was appalled. Here I was, safe from such evangelizing, over 4000 miles away from The Church of What's Happening Now, and lo!, I found that "you can run but you can't hide.")

Right in the Pope's back yard. Strikes me as odd, but perhaps not so, depending on what people are looking for from their Faith, or from their religion.

Religion as a bumper sticker or as a way to draw attention to one's self strikes me as just the sort of hypocrisy that the scriptural comments of Jesus decry.

Faith worn as comfortably as one's own skin, where the example exceeds the rhetoric, seems to me to fit the the base doctrine better, but I am biased in that regard, and technically a Pagan, heretic, etc.

As to doctrine and dogma, indeed, I find that after each CCD class, I have any number of discussions with my kids on the points raised in Scripture, which funnily enough they still have not covered in class. *shakes head.* You'd think that after all these years, that would at least have improved. My wife was similarly handicapped by that "education" until she reached adulthood and the age of inquiry.

[kandrathe]

Well, me too. :)

My trouble with the Catholic version of dogma in general is that one is branded a heretic or they are asked to become either a sheep (just follow), or a donkey (trying to justify the logic or illogic of "The Church"). To be asked not to use ones brain and just accept what is told or to "dogmatically" defend the human proclamations of the "Holy See" no matter how disproven or illogical they might be seems to be at odds with Christ's teaching themselves.

This issue of Original Sin is actually an example of a radical Western Church's Pope (Pius IX, 1792–1878) making into dogma the scholarship of theologians Tertullian and Augustine. And, then again, which church? Eastern Othodoxy was not exposed to Augustine's writings until the 17th century. They believe that humans bear the consequences of original sin, but unlike the west, do not believe that humans bear the guilt of original sin. So who can blame Catholics for being confused -- each Pope can infallibly tell them what to think.

About Pius IX,
In 1869 he convoked the First Vatican Council, the principal work of which was the enunciation of papal infallibility.

Handy that. After that establishing dogma and heresy would be much easier, because Popes have never been wrong before(sic). I am not a big fan of this guy, anyway.

My thoughts are more in line with --

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.  -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

[Freepaperclips]

Catholic doctrine is that original sin exists, that the reason we needed Christ was to atone for that (and only that, our own sins *we* can atone for once the way was open) and that anyone not baptized does not go to heaven.

...

People, and Americans in particular, accept a religion the way they accept a sports team -- uncritically, passionately, and for no rational reason. And then they substitute social interaction for dogma and call that religion. And wonder why those that actually think about all this consider them fools.

To quote one of my friends: "Vatican II happens." The "fact" that you quote hasn't been a part of mainstream Catholic dogma for decades.

One of the biggest hurtles that the modern Church faces is the sheer amount of misinformation out there. You would be amazed what people tell me I belive.

As to the second part, you are showing yourself to be both ignorant and as closeminded as those you criticize. Do you think that any organization can last for two thousand years without "rational reason" or reasoned theories?

That is stupidity.

Have you ever heard of Dominicans, Jesuits or a dozon other orders who do little else? How about Saint Thomas Aquinas, or Spinoza or Saint Tellihard De Chardin or any other Christian (I know Spinoza was Hebrew) philosopher? What presumtion to asume you are the first person ever born with half a brain!


Why don't you try moderating your posts before you insult billions of people at a time and prove your own ignorance conclusively.

[Jester]

"Do you think that any organization can last for two thousand years without "rational reason" or reasoned theories?"

While I think I agree with the notion that the Catholics get to determine who's Catholic, and not Pete, I'm afraid that statement is a fallacy.

An appeal to longevity is just a modified appeal to power. Sort of like "Could I really be pointing this gun at you if I wasn't right?" There's no particular reason that an organization can't last for two thousand years and still be irrational. You'll have to show that Pete's statements don't stand up to logic, not that the Catholic church is old. Or, for that matter, that it is filled with philosophers. (edit: this also applies any argument based on the number of believers...)

As per theories, at least the modern scientific notion of a theory requires falsifiability. Religious doctrines are, by and large, not falsifiable, and the Catholic church has largely fallen back on these. Can you point to any of these theories that can be tested? Or did you mean theory in a non-scientific sense?

Jester

[Griselda]

I think I agree with the notion that the Catholics get to determine who's Catholic, and not Pete

Egads! Could you imagine? :ph34r:

-Griselda

[Chaerophon]

Just to add to what Jester said:

Saint Thomas Aquinas, or Spinoza or Saint Tellihard De Chardin or any other Christian (I know Spinoza was Hebrew) philosopher?

I have a feeling that these here dead guys would most likely describe the people to whom Pete refers in similar terms to those that he uses.

And, along a similar vein as Jester:

Have you ever heard of Dominicans, Jesuits or a dozon other orders who do little else? How about Saint Thomas Aquinas, or Spinoza or Saint Tellihard De Chardin or any other Christian (I know Spinoza was Hebrew) philosopher? What presumtion to asume you are the first person ever born with half a brain!

What a presumption it was for Nietzsche, Kant, Schopenhauer, Sartre, et al to assume themselves the first persons born with half a brain! They must never have read Aquinas... Suffice to simply say, philosophy often swings strongly in the other direction, friend, and their existentialist musings are no more falsifiable than are those of Christian philosophers. I'll leave it at that.

[--Pete]

Hi,

To quote one of my friends: "Vatican II happens." The "fact" that you quote hasn't been a part of mainstream Catholic dogma for decades.

Really? I suggest you actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is the official declaration of the results of Vatican II. Which, BTW, happened when I was still (barely) a practicing Catholic and since I was in a Catholic high school for the first few years of that council, I was quite aware of it. It was often the discussion topic in the (required) religion class.

One of the biggest hurtles that the modern Church faces is the sheer amount of misinformation out there. You would be amazed what people tell me I belive.

No, I would not be surprised. Just as I am not surprised in your ignorance of what you *must* believe to be considered a Catholic. The church does much to cover its dogma, and one must dig to find out the truth of its proclamations. When one does the research, it becomes clear that *all* Vatican II did was to change the outward posture of the church in an attempt to be less strident in the declaration of the beliefs. It has not materially changed those beliefs.

As to the second part, you are showing yourself to be both ignorant and as closeminded as those you criticize. Do you think that any organization can last for two thousand years without "rational reason" or reasoned theories?

The religion of the Egyptians did not materially change for about 3000 years. And it was spreading in the form of worship of Isis even as Christianity was beginning. According to your logic (?), Ra is 50% more likely to be true than is Christ. Besides, since Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, just to name three, predate Christianity, then your reasoning shows that they are all preferable to Christianity.

Do I think an organization based on ignorance and superstition can last millenia? Hell yes. The Druidical religions started in the neolithic possibly in the mesolithic and survived until the early Christian era. That means they survived approximately 8 to 30 times longer than Christianity has so far. If your argument is that the Druids survived because of the ignorance of the general population, then I'll reply that that is exactly my argument for the survival of Catholicism.

That is stupidity.

I agree, your paragraph immediately preceding this one is indeed an great example of stupidity. Clever of you to use a self referential statement.

Have you ever heard of Dominicans, Jesuits or a dozon other orders who do little else? How about Saint Thomas Aquinas, or Spinoza or Saint Tellihard De Chardin or any other Christian (I know Spinoza was Hebrew) philosopher? What presumtion to asume you are the first person ever born with half a brain!

Dominicans: first established by Dominic around the beginning of the thirteenth century. Original purpose was to persecute the Albigenses, which they did by using gentle persuasion, torture and execution. They got so good at it that they became the principal order in charge of the Inquisition. Not an organization whose members I would gladly approach for impartial information. That they still exist and that the Church has never apologized for their behavior is one of the outstanding indicators of how little the Church has changed. Their token apology to Galileo, 359 years later, is less than an empty gesture.

Jesuits: established by Ignatius Loyola in 1540 to be the militant part of the "Church militant". His christian goal was to convert all the "primitives" and "savages" that European exploration was turning up to Catholicism, or kill then trying. Did an extremely good job in Asia, South and Central America. Didn't do as well at home. Even for an organization as Machiavellian as the Roman Church, the Jesuits were too much. Their interference in local government became such an issue that they were disbanded in 1773. However, they were clever enough to survive (as a secret and outlawed society, under ban of excommunication but under the protection of the Russian monarch) until they were able to become public again in 1814. Oh, and on a personal note, it was a Jesuit who taught the religion classes that I mentioned earlier, that helped open my eyes and see the fraud and evil that is organized religion.

Each of your philosophers (all of whom I read forty years ago) have been answered by many other philosophers, many of whom I also read then and since. Unlike you, I did not just go to the ones that supported my opinion.

Why don't you try moderating your posts before you insult billions of people at a time and prove your own ignorance conclusively.

Actually, you have taken the stupidity crown away from whoever had it last. And, as to insulting people, if my opinions insult you, at least they don't defend an organization that has condoned torture, mass slaughter, lies and slander against anyone who disagrees with their superstitions. You are a worthy advocate of that despicable group.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

While I think I agree with the notion that the Catholics get to determine who's Catholic, and not Pete

It is the Catholic Church that governs the definition. Not me. And certainly not "catholics" in general. Half of them aren't even represented, having been made "second class" people by the prejudices of Paul. And judging from the birth rate in catholic countries (Italy, Spain, France, Portugal) I'd guess that there are more lip-servers than true believers.

--Pete