THE WORSHIP OF INNOCENCE: OF CUPIDITY, CLASHES, AND CULTURE CRISES

“Youth is wasted on the young. “ – G. B Shaw

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, meine damen und herren, it’s curmudgeon time yet again, and something’s so far up my nose, it’s scratching my medulla oblongata.

Recently at the NGB (NoGodBlog), posters there were beset by trolls, two in a row, who were by anyone’s standards, abusive, condescending, full of piss ‘n vinegar, blaring their self-indulgences to us, proclaiming to be vastly superior in intellect and physicality. The source of their arrogance? Two college students. Laying claim to a vast wealth of knowledge to which they both demonstrated a distinct lack of. It was alternately hilarious and aggravating, to say the least. One of the tendencies they both shared was an inability to listen (their monologues were…self-involved, to say the least). One admitted agnosticism: the other, Christian. And yet, when I have any sort of a blogversation with atheists of that approximate age, somehow, they’re far more civil, friendlier, and open-minded. Go figure.

“A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education.” G.B Shaw

I wish I could say this was a rare occasion. Alas, it isn’t. Usually, it involves K-12 xtian children (and truthfully, these two bravos behaved in like fashion, regularly).

Somehow, this put me in mind of this:

“A few people actually protested these events. Oddly enough, on one side were the clean-cut kids and on the other were a small group of raggedy-looking, washed up, white-haired hippies pining for a "secular world" and, if we just reject religion and espouse secularism (another religion?) "crime will go down". Our youth has been pummeled with this argument since they were in diapers and there is little reason to believe it any longer. “

I happen to know these folks, from the S.F Atheist organization. They’re older, surely: but raggedy, washed up hippies? One grey ponytail does not a hippy make, you ageist freak.

This is in reference to folks, who seem to think that we need to listen to the children (“Any who is like unto these…” “Out of the mouth of babes”, etc).

This is more along the lines of my kvetching about the current youth culture in this country. (Remember Dana Carvey’s ‘Grouchy Old Man’ character on SNL? “When I was young, we didn’t have all these fancy, schmancy shoe sizes! We had one size shoe! So we forced our feet into them, till we bled, and it hurt. And you know what? WE LIKED IT!”)

At some juncture, in the USA, the constant refrain (if not heard, is demonstrated regularly) of “Trust no one over the age of thirty” seems to be deeply ingrained into us.

“Beauty is a short-lived tyranny.” G.B Shaw

This is abject horseshit, to put it mildly (not the quote, the attitude). While it is true, that most athletes over the age of forty are pretty much in the retirement bracket, it’s the older folks who really run this country. Find someone under the age of thirty in any of the three branches of our government, for instance. Take a demographic of any Fortune 500 company, for another.

As a man in my middle ages (no, not my dark ages, hehehehe), I could go to any other country, and date, and marry, someone half my age. Asia. Europe. Probably anywhere in Canada, Mexico, or South America. Here in America, I’d be considered a perv, a lech, pick the pejorative of your choice. (I’m not lamenting this, by any means: I’m using it to illustrate a point).

The issue I’m raising is this: we worship youth far too much in this country. Witness the castaway dregs of the elderly here. In Asia, it’s not kosher to slap your aged parents in some old-folks home: filial piety has value over there – hey, they took care of you, now it’s your turn. I defy the reader to find countries where the young are elevated and the elderly are cast aside as hindrances (though this may be changing, due to the invidious Westernizing of the world).

From where, then, did this dark wart surface in our culture? I think it’s firmly rooted in two sources: religion, and evolution.

With evolution, we have the innate, instinctual need to protect the offspring. Nature’s ways are obvious, even to the densest of us. The old need make way for the new. The child is born, is raised, becomes mature, and supplants the parent to become parent itself.

Now, the other side of the coin.

We have this vast misperception of ‘holy’ childhood. This is partially due to nostalgia: who wouldn’t give all to be young again? There’s that wide open face, smiling – what’s not to love? Studies show that very young children – two and under, I think – who are from different cultures, different races, play together happily, without any recognition of diversity whatsoever. They simply don’t care.

I think the other part, is that ridiculous paragon of purity – clean, unblemished, unpolluted, brimming with vitality – we always seem to forget, that kids do some foolish, foolish things. Anyone who’s ever had a hand in raising a teenager (I have) can attest to that. Easily attributable to the learning curve of being human, in my opinion.

But by no means, should we put it up on a pedestal, people. I mean, c’mon!

Here’s the part where I lay into religion: I know y’all been waiting for it, so here it is:

Original sin. The bible tells us that, in a nutshell, that good ole Adam and Eve were pure and clear, but that someone ate some fruit (we all know the tale: I shan’t regurgitate it ad nauseum), and so our ancestors were divested of this obscenely ridiculous yardstick of ‘purity’. Some circles of thought propound that children are representative of humanity prior to the ‘Fall from Grace’.

I see this as an extrapolation into the value of youth in our culture now. For instance, the need for the bride to be a virgin, for one. Or the depiction of angels: rarely does one see an aging, septuagenarian angel; they’re all portrayed as unmarred, beautiful youths. Now, we can attribute this somewhat to the ancient Greeks and Romans, to be sure: it’s not exclusively an xtian foible. But we have Mr. Mythical telling Nicodemus we must be ‘born again’, his apostles trying to chase off children (that’s kinda cranky, you ask me: hey, if the head honcho’s not getting worked up about it, who cares?)and being rebuked for it, well, it’s not hard to figure out from whence this foolishness inserted itself into our culture.

Let’s take this down a notch, to the personal level.
I love children. I get along with them to a point where most people (Americans all) would think it a tad weird (no, not Michael Jackson weird!). It’s mostly (I think) an openness issue: I’m a very open, jolly person. My stepson’s friends would come over, at an age where most kids won’t even talk to an adult without squirming, and we’d be having long involved natters. It’s just the way I am. He had this one friend, who absolutely hated adults. Within five minutes, we were talking like old chums. Give me ten minutes with the under-five crowd, and I become human monkey bars. I’ve been asked: “How’d you get so popular?” I just shrug.

I remember this old saw: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid. What most folks don’t know is that Butch was, simply put, fantastic with children. They’d walk into a Native American village (or whatever the word is, feel free to correct me), and within five minutes, he’d be playing with the kids. Ergo, they were given refuge and hidden from the encroaching authorities. Hey, the kids get along with him, he must be okay!

Just so we’re straight, here: I don’t hate young people. People are people, young or old. My objection is that we infuse them with this ‘You’re the crème-de-la-crème of the future!’ nonsense. Sure, they’re the hope of the future. Sure, they can make a difference. But don’t put them up on some pedestal, treat them like they’re so far above us, we’re not worthy of licking their boots, because we’re older than them. Fer cryin’ out loud!

Enough author intrusion: let’s step back up to the topic at hand.

So, in short, we need to start actually addressing this egregious nonsense. Look where it gets us: we have a crassening of the culture (hey, I’m guilty here too folks: no free passes). We’ve got these juveniles, who are spoon-fed to believe they’re on a higher plateau than the rest of us simply due to their age, who are inculcated in this doctrine from infancy by soccer moms who rush about trying to indulge their every whim and fancy, adults who lay out a red carpet so their precious little feet don’t get dirty (little dirt never hurt anybody, I say, but what do I know?), who fill their heads with an unrealistic ideology of arrogance.

And sure, there’s the occasional enfant terrible, such as Mozart, but as a rule, it’s usually us older folks who set the stage, or put the structure into place, figure out the kinks. And yes, much of that stems from what we’ve learned in our youths, mostly from the mistakes made within the limits of the of the rise to maturity.

Yeah, wasn’t too short, was it?

Anyways, that’s my nickel’s worth. Pocket it, or spend it: your choice.

Read More...

Summary only...

THE MUSLIM MENAGERIE OF MIRACLES

Yeah, when I saw this, my reaction was probably much like yours: "What the HELL is that thing?" I thought it was an outtake from that movie 'Extro'. Nope. Found it here, along with this little blurb:
"This picture below was taken this morning near the Safaniya beach in the eastern province. Aramco security & industrial security force are debating as to whether to issue a warring close the beach or do nothing and assist in man power control investigation resulted that there are more than 3500 for this kind of human-animal in the tanajib area. It is 25 years since last time it was seen in the tanajib area."
How is this anything resembling a miracle? 3500 of these things?
Obviously, someone got a bit too creative with Photoshop. Imagine your kid saying, "It followed me home, can I keep it?"

Yes, we've all heard about the 'jesus on a tortilla', statues of madonnas weeping blood, etc.
Apparently, this sort of silliness isn't restricted to the Westerners.

Here's another interesting one - apparently, Allah's signature is in the palms of our hands:

















And in fruit, as well:

Oh, let's not forget the world itself (over Africa, no less):

Even Apollo 11 took a picture:









I mean, they're just squiggly lines, people. These are no more miracles than that 'cross' they found in the wreckage of the WTC. If I was daft enough to go looking, I could probably find my own damn cursive signature in a pork chop. If I squinted at ten thousand of the bloody things, if I wanted to find it badly enough, I sure as hell would. I mean, who hasn't seen a recognizable shape in the clouds? If you drink enough, or pound down piles of mind-altering substances, you'll see things. Likewise with the religious. They even have praying trees (aye caramba! Blair Witch of the ME!), and trees that resemble the word 'Allah' (peanut butter and jelly be upon him).

Goddam allegory.

Of course, the most famous of these miracles, was this:
"Did The Prophet Muhammad split the moon as a miracle?

The Hour has approached, and the moon split. But whenever they see a sign, they turn away and say, ‘This is evident magic.’ (54:1-2)

The miracle of the splitting of the moon was demonstrated before a certain gathering who persisted in denial of Muhammad’s Prophethood. As was related by ‘Adbullah ibn Mas‘ud, while they were in Mina’ one night, the Prophet split the moon into two by a gesture of his index finger. The halves of the moon appeared one behind the mountain and the other in front of it. Then, the Prophet turned to us and said: ‘Be witnesses!’"

Now, it doesn't take a degree to see how far out this is. It's by far smarter than that nonsense about 'the darkness that covered the land'(Luke 23:44-46), by restricting it to a smaller group. There's a claim that an Indian king witnessed this, along with some caravans. However, much like the alleged 'darkness', there doesn't seem to be any external multiple attestations outside of...select witnesses. Completely anecdotal.
The six points listed at the link above are quite...amusing, to say the least.
Here's what I think:

1. Splitting the moon in two for even a small amount of time would result in massive tidal waves, and all sorts of reprecussions that boggle the mind.
2. I'm going to contact Randi, and see if he can duplicate this 'stupendous' feat (which is what led me to discover all this nonsense, by the way).
   
3. I'm guessing the wine was spiked with hashish.

Anyways, I'm guessing this is the moon these folks saw:
(courtesy of a forum at Apostates of Islam)




Halloo, snackbar!

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

CRIMINAL MINDS: ATHEISTS AND SATANISTS

WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILER!

For those of you unfamiliar with this TV show, it’s a fantastic show, intelligent, well-scripted, strong characters and plot (and Lola Glaudini is an absolutely GORGEOUS woman), begins and ends with salient quotes.

There was a recent post at god4suckers.net that starts off with this:” So I’m watching A&E, and City Confidential is on. They’re talking about a group of teenagers from Pikeville KY, this was probably on the news a few months/years ago and I just missed/ don’t remember it. Anyways, there are these fucking teenagers, who called themselves “atheists/agnostics”, but dress all Goth like and claimed to have dabbled in satanism.”

Well, it was upsetting, to say the least. Atheists get lumped into those amorphous ‘others’ in society, pagans, satanists, and all sorts of sundry fringe groups. This was in relation to the Kentucky Goth murders of 1997.

So I’m watching this episode,
"The Popular Kids" Episode #110. ”When two high-school students are murdered in a small town, Hotchner and his team suspect they may have been the victims of a cult killing.”

And a fringe pariah group that called themselves the ‘Lords of Destruction’, who effect all the trappings of your standard Goth/Satanic stereotype (heavy metal, black fingernails, upside down pentagrams, that sort of thing) were of course immediately fingered (A tree near the decomposed bodies and the fresh one had ‘SATAN IS GOD, combined with a reversed pentagram, with the intials LOD underneath, all of course drawn in blood).

The ringleader is dragged into the local precinct (small town: but of course!), and when closely questioned about his belief system, he launched into a fairly decent speech about the hypocrisy of xtianity, how it’s shoved down throats regularly, and he tagged him and his ‘followers’ as “We’re atheists. Aggressive atheists.” He also explained that the word Satan stems from (this, from answers.com): “The English word "Satan" is from a Hebrew word meaning, "to oppose" or "adversary."

All in all, it was a great show, dispelling quite a few common myths (satanic human ritual killing has never been proven in this country, most serial killers aren’t Satanists). I wasn’t too fond of the lumping in of atheists with Satanists – but it was fairly clear in the context of the show that these were extremely young folks, who took the easiest shock route.

BUT: it most certainly didn’t end the way one would expect. In fact, the LOD was exonerated completely.

Let’s see, on the telly, there have been multiple references to non-religion. Malcolm in the Middle, one Xmas Hal and the boys decide to go into the Xmas tree business, they undercut the Catholic priests around the corner. The priests confront them, and one of the boys (Reese) laughs when they’re threatened. “Hey, in case you didn’t know, you’re talking to a bunch of godless heathens, so take your ghost stories somewhere else!”

Episode of Bones, about Voodoo, the two main characters are talking about zombies. The romantic interest (buzz-cut and square jaw type) gets upset when the lady coroner says xtians believe in zombies. “Jesus was NOT a zombie!” “Hey, he came back from the dead, didn’t he?” I roared.

The main character in ‘House’ is an atheist.

The commercial about Capitol One, where the guardian angel keeps screwing up (EXCEPT when the ‘watched over’ starts to use the wrong card).

One of the beauties of the American culture is this: ain’t nothing sacred.

Slowly, surely, we are becoming a part of the culture. As of 2005, the atheist/non-religious/agnostic portion of the world is now at 16%.

Slowly, inexorably, our numbers are growing, piecemeal, but growing.

I take comfort in that. But it may be too little too late.

Here’s hoping that it will be in time.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

OF TOOTH AND CLAW, PINCER AND MANDIBLE, CRUELTY ABOUNDS IN THE NATURAL WORLD

Let’s begin today’s sermon with a quote:”Man, in his ignorance, supposed that all phenomena were produced by some intelligent powers, and with direct reference to him.” – Ingersoll.

We look upon this rare earth as our own: and the religious would have us believe it a gift to our species, given by invisible hands, bequeathed to us by some oblique designer, or perhaps as punishment for some obscure metaphorical transgression.

We shall go down the path least trodden here: rather than focus on the query of the sum of evil in the world, rather, we shall look at the world itself, and briefly touch on the poisonous Pandora’s box flung wide open.

For a parent who allegedly loves us, there are land mines and brutal traps on every level, from miniscule to macrocosmic.

There are tiny organisms that cause disease, that eat our flesh and attack our innards, that wreak havoc upon all the senses, that numb the body and swallow the mind whole. Most of which make no distinction of age, gender, race, or any other boundary.

And up the rung, we have tiny creatures that nest inside us. There are worms that can writhe within us. Up the rung of the evolutionary ladder, we have eight-legged beasties that are inimical to us. There are those insects whose sting or bite is death. We are neither safe on land nor in the water, whether vertebrate or invertebrate. There are the legless, cold-blooded critters, whether alligator or lizard who would attack, and feed upon us. There are warm-blooded mammals who could do us harm. There are lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) that under the proper circumstance would make a meal of us.

Even our closest relatives has been known to snack on our infants.

When the stomach grows empty, the ribs protrude; we have all heard tales, of those of us who feed upon our own. From the Issedones to the Androphagi, from Sawney Bean to the Donner Party.

Even their divine tome states such: (Leviticus 26:27-35 NLT) "If after this you still refuse to listen and still remain hostile toward me, then I will give full vent to my hostility. I will punish you seven times over for your sins. You will eat the flesh of your own sons and daughters. I will destroy your pagan shrines and cut down your incense altars. I will leave your corpses piled up beside your lifeless idols, and I will despise you.”

And I inquire of the reader, this: what truly loving parent places broken glass and razors before the infant? Forces the toddler through barbed wire and leave the tender flesh exposed to rending tooth and bloody claw? That lays the bear trap at hair-trigger, and places camoflaged tarp upon punji sticks, and warns not the victim?

That this world we live in is a harsh obstacle course, laden with venomed fang and crimson talon upon the turning of a corner, or the clearing of the brush, is readily transparent to even the most obtuse of observers.

As such, only a distant, or disconnected parent would expose their children to such horrors, only a sociopathic sire would lay razor wire in such a plethora of intricately jagged jigsaw puzzles, patterned to break the sinew, mind, or muscle of those less fortunate. A world in which the strong survive, and the weak eaten?

If this demented designer were to present itself to me, as derelict deity and author of abominations, as my sire, I would declare myself an orphan.

We have become the dominant life form for the following reasons:

1. That the female of our species can bear offspring in any season; conceive on any day of any month, save for three of them.


2. Opposable thumbs.


3. Prolificacy.

Any other rationale is metaphysical rubbish.

And now, I end with this quote, from Ingersoll:

“We are laying the foundations of the grand temple of the future not the temple of all the gods, but of all the people -- wherein, with appropriate rites, will be celebrated the religion of Humanity. We are doing what little we can to hasten the coming of the day when society shall cease producing millionaires and mendicants -- gorged indolence and famished industry -- truth in rags, and superstition robed and crowned. We are looking for the time when the useful shall be the honorable; and when Reason, throned upon the world's brain, shall be the King of Kings, and God of Gods.” – GODS, 1872

Read More...

Summary only...

END OF DAYS: OF MADNESS, MUSLIMS, AND MILLENIALISM

More frightening facts have come to my attention. Apparently, the religion of Islam also has a version of the End Times aka the Rapture.

From here:

“The man in charge of hoodwinking the Western powers about Iran's now 18-year-old secret nuclear program believes the apocalypse will happen in his own lifetime. He'll be 50 in October.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Shi'ite creed has convinced him lesser mortals can not only influence but also hasten the awaited return of the 12th Imam, known as the Mahdi. Iran's dominant "Twelver" sect holds this will be Muhammad ibn Hasan, the righteous descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. He is said to have gone into "occlusion" in the 9th century, at age 5. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war, bloodshed and pestilence. After this cataclysmic confrontation between the forces of good and evil, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace. "The ultimate promise of all Divine religions," says Ahmadinejad "will be fulfilled with the emergence of a perfect human being [the 12th Imam], who is heir to all prophets. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace. Oh mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the promised one." He reckons the return of the Imam, AWOL for 11 centuries, is only two years away.”

And here:

“Ahmadinejad, who is defiantly pursuing a nuclear option, has suggested that the elimination of Israel would herald the return of a ninth-century Muslim cleric known as the Mahdi, the 12th Imam. He hopes to welcome that messiah to Tehran within two years.
Conversely, some Jewish groups in Jerusalem hope to clear the path for their own messiah by rebuilding a temple on a site now occupied by one of Islam's holiest shrines. Artisans have re-created priestly robes of white linen, gem-studded breastplates, silver trumpets and solid-gold menorahs to be used in the Holy Temple — along with two 6½-ton marble cornerstones for the building's foundation.”

So here’s the short version of their eschatology:Isa (Jesus) will return, defeat al-Dajjal (read: Old Scratch), kill all pigs, break all crosses, and be buried next to Muhammed (peanut butter and jelly be upon his name). There will be a bodily resurrection (us, not him: he’s supposed to be in suspended animation, much like H.G Wells’ When the Sleeper Wakes), all non-Islamic countries will be destroyed, the signs enumerated are as follows:Major and minor signs will reveal that the end times have arrived (Sura 21:96, 27:82, 43:61)
Major Signs:

1. Gross materialism
2. Women outnumber men (how I wish this one would come to pass!)
3. Muslims defeat Jews in battle; Muslims and Christians battle unbelievers together, then Muslims defeat Christians in battle.

Minor Signs:
1. Increase in bloodshed and war
2. Contraction of time
3. Religious knowledge decreases
4. Prevalence of the ungodly

There is an Islam version of Purgatory, called Barzakh.
Hell is a lake of fire where non-Muslims/infidels live in torment.
Sura 4:56 "Some of them believe on the prophet [Mohammad] and some turn aside from him: - the flame of hell is their sufficing punishment"
Islam teaches that there are 8 levels of torment.
Sura 14:50 "And thou shalt see the wicked on that day linked together in chains - their garments of pitch, and fire shall enwrap their faces - that God may reward every soul as it deserveth;"
Hell is eternal: Sura 74:21 "And who shall teach thee what Hell-fire is? It leaveth nought, it spareth nought, blackening the skin.”

And yes, Judaism has it’s own version of the End of Times. I do not know if any of the members of the Knesset are adherents of this madness. Note that the source cited above is an xtian minstry, and therefore is just a tad…biased.

In short, madmen surround us. Bedlam, the order of the day, cognitive dissonance is that bell that tolls for us all. Wild visionaries with images of blood and death, to hasten their perceived ends, mount their horses and ride to Megiddo, lusting for an afterlife that will never be, trampling the innocent beneath the hooves of their charges, all for a stretch of land essentially worthless in all ways except symbolically, for a deity that never was nor ever will be.  

Let us hope that the species survives.

“I do not seek to destroy theology. I seek to prevent theology from destroying this world." - Ingersoll.

Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...

WHEN SOCK PUPPETS ATTACK!

Recently, I did a post mocking a biblical story. True enough, I got the idea from the Evangelical Atheist (who did it first, and better), but when I AM voiced a desire to move on to other things, I was so impressed, I decided to take a swing at it. My readers seemed to rather enjoy it, and being a bit of the extrovert, I decided to pop a few of these out.

Then, this Sunday, I received this commentary:

“You know, I’m not impressed with posts like these. If we are going to make a difference, we need quality not quantity. They think were stupid because of posts like this. It’s getting old.” Claiming to be from PZ Meyers, no less.

Now, this threw me for a distinct loop. I have the good Professor on my blog roll: I’ve never commented at his blog, we’ve never had a blogversation, and I am but small fry in the vast swarm of bigger fish in the blogosphere. I have a small readership – in some ways, it’s easier for me: I rarely get trolls, only the occasional blip of the wack-a-doo bot, I don’t feel the need for a lot of pictures or embedded graphics (as a writer, I feel that my prose, such as it is, should suffice to paint the image in the reader’s mind, but maybe I’m old fashioned). Besides which, the Professor and I are of two distinct genres: he is of the more scientific bent, and by far smarter than I, while I am but an unlettered Everyman simply sharing my opinion.

So when I received this…how shall we say it?...unceremonious dump in my sandbox, I just about went cross-eyed. There are other, larger blogs who are by far much more antagonistic than I. So, why me?

In retrospect, clicking on the name takes the reader to his website, rather than his profile. All I can say is, “D’oh!” in best Homer Simpson fashion.

Here’s why I didn’t suspect foul play at first.

I am like anyone else: if I wouldn’t do such a thing, I (somewhat naively) assume that others won’t either. I’m a fairly honest fellow (true, I use a nom de plume, but anyone interested enough could figure out who I am: some minor investigation at best).

So I thought to myself: is this the end of my blog? I mean, someone as illustrious and as popular as the good Professor leaving such commentary, well, I fancied I could smell the smoke from the burning wreckage, I did.

So, I puttered around in his blog. From what I could cull from context, it seemed very out of character for Mr. Meyers. I am a long time fan: he comports himself in a respectful manner, and as far as I can tell, is very polite. So I sent off an email. He replied it wasn’t him, left a comment on the post saying so, complimented the post (high praise indeed) and posted on it. Apparently, there’s a surge of imposters on the rise.

As far as I can tell, it must’ve been a theist. Why? The post itself takes some cheap shots at the beloved story of David and Goliath (some rather sophmoric ones, I’ll admit freely, and without shame). And for someone to actually go out of their way to masquerade as another atheist, a highly respected one at that? It takes a special sort of cognitive dissonance, not only for the wearing of the mask, but to try to generate some infighting in such a spectacularly dishonest way. So I cry ‘J’accuse!’

It takes a true sock puppet extraodinaire. Answers.com has this definition – “Sock puppet (sometimes known also as a mule, or a glove puppet) is an additional account created by an existing member of an Internet community. This account allows them to pose as a completely different user, sometimes to manufacture the illusion of support in a vote or argument. Other reasons include a desire to support or vote on an issue coupled with a desire to have one's "main" account stay away from the issue.”

Oh, foul varlet! If it IS a theist, then I feel obliged to point out that this bears a distinct violation of one of their tenets, to wit, number 8:

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

To which I say: “Howdy, neighbor!”

I have absolutely no desire to track down the perpetrator. I leave the ethical considerations of such ploy entirely to their conscience. Not to mention the fact that not only did the effort fail spectacularly, but my readership nigh well quintupled today, and so, gee thanks! Unless this is some ploy to ambush me out in the open (hey, I’m up for it, so bring it).

Fact is, whether or not it is a win, lose, or draw, the inherent deceitful effort pretty much results in what’s known as a Pyrrhic victory – that is to say, the ethical underpinnings of the manuever is a distinct loss. How can one take the higher moral ground, when it requires subterfuge of that sort? Machiavelli would hang his head in shame at such a ruse.

I freely admit, I am an instigator of sorts. I will take a swing at anything I find silly or foolish.

But I will not wear a mask as I do it. I am not a superhero, with an alter ego. I am a WYSIWYG sorta guy.

I’ll end this post with a quote I once saw, on a bathroom wall in the Graduate (a bar on the main street of Chico) some two decades ago, which stays with me to this day:
”What a man is begins to betray himself when he stops doing. Doing is a talent, talent is a finery, and finery too, is a hiding place.” - Friederich Nietsche

And here I am, hiding in plain sight.

Till the next post then.

Read More...

Summary only...

THE SLING SHOT HEARD ‘ROUND THE WORLD

Or:

THE BIGGER THEY ARE, THE HARDER THE HAUL

It is Sunday sermon time again, boys and girls. Pull out your textbooks, and I’ll spin you a tale.

This hoary old chestnut comes to you from…any guesses? Got it in one. The good old Old Testament, that jumbled jambalaya of fractured fairy tales. This one’s about the classic underdog (‘where oh where, can my underdog be?’ – Polly Purebred): little guy takes on hulk, smashes hulk, and soars to stardom. A Cinderella story chock full of testosterone.

Abdul Kareem Jabbar vs. Bruce Lee (Game of Death).

Everyone loves an underdog. It assuages us on a primal level; it comforts us with the possibility of overcoming all odds, and hints at the possibility of justice in the cold arms of the universe.

Too bad, most of it is fantasy, if not all. Let’s take a gander, shall we?

17:1 Now the Philistines gathered together their armies to battle; and they were gathered together at Socoh, which belongs to Judah, and encamped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephesdammim.

Where? Okay, directions: Head north from Jerusalem, take a left at the three big sand dunes, go about five miles, take a right, an immediate left, another right, stop at the big Dagon statue, and ask, “Where the hell am I?

17:2 Saul and the men of Israel were gathered together, and encamped in the valley of Elah, and set the battle in array against the Philistines.

Okay, girdled…er, girded for battle.

17:3 The Philistines stood on the mountain on the one side, and Israel stood on the mountain on the other side: and there was a valley between them.

And then what? Everyone runs down into the valley, and kills each other? Real strategists, these guys.
17:4 There went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

Translation: Holy shit, this guy’s as big as a house!

17:5 He had a helmet of brass on his head, and he was clad with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass.

I wonder if this fellow shopped at Bert’s Big ‘N Tall for Iron-Age Warriors

17:6 He had brass shin-armor on his legs, and a javelin of brass between his shoulders.

Guy likes brass, I guess. Good thing he’s not allergic, ey? I can hear him now: “I wonder why my skin keeps turning blue-green?” Verdigris’s a bitch to get off, I hear.

17:7 The staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam; and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and his shield-bearer went before him.

Guy’s loaded for bear. Yeah, we get it.

17:8 He stood and cried to the armies of Israel, and said to them, Why are you come out to set your battle in array? Am I not a Philistine, and you servants to Saul? Choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me.

I wish we did this today. Save a lot of time. Pretty big set of lungs, to be heard on another mountaintop.

17:9 If he be able to fight with me, and kill me, then will we be your servants; but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall you be our servants, and serve us.
Did any of the Philistines have an issue with this? Apparently not.
17:10 The Philistine said, I defy the armies of Israel this day; give me a man that we may fight together.

LET’S GET READY TO RUMMMMMBLE! Now I know where the WWF got this idea.

17:11 When Saul and all Israel heard those words of the Philistine, they were dismayed, and greatly afraid.

Hey, I’d be pissing myself too: here’s this huge freak, who carries around armory that would burden an army, and can be heard a mountain away?

17:12 Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons: and the man was an old man in the days of Saul, stricken in years among men.

What’s that, about thirty, forty years old? Or maybe it ‘s just having eight boys what wears a man out?
17:13 The three eldest sons of Jesse had gone after Saul to the battle: and the names of his three sons who went to the battle were Eliab the firstborn, and next to him Abinadab, and the third Shammah.

This book sure loves the number three.

17:14 David was the youngest; and the three eldest followed Saul.
Okay.

17:15 Now David went back and forth from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem.

Let’s hope that’s ALL he did with the sheep. I’ve heard about shephards: gets pretty lonely out on the dunes.

17:16 The Philistine drew near morning and evening, and presented himself forty days.

AND a long attention span! A man unafraid of commitment! What’s with the ‘forty days’ thingamabob, anyways?

17:17 Jesse said to David his son, Take now for your brothers an ephah of this parched grain, and these ten loaves, and carry them quickly to the camp to your brothers;

I always thought the youngest kid was the most spoiled.

17:18 and bring these ten cheeses to the captain of their thousand, and look how your brothers fare, and take their pledge.

Hey, I believe in cheeses! Oh, wait: wrong book. Off to war you go, kiddo.

17:19 Now Saul, and they, and all the men of Israel, were in the valley of Elah, fighting with the Philistines.

After forty days, who wouldn’t be bored out of their skulls?

17:20 David rose up early in the morning, and left the sheep with a keeper, and took, and went, as Jesse had commanded him; and he came to the place of the wagons, as the host which was going forth to the fight shouted for the battle.

Bo-peep gave him hell for that one.

17:21 Israel and the Philistines put the battle in array, army against army.

Yeah, they’re fighting, we got that already.

17:22 David left his baggage in the hand of the keeper of the baggage, and ran to the army, and came and greeted his brothers.

Keeper of the baggage? Did he get a ticket for it, or what?

17:23 As he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the ranks of the Philistines, and spoke according to the same words: and David heard them.

After forty days of repeating himself? Yeesh, talk about schizoid.

17:24 All the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him, and were sore afraid.

In the words of Monty Python: “Run away! Run away!” Can’t say as I blame them.

17:25 the men of Israel said, have you seen this man who is come up? Surely to defy Israel is he come up: and it shall be, that the man who kills him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter, and make his father's house free in Israel.

That sounds pretty good, actually.

17:26 David spoke to the men who stood by him, saying, What shall be done to the man who kills this Philistine, and takes away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?

Wait, how do you know he’s uncircumcised? Ain’t his loins all girded up in brass? Brass balls as they say.

17:27 The people answered him after this manner, saying, So shall it be done to the man who kills him.

None of these folks understand how to use a simple yes/no.

17:28 Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spoke to the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why are you come down? and with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your pride, and the naughtiness of your heart; for you have come down that you might see the battle.

“I left them with Bo-peep. Naughtiness? Sheep lie, I tell you!”

17:29 David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause?

Yeah, keep squirming, fella.

17:30 He turned away from him toward another, and spoke after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner.

Yadayada, yadayada.

17:31 When the words were heard which David spoke, they rehearsed them before Saul; and he sent for him.

What, they put on a play?

17:32 David said to Saul, Let no man's heart fail because of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.
Ah, the brashness of youth.

17:33 Saul said to David, You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.

Translation: “You gotta be fucking kiddin’ me, kid! Look at him! He’ll eat you for a snack!”

17:34 David said to Saul, Your servant was keeping his father's sheep; and when there came a lion, or a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock,

Well, which is it? A bear, or a lion?

17:35 I went out after him, and struck him, and delivered it out of his mouth; and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and struck him, and killed him.

Obviously a lion. Bears don’t have beards.

17:36 Your servant struck both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he has defied the armies of the living God.

You did both? Didn’t you just say ‘or’? “Yo, yo, G! Your little man got a purple collar, or what?”

17:37 David said, Yahweh who delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. Saul said to David, Go, and Yahweh shall be with you.

So waitaminnit: the bear AND the lion were sharing a single lamb outta the flock? 17:38 Saul clad David with his clothing, and he put a helmet of brass on his head, and he clad him with a coat of mail.

Man, was this the Iron Age, or the Brass age?

17:39 David girded his sword on his clothing, and he tried to go; for he had not proved it. David said to Saul, I can't go with these; for I have not proved them. David put them off him.

Whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean. Maybe he’s allergic to verdigris?

17:40 He took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in the shepherd's bag which he had, even in his wallet; and his sling was in his hand: and he drew near to the Philistine.

So he got stoned? Sorry.

17:41 The Philistine came on and drew near to David; and the man who bore the shield went before him.

Waitaminnit: the shield was so big Goliath couldn’t carry it? Or David? Color me confused, and turn the page.

17:42 When the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him; for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and withal of a fair face.
Translation: “Go away, kid, yer botherin’ me” (courtesy of W.C Fields)

17:43 The Philistine said to David, Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks? The Philistine cursed David by his gods.

“Here! Fetch! Fetch! No?”

17:44 The Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky, and to the animals of the field.

Translation: dog-meat, baby.

17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, You come to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a javelin: but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 17:46 This day will Yahweh deliver you into my hand; and I will strike you, and take your head from off you; and I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky, and to the wild animals of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, 17:47 and that all this assembly may know that Yahweh doesn't save with sword and spear: for the battle is Yahweh's, and he will give you into our hand.

Apparently, Davey knew how to talk some serious smack.
17:48 It happened, when the Philistine arose, and came and drew near to meet David, that David hurried, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine.

Arose? What, he was lying down?

17:49 David put his hand in his bag, and took there a stone, and slang it, and struck the Philistine in his forehead; and the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the earth.

Bada-boom, bada-bing! Eat my sling!

17:50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine, and killed him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

Yeah, we got that. Makes for some good drama, though.

17:51 Then David ran, and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath of it, and killed him, and cut off his head therewith. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

From the sounds of it, the sword was probably as big as David. Guess not.

17:52 The men of Israel and of Judah arose, and shouted, and pursued the Philistines, until you come to Gai, and to the gates of Ekron. The wounded of the Philistines fell down by the way to Shaaraim, even to Gath, and to Ekron.

No suprises.

17:53 The children of Israel returned from chasing after the Philistines, and they plundered their camp.

No suprises.

17:54 David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armor in his tent.

Here’s dent number one in the story: “Another problem is that David is said to have brought Goliath's head to Jerusalem (1 Sam 17:54), though Jerusalem belonged to the Jebusites at the time, which casts some doubt on this detail of the story.”

17:55 When Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the captain of the host, Abner, whose son is this youth? Abner said, As your soul lives, O king, I can't tell.

I can let that go, as it may have been too far to tell.

17:56 The king said, "Inquire whose son the young man is!"

Still okay, thus far.

17:57 As David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand.

Be nice if they kept some chronological order. Was this before or after the alleged trip to Jerusalem?

17:58 Saul said to him, Whose son are you, you young man? David answered, I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.

Here’s where dent number two comes in: in First Samuel Chapter 16, it states:”
16:18 Then answered one of the young men, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, and a mighty man of valor, and a man of war, and prudent in speech, and a comely person; and Yahweh is with him.
16:19 Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse, and said, Send me David your son, who is with the sheep.”

“Sheep LIE, I tell you! Why won’t anyone believe me?” And then:”

16:20 Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, and a bottle of wine, and a kid, and sent them by David his son to Saul.
16:21 David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him greatly; and he became his armor bearer.
16:22 Saul sent to Jesse, saying, please let David stand before me; for he has found favor in my sight.
16:23 It happened, when the evil spirit from God was on Saul, that David took the harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.”

So either Saul’s got short-term memory loss (betcha that ‘evil spirit’ came back, huh?), or the Masoretic scribes weren’t quite all they were cracked up to be. David ended up being his armor-bearer, and somehow, next chapter, he’s back up in the mountains, er, tending sheep?
Here comes dent number 3:

” Textual conflicts
David may not have been the one to kill Goliath. Elhanan, the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite, is given credit for killing Goliath in 2 Sam 21:19. The KJV adds the phrase "the brother of" before Goliath's name in order to avoid contradicting the story of David's victory.

The KJV insertion is justified by the parallel account of Elhanan's deed at 1 Chron 20:5b, which states that "Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath." The word "Jair" here is "Jaare-oregim" at 2 Sam 21:19b; "oregim" is Hebrew for "weavers," which also appears at the end of both verses. Also, "Lahmi" (Hebrew "´eth-lach·mi´," where "´eth" simply means that Lahmi is the object of the verb "slew") in the former becomes "behth hal·lach·mi´" (“Bethlehemite”) in the latter. Hence many scholars view 2 Sam 21:19b to be the result of two scribal errors, with 1 Chron 20:5b as the correct account.

However, other scholars argue that Elhanan may have been the victor over Goliath, but that David was later credited with the deed in order to enhance his reputation. It has been contended that, because of David's introduction to Saul in 1 Samuel 16:19-23, Saul should have known who David was in 1 Samuel 17:55-58 and would not need to ask whose son David is, especially since Jesse, David's father, is also mentioned in the earlier passage.
One response to this is to argue that the earlier passage only implies that the servants of Saul knew that David was the son of Jesse. There is no reason to believe Saul had to have known that Jesse was David's father two years later in Chapter 17. “

Now, Ahmed Osman, in his book ‘Jesus in the House of the Pharoahs’ Appendix C, pg. 207-10, stipulates that “The tale of the slaying of Goliath does not belong to the story of either David (he contends that there were two, one being the mighty chieftain, the other being a lowly shephard)., but that, on pg. 209, that it belongs to “an ancient Egyptian literary work known as the Autobiography of Sinuhe”.

I guess David(s) did indeed exist. And hey, it's a pretty good story, but it loses cohesion upon careful examination, like just about all of the stories in the same book.

Fairy tales all.
Till the next post, then.

Read More...

Summary only...