Vatican flexing it's muscles.

I've always been on the fence about Catholicism. It's not perfect (like everything man does) but the one thing I've always felt was the strong point in Catholicism is their church hierarchy, it makes for a more efficient means of accountability.


Vatican's Chief Justice: Catholic Politicians Who Support Abortion or Gay Marriage Must Publicly Repent

“We find self-professed Catholics, for example, who sustain and support the right of a woman to procure the death of the infant in her womb, or the right of two persons of the same sex to the recognition which the State gives to a man and a woman who have entered into marriage,” said the archbishop. “It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself publicly in this manner.”

The Vatican, with only one announcement, put every single gay marriage/abortion supporter who claims to be catholic on blast. The Protestant Churches, IMO can never match that type of public accountability that the Catholic Church has.

Back from deployment!

Back from deployment and I'm celebrating my return to both the blogging world and home by purchasing something I've waiting a long time for.




















That's right! Season 3 is finally here.

Jin the MC sees the light.

Twebs double standards on accusations of lying.

An unspecified number of moderators at Tweb have shown their double standards in what constitutes adequate support of the accusation that someone lied. You can view it all right here It is hilarious. Seriously. It almost seemed like the moderators looked at this post and decided to go the compete opposite direction. Where do I start? I guess I'll start with the first Exhibit:

Exhibit A: dizzle told me that my accusation of lying was not supported because of " a plethora of numerous honest explanations were available and reasonable." Does that go for the JPH in the other thread? obviously not, they went in the complete opposite direction with that one since there were a "plethora of numerous honest explanations available and reasonable as well."

Exhibit B: Pixie came into a thread and posted a recycled explanation for his lie. Dizzle stated that pixies bogus, bunk, ignorant, stupid explanation was a reasonable one, thus my accusation of pixie lying was not substantiated. Does that go for JPH in the other thread? NO! because lofts came into that thread and offered a "reasonable" explanation as well, and yet they persisted in calling him a liar. Again, they went in the opposite direction.

Exhibit C: Jack Bauer told me that I cannot substantiate that a person is lying "without even asking them things like "how do you know I said that? Surely you must have read it to know that?"" (I.e. being circumspect). Does that go for JPH in the other thread? of course not! JPH did not ask Loftus any questions before he accused him of lying, nor were questions required before his lie was substantiated. For the third time, they saw what JPH did and went in the complete opposite direction.

Now don't get it twisted. Loftus and pixie both told lies and both myself and JPH substantiated our claims, that is what I think and that is what the evidence clearly shows. The problem here is that according to dizzle and jack bauer, both loftus and pixie either lied or did not lie, there is no one or the other, there is no distinction. To be fair, dizzle did try to defend herself, if you call this pathetic hand wave a defense.

I already told him that he is not going to get anywhere by trying to parse through years of forum history and finger-pointing.

...

TD, this is private property. The staff are volunteers. We allow ranting against our policies in the interest of free speech, but ultimately this is our hobby and not to be a source of constant irritation and complaints against the good faith efforts to fairly administrate. You disagree. Time to move on.

Really? years of forum history and finger pointing? are your dreadlocks on too tight? did you get blue hair dye in your eye? it doesn't matter how many years of forum history I went through. Either the rules apply to everyone at all times or they do not, it is that simple, finger pointing? ya, to show your double standards I must "point the finger" at the person who the rules don't apply too in order to expose your double standards. The private property bit is just too sad. The fact that it is private properly no more shows my claim is unsubstantiated than the fact that a murder that takes place on private property shows it was not illegal to kill that person. She offers no logical argument, no evidence, she basically dismisses all of her double standards by engaging in the childish reasoning of "My toys My rules." Pathetic really. You would think that a forum that has the headline "we debate theology...seriously" their administrator of all people would be smarter than your average 12 year old.

Straw men, just another way to exploit a disaster.

Some people exploit disasters for money, sex slaves, fame, votes and sympathy, but Richard Dawkins and Loftus have decided to exploit the Haiti disaster to build a man of straw:

Where was God in Noah's flood? He was systematically drowning the entire world, animal as well as human, as punishment for 'sin'. Where was God when Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed with fire and brimstone? He was deliberately barbecuing the citizenry, lock stock and barrel, as punishment for 'sin'. Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated Christian, your entire religion is founded on an obsession with 'sin', with punishment and with atonement. Where do you find the effrontery to condemn Pat Robertson, you who have signed up to the obnoxious doctrine that the central purpose of Jesus' incarnation was to have himself tortured as a scapegoat for the 'sins' of all mankind, past, present and future, beginning with the 'sin' of Adam, who (as any modern theologian well knows) never even existed? To quote the President of one theological seminary, writing in these very pages:

"The earthquake in Haiti, like every other earthly disaster, reminds us that creation groans under the weight of sin and the judgment of God. This is true for every cell in our bodies, even as it is for the crust of the earth at every point on the globe."

You nice, middle-of-the-road theologians and clergymen, be-frocked and bleating in your pulpits, you disclaim Pat Robertson's suggestion that the Haitians are paying for a pact with the devil. But you worship a god-man who - as you tell your congregations even if you don't believe it yourself - 'cast out devils'. You even believe (or you don't disabuse your flock when they believe) that Jesus cured a madman by causing the 'devils' in him to fly into a herd of pigs and stampede them over a cliff. Charming story, well calculated to uplift and inspire the Sunday School and the Infant Bible Class. Pat Robertson may spout evil nonsense, but he is a mere amateur at that game. Just read your own Bible. Pat Robertson is true to it. But you?

Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering: suffering as payback for 'sin' - or suffering as 'atonement' for it? You may weep for Haiti where Pat Robertson does not, but at least, in his hick, sub-Palinesque ignorance, he holds up an honest mirror to the ugliness of Christian theology. You are nothing but a whited sepulchre.

Riding on the coat tails of more popular atheists, Loftus, being the blind follower he is, follows suit as well.

I was thinking of doing my own post on this topic. I have heard Christians say Pat Robertson is a moron for suggesting the Haitian disaster was a divine judgment for too long now. No, they are the morons. Pat Robertson represents Christian tradition, not them, as Dawkins said in a Washington Post column

Listen Christian, ever exegete Isaiah 45:7 (NIV):

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Does your God do this or is Isaiah mistaken?

Claiming "modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated Christians" are not true to the bible or are morons for disagreeing with Pat Robertson on whether or not the Haiti Disaster was divine judgement is Dawkins and Loftus at their best. They menacingly circle around their opponent and attack. They land punches, elbows and knees, until the man of straw they're assaulting is nothing more than a pile of scattered straw. The "modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated Christians" are just as biblicaly justified for disagreeing with Pat Roberston than Roberston is for saying what he said. God creates disaster yes, the bible clearly says that in Isaiah. Does that mean God caused every single disaster? does that mean God caused the earth quake in Haiti? no it does not. Does God causing the flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah mean that God caused every single disaster? or caused the earth quake in Haiti? no it does not.

God saying "I create disaster" is no more conclusive He caused the specific disaster in Haiti(or every disaster for that matter) than it is conclusive that Roberto Succo causes every murder or a specific murder in South America because he said 'I Kill People.'

Saying or insinuating that God caused the disaster in Haiti because He caused disasters in the past is logically fallacious.


At this point it has become plainly obvious that neither Dawkins nor Loftus knows what they're talking about, and Loftus's case it is extremely ironic since his challenge to exegete Isaiah 45:7 was nothing but a false dichotomy. Truth is, that unless God told Pat Roberston to directly say that, then neither he or the "modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated Christians" know exactly Who or what caused the earthquake and since both views are biblical neither can be accused of being not true to the bible. The fact that Pat Robertson is an elder is grounds for respect, not infallibility.

How can you deny him the title of the illist?

Canibus is by far the best emcee. PERIOD.


Not only is that one of the greatest examples of skill on the mic , but this line, taken from that song, has to be one of, if not the best set of bars in a rap song.

The personified dry humor of cum-laude alumni
A wise man sees failure as progress
a fool divorces his knowledge and misses the logic
And loses his soul in the process
obsessed with nonsense with a caricature that has no content

Completely mind blowing.

Calling it.

With the release of BioShock 2 coming up I can't help but make a prediction based upon it's story.

Fast forward 10 years after BioShock ended, and there's a new lunatic running the battered city. Her name is Sophia Lamb, and unlike Ryan, she's dismissed all notions of the power of individualism. She preaches about collective effort and the effects of the many working in unison can have, bringing about a kind of religious revolution within Rapture.

This will no doubt bring forth a slew of psuedointellectual, historically incompetent gamers and non-gamers ready to give their 'zomg, religion is so evil' arguments, all while ignoring the previous game that was centered around rapture being completely secular.