Wash ,'Objects In Space'
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risque (and frisque), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
I loves me some kd lang. I first saw her in concert in 1988. She was the opening act for Dwight Yoakam. Boy, that was a good concert.
I think my toes just curled in happy at the thought! I loves me some Dwight, too.
David, I'm listening to Shadowland and Earlier k.d. lang. Country k.d. instead of Crooner k.d..
GC, what else is good there? If you're ever in Seattle, we should totally hit Bliss Soaps, which is like a flashback to Lush five years ago. (And staffed by adorable gayboys.)
Hippo Birdies, Deena! May you have a wonderful day and a fantabulous year!
I just bought k.d.lang's Torch and Twang. For .50 cents. Why are her albums so cheap? It's not right.
Emmett leaves his cap in the East Bay, and one of the Marines left his (or her) cap in my husband's safe last night.
Cindy, stop me. Please please stop me. I'm trying to discuss the Bible, and God's nature, over in Natter with someone who views God as a psychopathic murdering warlord.
Option A: Read
Matthew 7:
Just before you have gotten 1/4 of the way through the chapter, you'll know why I recommended that one.
Option B; Post/read/talk somewhere else:
Did you notice yesterday, how I just posted about the heat, and left? I had a whole post (in part in response to Strega's assertion that God's benevolence was a NT retcon), and the
Job
story, and the Abram-Isaac sacrifice, and how it's funny to me that sometimes, some atheists are as fundy as some of the fundiest fundies I've ever met/read, when it comes to understanding the idea of biblical inspiration as if the inspired turn from human being in to human dictaphone.
Then I decided it was hot, and I was tired and cranky, and that I was less likely to convince someone who doesn't recognize the Bible as anything other than ancient literature, that they still need to employ a sound hermeneutic in order to understand specific passages, than I was to sub for Kristen Bell on Veronica Mars.
Option C; Go Fall in Love with Ben Witherington's Brains:
[link]
they still need to employ a sound hermeneutic in order to understand specific passages
I gotta say, there's not a form of media out there -- book, comic book, TV show, musical comedy, Bazooka gum wrapper -- that exists outside of context. And that includes the Bible, damn it.
Read it as though it has no context if you insist. But it just makes your snarky atheism based on an incorrect premise.
Feh.
t edit Also:
Just before you have gotten 1/4 of the way through the chapter, you'll know why I recommended that one.
::snerkity snerk::
some atheists are as fundy as some of the fundiest fundies I've ever met/read,
I'd say many . I know a number of evangelical athiests. being an agnostic, areligious being, I tend to blink with confusion. my lack of passion on the subject annoys everyone.
For lo, Cindy is wise.
I'm eating four a cinnamon rolls.
ETA link for those who want to see the cuteness: [link] On the right side of the page. ROAR!
The baby lion is lethal cuteness! (For a minute, I thought you were punking us, because there's the big picture of Rummy and Abizaid at the top of the page.)
some atheists are as fundy as some of the fundiest fundies I've ever met/read,
I'd say many . I know a number of evangelical athiests. being an agnostic, areligious being, I tend to blink with confusion. my lack of passion on the subject annoys everyone.I only meant that specifically where a given reading of the Bible is concerned. Most of the atheists (and certainly the agnostics) in my life are not evangelical about their philosophy at all.
What I meant is, if you gave a Bible passage to a fundamentalist Christian; A more (theologically) moderate (but still conservative) Christian; A more liberal (theologically) Christian; Joe Average who thinks there's probably a God, but just isn't interested; Jane Agnostic; and an atheist, it seems to me the fundy and atheist would come away with the same interpretation of the passage. It also seems to me both would believe that interpretation is really the only sound reading of the passage. The main difference would be that the fundy would know it to be true, and the atheist would know it to be false. This is, of course, only meant as a gross generalization.
I haven't kept up with the natter conversation since yesterday, so I have no idea who is saying what over there, right now.
I haven't kept up with the natter conversation since yesterday, so I have no idea who is saying what over there, right now.
I'm finding it very interesting, but I'm too short of time to craft the kind of comments I'd want to make in response to some posts on various things, so not actively contributing.
Cindy, stop me. Please please stop me. I'm trying to discuss the Bible, and God's nature, over in Natter with someone who views God as a psychopathic murdering warlord.
Why? Why do I get myself into these things?
Teppy, I'm just happy to see you discuss the topic without it being painful. The FAS really put you through the wringer and for a long time it seemed as if that store of knowledge you'd amassed was just lying there hurting you.
some atheists are as fundy as some of the fundiest fundies I've ever met/read,
Saw an interview with Margaret Atwood the other day where she was saying that she was raised a strict Agnostic -- and that Athiesm, by virtue of believing firmly something scientifically unprovable was just as much a religion as any other. It was v. interesting.
Teppy, I'm just happy to see you discuss the topic without it being painful.
Oh it still is, a little. But not nearly as much as it used to.