Raf

I like "seemingly disturbed." Because they're not, you know, ACTUALLY disturbed. There's no legitimate concern that police shoot and kill black people 21 times more often than they shoot and kill white people. But I suppose pointing that out makes me in favor of ignoring the (believable but thus far completely uncorroborated stories of) beheadings of (not just any... CHRISTIAN) children.

Se7en

Gypsy?

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Once again, the Bible gives the distinct impression that Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives, are the only humans on earth who survived the flood. When you consider the flood story, this makes sense. After all, God could very easily have said to Noah, "There's a huge regional flood coming. You've got 120 years. I strongly suggest you move far away, where the flood won't affect you." That's not what He says. Some of us WANT the Flood to be regional, because you MIGHT make an argument for a regional flood. But the Bible itself doesn't give the slightest inkling that it's talking about less than the whole earth. Did fear and dread of man fall on all the beasts of the earth? No. All the fish? No. Given into man's hands? Not really, no. EVERYTHING that lives and moves about will be food for man? That's some pretty bad dietary advice right there. Ok, drain the blood. Check. Still bad dietary advice. "I will demand an accounting FROM EVERY ANIMAL?" What? Have there been some bear trials that we're not aware of? Is God holding animals accountable for the animals that they kill? I mean, isn't it his fault for making them carnivores? Did they have a vote? What does that verse even mean?

As for my clairvoyant skills, I suppose it would be too much to ask you to repost the paragraph leading up to my comment about awakened rage? You know, the one that sets up an easily refutable basis for my comment -- in the absence of a refutation, I suppose denouncing me as a wannabe clairvoyant is easier. Certainly easier than addressing the serious points I raised in my post, which I can't help but notice you did not do. Easier to level a false accusation that I'm being like Martindale or Geer than it is to address the SUBSTANCE of my critique.

See if I've got this straight: You enjoy the privilege of denouncing the basis of the Ferguson protests and coverage of those issues as "hypocrisy," yet I do not enjoy the privilege of denouncing the comparison you're making, using the cut off heads of innocent children to score a cheap political point against Ferguson protests, as "vile and disgusting" without having you summon the spirits of Martindale and Geer? Really? I submit you've found the hypocrisy you were seeking, and it ain't coming from here. [Note: I am commenting STRICTLY on your argument, not on you as a person]. Personally, I think if you want to talk about the merits of the Ferguson protests, that would be fascinating and you should go for it. But that's not what you did. You decided to judge the Ferguson protests on your own (which is your right) and cast the discussion in such a way that we (readers) are either in favor of the Ferguson police OR in favor of ignoring beheaded Christian children. That's just how you framed the discussion. It's your framing of the discussion that I find vile. Not you. You're actually very cool. But what you did here... I don't know how you don't see it, honestly.

Strange place for such a holiday greeting, but ok, you too. Personally, I hope John Lynn seeks and finds the best medical care he can get.

ISIL has killed hundreds of Muslims. It has killed men suspected of bring gay. Did it take the killing of children to wake your anger? No, they've been killing children for quite some time. Muslim children. I guess it takes the killing of Christian children to wake your rage. And with your rage awakened, what do you do? Wake others! Look at what is happening! This is awful! Stop paying attention to insignificant things like the Kardashians attempting to break the internet with their naked asses, insignificant things like a fake war on Christmas, insignificant things like the profound concern of black Americans that they are treated like animals or like superhuman monsters by the very police force sworn to protect us all... One of those things is not like the others. And to hold up the heads of innocent children to whine that the Ferguson protests are getting too much coverage IS VILE AND DISGUSTING AND BENEATH YOU and I DO NOT apologize for pointing it out. I'm not saying you have to agree with me or refute me. Just expressing my opinion. If I had a comment about your previous thread, I would have made it there.

Vile

Spare me the innocent indignation. You could have compared the lack of ISIL coverage to a thousand issues getting more coverage in the media today. Not only did you choose Ferguson as your point of comparison, you portrayed the Ferguson issue in such a way as to invalidate the claims made by the protesters. That has NOTHING to with the civilized world shrugging at ISIL. If you don't like the Ferguson protests, that's cool. No one is forcing you to agree with them. But what you actually said was that Ferguson is an invalid story that does not deserve the coverage it's getting, and using the heads of innocent children to illustrate that point. So vile and disgusting are kind words, compared to what's called for under the circumstances.

The validity of the cause inspiring the Ferguson protest is unrelated to ISIL beheading innocent children. I find it disgusting that anyone would hold their heads up to shame Ferguson protesters. Hypocrisy? How about a little decency?

I don't see how one injustice invalidates the quest for justice in an unrelated case. Not to pass any judgment on Officer Wilson, pro or con, but there's something flat out despicable about using the heads of innocent children to tell frustrated protesters concerned about an unrelated issue to sit down and shut up. Vile. Sorry.

Another modern example of "how convenient is that" ties into the post hoc ergo procter hoc fallacy (forgive any misspelling). How many people can cite a miracle that goes something like this: So-and-so got a diagnosis of severe fatal cornitearjerkititis. So we prayed for So-and-so. Next time So-and-so visited the hospital, all traces of the disease were gone! It's a miracle! The implication is that the prayer triggered action from God that led to the curing of the disease. Indeed, no other explanation is even entertained. To God be the glory, right? But what happens if you reverse the results? When my friend's wife was knocked down by a stroke, so many of us prayed for her. Prayed and prayed and prayed. And she died. Using the same logic as the previous example, I should be able to say that the prayers triggered God's intervention resulting in the woman's premature death, right? Oh, no? NOW it's a fallacy? NOW we seek alternative explanations? How convenient is that?

Going from memory, so might be slightly off: "I'm gonna play this city like a harp from hell!"

Oh. Ok. "Mistletoe can be deadly if you eat it." "A kiss can be deadlier, if you mean it."

Why did God command genocide?

I could see removing tax exempt status from churches IF those statuses are allowed to remain for particular good things the churches do. For example, a church that runs a food bank should be taxed, but the food bank itself should not. But I'm MORE inclined to leave it alone. *** Incidentally, I am sensitive to how easy it would be to become a one-note poster, and I'm trying not to do that. But on this thread with this topic, I think the following observation has a place: As long as we're in a country that is religiously free, cults cannot be prevented from forming. Not by law, anyway. As long as people believe in a god, they are susceptible to abuse from anyone believed to speak for that god. This is not to say atheists are not susceptible to abuse. It just wouldn't come from a religious cult, per se.

Genesis 9 gives the distinct impression that prior to the Flood, mankind did not eat meat. In reality, mankind has been eating meat for at least 1.5 million years (including man's ancestors: by the time we get to cro magnons about 35,000 years ago, meat is a major part of man's diet. Am I wrong about what Genesis says? If I'm right, this is a fairly obvious error.

I find it interesting that the interest in discussing the issue stops once it becomes clear that staying on topic will be enforced.

Wow.

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring

Anna Paquin X-Men Hugh Jackman

What does Christine Hayes have to say that is of value to the Archaeology discussion? Are you actually going to answer a question and engage in a discussion this time? Interesting article by Christine Hayes regarding the Bible.

"When he comes through your door, unless you just-a want some more..."