Airline sacrifices goats to appease sky god

[Varaj]

Here (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSEIC47086020070905)

I'm so doing that the next time my car breaks.

KATHMANDU (Reuters) - Officials at Nepal's state-run airline have sacrificed two goats to appease Akash Bhairab, the Hindu sky god, following technical problems with one of its Boeing 757 aircraft, the carrier said Tuesday.

Nepal Airlines, which has two Boeing aircraft, has had to suspend some services in recent weeks due the problem.

The goats were sacrificed in front of the troublesome aircraft Sunday at Nepal's only international airport in Kathmandu in accordance with Hindu traditions, an official said.

"The snag in the plane has now been fixed and the aircraft has resumed its flights," said Raju K.C., a senior airline official, without explaining what the problem had been.

Local media last week blamed the company's woes on an electrical fault. The carrier runs international flights to five cities in Asia.

It is common in Nepal to sacrifice animals like goats and buffaloes to appease different Hindu deities.

[Atropine Mama]

Anachronisms ahoy!

:rotfl:

[doc]

So if two goats works for a plane a bunny is the way to go for a pick up ?

[Limper]

I do hope they performed some maintanance and not just a sacrifice.

[BOZ]

the maintenance was just for show - it was the sacrifice which did the trick.

[doc]

If we sacrificed Limper what would that fix ?

[Limper]

If we sacrificed Limper what would that fix ?

Rain... lots of rain.

[doc]

Cause it would make God cry ?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Worldwide organisation claims to engage in cannibalism every Sunday. News at six.

[Varaj]

Worldwide organisation claims to engage in cannibalism every Sunday. News at six.


I'm sorry did you have a point?

[doc]

I'm sorry did you have a point?

I thing the pre nuptial jitters are getting to Atticus, if it wasn't for the locator bracelet Morbidity slapped on his skinny ass he'll go walkabout.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm sorry did you have a point?

It was an admittedly rather oblique joke about the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. In a sense, Catholics are supposed to believe that they actually engage in an act of human sacrifice every Sunday.

[Varaj]

It was an admittedly rather oblique joke about the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. In a sense, Catholics are supposed to believe that they actually engage in an act of human sacrifice every Sunday.

I know what you were referencing. I'm still confused at what your point was or more exactly why you felt you needed to take a pot shot at Catholics in this thread.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I know what you were referencing. I'm still confused at what your point was or more exactly why you felt you needed to take a pot shot at Catholics in this thread.

it was shooting from the hip, so to speak (while drunk, to boot!) but I suppose my point was that sacrificing a goat is not that bizarre when you look at beliefs we all have been conditioned to accepting as mainstream.

[Northcott]

It was an admittedly rather oblique joke about the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. In a sense, Catholics are supposed to believe that they actually engage in an act of human sacrifice every Sunday.

Every day, if you're particularly faithful! Just don't try and sneak a sip from the cup o' blood when the priest isn't looking. That really pisses them off.

[Snatch]

it was shooting from the hip, so to speak (while drunk, to boot!) but I suppose my point was that sacrificing a goat is not that bizarre when you look at beliefs we all have been conditioned to accepting as mainstream.

Many cultures have superstitions that are part of the mainstream society. Some are more extreme than others. However, sacrificing a goat after repairing the plane is one thing; sacrificing the goat without doing any repairs though...:eek:

And while I assume some repairs were made, the article really only implies that repairs were carried out.

[The Winslow]

Blood for the Blood God! Goats for the Goatse God!
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4539/godhandsgk6.png (http://imageshack.us)
The Sky God, appeased by the sacrifice

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Many cultures have superstitions that are part of the mainstream society. Some are more extreme than others. However, sacrificing a goat after repairing the plane is one thing; sacrificing the goat without doing any repairs though...:eek:

And while I assume some repairs were made, the article really only implies that repairs were carried out.

Indeed, and (despite having the cash to provide it) Mother Theresa thought that providing advanced palliative care in her "homes for the dying" would compromise the "worshipful suffering" of those under here care.

By all means pray if you wish, but prayer as a substitute for action is just nutty.

[Note, the Mother T issue is, I'll admit, more complex. She was an illustration of the rather nasty suffering-porn thread in Christianity that was also evident in Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ.]

[Northcott]

HOW?!?

How is it that in a thread that has nothing to do with Christianity, nevermind controversial nuns in specific, that you manage to not only head back to Catholicsm -- again -- but turn this into another ill-considered mini-rant about Mother Theresa? The post you quoted and replied to not only didn't go there, it wasn't even in the same stadium! Never mind the same ballfield.

You make Kung-Fu Jesus cry.

[The Winslow]

Now that Goblin Boy has acquired enough humanity to no longer be the Izziebot, the task of mindless trolling on the same two-three topics in every thread befalls to the Attibot.

[Varaj]

HOW?!?

How is it that in a thread that has nothing to do with Christianity, nevermind controversial nuns in specific, that you manage to not only head back to Catholicsm -- again -- but turn this into another ill-considered mini-rant about Mother Theresa? The post you quoted and replied to not only didn't go there, it wasn't even in the same stadium! Never mind the same ballfield.

You make Kung-Fu Jesus cry.

'cause he is a fanatic. Hell I agree with him most of the time and I cringe in terror at his posts. :)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

HOW?!?

How is it that in a thread that has nothing to do with Christianity, nevermind controversial nuns in specific, that you manage to not only head back to Catholicsm -- again -- but turn this into another ill-considered mini-rant about Mother Theresa? The post you quoted and replied to not only didn't go there, it wasn't even in the same stadium! Never mind the same ballfield.

You make Kung-Fu Jesus cry.

Using religion as a substitute for actually doing something useful isn't about Mother Teresa? How???

[Note it was snatch who suggested they might be sacrificing a goat instead of fixing the plane. I was following on from that.]

And "ill-considered"? It's reasonably well-established on the currently available evidence that the woman was a creepy (if well intentioned) ghoul. About the only thing that earns her any respect (aside from her good intentions) is that she at least had the intellectual integrity to doubt her faith.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

'cause he is a fanatic. Hell I agree with him most of the time and I cringe in terror at his posts. :)

:rolleyes: Yep, I'm certain that the only true certainty is that we can never be certain. I fundamentally believe that we can never be sure of fundamentals. I'm utterly committed to the principles of scepticism and self-doubt. I brook no questioning of the principle that there can never be an unquestioned authority. I'm fundamentalist anti-fundamentalist. A fanatical opponent of fanaticism.

[Varaj]

Yep, I'm certain that the only true certainty is that we can never be certain.

I fundamentally believe that we can never be sure of fundamentals.

I'm utterly committed to the principles of scepticism and self-doubt.

I brook no questioning of the principle that there can never be an unquestioned authority.

Constantly harping on a subject and bringing it up when not appropriate makes you sound like a fanatic. Didn't we already do a poll on this? I'm not the only one that thinks you come across that way.
I generally agree with you, but damn boy let it rest and when you don't, pick the right time and place.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Constantly harping on a subject and bringing it up when not appropriate makes you sound like a fanatic. Didn't we already do a poll on this? I'm not the only one that thinks you come across that way.
I generally agree with you, but damn boy let it rest and when you don't, pick the right time and place.

Except that it was appropriate - it linked a recent topic to one of the issues raised in this thread, the dangers of using religion as an excuse not to do something useful.

I'll tell you what. I'll stop trying to make myself clear when Northcott stops trying to misrepresent everything I say on the topic of religion. But I won't hold my breath.

[Varaj]

Worldwide organisation claims to engage in cannibalism every Sunday. News at six.

Except that it was appropriate - it linked a recent topic to one of the issues raised in this thread, the dangers of using religion as an excuse not to do something useful.

I'll tell you what. I'll stop trying to make myself clear when Northcott stops trying to misrepresent everything I say on the topic of religion. But I won't hold my breath.

I don't think you can blame that one on Northcott. :)


Except that it was appropriate - it linked a recent topic to one of the issues raised in this thread, the dangers of using religion as an excuse not to do something useful.

That is why I vote fanatic. You see your hate on for Christianity under every rock. Sometimes you need to just let it go.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I don't think you can blame that one on Northcott. :)




That is why I vote fanatic. You see your hate on for Christianity under every rock. Sometimes you need to just let it go.

First, nice spin. I think you need to include the post from Snatch if you don't what to be accused of gross distortion. You might also want to note the rep comment from RF for a bit of perspective - or is he an anti religious fanatic too?

Secondly, you say you agree with me, but you don't know that I actually quite like Christianity? Oh dear.

Let's see if you've actually be listening at all. What is it, precisely, about religions that worries me? And why?

[Varaj]

First, nice spin. I think you need to include the post from Snatch if you don't what to be accused of gross distortion. You might also want to note the rep comment from RF for a bit of perspective - or is he an anti religious fanatic too?

Ain't spin sonny boy.


Secondly, you say you agree with me, but you don't know that I actually quite like Christianity? Oh dear.

You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means.


Let's see if you've actually be listening at all. What is it, precisely, about religions that worries me? And why?

Position with out reason and since there is no reason discourse is not possible.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Ain't spin sonny boy.

You failure to defend your selfspeaks volumes, spin-boy.

You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Which word?

Position with out reason and since there is no reason discourse is not possible.

Correct. Faith itself is the only real problem. Go to the top of the class!

Now, if you think really hard, you'll see that doesn't necessarily imply that all doctrines of a religion are bad. Just that its very hard to weed out bad ones that get in. Now, if you go back and maybe sound out every word in some of my old posts r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y, you'll notice that most of the actual doctrines of Christianity make me feel all warm and fuzzy and want to have Rowan Williams manbabies.

Oh yeah, and I was a bit of a fan of the last pope, too. (And there are some things about the current guy that mean I can't really hate him.)

[Varaj]

You failure to defend your self speaks volumes, spin-boy.

Nothing to defend. It is like defending "I like cheese." I stated an opinion.




Which word?

It's a movie quote. I'm liberally applying word to mean phrase. :P


Correct. Go to the top of the class!

Now, if you think really hard, you'll see that doesn't necessarily imply that all doctrines of a religion are bad. Just that its very hard to weed out bad ones that get in. Now, if you go back and maybe sound out every word in some of my old posts r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y, you'll notice that most of the actual doctrines of Christianity make me feel all warm and fuzzy and want to have Rowan Williams manbabies.

Oh yeah, and I was a bit of a fan of the last pope, too. (And there are some things about the current guy that mean I can't really hate him.)

You're so cute when you try to defend your fanaticism:cutie:.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Nothing to defend. It is like defending "I like cheese." I stated an opinion.


It's a movie quote. I'm liberally applying word to mean phrase. :P

You're so cute when you try to defend your fanaticism:cutie:.

[Spanish lisp]You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means. [/Spanish lisp]

And, oh yes, I believe the appropriate line at this point is, ahem, [Spanish lisp]I want my father back you son-of-a-bitch. [/Spanish lisp]

[Varaj]

And, oh yes, I believe the appropriate line at this point is, ahem, "I want my father back you son-of-a-bitch."

No.:olraspberry:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

No.:olraspberry:

Now that should have been Count Rugen's response.

[Northcott]

'cause he is a fanatic. Hell I agree with him most of the time and I cringe in terror at his posts. :)

I know where you're coming from! Even when there's the kernel of something lurking in the midst of preaching the Word of the New Atheist, it gets blown all to Hell by the fanaticsm. I keep falling into the trap of thinking that if I point things out, he'll see them, 'cause he seems otherwise reasonable... and then BAM! We're back to the central problem.

Of course, since faith exists without reason, and therefore people of faith cannot be trusted to deal with a subject in rational fashion, any conversation with them is easily discounted. Thankfully, however, that doesn't really qualify as prejudicial thought. :confused:

One of these days I'll learn not to bother.


You might also want to note the rep comment from RF for a bit of perspective - or is he an anti religious fanatic too?

Secondly, you say you agree with me, but you don't know that I actually quite like Christianity? Oh dear.

1) Rich is a very polite guy who believes in positive reinforcement. It's part of why I respect him.

2) He'll also be one of the first to point out to you that the core of Christian thought is the divinity of Christ. As you believe in neither divinity nor the supernatural oomph of Christ, and in fact have a great problem with anybody believing in that, your second statement rings hollow.

You like what you wish Christianity could be: which apparently is the New Atheist Meditation Hour and Squaredance Jamboree.

:rolleyes: Yep, I'm certain that the only true certainty is that we can never be certain. I fundamentally believe that we can never be sure of fundamentals. I'm utterly committed to the principles of scepticism and self-doubt. I brook no questioning of the principle that there can never be an unquestioned authority. I'm fundamentalist anti-fundamentalist. A fanatical opponent of fanaticism.

Really? 'Cause you don't seem to have any doubt or question about this statement, which you have been utterly unable to furnish unrefutable proof for:
Faith itself is the only real problem.


I'll tell you what. I'll stop trying to make myself clear when Northcott stops trying to misrepresent everything I say on the topic of religion. But I won't hold my breath.
Here's what you've managed to miss so far, in spite of it being a BIG FREAKING NEON SIGN: I'm not misrepresenting what you're saying. I'm telling you exactly how you come across to the general populace. Your failure to communicate can not be laid at my feet. The impression of you as a religious fanatic preaching the word of the New Atheist, attacking other faiths haphazzardly, and proselytizing endlessly is not one that I have cleverly fabricated. I'm simply the only one obsessive enough to keep smacking you in the head with it, in the hopes that you'll someday wake up and realize what a horse's ass you've been.

Do you really believe that you have not created the impression in this community that you are a fanatic?

[Space Cadet B^3]

Could someone sacrifice a goat to appease Atticus? ;)

[The Winslow]

Atticus, you are angering the Great Goatse in the Sky. Please stop.

[Northcott]

Atticus, you are angering the Great Goatse in the Sky. Please stop.

Dude. Stop it. Please. I have great and uncontrollable powers of visualization. I now fear to step outside of my house.

[The Winslow]

Dude. Stop it. Please. I have great and uncontrollable powers of visualization. I now fear to step outside of my house.

This brought a tear to my eye, and not just because of the crappy screen I'm forced to use.

[Snatch]

Indeed, and (despite having the cash to provide it) Mother Theresa thought that providing advanced palliative care in her "homes for the dying" would compromise the "worshipful suffering" of those under here care.

Point taken - but that's kind of an extreme example to throw out here. And I would say that her belief (and the belief of those who practice this form of Christianity) constitutes more than a superstition. It's a moral device for them.

By all means pray if you wish, but prayer as a substitute for action is just nutty.

That's pretty much what I was getting at.

[Snatch]

HOW?!?

How is it that in a thread that has nothing to do with Christianity, nevermind controversial nuns in specific, that you manage to not only head back to Catholicsm -- again -- but turn this into another ill-considered mini-rant about Mother Theresa? The post you quoted and replied to not only didn't go there, it wasn't even in the same stadium! Never mind the same ballfield.

You make Kung-Fu Jesus cry.

I don't think Atticus' comments were ill-considered, they just came off as a bit too rantish and trudging down the same path as always. They're in the same ballpark - just way out in left field.

[Dacke]

You like what you wish Christianity could be: which apparently is the New Atheist Meditation Hour and Squaredance Jamboree.
Fordism, in other words.

[Varaj]

I think I may start praying to Hello Jesus

[Northcott]

I don't think Atticus' comments were ill-considered, they just came off as a bit too rantish and trudging down the same path as always. They're in the same ballpark - just way out in left field.

I stick by the phrase "ill-considered". To continue to harp upon the evils of faith when the woman was apparently in great doubt about that very thing for decades is an ill-considered approach to examining the situation.

From there we can go on to discuss variations on definition of faith, or perhaps (more ghoulishly, but no less valid) to try and dissect what it was that made her cling to her irrational position when faith was absent, but I find the perpetual harping on a subject -- even when the subject is absent -- to be a tad irrational. Some might even say "fanatical". ;)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I stick by the phrase "ill-considered". To continue to harp upon the evils of faith when the woman was apparently in great doubt about that very thing for decades is an ill-considered approach to examining the situation.

My Dog your reading comprehension skills are appalling when it comes to anything I write on religion. Go back, read what I've said without that massive chip you carry on your shoulder most of the time, then come back and apologise.

From there we can go on to discuss variations on definition of faith, or perhaps (more ghoulishly, but no less valid) to try and dissect what it was that made her cling to her irrational position when faith was absent, but I find the perpetual harping on a subject -- even when the subject is absent -- to be a tad irrational. Some might even say "fanatical". ;)

Her absence of faith is one of the few things I admire about her, you moron!

My problem was the way her kooky catholic suffering-porn ideas (which in many Catholics are rendered unshakable by reason because protected by the firewall of faith) twisted what would otherwise have been admirable impulses to do good work. In Sam Harris's phrase, religion gave her bad reasons to do good things - and the problem with bad reasons is that they often lead to bizarre behaviour, like refusing modern palliative care (and family visits!) to those in her care because it minimised the "sacrament" them of suffering like Christ on the Cross.

The tragedy is that she was actually quite close to freeing herself. If she'd gone with her doubts and abandoned her faith, accepted that there probably was no god (while acknowledging that there might be) and gone on to do good works just for the sake of alleviating suffering, she could have become precisely the sort of hypocritical priest I admire. Of course, it would be even better if the whole church just admitted it openly, but that's too much to hope for in this decade.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Fordism, in other words.

Fordism? I take it you don't mean the mass-production of consumer products.

No, I was actually thinking of Unitarianism with more bells and smells. Sort of the way Anglicanism is practised in parts of England and Australia (and other places), but more honest.

I want to sing Jerusalem, hear readings from the good bits of the Bible and have a priest who'll give sermons that include sentiments like "now we get to this bit of the Bible. That's obviously crap. Ignore it. Now, back to hippy Jesus."

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Really? 'Cause you don't seem to have any doubt or question about this statement, which you have been utterly unable to furnish unrefutable proof for: [faith is the central problem]

Put down the crack pie dude, it's fucking you up.

I've tried too long and with too little success to get through the filter in your brain that distorts everything I say before it gets to your judgement centres.

Let's try another indirect tack, sort of like tricking a mental patient into being rational:

Two words: Bable Fish.

[Varaj]

The crack pie man, that a certain place under very.

I try excessively long, pass by the filter of your brain which everything me is twisted and can before should and success obtaining excessively a little on the center of your judgment say.

Another indirect rivet like the trick of the spiritual patient in being lucid will be tried, just a little:

2 words: The fish of Bable.


Hmmm

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Hmmm

I imagine that what my posts look like when Northcott's brain filter gets through with them.

But I wasn't referring to that BableFish.

[Varaj]

Imagine that my posts seem northcott the brain when a candidate receives through them
But I do not refer to that bablefish.

I like this game. :)

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I like this game. :)

Evidently, so does Northcott.

[GreyOne]

Atticus tries on new fanaticisms like I try on new socks.

Iraq->Bush-hate->America-hate "But I love America that's what I'm saying!"->religion-hate

He sucks each one dry and pulls another from the rack according to what he's currently reading.

[Ancalagon]

for fuck sake Atticus...

See, I was going to make a joke with this thread (quote the part about the plane now working and say "praise the machine spirit!", a warhammer 40 K reference).

But thanks to your threadcrapping, it's now besides the point and not that funny anymore. You make black karate atheist jesus cry!

Ancalagon

[Hastur T. Fannon]

It's funny that you should mention Northcott's reading comprehension, Atticus, because I've been thinking about Christopher Hitchens recently, in light of Robert Heinlein's and Stephen Fry's shared conclusions about a certain types of literary critic/reporters: that they unable to read. To read what's actually on the page (or see what's actually in front of them) without filtering it through a series of presumptions until it becomes what they want it to mean.

(Stephen Fry cites an interview where he turned up in motorcycle leathers and then checked his helmet ("or 'skid-lid' as we bikers refer to it") at the bar. The copy, when it emerged, began with the words "Tweedy Stephen Fry..."; in other words the journalist knew damn well that St. Stephen was tweedy and wasn't going to let something as trivial as evidence of her own eyes alter her perception)

Now if you want to bring up more criticism of a certain proto-saint on the appropriate fucking thread, I'll be glad to discuss what she actually did regards palliative care, how Mr. Hitchens misinterpreted it and how it throws up some fantastic moral questions in the area of medical ethics

PS: Atticus? You don't like Christianity. You like the froth on it's surface, the most superficial part of it ("Jerusalem" for Glod's sake? That's probably the worst thing Blake wrote! ("The only appropriate response to the questions raised by the first verse is 'no'; the best response to the second is 'go get them yourself, you lazy fucker'"))

PPS: In case you've missed the point, I'd suggest that it's you that has difficulties in reading comprehension. It's not really your fault though, you're trained in how to twist language until it suits your clients' ends and your client, in this case, is yourself :(

[Atticus_of_Amber]

It's funny that you should mention Northcott's reading comprehension, Atticus, because I've been thinking about Christopher Hitchens recently, in light of Robert Heinlein's and Stephen Fry's shared conclusions about a certain types of literary critic/reporters: that they unable to read. To read what's actually on the page (or see what's actually in front of them) without filtering it through a series of presumptions until it becomes what they want it to mean.

(Stephen Fry cites an interview where he turned up in motorcycle leathers and then checked his helmet ("or 'skid-lid' as we bikers refer to it") at the bar. The copy, when it emerged, began with the words "Tweedy Stephen Fry..."; in other words the journalist knew damn well that St. Stephen was tweedy and wasn't going to let something as trivial as evidence of her own eyes alter her perception)

Agreed. My old sig used to say that I have big problems with Hitchens. But you've yet to demonstrate how this is relevant.

Now if you want to bring up more criticism of a certain proto-saint on the appropriate fucking thread, I'll be glad to discuss what she actually did regards palliative care, how Mr. Hitchens misinterpreted it and how it throws up some fantastic moral questions in the area of medical ethics

I thought it was pretty much established. You had more than enough opportunity to bring that up in the other thread. Bit late now, but ok, shoot.

PS: Atticus? You don't like Christianity. You like the froth on it's surface, the most superficial part of it ("Jerusalem" for Glod's sake? That's probably the worst thing Blake wrote! ("The only appropriate response to the questions raised by the first verse is 'no'; the best response to the second is 'go get them yourself, you lazy fucker'"))

Quite right. Except that "froth" is magnificent. It saved civilization during the dark ages. It provides comfort and a sense of community to millions. It's one of the most remarkable institutions ever built by humanity and it makes my conservative institution-loving heart go a flutter. The fact that you dismiss it as "froth" is one of the sad consequences of taking faith seriously. It's not froth, Richard, its cream.

And Jerusalem is a great hymn (which I hope will be sung at my wedding). It's overtly political ambition to make a paradise of England. It's defiant nationalism. It also makes this conservative old Anglophile's hear go aflutter.

PPS: In case you've missed the point, I'd suggest that it's you that has difficulties in reading comprehension. It's not really your fault though, you're trained in how to twist language until it suits your clients' ends and your client, in this case, is yourself :(

You talk a good game, but you've yet to lay a boot on the leather. Where have I misread? What have I misread? Put up or shut up. Be specific and precise - or would that be being too much like a lawyer?

And about that Gjelvian lawyer crack - surely that's beneath you. If it matters, you should realise that any court room lawyer who behaved according to your clichéd ignorant stereotype would have no trust from the bench and a very short career (except perhaps in the USA). In advocacy, candour is the deadliest weapon. As I said only last week, "Your honour, if I lose this case it will because of this argument: [lay out argument better than my opponent did]. That's the point where I am weakest. Now, let me try to persuade you that I can get over that hurdle." The only problem with that tactic is ignoring the strangled panicked noise one's client makes.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Agreed. My old sig used to say that I have big problems with Hitchens. But you've yet to demonstrate how this is relevant.

Because you're still using as a primary source a man who describes MLK as not been a proper Christian because he (King) didn't advocate the stoning of adulterers.

Quite right. Except that "froth" is magnificent. It saved civilization during the dark ages. It provides comfort and a sense of community to millions. It's one of the most remarkable institutions ever built by humanity and it makes my conservative institution-loving heart go a flutter. The fact that you dismiss it as "froth" is one of the sad consequences of taking faith seriously. It's not froth, Richard, its cream.

One of us has completely misread the other - and I think it's you

Let me be clearer about about what I mean by froth: the buildings, the songs, the natty clothes, the books (even the Bible), the rituals, the doctrines and the dogmas. Take that all away (as happened in the Concentration Camps and as is still happening in North Korea, China and certain Islamic countries) and the faith burns even brighter. One, because it's got nothing to hide behind and, two, because these people have got nothing left.

And Jerusalem is a great hymn (which I hope will be sung at my wedding). It's overtly political ambition to make a paradise of England. It's defiant nationalism. It also makes this conservative old Anglophile's hear go aflutter.

It really isn't (and I speak as Blake fan). It's starting point is highly dubious legend, it's use of Biblically imagery is all wrong (Elijah's chariot went up, not down) and it's inspired generations of hymn- and chorus-writers to cram Bible verses into songs without thinking about symbolism, meter or structure. Nationalism is inappropriate in a hymn (and that's the reason a lot of vicars won't have it played in their church). Oh yeah, and take a look at it's historical context

Good tune though - one you can really hum. Best of luck getting past the organist (you do know the difference between an church organist and a terrorist, don't you?).

You talk a good game, but you've yet to lay a boot on the leather. Where have I misread? What have I misread? Put up or shut up. Be specific and precise - or would that be being too much like a lawyer?

For a start, post 18 on this thread. Either you were still drunk or you read something into Snatch's post that really, really wasn't there. Heck, I could even cite your previous post - you must know that a church isn't a building - it's the people in it

If it matters, you should realise that any court room lawyer who behaved according to your clichéd ignorant stereotype would have no trust from the bench and a very short career (except perhaps in the USA).

While I can see how I allowed that interpretation I wasn't talking about rhetoric; while, for example, James Spader gives a magnificent performance, I'm well aware that Boston Legal is fiction

In advocacy, candour is the deadliest weapon. As I said only last week, "Your honour, if I lose this case it will because of this argument: [lay out argument better than my opponent did]. That's the point where I am weakest. Now, let me try to persuade you that I can get over that hurdle." The only problem with that tactic is ignoring the strangled panicked noise one's client makes.

(It's interesting that you try to say that lawyering isn't about rhetoric tricks by citing a rhetorical trick, but there you go...)

Recently you mentioned a case you were attempting to take a trust fund and "crack it open like a piñata"; take the language used to construct the fund and attempt to show that it was invalid (how did you do by the way?). Now if you were acting for the owner of the trust fund, you'd be taking the same language and attempting to show that it was valid. I believe it's known as the "cab rank principle"? No matter what the merits of the case if you're offered it and it's in your field you have to take it and do the best damn job you can even if you think your client is guilty as sin? Professionally, it's a truly honorable thing to do. I couldn't do it

It wasn't meant as an attack any more than saying that RSM's late sister was trained in how to use a k-bar to tease apart into the nerve cluster at the bridge of the nose would be an attack on her ethics. Unfortunately, people like her are necessary and she learnt/was trained how to keep her professional skills and personal life separate.

When it comes to religion, you seem to have a problem with reading the words that are written, without being aware of how your prejudices are filtering them

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Because you're still using as a primary source a man who describes MLK as not been a proper Christian because he (King) didn't advocate the stoning of adulterers.

A primary source I've never seen persuasively rebutted on that issue. Happy to be shown I'm wrong. But I'm still waiting.

One of us has completely misread the other - and I think it's you

Let me be clearer about about what I mean by froth: the buildings, the songs, the natty clothes, the books (even the Bible), the rituals, the doctrines and the dogmas. Take that all away (as happened in the Concentration Camps and as is still happening in North Korea, China and certain Islamic countries) and the faith burns even brighter. One, because it's got nothing to hide behind and, two, because these people have got nothing left.

The faith burns because the people are desperate. And that's one of its advantages. If your position is hopeless, the only way to find hope is to turn to irrationalism. And in those circumstances, that's a good move. But when the situation is no longer desperate, the illusions that helped you survive until your "miracle" (by which I mean blind luck) arrived will hold you back.

But the institutions - by which I don't mean just the buildings, but he practices, the relationships, the rules and customs and community - is what has given value to the world. Institutions (universities, the law, etc) are far more than just buildings. They are the stuff of civilization.

It really isn't (and I speak as Blake fan). It's starting point is highly dubious legend, it's use of Biblically imagery is all wrong (Elijah's chariot went up, not down) and it's inspired generations of hymn- and chorus-writers to cram Bible verses into songs without thinking about symbolism, meter or structure. Nationalism is inappropriate in a hymn (and that's the reason a lot of vicars won't have it played in their church). Oh yeah, and take a look at it's historical context

Good tune though - one you can really hum. Best of luck getting past the organist (you do know the difference between an church organist and a terrorist, don't you?).

They're ALL highly dubious. Christ walking on England's green fields is a dubious as him being born in Bethlahem, or to a virgin, or rising again, or returning. It's fantasy. Inspiring fantasy. And Christ on Salisbury plain tickles my fancy almost as much as Tolkien.

For a start, post 18 on this thread. Either you were still drunk or you read something into Snatch's post that really, really wasn't there. Heck, I could even cite your previous post - you must know that a church isn't a building - it's the people in it.

Wow! That's the second self-rebutting post I've ever seen.

First, Snatch himself agreed that my point was a legitimate (if "left field) riff on his.

Second, I never said a church was a building or anything of the sort.

It seems you can read neither my posts nor Snatch's.

While I can see how I allowed that interpretation I wasn't talking about rhetoric; while, for example, James Spader gives a magnificent performance, I'm well aware that Boston Legal is fiction


(It's interesting that you try to say that lawyering isn't about rhetoric tricks by citing a rhetorical trick, but there you go...)

Recently you mentioned a case you were attempting to take a trust fund and "crack it open like a piñata"; take the language used to construct the fund and attempt to show that it was invalid (how did you do by the way?). Now if you were acting for the owner of the trust fund, you'd be taking the same language and attempting to show that it was valid. I believe it's known as the "cab rank principle"? No matter what the merits of the case if you're offered it and it's in your field you have to take it and do the best damn job you can even if you think your client is guilty as sin? Professionally, it's a truly honorable thing to do. I couldn't do it

It wasn't meant as an attack any more than saying that RSM's late sister was trained in how to use a k-bar to tease apart into the nerve cluster at the bridge of the nose would be an attack on her ethics. Unfortunately, people like her are necessary and she learnt/was trained how to keep her professional skills and personal life separate.

When it comes to religion, you seem to have a problem with reading the words that are written, without being aware of how your prejudices are filtering them

Again you misunderstand. Had I been working for the other side, I'd have told them they were in real trouble. I'd have told them that if someone on the other side had the time and gumption to follow all the threads, they'd be fucked and they'd be well advised to settle before the other side realised that.

There are some areas of the law where the result is truly uncertain and depends on judgements of degree on which reasonable minds may differ. There, presentation matters. But those cases are actually surprisingly few. Most legal questions are right or wrong and people who get them wrong are either lazy or incompetent or inexperienced (and I've made mistakes of that sort).

That trusts case was definitely one of those. (Note I'm talking about legal issues here (and cases about the interpretation of written contracts). Factual issues are more of a lottery, because they depend on how the witnesses do in the witness box. That's why most cases that go to court aren't about legal issues. Most legal issues are clear. But in cases that turn on the facts, the real question is which witness the judge is going to believe. And that's something that's often very hard to predict.)

How'd the tax avoidance case go? The client (i.e. the relevant State or Territory revenue office) isn't prepared to pay for the time it will take to unpick that little tax-avoiding piece of shit. They're going to settle. The pussies. That (the other side's unwillingness to pay for the time to do the job properly) is what wins bad (legal) cases most of the time, not rhetoric.

There is a role for rhetoric in the law, but its far, far less than most people suppose. It often resembles computer coding more than politics. The law is precision and logic and research. Only when those won't get you all the way to the answer (or if you're flying by the seat of your pants and your opponent is too) is it about rhetoric.

And I'm saying this as a guy who just got his ass handed to him in court the day before yesterday (my first major loss, really, since I went out on my own) because my leader, though a genius at precision and logic and research, sucks at rhetoric and this was one of "those few cases". Not saying I'd have won it if I'd lead, but I am saying I can think of a few who might have - because that was one of the few hard cases where rhetoric matters.

EDIT: It occurs to me we may have a confusion here. If by rhetoric you mean "playing with words" or "spin", then I think those tactics are unethical in the law at any time.

But if by "rhetoric" you mean good presentation of your material, in the order in which the judge needs to understand it, in a way that is constantly flexible to take account of the what you perceive to be the judge's current beliefs, then yes. That matters in hard cases. That's where the "here's where I'm weakest" tactic works great - because it's honest. And it works better every time you use it honestly, because you get a reputation for being honest. If I say to a judge, "this is my weakest point", the ones who know me know that that's the issue that will decide the case, one way or the other. Which, of course, leads to its other advantage - it saves time. I actually recently had one judge who knows me well say (in an case on topic where I'm published, so it wasn't entirely unreasonable), "So, you're confident the cases are clearly your way on the other two issues?" And when I said "yes", she said she believed me, and would just concentrate on the issue I said was my weakest. Scared the pants off me at the time, actually - because that level of trust is very easy to lose... (And because that particular judge is really nasty to barristers she's lost respect for.)

EDIT (2): The "cab rank rule" means a barrister must work for the first client to come in the door. But "work" means give honest advice and appear if you think you have reasonable prospects of success. I've advised clients that their case was hopeless before. And I've refused to appear even when instructed to do so, because I thought the case would be a waste of the court's time. Indeed, doing anything less is unethical and (if proved, which is hard) will get you disbarred in Australia. In other words, barrister are ethically obliged NOT to take unmeritorious cases. All the cab rank rules obliges us to do with respect to crap cases is to take the brief, give it some hard thought to be certain it really is crap (and I've changed my mind about that on a few occasions after such a hard look), and then tell the client it's crap and why. Only if we think it isn't crap are we obliged to take it to court.

EDIT(3): God I'm tired! The above is probably unintelligible. But I'm exhausted. Going to bed. Anyone who misunderstands anything I'm said in the above isn't a Northcott, they're just someone who can't read the typed equivalent of yawn-speak. Apologies in advance.

[doc]

Atticus I would love to see you and Keeper do a debate here, lawyers are fun to watch when the savage each other :)

[Hastur T. Fannon]

A primary source I've never seen persuasively rebutted on that issue. Happy to be shown I'm wrong. But I'm still waiting.

Are you also suggesting that MLK wasn't a "proper Christian" because he didn't advocate stoning adulterers to death? If so, please cite any Christian authority that's advocated that Christians should stone adulterers to death

The faith burns because the people are desperate. And that's one of its advantages. If your position is hopeless, the only way to find hope is to turn to irrationalism. And in those circumstances, that's a good move. But when the situation is no longer desperate, the illusions that helped you survive until your "miracle" (by which I mean blind luck) arrived will hold you back.

But the institutions - by which I don't mean just the buildings, but he practices, the relationships, the rules and customs and community - is what has given value to the world. Institutions (universities, the law, etc) are far more than just buildings. They are the stuff of civilization.

I think we're in agreement here - myth, legend and stories are how we communicate the importance of these institutions. But it's not really the institutions that are important so much as the people in them (see below). An institution can be looked at as shared myth.

I think that the reason that you like Jerusalem and I find it banal is that we don't share the same myth. My view of Englishness is more of the Warren Ellis "knee them in the ball and conquer half of France" approach

(incidentally, the difference between a church organist and a terrorist is that you can negotiate with a terrorist)

Wow! That's the second self-rebutting post I've ever seen.

First, Snatch himself agreed that my point was a legitimate (if "left field) riff on his.


Not post nine (which, if you check your rep I complemented you on and said you beat me too it), post eighteen. The one that started this train-wreak

Second, I never said a church was a building or anything of the sort.

Ok, my fault. I thought the cliche "The church isn't a building - it's the people" had hit popular culture. The phrase is about the importance of distinguishing between the physical buildings or objects and the institution (to use your phrase (and I agree with it)) that they represent

There is a role for rhetoric in the law, but its far, far less than most people suppose. It often resembles computer coding more than politics. The law is precision and logic and research. Only when those won't get you all the way to the answer (or if you're flying by the seat of your pants and your opponent is too) is it about rhetoric.

I didn't understand this. Thanks for explaining this to me (and I meant your second (ethical) use of the word rhetoric.

EDIT (2): The "cab rank rule" means a barrister must work for the first client to come in the door. But "work" means give honest advice and appear if you think you have reasonable prospects of success. I've advised clients that their case was hopeless before. And I've refused to appear even when instructed to do so, because I thought the case would be a waste of the court's time. Indeed, doing anything less is unethical and (if proved, which is hard) will get you disbarred in Australia. In other words, barrister are ethically obliged NOT to take unmeritorious cases. All the cab rank rules obliges us to do with respect to crap cases is to take the brief, give it some hard thought to be certain it really is crap (and I've changed my mind about that on a few occasions after such a hard look), and then tell the client it's crap and why. Only if we think it isn't crap are we obliged to take it to court.

I didn't know this either (though it makes sense when I think about it). You know, if I'd known this when I was 14, I might have picked another career

Anyone who misunderstands anything I'm said in the above isn't a Northcott

:( and you were doing so well...

[GreyOne]

Gjelvian?

:confused:

Aren't lawyer cracks pretty much a universal truth?

[GreyOne]

Everyone, always remember, the best way to get under Atticus' cold reptilian lawyer skin is to just quote me in your posts.

[Ancalagon]

Gjelvian?

:confused:

Aren't lawyer cracks pretty much a universal truth?

Everyone, always remember, the best way to get under Atticus' cold reptilian lawyer skin is to just quote me in your posts.

What the heck are you talking about?

;)

[Dacke]

Fordism? I take it you don't mean the mass-production of consumer products.
No, I mean the "religion" of the World State, in Brave New World. People go to Solidarity Services where they sing and hold hands and so forth, but there's no deeper meaning to them.

[Snatch]

Consider me educated now. I had no idea what everyone was talking about and why they were pouncing on Atticus for his comments. Sure he's gone off on faith/Christianity tangents before but I didn't see how his comment (although unusual for the topic) was horrificaly off base.

I didn't realize there was a thread on M.Theresa - now I do and I think I see where everyone is coming from now.

I am schooled - carry on with the debate..?

[Northcott]

Are you also suggesting that MLK wasn't a "proper Christian" because he didn't advocate stoning adulterers to death? If so, please cite any Christian authority that's advocated that Christians should stone adulterers to death.

Rich... you're playing his game, now. You've asked him to find somebody who will claim that the sky is a cheery shade of plaid -- and there's always some nutjob, idiot, or liar who will do so just to be a prick.

If the Bible is to be believed (and most Christians generally lean in that direction) didn't Christ himself step in to prevent the stoning of a suspected adulteress? That makes it a self-evident truth that advocating stoning is the very opposite of a Christian worldview.

Only a madman or a half-wit would buy into the notion that stoning is a core element of Christianity. If someone is neither of those and yet continues to propose this preposterous concept, they likely have "issues" with truthfulness. Or lack thereof.


Fordism, in other words.

Personally, I found Brave New World to be both depressing and scary as Hell. But I prefer to use "Squaredance Jamboree". If you say "the Fordism Squaredance Jamboree", it sounds much more fun.


My Dog your reading comprehension skills are appalling when it comes to anything I write on religion. Go back, read what I've said without that massive chip you carry on your shoulder most of the time, then come back and apologise.

Very well: Atticus, I am deeply and truly sorry that you're an idiot. But you're our idiot, and the village wouldn't be the same about you.

My problem was the way her kooky catholic suffering-porn ideas (which in many Catholics are rendered unshakable by reason because protected by the firewall of faith) twisted what would otherwise have been admirable impulses to do good work.

Preceded by...

Her absence of faith is one of the few things I admire about her, you moron!

Of course. Her faith was what caused her to do all those bad, bad things -- but you admire her because she lost her faith for decades and ceased to "feel Jesus' presence" or to even believe in God at points. Good thing I'm a moron, or I'd be laughing my ass off as you contradict yourself while tying yourself in a knot with false accusations of other people twisting your words.

I'm not sure whether you're full of shit, or just a shithead, but you're certainly not plagued by honesty or a capacity for self-examination.

...she could have become precisely the sort of hypocritical priest I admire.

You admire hypocrisy. How shocking. I'd never have guessed that of you.


Now quit cluttering up other people's threads with your incessant need to reference me in your posts, and go on over to the "Off Campus" forum like a good little slack-jawed trogledyte. Since you can't seem to find the "new thread" button, I did it for you, you lazy fuck. :D

[Snatch]

...your incessant need to reference me in your posts,

Oh come on...admit it...you feel loved.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Rich... you're playing his game, now. You've asked him to find somebody who will claim that the sky is a cheery shade of plaid -- and there's always some nutjob, idiot, or liar who will do so just to be a prick.

There are two (count them) elephant traps in what I wrote (thus giving me plenty of opportunity to school him for reading comprehension), I'm almost entirely certain that no-one has ever done it (heck even Phelps doesn't) and I'm also genuinely interested to see if anyone has. Plus I want to see if I can get him in trouble with Morbidity for looking up religious loonies on the Interwebs when he should be planning their wedding.

I can be a vicious bastard when I want to be

[Northcott]

Oh come on...admit it...you feel loved.

Almost as much as when a wonderful group of people saw fit to quote the various things that God tells me. That provided some entertainment. :D


There are two (count them) elephant traps in what I wrote (thus giving me plenty of opportunity to school him for reading comprehension), I'm almost entirely certain that no-one has ever done it (heck even Phelps doesn't) and I'm also genuinely interested to see if anyone has. Plus I want to see if I can get him in trouble with Morbidity for looking up religious loonies on the Interwebs when he should be planning their wedding.

I can be a vicious bastard when I want to be


My apologies, Rich. I underestimated you. That's feckin' evil.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Are you also suggesting that MLK wasn't a "proper Christian" because he didn't advocate stoning adulterers to death? If so, please cite any Christian authority that's advocated that Christians should stone adulterers to death.

I'm sorry Richard, but I have no ideas what you're asking me here.

My point was that the accusation that MT didn't install modern palliative care (and was reluctant to allow family visits) in her houses for the dying was one that I'd never seen countered. I was asking whether you sought to contest it and saying that I'd be very interested if you were.

EDIT: Seems you've set the "elephant traps" on a path I have no interest in taking. For what it's worth, I think that only wacky US Christian dominionists (a tiny sect) would argue for the stoning of adulteresses. OTOH, it's quite a common occurrence in the Islamic world. But I fail to see how this is relevant to our discussion.

I think we're in agreement here - myth, legend and stories are how we communicate the importance of these institutions. But it's not really the institutions that are important so much as the people in them (see below). An institution can be looked at as shared myth.

Of course, but when you confuse the myth with reality, that's the problem. You don't need to make unsustainable truth claims about reality to keep an institution going (at least not in the modern world).

I think that the reason that you like Jerusalem and I find it banal is that we don't share the same myth. My view of Englishness is more of the Warren Ellis "knee them in the ball and conquer half of France" approach

(incidentally, the difference between a church organist and a terrorist is that you can negotiate with a terrorist)

Probably true.

(Organist issue is being dealt with. Call me the Jack Baur of organist negotiations.)

Not post nine (which, if you check your rep I complemented you on and said you beat me too it), post eighteen. The one that started this train-wreak

Huh? That's the post I was talking about. MT is clearly relevant to the broader issue of using prayer as a substitute for action. And that broader issue was the point Snatch made in the post that I was responding to.

Ok, my fault. I thought the cliche "The church isn't a building - it's the people" had hit popular culture. The phrase is about the importance of distinguishing between the physical buildings or objects and the institution (to use your phrase (and I agree with it)) that they represent.

Ok. As with several issues here, I think we're actually in furious agreement. (And as I keep suggesting to you, I think you are actually in furious agreement with Dawkins.)

[Hastur T. Fannon]

(Organist issue is being dealt with. Call me the Jack Baur of organist negotiations.)

You're going to prove good faith by delivering the head of one of his enemies to him in a bowling bag? Good call!