mjmooney Posted June 23, 2014 Author VT Supporter Share Posted June 23, 2014 Has anyone watched Louis Theroux's documentary on the Westboro Baptist Church? Those people are absolutely insane.Rory Delap says hello. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted June 23, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) Has anyone watched Louis Theroux's documentary on the Westboro Baptist Church? Those people are absolutely insane. Rory Delap says hello. Whoops. Just randomly caught the documentary. I have no idea how old it is. Guessing it's quite old Edited June 23, 2014 by PieFacE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I think maybe the old man (now dead) may indeed have had some deep problems. Maybe possibly not insane, but not in full mental health. His death might be the start of the others getting their shit together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
useless Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I think I'm right in saying that a couple of the daughters featured in that documentary are no longer part of it although they haven't cut of ties with their Mother or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) Doubt it, the family took over the running of the church a while ago. IIRC someone who married into the family has proven to be an even bigger asshole and more effective leader than the old man. Edited June 23, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Has anyone ever shook hands with the holy ghost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrinityRoadSteps Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Has anyone ever shook hands with the holy ghost? Is that a euphemism ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Hang on while I just look that up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Has anyone ever shook hands with the holy ghost? Is that a euphemism ? no,not at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 What. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 24, 2014 Author VT Supporter Share Posted June 24, 2014 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Hang on a minute. I thought God was omnipotent and omnipresent. No, apparently he's got some bloke called Rod, and a load of staff to look after people. Franchising, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted June 24, 2014 Rod is his half brother, same dad different mother that he didn't sleep with. That's the danger of being able to get girls up the duff with nothing but the Holy Spirt and a careless finger point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 The cognitive scientist and philosopher of the mind Daniel Dennett says that as the self is not physically detectable, the notion of the self, has to be considered a 'convenient fiction'. So if the very idea of our own selves is a fiction, why are we surprised that humans invent other convenient fictions, like a god and love, for their comfort and convenience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginko Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) Rod is his half brother, same dad different mother that he didn't sleep with. Teen Angel reference, anyone? No? It is pretty obscure to be fair unless you watched the Disney Channel circa 1997 like I did. Edited June 24, 2014 by Ginko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 24, 2014 Author VT Supporter Share Posted June 24, 2014 The cognitive scientist and philosopher of the mind Daniel Dennett says that as the self is not physically detectable, the notion of the self, has to be considered a 'convenient fiction'. So if the very idea of our own selves is a fiction, why are we surprised that humans invent other convenient fictions, like a god and love, for their comfort and convenience? Not surprised at all. But I would venture to suggest that the fact that everyone experiences 'selfhood' in apparently the same way makes it a universal, useful, and essentially harmless phenomenon - 'real' enough for practical purposes. Whereas different cultures and eras have come up with a vast number of - apparently mutually exclusive - religions. And indeed plenty of scepticism, too. Which ought to cast doubts in people's minds about the validity of the whole concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Hang on a minute. I thought God was omnipotent and omnipresent. No, apparently he's got some bloke called Rod, and a load of staff to look after people. Franchising, I suppose. Do you think You'll Never Walk Alone, is a secular version of the 23rd psalm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 The cognitive scientist and philosopher of the mind Daniel Dennett says that as the self is not physically detectable, the notion of the self, has to be considered a 'convenient fiction'. So if the very idea of our own selves is a fiction, why are we surprised that humans invent other convenient fictions, like a god and love, for their comfort and convenience? Not surprised at all. But I would venture to suggest that the fact that everyone experiences 'selfhood' in apparently the same way makes it a universal, useful, and essentially harmless phenomenon - 'real' enough for practical purposes. Whereas different cultures and eras have come up with a vast number of - apparently mutually exclusive - religions. And indeed plenty of scepticism, too. Which ought to cast doubts in people's minds about the validity of the whole concept. And I would venture to disagree with you on the point in bold...polytheistic religions were (and still are) usually anything but mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I'd say the majority of monotheistic religions are pretty samey too. As mooney suggests they are 'apparently' different, but usually, often, not. Even if those in positions of power and influence in the various 'official' brands don't want it to be so and create violent conflict with others. Potentially it (religion) comes from the same place, deep at the back, where the sense of self and other and empathy all come from. Perhaps it's part plagiarism, part a glimpse of some deep singular truth. Science not being able to trace something doesn't mean it's not true, to state the patently obvs. Reading up on a bit of the old Zoroastrianism at the moment, fascinating, and all very familiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I'd say the majority of monotheistic religions are pretty samey too. As mooney suggests they are 'apparently' different, but usually, often, not. Even if those in positions of power and influence in the various 'official' brands don't want it to be so and create violent conflict with others. Potentially it (religion) comes from the same place, deep at the back, where the sense of self and other and empathy all come from. Perhaps it's part plagiarism, part a glimpse of some deep singular truth. Science not being able to trace something doesn't mean it's not true, to state the patently obvs. Reading up on a bit of the old Zoroastrianism at the moment, fascinating, and all very familiar. What I mean is that most polytheistic religions freely accept foreign gods. That's not to say that the Abrahamic religions do not borrow from other religions, of course. But exclusivity (i.e. "I'm the one true path") is part of their doctrine. It isn't for polytheism, which tends to be much more flexible. The view that religions are mutually exclusive is therefore largely an Abrahamic one, and should not be applied to adherents of other religions (in general). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts