But mark, I'm sure that those that teach the my "tea kettle boiled," literal version do so with conviction. They really do believe Christ turned water into wine. And given their starting point, Jesus is God, why should they not believe it? I believed it at one time. And when I came not to believe it was not because I said "God could not turn water into wine," it was because I came to reject the notion of god, and particularly the loving and personnel god preached by the church.
A first time experience with waitstaff is much as you describe. Repeated visits can bring about a closer relationship between patron and server. Yeah, weird, I know. Maybe a mid-west/plains state sort of thing but I bet it is a common experience. And 15% for a tip is downright niggardly, they want at least 20%. I tip 50% because I know what a fucking job it is and the "kids" appreciate it and need it.
Where may one apply and what are the qualifications for the highly paid internship(s) at the League?
BTW, I have never been a waitperson, well a bartender in college for a short time if that counts, but the waiters I do know, and that be several, like the job and find the money well above what they could earn at salaried positions. And yes, they kiss a lot of ass, tongue right up the rosebud, but they return for more.
But the point is beyond dispute, interpretations of biblical stories vary, from the literal to the metaphorical. Hitchens seems to like that 'ol time religion.
And do you *not* "import" meaning to your interpretation of Christianity? I will readily admit I do.
I don't give a big wet smelly pile of crap about this topic, waitstaff, but eat me before I pay the tip or I won't be back you douche.
What I do give a big wet smelly pile of crap about is some semblance of fairness on this site, so a question, what the fuck is the fucking deal regarding allowable language or here?
The Ordinary Gentlemen = no standards.
Commenter's = careful or you will be cast into the darkness.
Christopher Hitchens on biblical stories as metaphor. (Via Sullivan)
Read the entire piece at http://www.slate.com/id/2233586/pagenum/all/
"Wilson isn't one of those evasive Christians who mumble apologetically about how some of the Bible stories are really just 'metaphors.' He is willing to maintain very staunchly that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and that his sacrifice redeems our state of sin, which in turn is the outcome of our rebellion against God. He doesn't waffle when asked why God allows so much evil and suffering—of course he 'allows' it since it is the inescapable state of rebellious sinners. I much prefer this sincerity to the vague and Python-esque witterings of the interfaith and ecumenical groups who barely respect their own traditions and who look upon faith as just another word for community organizing."
"First and foremost, Reagan was a firm adherent to Biblical prophecy; specifically, he believed that the end of the world -- the Battle of Armageddon -- was close at hand. As you know, the fundamentalists just love that eschatalogical stuff.
"While he was running for office in 1980, candidate Reagan announced during an interview with televangelist Jim Bakker that 'We may be the generation that sees Armageddon.' But that certainly wasn't the first time. At a 1971 banquet for California state senator James Mills, then-Governor Reagan broke it all down for the honoree during the dessert course:
'In the 38th chapter of Ezekiel, it says that the land of Israel will come under attack by the armies of the ungodly nations, and it says that Libya will be among them. Do you understand the significance of that? Libya has now gone Communist, and that's a sign that the day of Armageddon isn't far off.
'Biblical scholars have been saying for generations that Gog must be Russia. What other powerful nation is to the north of Israel? None. But it didn't seem to make sense before the Russian revolution, when Russia was a Christian country. Now it does, now that Russia has become communistic and atheistic, now that Russia has set itself against God. Now it fits the description of Gog perfectly.
'For the first time ever, everything is in place for the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. It can't be too long now. Ezekiel says that fire and brimstone will be rained upon the enemies of God's people. That must mean that they will be destroyed by nuclear weapons.'"
"...but I don’t see how having different standards for different (groups of) people would qualify."
I'm sorry, "qualify" how, meet what standard? Was the jellybean test for blacks within the power of government to overrule? Was the city of Selma within it power to register voters acting correctly to administer the jellybean test to blacks only?
So take the example of literacy tests for voting. The white is given a passage to read and does so, qualified. The black is ask to say how many jellybeans in the jar. Failed to be within 50, disqualified. No violence no harm? No state action needed?
"...libertarians...don’t take seriously the ways in which non-state power threaten liberty..."
It's not that they are unaware of these threats to liberty it's that they don't care, or perhaps a kinder way to say it, they see no place for government intervention. Libertarians know some folk don't like other folk and will oppress them in anyway they can but since rights only exist at an individual level no mechanism exists to remedy the situation. Libertarians may not go so far as declaring all government illegitimate but apparently by libertarian lights government is illegitimate when acting to mitigate social, non-state, ills.
I read Douthat looking to pick a fight but yesterday's piece evoked a big yawn.
On the other hand, yeah, what E.D. said. Maybe. No, he's right. Wait a minuet, maybe just some Muslims and
some Christians. No, they are all evil, kill 'em all. A big pile of dead folk, sounds right.
“Fyi, as most here know, my eggs are most definitely not in God’s basket.”
In case there is a misunderstanding I want to make clear that the “both” above points to Hewitt and Chris. I’m well aware that your eggs reside elsewhere.
Another point. I was sloppy in saying, giving the impression, that enlightenment was final. That was wrong. I will say that positing a god of some sort as a departure point on a quest for enlightenment seems a poor choice to me. And specifically to the point at hand, both Chris and Hewitt do rely on some notion of God to explain the goings on at Cana, and I find both unenlightened.
First, I certainly do not take umbrage at having you point out my mistakes, especially if I am in the company of Dawkins. But I'm uncertain what my mistake is. Is it that I think a lot of Christians, a la Hewitt, believe in a literal interpretation of the Gospels?
Second, I would like to turn to the proximate cause of this mini-thread.
A few comments up M. Drew opined he found your views enlightened. I asked how he came to think so. Implicate in my question was a rejection of his view. I find neither your interpretation nor Hewitt's literal interpretation of the water into wine story enlightened. Both of you ultimately hang your hat on God. For Hewitt the story literally shows the power and majesty of Christ, Christ actually changed the molecular structure of water to wine. For you the story is a metaphor that demonstrates a lesson.
You write, "Weddings function in the Jewish tradition as a metaphor for heaven. So we have the person already referred to as the Son of God come down from heaven, a reference to the resurrection, and a marriage feast (code for the coming kingdom of God), so we know glory is about to happen. We are in the dreamworld of God here."
So, I say, you both have your eggs in God's basket. Neither point of view reaches enlightenment for me.
On “The Meaning of Water and Wine”
But mark, I'm sure that those that teach the my "tea kettle boiled," literal version do so with conviction. They really do believe Christ turned water into wine. And given their starting point, Jesus is God, why should they not believe it? I believed it at one time. And when I came not to believe it was not because I said "God could not turn water into wine," it was because I came to reject the notion of god, and particularly the loving and personnel god preached by the church.
On “Bruce Buschel, you are a douche of the first order”
A first time experience with waitstaff is much as you describe. Repeated visits can bring about a closer relationship between patron and server. Yeah, weird, I know. Maybe a mid-west/plains state sort of thing but I bet it is a common experience. And 15% for a tip is downright niggardly, they want at least 20%. I tip 50% because I know what a fucking job it is and the "kids" appreciate it and need it.
"
If you enjoyed this rant you will love this one. Even RSMcC gave Freddie a tip o' the hat.
Freddie, did McCain deliver on that beer?
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/02/not-everyone-who-says-hes-your-friend-is-your-friend/#comments
"
Where may one apply and what are the qualifications for the highly paid internship(s) at the League?
BTW, I have never been a waitperson, well a bartender in college for a short time if that counts, but the waiters I do know, and that be several, like the job and find the money well above what they could earn at salaried positions. And yes, they kiss a lot of ass, tongue right up the rosebud, but they return for more.
We are all "wage slaves."
On “The Meaning of Water and Wine”
Chris, I hope you have a better week.
But the point is beyond dispute, interpretations of biblical stories vary, from the literal to the metaphorical. Hitchens seems to like that 'ol time religion.
And do you *not* "import" meaning to your interpretation of Christianity? I will readily admit I do.
On “Bruce Buschel, you are a douche of the first order”
I don't give a big wet smelly pile of crap about this topic, waitstaff, but eat me before I pay the tip or I won't be back you douche.
What I do give a big wet smelly pile of crap about is some semblance of fairness on this site, so a question, what the fuck is the fucking deal regarding allowable language or here?
The Ordinary Gentlemen = no standards.
Commenter's = careful or you will be cast into the darkness.
Do I have it somewhat correct?
Freddie, save it for the "Other McCain."
"
E.D.?
On “The Meaning of Water and Wine”
Christopher Hitchens on biblical stories as metaphor. (Via Sullivan)
Read the entire piece at http://www.slate.com/id/2233586/pagenum/all/
"Wilson isn't one of those evasive Christians who mumble apologetically about how some of the Bible stories are really just 'metaphors.' He is willing to maintain very staunchly that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and that his sacrifice redeems our state of sin, which in turn is the outcome of our rebellion against God. He doesn't waffle when asked why God allows so much evil and suffering—of course he 'allows' it since it is the inescapable state of rebellious sinners. I much prefer this sincerity to the vague and Python-esque witterings of the interfaith and ecumenical groups who barely respect their own traditions and who look upon faith as just another word for community organizing."
On “The changing face of the apocalypse”
Ronald Reagan on The End Times.
"First and foremost, Reagan was a firm adherent to Biblical prophecy; specifically, he believed that the end of the world -- the Battle of Armageddon -- was close at hand. As you know, the fundamentalists just love that eschatalogical stuff.
"While he was running for office in 1980, candidate Reagan announced during an interview with televangelist Jim Bakker that 'We may be the generation that sees Armageddon.' But that certainly wasn't the first time. At a 1971 banquet for California state senator James Mills, then-Governor Reagan broke it all down for the honoree during the dessert course:
'In the 38th chapter of Ezekiel, it says that the land of Israel will come under attack by the armies of the ungodly nations, and it says that Libya will be among them. Do you understand the significance of that? Libya has now gone Communist, and that's a sign that the day of Armageddon isn't far off.
'Biblical scholars have been saying for generations that Gog must be Russia. What other powerful nation is to the north of Israel? None. But it didn't seem to make sense before the Russian revolution, when Russia was a Christian country. Now it does, now that Russia has become communistic and atheistic, now that Russia has set itself against God. Now it fits the description of Gog perfectly.
'For the first time ever, everything is in place for the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. It can't be too long now. Ezekiel says that fire and brimstone will be rained upon the enemies of God's people. That must mean that they will be destroyed by nuclear weapons.'"
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/ronald-reagan
On “Thanks!”
Just to show there are no hard feelings I sending another donation in m_c honor. Cheers!
On “against the wind”
I only wanted to voice my feelings. I did so, the end. Later.
"
I know you were provoked but you you threw a good bit of gasoline on the fire.
"
Your call but I strongly disagree.
"
"We, the mainstream Right, can get America out of the hole it’s in, and it looks to me that we’re the only ones who can."
Maybe, but first you gotta get the Republican Party out of the hole it's in.
But, I'd like to see a few bullet points of the plan the mainstream Right has to offer.
Number one, tax cuts.
On “Libertarians and Diversity (or lack thereof)”
Wouldn't we all.
"
My understanding of JB test is that it was used selectively to keep blacks from voting.
"If you’re arguing that “voting” is not a right (or not a right for people of African descent), I’d be willing to read the argument…"
I'm making the argument that violence is not the only criteria that should be used in determining when state action is needed.
"
"...but I don’t see how having different standards for different (groups of) people would qualify."
I'm sorry, "qualify" how, meet what standard? Was the jellybean test for blacks within the power of government to overrule? Was the city of Selma within it power to register voters acting correctly to administer the jellybean test to blacks only?
And you avoided the violence question.
"
I can't attest from personal experience if such tests occurred but such stories are common.
http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0214523/test.htm
"
So take the example of literacy tests for voting. The white is given a passage to read and does so, qualified. The black is ask to say how many jellybeans in the jar. Failed to be within 50, disqualified. No violence no harm? No state action needed?
"
"...libertarians...don’t take seriously the ways in which non-state power threaten liberty..."
It's not that they are unaware of these threats to liberty it's that they don't care, or perhaps a kinder way to say it, they see no place for government intervention. Libertarians know some folk don't like other folk and will oppress them in anyway they can but since rights only exist at an individual level no mechanism exists to remedy the situation. Libertarians may not go so far as declaring all government illegitimate but apparently by libertarian lights government is illegitimate when acting to mitigate social, non-state, ills.
On “Douthat calls for open religious warfare; thousands perish in ensuing Crusade”
Yeah, word!
"
I read Douthat looking to pick a fight but yesterday's piece evoked a big yawn.
On the other hand, yeah, what E.D. said. Maybe. No, he's right. Wait a minuet, maybe just some Muslims and
some Christians. No, they are all evil, kill 'em all. A big pile of dead folk, sounds right.
On “The Meaning of Water and Wine”
“Fyi, as most here know, my eggs are most definitely not in God’s basket.”
In case there is a misunderstanding I want to make clear that the “both” above points to Hewitt and Chris. I’m well aware that your eggs reside elsewhere.
Another point. I was sloppy in saying, giving the impression, that enlightenment was final. That was wrong. I will say that positing a god of some sort as a departure point on a quest for enlightenment seems a poor choice to me. And specifically to the point at hand, both Chris and Hewitt do rely on some notion of God to explain the goings on at Cana, and I find both unenlightened.
"
First, I certainly do not take umbrage at having you point out my mistakes, especially if I am in the company of Dawkins. But I'm uncertain what my mistake is. Is it that I think a lot of Christians, a la Hewitt, believe in a literal interpretation of the Gospels?
Second, I would like to turn to the proximate cause of this mini-thread.
A few comments up M. Drew opined he found your views enlightened. I asked how he came to think so. Implicate in my question was a rejection of his view. I find neither your interpretation nor Hewitt's literal interpretation of the water into wine story enlightened. Both of you ultimately hang your hat on God. For Hewitt the story literally shows the power and majesty of Christ, Christ actually changed the molecular structure of water to wine. For you the story is a metaphor that demonstrates a lesson.
You write, "Weddings function in the Jewish tradition as a metaphor for heaven. So we have the person already referred to as the Son of God come down from heaven, a reference to the resurrection, and a marriage feast (code for the coming kingdom of God), so we know glory is about to happen. We are in the dreamworld of God here."
So, I say, you both have your eggs in God's basket. Neither point of view reaches enlightenment for me.
On “The President’s War on Fox”
Wadda bitch!
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.