Yaaawn......

Religion is for morons. We get it already.

My husband's grandmother died a year or so ago at 97, and while she didn't receive much "life-prolonging" care, during one of our last visits with her, she grabbed Husband by the hand, struggling to speak, and said, "I've dreamt I'm going to hell."

How awful.

The are basic explanations for all of this, but the biggest is also the simple one. Even some of the religious fear death, and depending on the suppor they are or are not getting from their church, they want to hold on. In effect, they aren't being readied for death. Coupled with the belief that you have to keep trying, and not give up, etc... That's the recipe for this, IMHO. My grandmother had the do-not-resuscitate order and they still tried to, until my mom stepped in. I wonder in this study if they accounted for income and insurance as well. They are all about coping technique, but I have seen people in hospital for other reasons who figure they are paying for everything anyway, why shouldn't they have it all. The nurse actually said "it doesn't cost YOU anything..."

Importantly, a big question is it the patient that is making the decision? Or the family. That's where the legal documents become quite important...

> Yaaawn......

I'll never understand people who have time to complain about boring blog posts. In the time it takes to complain, you could write something interesting of your own. It's like sitting down at some family's table in a restaurant and complaining about the conversation. How is it that people come to think the world owes them amusement? I blame television. For sixty years, 8 hours a day or whatever, it told people they deserved to be pandered to.

Meanwhile—

> because it means I live my every
> day to the fullest.

Says who? How should we judge your life as being more fully lived than that of a religious person? Why should we trust your claims of access to a depth of feeling when you'll deny the same claim made by others?

Maybe this extra EOL care comes because religious copers are more beloved than other kinds of people, and those who adore them are loathe to let them go. A backhanded compliment, perhaps, but flattering.

My family used to be Christian Science. I had a cousin who had untreated polio. Pretty girl. Ugly hump.

But the worst are the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are perfectly willing to let their children die of cancer rather than agree to transfusions or bone marrow transplants. They celebrate the kids that refuse treatment as "martyrs" and encourage parents to remove children from jurisdictions where they'll be forced to undergo treatment.

Religion: the only thought process that allows you to feel wonderful about yourself by murdering your own children.

I mentioned the other day that, though I'm making it OK now, I realize there will eventually come a quietus.

A friend wisecracked, "But what if you have quietus interruptus?"

So now that's my term for all those peace-delaying ploys the medical establishment foists off on people easing into their final rest.

It would be interesting to see how individual members of different religions deal with end-of-life issues. My grandfather, a Primitive Baptist, believed in predestination. Since he was not in pain, he refused to be taken to the hospital in his final illness. He accepted the end with complete equanimity.

>> quietus interruptus

Love it. Funny how closely sounding quietus and coitus are.

My Mom is very religious, very Christian. She believes in the whole concept of heaven and reuniting with those who have passed on. She's also terrified of dying. I tried talking to her about it once, saying if she's right that's wonderful, and if she's wrong she's headed for eternal tranquility. The possibility of there not being a heaven is what I think really terrifies her.

My Mom is very religious, very Christian. She believes in the whole concept of heaven and reuniting with those who have passed on.

My mom believes that, too, if she doesn't think about it too hard. Then one day in the hospital, after her third major surgery in one year, a hospital volunteer came in and spewed all the usual platitudes about putting your faith in Jesus. She was very earnest and meant well. My mom looked like it took all the strength she had not to tell her to fuck off.

All this study shows is that religious people are more likely to receive life-prolonging medical care. One can see that either as a fear of death, or as a determination to not give up and a stronger will to live. And none of this even mentions how either group mentally copes with their suffering - the level of their happiness or misery.

Sounds like someone had an axe to grind; you can find other studies that are contrary. For instance, if I'm so desperate to cling to life, I probably wouldn't sign up to be an organ donor, right? Figure I'm gonna need all my bits intact to keep on truckin' until my very last gasp. However, as per this article:

http://ccn.aacnjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/6/44

"Subjects who indicated a religious affiliation were more likely to donate (Christian, 89%; Mormon, Jewish, and other religions, 94%) than were subjects who claimed no religious preference or religious affiliation (73% donated)."

In fact, one of my favorite bumper stickers for organ donation is "You can't take them with you."

and spewed all the usual platitudes about putting your faith in Jesus.

If Jesus is so smart, how come he's dead?

Brian said "If Jesus is so smart, how come he's dead?"

He is smart because you mention Jesus even though he died over 2000 years ago. Of course, Christians believe after Jesus died he was resurrected and non-Christians do not. Accpeting the resurrection happened is not critical to at least non Christians acknowledging that Jesus is a key historical figure. I doubt you will be discussed 2000 years following your death. Jesus had to be pretty smart to keep being discussed present day. The fact you mention Jesus proves that.

From the actual article: "The study did not explore why religious copers often tend to prefer and receive extensive end-of-life care, the authors note."

I remind everyone that correlation does not equal causation. To state religion "...can increase terminal patients' suffering in their final days" is not a fact but an assumption that the choice of receiving extensive end of live care is driven by religious coping. The article specifically states the study did not explore what drove the decision. Other factors instead of religion could be driving the decision.

For one example of a possible alternate explanation, I think most people will agree that whether you are religious or not, dying alone is hard no matter what. I wonder how many who do not choose extensive end of life care have simply outlived most of their friends and have little family? There is no indication of how that factor might affect decisions. But I think it might. One would hope, and unfortunately this is not always the case, that if one is religious they are not forgotten and left alone when dying. Others who share their faith are there to visit and provide comfort even if they are not directly family or friend. Again, this might not apply at all. There a lot of reasons why people choose extensive end of life are and it is way to simplistic to consider causation without far more data.

This is a good article. I would love to see further exploration to better understand why some people choose extensive end of life care and others do not.

"Jesus had to be pretty smart to keep being discussed present day. The fact you mention Jesus proves that."

So Odin is even smarter. Thanks for the giggle. The fallacy you embraced tightly is called, "appeal to popularity".

You might find this site interesting.

Many Christian sects recognize a duty to survive, which derives from their conception of the sanctity of life (e.g. Catholics ). So their use of life-prolonging care may be motivated by their ethical commitments.

Radwaste posted ""Jesus had to be pretty smart to keep being discussed present day. The fact you mention Jesus proves that."

So Odin is even smarter. Thanks for the giggle. The fallacy you embraced tightly is called, "appeal to popularity".

Not popularity since Odin is a mythical figure. The historical person we call Jesus most certainly existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus_Christ

While people can certainly argue whether or not Jesus was anything more than a man who simply lived and died, my entire point was that Jesus is still discussed today. Very few historical figures have had the same impact over as long a period of time as Jesus. That statement is not based upon "popularity" today but by the historical record.

If Jesus is so dead, then where is his body?

Jack said "Many Christian sects recognize a duty to survive, which derives from their conception of the sanctity of life (e.g. Catholics ). So their use of life-prolonging care may be motivated by their ethical commitments.

That is certainly possible. I would note religion does not equal Christian. I believe the study considered all religions and not just Christianity.

Okay, LSJ, switch fallacies - to "begging the question".

You might ask the Council of Nicea just how fallible Bible content is. They removed entire books from the Bible. Know why something is edited? It isn't good enough.

And the Bible isn't good enough.

That's why creationists - even when they're calling themselves "ID proponents" - have to lie.

If Jesus is so dead, then where is his body?

Where's Hitler's? Or Gandhi's?

Bodies decompose, or are burned, or are consumed. Just because you can't find a body doesn't mean someone isn't dead.

He is smart because you mention Jesus even though he died over 2000 years ago.

Smart? Or famous? We still talk of many stupid people, or at least people who did stupid things, long after they have passed from the Earth. Custer, anyone?

"All this study shows is that religious people are more likely to receive life-prolonging medical care. One can see that either as a fear of death, or as a determination to not give up and a stronger will to live."

Or maybe they had more money?

"If Jesus is so dead, then where is his body?"

That's it. I'm converted.

I am a Christian, and belong to a church in the Catholic tradition (but not Roman). It's my faith community, and my family. And like any family, you love them but sometimes they drive you NUTS.

Frankly, I find a lot of the "religious" stuff (Catholic practices) to be meaningless today (the blessing of inanimate objects is my pet peeve). Things they did in the beginning of church history (at least some of them) had practical applications at the time. The problem I have is that they continue traditions when the reason they were established no longer exist. That makes them empty (or worse...stupid) to me. And I absolutely CRINGE every time I read about some idiot seeing Christ in potato chip or Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich. Those types make us all look like morons.

That said, I can't imagine living life without faith in a Creator. Amy, you have said that there is no evidence of God...I see the evidence everywhere! But I have no idea how I will act when my time on earth is coming to an end (maybe I'll get lucky and have no idea until it is over). My faith gets tested daily...it's a rare day indeed that I pass the test. Chances are I won't pass the test in the moments before I'm about to croak.

You all may think my faith is dumb, but it is not blind. I don't just automatically believe what some guys in black dresses told me all my life. When I became an adult, I did my own research. Our faith is meant to be questioned and studied. God doesn't want mind-numbed robots or sheep*. If he did, He wouldn't have given us that stupid free will thing that gets us in so much trouble! ;-)

*Yes, the idea of Jesus as a shepherd and us as the sheep is another pet peeve of mine.

Not popularity since Odin is a mythical figure. The historical person we call Jesus most certainly existed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus_Christ

While people can certainly argue whether or not Jesus was anything more than a man who simply lived and died, my entire point was that Jesus is still discussed today. Very few historical figures have had the same impact over as long a period of time as Jesus. That statement is not based upon "popularity" today but by the historical record.

Posted by: LoneStarJeffe

Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you I danm near had an orgasm.

Are you fucking serious? I know you delusional, but seriously? The historical record to which you refer is the fucking bible. Did you even bother to read the article you linked?

here is an exceprt

"Thus our prime sources about the life of Jesus were written within about fifty years of his death by people who perhaps knew him, but certainly by people who knew people who knew him. If this is beginning to sound slightly second hand, we may wish to consider two points. First... most ancient and medieval history was written from a much greater distance. Second, all the Gospel writers could have talked to people who were actually on the spot, and while perhaps not eyewitnesses themselves, their position is certainly the next best thing."

So yu historical fac is admited by experts to be hearsy from half a century AFTER his death.

The first 'secular' reference to Jesus was wiritten in 93, more than 50yrs after his death by a man writing abook about Jews for the romans. A man who didnt convert. Seems like a nice tale about a bunch of ignorant savages worship some guy out in the desert for the elites to titter about if you ask me.

As far as hindus are concered there is just as much 'evidence' proving the existance of Krishna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna

Better luck next time

Almost every time time I read or hear an exchange such as this between atheists and believers, the atheists find it necessary to sneer and mock and curse. Why is that? Why can't you state your case with some class?

OK, go ahead...let me have it!

Not that I don't curse...CRAP is one of my favorite words!

> That's it. I'm converted.

Slut.

> Why is that?

Payback. Religious people sneer and condescend all the time... It's just that their rhetoric has been polished for them by clerks and scribes and preachers over millennia: The blade's so smooth nowadays that we who're gored by it are expected to pretend we don't feel it.

We do.

> OK, go ahead...let me have it!

I was raised in a Christian home, named for a minister (my grandfather), and spent many more years in church than I care to remember. I know all about Baby Jesus. And I'm metaphysically certain that "class" was not something the Son of God wanted you to worry about.

Tell me Judie, suppose you had some guy telling you that space aliens built the pyramids, and he knows how the aliens want you to live your life - and he never shut the fuck up about it and he and all his bellow alein beilves pass all sort of dumb shit laws in order to force you to behave under threat of incarceration the way they want you to.

How long until you stop being classly about their insane shit?

The moron just claim that there was historical evidence besides the bible proving jesus' existance. And the non biblical evidence he cites - why the bible ofcourse.

Suppose I were to tell you that I had proof of aliens besides my own eywitness account, and my 'proof' was my freind who has no first hand knowledge or hard evidence, he just simply belives I told the truth.

Would you take that to be evidence of aliens?

I hardly think so. So here we have lonestarjeffe a man who claims as historically indipendant proof of jesus, the work of 18th and 19th century men who studied THE BIBLE.

You want to belive - fine. Personally I hold the god the hypocrite, if he exists, to the same challege he issued to the other 'false' gods. Appear and defend yourself.

Funny isnt it how gods rivals had to show up and prove to the crowd that they were real and deserving of worship, but the one true god demands that you take his existance on 'faith'

So in the short term live your life how you want to live it(so long as I dont have to pay for it), and let me do the same.

But until you have verifiable, duplicatable proof that your religion is better than the thousands of others, or none at all, stop pretending that your world view is superior to everyone elses.

After all is that attitude really any less mocking then what I do?

Crid...I was just making an observation about the tone of the discussion. I am geniunely curious about the different ways people communicate their thoughts and feelings, especially on this here Internet thingie.

And you're right...the Son of God sure doesn't want me to worry about petty crap like being offended at what someone says in a blog comment about people like me. My time would be better spent praying for hurting people. Know any?

You've been through the church routine and as an adult you have chosen not to buy into it anymore. I respect that. What I'm saying is that it seems that some (not all) atheists don't have the same respect for the choice we make to believe. Well, I guess I understand that people cannot respect something they think is stupid. But does that mean they have to be hostile about it?

Well, I'll say it again if you want me to. Believers have, over the millenia, demanded a lot of patience from non-believers. We're expected to offer no response to smirking glances and loaded verbal expressions and directly hostile threats.

The time for that courtesy is passed. Civilization is now being indisputably impeded by people who say things like you say not just for the teenage thrill that means so much to you, but because they truly and violently mean them.

So we're taking that rhetorical space back. We have better things to do with it.

> I respect that.

I don't care.

lujlp - yep, I sure would be annoyed by that kind of evangelistic approach. It would piss me off at that individual, not at every person in the world who happens to believe the same thing.

My observation was simply that it seems many atheists do that very thing...paint all believers with the same broad brush.

Is every single religious person you know a zealot? A nut? A moron? Anti-science? A screaming sidewalk preacher? A con man? Don't you know anyone of faith who simply lives their life quietly, uses their talents or treasure to help others, witnesses by their humble deeds instead of words?

I'll be the first to admit that there are Christians who give Christians a bad name. Not every one of us is a Mother Theresa, but not every one of us is a Jim Bakker or Benny Hinn either.

And what exactly did I say that you took to mean that I think my world view is superior to all others? All I did was state it.

Crid - You can't see me, but I assure you that not once during this exchange have I smirked. Yawned, yes...because of course as a good Christian woman I should have had myself dressed in a granny nightgown and cap, clutching my rosary, praying on my knees for a few hours and then into bed before the sun went down. I haven't been up this late since New Year's 2001.

> The time for that courtesy has passed.

Courtesy? You mean like the courteous persecution of Christians that has gone on since day one and still happens to varying degrees around the world today? We're just exchanging words here, but it can be jail or worse in other parts of the world just for possessing a bible.

Perhaps what is truly impeding civilization is persecuting people for what they believe, instead of reacting to what they actually do.

I'll be back in the morning to read about how most wars are about religion and that Christians started it all with the Crusades.

First Mother Teresa was not that nice a person, her chrity was out of devotion to god, not her fellow men, and therefore self serving. Plus noone knows how the donations were spent, but given the condition of the orphanges and hospices it wanst spent of competents staff of good medicine. And then theres the stolen money her charity accepted and never returned.

Second, I have yet to meet a christian who thinks 'moral sins' from the bible should be anything other then illegal. So even those who 'keep it to themselves' still force their veiw onto the rest of us.

Third you do think you have a superior world view - you have a special relationship with the creator of the universe and will get out of eternal torment because you said the right words and sat in the right spot on the right day and the rest of us will burn for our insolence.

How in any way, shape, or form is that NOT a superior world view?

> it can be jail or worse in other
> parts of the world

And children in China are starving, but I'm still not going to eat that motherfucking canned spinach.

Were a Martian or a just man to enumerate the world's oppressed classes, Christians would list very near the bottom... Especially in the west, where secular culture has defended a clear exit from the pews as surely as the fire marshal has demanded panic bars for the door to the sanctuary. (These protections are not wholly unrelated.) The resulting cutthroat competition for your God-bothering dollar has done much (though not enough) to keep you people in line. By your own description ("the blessing of inanimate objects is my pet peeve"), you prefer to sate your spiritual hunger àla carte rather than prix fixe.

There's a reason for that. And you're right; we need not pretend the faithful are by nature inclined to better conduct.


You watch your boundaries, I'll watch mine, and we'll get along jus' fine.


———

(Apologies for the frogtalk; won't happen again.)

>>And children in China are starving, but I'm still not going to eat that motherfucking canned spinach.

Naw, motherfucking canned chopped liver is better here, Crid.

I read a charming account of a modern day urban hobo recently. He said he always kept a can of chopped liver in his pack - because it meant that he never, ever found himself with absolutely nothing left to eat.

Aunt Judie,

You may, then, wish to explore the idea of "creation" carefully. Liars backing "intelligent design" have made much of this without so much as glancing at the common and basic laws of nature.

When you point at anything you can see and touch, you're looking at something that was converted from something else, not "created". The problem of infinite regression is not solved by waving hands and baldly stating "God was here forever".

In my experience, fundamentalists, when shown a particular idea they treasure is false, with evidence anyone can see, simply repeat what they said before.

Well, those that don't call me things for raising issues.

Anyone who believes a historical person called Jesus did not exist is delusional. Money quote from the source I previously cited states:

"Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians. Theologian James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a 'thoroughly dead thesis."

BOTH historians and biblical scholers accept Jesus was a real person. There are far more documents mentioning Jesus outside the Bible than almost any other person from that same timeframe. Argue all you want over whether or not Jesus was divine but to state there is no proof he lived is simply wrong.

I further stand by my assumption that the person we called Jesus had to be pretty darn smart to have had such an impact 2000 years later. There is no way anyone who is trying to be objective can claim the same historical impact for, what were the examples? Oh yes, Odin and Krishna.

Keep trying to claim all three are equal and all three are myths. But that is personal opinion not supported by the vast majority of both secular and religious historians and bible scholars.

I remind everyone, I did NOT bring the name Jesus into this message thread - Brian did with a totally unsupported remark that Jesus was not so smart to be dead. Brian, the historical Jesus was demonstrated to be pretty darn smart to have had such an impact on hisotry. You do not have to accept Jesus as divine to admit that.

lujlp - keep denying the truth of the historical Jesus. Your attacks demonstrate your lack of faith in allowing Jesus any role in history. You could easily simply attack the divinity of Jesus only but instead you attack the truth of the historical Jesus. Way to show true scientific method there allowing only facts that fit your worldview to be considered! But go ahead and keep shooting the messenger instead of attacking the link I have to the facts of what historians (not myself) believe about jesus.

Finally, back to the original point of the article, I think I stated the cause of why religious choose extended life options is NOT PROVEN tied to religion. That is all I was trying to say. But heck, let's talk about Jesus instead of all religion. :)

Crid: "I'll never understand people who have time to complain about boring blog posts.... How is it that people come to think the world owes them amusement? I blame television...."

Gee, Crid - I didn't label the post 'boring'; you did. Then you proceeded to dispute (rightfully) Amy's goofy assertion that she 'lives life to the fullest'. What's boring is the same old, same old ridicule and mocking of religion/believers/etc.

No one owes me amusement. Don't project on me, please - and feel free to blame anything you want, FOR anything you want.

Aunt Judie, you'll be waiting an awful long time for the tone around here to change whenever religion is brought up - which sure is a lot, somehow, for someone who despises it.

Believe, or don't believe - suit yourself. People on either side, though, that constantly mock the other just make themselves look foolish and petty.

. . . the vast majority of both secular and religious historians and bible scholars

lujlp - keep denying the truth of the historical Jesus. Your attacks demonstrate your lack of faith in allowing Jesus any role in history. You could easily simply attack the divinity of Jesus only but instead you attack the truth of the historical Jesus. Way to show true scientific method there allowing only facts that fit your worldview to be considered! But go ahead and keep shooting the messenger instead of attacking the link I have to the facts of what historians (not myself) believe about jesus.

-LoneStarJeffe

Ok lets see we have
secular historians
one of whom you can apperenty name

religious historians
none of whom could be called impartial, after all the moment they 'discover' their religion false they are out of a job

and bible scholars
a group even less impartial then 'religious historians'

Most historians only have the bible to 'study'. A document written by people trying to start a religion, hardly something that can be taken at face value, they had an agenda.

Of the four greco roman authors you link mention only one mention jesus as an individaul, and that was in a work written to show jewish customs to romes elite.

The jewish record you linked articel mentions had jesus being hung by the jews, not crucifed, and a spereate accuont attributed to mention jesus has 5 of his dicples being killed along with him, and none of the names match those found in the bible.

How about you give us the name of secular historians who have 'proof' that doesnt rely on treating the goepels written 50 to 100 yrs after the death of christ as unassalible truth?

Is that too hard for you?

> he never, ever found himself with
> absolutely nothing left

Buh-dum-PUM! But seriously, folks.... (We were poor when I was a kid, but we weren't tortured. There were some abasements my mother just couldn't countenance, and canned liver was one. Either that or she knew we'd have run away from home if she'd fed it to us.)

> I didn't label the post 'boring'

I guess your opening gambit–

> Yaaawn......

–has intricacies that I just can't grasp.

Where's Judie? She was fun.

My earlier comment "if Jesus is so dead, where is his body" was a poke at Brian (who indeed was the one who dragged Jesus into this). I wouldn't waste one second of my time trying to convert you people. This whole post started with the idea that something is bad about religious people wanting to live instead of die.

Not bad Karen, strange. Why would people who belive this life is hell compared to the other side fight so hard to avoid the other side. It is a valid question that I have never heard any beliver answer without trying to change the subject

Wow. I make a variation on the "Yeah, if Einstein was so smart, how come he's DEAD?" joke, and people TAKE IT THE FUCK SERIOUSLY.

Wow.

Just. Wow.

"Not bad Karen, strange. Why would people who belive this life is hell compared to the other side fight so hard to avoid the other side. It is a valid question that I have never heard any beliver answer without trying to change the subject"

Christians believe that life is a gift from the God, which you should enjoy it as long as you could. Otherwise, it would be an insult to the giver. Thus, you should not waste it, sacrifice it or end it on your own for any reasons. It is the God to decide it when it is going to end as HE is in charge of this entire process.

I find this attitude fascinating as other culture or religions seem to tolerate or encourage suicides some what heroic or rewarding. I am talking about Kamikaze or Muslims.

Anyway, I like Christians' attitude toward life than any other religions. Let's enjoy the hell out of it while it lasts.

Chang, I wanna hang out with the Christians you're hanging out with. Having grown up in a Catholic family, the running theory was that everything that brings you joy in life is sending you to hell.

Also, there's a big distinction between euthanasia and choosing to go gentle into that good night. If God is in charge of the process, what's the point in clinging to a ventilator? What if God is pissed that you're holding on to his gift longer than he intended?

I don't begrudge anyone a fear of death. Death sucks. I'm fascinated by the differences between people who are OK with it and people who fight to the last breath. And I don't think we can tell those people apart until they're looking death in his crusty little eyes.

This thread was about end of life care chang, so how do you enjoy having a machine regualte your organs while chained to a gurney?

How is clinging to life by any means necassary once your body can no longer run itself any different then ending it before you die naturally?

Arent both a subversion of the natural order?

"This thread was about end of life care chang, so how do you enjoy having a machine regualte your organs while chained to a gurney?"

That is not for you to decide. As long as the patient is alive, the breath she is taking is as sweet as the smell of the lilacs on the evening of early spring when she kissed her first love.

You are making the dangerous assumption that the life of cockroaches is not worth living.
I resent that very much. You are playing the God and we both know that is not true.

I am conceding that human medical technology is the natural order for the God (Nature) wants it to happen for us. Otherwise, nothing makes sense.

You did not choose to be born. At the same token, the Christians believe that you cannot choose to die or kill yourself on your own as it is not for you to choose except the God.

I am going to respect that.

I chose to be born but the paperwork was screwed up and Brad Pitt got my life.
I used to think that was bad.

Wow, sorry I missed all this. Because I was up so late conversing here I slept late on Saturday and I'm still behind schedule. So this exchange will be only as long as it takes for my laundry to dry. :-)

Back to the original point of this post...I have a friend whose father-in-law suffered for years with kidney disease. He ended up spending his last several years on four-times-weekly dialysis. At one point he was hospitalized and it looked like the end was near. My friend waited and watched what she thought were his final moments, and when instead he rallied...she was PISSED.

She told me later that she wanted to see what it was like for a man with such great faith leave this world. She expected the eyes-upward, beaming face, "I see the light" moment. Instead she saw a man who - for whatever reason - wasn't ready to go. We had him in our lives for six more months, including one more Christmas. (He died in the dialysis chair with nobody but the technician present.)

Who knows the purpose of this? Only God. My theory is that somebody in his life (his wife, one of his children or grandchildren, the postman or even me) was somehow touched by something he said or did during those six months. Every interaction we have in this life is an opportunity to teach or learn (or both). That is part of our purpose here on earth.

According to the story, even Jesus didn't want to die (let this cup pass from me). And he was pretty much 100% certain what was waiting for him on the other side. When he was human, he was human just like us...except for the sin.

Now before I hit the Submit button, I have to ask two questions:

Crid...what is "frogtalk"?

And what is God's name is "canned chopped liver"?

Time for one more before the dryer stops (can't let the stuff sit...I loathe ironing).

lujlp...

> First Mother Teresa was not that nice a
> person, her chrity was out of devotion to
> god, not her fellow men, and therefore
> self serving.

Mother Theresa's devotion to God resulted in devotion to her fellow men. Do you think her motivation mattered to a person who because of her didn't have to die in filth on the street?

> you have a special relationship with the
> creator of the universe and will get out
> of eternal torment because you said the
> right words and sat in the right spot on
> the right day and the rest of us will
> burn for our insolence.

My relationship with God is special, but it is not exclusive. It is available to everyone. And it didn't start one moment and BOOM...I'm done. Got the ticket. Goin' to heaven. I know there are Christians out there who think "yep, did the altar call and now I'm set for life...can't be denied at the gate". I'm not one of them.

Do you think her motivation mattered to a person who because of her didn't have to die in filth on the street?

As opposed to dying in filth in a poorly funded hovel?

My relationship with God is special

Thats what I said, and that belief is in and of is self a view which claims superiority over those of us who dont.

> Just. Wow.

Turns out we don't think of you as a comedian. (All those fucking this's and fucking that's, y'know.)

> I don't think we can tell those
> people apart until they're looking
> death in his crusty little eyes.

Word.

> As long as the patient is alive,
> the breath she is taking is as
> sweet as the smell of the lilacs

Your irony fails. Suddenly you seem like a very young guy again. Ever see anybody die?

> what is "frogtalk"?

I routinely (if shallowly) despise the French: Prix Fixe was less 7% less appropriate for the metaphor than Table d'hôte, but it was 10% less pretentious, so I had to go with it.

> And what is God's name is
> "canned chopped liver"?

The device by which Jody demonstrated that she wouldn't be cowed by your rhetorical manipulations, either.

(more)

Few of us have the choice of when and how we die. If I did, and my only two choices were a) alone in the street discarded by society like garbage, or b) in the care of someone who is at least trying to comfort me (whether their motivtation is faith, love or money), I choose "B".

Actually, my only wish about dying is that I don't die in a stupid way and make the news for dying in a stupid way...like say being crushed by a vending machine that I was rocking to get the stuck M&Ms. (I only did this once.)

You thinking that I think my view is superior doesn't mean I think my view is superior. You take offense at it, but that is your choice. I could choose to take offense at atheists who think their view is superior, but I don't take offense. Apparently, though, I do give it.

> Do you think her motivation mattered
> to a person who because of her didn't
> have to die in filth on the street?

Not really. She's didn't much care for the dying, she merely herded them into photogenic suffering collectives in order to generate some income for her enterprises. Here's some required reading, and here's a warmup.

(more)

One more interview. And the internets have finally made the film version available in the United States.

> I don't take offense. Apparently,
> though, I do give it.

Yes, you do. Know that.

> The device by which Jody demonstrated
> that she wouldn't be cowed by your
> rhetorical manipulations, either.

I'm not smart enough to consciously do any such thing as manipulate, rhetorically or otherwise. I'm just a smart-ass.

And I'm completely lost on the frogtalk, but that's OK.

Good night.

And stay out!

You thinking that I think my view is superior doesn't mean I think my view is superior. You take offense at it, but that is your choice. I could choose to take offense at atheists who think their view is superior, but I don't take offense. Apparently, though, I do give it. -Aunt Judie

I dont think your veiw is superior or offensive, truth be told I find it delusional and just plain stupid.

But tell me how does a person who thinks they have a realtionship with a supreme being not find such a view superior to those of us who dont? After all if your realtionship with the creator of all things dosent give you an edge over the rest of us or that special warm feeling, then what is the point in having one?

> Is every single religious person you know a zealot? A nut? A moron? Anti-science? A screaming sidewalk preacher? A con man? Don't you know anyone of faith who simply lives their life quietly, uses their talents or treasure to help others, witnesses by their humble deeds instead of words?

The problem with "moderate" religion is that it creates cover and lays the groundwork for extremists and fundamentalists. For example, the Mormon church continues to maintain, against all evidence, that Joseph Smith was a prophet instead of a con-man pedophile. Their faith in this obviously bogus leader creates the social conditions and mental framework that allow polygamist Mormons to justify being pedophiles and defrauding the government of welfare money.

Similarly, "moderate" Muslims, by insisting that the Koran is the word of God rather than the raving of, guess what, another pedophile con-man, create the social conditions and mental framework that creates suicidal terrorists.

The Pope, a former member of the Hitler youth, may be "moderate" according to some lights, but he's still the head of a religion that fostered 1900 years of anti-semitism and then institutionally supported the Nazis, which grabbed the Jew-hating ball and ran with it. Oh, and don't forget the pedophiles there, too. The only reason pedophile priests exist -- and have a perfect platform for abusing children -- is because there's a priesthood.

I'm sorry, but if you're religious (i.e. superstitious) the mere fact that you don't stand up and say: "This is all total BS" makes YOU culpable in all the horrors that are perpetrated by those who believe in your BS more strongly than you do.

But tell me how does a person who thinks they have a realtionship with a supreme being not find such a view superior to those of us who dont? After all if your realtionship with the creator of all things dosent give you an edge over the rest of us or that special warm feeling, then what is the point in having one?

The point of religion (or faith) isn't to get the edge on others who don't. (Read a little Karen Armstrong, why don't you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong ) The purpose is to provide the tools to live a better life now. This is why most of the earths religions expect orthopraxy (correctness of action or practice.) rather than orthodoxy (Soundness of faith; a belief in the doctrines taught in the Scriptures, or in some established standard of faith) (Definitions provided by Dictionary.com)

The process of following certain practices (eating Kosher, resting on the sabbath, tithing, committing kind acts) is supposed to bring the divine to everything that you do each day, providing temperance to your actions and making kindness a reflex.

I will agree that most religions are merely sick men in power trying to control and dumb down the population. However, that doesn't mean that you should throw the baby out with the bath water. I had my eyes healed by a faith healer. I went to bed and they were screwed up, woke up and they were healed. The doctors couldn't explain it. There is a divine power that I cannot explain, nor can I justify the actions of.

If a person acts in kindness because of his/her belief in God, or acts in kindness because of self preservation, isn't the end result the same? Aren't we still acting in kindness?

-Julie

I'm sorry, but if you're religious (i.e. superstitious) the mere fact that you don't stand up and say: "This is all total BS" makes YOU culpable in all the horrors that are perpetrated by those who believe in your BS more strongly than you do.

Oh and one other thing...let's all get past this 'white man's burden' bullshit. We are all responsible for our own actions and for standing up against what is wrong. I am not responsible for slavery, concentration camps, misandry, misogyny, or the crisis in the middle east. If you want to make a change, fight against the wrongs rather than sitting around and blaming those that don't agree with you.

> I had my eyes healed by a faith healer. I went to bed and they were screwed up, woke up and they were healed.

I hate to tell you this, because this is apparently your "proof" that God exists, but your invisible friend "God" did not heal your eyes. Your eyes were healed by MY invisible friend "Stinky."

As explained the "Chronicles of Stinky", Stinky is the invisible force behind all faith healings. So you need to Paypal me $10 to support the "Cathedral of Stinky."

A side benefit of worshipping "Stinky" (as I do) is that he is perfectly willing to take the blame for any gas that you pass. He's been doing this for me since I was 3 years old!

One more thing.

My invisible friend Stinky can totally KICK THE ASS of your invisible friend Jehovah, and all His pals, prophets and relatives.

So there.

P.S. Here's a picture of Muhammed:

C|:-)>

(Note turban and beard)

I hate to tell you this, because this is apparently your "proof" that God exists, but your invisible friend "God" did not heal your eyes. Your eyes were healed by MY invisible friend "Stinky."

My invisible friend Stinky can totally KICK THE ASS of your invisible friend Jehovah, and all His pals, prophets and relatives.

How interesting. I provide information about how someone who engaged in the lifelong study of the idea of gods, how they impacted societies as a whole, and what their purpose is, and you mock me. That is an interesting way to attempt to prove that your lack of belief in a deity makes you a better person.

Taking a very personal experience of mine and attempting to shit all over it doesn't help your cause. Blaming me for all atrocities of the ages doesn't convince me to join the religion of atheism. The fact of the matter is that I cannot prove to you that God exists. You cannot prove to me that S/He doesn't. Since you are unable or unwilling to debate this beyond an 'I'm rubber you're glue' level, there is no point in discussing it with you. If I wanted to be attacked, I could just walk down to the fifth ward here in Houston.

>attempt to prove that your lack of belief in a deity makes you a better person.

Gee, is that what I was doing? Funny, I thought I just trying to point out that your belief in God has EXACTLY as much validity as my belief in good ol' Stinky.

As far as the impact on society, I do agree that (so far at least) nobody has ever killed their children because they were convinced that Stinky told them to.

But he's workin' on it.