Back. Made almost a hundred bucks gambling. Of course, the trip itself was about $400-500 for room/food/flight/etc.
Let's get this thing re-booted.
And I'll see your YouTube posts and raise you another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pPlFrmkXlE
I think that'll nicely wrap up all our talk about religion and stuff. You really can't argue against this.
Ok check this YouTube video out.
CLICK ME FOR "GUITAR" VIDEO
Someone re-wrote Pachabel's one good song, Canon in D, into a rock song, and this guy found it and absolutely nails it. There's stories about this guy in the NY Times, it's one of YouTube's 10 most popular of all time, and it's been watched over 7.5 million times. It's also won 7 YouTube awards:
#2 - Most Discussed (All Time)
#1 - Most Discussed (All Time) - Music
#80 - Most Linked (All Time) - Music
#6 - Most Viewed (All Time)
#1 - Most Viewed (All Time) - Music
#3 - Top Favorites (All Time)
#1 - Top Favorites (All Time) - Music
I think it's totally amazing.
I've just moved back to college, so I haven't been paying as much attention to DiD recently. I'll catch up at some point.
Have fun in Vegas.
Re: Vegas. Once a year, Mark, Dave, Mike Naylor and I get together somewhere and update each other on our academic pursuits. We've all taken turns hosting, so we're going to a new city this time. Las Vegas it is.
Whoa what's the story on this Denver thing? You never said anything about moving. Are you changing jobs too? How about Sarah?
Many of us will be off-line Aug 29-31, including the GM, for our annual retreat.
Las Vegas.
There must be something in the air... I think Paul and Dave recently moved... then Steve, and now me. We are headed to Denver in a couple weeks. My posting may be a little spotty as I pack up the computer and cancel my ISP, etc. We should be mostly settled by mid-Sept.
another french person said....
permettez-leur de manger le gâteau
I think most of the people I meet who call themselves socialist aren't communists. They think that there are certain aspects of the society that should be protected from "the free market". In a great many ways our government already is socialist. The buyouts of failed retirement funds, the support of oil drilling off both the east and west coast without taxation on the oil, the airline industry, railroads. yada yada.
Some people are "socialists" because they are capitalists even. Collective buying power types who think that a free market system wastes GDP. I don't see much difference between free market monopolies or government management, except that monopolies tend to charge too much, and governments are wasteful. I tend to believe that the production of power should be a matter of common cause and not necessarily one where profits should be very large. I'm for good regulation. It's easy to say that oil is free market, that doesn't mean it is. It really isn't....
There are "Socialist" governments, they may not be "strong socialisms", who have no inclination to become communists. Socialism has become in some sense it's own political viewpoint, even if it's still working out it's limits. I guess to me communism is a political philosophy and so is socialism. The main difference is one really really sucks in practice. Just like totally free markets. I am not a free market anarchist either. You hear that bush...I'm not an anarchist!!
Here's a question... What has been invented in the last 75 years or so that wasn't heavily funded by the government? That has really changed our world. That's socialism.
3am just rolled up into my chi town pad, tipped a cabbie $3 so he'd give me his indian music tape. pretty rocking mostly indian love songs that i dont understand at all. peace and love to my peeps.
I also just want to point out the difference between socialism and communism. socialism is a property theory...no private property, only "the people's property" i.e. social property i.e. socialism. communism pretty much is socialism (no private property) + a form of government (e.g. a worker's council) to make decisions. Both are thoroughly beautiful on paper and equally disastrous in reality.
Bad stuff happens, and like Big Debe pointed out, government can be surprisingly incompetent. That was actually the design of the founding fathers, who distrusted government. It's kind of ironic that gridlock is essentially the best form of goverment (churchill, the genius who made his martini's with vodka and a "look at" the vermouth, said something like democracy was the best of the worst (i.e. govt in general is the worst)).
I say be happy with what we have. We're privileged to be sitting around in air conditioned rooms arguing about what's right and what's wrong on our computers that have broadband internet access. as the french say c'est la vie; such is life.
I lastly want to add that i'm happy to be talking with my old friends again.
just to be clear, I'm not a communist sypmathizer. You hear that Bush flunkies...I'm not a communist. I just think that healthcare...education....police...fire services....stuff like that are things that must be done. That they are done is the responsibility of good government. Corruption is the real problem. One just King can be a whole lot better than a corrupt Democracy. I don't care very much about the system, I care more about it's ability to serve. I guess that's the allure for communism to a lot of people to answer a question rob posed. It's a form of government that in theory serves the people first and foremost. It makes the markets serve the people, sometimes to the markets disadvantage. Sure this could be disasterous, but a capitalist system where the people serve the markets has it's dangers too...
Communism, yikes. I'm sorry, but what's the attraction? I agree with Steve's sentiments below. It's hard enough for a married couple, of 2 people who love each other, to get along and share goods, let alone a nation of strangers. I think the historical record shows one thing very clearly, and that is the failure of communism as a realistic social program (along with showing the success of, well, capitalism).
Regardless, I agree with Godfrey that maybe not everything should be opened up to laissez-faire trade. Utilities for example. I still think all roads should be government property and tolled by usage, like most bridges.
Mark, agreed, we do have large scale economies, massive states, etc, so it's not impossible for humans to participate in large-scale social networks. It's just very difficult, and in my opinion, the problems that come up- war, terrorism, racism, and economic exploitation- aren't going to be solved by progressive social programs. They're going to be solved by hegemony or intensive neuropsychological reprogramming. Option 1 has been used with equivocal success in the past- hell, that's what 'history' is all about.
Chris, the economist you're thinking of... Joseph Tainter? He's an archaeologist who wrote a book called "The Collapse of Complex Societies" that I just read. Pretty neat stuff... one of the most interesting aspects was the realization that a lot of New World civilizations collapsed around 1000 A.D. (plus or minus a couple centuries), the common trend being the change in weather that occurred around then. Strictly, Tainter's idea is that it's not necessarily global catastrophe (e.g., global warming) that ends civilizations, as many civilizations are able to withstand and adapt to such prior forms of adversity. Rather, civilizations become too complex and are unable to adapt after a certain point, as all their resources are being spent to just keep the complexities intact, i.e., it's fundamentally an economic problem... you run out of fingers to stick in the dyke.
I think you are horribly wrong on many points lil' deeb.
Jesus never appeared for me. He arguably never appeared for anyone else either. Only one gospel, the last to be written has Jesus show up after the Crucifiction)however you spell it). That's neither here nor there though I guess for most people. I have never met him and it should would fucking impress me if he did show up.
Communism and Socialism are both forms of government, and they both are involved with the economics of the state. If you don't see how Jeshua had economic points of interest than we disagree as to his meaning. Jeshua was interested in both the politics of the temple which were essentially the politics of the kingdom.
Faith/Religion to me is not a position to be taken by an individual for material gain. Pascals wager is an intellectual arguement it isn't useful in a meaningful way.
Chruches lose all relevance when they cater to marketing schemes like you espouse for them. Jeshua didn't come to hang out and play foosball and drink cappuccinos from what I can tell, and I don't think advocates of his ideaolgy serve him very well by building a skatepark. He supposedly came for the poor and sick. I like the old fashioned soup kitchen. He spoke out against the wealthy, I don't think Christianity as it appears in the texts could be marketed precisely because it is radical, anti-authoritarian, anti-materialist. In short the society we have would be unreceptive to what is in the texts, so most churches have decided to ignore the texts and focus on filling the pews. It doesn't matter to me if they fill the pews with lies about hell fire and brimstone, which I think is hogwash, or ignore the texts and thereby ignore Jeshua's most striking features as a religious figure. His compassion, his aversion to the material, his aversion to easy answers, his aversion to authority, blah blah blah.
Break/alter faith
I think it depends on how central faith is to one's personal identity, I forget what the psychological term is, sense of self or something. Definitely personal trauma could jolt one out ("why did God do this, I go to church every week and tithe") but it can bring people in too.
Jesus's personal appearance
The problem with needing Jesus to appear, I think, is that he (arguably) already did. So should he appear 2x to every person forever? I think it still wouldn't be enough. People would just adapt to that and say "Nah gotta be 3x for me." Further, since God saves based on faith, irrebutable concrete evidence would actually work adversely to (my interpretation of) his goals. I think his stance is, I've given you what you need, make your own choices and be accountable for them. Jesus, of course, wants to save everyone and help everyone, but God still ultimately calls the shots.
Further, the bible says that he will come 2x, 1x was the freebie to teach us all what we need to know and die for our sins, the 2nd time is ballgame--no more second chances, no more information, no more teaching; when he comes the 2nd time the river card hits and everyone shows their cards. So he won't come again until then.
Communism/socialism
Communism is a form of govt based on a classless society including common ownership of the means of production (factories, etc.) and the absence of private property. It would be like a commune, where everyone pitches in and shares.
Socialism isn't a form of govt but an economic model, basically the opposite of capitalism. The means of production are commonly owned. Production would be determined by some sort of council, probably a bunch of experienced workers or something.
AFAIK, these pretty much only work in theory because they completely ignore human nature. Human nature is that some people work really hard and some people are lazy. Some people waste assets and others conserve/improve them. If you don't reward excellence and punish incompetence, there is no reason to excel. For example, in Soviet Russia, each farm had a quota of wheat to produce. Once the farm hit its quota, it let the rest rot--why bother, they won't get paid any more.
I don't see how (mainstream) religion relates to either. Classes clearly exist in religion (pastor, sinner, etc.) and AFAIK (mainstream) religion does not attempt to control/direct means of production (i.e. the Catholic Church has not purchased Ford Motors).
Odds and Ends
I think religion has a lot to offer if one adapts it to one's life, instead of being bullied into a specific way of adopting it. At one old church, they ambushed everyone single and under 30 by giving them a Promise Ring and having them promise, in front of the whole church, to stay a virgin until marriage. I think that engenders animosity. On the other hand, I've also seen prayer sessions for sick people, and emotional support.
My view of what the church should do
Well this will be an interesting little section. My main theory is that churches should operate like businesses in the sense that they should take the strategy of "winning the consumer," instead of taking the moral superiority route ("you need to be here; you should adapt to us and not the other way around").
Let's pretend: What if a church built a small movie theatre inside, bowling lanes, pool tables, air hockey, foosball, a nice cappucino machine, etc. Do you think people, especially young people, would voluntarily hang out there? Hell yes. If people are there, might they either be more receptive to the message, or start to find themselves feel closer to the religion, or both? I think the answer is clearly yes. So why not change the business strategy and woo the consumer instead of bludgeoning them into moral submission and grudging tolerance/acceptance?
The main point to reach people and try to help them and be accessible to them. Jesus didn't stay in one place and say "You should listen to me because you are all bad." He traveled around, he healed people, he made them food and water, he made them an important part of his movement (see John the Baptist).
This is, in my opinion, the church's most dramatic failure (excluding the child porn problems, which I can't even begin to address). Many congregations's responses to declining attendance is more fire and brimstone--do you really think that will bring people back?
you misunderstand me. Faith isn't an intellectual viewpoint to me. I think that faith can be what's left after intellect investigates the dogmatic nature of religion. I think intellect is useful for investigating religious traditions to find out how much they are bullshit or not so much bullshit. Those traditions can affect faith, but faith isn't something most people come to by thinking. Intellect eliminates choices, in that sense maybe intellect is needed to prevent faith in something silly. I guess the words proper are dangerous but mark did in a sense ask about proper faith. I think intellect is useful, but I don't think it takes so much intellect that it is out of reach for most people to the point that the intellect needed is worth any specialness to it. Steve looks and evidence and uses I would assume his intellect to sort out is validity. I don't think what we said is really that different in any way except aesthetically. Aesthetics is religion, is peoples gods. blah blah
Rob, I hope that's an acronym.
That's a good question. Ed and I were talking about it some time ago. We came to the conclusion that seeing Jesus appear more than once would be pretty hard to ignore.
As much as I hate to say it, if Jesus appeared to me twice in a very lucid, magical way, I don't think I could write it off. Hell, if he appeared once and stayed for long enough, that might do the trick too. However, his entrance would need to be unnatural, and his visit would have to be substantial. Some guy walking up to me who looks like Jesus isn't going to do it.
As for auditory only, I would have to hear a lot before I started to give ground. I'd much sooner doubt my mind than the nature of the universe.
What would do it for you, Rob?
I just thought: What if God appeared as a tentacled mushroom? I think no matter what his message, I'd think he was an alien. Hmm...
Chris, I totally agree with your cost post. The intolerance and inflexibility resulting from organized religion pisses me off frequently. And, thanks for answering my previous question.
I see, sorry Mark, you were quoting Paul and Steve.
Looks like Paul and Steve have completely opposite stances... in the "S" view, faith is a priori of experience. In the "P" view, faith is an intellectual viewpoint. I mostly agree with the "S" view.
Here's a question, if people are still up for horse-beating: what would take to reverse your faith? If you're non-religious, what kind of world or personal experiences would lead you to become Christian, to believe in god/afterlife, or turn you Hindu? If you believe, what would cause you to give it up and become atheist?
We're all gamers, so we're good at simulation. My guess is something along the lines of traumatic personal experience, like seeing a ghost or burning bush or something. But, uh... thing about religious belief is, most people don't believe in a god that is just special/particular to them. Smacks of solipsism. Put another way, do you know an atheist who believes in god, just not for that one person?
Anyway, if personal experience is all it takes, to radically reverse religious belief... well, shouldn't it have to be more than that, to change a view of the entire universe?
That's why I think that faith isn't something to be intellectually decided, at all.
No, Rob. Note, Steve is in. I am out. I'm not Christian at all. Not even religious. Not even "spiritual".
Kinda freaks me out you entertained the idea, actually.
Steve: The whole point about faith is that either you have it or you don't. You look at all the evidence, together with personal experiences, and you either say "I'm in" or "I'm out." I'm personally in because I like the evidence.
Paul: Sure you can finish a painting, but with Christianity you can't finish. You either paint enough to be satisfied with the picture(faith), or you realize the painting is lame(disbelief), or you pretend you are done(ignorant allegiance).
I think these address my initial point. As for me, and my boy Lance Bass, we are out.
We are not roomates. We are engaged in an historic battle. We both straddle I-5, you may heard of this abbyss, eyeing each others positions looking for a weakness.
Me with my girlfriend and my army. Him all alone with his girlfriend and sad pathetic cats. I am a bastion of sanity leading my troops with care and skill, while Chris wallows on the east side of I-5 desperately looking for some hope, a hope that will never come.
I have mastered 5 of the 7 ancient secrets, and soon I shall attack, say goodbye to your old friend Chris.....for I am about to learn a 6th.
nocar.dobbsjet707hat.1catcrazy.sexbot.6friends.pool.pingpong.readsome.noschool.gamerold.semperfideliseditio.
Can I get quick updates from you guys? I haven't seen or talked to you in a long, long time. I think you are both living in Portland, roomates? I know Chris is taking classes, primarily Econ I think. Any new naval war novels on the shelf Chris? Whatever happened to the Fiero Paul, I liked that car; still rocking the Saints caps?
To try and answer your question mark, I don't think most people interpret the bible at all. They buy a bible and then with it all too often comes the interpretation. It's arrangement is designed to aid it's desired interpretation. Like the moving of Daniel for example within the jewish "old testement", which was invented by the christians, to aid in the prophetic coming of the messiah. Daniel was not even considered a minor prophet for the jews. Daniel was less important than Nahum but by moving to just after the Prophets, like Ezekial, the actual structure of the christian bible seems to give him authority, importance.
It's like a scientist, if you go looking for supporting evidence you can probably find something out there to help. Daniel was a Korea cloning guy.
So how do people manage the interpretation? They don't they outsource it to specialists. They accept the argument from authority and rest happy that their soul is safe because they have faith. Most "believers" can give you a very good explaination of what they believe because they haven't put much thought into it really. They haven't interpreted, they have consumed. I think you get the point. I personally am Anti-Trinitarian. Mostly because I think it's an invention. I base on my interpretation of the texts which I can find. When I interpret what I read I try to take the author as an honest source of their point of view. I try to compare their beliefs with others that have been voiced, generally allowing some primaty to older sources rather than latter sources. If I find something in a source that runs counter to what most other people are saying I try to find out why and if what they are saying is supported by anything in the collection of texts that perhaps others had missed. Sometimes I find they have simply made something up. Not mentioned elsewhere in the older texts, but then cited again and again to give it the sense of revelation and authority. I'll give you an example. The holy ghost, it's invented. I believe that it was a Greek holdover from Neo-platonic beliefs. It was the sort of god that many greek wannabe christians could believe in, they didn't really buy into the old jewish god, or the new euhemerist Jesus. So the holy ghost was thrown in to the mix to give a little nod to the neo-platonists and the other people who felt like they did so they would go along with the catholic church. I think that studying the religious beliefs of the period shows it was a creation, not out of nothing of course. It was created for Christianity because it already existed in the target audience. Maybe it didn't go down exactly as I have described, but that's what I think is very close to what happened. Just think of the role of Mary....I don't think she is a goddess or divine in a special sense, some do. I interpret the texts and don't see much of an assertion in them that she is. Sure there are some old documents that make arguements on her behalf, but most are minor and unsupported by any authoritative texts. It still hasn't stopped people from trying to make her a peer of Jesus, hell Judas had a stint as the real messiah for some. I think the reason to have appeal is easy to understand. Mary was a woman and a lot of people share her sex, she looks so good there holding the baby. It sells. Judas is a romantic figure that is almost impossible to understand. He has a secret and many people would like to understand it. Why did he do it? Most of the texts about Jeshua don't explain the mystery, or even address that it exists. There is a Gospel of Judas, and others written, around the 2nd century, but they seem suspect as to their honest relation to the Jeshua figure. It also is interesting that the gospels disagree as to what happened between Judas, the temple, rome and jesus. As for interpreting what did happen I think we are unable to come to an authoritative answer.
The sad thing is I think the types of things I have talked about above is how most people go about trying to investigate the religion of jesus. I think it's a silly albeit enjoyable hobby, like painting, but taken too seriously, to the point of pretentious assumptions of knowledge of the truth of revelation is where it all goes bad. Sure you can finish a painting, but with Christianity you can't finish. You either paint enough to be satisfied with the picture(faith), or you realize the painting is lame(disbelief), or you pretend you are done(ignorant allegiance). There are other options but I think you get my drift. I think asking how does one validly interpret art is simlilar to how does one validly interpret religion. It's aesthetic, like almost all things.
I think I tried to cover what I could. So uh how's uh the weather Big Deeb? Li'l deeb? Rob are you getting married? Dave uh could you get your hand off my ass? Mark so uh yer dad eh, reading bibles, doh hope yer ok. I like reading taoist and buddhist shit when things like that happen. Moth so you uh have a girlfriend eh? Does she game? Chris are you gonna come over thursday, I have to work friday? Paul quite typing and go clean the cafe.......ok
Pastors can make all that money because many of them are basically salesmen. They take the charismatic style, which is based on them and not on scripture. They get people fired up and feeling good ("It's going to be a great year! God is with you!"), and people pay for that. I've seen studies that compare donations, in the same church with the same pastor, using charismatic v. scriptural styles. Donations are significantly (like 50-100%) higher with the charismatic style. People just want to be entertained and made to feel good about themselves.
Rational/irrational
Regarding this, I would think that to be religious is the only rational choice. I think it was a mathematician who looked at it this way: If there is a God, then I'm saved; if there isn't, no harm done. Therefore, I think the typical cost/benefit analysis would lead one to conclude that being religious has more upside than otherwise.
Faith
The whole point about faith is that either you have it or you don't. You look at all the evidence, together with personal experiences, and you either say "I'm in" or "I'm out." I'm personally in because I like the evidence. The wisdom in the sayings, so many of them, is just so spot on that it rings true. One of my favorites parts of the Bible is excluded from most copies, the apocrypha. The apocrypha isn't really part of the Bible because it's not considered scripture. It's like a laundry list of what to do and what not to do in life, just about every sentence literally starts with "Do" or "Don't".
That's why people who have faith have such a hard time explaining why. There isn't any specific reason, or secret piece of evidence. In fact, I think God wants it that way because it's the only way to separate out real believers. If he literally lived on Earth, everyone would believe in him.
There are holes in the doctrine, people misusing it (in my opinion), people ignoring it. But the decision to follow it or not, essentially to forgive the holes or not, is, in my opinion, the exact issue of faith. If you have it, you are ok with the flaws, if you don't, you probably aren't.
Science
Science is obviously cool, but I don't think it's really a faith. Things can be proven, and they are either proven or not. I personally think science is a gift from God to allow us to improve our lives. Don't get too caught up in that statement, it's just a basic belief that doesn't interfere with what I think science's boundaries or goals should be. In other words, I don't mingle the two in my head. There are so many pieces of evidence that it seems like it's a puzzle meant to unraveled; little things like the number e, doesn't it appear all over the place? I think I've read that the shape of a nautilus's shell, the brown part of a sunflower, and all kinds of other things can be described with e. My take on that is that I first of all believe that God created the world, and that all these little coincidences lend weight to the idea that there is a Unifying Theory...and who better to create such a theory than God?
Poverty--the real problem
In my opinion, poverty is pretty much the sole problem facing the world today. People who live in poverty can't afford to attain professional skills, or learn news. They also don't have anything to lose. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of crime is based on poverty, either directly or indirectly. A direct result would be a robbery (robbing because you don't have enough money). An indirect result would be to commit crimes because you don't like your environment and either you don't see another way out, you don't care about your future since your present sucks, or you don't know any other way to behave since you were raised in a criminal environment.
Once people have things of value to lose, they become a lot more cautious.
Government
Goverment absolutely sucks, but it's a necessary evil. The old Repulicanism ideal, small self-sufficient villages, is a thing of the past. To manage cities, states, and nations, we need a government. Some of the problems we have are accountability, and the fact that there's always more money, no matter how bad they screw up. They could bungle all the laws this year, but next year's tax revenues will still be there.
Answer to WWJD
I just saw the questions you asked. I personally feel like religion should adapt to my life, it's supposed to be a source of joy, not a job. If I feel like sleeping in on Sunday, I don't feel guilty. Regarding others, I'm of the opinion that they can do any non-harmful activities they want, basically the current legal status, but I don't like it when they look outside themselves and monitor others. Since there's no clear answer, or law, and they are operating on an interpretation, I don't think it's right to fault others for not following their interpretation.
This is the same as my view on the deeds issue. I think that the actions spoke about in the Bible come when people feel moved to do them. In other words, on a certain day I may feel like donating to the church or volunteering at a soup kitchen (plenty in Chicago in winter). And I think faith without deeds is sufficient. On the other hand, I do not think that deeds without faith is sufficient (e.g. I volunteered every Saturday, church every Sunday, 10% of my earnings were donated, now let me in--I did what I was told).
My experience is one from within the construct of an organized religion, so I think that anything I have to say would have a decidedly religious slant.
I do my best to step out of that construct to see things without blinders, but there are some that would claim that my daily and weekly practice of religious beliefs would preclude my ability to truly be objective on the matter.
Rob, I love the fact that despite your education you use the word ain't... not because you don't know better, but as a conscious choice. -sidenote- I currently live in a very small town in Utah and am surrounded by people who cannot speak or write beyond a 5th grade level. I'm not talking about bums or half-wit custodians... I'm talking about City councilmen who say "I was up to work the other day and done bought me a new truck. My brother had to borrow me the money thoughs."-end of tangent-
Disclaimer: Discussion of doctrine from within the constructs of Christianity follows. Please ignore if such things bore or do not interest you.
Schock, you raise a great point about the nature of the godhead. That is perhaps one of my biggest problems with mainstream Christianity. Most of them have no idea what or who they are worshipping. I have yet for a "Christian" to give me an adequate description of the trinity. When is God the father? When is he the son? When is he the holy spirit? I laugh. I even had some one describe the trinity as- and I shit you not- as an egg. It went something like this:
"Yeah, see, it's like and egg. Jesus is the shell, cuz he was like real and had a body and stuff, and the holy spirit is like the white, cuz it's like all around god who is the yolk, cuz he's like the center... of everything"
or perhaps the cherry pie analogy:
"The godhead is like a cherry pie. Jesus is the crust. God is the cherries. The holy spirit is the goo in between. It doesn't matter how many pieces(persons) you cut it into, it's still one pie (god)."
There are so many holes in the interpreted doctrine it makes the head spin. I think you are on to something with the separate individuals. I am of the same belief. God the father in one person. Jesus is decidedly his own man. Jesus prays to the father on several occasions. The voice of god is heard in the heavens while Jesus is standing on the earth. I don't think Jesus took ventriloquism as a NWP.
It amazes me to think that pastors are able to fill the pews, and their pockets by giving sermons based on pure shit.
Hmm... too much.
Steve, I am just curious how and why people resolve thier personal faith, organized practice of faith, and the advice in texts of faith. -Not trying to tell folks what is the right or wrong thing to do. Not as long as it doesn't break that social contract, that is.
Rob, I am not sure you paraphrased me correctly. Almost. However, I wasn't really so interested in "the right way to interpret" so much as "How do people justify thier personal interpretations, whatever they might be?" -Just a slight difference, but remember I asserted that no one could say what the right way to interpret the bible is.
Still, I think how people develop their philosophy of interpretation is very important. For you and me, we tend to fall back on reproducible evidence for belief, but for what underlies our action and morality, it might not be so simple. Do you use science to decide whether you will be kind to a stranger? What do you use and why? I think I do because it just feels right.
That's why I'd love for Chris to tell us why he is an unsung altruist despite the carrot of salvation or the stick of damnation.
Rob, obviously the moral behavior of believers and non-believers covers the spectrum. I was thinking it would be interesting to be a believer, because you have some concrete guidelines. However, due to their source, and due to obvious contradictions with organized religion and everyday life, I was curious about the thought that underlies the interpretation of those guidelines.
BTW, I'd say my brain is built for altruism and rational behavior in addition to hate and irrational behavior.
And, just knowing that your intuition and not intellect is the source of a behavior accounts for something, right? And, as far as large-scale social interaction, I think the global economy, 100+ million peopled nations, and mass warfare suggest that we are pretty good at large-scale social interaction.
There's really a lot to respond to and I"m having a busy day so I can't catch up to all of it. I'd like to hear anything more big deeb has to say since he's got much more experience in organized religion than the rest of us.
I just had a couple quick thoughts. First, within Christianity, I think God and Jesus are separate. The bible says that God is a vengeful God, but Jesus died for our sins. So in my mind I always picture God taking the stance of "you broke my law, now you get punished, just like I said" but Jesus always arguing for the good in people "have mercy, just forgive him," etc.
One thing I definitely don't understand is why someone who isn't religious would care what other people do. I'm pretty much about maximizing libery, especially in a commercial sense, but I do support certain restrictions demanded by the social contract (which abrogates the state of nature). (state of nature--might makes right)(social contract--we give up certain liberties in exchange for state protection). So if someone isn't religious, why make an issue of what others do? If people want to paint their walls pink and stand on their head in the corner for 6 hrs a day to get closer to God, because that's their interpretation of the bible, who cares?
Lastly, someone mentioned something about law and religion. Law is pretty much 2 parts--dispute resolution and enforcing the social contract. Dispute resolution is everything besides criminal conduct, and criminal conduct is enforcing the social contract. The idea is that if you break your contract with society, you get punished.
It's annoying that I had nothing to do the past few days and there was no good table talk, but now I'm busy and the TT is getting good.
My thought is that religious institutions are no different from other human institutions: government, science, Hollywood, Microsoft, the Hilton and Bush dynasties, the Soviet Union, and the Hustler Club in my old neighborhood.
That is to say, that all things start out from the ideas of one or a few people, with the most noble of intentions. Then over time, things get popular, leading to bloat, watering-down, and sabotage from within and without due to jealousy and mismanagement and just good ol' entropy.
So "institutions being insane", in my view, boils down to bureaucracy. No institution has ever killed anyone, not directly... individual human behavior is all that really counts. But bureaucratic mechanisms make it easy for people to be lazy and shitty to each other, e.g. the military chain of command.
But Mark's question was "what's the right way to interpret religious teachings" (i.e., the right way to deal with bureaucratic mechanisms). There are basically two, the broad and the narrow. We're all on-board with the broad-minded view of religion.
Remember that video of the religious woman I posted a few months ago? That's the narrow view. And it's impossible to argue for or against that, because as soon as you start to argue, you've missed the point. It's FAITH, pure as the sun.
Science is my faith- it's the path I believe is most right. It's faith, because I gladly gloss over the horrible things done historically by and in the name of science: Hiroshima, eugenics, landmines and lobotomies. Horrible things have been done in the name of god, but what's more likely to kill us? Raw religious fanaticism, or a suitcase nuke?
Religion ain't the problem... I don't think religious views are a good or bad thing either way. The real problem is that people are still animals, deep down, and do all sorts of irrational and stupid things, which can then be rationalized later by saying "You're a jew" or "You're black" or "You made me rape you" or "I'm just crazy." People's brains just ain't right, at a really fundamental level, that just changing some lines of text in a religious book isn't going to fix.
Trying to be communist, or drive a Prius, or alms to the poor also isn't going to fix the main problem, which is: human brains aren't good at large-scale social interaction. In fact, our brains are designed to be quite bad at it. Our brains are built for hate and irrational behavior. (Citations provided upon request.)
To conclude, then, I think it's inconsequential to ask "what's the right way to interpret this text?" Because your intuition will determine your intellectual answer, not the other way around.
Thanks, Steve, Chris and Paul.
Steve: I like your take on interpreting the work/words of Jesus. It seems very pragmatic and reasonable. I wouldn't be surprised to find a creator to have a similar view of his creation. I mean, if there is anything wrong with us, who does he have to blame but himself? I think we nonbelievers sometimes find pleasure in imagining God to be some inflexible Tyrant of Love dishing out wrath and reward with cool efficiency. Maybe he is more laid-back. Looking upon us he might think, "Hmm, Steve handled that pretty well", or "Oof, bad move Steve, c'mon man WWJD?". Still, as much as I appreciate this interpretation, I wonder, do you then feel it necessary to go to church, choose a denomination, have communion, or take part in these constructs of organized religion? Do you think practice necessary? Or, more importantly, do you feel a significant brotherhood or empathy to those who do practice? As for faith and deeds, Jesus says a lot about both. From what I gather, faith seems to be first, and deeds are supposed to come naturally, and to be unsung. I think those trumpeted deeds have something to do with the ills Chris is talking about. Finally, I wonder what your thoughts are about the modification of the bible over time.
Chris: I feel your pain, brother. Catch me on a bad day, and I'd say that anyone religious is insane. However, we know it's not true. There can be little doubt that the practice of religion is a human characteristic. Most all of us do it. As for the contradictions resulting from belief in an all-loving omnipotent creator, we could list them all day. However, the same goes for any system of beliefs, right? Add some laws, and you have one big fucked-up minority-screwing mess. -Such is the nature of systems. However, Chris, I do know you to be a frequent practicer of unsung altruistic deeds. Maybe moreso than the lot of us. I wonder, why do you do them?
Paul: I believe you are right about the Golden Rule. I think we as a society justify most of our punishments that way. No doubt, punishment has purpose. Still, Jesus has a strange take on punishment. I can't recall him ever endorsing it. In fact, I think he kind of says that punishment hurts the punisher, and that's why it should be avoided. Yet, that seems extremely unrealistic. I haven't read the Koran. However, I've read some Islamic history, and I have harbored similar feelings. It blows me away that Mohammed was both a political and military leader. That is so fucking different from Jesus. I mean, we can always throw Jesus in the face of Christains who want to go to war. However, you can't really say the same for Muslims. War is part of their religious history. Furthermore, Jesus said, "Render unto Cesaer the things that are Cesaer's, and unto God the things that are God's". That's an endorsement of the separation between church and state. Not so much for Mohammed. -I think GW missed that.
Like Paul said, this could go on forever. Basically, I just wanted to know how believer's resolve faith, organized religion, and confusing divine advice. And, to the point, when/why/how do they choose one over the other to make decisions in everyday life.
One must worship according to the dictates of his/her own conscience. No other person can tell you what to believe. I think that is the secret to true religion. It boils down to a person relating to his/her choice of deity. I think in the end, organized religions are the constructs man has built to try to cope with the intangibility of a higher power.
There are thousands of flavors Christianity, let alone the thousands of other religions in the world. Anyone asking "which religion is right?" is missing the point. Truth isn't held captive in the walls of the pretty church building on the corner. Truth is for us to discover, on our own.
The bible is a complete mess and mainstream Christianity is bass ackwards. I could go on and on all day… but I'm not sure this is the venue.
I just figured that as the real-life registered clergyman in the crew, I better weigh in…
I liked marks post. I have the same sense of wonderment as to how the deeds of the "religious" sync with the faith and doctrines of the texts they study. I think that a christian should be a pacifist, communist, a frankly a very nice person who wouldn't be prone to judging.
The golden rule is easily broken in religious mind states, as follows.
Bob is a Christian or Druj, muslim whatever.
Bob thinks that if he was a child molester then he would be fine with people stoning him to death with his own severed hand bones.
Because that is how he would have people treat him if he was a child molester then it's ok for him to treat child molesters this way.
It's basic social law theory, and law is not about justice. It's about punishment in society. Religions are mostly about laws, hence they emphasize punishment, threats, judging and coerscion. Much like legal systems.
I don't think Jeshua would be very happy to see what has come of his deeds. His deeds were motivated by his faith, his need to act, but his view of the failures of the social structures around him made him I think a bit afraid of building an institution, so Paul started it off instead, without necessarilly paying much attention to the faith or deeds of Jeshua. Paul had his own faith and his own deeds to be done, early christianity was a tool of dissent against the jewish order at that time and the roman one. To a lesser extant it was also a populist action against the greek elitist academic religions/philosophies of the time. Hence the advice to worship and pray on your own(ie you don't need to be bitches of the jewish temple structure), and it's opposit. The public gathering of people without leaders to follow that important command steve mentions, love god, so that you can love each other.
I was really trying to avoid writing this because I could talk forever about this and since it's about what it's about and we are who we are not much will come of it I'm afraid. Thats why I'm not a preacher. So I'll end here. One last thing though.
If you are a Christian and you read this. You should maybe check out a few things.
1. Cs Lewis. Mere Christianity.
2. The History of the Early Church by Frend. It's awesome, and big...yeah.
3. Martin Bubers I and Thou
4. Jesus and Yahweh, the Divine names.
5. The Five books of Moses. It's the Pentauch translated from the Hebrew to english by rabbis. It's nice to see their take on how all this was begun.
6. The Gnostic Gospels. Nag Hammadi library, whatever you want to call it. Wow sometimes the losing side of a debate on religious canon can be quite informative.
7. The Jefferson Bible. It has a lot of names and yeah it was written by that jefferson. He was as Christian as any of the founding fathers and a heterdox one at that...yeah.
8. something else because if you read these things it will destroy your view of christianity and if you are lucky will build one in it's place you can't even explain to your friends.
Ps Christians didn't invent murder. They might not even be it's biggest supporters. They are however the most suprising actors in the industry.
BTW the Koran sucks, really, really bad. They must have had nothing as a religion working for the common people for that piece of shit to have gone so hog wild.
one more ps...nah. I'm gonna smoke, and check on my beer. my 5th batch.
If you go strictly by the words, his teachings conflict somewhat. In other parts of the bible he says to get together in fellowship, and talks about praying. He also leads prayers.
Presumptuous
I don't think it's presumptuous to interpret his teachings. A lot of what he says are parables, and I think the real beauty of his teachings are that they are flexible concepts that can adapt to the way people live. The real problem, in my opinion, is that his main message was John 3:16, but people forget it. A lot of the specific pieces of advice (turn the other cheek, etc.) are good and valuable points, but I think people fail to see the forest for the trees. In other words, I think many people get so caught up in specific points (e.g. chastity, non-violence, drug use, etc.) that they forget the main message; the Pharisees asked Jesus for the "greatest commandment," but he responded (paraphrased) Love thy neighbor as you love yourself and love God above all else.
Faith/Deeds
This line of inquiry leads to the old question: is it faith or deeds? In other words, does Jesus save you based on your faith, or based on your deeds? The deeds camp would believe that people who don't follow the specific points of advice aren't saved. The faith camp believes that it's not the points of advice that lead to salvation but just faith (specifically, that one admits one is a sinner and that Jesus is the savior). You probably picked up from the last paragraph that I'm in the faith camp.
My opinion
My take on the Bible is that Jesus gives a main message (I love you) and supplements it with helpful advice, which is sometimes hidden in parables or actions, and sometimes explicitly stated. People will always fail; the point is that Jesus knows it and accepts it.
I don't think I can address some of your points, because I don't really know how. I don't think of it as implying that someone "correctly" interpreted the Bible, or that it's the equivalent of worshipping man's constructs first. If people want to pray alone or in a church, that's fine. If people want to interpret the Bible, that's fine too; it's up to each individual to be responsible for what s/he is doing. I think of the teachings as either a scorecard, a disclosure of what you'll be graded on, or as his best attempt at connecting to actual people and giving them helpful guidance.
Why doesn't he show himself?
I was just thinking of this the other day. I think it's because it wouldn't really matter. Over time, and distance, even if he really did appear it would be forgotten/distorted. Further, if we believe the Bible, he already did it once, and if we've forgotten it, what's the point of doing it again.
Odd that you mentioned Steven Brust, Paul. I just finished "To Reign in Hell", my first SB novel last night. -I really dug it.
Given the subject matter, he could have grabbed the Divine Comedy, Bible, etc... and made it twice as long jacking off all over the place. It's simple and sweet. -In a Hemingway kind of way, not a Steven King kind of way.
That's one thing I didn't like about Focault's Pendulum. -Too much jacking off. -I mean, Eco is great at it, but sometimes enough is enough. It's on point, but too pedantic.
Anyway, on the Biblical note, while I was in the ICU last week wondering whether or not my dad would make it, I started flipping through the complimentary Bible.
Has anyone read Jesus' first sermon? It's awesome. I'll get the verse for you all. Basically, he tosses out the Old Testament point by point. However, he then gives some very clear instructions on how to live. Basically, the Golden Rule. Yet, what really stunned me was his clear instructions not to pray in public or en masse. He says, quite specifically, go to your room alone to pray. He calls public prayer hypocrisy.
Jesus said not to pray en masse. Why, don't people listen to Jesus?
I know some of us are religious, and some are not. And I do not wish to offend. However, from the bottom of my heart, I sincerely wonder how people rationalize placing human cultural constructs over some of Jesus' teachings. Don't get me wrong, I am very glad that they do, however, to me, not follow Divine Edict to the word seems to be assuming to know the mind of God. That is, to say "Well, in this case Jesus wasn't being literal." or "In this case, we need to fight back, not turn the other cheek." Isn't that extremely presumptous?
Then again, later Jesus tosses a rock and tells Peter to build a church.
I don't know. With eternal damnation on the line, were I really a believer, I'd worry myself sick. How should I interpret the Bible? Should I use my gut instinct, or listen to a religious scholar or leader. Does God really know what's in my mind and everything will be ok? Or, is that notion just a reflection of our liberal western morality?
I'll tell you what, I do know one thing for sure, no person can say what is the right or wrong way to interpret the Bible. -Assuming such a notion exists. Hell, maybe the Bible is a test, and our response to it is what God is really looking at.
Anyway, I am very glad I am not religious. To me, to be religious on earth is not only to assume the Divinve, but to 'practice' religion, is to give some human the credit of correctly interpreting the Divine.
In fact, I'd say practicing religion is worshipping man's notions before, or at least in addition to, worshipping God. -Maybe that's why Jesus said to pray alone.
Like I said, I do not want to offend. -These are just my thoughts on the subject. I'd love your prespectives.
BTW, Steve, we will have to come to Chicago soon. That would be a blast. It's a great town.
Try reading all of Steven Brusts Vlad Taltos fantasy books.....they are the best thing out there, contrary to the ignorant statements of a few.
Remember the original DM screens we had? I still remember the bearded guy in banded mail with a sword. I think he was near a castle that was being attacked by a dragon, and there was a hot girl in a genie-type outfit behind him if I remember correctly. I also remember that we argued for a long time about what kind of armor he was wearing. I still don't really know what banded mail and/or splint mail are, but I remember we used to ignore splint mail for a long time and then we realized it's actually really good armor, and then all our characters started using it.
I kind of understand how you don't want to put real life stuff on the blog. I'm ok with really vague stuff that can't be traced to me ("moved to chicago") but I definitely understand about detailed stuff that really gives away one's real identity.
I'm pretty bored now. Computer games aren't really any fun anymore, and I need to start studying for the CPA. I found out I don't start work until Oct 9, which is good for the CPA studying but bad for boredom. I need to start finding other stuff to do. I'll probably get back into the gym, other than that I don't really know.
Here's another online campaign, except I guess this one is done like we used to do, all over email:
http://www.zioth.com/zioth/game1/
No, I didn't read more than a couple lines, cause tons of text makes my head hurt. Not to be hypocritical or anything.
And Tut, I'll email you separately about where I'm traveling. Not trying to keep it secret from the rest of you, I just like to keep real-life stuff off the internet board, it's a personal quirk. Keep things mysteriously "behind the DM screen" or something.
Where are you planning on going? I hate travelling personally, too much of a hassle. I'll probably have to go to Florida a few times to interview over the next year, and decide whether I want to stay here or move there. But those are just quick weekend business things.
Nice, the lady and I talk about going over to Chicago all the time, but never have. Now we have a great excuse. Probably wouldn't be until sometime early next year though, as I'm already traveling a lot for the rest of this year.
I just moved into my place in Chicago. Let me know if any of you are ever in Chicago; I'm not positive how long I'll be here, I can't decide positively if I want to move to Florida or not. I might have to get a few years experience in first and then move.
That is a cool name for sure. I'll post a little more later, unpacking is taking forever. I brought wayyyy too much stuff. The highlight so far is getting a full sized sleeper sofa through a building that is far too small. We had to take off a lighting fixture and lots of ceiling is now on the floor. There are also skid marks from the couch. The only way this thing is ever coming out of this room is via hacksaw, so either the next tenant agrees to keep it or I'll need to buy an axe.
I think that fighters, and only fighters, get one attack per level against creatures with less than one HD. Alas, Slime Gremlins are 1+1 HD, "by the book".
Vic Draculich is 400% AWESOME.
Anyone remember the rule about fighters attacking a number of times equal to their level if the creatures they were attacking had less than 1 HD?
Hey all,
I'm going on a working trip to the coast - out of email range until Friday.
Load me back on the tart, fellas.
Mark, I couldn't be more glad that your dad is pulling through.
How was the rest of the trip? Did you go to your place on Rabbit Bay? Tell me you had pasties...
Haven't seen What the Bleep, but it's funded by this crazy cult. Should be easy to find info on the internet if you're curious. From what I've heard, yes, the movie is full of shit. Of course, I'm part of the scientific patriarchy, so I'm coming from a biased perspective.
have lots of kleenex around, bet you can't handle more than ~ 15 seconds.
"shakira" vid
Holy shit, I am packing up to move to Chicago on Monday and I found a binder of magic cards on the floor of my closet. These are about 4 years old, maybe more. I've got beauties like a 7th edition Millstone, Phyrexian Arena, Shadowmage Infiltrator, and a whole bunch of other crap. It was really funny to stumble across these cards again.
Chris, you raise some really great points. Several of them get addressed in the film. They consider several suspects, one of which is the consumer... and there's no question that we are guilty. I'm not calling the film the gospel truth, but I stand by my "required viewing" comment because the prevailing paradigm will never change as long as we have bikini clad hot chicks laying across the hoods of Vipers while the "Hemi guy" tells me that 20mpg is great.
I picked up that What the bleep movie at the video store yesterday... When I read that "a woman gets carried away into a world of quantum mechanic conundrums" I promptly put it back down. Looked like some third year film student got hiss/her hands on a novel that taught them just enough to be dangerous.
Loose change is great. I don't think it is true... at least not entirely... but there is a lot of compelling information in there. I respect what the film makers did with so little resources, especially in the face of the the common reverence to 9/11. Definitely worth a watch.
I'll check it out. I'm not green, but I am. I don't like waste, environmental perspectives are perhaps best understood from economic/political viewpoints, rather than from the baby seals are cute viewpoint. I do like baby seals though, at least the few I've seen being clubbed on Tv looked really cute, before the clubbing, that is. Don't know much about their personality really, but ehh. Ah well I'm glad you liked the movie, now go buy a bike. My question to Electric car people usually comes down to this.....
"Where does electricity come from?"
Loose Change is worth renting. Or download it from google video for free, so the feds can know that you've watched it.
A lot of weird shit comes out of Detroit. It has its good things, and it has its embarrassments.
I saw the film "Who killed the Electric Car" the other night.
I wasn't in the eco-life club in High School. I'm not the most environmentally minded person out there. This film is really interesting, and in my opinion, should be required viewing. Check out the site, and if it's playing anywhere near you, try to catch it.
I don't know where you guys stand on environmental issues these days. If you are even remotely green-minded, I think you will like it.
Is there a Tinkerer's/Engineering guild at the moment? I think Tut needs to start one. I'll join one if it exists and it's any good, otherwise I'll just start one. I can't think of a better fit for a possibly undead extra-dimensional pharoah/tax accountant.
Tut needs to develop some weapons, and also, hopefully the Majestic Blue Plates of Inter-dimensional Basement Travelling. These would allow him to catch up with his peeps in their spaceships, and could lead to new adventures, or at least some ph4t 700t (phat loot).
On Tut's building agenda: A chainsaw for his left gauntlet, a mini-storm machine for his right gauntlet (remember that Hot Side Hot bitch we killed? This is taking that to the next level), some cool gadgets, and the Plates. I'm sure he'll need to build more stuff soon enough.
Paul/Chris: Glad to hear things are going well. I haven't talked with you guys in a long time, but I'm glad to hear that Paul got to talk with his dad and Chris is enjoying his job.
The Potion Guild is the blog of Master Gregory Vrill (MPG). If that name doesn't mean much to you, check out the executive summary of the campaign:
http://www.didcampaign.blogspot.com/
The Potion Guild can be thought of as sort of an alternative version of the events that transpire here in DiD, by a less-than-impartial observer.
This is not meant to seem crass, it's just the best thing I can think of to say.
Have a good time with your dad. as best as can be had with him because I think he'd appreciate it. It sucks when shit like that happens and everyone gets all tense and your dad gets scared along with the rest of the people who love him. Try to have as good a time with him as you can, you both need it. That sucks and I'm sorry. I was thinking about him not too long ago an wondering how he was. It's weird how things just move by, more often then not, without our imput.
My dad finally told me he loved me all on his own and that was incredible to me, as sad as that may seem to some. The best thing about it was all the talk leading up to it and the talk afterwards which I can't do justice to. It was about his dad, dead friends honesty and things which should not be left unsaid. Whew, sorry, and good luck. (naseeb wanagsen)
I'm really sorry to hear about the heart attack. My dad had one a few years ago but it was very minor. By the way, heart attacks aren't just arm/chest pain, for my dad it was his jaw that hurt.
I'll give you a call to see how you are doing. Try to think positive though.
Hey all. I am out of the loop for a while. In Marquette. My dad had a major heart-attack, and I am going to be here for several days.
She's like a beverage made of Mr. Pibb, Red Vines, airplane glue, and Bourbon, all mixed up in a blender with some ice.
Crazy delicious? Not even the half of it.
Yeah, and the follow-up to Chronic, the Natalie Portman video, is fucking hilarious.
But nothing beats this:
http://dogbonesbackyard.blogspot.com/2006/07/i-am-moving-to-japan.html
Tut, Bushi it is. You'll have to remember to roll Scrounge checks for yourself when you're in places. You have enough xp to train/advance up to 3rd level too, so just retcon it, roll for hp, and take your weap profs and NWPs. You can have spec if you want it, which I'm sure ya do.
check this gangsta rap parody video---new england tea party by "prep unit"
blue blooded rap parody.
http://www.hollywoodrag.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/new_england_gangsta_tea_partay_rap/
and got one more for you fools, the chronic (what?) cles of narnia:
http://www.gangstas-hugs.com/2005/12/chronic-of-narnia.html
Cause Mr. Pibb and Red Vines equals crazy delicious!
I read up on Berserkers, they are crazy lame. I found a class that I think suits me better...the BUSHI! http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/char/clas007.html
Check out the "scrounge" ability! Remember my ability to scrounge up food around the house? I think Tut should be a Bushi. He was really poor back in the day. What do you think?
I thought that fighter sub-classes could all spec. That includes barbarians and berzerkers. Paladins can't spec but in Unearthed I believe it is layed out that they can get some of the skills of a weapon of choice like a cavalier. I say let the man be a berzerker who specs. It's not like berzerkers are that great. Mark do you have an unearthed to look it up? when you get back and read this.
Tut, thanks for the sentiments. However, Berserkers can't get spec, that's only for Fighters and Rangers. You could just be a Ranger, man, beaucoup hps.
Moth, thanks for the update. Have fun, and great posting so far.
I'll be out for the next week or two. I'll have some access to the internet, but nothing consistent, so I won't be posting nearly as much. Not sure when I'll be back. Splendid rest of the Summer to all.
Glad to hear everything's fine though.
Can berserker's spec? I think it's time for Tut to pick a path in life. If they can spec, he'll go berserker. If not, might as well go fighter.
Looking at places in Chicago this weekend, I'll be offline from Wednesday until Saturday I think, maybe Sunday.
So there was this study in the British Medical Journal (high ranked), about the prevalence of self-injury and suicide among Goth kids. The finding is that sure enough, 'Goths' deliberately self-injured more than other subcultures (over half the Goth kids), but that association with a subculture seems to reduce the suicide levels of older Goths. Huh.
But that's not what I want to report here. What I found interesting was the 'subcultures' listed in the study. Not sure if this was 'top down' (a list from the clinicians), or 'bottom up' (compiled from self-identification), but here it is:
Goth
Punk
Heavy metal
Mosher
Nu-metal
Skater
Grunge
Retro
Indie
Rave
Club
Garage
Hip-hop
Pop
Skinhead
Breaker
Mod
Hippy
Other
...
Where the Gamers at?
Got in a car accident today. Totally not my fault... I was driving along, and a lady from a full stop just accelerated into the side of my (rental) car. I'm fine, just a bit frazzled and my whole body aches. Lost track of how many accidents I've been in, pushing a dozen? Funny thing about car accidents is that they're kind of all the same, in a weird way.
