46 thoughts on “Our Daily Thread 10-11-12”

  1. Wow! And Reagan has been dead since 2004 and suffered Alzheimer’s before that, so really we hadn’t heard from the man since some time in ’88 or ’89 and he said THAT?????

    I am headed into a busy weekend. I hope everyone has a terrific day!

    Like

    Reply

  4. Question

    Is anyone seeing ads now? For some reason I’m not seeing them, but my wife told me they were there last week. I looked, but didn’t see any. I still don’t see ’em. She sent me a screen shot this morning, and there’s an ad for a car. This is new, and I’m not sure I like it. I don’t necessarily mind, but I don’t want any of those tawdry, inappropriate ones you sometimes see. If any wordpress bloggers are familiar with how this works, please let me know.

    Thanks.

    Like

    Reply

  5. Good Morning, Y’all!
    AJ, nice that all the Braves and Phillies that the Yankees bought paid off for them…

    Naw, really…nice comeback. I can’t bring myself to root for any of the NL teams…so I guess I’ll hope the Tigers can pull it off. They were my first team as a young’un anyway…

    Like

    Reply

  6. AJ, my hubby turned the game off after the top of the ninth; he didn’t want to watch them crash and burn. I was incredulous at the time but now I’m glad he did.

    BTW, today is 10-11-12

    Like

    Reply

  7. It’s a long story why, but a few years ago we sold our house to our son and have been renting it back from him since then. Now he wants to sell it, which was part of what precipitated our move to Pa. Anyhow, last night I rode up our street to see a “for sale” sign out front. It’s very creepy to see that in front of the house you’ve lived in for 34 years.

    Like

    Reply

  8. Good morning all,

    Linda, is there more to that story? Weird yes, but is this a good thing?

    AJ, yes I saw the ad

    We have a slight rain and quiet thunder this morning. That’s a big deal for us in So Cal 😉

    Like

    Reply

  9. No ads for me currently in central CA–where we had thunder and lightning yesterday.

    I visited Navy housing the other day and discovered our former townhouse had been torn down. What was unsettling is the large beautiful homes replacing the Capehart houses that were the boxy style on all the bases where we lived.

    I parked my car and approached a young woman pushing a stroller and walking her dog and asked if I could stroll around the block–my old walking grounds–and ask her about life at PG school.

    23 years after we left there are many similarities and traditions.

    But I feel old and nostalgic in a deflated way.

    And why is the military having contractors build 2500 square foot homes?

    Like

    Reply

  12. Michelle, we have some very nice Air Force housing here in your old hometown. With ocean views, and on some of the best prime property around. 🙂

    Meanwhile, the old Navy housing up on Western — abandoned & closed down now for a number of years since the last of the big shipyards became history — remains the focus of long and heated community debates for redevelopment.

    Thunder, lightening, rain — and wet dogs — this morning. Oh my.

    And the cat looked very disgruntled when she realized that her morning post-breakfast outing through the doggie door would be a wee bit more complicated than usual. She’s not pleased.

    Like

    Reply

  16. Cheryl,

    That is just tooooo cute! Thanks for sharing that. It reminded me of my rat terrier who is no longer with us, and our cat. They used to play like that too, although they were both adults, and not nearly as cute. They chased each other around all the time. Thanks again.

    🙂

    Like

    Reply

  17. I miss Ronaldus Maximus. I have a slight hope that Romney will be more like RR than GWB.

    AJ- I don’t have ads on Google Chrome, but last night I was on IE and saw an ad. Perhaps it depends on what browser you are using?

    And happy 10-11-12. AJ missed posting at 08:09 10-11-12 by 2 minutes.

    Like

    Reply

  21. OK, here’s the story. Number Two Son was single with no significant other and thought it was time that he should buy a house. He was living with us at the time (only because it made sense, not because he was broke or needed to). Our house is quite large so we all thought it would be a good move for him to buy it from us. We own the house next door, too, so we said that when he got tired of us or got married we’d move over there (he refused to take any rent from us but we did fund some big improvements like new windows). Last January he met a girl who lives in Virginia and they are now engaged. We both work the same place and it’s about a 45 minute commute to work and also half-way between where we live and where she lives. So in the spring he decided to get an apartment near work (and nearer girl) and we are now covering the mortgage and expenses. She will always need to live near D.C. and he sees himself working here forever so they don’t forsee ever wanting to live in the house. Hence, he wants to sell it.

    Like

    Reply

  23. Thanks for the feedback all.

    This is weird. Peter sees it in IE but not Chrome, but I don’t in either, logged in or not. I don’t see it on Safari on my tablet either. Tychicus sees it in another country, Michelle, doesn’t, my wife does but only at work, Anon at 9:06 sees it, Ree doesn’t see it on Forefox, and I checked that too and don’t see it, and I’m Confused is on first. Got it.

    OK, no, I don’t. Not at all.

    😦

    I’ll send an email to WordPress Help Desk and see what I can find out.

    Like

    Reply

  26. I am on my daughter’s Samsung tablet, and I see the ad. I usually use Firefox on my desktop computer, and have never seen an ad. I’ll check it out when I can use my regular computer again. I haven’t been able to use it since my last post yesterday (around midday, I think).

    Like

    Reply

  28. I have been advocating “privatization” of marriage. Any church should be free to marry anyone they please or refuse to marry anyone they please. Domestic partnership/civil union should be the legal arrangement under our “separation of church and state” system for dealing with financial arrangements, medical and end of life issues, and protection and welfare of children. This should apply to all consenting adult humans, regardless of gender. As I indicated here previously, my letter advocating such a policy appeared in an island newspaper.

    A few days after my letter appeared in the local newspaper, an opposing letter appeared from Margarethe Cammermeyer. Squidoo: “Margarethe “Grethe” Cammermeyer was a veteran of the US army, serving as a nurse for thirty one years around the world, including Vietnam. She reached the rank of Colonel and received a number of awards. She was both principled, strong, and successful and in 1991 she famously told the army that ‘I am a lesbian.’ She was discharged – and then successfully sued the army and was reinstated.”

    She now runs a group home that provides “memory care” on Whidbey Island. She politely expressed disagreement with me. Apparently she is a religious believer and believes that she should have the right to marry her longtime partner.

    I sent her a respectful and private email as an atheist. [For all I know, as my memory fails, I will end up getting care in the home she operates.] I have not yet received a reply from her.

    I am in fact voting for R-74 (the initiative to allow homosexual marriage in Washington state). Ms. Cammermeyer is apparently a religious believer and thinks that God approves of her point of view. As much as I prefer her view of God compared to yours, I don’t think that anyone knows the “mind” of God, and while I will vote for R-74, I also will continue to strive for separation of church and state and for privitization of marriage.

    Like

    Reply

  29. I think it was Ree who lamented that conservative Christians get called “bigots” when they defend (what they believe to be) Biblical principles such as prohibiting homosexual marriage. I don’t think the word “bigot” is helpful. I don’t use it to describe Christians.

    However, suppose you were in a conversation with someone who told you that black people are inferior to white people, lacking in intelligence, moral sense perhaps closer to animals than to human beings, perhaps deserving of the position of slaves than Caucasians. This was the type of argument used to justify slavery. (As far as I know the Bible never explicitly condemns slavery.)

    While I have never encountered such an extreme position, I have had people tell me that black people are inferior to white people. As a teacher for a while in a ghetto racially diverse school, I encountered black students who were very hostile toward me because of my white skin.

    What is the proper word to describe such attitudes?

    As an atheist, I consider “empathy” as the basis of morality and the basis of people treating each other in a respectful and decent way, and as the basis of the “golden rule” and similar statements from religious beliefs of other world religions.

    People who expect respect and tolerance from others, but seem unable to offer it to other people who do not perpetrate murder, violence, torture, slavery, and violence strike me as very lacking in empathy. This lack seems quite prevalent among the people who post comments here at Traveling Views.

    Like

    Reply

  31. I’m back on my regular computer, and do not see any ads using Firefox. However, I see ads when I click on the comments of all but one of the posts on your homepage while using Internet Explorer. None of the ads can be seen, though, if I don’t click on the comments.

    Interestingly, when I was on my daughter’s tablet a couple hours ago, I could see the ads, but now I don’t see them at all on her tablet.

    Like

    Reply

  32. “However, suppose you were in a conversation with someone who told you that black people are inferior to white people, lacking in intelligence, moral sense perhaps closer to animals than to human beings, perhaps deserving of the position of slaves than Caucasians. This was the type of argument used to justify slavery.”

    If any person calling themselves Christian were to use this argument toward a homosexual, then I would call them a “bigot.”

    However, the term “bigot” is applied simply due to the fact that Christians DISAGREE with the lifestyle and call it a sin (as per the Bible.)

    So, you’re comparing apples to oranges.

    Like

    Reply

  33. Oh wow. I go away for a few days and I miss all the action here.

    Kim, my condolences on the passing of Toni, and prayers for Regina and the rest of the family. I know she was much beloved.

    And congrats on your recent marriage. I was glad to hear of it. You deserve to be happy. Hope everyone is adjusting well.

    Like

    Reply

  34. Random,

    Anyone can call themselves anything they like. I could call myself an “atheist” and then start qualifying it by saying, “Except that I believe in a God and that He created the universe.” So, at that point, my definition becomes out of sync with the standard definition. And, despite what I call myself, am I really an atheist?

    Or, I could say that I’m an agnostic. I can tell everyone. But, then I qualify that by saying that I believe Jesus Christ is God incarnate and died for my sins and that I follow Him as Lord and Savior. So, by calling myself an agnostic, haven’t I damaged the standard definition and ruined any reasonable form of communication that I might have with other people?

    A Christian is primarily a regenerated human who has Christ living in their hearts and who is allowing Christ to conform them to His image. That is a basic definition. It can’t be stronger, because the Christian answers to his/her master and only HE knows for sure how much control they’ve given over to Him and their heart status and where they are in growth. Thus the “nominal” Christian. He or she may be saved, but as through fire, where none of their works or fruit will survive. 😦

    But, secondly, a Christian’s “fruits” will generally be: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. So, a Christian’s regenerate nature is suspect to the rest of us if their lives do not *generally* reflect these traits. If they do not “bear fruit” then we question their “true Christian” status. There should be growth into these traits and into conformity with their Lord.

    Finally, a Christian follows his/her Master’s commandments. Thus, a Christian’s regenerate status (i.e. are they a “true” Christian) becomes suspect when he/she says, “The Bible says this, but *I* believe this … despite what it clearly states, and despite how the Church almost universally has understood this to mean.” Now, if this person says this in ignorance, then education and growth and time may clear it up. But, if they say it knowing full well that they are in rebellion … I would be concerned.

    Of course, there are minor disagreements (despite how greatly we humans tend to blow them out of proportion, the disagreements are generally pretty minor in the true scheme of things). However, NEVER has the Church (before the last 50 years) EVER understood homosexuality to be okay, or abortion, or living with someone without benefit of marriage. So, a person’s Christianity is suspect when they claim to belong to Him, but ignore what He has explicitly taught us.

    And, all of that is somewhat in flux because — as explained before — Christians grow over time from a “baby-like” understanding to a mature understanding. Thus, a new Christian will not look quite the same as a long-term Christian should, and one has to view a Christian’s life long-term to see their true growth and fruit (thus the need for the Master to do the final judgment, Who sees it all from beginning to end.)

    But, again, as mentioned above, we do have some general guidelines, and we really can question someone’s “true” status based on them, even though we can never be the final judge. At the least, we are skeptical of someone who claims to be a Christian, but who does not seem to be conforming to Christ’s likeness, who does not seem to be bearing fruit, and who does not seem to be following Christ’s commandments … and shows no growth in those directions.

    That really isn’t that hard to grasp, and it is not illogical … despite what you’d like us to believe. 😉

    Like

    Reply

  35. Karen,

    Obviously, you (and everyone else here) is Wandering. As soon as my wife and I cross the border into Canada, we will be Traveling. It’s quite probable that we will be lost. Everyone at this web site is quite found or saved, or some such.

    The other interesting question will be: will I be still posting comments after I have passed over into full fledged dementia? (Don’t answer that question.)

    Like

    Reply

  37. Random,

    I’d be curious about the worldview assumptions behind that person’s beliefs, but yes, I’d consider him an ignorant bigot. That’s the proper word to describe such attitudes as you described. And I think you’re right that some people justified slavery that way, but the idea is rooted in a Darwinian worldview, not a Christian one.

    But there’s no correlation whatsoever between that attitude and the attitude of the Christian who believes that God created all people equal in dignity and that God defines the proper boundaries of sexuality.

    Now empathy is word to describe the ability of a person to identify with the feelings of another. I don’t know what would lead you to believe the Christians here lack that ability. As a Christian, I find myself more able to identify with others than I was before Christ converted me, not less so. And I’m pretty sure others here would say the same.

    But it’s kind of funny that you’d consider empathy to be “the basis of morality.” Empathy is just a feeling–it has no prescriptive value–it’s not morally binding. And clearly, individual people and whole societies have been completely lacking in empathy on certain others people throughout history, and their actions towards those people have made that pretty clear. And if morality isn’t binding, not only is it ineffective, but it’s not even morality. Morality is binding by definition. (Tammy is right, words do have meaning. )

    Like

    Reply

  38. Tammy,

    1. We go back again to the Bible is a book. Words on paper. It is not the “Word” of God, any more than the Koran is the word of God, or the Hindu documents or the Buddhist documents, much less the Mormon documents are the “words of God.”

    2. We know quite a bit about how the Mormon books appeared, and have plenty of reason to regard them as “made up” by a talented, charismatic man who used his words to gather wives, followers, and money. Originally, Smith believed the Mormon Bible would replace Christianity. Now, Mormons declare themselves Christians (though all the stuff about Mormons becoming Gods is hardly Christianity) and a Mormon who adjusts his beliefs and policies is about to become President of the United States. Are you going to vote for this “real Christian,” Mr. Romney?

    3. We don’t really know very much about Jesus Christ, who he was, what He said. He probably lived. He was probably executed by the Romans. People are not born of virgins, and do not rise from the dead. It just souns good (for reasons I fail to comprehend). I mean who wants to die? But eternal life would eventually be Hell. I doubt you really understand the word “eternal.”

    4. Christianity (as much as we can understand through the long and murky past) has changed over and over again. Probably in its earliest days, it was a small number of people telling each other a fable, trusting and helping each other in difficult and dangerous times, providing (silly) answers about the origin of the universe in pre empirical times. The it drew in some emperors (Roman Empire), became corrupted by power0 and developed some nasty habits such as inquisitions. Then after a while it went through a fit of guilt and reform with people such as Luther and Calvin.

    5. It’s still growing and evolving (e.g. Mormons). But it’s no more the “Word of God” than the squeaks coming out of the chipmunks in my yard. In the computer world, a popular acronym is GIGO — Garbage In, Garbage Out.

    6. No matter how much you gloss and rearrange the tossed salid of wishful thinking that is Christianity, it is still GIGO.

    7. The world exists. That’s odd, and although I am getting old (and losing my mind), I don’t regret being alive and look forward to seeing my daughter, daughter-out-of-law, and granddaughter next weekend. However, there is no evidence for the existence of a being called “God.” And all your definitions and “this is traditional” is GIGO.

    8. I disagree with the liberal and tolerant Christians I know. But there Christianity is more generous and more constructive than your brand.

    9. I believe dinosaurs existed (and no longer do). I don’t know if you are one of those people who say they didn’t exist, or lived at the same time as “Adam and Eve.” When I read what people here believe, I feel as if I am living with dinosaurs (culturally speaking). It’s hard for children to grow up, and some never do. (Put me in that category if you like.) Not only children have to grow up to survive. A species needs to grow up. As there is no God, we have no “parent” as a species. So we have to grow ourselves up. We are like a feral tribe wandering around trying to put outselves through school with no textbooks. A lot of us find some old books of myth and cry out, “Look! This 2,000 year old book explains everything!”

    No it doesn’t. I have to go tend the garden. So I will stop now. I won’t live long enough to see humanity really “grow up.” But we are getting a few cold clues. One of the first is realizing that we have no “parent.” One we invented and dubbed “God.” We’re on our own.

    Like

    Reply

  39. Ree, we’ve gone over the “Darwinism/Darwinian” nonsense a thousand times.

    First of all, it’s called the “Theory of Evolution,” not “Darwinism.” Because Christianity is based on a person (erroneously thought to be the “Son of God”), some Christians accuse Darwin of starting a cult and call theory of evolution “Darwinism” because they don’t understand how science works. Scientists are human. They make mistakes, they argue, they go down blind alleys; but over time they come closer to understanding the world we live in. Christianity is based on whatever anyone thinks it means. You claim your version of Christianity is “correct;” my liberal Christian friends claim their version of Christianity is “correct.” Science is based on what works, not on the charisma of a fallible human being.

    Second, the theory of evolution does not claim that any species (or race within a species) is “superior” in a moral sense. The theory of evolution indicates that animals compete with each other; the process is amoral. Morality is something humans invented, though one can see roots among animals. A Christian at wmb once said to me something along the lines of “Why don’t we just devour each other like wolves [without Christianity]?

    Wolves don’t devour each other. They hang out in packs and work together to care for cubs and to bring down prey. Males engage in stylized (and seldom fatal) combat for pack dominance and for mates. Then they get along fine.

    Our chickens (when they have enough room, water, and food) establish a “pecking order” and then get along fine. Most mammals have similar patterns of behavior, which vary between predators (such as wolves) and prey (such as deer). In any case, the members of the same species rarely kill other members of their own species in massive ways.

    Humans are more complex. We evolved as social animals. We developed “culture” and empiricism. It’s pretty evident that humans exhibit great capacity for both violence and altruism, selfishness and compassion. Social science indicates that 95% or more of humans are biologically inclined to be empathic (that is not what we call “sociopaths” or “psychopaths” – meaning people without empathy). Most humans are reluctant to kill other humans. When a culture needs humans to be violent (as conquerers or as police or defending soldiers) it begins to “brain wash” or indoctrinate them to break down the innate reluctance to kill. Hitler and his closest associates (such as Himmler and Heydrich) were probably out and out sociopaths. They then brainwashed the main population into regarding the people to be persecuted as less than human (thus worthy of destruction as animals). Stalin (and many other leaders throughout history) played the same trick.

    Humans, having a great need to protect itself against enemies (such as other predators and other human tribes) and having a great need to work together to survive in a difficult and hostile world, eventually developed religious belief. It “explained” mysteries before empiricism provided better explanations; it provided a way to organize humans as we gathered in villages, cities, and nations (rulers and priests forming natural allies); it provide motivation for both violence and altruism.

    Thus religion has frequently been found mobilizing humans to help each other and mobilizing humans to kill each other. There are thousands of religious beliefs; we are good at inventing them. They compete with each other; just as in physical evolution some species survive, some religious beliefs rise to the “top” of the religious pecking order. They meet certain needs (explaining origins – now mostly obsolete); telling us we won’t die (we are the only animal that contemplates its own demise; telling us that the (obvious) unfairness of life will somehow be balanced out in an imaginary afterlife; and leaders organize societies. I listened to the Vice-Presidential debate tonight. Both candidates had to prate on about religion. I look forward to a day when our candidates don’t feel the need to believe or pretend to believe in nonsense. But it won’t happen in my lifetime.

    Like

    Reply

  40. The history of humanity has plenty of examples of Christians killing each other as well as of caring for each other. The meth argument is that the killers and the slavers were not the “real” Christians. It’s kind of amazing that we ever developed empiricism so ingrained is our need to believe nonsense.

    Like

    Reply

  42. Random,

    You cite a lot of opinions, but very little fact.

    There is actually quite a lot of evidence for the Bible (more than for Caesar!), and even more evidence for a Creator. You can actually reason to an Intelligent Creator from science and the facts we have.

    Jesus is historical. He is attested to by multitudes of witnesses, many authors, and even a number of enemies.

    But, of course, you’d rather keep telling yourself stories. 😉

    Like

    Reply

  44. Nonsense is nonsense no matter how you spin it or repeat it over and over.

    Christ “probably” lived. He was not born of a virgin. He did not rise from the dead.
    Some people have big hangups not only about death, but also about how babies are made. We are animals. We make babies in ways similar to how other mamals do it, though we are the only ones that pretend otherwise. We die. Once we are dead, we are gone, as if we nver existed.

    Like

    Reply

  45. Random, your whole belief system falls apart if Jesus really did rise from the dead, as history attests. History doesn’t “attest” any such thing. A lot of people really want to believe a legend from distant times. As best I can fathom, this translates to you as “attests.”

    Ever worry about that one?

    I know that you and Ree and perhaps thousands of other evangelicals reading this think Pascal’s Wager is the most brilliant dn irrefutable and frightening idea you’ve ever encountered, but it strikes me as such nonsense that it scares me no more than the knowledge I will die, which I remind myself daily.

    Like

    Reply

  46. It assumes there is a God. (Quite dubious.) It assumes this “God of Love” is the Christian God. Might be one of thousands of other “Gods” humans have invented. Assumes this God is going to punish me with eternal torment if I don’t believe in him (& and his non-divine Son who may or may not have existed). Suppose I believe devoutly . . . in Jehovah’s Witness God, or 7th Day Adventists God, or (Heaven Forbid) Mormon we are all going to become Gods God? The problem with Pascal’s Wager is there are so many wagers on the big lottery wheel. House Odds are not with you.
    I hope if you gamble in this real empirical world we all live in, you choose a game with better odds than your religious gamble.

    Also, God wants you to believe with all your heart based on your faith. (As there is no evidence, anyway.) If you believed because you were making a bet, God would surely send you to Hell.

    By the way, why do you believe there is a Hell? What kind of loving God creates a Hell?

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Peter L Cancel reply