Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, March 12, 2012

Kansas City Royals All-Star Mike Sweeney Endorses Santorum for President

Forgive me for posting this.

The Rick Santorum for President campaign is proud to announce that it has received the endorsement of All-Star Major Leaguer Mike Sweeney.

Mike Sweeney said: “I take great pride in the success I’ve had on the baseball field, but even greater satisfaction in knowing that I have spent my entire life embracing Godly principles and instilling these values into the everyday lives of my children, family and friends. After personally getting to know Rick Santorum, I am absolutely convinced that he is the only candidate in the 2012 Presidential race that shares these same core values! The moral decline of our great country must stop now and this can only be achieved through real leadership and real solutions. I believe Senator Santorum has the wisdom, passion and vision to bring our country back to global excellence with those core Christian beliefs that our Founding Fathers envisioned, including protecting the rights of the unborn child, in mind.  This election is the most important in my lifetime and as a father, husband, and American I am proud to play on Rick Santorum’s team!”

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 10:55 AM | 2194 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: general

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 22 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
   101. DA Baracus Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4079126)
Weird, since the discussions on BBTF always revolve solely around baseball and never veer off into any non-baseball related subjects.


Starting off and veering off are different things.

From the piece:


That's a really low standard. Really low.
   102. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4079127)
As an aside, this is the reason I cannot read or watch anything not done in its original language. I've seen how much gets changed and lost from the original going from English to German, or vice versa. And I just can't enjoy anything knowing that fact.


A great translator can create a great work of art. It's not an exact reproduction of the original, but rather a piece of art that the translator made in concert with the original creator. You always have to keep in mind that you're not reading the original, but this is true with lots of things that have gone through many hands -- you're not reading or seeing exactly what Shakespeare wrote, either. So you should read works that are great in translation, and read secondary sources to tell you something of what you're missing from the original, if you see fit.

My favorite anecdote about the collaborative nature of translation is a probably apocryphal story about Boris Pasternak, who did a translation of Hamlet that's considered one of the high-water marks of 20th century Russian literature. He was at a conference and an academic started asking him questions about his translation and accusing him of misreadings, deviations from the original, and so on. Pasternak listened for a while, then waved the academic off and said, "Shakespeare's a genius, I'm a genius." Probably not a true story, but it absolutely should be.
   103. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4079129)
I'd hate to have a forum where the authorities regulate what some people like to do simply because others who are free not to participate find it distasteful.


Welcome to BTF/The Internet.

I think it's actually far more interesting to discuss religion than politics, which is why it's a shame it degenerates so often.


It degenerates because politics is basically everything. And, well, because there's no accounting for tastes.
   104. JPWF1313 Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4079137)
If anyone here has seen more zombie movies than I have -- 250-some-odd; the count was around 225 when my hard-drive crashed in mid-2010, wiping out the list I was, sadly enough, keeping -- I'd be shocked. Also appalled.


Wikipedia has a list of zombie movies, here perhaps you can use it as a checklist
   105. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4079138)
It degenerates because politics is basically everything. And, well, because there's no accounting for tastes.

Right, but religion actually involves the search for meaning in life, which is a fascinating topic. The commonalities and differences between religions is an endless subject all on its own. And, there's a ton to learn.

Politics is usually just whose ox is getting gored (lower taxes for me vs. more spending on the stuff you like). That gets boring fast. And we just go over the same ground again, and again, and again.
   106. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4079140)

Wikipedia has a list of zombie movies, here perhaps you can use it as a checklist


Feh. It doesn't even have Living a Zombie Dream.

Though it does have The Corpse Eaters & Zombie Army, which is somewhat impressive.
   107. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4079146)
Yeah, you should check it out. 752 posts and still climbing. Pretty impressive for a thread that was posted 3 weeks ago!


So I see. It'd be really helpful, though, if, just as we can block certain posters, we could also block posts on certain topics. If I could somehow avoid having to scroll through all the posts in that thread relating to Star Wars, Doctor Who, Walking Dead, (simply because I've seen only the first season; I guess the second one isn't out on DVD yet), Lost, musical scores or of course The Simpsons, I'd be pretty happy.
   108. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4079148)
A great translator can create a great work of art. It's not an exact reproduction of the original, but rather a piece of art that the translator made in concert with the original creator.

I get that. The problem for the most part is that the vast majority of great artists are creating their own works, which only leaves the less than great to occupy themselves with translations. Many of them are downright awful.

You always have to keep in mind that you're not reading the original

This to me IS the big problem though. Even in the truly rare cases where the translation could stand on its own as a great piece, I can't appreciate it. Because I am aware of the original, I am constantly asking myself whether or not the translation it being accurate, or whether the original author was trying to convey something totally different. And the constant doubt in the back of my mind really prevents me from being able to enkoy the work on its own merits.
   109. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:26 PM (#4079152)
I am relaxed. I'm just trying to understand why you posted this given that these types of threads are supposed to be going away.


Are they supposed to be going away? I didn't know. Guess we gotta squeeze them in before the censors come in and regulate what we talk about.

I thought the deal was going to be that anyone who didn't like "off-topic" threads could choose to delete them from his personal homepage, without depriving anyone else from viewing them, and without ghettoizing them into the forums. Which seems like the sort of compromise that I can't imagine anyone other than a complete control freak objecting to, not that there aren't a few of those types out there.

--------------------------------------------------

Given the number of times we take innocuous baseball posts and turn them into STFU YOU OTHER, I suggest that nakedly political posts might lead to "less" semi-intellectual politimasturbating.


Perhaps. Maybe some people like that though. And if others don't, well they are free not to participate. I'd hate to have a forum where the authorities regulate what some people like to do simply because others who are free not to participate find it distasteful.

Especially considering that the ones who do the most complaining are often the same ones who keep posting in the very threads they complain about.
   110. Zach Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4079188)
The changes to the penitential act, the "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault" part, are my favorite.

Here's an idea -- why not just keep it as "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa"? It's only three words, and the least familiar translates to "me." Why settle for ugly and inaccurate?
   111. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4079192)

Here's an idea -- why not just keep it as "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa"? It's only three words, and the least familiar translates to "me." Why settle for ugly and inaccurate?


Agreed 100%.
   112. Lassus Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4079196)
Yes. Unbelievable.

Continue to spurn devout, gay catholics who love to sing and this is what you end up with. I'm not sympathetic.


Catholics have zero tradition of singing hymns at Mass, but 2000 years worth of chant and polyphony, and instead we get warmed over folk music and insipid pop "hymns".

I.... don't think your first statement is really true, but I would have to ask a liturgical music scholar to be sure.

I also think there was something in particular that make the music in the catholic mass so unimportant, before the folks hymns of the 70's and 80's took hold. Again, I'm not that scholar, so I'd need to do some research.


Have you ever worked at a Catholic Parish, Lassus?

Once in a blue moon. No money in it.


Why do no music directors ever try chant? Even plainchant.

I'm pretty sure they do, or have, but infrequently now, as people are resistant to change, and not a lot of people are old enough to have done it in the past. But again, as you can't make money as a singer in catholic mass, I have no reason to be sure. I grew up Roman Catholic, but now only go into a church if I'm paid. (Also, not to be ignored, if done right, chant and reading the neumes is rather complicated.)
   113. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 12, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4079198)
I thought the deal was going to be that anyone who didn't like "off-topic" threads could choose to delete them from his personal homepage, without depriving anyone else from viewing them, and without ghettoizing them into the forums. Which seems like the sort of compromise that I can't imagine anyone other than a complete control freak objecting to

Our morning-after pills are still covered though, right?
   114. Zach Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4079200)
This might be an actual case of being more catholic than the pope (and I'm not Catholic -- I'm Episcopalian), but I think that some concepts are more expressive in Latin. Latin requires a little bit of unpacking, as does the sentiment behind "mea maxima culpa."
   115. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4079204)
Our morning-after pills are still covered though, right?

Jeez, I'd sure hope so. And Viagra, too. (smile)

Completely on topic, has everyone seen this latest New Yorker cover? It may be the best one they've run since the fist-bumping Obamas.
   116. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4079208)
Continue to spurn devout, gay catholics who love to sing and this is what you end up with. I'm not sympathetic.

Nobody spurns gays. Sexual orientation is not considered a sin. However, you can't really be devout if you are sexually active in a homosexual relationship, any more than you cn be devout if you're cheating on your wife, or sleeping with your girlfriend. Devout means you try and follow all the rules.

Not that anybody asks on the way in the door at Mass. Active homosexuals are welcome right along with the adulterers, and thieves. They just shouldn't receive communion unless they're trying to stop, and have been to confession.
   117. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4079210)
This might be an actual case of being more catholic than the pope (and I'm not Catholic -- I'm Episcopalian), but I think that some concepts are more expressive in Latin. Latin requires a little bit of unpacking, as does the sentiment behind "mea maxima culpa."

A lot of Episcopalians are "more Catholic" than some "spirit of Vatican 2" Catholics. They've actually just created an organization for more traditional Anglicans/Episcopalians to rejoin the Catholic Church, while keeping most of their liturgy.
   118. Lassus Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4079212)
Nobody spurns gays... Active homosexuals are welcome right along with the adulterers, and thieves.

WINNER!

   119. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4079213)
...Goyim.
   120. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4079216)
They just shouldn't receive communion unless they're trying to stop

For some reason this reminds me of the old X-Men movie, where one of the parents says: "Have you tried not being a mutant?"
   121. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4079217)
Nobody spurns gays... Active homosexuals are welcome right along with the adulterers, and thieves.


WINNER!

Sometimes I think that if snapper didn't exist, we'd have to invent him, bless his heart.
   122. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4079218)
Nobody spurns gays... Active homosexuals are welcome right along with the adulterers, and thieves.

And it applies to both to the congregation as well as the clergy!
   123. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4079232)
Sometimes I think that if snapper didn't exist, we'd have to invent him, bless his heart.

I don't know why the fact I consider homosexual sex to be sinful is so hilarious. It's a view held by the vast majority of the worlds' population.
   124. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4079233)

And it applies to both to the congregation as well as the clergy!


Well, that's not true.
   125. Vance W Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4079243)
A lot of Episcopalians are "more Catholic" than some "spirit of Vatican 2" Catholics. They've actually just created an organization for more traditional Anglicans/Episcopalians to rejoin the Catholic Church, while keeping most of their liturgy.


Curiously, my Episcopalian parish near Dallas is overwhelmingly composed of refugees from the "evangelical" churches, especially the Southern Baptists. Generally, they tend to have a more intellectual bent than most SBC worshippers while responding aesthetically to the liturgy.

The Book of Common Prayer has its origins in Elizabethan English and still contains a lot of beautiful English prose.

For fans of the Christian musical tradition, there is a fine show on XM's classical channel (76) on Sunday Mornings.
   126. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4079248)
I don't know why the fact I consider homosexual sex to be sinful is so hilarious. It's a view held by the vast majority of the worlds' population


Fitting you'd turn to the appeal to authority.
   127. Squash Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4079249)
It's a view held by the vast majority of the worlds' population.

I knew American conservatives could find common ground with our dear friends in the Middle East, Africa, and the former Soviet Union. There is a tie that binds us all.
   128. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4079254)
It took me a while to figure out what "Episcopalian" meant. I know Americans had a different word for the Anglican Church, but I always forgot what it is. Actually, is that an American thing, or a everywhere outside the Commonwealth thing? And what are the origins of the name change, I've always been curious.

To pause here briefly and pick a nit no one cares about, I believe the original Book of Common Prayer was Edwardian. Though I'm not sure the language would have really changed that much over the next ten years when Elizabeth updated it so this is kind of a pointless interjection.

I just got a stern tongue-lashing from a supervisor for referring to England as "protestant" in the 1620s in a chapter draft so I've taken to parsing discussions of early modern English religion a bit too finely methinks.
   129. BrianBrianson Posted: March 12, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4079260)
WINNER!


Given that is seems every damn person in this thread is not only religious, but goes to church, it's surprising to see someone called out for that. It's a rubbish attitude, but I don't see how someone that knows it's a rubbish attitude can attend a church. Be a deist, maybe. But a Christian (and one who knows what's in the bible?)?



   130. JPWF1313 Posted: March 12, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4079263)
It took me a while to figure out what "Episcopalian" meant. I know Americans had a different word for the Anglican Church, but I always forgot what it is. Actually, is that an American thing, or a everywhere outside the Commonwealth thing? And what are the origins of the name change, I've always been curious.


It's an American thing, or started as one anyway, it seems that after the American Revolution being a member of the Church of England was a tricky thing for those who were no longer Royal Subjects- but being a priest being required to swear allegiance to the Crown as even trickier still.

So the Anglican Church in the newly minted independent nation of the United States of American recast itself as the Episcopalian Church.
In a similar way the Orthodox Church in America became an autonomous entity in the 1920s following political upheaval in eastern Europe (especially in Russia, in fact one Russian Patriarch gave his blessing to Orthodox adherents overseas cutting themselves off from the Mother Church...
   131. Monty Posted: March 12, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4079264)
It's a rubbish attitude, but I don't see how someone that knows it's a rubbish attitude can attend a church. Be a deist, maybe. But a Christian (and one who knows what's in the bible?)?


Do Unitarians count? I'm pretty sure you can believe just about anything and still be a Unitarian.
   132. Monty Posted: March 12, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4079268)
but being a priest being required to swear allegiance to the Crown as even trickier still.


Now that you mention it, George Washington was an Episcopalian. Shouldn't that have been an issue for someone at the time?
   133. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 12, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4079271)
Nobody spurns gays... Active homosexuals are welcome right along with the adulterers, and thieves.

Sometimes I think that if snapper didn't exist, we'd have to invent him, bless his heart.

I don't know why the fact I consider homosexual sex to be sinful is so hilarious. It's a view held by the vast majority of the worlds' population.


It was the part where you compared homosexuals to adulterers and thieves. Adulterers are cheats who break their presumably solemn marriage vows. Thieves steal others' property. Explain to me how homosexuals fit into that realm without resorting to quoting Scripture or antiquated sodomy statutes.

If you want to just say, "Ewwww, gross!", that's a private reaction that may offend the listener but doesn't imply eventual damnation if kept unchecked, and it doesn't suggest anything more than a purely subjective reaction. But what you're saying goes way beyond that, even with the thin veil of "welcome" that you throw out---as long as you think you can convert them or something. But what if these "welcome" homosexuals turn out to be wholly unrepentant and just tell you and your Church to mind your own business? What if they organize to actively oppose the efforts to overturn laws that allow gays to marry?
   134. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4079274)
Now that you mention it, George Washington was an Episcopalian. Shouldn't that have been an issue for someone at the time?

As I've demonstrated already in this thread, American history is pretty far outside my area of expertise*, Anglicanism always seemed to me to be a fairly "big tent" faith. No one seemed especially bothered by a multitude of interpretations of what it meant to be Anglican. Which isn't to say everything was hunky-dorey. High Church and Low Church didn't always get along well, but at the end of the day they managed to co-exist without killing each other (most of the time)...which is a pretty high standard for early modern Christianity. I also seem to recall reading somewhere that the vast majority of people who signed the Declaration of Independence were Anglican.

*This topic is, however, embarassingly close to my MA thesis on the Anglican Church's Reaction to the French Revolution. Luckily I have the Atlantic Ocean working for me so I can remain behind my "not my area" shield.

   135. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4079277)
133 It's a sin. Just as mortal as adultery or stealing.

I'll add fornication and masturbation too, if it makes you feel better.

I've committed plenty of mortal sins in my life. As I've learned more, I try to not do so, but sometimes I still fail.
   136. Bob Tufts Posted: March 12, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4079279)
Time to remove the not for profit status of chruches and religions. I don't like political trwacle coming from clergy from the left or right.

Either that, or start a really out there cult and take advantage of the deductions. Can we declare sabermetrics to be a religion?
   137. Gazizza, my Dilznoofuses! Posted: March 12, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4079285)
Time to remove the not for profit status of chruches and religions. I don't like political trwacle coming from clergy from the left or right.


Fine. Then the churches would have no restrictions on their political activity. I'll be glad to see more Christian influence in politics.
---
Back to the liturgy, while I do find some parts of the translation a bit clunky I do find it an improvement. A few years ago, I went a a trip to Europe and a friend loaned me a booklet that had the mass in eight different languages so I could more easily follow along when I attended. Looking at the book, you could tell that the English translation was much different than the other languages. So, it's nice that we're finally praying in unison with the rest of the universal Church. Also, our prayers should accurately reflect our beliefs. ("Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi." Or: "As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live")

It's heresy to modern ears but snapper is correct when he affirms the immorality of sexual activity outside of marriage. I'll also make his statement of committing many mortal sins but trying to get better. On the subject of gays not being welcome in the Catholic Church, anyone who's actually Catholic knows that's not true. (I've been told that of over a dozen Catholic parish organists in my immediate area, there is one who not gay. At my parish one of the semi-regular ushers is gay.) As snapper said, we're a home for sinners like a hospital is for the sick. It's why I'm welcome there.

On the King James Bible: It's a beautiful translation but shouldn't be used for theological purposes. When accuracy in translation conflicted with beauty, beauty won. Use it for reflection and spiritual but not for doctrinal understanding.

As far as the Traditional Latin Mass goes, I can skip it. I like understanding what the priest is saying. I'd love to see the Tridentine done in English some time, though.
   138. salvomania Posted: March 12, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4079286)
I don't know why the fact I consider homosexual sex to be sinful is so hilarious. It's a view held by the vast majority of the worlds' population.


I can sympathize---I know that women are second-class citizens and are supposed to be deferential to me (a view held by the vast majority of the worlds' [male---which is the only one one that matters] population)---but every time I make even the slightest suggestion of this in mixed company everyone gets all bent out of shape and starts calling me "pig," and worse.

But I know I have the Truth and the Lord on my side, and they don't, which is pretty hilarious.
   139. Guapo Posted: March 12, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4079287)
I'll add fornication and masturbation too, if it makes you feel better.


And how!
   140. Dale Sams Posted: March 12, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4079288)
My take is:

"What the hell do I care what a bunch of middle-eastern tribes preached 2,000+ years ago?"
   141. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 06:57 PM (#4079290)
I'll do what I like, and so will you.
   142. Monty Posted: March 12, 2012 at 06:58 PM (#4079291)
133 It's a sin. Just as mortal as adultery or stealing.


I feel that these threads are more productive when religious people refrain from telling other people what they consider sinful, and when non-religious people refrain from telling other people what they consider to be crazy beliefs.
   143. JJ1986 Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4079295)
Masturbation is a sin? Why?
   144. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4079296)
How about if sinful and crazy people get together and call religious people non-religious?

Or something.
   145. Swedish Chef Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:03 PM (#4079297)
but I don't see how someone that knows it's a rubbish attitude can attend a church. Be a deist, maybe. But a Christian (and one who knows what's in the bible?)?

Plenty of denominations don't hold the Bible as infallible truth.

And if you wanted I'm sure you could be a bible-thumping fundamentalist and accept homosexuality. It's been awhile since I thought about the finer points of theology, but the New Testament does invalidate the dietary requirements from the Mosaic law, it would be possible to read that as an exemplar of a broader invalidation of that law, including the ones about homosexuality.
   146. Monty Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4079298)
How about if sinful and crazy people get together and call religious people non-religious?

Or something.


If sinful and crazy people get together, I'd hope they'd find something more fun to do with their crazy, sinful time.
   147. Daunte Vicknabbit! Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:05 PM (#4079299)
Because every minute you're alone jerking it is a moment you could be sharing the goods with a friend.
   148. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4079300)
I knew American conservatives could find common ground with our dear friends in the Middle East, Africa, and the former Soviet Union. There is a tie that binds us all.

And China, and India, and Latin America, but wouldn't want to mention places you couldn't stereotype as backward.
   149. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:09 PM (#4079301)
And China, and India, and Latin America, but wouldn't want to mention places you couldn't stereotype as backward.

I'm pretty sure I could stereotype India and Latin America as backward and still have enough reserves of bigotry to take an ineffectual swipe at China.
   150. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:09 PM (#4079302)
I'd love to see the Tridentine done in English some time, though.

I think this would be great. If I had my say on what the 1960's revision of the Mass would have been, it would have been a hybrid Latin/Vernacular, but keeping the Mass exactly the same.

The parts that are the same every day/week, you keep in Latin and the people learn (e.g. Gloria, Canon, Our Father, Creed, etc.).

The things that change daily/weekly you do in vernacular (e.g. Gospel, Epistle, Introit, Collect.
   151. Lassus Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:15 PM (#4079304)
It took me a while to figure out what "Episcopalian" meant. I know Americans had a different word for the Anglican Church, but I always forgot what it is. Actually, is that an American thing, or a everywhere outside the Commonwealth thing? And what are the origins of the name change, I've always been curious.

Thanks, I always forget this, should know better. It's the ANGLICANS who really are responsible for keeping alive decent choral music more than anyone else.

   152. Swedish Chef Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:18 PM (#4079305)
It's the ANGLICANS who really are responsible for keeping alive decent choral music than anyone else.

And it all happened because Henry VIII wanted to get rid of that #####.
   153. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4079307)
Amd all because Henry VIII wanted to get rid of that #####.

Proving that treating women like objects to be discarded when they are no longer useful to you is quite often in the best interests of humanity as a whole.
   154. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:29 PM (#4079314)
Proving that treating women like objects to be discarded when they are no longer useful to you is quite often in the best interests of humanity as a whole.


What about treating objects like women?
   155. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:31 PM (#4079316)
What about treating objects like women?


That's usually just the sign of a midlife crisis.
   156. Monty Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:32 PM (#4079317)
What about treating objects like women?


Sinful.
   157. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:40 PM (#4079318)
What about treating objects like women?

I don't like your jerk-off name. I don't like your jerk-off comment. I don't like your jerk-off behavior, and I don't like you, jerk-off. Do I make myself clear?

EDIT:
And now I'm REALLY hoping you were going for the Dude there...
   158. zenbitz Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:40 PM (#4079319)
Hey, I didn't realize that Anglican and Episcopalian were the same, either!

Snapper you might have a point if, in practice, Christian (or really, many Jewish or Moslem as well) churches treat adultery and premarital sex the same way they threat homosexual sex. Even if "by the book" they do. Catholicism is actually one of the better churches in this regards.

In the end - it's not Religion that discriminates (against Gays, or whomever), it's people. Religion (often) just provides cover.

   159. zenbitz Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:42 PM (#4079322)
It was the part where you compared homosexuals to adulterers and thieves. Adulterers are cheats who break their presumably solemn marriage vows. Thieves steal others' property. Explain to me how homosexuals fit into that realm without resorting to quoting Scripture or antiquated sodomy statutes.


Snapper answered 133 - but honestly - it's religion, it doesn't have to be logical, we are lucky it's somewhat consistent.
   160. Ray (CTL) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:43 PM (#4079324)
Masturbation is a sin? Why?


Self explanatory.

:-)

Basically, any sexual gratification outside of that performed with your spouse is inherently selfish and/or does not further the goal of procreation-but-only-if-done-within-marriage.



   161. Walt Davis Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:48 PM (#4079325)
Also, in the US (and increasingly so), there is a distinction (within the Episcopal church) between Episcopalian and Anglican -- which was partly low and high to start with but now is all about gay and women priests/bishops, the holy spirit, etc. Many US "Episcopal" churches have affiliated themselves with non-US dioceses (Africa particularly popular) which are more conservative. This has led to the program that Snapper mentioned of the Catholic church recruiting Episcopalians, including Anglican clergy while allowing them to remain married.

Was a bit surprised when I showed up one year at my Jesuit high school (77 or so) to find my former Anglican parish priest (well he was the #2 or #3 guy on the totem pole) teaching there and converted to Catholicism (and presumably Jesuit although I think I just assumed that rather than checked it) and a priest (he was unmarried). He objected to the ordination of women which had recently started.

If I learned anything at high Anglican church it's that god doesn't pay attention if there aren't at least 7 people on the altar. If it's a feast day, better have at least two thurifers. Had a proper pipe organ too and a professional choir too.

Also a fairly large gay congregation. Location, location, location!
   162. Zonk is a Doorknob Whisperer Posted: March 12, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4079326)

I don't like your jerk-off name. I don't like your jerk-off comment. I don't like your jerk-off behavior, and I don't like you, jerk-off. Do I make myself clear?


It's a sign of this site's continued quality that this has now been used in two different threads today.
   163. tshipman Posted: March 12, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4079332)
Fine. Then the churches would have no restrictions on their political activity. I'll be glad to see more Christian influence in politics.


Yes, a greater focus on helping the poor and sick would be lovely.

Oh, you mean a greater focus on regulating women's vaginas?

No thanks, Pharisee.
   164. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 08:15 PM (#4079341)
133 It's a sin. Just as mortal as adultery or stealing.


Or idolatry or praying to men.
   165. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: March 12, 2012 at 08:16 PM (#4079342)
It's a sign of this site's continued quality that this has now been used in two different threads today.


Agreed. The knowledge that you can reference about anything and have someone get it makes this site great.
   166. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: March 12, 2012 at 08:40 PM (#4079351)
It's a view held by the vast majority of the worlds' population
This is also true of the notion that soccer is the greatest sport in existence.
   167. Poulanc Posted: March 12, 2012 at 08:49 PM (#4079357)
Good for you. This article has nothing to do with baseball.



I know this is late, but couldn't the same be said for several articles that are posted here? For example, what about the article about the bullpen catcher for the Mets who got the DUI? Don't both of these articles have an 'equal' amount to do with baseball?
   168. Downtown Bookie Posted: March 12, 2012 at 08:51 PM (#4079360)
And if you wanted I'm sure you could be a bible-thumping fundamentalist and accept homosexuality. It's been awhile since I thought about the finer points of theology, but the New Testament does invalidate the dietary requirements from the Mosaic law, it would be possible to read that as an exemplar of a broader invalidation of that law, including the ones about homosexuality.


In an effort to demonstrate how this could be so, consider the following passage:

Matthew 25:31-46
New International Version (NIV)
The Sheep and the Goats

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”


Jesus is the speaker in the above passage, and (if one is to take Jesus' words literally) it seems pretty clear that entry into the Kingdom will be based upon things other than sexual orientation or practice (or religious beliefs, or a whole host of other things that people seem to think are important, for that matter).

Again, for the record, I'm quoting the above just in case anyone read post #145 and was wondering how it could be possible for someone to "be a bible-thumping fundamentalist and accept homosexuality." Hopefully the cited passage makes the answer to that question clear.

DB
   169. The Keith Law Blog Blah Blah (battlekow) Posted: March 12, 2012 at 09:05 PM (#4079367)
And astonishingly, very civil.

Active homosexuals are welcome right along with the adulterers, and thieves.

Heh.
OF COURSE MASS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SHOW
High Mass, not low Mass.


Left Mass, too, if you've ever been to Northampton.
   170. DanG Posted: March 12, 2012 at 09:08 PM (#4079368)
Regarding the new Missal translation.

It started with the Second Vatican Council, which called for a translation of the mass that would be more relevant and understandable by people in their own language. A translation for English-speaking people was issued in 1973 and is the mass that most of us are accustomed to hearing. Before long it was realized that this translation had significant problems and a process was begun to perfect the translation.

The guiding principle was "dynamic equivalence" which stresses the importance of transferring meaning, not grammatical form. A committee consisting of every kind of scholar worked for 15 years producing a new translation and in 1998 it was approved by the world's English-speaking Catholic Conferences.

However, the Vatican's Congregation of Divine Worship delayed final approval and in 2001 they rejected it for no good reason. The Vatican put its own team to the task. The translation we now use is the result of this covert process.

An article "Erasure of Vatican II extends to new Missal—affecting 400 Million!" has more details.
   171. Booey Posted: March 12, 2012 at 09:39 PM (#4079388)
What about treating objects like women?


Like what that kid did to the pie in American Pie? C'mon, now. We were all young once. :)
   172. Morty Causa Posted: March 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM (#4079397)
Mmmm, pie a la commode.
   173. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 12, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4079406)
Post #2 on this thread was about Paul Konerko's 2010 OPS+.
   174. DA Baracus Posted: March 12, 2012 at 11:16 PM (#4079421)
I owe AG#1F an apology. This thread got funny.
   175. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: March 12, 2012 at 11:31 PM (#4079425)
This is also true of the notion that soccer is the greatest sport in existence.

Well I enjoy football as much as the next non-American. But to call it the greatest sport? No, the most popular, definitely. I still reckon the best live sports are ice hockey and hurling. Best TV sports are baseball and rugby league.
Yeah, I'm trying to hijack it away from religion...
   176. PerroX Posted: March 13, 2012 at 12:11 AM (#4079442)
Sex is inherently selfish. But it's best when the boundary between he and she dissolves completely.
   177. Morty Causa Posted: March 13, 2012 at 12:21 AM (#4079447)
That's a pretty sexist thing to say.
   178. Something Other Posted: March 13, 2012 at 12:34 AM (#4079449)
Are they supposed to be going away? I didn't know. Guess we gotta squeeze them in before the censors come in and regulate what we talk about.
The sad, funny thing is that the Castro thread, the deleted, 8,000+ post thread, was by broad agreement one of the best political threads seen on this site, and it wasn't the casualty of nasty talk by posters, but of Dan Szymborski, ostensibly a moderator, who barged into the thread, insulted people, pretended offense then deleted the thread in order to cover his tracks. He promptly exhibited the same bizarre, aggressive, insulting behavior in the thread a couple of days later given over to discussion of the closed thread.

Dan's behavior is the only reason this became an issue, and a problem.

Side comment: I had to go to pre-baptism class last Saturday, since one of my best friends asked me to be his kids Godfather.

I was shocked at some of the wacky stuff said by the people giving the class. At a minimum, some of what they said got very close to Nestorism ("God sent his Son to us", without any of the "JC is part of the Trinity, you know" stuff) and Zoroastrism ("In the end there will be a battle between Light and Darkness, and the Light will prevail").

What shocked me was that this was being read from an official church book.
The unofficial stuff is even wackier. The strongest impression I have, by far, when I talk to people about their beliefs, is that the deity is in fact their very personal guardian angel. That guardian angel regularly communicates with them through obscure indications and signs, often to the point of using other people's lives as object lessons to them. The angel also regularly intervenes in the subject's life, but in incomplete ways, such as enabling an elderly car to get the subject back to town, but not home. Another frequent claim is that the subject has no idea what this god is supposed to do, and whether it has any role in other people's lives.


I always kind of liked Sweeney as a player, so it's disappointing to see him endorse someone like Santorum.

I've come to terms with the fact that probably almost all of the pro athletes I watch do not share my political views. And I'm fine with this, unless the player is promoting outright bigotry.

I always kind of liked Sweeney as a player, so it's disappointing to see him endorse someone like Santorum.
   179. DA Baracus Posted: March 13, 2012 at 12:41 AM (#4079450)
The sad, funny thing is that the Castro thread, the deleted, 8,000+ post thread


The first two pages were hilarious (and had nothing to do with politics).
   180. Something Other Posted: March 13, 2012 at 12:41 AM (#4079451)
Say what? I never clicked on that one because I'm not much of a Simpsons devotee, but as a certified zombie obsessive I should have been notified!
It was a great thread. We were in the middle of devising a credible zombie/virus outbreak including zombie fungi when I got caught up in work and lost track of it. For all I know a complete zombie novel was written in the thread.

Not a bad idea, actually.
   181. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 13, 2012 at 01:26 AM (#4079465)
No thanks, Pharisee.
Which would be my cue to point out that using "Jew" as an insult for Christians is not, strictly speaking, kosher.
   182. CrosbyBird Posted: March 13, 2012 at 02:09 AM (#4079476)
I don't like your jerk-off name. I don't like your jerk-off comment. I don't like your jerk-off behavior, and I don't like you, jerk-off. Do I make myself clear?

I'm sorry. I wasn't listening.
   183. Chicago Joe Posted: March 13, 2012 at 02:34 AM (#4079482)
Which would be my cue to point out that using "Jew" as an insult for Christians is not, strictly speaking, kosher.


Isn't that a little more like calling someone a "Democrat"? I think tshipman meant "Sadducee".
   184. Greg K Posted: March 13, 2012 at 04:56 AM (#4079496)
Isn't that a little more like calling someone a "Democrat"? I think tshipman meant "Sadducee".

I think it's a bit more like saying calling someone a leftist is making a claim about where he liked to sit during the French Revolution. English borrows words from other cultures and attaches non-culturally specific meanings to them. For instance we had a reference to government running amok in another thread today. Does it matter that the US government had little in common with Malaysia?
   185. Ron J Posted: March 13, 2012 at 05:48 AM (#4079501)
#106 I assume you are familiar with Mathematical model of a zombie attack

From the intro: we model a zombie attack, using biological assumptions based on popular zombie movies.
   186. Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee) Posted: March 13, 2012 at 06:50 AM (#4079508)
we model a zombie attack, using biological assumptions based on popular zombie movies.
This paper is a good start, but when the inevitable zombie outbreak happens, the most important thing to know is what to do next.

And that's where the In Case of Emergency podcast comes in. Highly suggested listening. They've tackled the greatest questions of our time, like how to prepare for zombie outbreaks, how to survive psycho-hillbillies, and what to do if you're being hunted for sport.
   187. BrianBrianson Posted: March 13, 2012 at 08:28 AM (#4079532)
Plenty of denominations don't hold the Bible as infallible truth.


That's at least nominally true (e.g., see the previous comment about Unitarians), but the usual idiom here is "one bad apple spoils the bunch", and there's a lot more than one bad apple. It's not like the objectionable parts were left in for historical reasons but ignored in practice, or even that the objectionable practices were historically (or currently) a minority. It's mostly bad apples, and the amount of labour one has to go through to find the good ones suggests that they're best used for fodder (to stick with the apple metaphor).

I got married in a United Church, one with a rainbow flag out front, etc., by a thrice married priest who wouldn't have believed us if we'd claimed we hadn't slept together yet (though we had, don't get me wrong). But I still found it sketchy - why associate yourself with such a dirty past, and present, if you want to disown it?
   188. bookbook Posted: March 13, 2012 at 08:31 AM (#4079536)
This to me IS the big problem though. Even in the truly rare cases where the translation could stand on its own as a great piece, I can't appreciate it. Because I am aware of the original, I am constantly asking myself whether or not the translation it being accurate, or whether the original author was trying to convey something totally different. And the constant doubt in the back of my mind really prevents me from being able to enkoy the work on its own merits."


All of which makes religion rather difficult. We don't have more than fragments of the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament" to you heretical types) in it's original language. We also know the New Testament was assembled into a canon daily late in the game. The foremost experts spend careers arguing over the translation and intent of a single (cultural context and vowel-free) word.

The original author(s) intent is very much an unknown.
   189. Zonk is a Doorknob Whisperer Posted: March 13, 2012 at 08:54 AM (#4079541)
Sex is inherently selfish. But it's best when the boundary between he and she dissolves completely.


You mean coitus?
   190. JPWF1313 Posted: March 13, 2012 at 08:54 AM (#4079542)
Regarding biblical translations you can find this on google but phyliss shafely's son is working on a translation based upon the principle that american style social conservatives are right about everything
   191. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: March 13, 2012 at 08:59 AM (#4079544)
And Moses said unto the Pharaoh, "Let my people negotiate their rights individually."
   192. Greg K Posted: March 13, 2012 at 09:01 AM (#4079545)
You mean coitus?

Don't be fatuous Jeffrey.
   193. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: March 13, 2012 at 09:14 AM (#4079552)
And Moses said unto the Pharaoh, "Let my people negotiate their rights individually."

*golf clap*
   194. Zonk is a Doorknob Whisperer Posted: March 13, 2012 at 09:31 AM (#4079559)
And Moses said unto the Pharaoh, "Let my people negotiate their rights individually."


*golf clap*


Pharaoh, all your methods have taught me is to separate my blood from bone.
   195. The Good Face Posted: March 13, 2012 at 09:48 AM (#4079574)
Regarding biblical translations you can find this on google but phyliss shafely's son is working on a translation based upon the principle that american style social conservatives are right about everything


I've found this to be an invaluable resource when digging into matters theological and eschatological.
   196. Answer Guy, without side hustles. Posted: March 13, 2012 at 09:52 AM (#4079577)
Now I'm going to have that song in head all day, #194. This was an entertaining thread for a whule...*sigh*
   197. JPWF1313 Posted: March 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM (#4079583)
Here is the Conservative Bible Project
among other things, the drafters note:

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
lack of precision in modern language
translation bias, mainly of the liberal kind, in converting the original language to the modern one.
Experts in ancient languages are helpful in reducing the first type of error above, which is a vanishing source of error as scholarship advances understanding. English language linguists are helpful in reducing the second type of error, which also decreases due to an increasing vocabulary. But the third -- and largest -- source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.[3]


What principles guided these translators?
Utilize Terms which better capture original intent: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent;[9] Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".


and
Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning


and

Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story


Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."


   198. OMJ, urban D machine Posted: March 13, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4079606)
Because every minute you're alone jerking it is a moment you could be sharing the goods with a friend.


If only this were true...
   199. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM (#4079625)
I think it's a bit more like saying calling someone a leftist is making a claim about where he liked to sit during the French Revolution. English borrows words from other cultures and attaches non-culturally specific meanings to them. For instance we had a reference to government running amok in another thread today. Does it matter that the US government had little in common with Malaysia?
While I agree that that frequently happens in English, that's not the case here; the word is being used in accordance with its original referent - but as a slur. It's more like using the term "Indian giver" or something.

To be sure, I think the vast vast majority of people using the term think it refers to some extinct biblical group, like the Philistines or something. (I was going to say Samaritans, but it turns out that there still are some.)
   200. tshipman Posted: March 13, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4079644)
While I agree that that frequently happens in English, that's not the case here; the word is being used in accordance with its original referent - but as a slur. It's more like using the term "Indian giver" or something.


It's being used in the context of its use in the New Testament. It's a historical movement in Judaisim, most notable in Christian textual tradition for its sophistry and disingenuousness. My use of it was a reference to how the same group is condemned in the gospels. I don't get why you're taking issue with it--no one reading it mistook the meaning.

Actually, "sophist" is a good parallel example. The word is, similarly, a reference to a historical group (which probably gets a bum rap due to Plato disliking them.)
Page 2 of 22 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Tuque
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(1566 - 7:27am, Sep 21)
Last: --

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (September 2018)
(373 - 6:38am, Sep 21)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogIs Red Sox' slump temporary, or did they come back to earth?
(14 - 2:21am, Sep 21)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Sox TherapyIT’S OVER
(2 - 2:15am, Sep 21)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogWho needs Justice when you have OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 20, 2018
(159 - 1:01am, Sep 21)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(445 - 11:49pm, Sep 20)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogWillians Astudillo Should Be Your New Favorite Player
(19 - 11:41pm, Sep 20)
Last: QLE

NewsblogDodgers bash their way to MLB history with record-tying seven 20-homer hitters
(26 - 11:20pm, Sep 20)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogSnell wins 20th, ties Rays record in 4-0 victory over Texas
(45 - 11:10pm, Sep 20)
Last: Buck Coats

NewsblogIt's not a tantrum, it's a cry for OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 19, 2018
(91 - 10:35pm, Sep 20)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogThe Orioles became the first professional sports team to wear Braille jerseys
(52 - 9:50pm, Sep 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(817 - 9:32pm, Sep 20)
Last: Richard

NewsblogOrioles match club record with 107th loss, 5-0 to Blue Jays before tiny home crowd
(59 - 5:50pm, Sep 20)
Last: escabeche

Sox Therapy11 Days Later
(76 - 5:15pm, Sep 20)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

Sox Therapy6,036 Days
(15 - 2:49pm, Sep 20)
Last: Nasty Nate

Page rendered in 0.6714 seconds
46 querie(s) executed