Rich Engle

These guys put on some of the best live shows I have ever seen. Notice the tasty accordion performance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=441-Vnv7cRY

Just make sure when you buy a whole chicken, or a turkey, that it comes with the guts in that little bag. Then, lightly sautee', whilst looking deeply into them for signs. rde And be careful getting rid of the neck--even the strongest dispose-all can't handle that action; trust me, last Thangsviging proved that when it reanimated itself.

Oh, wow, that is really cool! But don't tell too many people you are, or at least hang out with UU's. After all, I am the Resident Religionist<tm>. Is there a website for that? rde There Can Only Be One

I can tell you that's a screwup right there. The idea of "God" is psychological-political genius. It is powerful epistemology feeding on a metaphysical fantasy. The "God" out there is actually the "God" inside but moral equivalency comes from that idea mitigating the need for complex and always controversial philosophies. That is why Rand went too far with man-as-God or man as a god or godlike man or even man as a heroic being. Politically that can only devolve into fascism or other forms of secular tyranny. This doesn't mean religious sects don't fight it out. Simply, man is man with a plethora of various attributes and various sometimes fluctuating emphasis on those and one must start there to find true individualism. The only way for secular commonality is the championship of individual rights and leave religion in the church along with cultural philosophy which Objectivism consists mostly of as represented by Miss Rand. --Brant That is not "God." There are, by the way a billion other ways of saying it, I'm UU so I am sure of that. All that is, The Dao, The Mother, oh, the list goes on and on. It is a way of looking at what is sacred and beautiful in the Universe. Science is nothing without the love and reverence that informs it. Without that, it is just fucking data. Real insightful writing though, Brant. You're getting even better in your old age. Best, rde

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXHn7Fn97Ss

Yes! rde

The question in this thread is very hard to address, in that it is loaded, assumptive. rde

What on earth are you talking about? Not that I always know what you're talking about, but in this case it seems to be in a code worthy of the Zodiac killer. I'm just saying. But reports are always sketchy. I also heard that he has been hired on to write the next Trailer Park Boys movie. rde It's hard to follow the Great Ones.

I can tell you that's a screwup right there.

Yup, and the elapsed time clock is still running.

Take a look at www.thankgodforevolution.com as well as the work of many others who are integrating science and religion. Atheism is highly misunderstood, it always has been, even by atheists. A lot of them are agnostics. Atheism does not preclude having a deep feeling about how sacred and beautiful the universe is--a nested, emergent universe. Reason, reverence, and tolerance work quite well together. Look at what the scientists are saying. There's plenty of room for everyone. r Resident, uh . . ."religionist." <---puke

Don't think less of Tibor just because GHS likes him. I've seen his ups and downs (Tibor's, I mean--George's are more obvious) but you can't fault the man for being kind hearted, and also working his tail off. Those are two things you don't see operating together very often. rde I just heard GHS bought the Batmobile from that guy that just bought the Batmobile.

Actually, the first time I ~saw~ a copy of an Ayn Rand book (Fountainhead) was because my mother belonged to said club. I never read the thing. I thought it was a romance novel. It was sitting next to some other stuff. Wish I had nabbed it, but you know how it goes when empires burn and new ones emerge. It is the stuff of myth, and that is good in a certain way--story being the strongest form, and all that. Of course, it makes one wonder why a hardcore cult-of-personality Randian would think that impressive, what with it being compared to the Bible, and all. Just biz-as-usual in O-world, as far as I can tell. Why would it change now? Good point, enjoyed the read! rde

Actually, the first time I ~saw~ a copy of an Ayn Rand book (Fountainhead) was because my mother belonged to said club. I never read the thing. I thought it was a romance novel. It was sitting next to some other stuff. Wish I had nabbed it, but you know how it goes when empires burn and new ones emerge. It is the stuff of myth, and that is good in a certain way--story being the strongest form, and all that. Of course, it makes one wonder why a hardcore cult-of-personality Randian would think that impressive, what with it being compared to the Bible, and all. Just biz-as-usual in O-world, as far as I can tell. Why would it change now? Good point, enjoyed the read! rde

Michael and Connie Dowd have turned the volume up a notch, and for free, I might add. You might want to see who they are working with; read through it. This is a little past knee-jerking (or other forms involving tissues, for that matter). This Wed. I'd do it--I've seen these two work! www.evolutionizeyourlife.com rde 100% Endorsed.

There are some very strong inroads being made as far as the story of evolution goes. The integration work is definitely happening. Here's something from a collection of quotes Connie Barlow developed: http://www.thegreatstory.org/ClassicQuotes.pdf

Thank you. It's funny. I didn't really appreciate what I wrote until others did. I had to read it again and again. I thought it was a throw-away. At first I thought it was almost trite. It was just there and I wrote it down. "Appreciate" isn't the word. "Understand" is. In fact, I'm still trying to understand it. It's upsetting, it really is. Everybody wants to be in control. Few want to let it flow. I'm no exception. Something to work on. It's not what I said; it's this process. In that sense . . . --in that sense, it's grace. --Brant It was concise. It's sort of like what I notice in musical compositions: there are ones you labor away at, and ones that just come right out. Both good, but the latter ones almost always are leaner and meaner. What you wrote is a perfect capsule description of what represents a, if not the, most major concern within the spiritual communities. The good thing is there is no doubt that a lot of interfaith work is emerging to address the problem. Basically, there are some things that no one (sane, that is) cares to tolerate. Recently here in SW Florida, our church was asked to join one of these councils and we were surprised to find that there were things to work on that we could agree to even with some of the Fundamentalist brothers--and we knock heads with them constantly, what with being GBLT welcoming, evolutionist, having a pagan contention, and so forth. Some progress with certain Muslim contingents as well, although we don't have much opportunity for that locally as there just aren't that many around. r

Thank you.

Isn't it better to say things just as a human being? All life is an interconnected web. And I guess not being aware of that fact is where a lot of the trouble starts for all of us. rde We are all human beings, of that there is little doubt (well, except for some) but each of us follows a philosophy of one kind or another. Islam imparts a philosophy which shapes the person, as does Objectivism. Islam teaches that an adherents first loyalty should be to the Ummah, which transcends geographical and political boundaries. Islam has its own politics, a politics that is contrary to the principles of the United States. It is a valid question, especially seeing as I saw LM's post as being nothing but more of his moral equivalence. Pretty much all sacred writings, scriptures, have junk to be found in them somewhere. Spiritual practice is subject to evolution, just like everything else. And even those things within sacred texts that represent ecumenical truths are, like most things (Objectivism, say) subject to abuse and misuse, be it done consciously or otherwise. But when you are looking at the bad things, the really bad things, they are most often linked to the actions within the ecclesiastical part of religions (men, organizations, institutions). There are certain things that no true religion will condone--even if within its scriptures there is night language to be found here and there (older, usually) to the contrary. Religion evolves, fortunately--it does because all things must. The process, however, would seem incremental. After all, it took the Universe about 13.7 billion years to develop humans with higher brain functions--ones that are, in essence, allowing the Universe to look at itself. rde

Isn't it better to say things just as a human being? All life is an interconnected web. And I guess not being aware of that fact is where a lot of the trouble starts for all of us. rde

Thanks for sharing that stuff, Brant. I enjoyed reading it. The animation is mostly just funny stuff. It could have been the other way around for all that. . .

That's right.

No, still not quite it. Caps doesn't emphasize the exasperation levels. It has to be more, uh, sotto voce. I'm sure Italian musical terms are probably inherently evil (and maybe even Catholic sometimes) but that one is the best descriptor. Let me break it down for you, meat missile. 1. ~sigh~ 2.*sigh* These are the best ones, esp. when treated like PP's. If you get bored, you can use (occasionally) things like >sigh< and so on. But, this is tedious business, and I am not sure if it is worth the trouble. Either way, you son-of-two-strangers, you are not using it properly. Perhaps this will help expand your bullshit vocabulary; it has come to the aid of many. I am convinced you will find resonance in this (as a writer, or, perhaps, scrawler): rde Jesus try to keep up, boys . . .

Perhaps I was not clear, I misaddressed. IamBalSimon, on 10 May 2011 - 10:45 AM, said That should do it. rde Well, it gets rough when you are pointing heavy guns