We could all use some protection

Occasionally in the office we have external suppliers come in and give lunch and learn presentations so that we'd hopefully specify their products in our designs. I love these lunch and learns; the content and quality of the presentations vary wildly but I'm a sucker for free food, so I always go.

On Monday, we're having a presentation on Cathodic Protection of Concrete Structures:

For those who don't know, the big problem with concrete, especially near road surfaces in places where snow and ice is a problem, is the corrosion of the steel reinforcing bars (rebars) inside. Concrete is permiable, so dissolved chlorides come in and cause the steel to corrode. Concrete is also really strong in compression but really weak in tension. There are two main problems with this: 1) that rebar is there to give the concrete strength in tension, and if you remove some steel, then your concrete structure isn't as strong anymore, and 2) rust takes up more space than the original steel, so this results in tensile stresses within the concrete as the rust tries to expand, which will cause the outer cover of concrete to spall off. Very bad stuff.

Now there are a few ways to combat this. The main thing we do now that we didn't do in decades past is use much more concrete cover (thickness of concrete between the exposed surface and the rebar). This will greatly delay the ingress of chlorides. Other options are coating the rebar with epoxy so that the chlorides can't get to it or using stainless steel.

Cathodic protection is another method. In an electrochemical cell, the anode corrodes and the cathode doesn't. So if you connect a block of metal to your steel that has a higher electrochemical potential than steel, this will act as a sacrificial anode, itself rusting while pushing more electrons into the steel and preventing it from rusting. You can also used impressed current cathodic protection, which uses a power source.

However, the email notice for the lunch and learn said Catholic Protection.

With recent news out of Ireland, I guess it would be a good idea to have protection from Catholics.

Chain Letter Fail

This email was forwarded to me by my wife's younger sister. It demonstrates very clearly a helpless attitude towards life that I find very self-defeating. Oh, and if you routinely forward chain letters, you suck.

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

To: YOU
Date: TODAY
From: GOD
Subject: YOURSELF
Reference: LIFE


This is God. Today I will be handling All of your problems for you. I do Not need your help. So, have a nice day.


I love you. And, remember... If life happens to deliver a situation to you that you cannot handle, do Not attempt to resolve it yourself! Kindly put it in the SFGTD (something for God to do) box. I will get to it in MY TIME. All situations will be resolved, but in My time, not yours. Once the matter is placed into the box, do not hold onto it by worrying about it. Instead, focus on all the wonderful things that are present in your life now. Should you decide to send this to a friend; Thank you. You may have touched their life in ways you will never know!


Now, you have a nice day.


God


God has seen you struggling, God says it's over.

A blessing is coming your way. If you believe in God, please send to ten people (including me) please don't ignore this. You are being tested.



YOU HAVE 20 MINUTES TO TELL 10 FRIENDS THAT YOU LOVE THEM (INCLUDING ME)



I LOVE YOU! GO!

Alpha Course Day 10: Does God Heal Today?

Dinner: Really really mild chili, to which I added a lot of crushed chilies. Side salad. Coffee cake. Pretty plain day for food, actually. At least it was edible.

Part 1: Sermon

Gumbel starts with a long story about a powerful session of faith healing at his church in Brompton. An American preacher named John Wimber came in. He was loud and boisterous and un-British; Gumbel claimed to be suspicious of him, as he was too obnoxious for the restrained British types in the church.

Google searching reveals nothing substantial in the way of skeptical criticism of Wimber's healing act. No allegations he's like Peter Popoff. That isn't to say that there isn't any criticism of Wimber, but all of it is from other Christians who disagree with some or all of his hyper-charismatic views (calling him a charlatan and a blasphemer). From their articles, I can't really tell if they think Wimber's manifestations of the gifts of the spirit (ie. healings) are real (but demonic) or phony.

Of course, it can be very hard to debunk the specifics of each claim when the faith healers themselves, who claim to help heal thousands of people, tend to avoid giving out names and dates. The fact is, even many Christians have seen Wimber in action and have not been impressed.

Some (who are also critical of Alpha) attack Wimber for being too influenced by the New Age movement.

If you have 30 minutes, here's a video of John Wimber in action. Action starts at around 2:50. Note his use of "words of knowledge," which are what Wimber calls the supernatural epiphanies he receives from God regarding each ailment in the audience: pictures, sympathy pain, words, etc.

Anyway, Wimber was also, in his pre-ministry career, a producer and occasional keyboardist for the Righteous Brothers, who went on to record a few songs that made it to the soundtrack of the movie Ghost. Food for thought.

Importantly, Gumbel's accounts of the healings were like a damned infomercial. First is the disclaimer: man is healed mainly through modern medicine, in fact, nearly all healings are due to medicine. There are very few miracles, he says, and that, when you pray for healing, healing doesn't always - or even usually - happen. Only then does Gumbel go on to talk about his parish's experiences with Wimber, and how in every case, he was able to both identify and heal - Every. Single. Ailment. - in the room. It's almost sickening.

After this long sales pitch, Gumbel goes to explain that healing is in the bible both in the Old Testament and the New.

The New is where most of the focus is. Apparently, 25% of the Gospels focus on Jesus's healing works. There is also mention that much of the time healing is preceded by anointing the sick with olive oil. What is that about? Does God need someone to be greasy in order to heal them? Kind of nonsensical. Anyway, Gumbel also explains that when we pray for healing it is not us that heals the sick, it is God. So this comes right back to the silliness of praying for a specific outcome: either God's a dick who wants you to beg, or your prayer isn't really doing anything since God's going to heal or not heal depending on his wishes, not yours.

Gumbel explained that until the redemption of our bodies after the 2nd coming of Jesus, not everyone will be healed. Right now, God's just teasing us with only occasional healing. This segment of the sermon was full of fanciful descriptions of how wonderful everything will be once Jesus returns.

Even the work of modern faith healers are held to be biblically supported, as the disciples are commanded by Jesus to go out and heal. There are a couple of funny implications to this. First, the bible makes it seem that healing is almost guaranteed if the prayer is righteous enough. So any real pastor of disciple should be able to heal a consistently high percentage of the time, not this rare healing stuff. Secondly, the bible says that the healing of the sick is intended by God to be evidence of his power and the coming of the Kingdom of God. If healing as supposed to be evidence for the skeptical, then why aren't scientific studies into the effectiveness of prayer healing effective?

He also says that if you pray and the victim is not healed it's not due to you having not enough faith, despite what the bible implies. He finishes with an odd call to persevere: “The reason I go on praying is not so much that I've seen masses of people healed, but because Jesus commanded us to do it. And that's why I would go on doing it even if NO ONE was healed”

I guess the theme of today's sermon is 'mixed messages.'

Part 2: NOT Small Groups

There was no small groups time after this sermon. Instead, there was a special healing session. Lights were turned low and some crappy Christian soft pop music was put on in the background. Little enclosures (resourcefully made out of cubicle walls and dividers) were set up. The group leaders each sat behind each one and every person who wanted to be prayed over due to an ailment could go join one of the group leaders within the enclosure and pray about their ailment. Many people, I'd hazard a guess of about 60%, partook in the private healing sessions, including my wife for a minor skin ailment.

The next week, no one came running in proclaiming that they were healed. I know my wife's problems haven't improved at all.

I'm not surprised.

Like a rotten egg

The weather is getting better and that means gardening. With my wife out of town for work, that means I have to do it. The nice old couple who sold us the house told us we had to spray certain trees and bushes with this 2-in-1 protective formula that you have to mix from two separate bottles yourself. One is just a sulphur solution, ripe with the smell of rotten eggs. The other is some chemical that I didn't bother reading up on too much.

So I'm mixing up the concoction in a bucket, 2 parts sulphur to 1 part the other stuff, and it occurs to me that I have no funnel and no ready to go spray bottle. I have to cannibalize a half-empty bottle of Fantastik and make a funnel out of junk mail and Scotch tape. So I get large quantities of the sulphur and chemical mixture everywhere and the spray bottle is leaking all over my hands. I decide to read the label on the side of the sulphur bottle. It says: if ingested, induce vomiting. "Good to know," I think to myself. It also says that it's okay to be sprayed on any deciduous tree. After spraying my Japanese maple, I decide to read the label of the bottle of the mystery chemical: if ingest, do NOT induce vomiting. Goody. It also says: Do not use on Japanese maple.

So I probably just killed my tree and I stink like sulphur and have likely poisoned myself since I can't induce vomiting nor suppress it. And, you know, I don't think it matters because it's great BBQ weather right now and I feel pretty damn good. I decided to get reacquainted with an old friend, otherwise known as reading outside soaking up enough sun to get skin cancer, which I did a lot back in grad school (the reading, not the getting skin cancer part) but haven't had much time to do since starting work. I would probably go to the waterfront to read and bring a chair and sun myself except that the waterfront doesn't have beer.

No longer concerned with stinking of sulphur and poisoning myself with gardening chemicals, I am content to poison myself in other ways. Alcohol-related ways. So I'm now sitting in the backyard sucking back a couple of Grolsches, BBQing up some pork chops for lunch, and reading a popular history book that seems unduly concerned with emphasizing just how gay Alexander the Great was. Aside from being flaming gay (or at least strongly bi), Alexander was a notoriously hard drinker and I'd like to think that the great man would strongly approve of my afternoon plans. So crack open the BEvERage of your choice and enjoy that sunshine.

How does God fare on the Ten Commandments?

I was recently at an Easter church service with my wife. On a typical Easter, the typical pastor will say typical things about why we need salvation. This guy was typical. So what did he say?

Succinctly, he posed the rhetorical question, 'Why do we need salvation?' His answer, 'Because we fall short of the glory of God, silly.'

We all fail, we all sin. And how do we sin? At the very least, look at the 10 Commandments (the popular one, not the actual one). He will guarantee that we in the audience have broke at least one of them (hopefully not murder, hehehe - actually, this shows that they can tell that not all sins are created equal, even though they say that to God, any sin = 100% evil). Therefore, we are sinners and cannot approach God's perfection.

Is this fair, though? Is God really perfect compared to us using just the 10 Commandments as a guide?

I don't think so.

Firstly, many of the commandments just don't apply to God. For instance (1) have no God before me and (2) no idols. These make no sense since God knows for sure there are no other gods nor does he need to pray. Also (5) honour thy father and thy mother makes no sense as God has no father and mother (though good ol' Jesus does honour his father, so good on him, though his father is also himself. (3), which is to not wrongfully use the name of God, also makes no sense if you are God. I suppose God could steal from people (8), but that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.

So right away, half of the Ten Commandments are not applicable to God, so he's on a relative easy street compared to humans.

What about the rest?

(4) Keeping the Sabbath holy? Well, God did set the standard by resting during the creation in Genesis. However, I'd classify God's work as listening to and responding to all those prayers on Sunday. Perhaps, though, Sabbathing only strictly means taking one day in seven to rest and pray, as I've heard some pastors say. Does that mean God doesn't respond to prayers one day a week? That would result in some messed up Christians, eh? Partial PASS.

I don't recall God bearing false witness against his neighbour (9). Not sure. God does lie and trick to a certain extent, but spreading lies about people? I'll give it a PASS, unless one of you provides a better example.

(10), which is to not covet anything belonging to a neighbour. Well, he wants sacrifices in the OT, but I'm not sure if he covets them in the strict sense of the word. He's also a jealous god, wanting the attention and prayers of the humans to himself, but again, this isn't really a possession he wants. God does want 10% of your money, though. Partial PASS.

How about (7) adultery? Well, was Mary married before God impregnated her? That's unclear but I say FAIL for putting it really damn close.

(6) Murder? You bet - turning people into pillars of salt, destroying towns, flooding the earth, killing the first born of Egypt. Massive, massive FAIL.

So, by my count, God himself is only actually passable on three of the Ten Commandments - and even then, only barely - and he even gets to bail on five of them. What chance does a human have?

King Aardvark has been Kidnapped!

No, this is not an April Fool's joke. Well, it could be, but it would require my mom to have a better sense of humour than I give her credit for.

Here is the email I received from my mom this morning:

Hi KA:

I dreamt last night that you have been kidnapped. Please email me back ASAP that you are not.

Love, mom

This is worrisome. She's usually a practical person who wouldn't care about such irrational fears. I had to email her back and tell her that I had was fine.

If I had been thinking more clearly I could have made some money out of this. I need it.

Confession: I LIKED Passion of the Christ

The post I did the other day on Christianity, torture, and crucifixion got me thinking about Mel Gibson's snuff film, The Passion of the Christ.

My wife made me go with her to watch it when it was released a few years back. I wasn't keen, but I wasn't too unhappy. I was curious, and I went in with low expectations (Low expectations are key; with low enough expectations, you can go into the crappy Matthew Broderick Godzilla movie and come out not satisfied).

And it turned out that I quite liked it. Why?

First, there were no trailers or ads. I hate those, there were none, so I was happy. Production values were decent, so that's a plus, too.

But more importantly, by treating it not as a serious spiritual experience¹ but as a dark comedy, I had a great time.

For instance, for those of you who haven't seen The Passion but have seen the Simpsons episode where Ned starts making hyper-realistic biblical films, it's EXACTLY like that. Completely hyperviolent. The devil is covered in hyper-creepy-crawly things. It's great fun.

When Pontius Pilate offered Barabas to the mob to try to get them to pardon Jesus and they all chose to kill Jesus anyway, he had this wonderful "what the hell are you idiots smoking?" look on his face that was comedy gold. Not as good as Biggus Dickus, but still good.

It was funny in a cute way when Jesus was having a flashback to making a tall modern table. His mom was so confused.

When the Roman soldiers where nailing Jesus to the cross, one soldier complained that the other was doing a crappy job, gave him the boot and took over. (Sounds like my mom.) Still funny.

And of course, the torture was fun, too.

I'm messed up. But it was great. I laughed out loud several times. The rest of the audience probably thought I was nuts.

And, because it was mainly a snuff film, despite the subject matter, there was hardly any religious content.

I would not protest too much if I had to see it again.

¹ Some of my Alpha Course group members were discussing it and saying how "spiritually uplifting" it was. I'm messed up for thinking torture is funny, but they're even more messed up than me!

The Big Alpha Fight

Finally, here it is. The event you've been waiting for, that I've been promising for four months: the big fight I had with the church elder at the Alpha Course weekend retreat. Events that follow are from hurredly-scribbled notes I took after we got back from the weekend. Hopefully, not too many of the details have been lost or corrupted in the retelling.

Sorry to say, but I did not behave in a very respectable, high-road manner in this argument with the elder. Fortunately, I did not have an audience other than my wife. In general, I blame the complete lack of sleep. More specifically though, I blame the fact that I had been there for a couple of days already, surrounded by nothing but mind-numbing Christian talk, and told that finally here was the wise man - the one who knew so much more than the regular Alpha group leaders - who would have the very best most convincing answers for me. Then this old, well-spoken, seemingly intelligent person sits down and begins to speak with the mind-blowing wisdom that I've waited two months for with bated-breath:

"What about the eye?"

Fuck.

I just went off the handle. I hope you can forgive me.

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

For some time, my wife had been very, very eager for me to speak to the church elder who'd be present during the Alpha retreat weekend. Both she and our group leader had wanted me to write down all my questions to ask him, if not during the large group discussion, then whenever I could get a moment to speak to him in private (I didn't bother). I had been told several times by the group leader that he was wise, and that he had cleared up a lot of the questions she had when she first started getting serious about her religion. I had my doubts, but when the course started I was curious and somewhat looking forward to the opportunity to match wits with a church elder. But as the course dragged on, my enthusiasm waned. I really had little interest in the discussion anymore. By the Alpha weekend, things had not changed. The large group discussion further reinforced these apathetic feelings, as the elder just gave canned answers to inane theological questions.

While I really didn't feel like talking to him , he did make some comments I wanted him to clarify; it sounded like he was a biblical literalist but he was still essentially making shit up with respect to solving the "what to do about the deaf-dumb-blind guy who can't reasonably be expected to hear of Jesus" problem (see the end of the large group discussion post linked above). That said, I didn't care enough about it to seek him out and sit through a chat with him.

My wife, though, thought my curiosity about this question would be a great excuse to get me to sit down and talk to the elder (and hopefully be converted, I'll bet).

So immediately after games night had ended, she hunted the elder down and told him that I wanted to talk to him. Sigh. So he came to me and the three of us found an empty restaurant-style booth (conveniently located in the main rec room for such occasions) in which to sit (FYI, the table at the booth was covered in apologetics books they were trying to sell), me facing him with my wife beside me. I was on the inside. Trapped.

So I asked him to confirm his views on the deaf-blind-dumb guys, and how he thought God would come to them in some way when we couldn't, thus giving them a chance to accept or deny God. He said he's sure God is good and that he would do this for people Christians couldn't reach. I said "But that's not in the bible." He said that of course the bible is the most important thing in determining what it means to be Christian, but he wouldn't say exactly how his idea fit into this.

I asked him if he was a biblical literalist. He said that he essentially was. I decided that I really didn't care about his answer to the original question that much anymore. As long as I was here, I was going to go with other, more interesting questions, especially since he was just avoiding the problem of his idea not meshing with the bible anyway.

We established that he was a Young Earth Creationist. I didn't have a problem with that, but I wanted to explore the implications of his views, ie. living in a scientific world and the subsequent disagreements between his biblical literalist views and the scientific knowledge re: the age of the earth, evolution, geology, etc. So I asked him that question. He replied with a counter question about my beliefs. "Well I ask you this: How do you think the world came to be?"

I was game, so I explained evolution in a nutshell, from the common descent of humans and apes from an earlier ape ancestor, to a 4.5 billion year old earth with life arising somewhere around the -3.5 billion year mark, right down to the self-replication of chemicals in a nod to the problem of abiogenesis.

He then said, "Well look what you said. You said 'chemicals'. Now, how do you explain the chemicals?"

"No no no no no," I said, finger waggling nay-nay. "I know where you're going with this, some argument about the origins of the universe, cosmological, first mover 'Who made the chemicals?' stuff. I've heard it before. And honestly, I'm willing to accept a little lack of understanding. Scientists are working on it, and we may never know, but I accept not knowing as a possibility. But we weren't talking about that. I wanted to know about you reconciling YEC with modern science."

"Where do you get the 100s of billions of years-"

"About 4.5 billion for the earth, 12-14 for the universe," I interjected.

He continued,"-the billions of years you need for evolution. Scientists thought it was a few thousand, then a million, then a few hundred million, then billions," insinuating that science was untrustworthy. I got annoyed and went on a tirade about the powers and achievements of science in the very short amount of time since the scientific revolution, and how without it, we'd likely all be dead from disease right now.

He said, "But many scientists, you'd probably heard of them, believe in creation." I told him I didn't need to hear his list, but I suspect it was the same one as Nicky Gumbel listed in his Alpha introduction video (mainly pre-Darwin, pre-Hubble, guys like Newton, etc.); if so, it's amazing how they act like the Alpha attendees are so stupid or inattentive that we can't remember the basic course material. Sadly, for many of the attendees, this seems to be true. I hand-waved it away, asking for the actual evidence, not just the fact that there are scientists who are Christian.

He said that scientists have discovered a lot of new evidence that points back toward God. I said that was unlikely. He replied:

"What about the eye? What good is half of one?"

At that, MY eyes rolled so far that I almost ended up with half an eye.

I merely replied, "The eye????" and turned away with a big theatrical sigh.

Realizing that I had to say something instead of just getting up and leaving (remember, sitting in the inside seat of a booth), yet wanting to leave, I continued by saying, "I don't have time to teach you all of biology starting from grade 1 up to the university level."

"Look, you said your piece, now let me say mine." Then he went on regurgitating his beliefs ad nauseum. He followed that by accusing me of dodging questions, especially regarding the origin of chemicals.

I got offended. I told him that he never did answer about how he reconciled science and creationism, other than saying he felt science was wrong just because scientists have changed their conclusions over the centuries. I would like for him to read more science texts to gain a better understanding of the method and the evidence, and maybe a little of Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World. I'd like to think that it would help, but somehow I doubt he'd be that open-minded.

We yelled a lot and talked over each other. Then I got really annoyed and shut it down. We had stopped looking at each other when we spoke. I had my arms crossed and let out a loud, frustrated sigh of exasperation. Eventually, I said we should calm it down and switch to another topic. He agreed.

My wife volunteered that I was really interested in history. Figuring that was as good a place to go as any, I said that one of the main failings of Christianity for me was how poorly supported it was historically. I wanted extra-biblical evidence for the events of the Gospels.

He gave Tacitus and Josephus as examples. I cut him off and said that they were not adequate contemporary evidence for the historicity of Jesus. They weren't written during the events in question and were probably written based on what Christians were saying about Jesus, not on any other historical documents.

He looked angry and frustrated. "I can't be responsible for your preconceptions."

"My preconceptions can't be responsible for your horrible arguments."

His turn to sigh. Slowly, deliberately, he said "Well, I'm probably not as smart as you."

Make no mistake, this was not an admission of being beaten in an argument, rather, I'm pretty sure it was a set-up to an argument to prove my intellectual failings. I countered, saying that I didn't think he was stupid and really couldn't say if I was smarter than him, for he seemed like an eloquent and well put-together person. (This was a little modest, since, while he did appear pretty smart, I'm fairly certain I am much smarter than him - that's the conceit of having a Masters of Applied Science and twice getting the highest average in my highschool without really trying.)

I think he was trying to maneuver into a "my mind is down here" (holds hand about a foot off the table) "and yours is up here" (holds hand about 2 feet off the table) "but God's mind is way up there" (pointing at the ceiling) "so who are you to make decisions as to what God can and can't do" argument (similar argument to the degree of goodness argument), but I think the modesty/counter-modesty battle derailed his point as he got distracted and went onto a different topic.

He told me that I should read the bible, because people read the bible and then they believe. He mentioned CS Lewis, and asked if I had heard of him, because CS Lewis, the great author, started as an atheist, but he read the bible and it made him into a Christian. He spoke as if I either never heard of CS Lewis or never heard the story about him coming to Christianity. It's amazing that someone whose arguments come directly from Alpha doesn't seem to realize that almost every Alpha sermon mentions CS Lewis and his conversion.

I said that it sounds fair, and I'll consider reading the bible once I had some time and energy. I added that he should read some science books and that I'd be happy to recommend some.

The elder ignored that and went back to CS Lewis. "I want you to think about something. CS Lewis said that Christianity, if true, is of utmost importance, and if false, it's of no importance. But if it's of the utmost importance, shouldn't you learn as much as you can about it?"

I asked, "How do you mean? I consider it to be of moderate importance due to the societal and cultural impacts. Are you considering that?" The elder then made it clear that he just meant as a religion, not as a piece of culture.

Anyway, I said, "Well, how is that any different from any other religion? You can say the same thing about Islam, or Hinduism, or Zeus, so how is this an argument for Christianity?" He replied that it's not proof, just something for me to think about. "Why bother saying it then?" I exclaimed angrily. "I'm here at Alpha already, so obviously I'm trying to learn something. We're supposed to be talking about evidence."

At about this time, the energy was sapped from the table. I realized how sore my throat was from an hour of nearly screaming at the supposedly wise ignoramus across from me. I was sweaty. He looked rundown.

I felt like I'd just spent the past hour swinging a baseball bat at a reinforced concrete wall - a big, well-meaning, but dumb reinforced concrete wall. It really went nowhere and made me tired and frustrated.

Angry and mutually given-up, the two of us agreed to end the argument there with a strained handshake. I thanked him for showing patience and taking the time to talk. As we were getting up, he tried to get in the last word, reminding me to read the bible. I told him again to read some science as I turned and left, with my wife quickly following me.

The elder and I each made an effort not to speak to or look at each other for the rest of the weekend.

Conclusions:

I don't think I did a very good job in the argument. In large part, I think it was due to not really expecting the argument and therefore not really having a plan. I didn't know what points I wanted to make, what level of confrontation to employ, how much contempt or respect to show, etc. Hell, at several points, I couldn't decide whether or not to even bother staying in the discussion. Was I supposed to nonjudgmentally pick his brain? Was I supposed to engage in a heated logical debate? Was I supposed to remain calm and try to convert the old bastard? Was I supposed to just yell at him for his ignorance? I could never decide, and as a result, I did a little bit of each, and rather ineffectively at that.

All the while, my wife was great. Though she didn't say a word during the discussion, she was solid, sitting there with me, not interrupting or judging. She never got emotional. Afterward, she listened to what I had to say about my anger, frustration, and disappointment with the elder.

I think, those who most Christians regard as "elders" or "those who are much wiser" have exactly the same crap arguments as the religious neophytes who unthinkingly parrot those crap arguments. They have no greater understanding, no better arguments, no more balanced or rational thinking. When it comes to why they believe, they are no better than any other bible thumper; they are just older and more eloquent.

Final thought:

St Augustine said something to the effect that a Christian who knows little about a subject better stay silent about it, lest any unbelievers around won't pay him any mind when he starts proselytizing, as the unbeliever will think he is as full of crap regarding Christianity as he is with whatever other topic he was talking about.

I guess my point here can be best summarized as, "Hey! Old Guy! St. Augustine says you should shut the hell up."

Obama Reopens Embryonic Stem Cell Funding

Maybe it can cure the brain-wasting diseases of those opposed to embryonic stem cell research.

Good for Obama for bringing the US back to the 21st century with this one.

There is still a lot of messed up thinking about the issue of embryonic stem cell research. I was reading the comments on a yahoo news article and there was some crazy there. About 75% was pro-embryonic stem cell research, 15% opposed, and 10% waffling. One waffling response got me annoyed. The basic gist was telling people to "just admit that these are complex issues and there are good reasons for being on one side or the other. It is not just bible-thumping vs. bible-bashing."

I beg to differ. What, pray tell, are the good reasons for being against embryonic stem cells? Huh?

There are no good non uber-conservative theotard reasons for being fundamentally against embryonic stem cell research in the form being debated right now in the US. On balance: Clumps of cells with nothing resembling sentient thought + just going to be thrown in the biohazard waste bin anyway vs. very promising research into curing all manners of diseases and crippling injuries. Tell me again the non-dipshit reasons for being against this research?

I hate to be dismissive about this yahoo commentor. He probably doesn't even know he's being a dipshit. He's probably thinking that he's going to be the prudent ideological moderate, building bridges and fostering consensus, etc. He is not, and he is wrong.

This commentor has likely bought into the idea that virtue always chooses the mean (it does not - just sometimes, and not this time), that religion gains automatic respect, that language is more important than content, and other seemingly wise and tolerant anti-intellectual horseturd.

Christianity is torture

Crucifixions vs. mediaeval tortures, who wins?

The other day I was watching a series on the Discovery Channel about various torture and execution devices from a number of different era.

The first featured ancient devices (including wicker men) but focused on crucifixion. The show mentioned that crucifixion was extra horrible and painful due, strangely, to the way the victims are stretched out on the crucifix, which causes compression of the diaphragm. This encouraged victims to try to push up with their legs and create room for their lungs to breathe, but that only put more pressure on the ankle nails; hence victims control their own intense pain. Pretty neat.

But the followup mediaeval show had much more crazy stuff, including iron maidens, racks, pears¹, and thumb/head screws. These are dementedly thoughtful and intentionally painful, and the show didn't even mention some of the even more painful methods.

Crucifixion does have advantages in that it is pretty much a 'fire and forget' device. That said, the extra effort the mediaeval devices required enabled executioners to play on the minds of their victims, letting them anticipate the agony, thus making the torture that much worse. This isn't to deny that crucufixion wasn't horribly painful - it certainly was - yet when you hear most Christians talk about it, crucifxion usually "the most horrible, painful punishment" that humans have ever devised. Why is it that so many Christians deny the even more painful later inventions?

I have two guesses:

1) Christians always like to make their god-related stuff superlative - God is unstoppable; omnipotent-scient-benevolent; loves us like a parent, but to a greater greater extent than any parent, etc. So they make it sound like Christ's crucifixion has to be the most painful thing ever.

2) They ignore the mediaeval execution devices because these were the creation of other Christians. So they are conveniently neglected.

I have a third guess that, depending on how you look at it, is either less or more charitable: they simply don't know much about mediaeval torture. Maybe they just aren't as twisted as guys like me, who love this stuff (and gave a speech about it during a grade 8 public speaking contest).

¹Sadly, the mediaeval pears are not thought to be able to break jaws or kill people; they are merely painful gagging devices.