Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Cowcatcher fails on ER's Train of Thought
It was a big steer. Five-year-old, looked like. An ox, actually. Fat. Slow. Chewing that cud. Dullard's eyes staring at nothing. Tail switching. Flies swarming. Bovine, in the truest sense of the word.Standin' right there on the tracks.
The critter was slowly chewin' the same bits of dry straw over and over and over, thick tongue slopping out the sides of its mouth, snot slingin', gas comin' and goin' from both ends, anus puckering like an old man's toothless old mouth before dumping a load of tobacco juice into a caked-over, 10-year-old off-brand coffee can -- shit plopping on the ties, rails, everything.
In plain sight. Not even in dappled shadows around a bend. Not even just beyond a rise. Just right there.
And I drove right into it.My cowcatcher flew one way, that stupid son-of-a-bitch steer flew another, and the ER Train of Thought derailed.
And here my train lies, engine busted and wheeeezing, coal car spilled, caboose toppled, engineER sprawled, bloodied, overalls torn, arms busted and legs akimbo.
It ain't a pretty sight.
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
I noticed in the Neil's Ass Blog that Jesus as the second "Adam" came up. That's always a problem. For if you believe that Adam is metaphorical and equate Jesus to him then you are placing Jesus in that category. Of course it works the other way around as well. But then again double think is standard issue in matters of religion.
And so ER I'm on the road in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Sparse interludes at your place will be the order for the present.
And so ER I'm on the road in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Sparse interludes at your place will be the order for the present.
After such heated, mindful debates, maybe the steer was just showing you the way to take a break.
Or maybe it was just out for some of that fundie candy. :-)
Or maybe it was just out for some of that fundie candy. :-)
Break. Maybe a severance.
I'm beginning to wonder how one can BE a Christian and be a biblical inerrantist, since the belief that the Bible is inerrant itself flies in the face of what the Bible says about there being nothing perfect but God in heaven!
Reliable for the gist of the Gospel? Yes! Sufficient unto salvation? Absolutely.
Inerrant? That's idolatry.
DrLobo: Holler when you get back. We need to go to lunch.
I'm beginning to wonder how one can BE a Christian and be a biblical inerrantist, since the belief that the Bible is inerrant itself flies in the face of what the Bible says about there being nothing perfect but God in heaven!
Reliable for the gist of the Gospel? Yes! Sufficient unto salvation? Absolutely.
Inerrant? That's idolatry.
DrLobo: Holler when you get back. We need to go to lunch.
I realize how extreme this might appear: "I'm beginning to wonder how one can BE a Christian and be a biblical inerrantist ..." But the feeling is mutual, as has been made plain to me. :-)
After reading and rereading the thread on Neil's Ass (and isn't that an interesting way to phrase it?), I have come away wondering why it is some people fell it necessary to tell other people not only how wrong they are, but how damned they are for being wrong. Bubba wanted an example of lack of graciousness, and it's very clear that his entire attitude lacks any sense that God doesn't really give a fart in a tornado whether or not we get our words right about who God is, what God's love demands for all persons in all places and times and circumstances. He, and Neil, and the long lost Marshall Art, and so many others seem to think it is far more important that we subscribe to the Divine Doctrine Club, receiving our monthly club selection of doctrine, rather than live out our own lives and figure it out on our own with the limited resources at our command, giving to God the opportunity to make up where we fail.
I don't think you were wrong, ER. At some point, it becomes necessary to call a son-of-a-bitch an SOB and be done with it. God loves Bubba and Neil and all the rest of them, and makes up where they fail, too. That they don't know that they fail, or where, well, that's the cross they bear. I won't carry their own, because my own keeps me on my knees.
I don't think you were wrong, ER. At some point, it becomes necessary to call a son-of-a-bitch an SOB and be done with it. God loves Bubba and Neil and all the rest of them, and makes up where they fail, too. That they don't know that they fail, or where, well, that's the cross they bear. I won't carry their own, because my own keeps me on my knees.
Me, too.
BTW, just how many antgels *can" dance on the head of a pin?? (Did you ever study the history of that???)
BTW, just how many antgels *can" dance on the head of a pin?? (Did you ever study the history of that???)
The answer is easy - all of them, because they are disembodied form. Being essential without being substantial, they have no measurable dimension. Grander than the created world, they do not exist with extension, thus they can all fit quite nicely on the head of a pin, or spread across the heavens in a mighty display.
I had a professor at Catholic University talk seriously about "angelology". When I laughed out loud, one would have thought I'd farted.
I had a professor at Catholic University talk seriously about "angelology". When I laughed out loud, one would have thought I'd farted.
:-) I like that answer.
I have always envisioned my guardian angel as resembling Swartzenegger in his prime: Total stuf, take no prisoners type, abs of steel, etc. :-)
Wasn't there a seriopus debate on the angel-pin thing in medieval times, early Reformation, or somewhere in there, or did I dream it?
I have always envisioned my guardian angel as resembling Swartzenegger in his prime: Total stuf, take no prisoners type, abs of steel, etc. :-)
Wasn't there a seriopus debate on the angel-pin thing in medieval times, early Reformation, or somewhere in there, or did I dream it?
Google knows. Google knows all.
To wit:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?)
Jump to: navigation, search
The question how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? is an example of an ontological argument. It has also been at times used as a trite dismissal: of medieval angelology in particular, of scholasticism in general, and of particular figures such as Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas.[1] Another variety of the question is How Many Angels Can Sit On The Head Of A Pin?
It is still a matter of discussion whether this precise topic has a historical foundation, in actual writing or disputation from the European Middle Ages. One theory is that it is an early modern fabrication[2], used to discredit scholastic philosophy at a time when it still played a significant role in university education. James Franklin has raised the scholarly issue, and mentions that there is a seventeenth century reference in William Chillingworth.[3] This is earlier than a reference in the 1678 The True Intellectual System Of The Universe by Ralph Cudworth. The modern currency in English (usually a needle, rather than a pin) may date back to Isaac D'Israeli.
Other possibilities are that it is a surviving parody or self-parody, or debating training topic. But George MacDonald Ross[4] identifies a close parallel in a fourteenth century mystical text.
To wit:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?)
Jump to: navigation, search
The question how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? is an example of an ontological argument. It has also been at times used as a trite dismissal: of medieval angelology in particular, of scholasticism in general, and of particular figures such as Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas.[1] Another variety of the question is How Many Angels Can Sit On The Head Of A Pin?
It is still a matter of discussion whether this precise topic has a historical foundation, in actual writing or disputation from the European Middle Ages. One theory is that it is an early modern fabrication[2], used to discredit scholastic philosophy at a time when it still played a significant role in university education. James Franklin has raised the scholarly issue, and mentions that there is a seventeenth century reference in William Chillingworth.[3] This is earlier than a reference in the 1678 The True Intellectual System Of The Universe by Ralph Cudworth. The modern currency in English (usually a needle, rather than a pin) may date back to Isaac D'Israeli.
Other possibilities are that it is a surviving parody or self-parody, or debating training topic. But George MacDonald Ross[4] identifies a close parallel in a fourteenth century mystical text.
(BTW, don't tell anybody, but I believe in angels. And demons. Although I'm not stuck on those particular labels for them, and I'm not married to the idea that they actually are "persons" as we understand the term.)
OK. Harrumph! I have waited all day for someone to comment on the BEST SIMILE EVER!
" ...anus puckering like an old man's toothless old mouth before dumping a load of tobacco juice into a caked-over, 10-year-old off-brand coffee can -- shit plopping on the ties, rails, everything."
LOLOL
" ...anus puckering like an old man's toothless old mouth before dumping a load of tobacco juice into a caked-over, 10-year-old off-brand coffee can -- shit plopping on the ties, rails, everything."
LOLOL
Besides, doedn't "Anus Puckering" -- maybe it should be spelled "Enos" -- sound like an 18the-century Puritan preacher?!?
LOLOL HOOT!
OK, OK. Google "anus puckering." I had no idea it was so common an expression. But then 222 hits ain't that much. (No porn, at least on the first page of hits.)
Post a Comment
OK, OK. Google "anus puckering." I had no idea it was so common an expression. But then 222 hits ain't that much. (No porn, at least on the first page of hits.)
<< Home
