TheMaker

For a guy who was "without sin," Jesus says and does a lot of deplorable things in the Bible, either directly or through various proxies who carry out certain deeds for him. He had his disciples steal corn (on the Sabbath, no less), he personally stole an ass, he drove a herd of pigs insane (causing them to throw themselves off a cliff), and so on. Christ's bigotry is on stark display in Matthew, where he is shown to refuse a Canaanite woman an exorcism (spoooooky magic!) due to the fact that she is a non-Jew (although, in the interest of fairness, the woman's ceaseless pleading and his own ex

A few statements which should be obvious on their face: first of all, this discussion may become tiresome at times, but it should never feel tired to any of us who have a personal stake in it. And I'm pretty sure we all do, without exception. Secondly, this is a very brave movie from a very brave director (Larry Charles, who helmed and also co-wrote Bob Dylan's brilliant but misunderstood cult classic "Masked and Anonymous", as well as the hilarious, bawdy and genuinely provocative "Borat"), so I think it deserves at least a modicum of respect from those who disagree with its thesis. I saw C

I'm really pleased that they chose that version of High Water. I only had to travel 10 minutes on the highway and 2 minutes in the city for that show, and it's the best Dylan gig I've ever seen. Fantastic fucking stuff! And what about his vocals on Can't Wait. Holy FUCK. Can anybody think of a more convicted, sensuous Dylan vocal from this era? Or, for that matter, going back to the late '70s and early '80s? It's pretty amazing!

This is literally the most tragic thing I have ever read in my 28 years of life.

The vocals are rotten, it goes absolutely nowhere, and it suffers from the same disjointed, directionless quality that has plagued so much of Bob's latter-day material. "All the merry little elves can go hang themselves?" Wha...?! The BS8 stream on NPR is mostly really excellent, though. The Oh Mercy and TOOM stuff are highlights (which isn't surprising), and Red River Shore is a full-on lost classic. Haunting words about a life half-lived in pursuit of lost love, a gorgeous melody and a kind of return to Durango sound that I can't help loving. Man... The version of Someday Baby on here is

The lessons of this thread: 1) Having watched a five year-old 90-minute documentary film about a band that he used to be in, we all know Jay Bennett well enough to formulate legitimate opinions on the nature of his character, why he was booted from Wilco, and whether he deserved such treatment. 2) Jay Bennett, in spite of having written or co-written some of the best songs ever recorded by the band we come here to read about, elicits an almost Pavlovian response from many of his critics. 3) If Jay Bennett references his own career in an article, it's narcissistic; when Jeff Tweedy does i

Tons! Return to Me, Can't Get You Off of My Mind, Red Cadillac and a Black Mustache, Waitin' for You (from the Ya-Ya soundtrack), and a bunch more I can't think of at this hour. Ring of Fire from the Feeling Minnesota soundtrack, Blue Eyed Jane... a few others. Most of them are covers, but most of them are better than that awful Huck's Tune.

I think it's just wretched. Nothing but an hour of over the top schtick from a guy who is usually smart enough to reign himself in and walk a really fun tightrope over the line separating awesome from totally absurd/silly/gross/base/etc. To each his own, though.

Easily Scorsese's best film, and just as easily my favourite of all time. I can no more imagine somebody having seen this for the first time only recently than I can imagine myself having seen it fewer than 150 odd times, or not having any part of it committed to memory. No other rock movie is even half this good (although Stop Making Sense is also fucking awesome).

Brighter Than Creation's Dark by the tiniest of noses, so I can't keep from giving respect to Evil Urges and Real Animal as well.

"Thanks, it'll go straight to DVD anyways!" Ouch. He wasn't too far off the mark, judging from its poor showing at the box office this weekend. I still really want to see the movie, though. Gervais is funny enough that I'd watch him in nearly anything.

Then he must be right!

True enough. The McCain camp is to blame for much - if not all - of that perception, in fairness. Just like Sarah Palin is to blame for the general perception that she is a rural bumbler, an archaic and superstitious fool, a shrill "hockey mom," a fiscally incompetent and generally untrustworthy imbecile, and so forth. She is to be lauded, I suppose, for shoring up support in spite of this image from strange, ignorant people who do not find her very existence appalling beyond the pale. To the stupid, being Sarah Palin is better than being "elitist." (Dictionary definition of elitism: e

Well, it's true. Science doesn't pull an idea out of thin air and say "DUH DIS BE'S WHAT IS REALS." Science formulates theories based on evidence and intuition, allowing for every possibility that a given postulation could be proven false. A scientist may strongly suspect that his theories are actual - which is to say he may believe it not on faith, but rather physical evidence - however no physicist worth his salt would die to protect an ultimately unprovable theory, nor would he live his life allowing for no other possibility than that he is correct. Religion just pulls stupid bullshit out o

Science has a theory. Science can imagine something, but religion claims to know and believe what it proclaims. Religion offers truth claims. Sorry, you're being stupid. Try harder to understand the claims made by science and religion, please. The "believers" in this thread have gotten exponentionally dumber since I exited it.

Yeah, yeah, that's just fucking great. I SAID JESUS CHRIST SO I MUST BE RELIGIOUS HA HA. If anything, that stands as an illustration of just how insidious this garbage truly is.

Jesus Christ. I've had it with this idiocy. Enjoy the thread, folks. Enjoy your Flying Spaghetti Monster, your Jesus, and your Flim-Flam Man. They are all bunkum.

That was angry and stupid. What the fuck is this, first of all, before we attempt to proceed? We have been OVER this and OVER this and OVER this. Atheism is not a doctrine. How the fuck can a word that connotes nothing more than an absence of vague metaphysical belief a) possibly be as threatening as a codified system of beliefs and rituals that makes explicit demands of its followers, and become a central plank of any regime? Think about it. You can't abuse "atheism." You can, however, abuse religion by forcibly removing it from the picture, but if people weren't so fucking stupid as to

Sure. It's your prerogative, really. If you are genuinely unbothered by the ostensible fact that ninety-something percent of the planet believes in something that is insane on its face, and you can live your life unresentful of the constant inculcation that fuels religion, by all means... do so. Hell, I wish I could! I can't, though, so I will continue to combat religious thought in every small way that I can

And I can scarcely believe that some people are still able to issue such boldly naive statements. "Why can't I believe in the celestial teapot, dammit? :'( " Because it's baseless and more than a little stupid, that's why. The operative question is "why would somebody just believe whatever they want?" You're guilty of reframing this debate to fit some very convenient parameters, and that's just lazy. As has already been pointed out, you keep repeating yourself, and I keep answering your question.

Because some beliefs are ridiculous on their face. It's just that simple (WILCO CONTENT YOU GUYS HOLY COW). As a society' date=' we have long held religion and spirituality above the argumentative fray, partly because religion professes to be unfalsifiable, and perhaps also because spirituality is something that is regarded by many as a "personal belief." In questioning it, we always run the risk of offending certain people's sensibilities. So respecting it out of hand is a great position to take, I suppose, if you prefer being nice to not being an idiot. We're taught to respect people's bel

No, because you're asking a question rooted in a false premise, and I suspect you're being disingenuous in asking it (although that might be giving you too much credit). The existence of a creator doesn't demand a creator per se; it merely demands some form of proof, like anything else. You have already arrived at a conclusion - that the universe demands a creator - and are insisting that skeptical inquiry honour it by providing either corroborating evidence or, I guess, blatant supposition. That's not what science does. Science gathers evidence, analyzes it, and only then arrives at a conclus

Not really, no. You might want to review my comment about how science is fueled by curiosity, not ego, and how rigorous the scientific process actually is. Religion is just pabulum, fit for babies. That's all she wrote.

Exactly. It takes a tremendous ego to believe in any permutation of god. The humility necessary to simply observe and trust in the observable universe isn't something that everybody has at his or her disposal. "I don't know, and I'm okay with not knowing for the time being" isn't a statement that a lot of people are comfortable issuing. So you're right! You make a very sound point.