So my last conversation with a Mormon (see previous post) wasn't the end of my Facebook fun with that particularly wacky sect of the already-wacky Christianity. That's right, there's more! Megan recently posted a video of Elder Jeffrey R. Holland speaking at the Mormon General Conference, which is a big gathering with Mormon leaders speaking to the entire LDS population. Those who don't attend personally are expected to watch it on television that Sunday. Elder Holland talked about how upset he is that people continue to attack the Book of Mormon even though its quite obviously the divine and inspired true word of God. His proof to back up that claim? Quotes from the Book of Mormon and other LDS doctrine. Megan commented on how that's unacceptable logic, and in the process ignited a shit storm of some of the stupidest comments we've had the pleasure of laughing at in a good long time.
As with the previous post everyone who commented gets their own color, like this, this, or even this. There are some occasions where I add in information after the fact to clarify a point. In these instances I put my extra info in brackets and colored like [this]. I've also given everyone pseudonyms (not just the stupid people this time!) except for Megan and myself, as several different individuals of varying religious persuasions commented and I didn't want to trample on any toes. Unfortunately our main Mormon Z didn't pop up this time (maybe he learned his lesson?) which is a real shame, as I always know I'm about to see something hilarious when he comments on Facebook.
Anyone reading this post who isn't intimately familiar with Mormonism should read the last "Conversation With a Mormon" post first, as it explains in detail many facets of the Mormon religion that aren't explained this time around.
Without further ado I give you More Conversations With Mormons:
Megan
He talks and talks and talks, but says nothing. He has harsh words for people who don't believe in the Book of Mormon, but offers nothing, save weak anecdotal evidence, to prove its authenticity. Then he talks about how many "hearts" the teachings of the Church have comforted as if believing a delusion is all right as long as it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Holland doesn't seem to realize that his warm and fuzzy feelings come at a pretty high price.
B.R.
Anything to cushion the blow of reality.
S.A.
I loved this talk so much.
A.R.
Okay, you've crossed the line now megan. Why must you post nothing but negative stuff about releigion all the time? Don't you have anything else to talk about? Oh yeah, I guess you do. The "black god" that is Obama.
A.R.
Let those of us who believe, believe. Don't tear us down all of the time. We (I) allow you to believe what you believe without always bashing you for it.
S.A.
Sorry Megan but I have to agree with A.R. on this.
J.C.
what right do you have to belittle a general authority of the lords true church last i checked you have NO RIGHT especially when its where everyone in the world can read it that is wrong and you know it so dont ever do it again its wrong
Ty
This is why:
Religious people do not get the luxury of making absurd claims and then expect to have no one question them or "tear them down." I'd think you guys would at least be happy that she's listening to what the Mormon camp has to say before deciding its full of shit. She could be a lot harsher - people who believe in Santa-Claus-For-Adults and the planet Kolob deserve a lot worse than Megan's polite and well thought out arguments. Its also HER Facebook page. No one's making you look at it.
J.C.
megan knows its wrong and all i know is that she is going to stand before our maker and be held accoutable for her actions and you know what i hope im there to be a witness to what she has denied and i can testify to her comments [for those who were trying to puzzle out what he said due the lack of periods, capitalized letters, or recognizable thought patterns - J.C. just stated that he wants to stand before God on judgment day and tattle on Megan for all the bad things she's done so he can personally see her punished for all eternity.]
Ty
*facepalm* The absurdity (and offensiveness) of your statement aside J.C, you might be taken more seriously if you tried to understand basic punctuation or capitalization.
Megan
A.R, asking questions is not "crossing the line". We live in a free nation, which means that people are allowed to dissent and allowed to scrutinize the information that is presented to them.
"Why must you post nothing but negative stuff about religion all the time?" Well, A.R, because I believe that religion is a negative force that has fought to stop our progression as a species by keeping us changed to myth and superstition. I'm not talking about only the Mormon religion, but religion in all its forms. Yet, even though religion is harmful, people seem to think that it's above scrutiny, that you can criticize everything BUT religion. That's absurd. The tyranny of religion matters to me, which is why I post about it frequently. So, while I may not care for Air Force flight shows, but I don't get angry when you frequently post about them.
"Don't you have anything else to talk about?" Of course I do! If you bothered to look, you'd see that I also frequently post on the topics of politics, science, movies, music, cooking, literature, travel, etc....
A.R, A.R, AR, ...a couple of weeks ago when I was making fun of Glenn Beck for saying that atheists fill the "hole" (there's no hole, by the way) in their hearts with Obama, I had no idea I actually knew someone dumb enough to believe that. Then you have the audacity to bring President Obama's RACE into the issue, calling him my "black god"...well you should be ASHAMED of yourself. To set you straight, I DON'T worship President Obama, though I do admire and respect him as our president, as should you.
"Let those of us who believe, believe." My opinions don't hinder your ability to believe. Though I completely and totally disagree with people believing in something supernatural (for which there is no evidence) that negatively impacts the lives of others, the choice to believe is still yours.
I'll continue this in a second post...
Megan
"Don't tear us down all of the time." My intent is to tear down religion, not individuals. So, if you've noticed, while I say a lot of negative things about religion, I've never come out and said, "A.R., J.C and S.A., you guys are stupid, etc, etc." If you guys are feeling "torn down", that's a YOU thing, not a ME thing. I definitely never say, "Gee, I wish there was a forum in the afterlife where I could go and see J.C. get his comeuppance for being such a douchebag." [referencing J.C. stating he wants to see Megan get punished in a heavenly forum] Why? Because that's not only lame and mean-spirited, it also goes against the religious doctrine you're trying to defend.
Posting Holland's little video got a much bigger reaction than I thought it would. I saw the video on another friend's news feed, watched it and wanted to comment, but decided that I should post it on my own News Feed to avoid the appearance that I was being specifically confrontational to that particular friend. So much for my good intentions...
For all the comments posted in reaction to my posting Holland's video, not a single person bothered to discuss what Holland said in the video. He talked about how upset he is that more people don't believe in the "truth" of the Book of Mormon, but the only evidence he offered for its authenticity was quotes from other Mormon scriptures. That's just as lame as me writing an article and then using something I said in that same article as a reference to the factual nature of the article. That type of dis-logic wouldn't stand up in any normal situation and shouldn't be accepted in the religious realm either....
A.R, J.C, and S.A, because you have all grown up in the Church you may not have heard the several points I'm about to make. I don't expect them to change your minds, but these are things it's important to consider, especially considering that I didn't know any of this until after I'd stopped being religious.
1. Joseph Smith, hereafter referred to as "J.S.", was arrested in New York for fraud after claiming to read people's fortunes from stones in hats. This was before he received the supposed revelation and started the church.
2. There is no archeological evidence to support the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Rather, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Book of Mormon is a hoax.
3. The Egyptian texts that J.S. supposedly "translated" into the Pearl of Great Price are actually pieces of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Needless to say, J.S.'s "translation" was incorrect.
4. There is little, if any, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ.
5. The New Testament was not written by witnesses. The events in the N.T. were written by people up to TWO DECADES after the events they purport to describe. This may explain some of the discrepancies.
6. The "holy scriptures", whether it's the Bible, Book or Mormon, Koran, etc., all teach divisive principles of intolerance. They attempt to hold people to sets of arbitrary rules that often do more harm than good.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Also, I'd be glad to provide references for any of the points I've mentioned.
Before you tell me about all the good the Church has done (Church welfare, disaster relief, etc.) and how many hearts have been "changed" or "comforted", let me say that none of that makes up for the racism and intolerance spread by the Church. Even if the Church makes you "feel good", as I said before, those warm fuzzies are coming at a high price and you should be aware of that.
Let me leave you with a final quote by scientist Carl Sagan, "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is, than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
R.
I dig how they didn't say anything back (unless they did privately). I would put my 2 cents in, but it would be redundant. Great points made here by the way Megan, some are things I never thought about or even looked into. :)
M.
I just remembered that you came from the Mormon church. That makes this all the more interesting.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
Conversation With A Mormon
Recently Megan posted a news story on Facebook about two gay men who were arrested in Utah because they were kissing. A former Mormon acquaintance commented on the story, defending the Mormon church and placing the blame on the people who were arrested. I was feeling particularly annoyed that day about how dumb religion is, so I took the opportunity to point out some absurdities in the Mormon religion. As would be expected, a shit storm of stupidity followed. A copy of the conversation that occurred is included below. To protect the stupid I'll be referring to the Mormon only as "Z." Z's words are in green, mine are in red, and Megan's are in orange. Comments that I've added after the fact to clarify information about Mormon beliefs or acronyms are in brackets and purple, like [this]. In these events I've taken care to not insert my slant, but only state what people believe or what a commonly accepted idea is.
Since most of the people reading this probably aren't familiar with Mormonism, I'll give a brief little run down. Mormonism was started in the 1820's by Joseph Smith. According to the Mormon mythology, Joseph Smith was going around trying to figure out which church was true. Eventually while out praying in some grove he received revelation from God that none of the churches were true, and that Joseph Smith himself would start the one true church (funny how these revelations only seem to happen to people who are alone. Apparently God just hopes that these people will somehow convince the rest of the world they weren't making it up?) Joseph Smith was then led by the angel Moroni to a bunch of buried golden plates. He translated the plates by putting them in a hat and receiving divine revelation that let him know what the foreign words on the plates meant. That translation became the book of Mormon. There are other important books in the Mormon religion as well, such as the Pearl of Great Price (discussed below), Word of Wisdom, and the Doctrine and Covenants. Joseph Smith was shot to death by an angry mob in 1844.
Some of the notable aspects of Mormonism include an adherence to polygamy (although this was later nixed - discussed below), a belief that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Jews, and a belief that people with dark skin are cursed by God but can become white if they try hard enough (apparently Michael Jackson must have been a good Mormon then...). Mormons generally refer to themselves as LDS (Latter Day Saints) instead of Mormons, as they believe that they are the "Church of Latter Day Saints."
Without further ado, I give you a conversation with a Mormon.
Z.
What the article fails to mention is what really happened. They said that they just gave each other a kiss on the cheek, but in fact they were fondling and making out. When asked to leave, they became obstinate, it was only then that police were called and the couple trespassed.
Megan
The church says they were making out, the gay couple says they were giving innocent kisses. Given the church's views on morality and homosexuality, I'm inclined to believe the gay couple over the church. If I felt I wasn't doing anything wrong and was asked to leave, I might get obstinate too. It's not that I support "trespassing", it's that I DON'T support profiling and intolerance...two things the church excels at.
Ty
The article also fails to mention that Joseph Smith was widely known as a con man before forming his religion that allowed him to screw as many women at one time as he wanted. It also fails to mention that he claimed there would be aliens on the moon, and what do you know, no aliens on the moon. It also fails to mention that the "translation" of the Pearl of Great Price from the Egyptian papyrus was 100% wrong. Should I keep going with things it failed to mention?
Z.
Man, Ty, you are probably one of the most uneducated, backwards ignorant people I have ever met. Considering none of your information is actually backed by real facts I can also say that Barack Obama is Osama Bin Laden's son and that astronauts actually did find an intelligent race on the moon called the Juggermeins...ridiculous. At any rate everyone in Utah knows that the church owns that property-it's come up many times before, and so I don't have any respect for the couple that went there attempting to incite this. Also video surveillance was released to the prosecutor's office, and if the church was attempting to hide something, don't you think that they wouldn't have released that?
Ty
Uh-oh, I’ve angried up the Mormon. Hopefully he doesn’t use his magic Priesthood powers against me! [Mormon fathers bestow a blessing of the Priesthood onto their sons when they reach maturity - Mormon's believe this blessing gives them special powers from God] Funny that you’ve called me ignorant, yet you seem to lack a basic understanding of your own religion. Even the LDS church does not deny 2 of my 3 assertions. On the topic of Joseph Smith conning folk out of their money for his (pre-Angel Moroni) stone-in-the-hat divinations, see http://tiny.cc/imLYy (citations 3 and 4). A detailed breakdown of how Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the papyri differs from reality can be found at http://tiny.cc/ZakSP. There are many online and offline sources on the Mormon moon people belief. A few places to get started are http://tiny.cc/9BrRh, http://tiny.cc/bymBY, and http://tiny.cc/CC0JT
Z.
You probably missed out on the part where is says that many people believed in stones-also if your family was barely making it, wouldn't you go treasure hunt if someone was offering you almost double what you could make digging a canal. [Z. is referring to the part in one of my links where the author of the book states that treasure hunting through divination was a lucrative job at the time and that many people besides Joseph Smith partook in such activities] As for your second reference, guess what, the "Egyptologists" were solicited by a reverend probably anti-LDS, and guess what, when politicians seek out good numbers, they go to places where they will get them. Read a little lower and you'll see another Egyptologist contradict what the previous ones stated. Also, don't even begin to judge people on their religion when all you read is anti-LDS literature, if you do that, then guess what, you are ignorant.
Ty
You've failed to understand that your statement does not help your argument - it destroys it. If everyone at the time believed in seer stones, and that belief was incorrect, then why didn't J.S. [Joseph Smith] receive revelation that he shouldn't be participating? If all doctrines at the time were an abomination (as the Lord said to Joseph Smith in the grove) then were not seer stones also an abomination? You've also given him a reason to con people - to make more money. Since you've admitted that people believed in seer stones, and acknowledged that the belief is stupid, then why do you believe in a religion based on seer stones? [The golden plates that Joseph Smith translated through hat divination] Moreover, your decision to argue against the false translation of the papyri puts you at odds with LDS doctrine. Books written by Mormon apologists admit the translation was false, but defend J.S. anyway by saying that he wasn't actually translating it, but rather using it as a guide to receive revelation. By arguing against me you are actually going against LDS teachings and are therefore subject to Outer Darkness when you die. Enjoy hell! [Mormons do not believe in hell in the same way that other Christian denominations do. Mormons believe in several tiers of heaven starting with the Terrestrial Kingdom and ending with the Celestial Kingdom. Everyone is automatically "saved" and goes to the Terrestrial Kingdom - except for people who were Mormon and then deny church doctrine. Those people go to "Outer Darkness," which is the Mormon equivalent of hell] You’ve also made the mistake of assuming I only read anti-LDS literature. Why do you think I have such a disdain for Mormonism? I’ve read its ridiculous teachings.
Megan
Z. I'm not sure why you choose to frame your debate the way you did. Just because people at the time believed in magical stones doesn't mean that that belief was correct. People have believed many foolish things throughout history that were later disproved. And yes, if my family was barely making it I would do whatever it took to improve the situation. For Joseph Smith this meant "treasure hunting", as well as reading fortunes from stones in hats. This doesn't necessarily make J.S. a "bad person", but it does cast doubt on his claims that he received divine revelation because the method with which he received the "divine revelation" was so similar to his, however well-intentioned, money-making scheme.
Also, the definition of the word "ignorant" is "lacking in knowledge or training". Just because you don't like what a person says in regard to a subject doesn't mean you can call them ignorant. Ty and I have studied both Mormon and non-Mormon literature on the church. The information provided by the church is often very cleaned-up and self-serving, and honestly, why wouldn't it be? Every organization wants to present themselves in the best possible light, but that often sacrifices the integrity of the information. I contend that by having MORE information about the church, and from a wide variety of sources, we're MORE knowledgeable about Mormonism than the average person, and certainly more knowledgeable than the average church member. I understand how our opinions on this would be conflicting, but you can't call a person "ignorant" simply because you don't like their information.
Z.
Megan, sorry it took so long to get back to you, I've been busy with work. First off, the way in which your husband has gone after LDS is pretty ignorant. If you want to convert someone to your cause, don't post hateful things, so yes, that is ignorance. Second, the LDS church has spoken out about one issue that they feel ardently about and you seem (along with many others) to hate what the church stands for solely based on us voting for what we believe in. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it wasn't just the "Mormons" who passed prop 8. We never denied them the rights of marriage, we simply wanted to protect the institution of marriage which has always been between a man and woman. People seem to look past the mark when other denominations (and non-Christians) have gone out an protested against homosexuals, beaten them to death, etc. The LDS church welcomes homosexuals, but the same as it councils heterosexuals to abstain from pre-marital sex, it councils homosexuals to not practice homosexuality, for we see that as against nature and against what God wants. Some people may be born this way, but all of us have our personal challenges, some of which are very strong, but we don't hate people who have these challenges.
Again, you may not like the Church's stance on this issue, but we are approaching it in a peaceful manner, we aren't going and marching on the gays, or disrespecting their places of worship/sacred sites. Behavior like that (and what I believe these two men did) is unacceptable and won't win people over to your cause, it will only detract from it. I understand that you and your family may think that the LDS church is a horrible thing, but here's an independent site that shows some interesting statistics: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html
I believe that the church is true, I've researched many sites and sought out this knowledge, you may not believe it, but I do, and that doesn't give you the right to hate me, or what I, or the church I attend, stand for. P.S. The LDS church doesn't blow its horn that much on its humanitarian efforts, but in many instances the LDS church is the first to show up in relief efforts and has a major positive influence on the world.
Ty
So to sum up Z.s posts: He still has no idea what the word "ignorant" means, he has no evidence to suggest the claims of J.S. are true but he's going to believe them anyway, and he has no rebuttal whatsoever to our arguments. Given the LDS ever shifting stance of polygamy and blacks in the church, you should expect their stance on gay marriage to change within our lifetimes. [The Mormon church banned polygamy in 1890 when federal laws were enacted against the practice. Until 1978 blacks were also not allowed to hold positions of power in the church and could not receive the Priesthood blessing. This also changed due to federal laws against discrimination and a rising public tide against racism.] You know what Z, you can keep Mormonism. You and the LDS church deserve each other. Oh yeah, Scientology has openings too, you might be interested in their bullshit.
Z.
Once again, nice way to try to win people over to your cause. You're childish and an idiot. I didn't respond to your previous posts, because you can't argue with stubborn people, so why waste my time? You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. Secondly, what does all of what you brought up have to do with how the church acts today?That's like being opposed to an article on national health care and bringing up the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein, or that Arnold S. is "Republican".
Ty
I think what you meant to say is that you can't argue with facts. Once again you've completely missed the boat. I don't care if you convert to atheism, I just want to mock your ridiculous beliefs and watch you sputter to bring up a response. If you want to continue to believe in LDS teachings, feel free, I just want you to know that those beliefs aren't OK to have. A big invisible man in the sky, the planet Kolob [Mormons believe that God is a physical man who lives on a real planet named Kolob. Mormon apologists differ on whether this planet is meant to be Sagittarius A or Polaris], and seer stones are all absolutely not real, no matter how much you believe in them. It’s also funny that you've stated I've posted "hateful" things, yet you are the only one who has (from the very beginning) resorted to name calling. You've also stated that we "look past" other groups hating gays. Well, no, we absolutely don't. But you happen to be a Mormon, and Mormons happened to have spent millions on advertising for Prop 8 and staged huge demonstrations, so we want you to know that's not OK either. There's nothing "peaceful" about taking away basic human rights.
And of course the LDS church does good things - your salvation plan is completely based on good works. If you don't do charitable things, you don't get into the celestial kingdom. Funny how Megan and I, who are atheists, can manage to be good people without having an invisible carrot dangled in front of our noses. News flash: there is no supernatural, therefore there is no afterlife. You can believe in it all you want, but it’s still not real.
Z.
Like I said, you can believe what you believe, I know what I know, and believe it. You can't disprove God. I merely stated at the beginning that the two men were displaying extreme PDA, regardless of what they mentioned to the papers. Even if they had just kissed each other on the cheek, they were asked to leave private property (guess, what, we live in a country where we can do that). You were the one who began to say things in order to cause problems. I'm sorry that you are so delusional in you "high mindedness" that you don't realize that the way in which you approached me (and the things you constantly comment on the LDS faith) aren't going to win you any supporters, and in that regard you are ignorant in persuasion, you are hateful and you are displaying the type of behavior you hate us for, and I'm sorry that is hypocritical and stupid.
Yes, Joseph Smith believed in seer stones, to people 500 years ago, a TV would be a alien and no one would believe it. I happen to believe in God, who I believe is all powerful, and more advanced than we are, he may be able to make images appear in what one may call stones, who cares, it doesn't deter my faith. I did respond to your accusation that the Pearl of Great Price is invalid, guess what, they were paid for by someone who wanted Joseph Smith discredited, another Egyptologist stated that their comments on Joseph Smith's translations were erroneous. Third, just because in today's society polygamy is looked down upon, doesn't mean that polygamy has always been bad, or frowned upon. There are many different ways in which polygamy can be beneficial, as they were in the beginning of the church. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it wrong. You need to get a life, rather than try to beat up people on their beliefs.
Ty
I'm including your words in quotes to streamline the arguments. “to people 500 years ago, a TV would be a alien and no one would believe it. I happen to believe in God, who I believe is all powerful, and more advanced than we are,” Oh wow, I had hoped it would be self-evident why that was a bad statement to make. Read your words again, and think about it. “You can't disprove God.” Which is in no way an argument for God’s existence. You can’t disprove that the universe was built by a miniature invisible purple elephant who wants us all to bathe thrice on Thursdays, but that doesn’t mean you have to accept it as a valid possibility. “I did respond to your accusation that the Pearl of Great Price is invalid.” You seem to be a little behind on the whole papyrus issue, so let me get you up to speed. There is no serious dissent of any kind about the accuracy of the J.S. “translation” from any sort of credible source. This is the glorious thing about Mormonism. It's young enough that we still have original artifacts to independently verify. Go ahead and print off a copy of the papyrus, as it is available online (or get the original – the LDS church still has it), and take it to an authoritative source that can translate Egyptian hieroglyphics. To avoid any issue of bias, you could even take it to a Mormon (or someone who wasn’t anti-Mormon). They will translate it, and that translation will not be the Pearl of Great Price, it will be fragments of an Egyptian burial ritual. And let’s say for the sake of argument that the J.S. translation was correct, and that the papyrus did contain the Pearl of Great Price. Why then isn't there even one single other Egyptian artifact in all the entire world that has similar information? Why isn't there any evidence at all to suggest that the Egyptians had Mormon beliefs? Oh yeah, because Joseph Smith made up his "translation" completely.
“doesn't mean that polygamy has always been bad, or frowned upon.” I’m not sure why you are defending polygamy, as I didn’t attack it. My reference to polygamy was regarding how the LDS church, which supposedly receives divine revelation, sure seems to change its mind a lot. First it was banning polygamy (with option to renew of course…) [It is a commonly held Mormon belief that one day the current prophet will proclaim that it’s OK to practice polygamy again] and then letting blacks have the Priesthood in the ‘70s, even though Brigham Young [Joseph Smith's successor who led the church after his death] specifically said that if the Mormon church ever allowed blacks to have the priesthood that God would withdraw his blessing from the church (woops). I have no problem at all with polygamy, provided that all parties are adults and consenting. Of course Mormonism is famous for having underage girls wedded off to men three times their age with no chance to escape. And yes, I know, I know, you’re going to say that groups like the FLDS [the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - a splinter group that still lives like it’s the 1800s and still practices polygamy] aren’t really Mormons, but you need to understand that they would say the same thing about you too. “Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it wrong.” And just because you do believe in it doesn’t make it right. No matter how badly you want it to be real, there still aren’t talking snakes, parting seas, resurrections, or people who can divine the location of treasure by looking at plates in a hat.
“You need to get a life, rather than try to beat up people on their beliefs.” This is a total cop-out, and an indication that you don’t actually have an argument. Because I’m able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and am vocal about how your religion is a fantasy, you need to believe that I don’t “have a life” so that you can ignore my arguments. Since I don’t believe in fairy tales, I think that means I have more of a life than religious folk. “You're childish and an idiot.” The insults keep getting more humorous for me, especially considering their source. You believe in absolutely absurd things (you get to be god of your own planet, talking donkeys, etc.) [Mormons believe that the most righteous followers of the religion will start their own universe and be its God - they don't mention at all why they don't then worship the God before this universe's God or how many Gods there are in this succession] yet somehow I’m the childish and idiotic one? Apparently accepting reality is childish.
Since most of the people reading this probably aren't familiar with Mormonism, I'll give a brief little run down. Mormonism was started in the 1820's by Joseph Smith. According to the Mormon mythology, Joseph Smith was going around trying to figure out which church was true. Eventually while out praying in some grove he received revelation from God that none of the churches were true, and that Joseph Smith himself would start the one true church (funny how these revelations only seem to happen to people who are alone. Apparently God just hopes that these people will somehow convince the rest of the world they weren't making it up?) Joseph Smith was then led by the angel Moroni to a bunch of buried golden plates. He translated the plates by putting them in a hat and receiving divine revelation that let him know what the foreign words on the plates meant. That translation became the book of Mormon. There are other important books in the Mormon religion as well, such as the Pearl of Great Price (discussed below), Word of Wisdom, and the Doctrine and Covenants. Joseph Smith was shot to death by an angry mob in 1844.
Some of the notable aspects of Mormonism include an adherence to polygamy (although this was later nixed - discussed below), a belief that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Jews, and a belief that people with dark skin are cursed by God but can become white if they try hard enough (apparently Michael Jackson must have been a good Mormon then...). Mormons generally refer to themselves as LDS (Latter Day Saints) instead of Mormons, as they believe that they are the "Church of Latter Day Saints."
Without further ado, I give you a conversation with a Mormon.
Z.
What the article fails to mention is what really happened. They said that they just gave each other a kiss on the cheek, but in fact they were fondling and making out. When asked to leave, they became obstinate, it was only then that police were called and the couple trespassed.
Megan
The church says they were making out, the gay couple says they were giving innocent kisses. Given the church's views on morality and homosexuality, I'm inclined to believe the gay couple over the church. If I felt I wasn't doing anything wrong and was asked to leave, I might get obstinate too. It's not that I support "trespassing", it's that I DON'T support profiling and intolerance...two things the church excels at.
Ty
The article also fails to mention that Joseph Smith was widely known as a con man before forming his religion that allowed him to screw as many women at one time as he wanted. It also fails to mention that he claimed there would be aliens on the moon, and what do you know, no aliens on the moon. It also fails to mention that the "translation" of the Pearl of Great Price from the Egyptian papyrus was 100% wrong. Should I keep going with things it failed to mention?
Z.
Man, Ty, you are probably one of the most uneducated, backwards ignorant people I have ever met. Considering none of your information is actually backed by real facts I can also say that Barack Obama is Osama Bin Laden's son and that astronauts actually did find an intelligent race on the moon called the Juggermeins...ridiculous. At any rate everyone in Utah knows that the church owns that property-it's come up many times before, and so I don't have any respect for the couple that went there attempting to incite this. Also video surveillance was released to the prosecutor's office, and if the church was attempting to hide something, don't you think that they wouldn't have released that?
Ty
Uh-oh, I’ve angried up the Mormon. Hopefully he doesn’t use his magic Priesthood powers against me! [Mormon fathers bestow a blessing of the Priesthood onto their sons when they reach maturity - Mormon's believe this blessing gives them special powers from God] Funny that you’ve called me ignorant, yet you seem to lack a basic understanding of your own religion. Even the LDS church does not deny 2 of my 3 assertions. On the topic of Joseph Smith conning folk out of their money for his (pre-Angel Moroni) stone-in-the-hat divinations, see http://tiny.cc/imLYy (citations 3 and 4). A detailed breakdown of how Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the papyri differs from reality can be found at http://tiny.cc/ZakSP. There are many online and offline sources on the Mormon moon people belief. A few places to get started are http://tiny.cc/9BrRh, http://tiny.cc/bymBY, and http://tiny.cc/CC0JT
Z.
You probably missed out on the part where is says that many people believed in stones-also if your family was barely making it, wouldn't you go treasure hunt if someone was offering you almost double what you could make digging a canal. [Z. is referring to the part in one of my links where the author of the book states that treasure hunting through divination was a lucrative job at the time and that many people besides Joseph Smith partook in such activities] As for your second reference, guess what, the "Egyptologists" were solicited by a reverend probably anti-LDS, and guess what, when politicians seek out good numbers, they go to places where they will get them. Read a little lower and you'll see another Egyptologist contradict what the previous ones stated. Also, don't even begin to judge people on their religion when all you read is anti-LDS literature, if you do that, then guess what, you are ignorant.
Ty
You've failed to understand that your statement does not help your argument - it destroys it. If everyone at the time believed in seer stones, and that belief was incorrect, then why didn't J.S. [Joseph Smith] receive revelation that he shouldn't be participating? If all doctrines at the time were an abomination (as the Lord said to Joseph Smith in the grove) then were not seer stones also an abomination? You've also given him a reason to con people - to make more money. Since you've admitted that people believed in seer stones, and acknowledged that the belief is stupid, then why do you believe in a religion based on seer stones? [The golden plates that Joseph Smith translated through hat divination] Moreover, your decision to argue against the false translation of the papyri puts you at odds with LDS doctrine. Books written by Mormon apologists admit the translation was false, but defend J.S. anyway by saying that he wasn't actually translating it, but rather using it as a guide to receive revelation. By arguing against me you are actually going against LDS teachings and are therefore subject to Outer Darkness when you die. Enjoy hell! [Mormons do not believe in hell in the same way that other Christian denominations do. Mormons believe in several tiers of heaven starting with the Terrestrial Kingdom and ending with the Celestial Kingdom. Everyone is automatically "saved" and goes to the Terrestrial Kingdom - except for people who were Mormon and then deny church doctrine. Those people go to "Outer Darkness," which is the Mormon equivalent of hell] You’ve also made the mistake of assuming I only read anti-LDS literature. Why do you think I have such a disdain for Mormonism? I’ve read its ridiculous teachings.
Megan
Z. I'm not sure why you choose to frame your debate the way you did. Just because people at the time believed in magical stones doesn't mean that that belief was correct. People have believed many foolish things throughout history that were later disproved. And yes, if my family was barely making it I would do whatever it took to improve the situation. For Joseph Smith this meant "treasure hunting", as well as reading fortunes from stones in hats. This doesn't necessarily make J.S. a "bad person", but it does cast doubt on his claims that he received divine revelation because the method with which he received the "divine revelation" was so similar to his, however well-intentioned, money-making scheme.
Also, the definition of the word "ignorant" is "lacking in knowledge or training". Just because you don't like what a person says in regard to a subject doesn't mean you can call them ignorant. Ty and I have studied both Mormon and non-Mormon literature on the church. The information provided by the church is often very cleaned-up and self-serving, and honestly, why wouldn't it be? Every organization wants to present themselves in the best possible light, but that often sacrifices the integrity of the information. I contend that by having MORE information about the church, and from a wide variety of sources, we're MORE knowledgeable about Mormonism than the average person, and certainly more knowledgeable than the average church member. I understand how our opinions on this would be conflicting, but you can't call a person "ignorant" simply because you don't like their information.
Z.
Megan, sorry it took so long to get back to you, I've been busy with work. First off, the way in which your husband has gone after LDS is pretty ignorant. If you want to convert someone to your cause, don't post hateful things, so yes, that is ignorance. Second, the LDS church has spoken out about one issue that they feel ardently about and you seem (along with many others) to hate what the church stands for solely based on us voting for what we believe in. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it wasn't just the "Mormons" who passed prop 8. We never denied them the rights of marriage, we simply wanted to protect the institution of marriage which has always been between a man and woman. People seem to look past the mark when other denominations (and non-Christians) have gone out an protested against homosexuals, beaten them to death, etc. The LDS church welcomes homosexuals, but the same as it councils heterosexuals to abstain from pre-marital sex, it councils homosexuals to not practice homosexuality, for we see that as against nature and against what God wants. Some people may be born this way, but all of us have our personal challenges, some of which are very strong, but we don't hate people who have these challenges.
Again, you may not like the Church's stance on this issue, but we are approaching it in a peaceful manner, we aren't going and marching on the gays, or disrespecting their places of worship/sacred sites. Behavior like that (and what I believe these two men did) is unacceptable and won't win people over to your cause, it will only detract from it. I understand that you and your family may think that the LDS church is a horrible thing, but here's an independent site that shows some interesting statistics: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html
I believe that the church is true, I've researched many sites and sought out this knowledge, you may not believe it, but I do, and that doesn't give you the right to hate me, or what I, or the church I attend, stand for. P.S. The LDS church doesn't blow its horn that much on its humanitarian efforts, but in many instances the LDS church is the first to show up in relief efforts and has a major positive influence on the world.
Ty
So to sum up Z.s posts: He still has no idea what the word "ignorant" means, he has no evidence to suggest the claims of J.S. are true but he's going to believe them anyway, and he has no rebuttal whatsoever to our arguments. Given the LDS ever shifting stance of polygamy and blacks in the church, you should expect their stance on gay marriage to change within our lifetimes. [The Mormon church banned polygamy in 1890 when federal laws were enacted against the practice. Until 1978 blacks were also not allowed to hold positions of power in the church and could not receive the Priesthood blessing. This also changed due to federal laws against discrimination and a rising public tide against racism.] You know what Z, you can keep Mormonism. You and the LDS church deserve each other. Oh yeah, Scientology has openings too, you might be interested in their bullshit.
Z.
Once again, nice way to try to win people over to your cause. You're childish and an idiot. I didn't respond to your previous posts, because you can't argue with stubborn people, so why waste my time? You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. Secondly, what does all of what you brought up have to do with how the church acts today?That's like being opposed to an article on national health care and bringing up the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein, or that Arnold S. is "Republican".
Ty
I think what you meant to say is that you can't argue with facts. Once again you've completely missed the boat. I don't care if you convert to atheism, I just want to mock your ridiculous beliefs and watch you sputter to bring up a response. If you want to continue to believe in LDS teachings, feel free, I just want you to know that those beliefs aren't OK to have. A big invisible man in the sky, the planet Kolob [Mormons believe that God is a physical man who lives on a real planet named Kolob. Mormon apologists differ on whether this planet is meant to be Sagittarius A or Polaris], and seer stones are all absolutely not real, no matter how much you believe in them. It’s also funny that you've stated I've posted "hateful" things, yet you are the only one who has (from the very beginning) resorted to name calling. You've also stated that we "look past" other groups hating gays. Well, no, we absolutely don't. But you happen to be a Mormon, and Mormons happened to have spent millions on advertising for Prop 8 and staged huge demonstrations, so we want you to know that's not OK either. There's nothing "peaceful" about taking away basic human rights.
And of course the LDS church does good things - your salvation plan is completely based on good works. If you don't do charitable things, you don't get into the celestial kingdom. Funny how Megan and I, who are atheists, can manage to be good people without having an invisible carrot dangled in front of our noses. News flash: there is no supernatural, therefore there is no afterlife. You can believe in it all you want, but it’s still not real.
Z.
Like I said, you can believe what you believe, I know what I know, and believe it. You can't disprove God. I merely stated at the beginning that the two men were displaying extreme PDA, regardless of what they mentioned to the papers. Even if they had just kissed each other on the cheek, they were asked to leave private property (guess, what, we live in a country where we can do that). You were the one who began to say things in order to cause problems. I'm sorry that you are so delusional in you "high mindedness" that you don't realize that the way in which you approached me (and the things you constantly comment on the LDS faith) aren't going to win you any supporters, and in that regard you are ignorant in persuasion, you are hateful and you are displaying the type of behavior you hate us for, and I'm sorry that is hypocritical and stupid.
Yes, Joseph Smith believed in seer stones, to people 500 years ago, a TV would be a alien and no one would believe it. I happen to believe in God, who I believe is all powerful, and more advanced than we are, he may be able to make images appear in what one may call stones, who cares, it doesn't deter my faith. I did respond to your accusation that the Pearl of Great Price is invalid, guess what, they were paid for by someone who wanted Joseph Smith discredited, another Egyptologist stated that their comments on Joseph Smith's translations were erroneous. Third, just because in today's society polygamy is looked down upon, doesn't mean that polygamy has always been bad, or frowned upon. There are many different ways in which polygamy can be beneficial, as they were in the beginning of the church. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it wrong. You need to get a life, rather than try to beat up people on their beliefs.
Ty
I'm including your words in quotes to streamline the arguments. “to people 500 years ago, a TV would be a alien and no one would believe it. I happen to believe in God, who I believe is all powerful, and more advanced than we are,” Oh wow, I had hoped it would be self-evident why that was a bad statement to make. Read your words again, and think about it. “You can't disprove God.” Which is in no way an argument for God’s existence. You can’t disprove that the universe was built by a miniature invisible purple elephant who wants us all to bathe thrice on Thursdays, but that doesn’t mean you have to accept it as a valid possibility. “I did respond to your accusation that the Pearl of Great Price is invalid.” You seem to be a little behind on the whole papyrus issue, so let me get you up to speed. There is no serious dissent of any kind about the accuracy of the J.S. “translation” from any sort of credible source. This is the glorious thing about Mormonism. It's young enough that we still have original artifacts to independently verify. Go ahead and print off a copy of the papyrus, as it is available online (or get the original – the LDS church still has it), and take it to an authoritative source that can translate Egyptian hieroglyphics. To avoid any issue of bias, you could even take it to a Mormon (or someone who wasn’t anti-Mormon). They will translate it, and that translation will not be the Pearl of Great Price, it will be fragments of an Egyptian burial ritual. And let’s say for the sake of argument that the J.S. translation was correct, and that the papyrus did contain the Pearl of Great Price. Why then isn't there even one single other Egyptian artifact in all the entire world that has similar information? Why isn't there any evidence at all to suggest that the Egyptians had Mormon beliefs? Oh yeah, because Joseph Smith made up his "translation" completely.
“doesn't mean that polygamy has always been bad, or frowned upon.” I’m not sure why you are defending polygamy, as I didn’t attack it. My reference to polygamy was regarding how the LDS church, which supposedly receives divine revelation, sure seems to change its mind a lot. First it was banning polygamy (with option to renew of course…) [It is a commonly held Mormon belief that one day the current prophet will proclaim that it’s OK to practice polygamy again] and then letting blacks have the Priesthood in the ‘70s, even though Brigham Young [Joseph Smith's successor who led the church after his death] specifically said that if the Mormon church ever allowed blacks to have the priesthood that God would withdraw his blessing from the church (woops). I have no problem at all with polygamy, provided that all parties are adults and consenting. Of course Mormonism is famous for having underage girls wedded off to men three times their age with no chance to escape. And yes, I know, I know, you’re going to say that groups like the FLDS [the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - a splinter group that still lives like it’s the 1800s and still practices polygamy] aren’t really Mormons, but you need to understand that they would say the same thing about you too. “Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it wrong.” And just because you do believe in it doesn’t make it right. No matter how badly you want it to be real, there still aren’t talking snakes, parting seas, resurrections, or people who can divine the location of treasure by looking at plates in a hat.
“You need to get a life, rather than try to beat up people on their beliefs.” This is a total cop-out, and an indication that you don’t actually have an argument. Because I’m able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and am vocal about how your religion is a fantasy, you need to believe that I don’t “have a life” so that you can ignore my arguments. Since I don’t believe in fairy tales, I think that means I have more of a life than religious folk. “You're childish and an idiot.” The insults keep getting more humorous for me, especially considering their source. You believe in absolutely absurd things (you get to be god of your own planet, talking donkeys, etc.) [Mormons believe that the most righteous followers of the religion will start their own universe and be its God - they don't mention at all why they don't then worship the God before this universe's God or how many Gods there are in this succession] yet somehow I’m the childish and idiotic one? Apparently accepting reality is childish.
Friday, July 24, 2009
On the many different pen and paper roleplaying systems
I love pen and paper role playing games. In fact I probably love buying new RPG books more than I actually enjoy role playing. I've got a bookshelf full of everything RPG related, from the most obscure out-of-print system to the most recent D&D stuff. If it's been published in the U.S., I've probably got at least one book from the series.
It's really amazing how wide the appeal of role playing can be. Take "Aria: The Canticle of the Monomyth." This is an RPG system that reads more like a college text book than a fantasy role playing game, and could probably be used as a tool to study both interpersonal relationships and how myth affects reality. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have "Toon: The Cartoon Role Playing Game," where players take on the role of over the top cartoon characters and smack each other with over sized hammers, 'cause, you know, it's funny.
There's Vampire: The Requiem for when you are feeling all emo and angst ridden. There's Call of Cthulhu when you want to go stark raving mad from reading a book that shouldn't be read and then have your character messily devoured by something not of this world. There's the Star Trek and Star Wars RPG systems for when you really need to get your nerd on. Then there's the tried and true Paranoia, for when you want the entire party to constantly be tripping over themselves to kill each other in the most humorous ways possible.
Fantasy has of course always composed the back bone of role playing, but there's a surprising amount of versatility within that category. Dungeons and Dragons is the grandaddy and crowned king, but there are so many more games beyond that. Earthdawn has a flavor all its own that D&D can't really match. The world is built directly into the system (as opposed to a world neutral game like D&D), which makes the rules more interactive and less restrictive. The Warhammer RPG is another one that's vastly different from D&D. Combat is more realistic, and therefore exceedingly deadly, unlike in D&D where the party can expect to get into a fight with some dragon or orc horde every few minutes and come out unscathed.
The Rolemaster RPG system is another fantasy gem that gets overlooked often. The system is exceedingly rules heavy, but it can be fun in the right setting. The "critical hits" tables alone are worth it. Forget that double damage stuff, you want a critical hit that cause a rib to puncture a lung so that the enemy dies horribly three rounds later, but doesn't realize he's dying now. "Critical fumbles" are even more brutal. Miscast that spell? Well you may internalize the spell and take a silly amount of damage, and then if you survive you can't cast another spell for 3 weeks.
That's just the tip of the iceberg too. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of role playing systems, each with its own take on how the game should be played. Take into account all the different campaign settings within each system, and you have a world that takes a lifetime to fully explore. Film noir, horror, sci-fi, western, cop drama, religious, comedy, if there's a concept out there then there is probably an RPG that covers it.
My personal favorite is the Pathfinder system by Paizo. It uses the D20 rules, so its easy to pick up. Paizo is the absolute best at designing adventures that are heavy on the role playing and have enough combat to keep things exciting. Some of our best gaming sessions have been playing through the "Rise of the Runelords" and "Second Darkness" adventure paths. Keep it up Paizo, the role playing world needs you.
So how about your thoughts? Any personal favorites or new RPGs I might not have heard of that you'd like to recommend?
It's really amazing how wide the appeal of role playing can be. Take "Aria: The Canticle of the Monomyth." This is an RPG system that reads more like a college text book than a fantasy role playing game, and could probably be used as a tool to study both interpersonal relationships and how myth affects reality. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have "Toon: The Cartoon Role Playing Game," where players take on the role of over the top cartoon characters and smack each other with over sized hammers, 'cause, you know, it's funny.
There's Vampire: The Requiem for when you are feeling all emo and angst ridden. There's Call of Cthulhu when you want to go stark raving mad from reading a book that shouldn't be read and then have your character messily devoured by something not of this world. There's the Star Trek and Star Wars RPG systems for when you really need to get your nerd on. Then there's the tried and true Paranoia, for when you want the entire party to constantly be tripping over themselves to kill each other in the most humorous ways possible.
Fantasy has of course always composed the back bone of role playing, but there's a surprising amount of versatility within that category. Dungeons and Dragons is the grandaddy and crowned king, but there are so many more games beyond that. Earthdawn has a flavor all its own that D&D can't really match. The world is built directly into the system (as opposed to a world neutral game like D&D), which makes the rules more interactive and less restrictive. The Warhammer RPG is another one that's vastly different from D&D. Combat is more realistic, and therefore exceedingly deadly, unlike in D&D where the party can expect to get into a fight with some dragon or orc horde every few minutes and come out unscathed.
The Rolemaster RPG system is another fantasy gem that gets overlooked often. The system is exceedingly rules heavy, but it can be fun in the right setting. The "critical hits" tables alone are worth it. Forget that double damage stuff, you want a critical hit that cause a rib to puncture a lung so that the enemy dies horribly three rounds later, but doesn't realize he's dying now. "Critical fumbles" are even more brutal. Miscast that spell? Well you may internalize the spell and take a silly amount of damage, and then if you survive you can't cast another spell for 3 weeks.
That's just the tip of the iceberg too. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of role playing systems, each with its own take on how the game should be played. Take into account all the different campaign settings within each system, and you have a world that takes a lifetime to fully explore. Film noir, horror, sci-fi, western, cop drama, religious, comedy, if there's a concept out there then there is probably an RPG that covers it.
My personal favorite is the Pathfinder system by Paizo. It uses the D20 rules, so its easy to pick up. Paizo is the absolute best at designing adventures that are heavy on the role playing and have enough combat to keep things exciting. Some of our best gaming sessions have been playing through the "Rise of the Runelords" and "Second Darkness" adventure paths. Keep it up Paizo, the role playing world needs you.
So how about your thoughts? Any personal favorites or new RPGs I might not have heard of that you'd like to recommend?
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Facebook Post
I ran out of room for the comment on Facebook, so I just posted it here :)
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that point. No personal offense is intended here (as I think you’re an awesome guy and certainly wouldn’t want to alienate you or come off as being rude), but I pretty much disagree with your entire post. In a perfect world no one would share their religious beliefs with anyone else at all, so a live and let live philosophy would work just fine. Unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a world where religion is unquestionably the biggest driving force in nearly every aspect of our lives, from war to politics to medical advancement. People have a moral obligation to not idly sit by and let others continue believing uncontested in any utterly absurd thing they want that obviously isn’t true. When the leader of the free world, and the guy who has access to the nuclear codes, believes that we are in the “end times” and that God wants Russia to invade Israel to trigger the rapture, well then we have a serious problem. On the topic of Evolution, the fact that we have a fossil record in and of itself is a huge argument that can’t be overcome by the religious without resorting to “God put those there to test our faith” statements. The fossil record also isn’t the only thing pointing towards evolution, as there is veritable mountain of evidence suggesting that evolution is responsible for why we are the way we are today. But let’s say for the sake of argument that all those scientists have gotten this just dead wrong (which could be a possibility, based on past scientific findings that were later disproven, but not likely). Even if evolution was an absolute farce that will be disproven in the future, it doesn’t suddenly make the Christian creation myth anymore of a viable option. Whether evolution is a real force or not, the supernatural is still not real. There are no talking snakes or donkeys, no resurrections, no parting seas, no floating disembodied hands that scribble instructions on walls, no bushes that burn-but-are-not-consumed and have big booming voices coming out of them, no crazy prophets who can call down bears to devour upstart children. Even if there was no big bang and there is no natural selection, that doesn’t change the fact that there is still no Santa-Claus-for-adults that has a divine plan for the world. The key word here is “belief.” If someone has to say “I BELIEVE in this thing…” then that ought to tell you that there is no evidence whatsoever to back that belief up, but they are going to go ahead and pretend it’s true anyway.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that point. No personal offense is intended here (as I think you’re an awesome guy and certainly wouldn’t want to alienate you or come off as being rude), but I pretty much disagree with your entire post. In a perfect world no one would share their religious beliefs with anyone else at all, so a live and let live philosophy would work just fine. Unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a world where religion is unquestionably the biggest driving force in nearly every aspect of our lives, from war to politics to medical advancement. People have a moral obligation to not idly sit by and let others continue believing uncontested in any utterly absurd thing they want that obviously isn’t true. When the leader of the free world, and the guy who has access to the nuclear codes, believes that we are in the “end times” and that God wants Russia to invade Israel to trigger the rapture, well then we have a serious problem. On the topic of Evolution, the fact that we have a fossil record in and of itself is a huge argument that can’t be overcome by the religious without resorting to “God put those there to test our faith” statements. The fossil record also isn’t the only thing pointing towards evolution, as there is veritable mountain of evidence suggesting that evolution is responsible for why we are the way we are today. But let’s say for the sake of argument that all those scientists have gotten this just dead wrong (which could be a possibility, based on past scientific findings that were later disproven, but not likely). Even if evolution was an absolute farce that will be disproven in the future, it doesn’t suddenly make the Christian creation myth anymore of a viable option. Whether evolution is a real force or not, the supernatural is still not real. There are no talking snakes or donkeys, no resurrections, no parting seas, no floating disembodied hands that scribble instructions on walls, no bushes that burn-but-are-not-consumed and have big booming voices coming out of them, no crazy prophets who can call down bears to devour upstart children. Even if there was no big bang and there is no natural selection, that doesn’t change the fact that there is still no Santa-Claus-for-adults that has a divine plan for the world. The key word here is “belief.” If someone has to say “I BELIEVE in this thing…” then that ought to tell you that there is no evidence whatsoever to back that belief up, but they are going to go ahead and pretend it’s true anyway.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Eeeeeeeerrr....LOST
Note to those reading this right now: I'm currently very drunk. I'll come back and fix my spelling and grammar mistakes and clear up anything that doesn't make sense on the morrow once sobriety kicks in. Until then the general idea I'm going for should still be readily apparent, even if it does lack some polish.
Just saw the season finale of Lost the other day and I thought I'd give my two cents on what's going on. Anyone who hasn't seen it yet can officially skip this post as it's filled with spoilers. At first I wasn't too thrilled with the final episode this season as nothing happened that wasn't predictable. Obviously Locke isn't really Locke (did no one notice all the other dead people walking around the island telling people how to do things they shouldn't know how to do?) and obviously the bomb goes off, or at least they want us to think it did. Lost is known for having "OMFG! MIND FUCK!" endings which then turn out to be less than big. For instance, the "holy shit there's a light in the hatch!" turned out to be Desmond making a smoothie. I won't in any way be surprised if the flash of light at the end of the show that is supposed to be a nuclear explosion actually turns out to be a flashlight in Juliet's face or, more likely, the white light that Locke said he saw way back several seasons ago when everyone else saw the black smoke monster.
On to the real reason for this post. After some contemplation and a second watch through, it appears that the show has taken a serious turn for the religious. It should be noted that I was raised in a severely Christian home, going so far as to send me to Christian school for several years, so my thinking on this may be skewed and others may not see the religious connotations I've noticed. It should also be noted that even though I love Lost and I discuss religion heavily in this post I absolutely do not condone the belief in ANY religious system of any sort. If you actually follow the teachings of a book from the bronze age that lists prices for slaves and mentions talking animals as though they were real - well, you honestly need to remove yourself from the gene pool before you have the opportunity to breed.
The religious connotation of the last episode is almost immediately apparent with Jacob being a fisherman (an archetype featured heavily in the gospels). You'll then note that he wears white and the unnamed nemesis who speaks with him wears all black (good and evil). The unnamed nemesis appears to hate Jacob but seems to be powerless to stop him (God and the devil). When people on a ship approach the island their conversation takes a serious turn for the Anne Rice/C.S. Lewis variety as the unnamed foe mentions that "it always turns out the same with those people" (God, why did you create man when you know they will turn against you and be sent to hell?) while Jacob responds by saying "there's only one ending, anything before that is just progress" (Eventually I will end the world but up until that point I have a plan for humanity even if they do defy me). The foe then asks if Jacob knows how much he wants to kill him. Jacob simply says that he does (I know everything). The foe talks about finding a loophole, but it isn't clear if he means to stop Jacob's plan for the people (Anne Rice's idea that the devil Memnoch wants all souls to go directly to heaven and for God to stop making more people) or if he means that he wants to kill Jacob to stop his vision for the world. There is also the theory that "Jacob" is short hand for "Jacob's Ladder," which is the link between heaven and earth.
You may note a heavy Egyptian theme in the episode. It's not clear if that's because they are taking the religious connotation into an Egyptian direction or if the creators made everything Egyptian instead of Christian so that they wouldn't give away the direction of the story early on in the show. For those who aren't aware, Christianity has large portions of its holy book and central tenets lifted directly from the ancient Egyptian religion, so it's plausible that they are using the Egyptian theme to express Christian ideas. For example, the Egyptian religion had a baby who floated on a reed basket down a river to escape infanticide as well as a "son of God" figure who died and was resurrected long, long before Christianity was ever thought of. Both religions are also obsessed with the afterlife and how to prepare for it.
There are many more religious connotations throughout the episode, but because they haven't fully revealed who is who and what they want it isn't entirely clear what direction they are taking. For example if the unnamed foe, who has clearly taken on Locke's body, is really supposed to be a euphemism for Lucifer it could be that the island is heaven and the foe was cast out of it. This could be why, with the exception of during specific audiences (ala the book of Job when Satan goes to heaven to tell God to tempt Job) that the foe cannot take on physical form and must steal the body of someone else. This might also be why the foe himself cannot kill God but needs a human to do it as only humans have total free will (a contradiction yes, but that's a contradiction in actual Christianity as well so I won't bother to drop the argument in a fictional T.V. show). There's some discrepancy here though, as it seems that this foe was left bodiless in the cabin as a sort of prison, but somehow managed to escape (the broken ash line). They might also be going for a "Jacob knew all along" thing along the same lines as how Jesus knew he was going to be killed, battle Satan in hell, and then be resurrected. Jacob doesn't seem to be particularly concerned by what's happening to him and even goes so far as to try to get the people to come back to the island. He also says to Ben "What about you?" (I'm God and you are man, why do you think you deserve my attention even though you went through hell for me Job?) The foe/Locke also tempts Ben into agreeing to kill Jacob by using several real world arguments about why people would want to hate God in the same way a religious person would claim the devil would tempt people (you followed his laws your whole life but what did He ever do for you?). During the entire exodus of the Others to find Jacob he acts very much like a fallen angel would, pretending to be holy and using logic to cajole people but really having shifty ulterior motives. Richard also appears to be some sort of angel or prophet character who serves as Jacob's messenger.
The foe/Locke seems to have found his loophole by doing a reverse-resurrection where he is born again in an unholy manner, in a direct violation of the holy resurrection we see Jacob do for the original Locke or like what happened with Jesus. Jacob on the other hand follows the typical archetype of a modern day deity who is calm, all knowing, and sympathetic of human pain despite being the one who causes it (re-watch the scenes with Hurley, Sayid, young Kate, and young Sawyer).
There have been several other religious hints dropped throughout the early seasons. Locke's dad talks about being in hell on the island, the drugs were all in statues of the virgin Mary, Charlie was obsessed with baptizing Claire's baby. A huge temple is always looming the background, although it isn't clear what the temple is dedicated to. Even though these next ones are from different pantheons they are still religiously based: we see "Apollo" bars all the time, and Sun and Jin have made several statements which seem to indicate they are somehow associated with fertility and sun deities.
I'm not sure whether Lost is actually going for a directly God vs. Satan or Good vs. Evil motif, but there is without question a huge religious theme that wasn't entirely present before. Whether they take it someplace I hadn't seen or go for a straight Christianity parallel I will have to admit this season finale was the biggest mind fuck of all as it has completely changes how I view the show. Where as before everything was always mysterious but I never once wondered if it was all boiling down to a cosmic good vs. evil battle I'm now seeing everything in that light, even when going back and watching the early seasons. Hats off Lost creators. Even thought I think the Christian cosmology is completely ludicrous in real life I can't deny that it's interesting as fiction and you guys totally hid it well.
Just saw the season finale of Lost the other day and I thought I'd give my two cents on what's going on. Anyone who hasn't seen it yet can officially skip this post as it's filled with spoilers. At first I wasn't too thrilled with the final episode this season as nothing happened that wasn't predictable. Obviously Locke isn't really Locke (did no one notice all the other dead people walking around the island telling people how to do things they shouldn't know how to do?) and obviously the bomb goes off, or at least they want us to think it did. Lost is known for having "OMFG! MIND FUCK!" endings which then turn out to be less than big. For instance, the "holy shit there's a light in the hatch!" turned out to be Desmond making a smoothie. I won't in any way be surprised if the flash of light at the end of the show that is supposed to be a nuclear explosion actually turns out to be a flashlight in Juliet's face or, more likely, the white light that Locke said he saw way back several seasons ago when everyone else saw the black smoke monster.
On to the real reason for this post. After some contemplation and a second watch through, it appears that the show has taken a serious turn for the religious. It should be noted that I was raised in a severely Christian home, going so far as to send me to Christian school for several years, so my thinking on this may be skewed and others may not see the religious connotations I've noticed. It should also be noted that even though I love Lost and I discuss religion heavily in this post I absolutely do not condone the belief in ANY religious system of any sort. If you actually follow the teachings of a book from the bronze age that lists prices for slaves and mentions talking animals as though they were real - well, you honestly need to remove yourself from the gene pool before you have the opportunity to breed.
The religious connotation of the last episode is almost immediately apparent with Jacob being a fisherman (an archetype featured heavily in the gospels). You'll then note that he wears white and the unnamed nemesis who speaks with him wears all black (good and evil). The unnamed nemesis appears to hate Jacob but seems to be powerless to stop him (God and the devil). When people on a ship approach the island their conversation takes a serious turn for the Anne Rice/C.S. Lewis variety as the unnamed foe mentions that "it always turns out the same with those people" (God, why did you create man when you know they will turn against you and be sent to hell?) while Jacob responds by saying "there's only one ending, anything before that is just progress" (Eventually I will end the world but up until that point I have a plan for humanity even if they do defy me). The foe then asks if Jacob knows how much he wants to kill him. Jacob simply says that he does (I know everything). The foe talks about finding a loophole, but it isn't clear if he means to stop Jacob's plan for the people (Anne Rice's idea that the devil Memnoch wants all souls to go directly to heaven and for God to stop making more people) or if he means that he wants to kill Jacob to stop his vision for the world. There is also the theory that "Jacob" is short hand for "Jacob's Ladder," which is the link between heaven and earth.
You may note a heavy Egyptian theme in the episode. It's not clear if that's because they are taking the religious connotation into an Egyptian direction or if the creators made everything Egyptian instead of Christian so that they wouldn't give away the direction of the story early on in the show. For those who aren't aware, Christianity has large portions of its holy book and central tenets lifted directly from the ancient Egyptian religion, so it's plausible that they are using the Egyptian theme to express Christian ideas. For example, the Egyptian religion had a baby who floated on a reed basket down a river to escape infanticide as well as a "son of God" figure who died and was resurrected long, long before Christianity was ever thought of. Both religions are also obsessed with the afterlife and how to prepare for it.
There are many more religious connotations throughout the episode, but because they haven't fully revealed who is who and what they want it isn't entirely clear what direction they are taking. For example if the unnamed foe, who has clearly taken on Locke's body, is really supposed to be a euphemism for Lucifer it could be that the island is heaven and the foe was cast out of it. This could be why, with the exception of during specific audiences (ala the book of Job when Satan goes to heaven to tell God to tempt Job) that the foe cannot take on physical form and must steal the body of someone else. This might also be why the foe himself cannot kill God but needs a human to do it as only humans have total free will (a contradiction yes, but that's a contradiction in actual Christianity as well so I won't bother to drop the argument in a fictional T.V. show). There's some discrepancy here though, as it seems that this foe was left bodiless in the cabin as a sort of prison, but somehow managed to escape (the broken ash line). They might also be going for a "Jacob knew all along" thing along the same lines as how Jesus knew he was going to be killed, battle Satan in hell, and then be resurrected. Jacob doesn't seem to be particularly concerned by what's happening to him and even goes so far as to try to get the people to come back to the island. He also says to Ben "What about you?" (I'm God and you are man, why do you think you deserve my attention even though you went through hell for me Job?) The foe/Locke also tempts Ben into agreeing to kill Jacob by using several real world arguments about why people would want to hate God in the same way a religious person would claim the devil would tempt people (you followed his laws your whole life but what did He ever do for you?). During the entire exodus of the Others to find Jacob he acts very much like a fallen angel would, pretending to be holy and using logic to cajole people but really having shifty ulterior motives. Richard also appears to be some sort of angel or prophet character who serves as Jacob's messenger.
The foe/Locke seems to have found his loophole by doing a reverse-resurrection where he is born again in an unholy manner, in a direct violation of the holy resurrection we see Jacob do for the original Locke or like what happened with Jesus. Jacob on the other hand follows the typical archetype of a modern day deity who is calm, all knowing, and sympathetic of human pain despite being the one who causes it (re-watch the scenes with Hurley, Sayid, young Kate, and young Sawyer).
There have been several other religious hints dropped throughout the early seasons. Locke's dad talks about being in hell on the island, the drugs were all in statues of the virgin Mary, Charlie was obsessed with baptizing Claire's baby. A huge temple is always looming the background, although it isn't clear what the temple is dedicated to. Even though these next ones are from different pantheons they are still religiously based: we see "Apollo" bars all the time, and Sun and Jin have made several statements which seem to indicate they are somehow associated with fertility and sun deities.
I'm not sure whether Lost is actually going for a directly God vs. Satan or Good vs. Evil motif, but there is without question a huge religious theme that wasn't entirely present before. Whether they take it someplace I hadn't seen or go for a straight Christianity parallel I will have to admit this season finale was the biggest mind fuck of all as it has completely changes how I view the show. Where as before everything was always mysterious but I never once wondered if it was all boiling down to a cosmic good vs. evil battle I'm now seeing everything in that light, even when going back and watching the early seasons. Hats off Lost creators. Even thought I think the Christian cosmology is completely ludicrous in real life I can't deny that it's interesting as fiction and you guys totally hid it well.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Grillin!
It's been so absurdly nice out lately I decided we needed to get ourselves a grill and have a barbecue. We live in an apartment, so a massive standing grill was pretty much out of the question. We found a nice little sitting Blue Rhino grill on the cheap at Walmart and picked it up. We didn't want to mess around with charcoal because of the uneven cooking and big mess, so we went with the mini-propane tank variety. I wanted to make sure it stayed nice and pretty, so some accessories were in order as well.
Putting it together wasn't too bad, but I'd never assembled a grill before so it took me a good half hour or so of dropping wing nuts and trying to figure out the instructions. We had three main foods in mind to test it out, first being something my mom used to make when I was a kid. It consists of potatoes, green peppers, and onions cut up and put into a foil packet. We then drizzle on olive oil and put on whatever spices strikes our fancy. To try something new I added in some garlic this time too.
Of course we also did the standard burgers and hot dogs as well for good measure. I was thinking I wanted to go Boca burger and Morningstar Farms soy dogs myself, but once Megan had put all the spices in the hamburger I changed my mind.
Getting the propane tank on the grill and making sure it wasn't leaking was honestly kind of terrifying as I'd never used propane before. Once it was all done it was pretty smooth sailing. Here's the first official use of the grill tongs on the potato packets:
After the packets had cooked for about a half hour we put on the burgers and dogs. The bottom grill isn't big enough to hold everything so I transferred the packets onto the top heating grill and attempted to close the lid. Mistake it turns out, as the top grill isn't strong enough to support three foil packets full of potato wedges. It popped out of the slot and full onto the burgers. It took some quick maneuvering to get it back into the slot without anyone getting burned. I guess the top rack is going to be hot dog only territory from now on. Here's the finished meat:
Now that I've got a grill I intend to use the fuck out of it. We're going to go fishing this weekend and try out cooking our own fish. I usually grab a red snapper or catfish fillet from 2Js every Saturday to bake, so this ought to be a fun treat grilling something more fresh.
Putting it together wasn't too bad, but I'd never assembled a grill before so it took me a good half hour or so of dropping wing nuts and trying to figure out the instructions. We had three main foods in mind to test it out, first being something my mom used to make when I was a kid. It consists of potatoes, green peppers, and onions cut up and put into a foil packet. We then drizzle on olive oil and put on whatever spices strikes our fancy. To try something new I added in some garlic this time too.
Of course we also did the standard burgers and hot dogs as well for good measure. I was thinking I wanted to go Boca burger and Morningstar Farms soy dogs myself, but once Megan had put all the spices in the hamburger I changed my mind.
Getting the propane tank on the grill and making sure it wasn't leaking was honestly kind of terrifying as I'd never used propane before. Once it was all done it was pretty smooth sailing. Here's the first official use of the grill tongs on the potato packets:
After the packets had cooked for about a half hour we put on the burgers and dogs. The bottom grill isn't big enough to hold everything so I transferred the packets onto the top heating grill and attempted to close the lid. Mistake it turns out, as the top grill isn't strong enough to support three foil packets full of potato wedges. It popped out of the slot and full onto the burgers. It took some quick maneuvering to get it back into the slot without anyone getting burned. I guess the top rack is going to be hot dog only territory from now on. Here's the finished meat:
Now that I've got a grill I intend to use the fuck out of it. We're going to go fishing this weekend and try out cooking our own fish. I usually grab a red snapper or catfish fillet from 2Js every Saturday to bake, so this ought to be a fun treat grilling something more fresh.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
There aren't many sushi restaurants in Montana, so most of the time I have to deal with store bought rolls that are lacking in quality and aren't exactly fresh. That all changed at Gift Giving Orgy Day (the day formerly known as Christmas) when Megan got me all of the ingredients I would need to make my own along with rolling mats, recipe books, and an instructional video. Fuck she gives the best gifts. This one probably tops the basket filled with carefully chosen mustard varieties to complement my pre-existing collection.
Anyway, we made two different kinds of sushi tonight to celebrate the weekend, so here's some pictures of how it all went down.
The first type is a normal nori roll featuring traditional ingredients. I just recently found a place in town that offers sushi grade tuna so I thought I'd give it a try. To complement the fish I cooked up some asparagus, which was cooked in a mixture of water and freshly squeezed lemon juice with salt and pepper.
Next up I started preparing the second kind of filling, which is much less traditional but still amazingly good. First I diced up a bunch of celery and green onions.
Then I diced and mixed in pickled ginger along with mashed up surimi (fake crab made with several different fish). Some mayonnaise (sorry, American instead of Japanese as nowhere sells it around here), wasabi and Asian chili sauce rounded it out.
Back to the first kind of roll. It was firm to the touch, the right color, and wasn't frozen, but unfortunately it had a bit of that unpleasantly pungent fish odor. This is the number 1 indicator that it isn't sushi grade and is not safe to eat raw. I made a quick nigri-zushi roll to taste it and make the final decision.
The tuna tasted good raw, but I would be serving these rolls to other people so I decided to err on the side of caution and pan sear it for about a minute on each side. This did give me the benefit of being able to play around with the flavor. I cooked it in lemon, soy sauce, and a dash of salt and pepper.
Here's a picture of the main ingredients for the first kind of roll in their finalized forms.
And then here's the finished stuffing for the reverse nori spicy sarimi roll.
We layed the nori rolls on our sushi mats and covered them with the sushi rice I had made the day before. For anyone who hasn't made this before, you have to use Japanese short grain rice instead of normal rice. Once it's cooked add in rice vinegar and sugar.
Here's a nori roll with a good layer of rice.
And then here's some of the first kind of filling.
This is the finished product (pre-cutting) and man it looks nice!
This is one of Megan making a reverse nori roll. To make this one you need to cover the mat in plastic wrap, cover a roll in rice, and then flip it over and put the fillings on top.
The final product of both types is shown below.
Normally the Japanese would dip their sushi in soy sauce and then eat a piece of pickled ginger afterwords to cleanse the palette, but personally I prefer to put wasabi and ginger on top of my roll and eat all at once.
Anyway, we made two different kinds of sushi tonight to celebrate the weekend, so here's some pictures of how it all went down.
The first type is a normal nori roll featuring traditional ingredients. I just recently found a place in town that offers sushi grade tuna so I thought I'd give it a try. To complement the fish I cooked up some asparagus, which was cooked in a mixture of water and freshly squeezed lemon juice with salt and pepper.
Next up I started preparing the second kind of filling, which is much less traditional but still amazingly good. First I diced up a bunch of celery and green onions.
Then I diced and mixed in pickled ginger along with mashed up surimi (fake crab made with several different fish). Some mayonnaise (sorry, American instead of Japanese as nowhere sells it around here), wasabi and Asian chili sauce rounded it out.
Back to the first kind of roll. It was firm to the touch, the right color, and wasn't frozen, but unfortunately it had a bit of that unpleasantly pungent fish odor. This is the number 1 indicator that it isn't sushi grade and is not safe to eat raw. I made a quick nigri-zushi roll to taste it and make the final decision.
The tuna tasted good raw, but I would be serving these rolls to other people so I decided to err on the side of caution and pan sear it for about a minute on each side. This did give me the benefit of being able to play around with the flavor. I cooked it in lemon, soy sauce, and a dash of salt and pepper.
Here's a picture of the main ingredients for the first kind of roll in their finalized forms.
And then here's the finished stuffing for the reverse nori spicy sarimi roll.
We layed the nori rolls on our sushi mats and covered them with the sushi rice I had made the day before. For anyone who hasn't made this before, you have to use Japanese short grain rice instead of normal rice. Once it's cooked add in rice vinegar and sugar.
Here's a nori roll with a good layer of rice.
And then here's some of the first kind of filling.
This is the finished product (pre-cutting) and man it looks nice!
This is one of Megan making a reverse nori roll. To make this one you need to cover the mat in plastic wrap, cover a roll in rice, and then flip it over and put the fillings on top.
The final product of both types is shown below.
Normally the Japanese would dip their sushi in soy sauce and then eat a piece of pickled ginger afterwords to cleanse the palette, but personally I prefer to put wasabi and ginger on top of my roll and eat all at once.
Pizza Night
We've had a long running tradition of making our own pizzas at home rather than ordering out or using frozen. There's a ridiculous number of toppings, sauces, and crusts you can mix together for a perfect pizza that will satisfy anyone's palette. Some of our personal favorites are buffalo chicken, cheeseburger (complete with pickles!), and apple and Gorgonzola. Megan and I were looking through some old cooking magazines we hadn't used in awhile and found an issue of Vegetarian Times featuring an amazing looking veggie pizza on the cover. Below is a picture tour of our attempts to recreate it.
First up is my amazingly hot wife cutting up some veggies. We used zucchini, yellow squash, orange bell pepper, red onion, and grape tomatoes.
Here's a picture of all of the veggies used and the magazine cover that inspired us.
Then we made the sauce, which was made with garlic and butter instead of the traditional tomato based sauce.
Here's my pie rolling out the crust!
This doesn't really need a picture, but I love documenting our cooking experiences. Here's the lemon water we made (oh so refreshing!) to go with our meal.
After setting down the garlic sauce we made a thin cover of mozzarella cheese.
And laying down the veggie toppings...
Here's all of the toppings down, including the red pepper flakes on top to give it some kick.
And finally the finished cooked product, which was then devoured messily.
All in all, a successful meal!
First up is my amazingly hot wife cutting up some veggies. We used zucchini, yellow squash, orange bell pepper, red onion, and grape tomatoes.
Here's a picture of all of the veggies used and the magazine cover that inspired us.
Then we made the sauce, which was made with garlic and butter instead of the traditional tomato based sauce.
Here's my pie rolling out the crust!
This doesn't really need a picture, but I love documenting our cooking experiences. Here's the lemon water we made (oh so refreshing!) to go with our meal.
After setting down the garlic sauce we made a thin cover of mozzarella cheese.
And laying down the veggie toppings...
Here's all of the toppings down, including the red pepper flakes on top to give it some kick.
And finally the finished cooked product, which was then devoured messily.
All in all, a successful meal!
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The Great Lobster Extravaganza!
For those who didn't know, the Great Lobster Extravaganza is the biggest event (of any variety) of the entire year! Spanning two separate apartments and feeding a full four people past the point of fullness, the Great Lobster Extravaganza was a rousing success!
OK, so basically it was just Matt's birthday and we wanted to re-create a meal we'd had at Red Lobster once, but it was still pretty damn awesome. The meal consisted of marinated steaks with a crab/lobster topping, broiled lobster tail, asparagus in butter sauce, mashed potatoes, salad, and a desert of cheesecake with sour cream and fruit topping.
We started out by slicing open the steaks, stuffing them with garlic, and then marinating them in A1 "Savory Onion and Black Pepper" sauce for a full day. When the time for the meal itself came we started by preparing the lobster, which is actually pretty fun. We cut open the top shell so we could pour a butter sauce over it and then snipped the little feet off for a prettier presentation.
After that Matt got mad at the oven mitt for some reason...
Next we made the sauce for the lobster, which was just a basic butter/garlic/pepper mixture. The asparagus got cooked up in olive oil, butter, balsamic vinegar, and pepper. Fattening to be sure, but delicious beyond belief.
For the steak topping we pulled a little of the lobster meat out and then mixed it with Surimi (fake crab) and cooked it in butter and pepper.
Then I got mad at Matt for some reason, only I went for a knife instead of a finger....
My pie cooked up the steaks on the stove in more marinade to make them juicy, then finished them up on the George Foreman to make the cooking go faster.
And now for a Lobster before and after shot!
The dinner table all set up...
And then the super sexy finished product!
And once the meal proper was done, we hoofed it over to Jake's to feast on his amazing cheesecake. He said the secret ingredient was "Love," which I took to mean semen, but it was still good.
OK, so basically it was just Matt's birthday and we wanted to re-create a meal we'd had at Red Lobster once, but it was still pretty damn awesome. The meal consisted of marinated steaks with a crab/lobster topping, broiled lobster tail, asparagus in butter sauce, mashed potatoes, salad, and a desert of cheesecake with sour cream and fruit topping.
We started out by slicing open the steaks, stuffing them with garlic, and then marinating them in A1 "Savory Onion and Black Pepper" sauce for a full day. When the time for the meal itself came we started by preparing the lobster, which is actually pretty fun. We cut open the top shell so we could pour a butter sauce over it and then snipped the little feet off for a prettier presentation.
After that Matt got mad at the oven mitt for some reason...
Next we made the sauce for the lobster, which was just a basic butter/garlic/pepper mixture. The asparagus got cooked up in olive oil, butter, balsamic vinegar, and pepper. Fattening to be sure, but delicious beyond belief.
For the steak topping we pulled a little of the lobster meat out and then mixed it with Surimi (fake crab) and cooked it in butter and pepper.
Then I got mad at Matt for some reason, only I went for a knife instead of a finger....
My pie cooked up the steaks on the stove in more marinade to make them juicy, then finished them up on the George Foreman to make the cooking go faster.
And now for a Lobster before and after shot!
The dinner table all set up...
And then the super sexy finished product!
And once the meal proper was done, we hoofed it over to Jake's to feast on his amazing cheesecake. He said the secret ingredient was "Love," which I took to mean semen, but it was still good.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Alcohol Pills???
OK, so we have pills to make men hard when they should be physically incapable of sexual contact (Viagra), we have pills to make your brain think that you are on Heroin when you aren't (Methadone), and we have a liquid that mimics the effects of naturally produced insulin for diabetics, so why the hell don't we have a pill that mimics the effects of intoxication without destroying your liver?
Seriously! We know what causes intoxication and how it works, so why haven't we synthetically reproduced it in a lab? I want a booze pill! And yes, this rant was brought to you by hard liquor.
Seriously! We know what causes intoxication and how it works, so why haven't we synthetically reproduced it in a lab? I want a booze pill! And yes, this rant was brought to you by hard liquor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)