Taber-Chuckle II: Nov 23, 2011

Psalm 119:105 — Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.

At least, that's what the sign wanted to say, if there were enough room.

 

Now that I have a new route to and from work, I miss my old Taberchuckle source. That had some beauties. In it's place, I have chosen a big Lutheran church by the freeway. While they typically do not make up inspirational phrases as the old Taber did, they do pick actual passes, so far as I've seen. What I am finding nice about this approach is that it lets me take a sentence and expound  upon it. The wording might be slightly concatenated to fit the sign but I look it up and see how it plays in context and what was left out. Here is the inaugural Taberchuckle II.

 

What always irks me the most is the call to subservience. You would think that with Christianity growing out of the enslaved peoples of Rome, they might want to shake of those vestiges of bondage. Equally as annoying is the constant harping on the same note that "my was is the only way and you are shit without it". What company wouldn't want to see their product to half of the world with simple messaging like that? It is this aspect that annoys me with this phrase.

 

Let's start with the "to my feet" component. Why is this here? It could certainly be a vestige of archaic phrasing that is lost to us now but I know how to walk without looking at my feet so lighting my path would sufficient, thank you very much. Next, why is the traveller so fixated on his feet? Why isn't she watching where she's going? More to the point, why is the scenery being ignored? Because it is wicked and evil? Says who? Maybe it's because our traveller might see another path, one that is better lit and with better scenery and fraught with less peril?

What about the traveller who does not need the light, who has better night vision because of genetics or because he already knows the road? Maybe I am luminous on my own and do not need your light. Why travel at night in the first place?

There is a reason that the iconography for knowledge is a lamp. The whether it's Diogenes looking for the wise man or jebus and its brand of truthiness, they both offer knowledge. One is good to you now, the other when you're dead. Which benefits you more? That is the individual's true choice.

 

Maybe I don't like the brand of oil this message provides. I'll still use oil in my lamp, just not  yours. Plus, I'm going to look down that road to see what's coming rather than focus on where I am at just that moment. Looking down the road, I can see some of the wonders the future might bring and spot opportunities to take a different path and to plan for that change, instead of marching along in the dark, staring at my own two feet, eyes averted to the world.

 

Keep that head bowed, traveller.

Taber-Chuckles: 2009-05-19

So many posts, so little time.

I can appreciate the attempt to give an encouraging message to the sheep but the short space makes for some damn funny clauses. This is one of them. I could be wrong, and this is the pure message as intended. Yikes. Let's start, as I always like to do, by analyzing the language. It is always a source of amusement.

Actually, the clause itself is fine but for two single words, pay and sacrifice. They give it a rather explicit meaning that is disturbing. All the speaker had to do is move who up to the first line and replace pay with make to make the clause acceptable. As it is, it reveals much about the psychology of the writer.

A person can make a sacrifice or pay a sacrifice. Paying for something implies that the object is something that the person wants but must perform a transaction to acquire it. Something tells me this is an impulse buy. Maybe they person wants the item but do they really need it? My main problem with the use of pay here is that the transaction involves the individual's life itself, as opposed to some form of legal tender or bartering with something of equal value. One's life is not. Apparently, the boogieman for this cult only accepts payment in death.

Next is the word sacrifice. Sure sacrifice fits the usage, if you change the verb, but one could just as easily-and effectively-use the word price. It definitely works with the verb pay. Pay the ultimate price has a shred of dignity to it. Make the ultimate sacrifice has a bit of dignity but also implies that the person knew that this would happen, thus performed the act willingly. That would be okay, but we are dealing with cultists, so there is an understanding of deception and/or coercion. What is the reward? Death. What is the cost of this reward? Death. Sounds like a death cult to me.

Then there is the other aspect of sacrifice. Of the two possibilities, this is usage is definitely literal: the person is literally sacrificing themselves, just like in the "good ol' days." People nowadays still make sacrifices but they are most often figurative. Wearing one's Sunday finest to the cult facility is a figurative sacrifice that pagan cults used to do. The Athenians would offer bolts of fine cloth to Athena as a sacrifice. What they do today is the same thing, just figurative—and very pagan. With this statement, however, it is implied that it is literal. It has to be-it is a death cult.

Towards the end of the writing, the word willing leapt out at me. There is not much to say about it other than it reinforces the supposition of dumb sheep being tricked into marching to the slaughter. All I can do is shake my head at the potential lost if these people were not fettered, neutered, and shamed into submission. They have no true respect for themselves.

On the other hand, taking the message as it reads, it is asking the reader to extol the virtue of someone so delusional as to believe that one person having holes shot in to their carcass makes a substantial difference. How many does it take? When have enough sheep been sacrificed to make one say: "maybe we cannot win this one?" Such arrogance. Such stupid sheep. Sounds like a match made in....ah, crap.

Taber-Chuckles: 2009-04-29

What the hell does this mean?

gawd already takes things, and from what I hear others saying, he takes the stuff they want: "gawd took my mother," "gawd took my leg." For a thing that is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, it sure it needy. Sounds more like a bully who needs his kneecaps busted. The only thing that I would let it take is the burning bag of doody I let go of on its porch.

Then there is the language of the statement. Like all good religious inspirationals, these are imperatives - commands. Let it go is understandable but the second sentence: let gawd take it is more deplorable. When you read it correctly, you can hear your mother yelling at you to share with your other sibling: Share your He-Man toy with your brother. Except, in their mental fantasy, gawd, the bully, will take it anyway. "Gimme, gimme, gimme" is the mantra of these people so it only makes sense that the giving has to come from somewhere.

This now makes me grin when I hear some dope bleat out the excuse: the lord will provide, or some variant thereof. Now you know why your leg was healed and where the resources for the miracle of life originated. Recycled from some other slob, who just then, is crying because someone took their He-Man toy.

Back to let it go. Why let it go? It is yours. You can have it so long as you want. People dying from old age, self-inflicted liberation, accidents, or doing something stupid is just that.

Just as its cultists are needy and walk around with their hands out, so does that cult's fantasy figure because, as the Mediterraneans correctly thought, gods are just like them, only powerful. As man is a drunkard who loves sex, so does his gods.

Ding dong! Someone's at the door.

Taber-Chuckles: 2009-03-23

Finally, the sign says something worthwhile. I approve of this message because it is not insulting, demeaning, oppressive, selfish, or exclusionary. On the other hand, a few days ago was James Madison's birthday. Maybe this is to acknowledge the contributions of this Founding Father to our culture.

Taber-Chuckles: 2009-02-26

What a fitting metaphor: the sleeping xian as an infant. They sure are.

Who doesn't like rocking a cradle? You see that sleeping face and you just want to shake the crap out of it. Make that infant bounce all over the place, maybe wedge the skull between the bars. Then laugh as the little baby cries.

Why are xians asleep all the time? It would be nice if they woke up for a second and contributed to the world. The strength of their devotion to something from a dream, applied to real problems in the world could accomplish so much. Of course, the last time they applied themselves, they tortured people across the world for not liking the Prince of Peace. Maybe having them sleep is not such a bad idea. It definitely makes it easier to sneak up on them and club them like a baby seal. Good times.

Granted, this sign has only so many slots for letters, but one could just as easily interpret it as Satan is rocking the cradle in an affectionate way. After all, Satan truly loves Mankind. He did his best to improve our lot and free us from an abusive parent whose first words to its children was "DON'T TOUCH THAT!"

Let's take another tack. Let us ignore that knowledge aspect and focus on the other: obedience. What you see in the allegory of the chapter of Genesis is a test of obedience. It assumes, however, that obedience is good. Obedience is only good for children. Adults, however, can capitulate. You yield some degree of individuality for the sake of a functioning society. However, those first words from the sky daddy are don't wander off and don't touch that. Parents still do that today. Out of fear of germs - a creation of the daddy, yes? - anything Baby Moron tries to play with is swatted away. No wonder kids today are damn-near worthless.

For humans, advancements are not made by people who toes the line, who capitulate completely, who grovel in fealty. Advancement is made by someone who stands up for itself and says Screw you! I'm doing this! It makes a difference for knowledge and culture and society. That benefits everyone, unlike religion, which only offers benefits a single individual: the believer.

I just become angry as I have this dialog in my head. What a waste.

Taber-Chuckles: Jan 28, 2009

I definitely need to drive by this place more often. I just happened to go by one morning because I was running late and here was this beauty. I think I gritted my teeth when it click in my head what it said.

In one sentence is the command and the excuse. I can understand the clergy expressing this thought. They better...it's their job. If they don't think this then they need to quit.

To individuals, this surely must rub some of them the wrong way. Don't think. Yield to gawd. It will reward your submission with...an uninspiring life. I suppose if you approach it from a point of thinking that you as an individual is nothing, worthless and empty without a continuous serving of mystical spaghetti, it makes a little sense. You are nothing. You have nothing. Subjugate your remaining flecks of will to some The Pasta and as a reward, you will enjoy the same semi-random events that affect everyone around you. It's magic!

Is His Noodleness really giving his best? I suppose those parents who willfully let their teenage daughter die from easily treated diabetes or another set of parents also mentioned in the same article who let their fifteen-month-old die from a blood disease think that gawd's will was done. They prayed and I am sure they prayed their asses off so that their children would die and the lord provided.

Is gawd's will gawd's best? I suspect that you can find millions of people throughout this perpetual dark ages who would agree with that but their faith prevents them from making such a statement. Instead, they justify their disappointment with pathetic expressions like "It was gawd's will."

I think what bugs me so much about it is its similarity to the Nanny State. No one wants a Nanny State, except for freeloaders. Yet this is what the "Non-thought of the Day" is expressing. Leave it to me. I'll take care of you. Do these people not have a sense of pride in themselves? Do they not think themselves capable of doing anything significant? I guess not. It's the crux of the most contemptible phrase these people mutter: The Lord will provide. No. Your lord will provide you with only one thing: death. Everything else is up to you.


Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death. - Albert Einstein

I will agree that the sad individuals who yield their will to a cloud will not do so for every question in their lives. However, that is not the point. It is egregious that they do so at all in the first place. They threw away the greatest and most powerful part of their humanity: the ability to grow beyond what they are. The church does not like that because you are with the boogieman made of you; that should be good enough. It makes me weep to think of the wasted potential of mankind on a singular, selfish desire.

I leave you with a few more thoughts from Albert Einstein, which I feel apply nicely:

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

Taber-chuckles: Philosophical Question Time

Now that we know the answer, what is the question?

* What do you get if you multiply six by nine?
* Who farted?
* Do you want fries with that?
* An invisible man / sleepin' in your bed. / Who you gonna call?
* Train A leaves town A and travels at 50 miles per hour towrds town B. Train B leaves town B 43 minutes later and travels at 77 miles per hour towards town A. Train B has to slow down to 49 miles per hour for a distance of 13851 feet. Town A and Town B are 637.29 kilometers apart in a straight line. How long will train B travel before it passes train A?
* Where are the car keys?
* Who's the black private dick / That's a sex machine to all the chicks? Ya damn right!
* Who left their underwear on the ceiling fan?
* Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
* Do you know the way to San Tropéz?
* How can something like the Jena 6 occur in a civilized society?
* Would you like to subscribe to the New York Times?
* Do you have a reservation?
* Cash or charge?
* What time is it?
* What would Jesus do? (Hmm. Would Jesus do Jesus? Is that auto-erotica or something along the lines of servicing Jesus? Both of those are a sin so someone is going to Hell. Perhaps Jesus would create another Jesus but then which one do you worship? Now there are two and one of the commandments is to have no other, so now that this is a polytheistic system, it is a moral crime to pracice it. Wow.)
* Blondes, brunettes, ravens, or reds?
* Is it live or is it Memorex--?
* Are those tits real?

I feel so enlightened.