OK, Now He's a Maverick
David Weigel | August 23, 2006, 9:22am
It was fronted on Drudge, so you've already seen it, but Tom Cruise's career nosedive is worth just a little more attention.
Paramount Pictures and actor Tom Cruise called an end to their 14-year production deal on Wednesday as the chairman of the studio's parent company took a parting shot at the movie star's off-screen behavior.
"As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal," Viacom Inc. Chairman Sumner Redstone told the Wall Street Journal in an interview posted online. "His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."
That's a hell of a statement - studios always come up with a cover story for things like this. They don't just come out and say "that honky's crazy."
And what's happening with South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who fought a pitched battle with cruise over their Scientology episode? Oh, they signed a deal with Paramount. Tom's Xenu-powered revenge has been limited to The Simpsons beating South Park in an Emmy upset.
Stevo Darkly | August 23, 2006, 10:57pm | #
Wow, it's the return of The Theist Who Exists Only in My Head.
You seem to think Catholicism isn't weird? Lessee:
God created the world in six days. He created man in his own image, then he created woman out of a rib taken from the man's side. A talking snake got them to eat 'the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil', which got them tossed out of their home and tainted the couple and all their descendents for all time. They had two children, one of whom murdered the other. The survivor married a girl who came from somewhere else and the human race descended from them.
Your argument would be a lot stronger if you could have managed to start off with at least
one thing that Catholics actually believe, instead of umpty-ump things they don't. Catholics don't take the story of Genesis literally. A knowledgeable critic would know this.
I really wish Christians would make up they minds.
First they say the Bible is the word of God.
And when somebody points out the inconsistencies, "it's not to be taken literally".
Your reasoning is poor.
It's been years and years, but I've taken a class that looked at the Bible as literature, and considered the literary and story-telling techniques that were in vogue during the periods the Bible was compiled. Believers hold that some parts of the Bible, especially the New Testament, are close to being historical accounts. However, telling truths through parables and allegories is also a time-honored and well-understood technique.
Jesus himself is said to have used it very often. When he said, "Once there was a Samaritan..." or "Once the owner of a vinyard ..." he wasn't giving a news report about an actual Samaritan's travels, or describing the actual hiring practices of an actual vinyard owner. And his audience knew it. But that doesn't mean he was just bullshitting, or that the parables lacked a real point, just because they weren't literally true historical accounts.
So there's no reason that every word in the Bible has to be either/or be
literally true or else complete bullshit.
(A point I'd like to make the next time I have an argument with a Biblical literalist. Some anti-theists have more in common with the more ignorant stripe of fundy than they know.)
Finally, it's true that any religion sounds goofy and/or scary if you look at it in ignorance of context. I mean, I can imagine what an E.T. would think if he wandered into a Catholic church. The first thing he'd see, up at the front of the main gathering room, is a big statue of a bleeding human being tortured to death. Must be some kind of bloody-minded violent cult! (And in a way it is -- and a cannibal cult as well.)
But you can make anything look ridiculous if you simplify it into a caricature -- espcially if you're no stickler for actually knowing what you're talking about, and have no compunction about constructing strawmen. For example, I've been informed that
libertarians believe:
1. All the world's decisions should be made by WalMart and other big corporations, on the basis of their balance sheets.
2. Every nightstand should have a loaded Uzi and a grenade launcher on it.
3. Poor people should be allowed to starve to death.
4. The only way to respond to environmental pollution is to just get used to it.
5. Toddlers should be free to work as prostitutes.
6. It should be legal for airline pilots to drop some acid on the way to work.
And that crticism is just as accurate as the one I cited at the top.
Stevo Darkly | August 23, 2006, 11:09pm | #
Wow, it's the return of The Theist Who Exists Only in My Head.
You seem to think Catholicism isn't weird? Lessee:
God created the world in six days. He created man in his own image, then he created woman out of a rib taken from the man's side. A talking snake got them to eat 'the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil', which got them tossed out of their home and tainted the couple and all their descendents for all time. They had two children, one of whom murdered the other. The survivor married a girl who came from somewhere else and the human race descended from them.
Your argument would be a lot stronger if you could have managed to start off with at least
one thing that Catholics actually believe, instead of umpty-ump things they don't. Catholics don't take the story of Genesis literally. A knowledgeable critic would know this.
I really wish Christians would make up they minds.
First they say the Bible is the word of God.
And when somebody points out the inconsistencies, "it's not to be taken literally".
Your reasoning is poor.
It's been years and years, but I've taken a class that looked at the Bible as literature, and considered the literary and story-telling techniques that were in vogue during the periods the Bible was compiled. Believers hold that some parts of the Bible, especially the New Testament, are close to being historical accounts. However, telling truths through parables and allegories is also a time-honored and well-understood technique.
Jesus himself is said to have used it very often. When he said, "Once there was a Samaritan..." or "Once the owner of a vinyard ..." he wasn't giving a news report about an actual Samaritan's travels, or describing the actual hiring practices of an actual vinyard owner. And his audience knew it. But that doesn't mean he was just bullshitting, or that the parables lacked a real point, just because they weren't literally true historical accounts.
So there's no reason that every word in the Bible has to be either/or be
literally true or else complete bullshit.
(A point I'd like to make the next time I have an argument with a Biblical literalist. Some anti-theists have more in common with the more ignorant stripe of fundy than they know.)
Finally, it's true that any religion sounds goofy and/or scary if you look at it in ignorance of context. I mean, I can imagine what an E.T. would think if he wandered into a Catholic church. The first thing he'd see, up at the front of the main gathering room, is a big statue of a bleeding human being tortured to death. Must be some kind of bloody-minded violent cult! (And in a way it is -- and a cannibal cult as well.)
But you can make anything look ridiculous if you simplify it into a caricature -- espcially if you're no stickler for actually knowing what you're talking about, and have no compunction about constructing strawmen. For example, I've been informed that
libertarians believe:
1. All the world's decisions should be made by WalMart and other big corporations, on the basis of their balance sheets.
2. Every nightstand should have a loaded Uzi and a grenade launcher on it.
3. Poor people should be allowed to starve to death.
4. The only way to respond to environmental pollution is to just get used to it.
5. Toddlers should be free to work as prostitutes.
6. It should be legal for airline pilots to drop some acid on the way to work.
And that crticism is just as accurate as the one I cited at the top.
