Do any religions have bad teachings in their holy book(s) and/or history?

[trotsky]

Some posters seem to be highly confused when it comes to criticisms being made about religion. I would like to help clear up this confusion and ask if posters here are aware of distinctly bad ideas or teachings that come from certain religions. Please provide examples if you can. Thank you!

[guillaumeb]

1. Does deGrasse Tyson have behavioral issues?

Or are the many stories all false?

[trotsky]

4. Please stay on topic. n/t

[guillaumeb]

19. Which advice I have given you many times. eom

[trotsky]

21. And that's why your advice is ignored.

If you won't follow it, why should I?

[guillaumeb]

22. Your pattern here predatesmy being here.

So there is that fact.

[trotsky]

24. So you're saying you have no control over your own behavior.

Got it.

[guillaumeb]

37. More misunderstanding?

My point was clear.

[trotsky]

41. The point is, you are saying that you engage in your current misbehavior...

because of how I treated people who ended up banned on DU.

That you are sympathizing with known disruptors says volumes.

[guillaumeb]

42. More misunderstanding.

The point is that you expect what you do not do. And your own history shows it.

[trotsky]

44. Correction: my history with *proven disruptors*.

When are YOUR actions going to match YOUR words, g?

When are you going to take responsibility for yourself and not blame others for your own behavior?

[guillaumeb]

45. Ah, the "proven disruptors" response.

Another way of looking at it is that when people post positives about religion, a certain few follow the dictates of the 11th.

[trotsky]

47. That's your claim.

You have yet to support it. You can't defend any arguments or positions, so you resort to smearing those who disagree with you. "Choir" is one of your favorite insults. "11th commandment" is another. We've gone over this again and again. You wonder why no one takes you seriously? It's because of shit like this. Knock it the fuck off already, won't you?

[guillaumeb]

48. Yes, a claim supported by the record.

Going back to 2014. That is as far back as I researched.

[trotsky]

49. A record based on your claim alone.

Yes, that's understood.

Be the change you want to see, g. Show us what a good Christian looks like. Can you? Or are you going to continue following "eye for an eye" based on your judgment of others - two things that your Jesus fellow specifically said you shouldn't do?

[guillaumeb]

50. No, an easily proven claim that requires only that one read what you wrote, and write.

So there is that.

[trotsky]

51. Easily proven, eh?

Then prove it.

[guillaumeb]

52. Previously done.

And no need to prove it again.

[trotsky]

55. Has never been done.

You are no Christian, gil. This I know.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

53. You should really reexamine the posts of those that got banned.

There was some real horrible things there. Might not want to bed down with that kind.

[guillaumeb]

54. I was called a troll today.

Is that dialogue?

It happened in #17

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218303433

[trotsky]

56. That is false.

You were accused of trolling.

That's not the same as being called a troll.

You are no Christian, gil. I am positive.

[guillaumeb]

57. Ridiculous atempt at explaining.

And now you set yourself up as the definer of who is a theist.

[MineralMan]

58. Not at all. The word was "Christian," not "theist."

There is a difference. So, I'm pointing that out. Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

[guillaumeb]

60. Another ridiculous attempt at explaining.

The corollary to the no true Scotsman fallacy.

[MineralMan]

61. I'll take that as a "no."

[guillaumeb]

63. Take this as an example of how some do not really want dialogue in the Religion Group.

What they want is affirmation of their own feelings about the evils of religion.

[trotsky]

65. Yes, it is a perfect example of how you do not really want dialog here.

You want to sermonize, and prevent all dissent.

[guillaumeb]

67. This belongs in the unintentional irony group.

Perhaps you should petition to start one.

[trotsky]

69. You are no Christian, guillaumeb.

Stop judging others.

Stop dishing out "eye for an eye" justice. You'll only make yourself blind.

[MineralMan]

73. LOL!

I'll take it as your unwillingness to commit to anything at all. How's that?

Your blunt refusal to say what it is that you believe directly leads to the conclusion that you believe nothing at all.

I don't care, really. As I have said a hundred times here, I have no problem with people's beliefs at all. I have problems with some people's behavior. Refusal to answer simple questions about religious beliefs is such a behavior.

I don't care what you believe. It doesn't matter to me at all. But, you don't appear to believe much of anything, really, since you won't say what you believe. I understand. I do. But, you claim to believe something, but won't tell us what it is.

The atheists in this discussion group are quite clear. They don't believe that deities or other supernatural things exist at all. They are clear about that and readily say so. I am one of them. Many religious believers, too, are happy to explain something about their beliefs. Nobody attacks them for that.

You refuse to define your own beliefs, but pontificate about others beliefs or non-belief. That comes off as dishonest, Guy. Truly, it does.

Again, I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I care only about behavior.

[trotsky]

64. You have judged me, and you are punishing me with "an eye for an eye."

Two things Jesus specifically said you aren't supposed to do.

You are no Christian, guillaumeb.

[guillaumeb]

66. This belongs in the humor group.

Nice reworking of the No True Scotsman fallacy.


But I forgive you.

And will forgive you again.

[trotsky]

68. You are no Christian, guillaumeb.

Obviously the truth hurts.

Repent and SIN NO MORE.

Be the example you want to see.

Or continue to be a bad Christian.

Your choice.

I don't need your forgiveness - I need your APOLOGY.

But you won't offer one.

Because you are no Christian, guillaumeb.

[guillaumeb]

70. I already forgave this one.

And the next one, where you might claim that I have humiliated myself for all to see.

And the next one, where you will accuse me of something.



Perhaps I am, in the words of MM, a "nominal Christian".

[trotsky]

71. You are no Christian, guillaumeb.

You judge, and you punish.

You are no Christian.

[MineralMan]

90. Leave me out of your arguments, please, Guy.

I will thank you to do that. I have asked you not to use my screen name in your arguments before. Please do not do that.

[Major Nikon]

74. He said himself he isn't a Christian

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283353

He also said he's a deist and deists are just another type of theist after posting a definition that directly contradicts himself.

As far as what Gil is or isn't, I suppose that's for him to define, except he can't really manage to define it with anything that is bound by literacy and coherency. That's the best part about faith. It doesn't matter that it's true, only that you believe it's true, which is coincidentally the same with delusion.

[trotsky]

75. He's a "motte-and-bailey" Christian.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

There are lots of them.

They either don't define what it is they believe, or back off into nebulous claims like being a "deist" or whatnot.

Then, privately, or with other Christians, they eagerly endorse many/most of the standard Christian beliefs and claim to profess the faith.

I know this because pointing out to gil that he's no Christian clearly upsets him. He's an M&B Christian.

[Major Nikon]

80. If he actually understood what deists are, he'd probably hate them more than atheists

Deism adheres to one or more non-interventionist deities while theism requires belief in one or more interventionist sky fairies. As such those two positions are as exclusive of each other as atheism and theism.

During the Age of Enlightenment, deism made theism obsolete. Now it has outlived it's usefulness which is why intellectuals no longer claim to be deists.

[trotsky]

81. LMAO you're probably right.

But then, gil never was one for truly analyzing an issue.

[Major Nikon]

83. Which is why trying to have a discussion with Gil is like trying to have a discussion with a MAGAt

[Voltaire2]

116. Oh that is perfect.

I’ve never seen that phrase before. That foo shits perfectly.

[trotsky]

121. Yeah, came across it a little while ago.

Had been searching for something to describe that behavior, since it's so common.

[Major Nikon]

72. When you defined yourself as a deist, did that make you a definer of who isn't a theist?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283353

[trotsky]

122. Remember, the rules he screamingly demands for others don't apply to him.

The Book of Guillaumeb, chapter 4, verse 16.

[Major Nikon]

123. That just suggests he is a theist

The problem is Gil claimed to be a deist, which by definition means he can't be a theist. I suppose it's possible he misunderstood himself.

[trotsky]

124. Or perhaps he convinced himself?

[Major Nikon]

125. In this case it looks like both

[trotsky]

25. I will also add that this "pattern" to which you refer...

applies only to former DUers who were banned, such as your good friend rug. I gave up honest discussion with him a long time prior, because his behavior (much like yours) didn't warrant it. Same with the others. Some of them ended up being homophobic bigots, banned for their nasty views. Why you continually wring your hands about how banned former members of DU were treated by me, I'll never understand.

Since you're trying to smear me in the court of public opinion, I believe everyone should have all the facts.

[Major Nikon]

23. Actually that response says all you really need to know

Amazing what some reveal without even trying.

[trotsky]

26. Indeed.

I guess the message of Jesus wasn't about loving your neighbor - it was about seeking vengeance and treating others as you think they deserve. The gospel according to guillaumeb.

[MineralMan]

6. Does the Bible encourage whataboutism?

Does it replace relevant answers to questions? You do that frequently, but I can't find any scriptural support.

[trotsky]

7. Just another attempt to derail discussion that someone doesn't want.

I think we know why.

[MineralMan]

10. Indeed. Apparently he thinks that

making himself look foolish will drive away the "atheist choir." It's a vain pursuit, or a pursuit in vain.

[guillaumeb]

20. More insults from you.

Expected.

[MineralMan]

29. Just observations.

[guillaumeb]

38. No, just insults.

A pattern. A scientist might observe that pattern and draw inferences.

[MineralMan]

59. As I said before, you'll know if I ever actually insult you.

It will be very, very clear.

[guillaumeb]

62. A pattern.

A clear pattern.

But this is what passes for dialogue among some prolifically posting few here.

[trotsky]

91. There you go again trying to run this forum.

You're not the boss.

People can post what they like. If you think it's inappropriate, alert on it. If it doesn't get hidden, deal with it. Get the fuck over it. I don't care what you do.

But do not ever shame anyone for posting more than you think they should post.

[guillaumeb]

92. A lot of straw was wasted in building this post.

Enough straw to build a wall of straw.

Bruce Springsteen is the Boss.

[trotsky]

93. Bullshit.

You have repeatedly taken swipes at MineralMan. Made snide remarks at how many of his posts were listed on the first page of this forum. Why the hell does it matter to you? Why are you so insistent about trying to control what others can say?

You are no Christian.

[guillaumeb]

95. Thus speaks the definer.

Have you ever heard of the no true Scotsman fallacy?
Or the strawman fallacy?
Or the tu quoque fallacy?

Straw is cheaper by the bale.

[trotsky]

98. So you're claiming that Jesus DIDN'T say those things?

Or are you claiming that you can be a Christian and not follow what Jesus taught?

What are you saying, g?

[edhopper]

31. I don't know

but I do know the scientific lessons he teaches are all factual.

Can the same be said of religious books?

[MineralMan]

32. What does that have to do with the question asked in the OP?

Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2019, 06:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Neil deGrasse Tyson is not a religion. He is an individual. By his own words, he doesn't even follow any religion. The question was about religions and whether they have any scriptural advice that promotes evil deeds.

Do you have a relevant answer to the original question? If no, why respond at all, and why respond with a completely irrelevant question of your own?

I fail to understand what it is you are trying to do here. It makes no sense.

[guillaumeb]

39. What are "ooes"? eom

[MineralMan]

96. Typos. Think for a second.

It will come to you. Meanwhile, I have made a correction. Are you sure you want to start calling out typing errors, Guy? That might be entertaining. But petty.

[guillaumeb]

97. Following your lead, sir.

Simply following your lead.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

40. If you want to do a proper level of whataboutism, you should ask if physics has any bad teachings.

The OP isn't about a specific person like the Pope. It's about the general overarching system. Which in the instance of NDT would be physics. Or maybe the University system.

But, of course, that doesn't produce the results you want. So you go for a non sequitar whataboutism. It's a fallacy twofer!

[Loki Liesmith]

76. I'm going with all false

[Bernardo de La Paz]

79. Your credibility suffers again when you don't stay on topic. . . . nt

[Xipe Totec]

2. West Wing Bible Quote

[trotsky]

5. Great example.

Specific verses that no one can argue aren't present in the Christian bible.

Horrible teachings, but they ARE part of the text, and because of that, SOME people do take them seriously and are motivated by them.

[elleng]

8. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!

[Ferrets are Cool]

15. I love that...BUT

I would NEVER stand for that asswipe that considers himself president NOW. They would have drag me out in handcuffs before I stood for his sorry criminal ass.

Otherwise, great clip.

[MineralMan]

33. What a wonderful clip! This is what we all need to be able to do.

This is why I study scriptures. Since Christianity is the dominant (and so much so) religion in this country, it's important to know what non-Christians are up against. Being able to shut down a religious person who uses Bible verses as cudgels to beat reason to death is important. The clip from that TV show shows exactly how it is done.

Such religious nonsense even occurs here on Democratic Underground, and should be countered whenever it appears. Democrats support the separation of church and state. We need to be able to do that effectively.

[Moostache]

3. That biblical "cure" for leprosy seems pretty legit...

If anyone were so inclined they might find a ton of other examples in any number of holy books...

[TlalocW]

9. The Bible endorses slavery

Exodus 20 is all about how Hebrews are to get their slaves from the surrounding tribes (slaves, no indentured servitude) and how you can beat them as badly as you want as long as they can get up and walk in a couple days. Then for the male Hebrew indentured servants, if you want to keep them as slaves, you can find them a wife from your female slaves, and at the end of their servitude, they can either leave without the wife (and any kids born from the marriage), or he can have an awl driven through his ear as proof that he wishes to remain as a slave to continue being with his family. And of course, they get passed down like any property to the original slave-owner's kids.

There's the whole flood thing. I always found it pretty stupid that an all-knowing, all-powerful being's best solution to dealing with sinful humankind was to wipe them all out in a flood, making them suffer by making them drown (so much for all-merciful). I believe an all-powerful God could Thanos-snap people out of existence.

And finally, Hell - an infinite punishment for a finite sin.

TlalocW

[Farmer-Rick]

30. Yes, indeed

+1

[mart48]

11. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exod 22:18)

Was directly responsible for the torture and killing of helpless grandmothers during the centuries of the Inquisition

[mart48]

12. The teaching of Jesus about disease

By one count, there are 34 miracles of Jesus in the New Testament and 23 of them concern healing.

And how does Jesus heal? By forgiving sin and casting out demons.

I once read the teachings of Jesus set medicine back about 1,000 years in the West.

[NeoGreen]

13. Another important point, there are no severability clauses...

...in the Bible.

Severability
In law, severability (sometimes known as salvatorius, from Latin) refers to a provision in a contract which states that if parts of the contract are held to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, the remainder of the contract should still apply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability

And consequently, if one finds that any part is found to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, then one may toss the entire "word".

In fact, it is my understanding that the opposite is true, that there are essentially Inseverability clauses in the bible.

Matt 5:18: For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Inseverability
Many laws have clauses specifying clearly the exact opposite, in which only all parts of the law taken together can be enforced: This act is to be construed as a whole, and all parts of it are to be read and construed together. If any part of this act shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remainder of this act shall be invalidated.

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus!
A Latin phrase meaning "false in one thing, false in everything."

Toss it all!

[Runningdawg]

14. Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives.

[trotsky]

17. That is quite the disturbing passage. n/t

[MineralMan]

34. An excellent example! Those verses tell incels how they can get a wife.

All they have to do is rape a virgin and pay 50 shekels to her father. That's the advice from the Bible. It's a perfect example of a correct answer to the question posed in the OP.

[bitterross]

16. Have you read Leviticus?

Seriously, did you type that OP question with a straight face or were you laughing the whole time?

[trotsky]

18. Well, to be honest...

I did my best to keep from laughing.

But there are some who honestly think that religion can never be a motivator do something bad. I think pointing out specific bad teachings in religious texts is a good exercise to show just how erroneous that belief is.

[LongtimeAZDem]

27. If you make fun of a bald guy, you should be torn to pieces:

2 Kings

23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

[trotsky]

35. I'm sure we must be taking that out of context.

I mean, there's got to be a context in which murdering children because they teased someone is OK, right?

[MineralMan]

43. But, see, it was GOD who sent those bears in to

kill the children, so it's OK. Because GOD, see. If you do bad, GOD will kill you. Simple. And calling a bald man "baldy" is clearly an act deserving of being torn apart by bears. "If it were not so, I would have told you."

It's like GOD sending a flood to kill all living things on earth, save one family and pairs of some animals. GOD can kill anyone it wants to if it's pissed off at someone. Now, that's POWER! GOD can also tell its followers to kill everyone in a city who "pisseth on the wall," and then take the women as slaves. And, if GOD tells you to kill someone, you'd better damn well do it, or it might kill you instead.

"My God is an awesome God!" That's how the song goes, I think.

[democratisphere]

28. Every religion has a dark side with their intolerance for other religions.

It is the single greatest problem with organized religions.

[trotsky]

36. Yup.

And because the religion sanctifies it, and places it outside the realm of reason (because that's faith, and faith is a "good thing" ).

[FiveGoodMen]

46. God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"...

[Docreed2003]

78. "Man you must be putting me on..."

[FiveGoodMen]

94. Indeed!

[LongtimeAZDem]

112. Even weirder:

[uriel1972]

117. I'm sure there's some metaphor thingie involved here O.o?

[LongtimeAZDem]

77. "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man

by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

[malchickiwick]

82. Jesus of Nazareth in Luke 19:27 (KJV)

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

[LongtimeAZDem]

84. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection."

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

[MineralMan]

85. That was Paul who supposedly wrote that. He was a constipated misogynist

in his spare time, when he wasn't scolding early Christians.

[LongtimeAZDem]

86. Yep; as I've said before, I consider Saul to be a first-century Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard /nt

[MineralMan]

87. Much of western Christianity is really Paulism.

Jesus is secondary, really. Paul and the early church westernized what was an offshoot of Judaism to make it more palatable to the Romans and other assorted pagans. In so doing, the whole thing got really distorted and skewed. If you think about it, of what use is a "Messiah" to gentiles in the first place. That's a concept for Jews, really.

Christianity became a very different thing, once Paul and the early Catholic church got hold of it.

[LongtimeAZDem]

88. It's amazing how few Christians are aware that most of their faith comes from one who never met

the legendary Jesus.

[MineralMan]

89. Nobody involved with writing the New Testament ever met Jesus.

Nobody. It's all at least a generation later, and typically two or three generations later. I refer to it as a game of Biblical Telephone.

[Major Nikon]

100. Ironically they wrote down Jesus would come back within a generation

Which means the gospels were already a lie by the time they made it to print.

[MineralMan]

102. Yes. Maybe he did, looked around, saw that people hadn't changed, and

flew back up into the sky. I mean, if you believe that nonsense about resurrection and ascension, you can believe any freaking thing at all, I suppose. And, if you don't believe the resurrection and ascension nonsense, I don't see how you can call yourself a Christian, really.

Faith is the evidence that people will believe any freaking thing if they want to, even if what they believe is patent nonsense.

[Major Nikon]

106. Zombie Jesus is just a metaphor

And Paul just metaphorically spoke to a metaphorical zombie Jesus. Remember when Paul survived the snake bite with no ill effects? Well that was a metaphor also, and it's just a metaphor that Paul could miracle cure people of a chronic case of the shits.

Kinda makes you wonder which requires more self-delusion, those who insist on a literal interpretation of the bible or those who say it's all metaphorical.

[MineralMan]

107. Same difference, really.

If you look at it either way, it makes no logical sense at all. Looked at literally, the Bible is unbelievable in the extreme. If you look at it as a metaphorical work, why on earth would you base your life on an imaginary story?

Sheesh!

[Major Nikon]

108. At least half of US Christians believe in young earth creationism

https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

That viewpoint correlates strongly with lack of education and church attendance. If you dare point those things out you are a "definer". The irony of insisting on a particular interpretation while pretending others are insisting on a particular interpretation is lost on some.

[LongtimeAZDem]

103. While I tend to agree, I can't say that with absolute certainty. It's possible some of the original

actors were involved in the earliest accounts, but there is no way to know at this point, as documentation is nonexistent.

[MineralMan]

104. I'm an evidence guy. No evidence; no belief.

There is zero evidence of anyone contemporaneous with Yeshua, or whatever his name was, writing anything about Emmanuel or Jesus, or whatever name that person went by back in the day.

Zero. So, given the amount of time and effort to produce some original writings by actual observers, I'm calling it as I see it.

The whole thing is the most successful long con game in human history, I think. I mean, look at the wealth and power the Roman Catholic Church has maintained for all this time. That's success! It may be winding down, finally, due to the massive corruption and abuse connected with that organization, but it's had a long, long successful run.

[LongtimeAZDem]

105. Agreed, but absence of evidence alone is not evidence of absence, and it is possible,

however unlikely, that an older witness was part of the unknown team that wrote the first accounts. Therefore, a categorical statement that none was involved is unsupported.

However, that works both ways, and that same lack of evidence makes any statement for the veracity of the accounts likewise unsupportable.

So, I would have phrased your post as "There is no evidence that anybody involved with writing the New Testament ever met Jesus."

It's nitpicking, to be sure, but I do try to only make affirmative statements of fact when supporting evidence exists.

[Major Nikon]

99. Not exactly

Zombie Jesus stopped Paul on the road and set his ass straight. Immediately afterwards he became a faith healer and made a shitton of money fleecing the gentiles.

[Mariana]

109. The Bible portrays Christianity as getting ugly very early on.

In Acts Chapter 5, there is a story that describes how Peter used violence and fear to control the congregation.

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

[MineralMan]

110. There's a song about that:

[cyclonefence]

101. Have you had a look at the Bible? n/t

[MineralMan]

111. What an odd question...

Can you explain why you'd ask that? The poster is quite familiar with the Bible, and is asking what is really a rhetorical question in this thread.

Of course religions offer bad teachings. All of them do. That's the point of the original post.

[cyclonefence]

113. This thread is apparently an extended conversation

among two or three regular posters to the religion group. I am not familiar with the OP's familiarity with or ignorance of the bible. I answered the question asked. I didn't realize I was intruding into a conversation without knowing the discussants' pasts. It's a mistake I won't make again, at least not with this particular forum.

[MineralMan]

114. You're right. That's a fairly common thing here.

It shouldn't be, but it is. The Religion Group is an interesting place, but it takes a while to figure out, really. Other parts of DU, like the DU Lounge have similar characteristics. In that forum, there are conversations that have been going on for years, with dozens of threads posted that make no sense to people who drop in.

[cyclonefence]

115. I didn't even "drop in"

I read DU through the "Latest Threads" page.

On another note, I was tickled when you posted a photo of your wife's birthday present to you, an old "ladies guide" type of book. I used to collect those until I ran out of room, then sold the lot on Ebay. Lots of regrets, of course.

But one of the joys of my life is my grandmother's 1896 Guide to Etiquette and Letter Writing, so well-read that the covers are black (from little girls' dirty hands, I suspect), complete with ads for Uncle Josh's crackerjack jokebook and "coon songs" on the inside covers. What makes it particularly dear to me is that my grandmother grew up in the mountains outside Hinton WV, living with cousins until her widowed father remarried, then taken out of school in second grade to work in her stepmother's Railroad Hotel. She was a voracious reader, and I like to think of her hiding somewhere, avoiding washing sheets or setting the table, curled up with this book, learning which corner of her calling card to turn down to indicate "pour prendre conge."

[MineralMan]

118. Very nice observations about etiquette books.

I read them because they take me places I cannot possibly go.

[Mariana]

119. Where did you answer the question asked?

It looks like you just asked the OP yet another question.

[cyclonefence]

120. oh for god's sake

Don't you have a splinter to work on or something?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

126. Read Under the Banner of Heaven. About Mormonism, a murder, and its long history.

Great book. Gives you a much deeper understanding of Mormonism.