Re: Dave and Religion
Rafael Garcia-Suarez [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoth: * - that circle of light behind the head of saints (what's the english * word ?) Halo or nimbus :) e.
Re: Dave and Religion
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:12:49AM -0500, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote: Rafael Garcia-Suarez [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoth: * - that circle of light behind the head of saints (what's the english * word ?) Halo or nimbus :) The difference being, IIRC, that a halo is a simple ring, a nimbus has spokes or is solid. -- David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information Wow, my first sigquoting! I feel so special now! -- Dan Sugalski
Re: Dave and Religion
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 10:47:13AM -0700, Paul Sharpe wrote: Nicholas Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:35:47PM +0100, James Campbell wrote: I was reading Mr Cantrell's Free Press and was very amused and impressed by the section on Religion. . . . Uh-oh, is that a massive bolt of... What has this got to do with Ben's message on Bad C Source? Just curious. Gods too considered harmful? Mailers using In-Reply-To headers without telling the users realising considered harmful I think. Now preserved for posterity in the threaded archive: http://london.pm.org/pipermail/london.pm/Week-of-Mon-20030901/thread.html Nicholas Clark
Re: Dave and Religion
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 04:34:16PM +0100, Jason Clifford wrote:
For a start there's the three they get into enough trouble with just by
admitting their existence: God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit (whatever that is).
One being - three persons.
It's funny how everyone forgets that there are actually branches of
Christianity that *don't* believe in the trinitarian doctrine.
--
# Earle Martin http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?EarleMartin
$a=f695a9a2176a7dd1618af6649896ee10f05ea986de18af6277e9a1d8ef4696644569a1d.
8ef46961ae1e64277e9896eea7d92ea8003e9a1d8ef4696f6950;$b=8ALB6AIA4.BA2;$c=
join,unpackC*,$b;$c=~s/7/2/g;@b=split,$c;foreach$d(@b){$e=hex(substr($a
,$f,$d));while(length($e)8){substr($e,0,0)=0;}print packb8,$e;$f+=$d;}
Re: Dave and Religion
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 06:35:29PM +0100, Iain Tatch wrote:
I know what Muslims believe, and what the Koran teaches. However just
because someone utters a statement such as There is no God but Allah. The
Prophets merely carry his word doesn't mean that they aren't treating the
Prophets in a near-identical fashion to the way in which Allah is
worshipped.
I'm very surprised by that because it's haram, and a fine way to invalidate
your Islam. This is precisely why there's an injunction on making images of
the Prophet Muhammad.
--
# Earle Martin http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?EarleMartin
$a=f695a9a2176a7dd1618af6649896ee10f05ea986de18af6277e9a1d8ef4696644569a1d.
8ef46961ae1e64277e9896eea7d92ea8003e9a1d8ef4696f6950;$b=8ALB6AIA4.BA2;$c=
join,unpackC*,$b;$c=~s/7/2/g;@b=split,$c;foreach$d(@b){$e=hex(substr($a
,$f,$d));while(length($e)8){substr($e,0,0)=0;}print packb8,$e;$f+=$d;}
Re: Dave and Religion - Inventing Deities
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 02:56:23PM -0500, Nigel Hamilton wrote:
If you happened to mention the Great Lord's Name, 'Kibo', in your Usenet
post, you might be blessed with a reply from the Great Lord himself!
AFAIK I have a Kibo Number[0] of 2. Surely someone here can beat that?
[0] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?KiboNumber
--
# Earle Martin http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?EarleMartin
$a=f695a9a2176a7dd1618af6649896ee10f05ea986de18af6277e9a1d8ef4696644569a1d.
8ef46961ae1e64277e9896eea7d92ea8003e9a1d8ef4696f6950;$b=8ALB6AIA4.BA2;$c=
join,unpackC*,$b;$c=~s/7/2/g;@b=split,$c;foreach$d(@b){$e=hex(substr($a
,$f,$d));while(length($e)8){substr($e,0,0)=0;}print packb8,$e;$f+=$d;}
Re: Dave and Religion
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Earle Martin wrote: For a start there's the three they get into enough trouble with just by admitting their existence: God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit (whatever that is). One being - three persons. It's funny how everyone forgets that there are actually branches of Christianity that *don't* believe in the trinitarian doctrine. Which ones and what do they believe? I know that some faiths call themselves Christian but don't seem to have a clear view on who Jesus is and who he meant by the Father and the Spirit. Jason Clifford -- UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net http://www.ukfsn.org/ ADSL Broadband available now
Re: Dave and Religion
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:01:14PM +0100, Jason Clifford wrote:
It's funny how everyone forgets that there are actually branches of
Christianity that *don't* believe in the trinitarian doctrine.
Which ones and what do they believe?
More than I ever knew about the subject:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism
I count myself as a Unitarian Universalist.
http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/uufaq.html
--
# Earle Martin http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?EarleMartin
$a=f695a9a2176a7dd1618af6649896ee10f05ea986de18af6277e9a1d8ef4696644569a1d.
8ef46961ae1e64277e9896eea7d92ea8003e9a1d8ef4696f6950;$b=8ALB6AIA4.BA2;$c=
join,unpackC*,$b;$c=~s/7/2/g;@b=split,$c;foreach$d(@b){$e=hex(substr($a
,$f,$d));while(length($e)8){substr($e,0,0)=0;}print packb8,$e;$f+=$d;}
Re: Dave and Religion
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Earle Martin wrote: More than I ever knew about the subject: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism I count myself as a Unitarian Universalist. http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/uufaq.html Of the two urls the second seemed to contain more answers whereas the first seems to be more about people and what they didn't beleive. shrug. What you believe is your choice. I've looked at lots of other faiths and none of them seem to satisfy my own experiences of life and the supernatural. Jason Clifford -- UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net http://www.ukfsn.org/ ADSL Broadband available now
Re: Dave and Religion
* James Campbell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: snip well written and interesting email about religion When it comes to religion I think Hitler had some interesting ideas. Note to self - write Acme::Siesta::Plugin::GodwinsLaw Greg -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.org.uk/~gem/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED] msn://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dave and Religion
It reminded me of a long run of visits I had from some JW's when I was doing my finals in 1997 (a man needs some distraction when studying and I hadn't found Perl then... Oh, and the woman was a babe). They wanted to convert me to Christianity and I wanted to convert them to Atheism. Seemed like a fair deal but neither of us got very far. Atheism is just a crutch for people who can't deal with the fact that there's a supreme being. ;-) I finally thought of the question that seemed to be somewhere near the root of their belief. I asked them: If God created the universe, who created God? That's one of the more interesting questions. The medieval theologians charactarised God as the 'prime mover', i.e. the first in a causal chain of events. It's not unreasonable to suppose that there was an initial cause - after all, infinite series can still have beginnings and ends. You quickly end up in a not-at-all religious discussion of what constitutes 'an event', and other metaphysical topics that are very much in the domain of analytical western philosophy and logic and not really much to do with the God of the bible, if you like. None the less, there is more cross-over between the domains than is popularly imagined. In particular the early Christian theologians took a very rigorous and logical approach to their discussions. Jon, who rarely gets to talk about medeival phiosophy any more P.S. The play Jumpers by Stoppard is on at the NT right now. Deals with just this topic in a highly clever and amusing way.
Re: Dave and Religion
On 05/09/2003 at 12:54 +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote: snip well written and interesting email about religion When it comes to religion I think Hitler had some interesting ideas. Love it :-) What a nice generic way to end arguments before they've started :-) It would be if he understood what Godwin's Law actually said. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/ One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is if you mention Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in. Known as Godwin's Law, this rule of Usenet has a long and sordid history on the network - and is absolutely wrong. I suppose you can make an argument that because noobdy understands the original sense of the law, that the new sense should take precendence. Of course if thats you're vue then u can allow alot of things to go horribly rong. I would of thort that was silly. :-) -- :: paul :: historic light cone
Re: Dave and Religion
Jonathan Peterson wrote: P.S. The play Jumpers by Stoppard is on at the NT right now. Deals with just this topic in a highly clever and amusing way. Natch clever and amusing (and probably incomprehensible without several degrees and as-yet-undeveloped hypermedia technology), it's Tom Stoppard. However, Jumpers seems to contain many assumptions about religion making people behave themselves, and that without belief in a supreme being, or at least a local[1] set of mores, none of that would work at all. At which point I want to throw the following at Mr Stoppard, but I don't have a time machine: (a) Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Musing on holocausts, nuclear, prevention of, Sagan finds some cross-cultural study which finds very strong positive correlations between strongly religious behaviour, and several factors currently often considered to be bad (violence, sexual repression, inequality, neglect of children, ...), which was presumably greeted by howls from anthropologists of GET THESE BLOODY ATOMIC SCIENTISTS AND THEIR GUILTY CONSCIENCES THE FUCK OFF OUR TURF. (b) Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, sections on naturalizing ethics. Where ethics come from; Kantian imperatives (don't kill, don't lie) as best practices or heuristics, because if you had to work out what would give the best outcome you'd be trying to work out what to do forever. Kantian heuristics mean you can do approximately the right thing. In constant time. /damien (c) http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/ WE LIKE THE MOON. cheers ti
Re: Dave and Religion
Er, who was it who said If you educate people without religion you create clever little devils? I don't think I dreamt it. James =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= James Campbell Research Bioinformatician Proteome Sciences Institute of Psychiatry South Wing Lab PO BOX P045 16 De Crespigny Park London SE5 8AF Tel:+44-(0)20-7848-5111 Fax:+44-(0)20-7848-5114 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web 1: www.proteome.co.uk Web 2: www.proteinworks.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: Dave and Religion
Je 2003-09-05 14:37:02 +0100, James Campbell skribis: Er, who was it who said If you educate people without religion you create clever little devils? Perhaps the world's scriptures are lacking in advocating basic search engine usage. http://www.princeton.edu/~gcu/quotes.htm (Arthur Wellesley was the Duke of Wellington) How can devils exist without religion? QED. Paul -- Paul Makepeace ... http://paulm.com/ What is anthracite? The softness in your voice, the echo of your hair in the wind. -- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/
Re: Dave and Religion
Je 2003-09-05 14:37:02 +0100, James Campbell skribis: Er, who was it who said If you educate people without religion you create clever little devils? I was going to say that it was first on the list of google results but Paul beat me to it. How can devils exist without religion? Ob buffy. I don't see that devils or demons require religion. They are supernatural monsters but Buffy teaches us they are not necessarily created by the Christian or other organised religion. Alex
Re: Dave and Religion
James Campbell wrote: If God created the universe, who created God? God didn't create the universe. God is the universe. That's about the only thing that all the religious texts can agree on - that God, or whatever name you chose for the concept, is omniprescient and omnipotent. This implies that God is everywhere and in everything and there can be nothing that is outside of God. This neatly coincides with our definition of Universe - all energy and matter. So if the Universe is God (or at least the part of it that we can experience in these 4 dimensions) then a proof that God exists is simple - all you have to do is prove that the Universe exists. For the purpose of this experiment, reaching out and touching it should be enough to convince you that it, and therefore God, is quite real. Now that we have proved the undeniable existence of God (for my definition of God), it is clear that each and every one of us, being part of the Universe, is also part of God. God is not something that exists elsewhere, looking down on us, or sending bolts of lightning to Zot us. God is right here and right now. I am God, you are God, we are all God. Hello God. So there's no need to invoke religion, spirituality, or the supernatural to understand and appreciate what God is. Just define the term to mean something more familiar like Universe. It is every bit as magical, mystical and awe-inspiring, but a lot easier to get your head around (figurately speaking - not even God could get his head around the Universe). Hmm... I think I may start a religion. I hear there's money in it... :-) A
Re: Dave and Religion
On Friday, September 5, 2003, 3:50:07 PM, Andy Wardley wrote:
AW James Campbell wrote:
If God created the universe, who created God?
AW God didn't create the universe. God is the universe.
AW That's about the only thing that all the religious texts can agree on -
AW that God, or whatever name you chose for the concept, is omniprescient
AW and omnipotent. This implies that God is everywhere and in everything and
AW there can be nothing that is outside of God.
Only in Monotheistic religions, and the only one of those that's got any
substantial following in this country is Judaism. One of my favourite
Christian-baiting tactics (when I'm in that sort of mood) is to put
forward my proposition that they have a pantheon of gods.
For a start there's the three they get into enough trouble with just by
admitting their existence: God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit (whatever that is).
Then you've got a couple of other major deities such as the Virgin Mary
(especially revered in Catholicism) and Satan, and a host of minor gods
who they usually name saints.
[ .. snippety .. ]
AW So there's no need to invoke religion, spirituality, or the supernatural
AW to understand and appreciate what God is. Just define the term to mean
AW something more familiar like Universe. It is every bit as magical,
AW mystical and awe-inspiring, but a lot easier to get your head around
AW (figurately speaking - not even God could get his head around the Universe).
AW Hmm... I think I may start a religion. I hear there's money in it... :-)
Too late: http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/
--
Iain | PGP mail preferred: pubkey @ www.deepsea.f9.co.uk/misc/iain.asc
($=,$,)=split m$13/$,qq;1313/tl\.rnh r HITtahkPctacriAneeeusaoJ;;
for(@[EMAIL PROTECTED] m,,,$,){$..=$$[$=];$$=$=[$=];[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]
]eq$$$==$?;$==$?;for(@$)[EMAIL PROTECTED] eq$_;;last if!$@;$=++}}print$..$/
Re: Dave and Religion
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 01:02:52PM +0100, Jonathan Peterson wrote: If God created the universe, who created God? That's one of the more interesting questions. The medieval theologians charactarised God as the 'prime mover', i.e. the first in a causal chain of events. It's not unreasonable to suppose that there was an initial cause - after all, infinite series can still have beginnings and ends. You quickly end up in a not-at-all religious discussion of what constitutes 'an event', and other metaphysical topics that are very much in the domain of analytical western philosophy and logic and not really much to do with the God of the bible, if you like. yes, the question is a problem if you've been saying that everything must have an (external) cause, or that anything as wonderful/intricate/... as $WONDERFUL_THING must have an (external) cause; but not a problem for a 'prime mover' theory. i'm suspicious of a 'prime mover' concept, because it seems to bear very little resemblance to a cause in the everyday sense of the word, which leaves a lot of work that needs doing to show that the concept is explanatory, or even meaningful. None the less, there is more cross-over between the domains than is popularly imagined. In particular the early Christian theologians took a very rigorous and logical approach to their discussions. semantics is everything. Jon, who rarely gets to talk about medeival phiosophy any more -- Phil Lanch0xD78D598DA6635CF32AB24593C98994B7D95B33E3 http://www.subtle.clara.co.uk/rephrase/ I have an answer. It's not the right answer, but it makes me feel good.
Re: Dave and Religion
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Iain Tatch wrote: Only in Monotheistic religions, and the only one of those that's got any substantial following in this country is Judaism. One of my favourite Christian-baiting tactics (when I'm in that sort of mood) is to put forward my proposition that they have a pantheon of gods. Christianity is a derived form of Judaism. It teaches that there is one God and that's it. For a start there's the three they get into enough trouble with just by admitting their existence: God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit (whatever that is). One being - three persons. Then you've got a couple of other major deities such as the Virgin Mary (especially revered in Catholicism) and Satan, and a host of minor gods who they usually name saints. Neither is a God. Mary is human and that's it. She is revered as an example (as are the saints). Satan is just a messanger whose gone off message. His name, Satan, means accuser and that's basically what he does according to Christian teaching - he accuses us before ourselves and God. All very simple. ;) It's also all very beside the point. Jason Clifford -- UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net http://www.ukfsn.org/ ADSL Broadband available now
Re: Dave and Religion
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 04:31:37PM +0100, Paul Makepeace wrote: Je 2003-09-05 16:06:15 +0100, Iain Tatch skribis: Only in Monotheistic religions, and the only one of those that's got any substantial following in this country is Judaism. i don't know what modern Judaism says about it, but in the old testament Yahweh is the god of 1 particular people: yes, he is their only god, but other peoples have their own gods. What country? Perhaps you were misled into thinking this list is populated entirely by Brits... 'Fraid not, the Empire has been diluted. the empire is stronger than ever, it's just that the mother country has swapped roles with 1 of the colonies. Islam is quite a popular monotheistic religion in the UK, six times more so than Judaism in England. you could argue that Islam as polytheistic as Christianity - start with the 7 prophets. i'm not trying to offend as many groups of people as possible in 1 email, it just looks that way! -- Phil Lanch0xD78D598DA6635CF32AB24593C98994B7D95B33E3 http://www.subtle.clara.co.uk/rephrase/ The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. -- Robert R. Coveyou
Re: Dave and Religion
Oh Christ! What have I done... James
Re: Dave and Religion
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 01:29:02PM +0100, Tim Sweetman wrote: all. At which point I want to throw the following at Mr Stoppard, but I don't have a time machine: Mr Stoppard is alive and well. -- Phil Lanch0xD78D598DA6635CF32AB24593C98994B7D95B33E3 http://www.subtle.clara.co.uk/rephrase/ The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. -- Robert R. Coveyou
Re: Dave and Religion
Je 2003-09-05 16:54:30 +0100, Iain Tatch skribis: On Friday, September 5, 2003, 4:31:37 PM, Paul Makepeace wrote: PM Islam is quite a popular monotheistic religion in the UK, six times more PM so than Judaism in England. Islam, monotheistic? You really think so? Jeez, come on Iain, I posted a link to a Beginner's Guide to Islam in the same message you're replying to. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/features/beginner/index.shtml ``You have to believe that there is only one God, Allah, who created the entire universe, and that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is his final messenger on earth.'' I thought this was common knowledge? Perhaps I'm biased living working in East London for a few years. Paul -- Paul Makepeace ... http://paulm.com/ What is below space? More bratwurst! -- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/
Re: Dave and Religion
Andy Wardley wrote: God didn't create the universe. God is the universe. Yeah, but what created God? James (who is definately going to hell for this)
Re: Dave and Religion
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Iain Tatch wrote: If he / she / it is worshipped, then regardless of what name they're given, I still maintain it's a god. While some people fall into that trap there are not many Catholics who worshop Mary at all. Certainly the official position of the Church is that doing so is forbidden. She's no more a God than Madonna is. Do those who adore Madonna generally do so as a god? If a devout christian walks into a church and kneels at the foot of a statue of Mary and crosses him/herself, then that to me is a worship of that particular god. There is a whole bunch of teaching regarding this in the Church just as with icons. It all comes down to the same thing - focal points while considering something too big to be a single point of focus. It's also a side show of an issue. If you send a prayer for salvation to Jesus, Mary, and all the saints, you're hedging your bets -- if one of those gods won't save you, at least there's a chance one of the others is will. I've never heard a catholic send up such a prayer. The only prayers I've heard addressed to Mary or the saints is pray for us. Viewed from the outside, Christianity is an extremely polytheistic religion, regardless of the claims of its followers. I can see that. It's also poorly understood inside the ranks too. Many people have reversed the whole thing to sanitise it. Jason Clifford -- UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net http://www.ukfsn.org/ ADSL Broadband available now
Re: Dave and Religion
Phil Lanch wrote: On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 01:29:02PM +0100, Tim Sweetman wrote: all. At which point I want to throw the following at Mr Stoppard, but I don't have a time machine: Mr Stoppard is alive and well. I know that, but the sources in question postdate Jumpers. Talented as Mr Stoppard is, it is a bit much to expect him to read stuff before it has been written. Cheers ti
Re: Dave and Religion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/09/2003 16:06:15: On Friday, September 5, 2003, 3:50:07 PM, Andy Wardley wrote: AW James Campbell wrote: If God created the universe, who created God? AW God didn't create the universe. God is the universe. Only in Monotheistic religions, and the only one of those that's got any substantial following in this country is Judaism. Err... Islam?? Islam is ultra-monotheistic. It takes it to extremes, hence the whole 'no pictorial representation of living things allowed' trait in the stricter schools of thought. Hence also the central tenet 'There is no God but God'. One of my favourite Christian-baiting tactics (when I'm in that sort of mood) is to put forward my proposition that they have a pantheon of gods. They would have to be rather touchy to be baited by that. Most of the ones I know readily accept that Christianity includes more than a passing nod to various multi-theistic beliefs. It's worth remembering that most of the saints were created in Christianity's early days, when there were many recent converts who remembered the old ways. The trinity I dimly recall may have come from Isis worship, although I rather forget how or why. (especially revered in Catholicism) and Satan, and a host of minor gods who they usually name saints. Catholicism has always been more pagan than the more severe protestant branches in this regard. Much dressing up, lighting candles, making smoke, invoking saints, and general revelry. Try telling a Presbyterian that he's multi-theistic :-) AW Hmm... I think I may start a religion. I hear there's money in it... :-) Too late: http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/ Oh there's always room for another. Unless you've signed up to one already in which case there's NO ROOM FOR ANYTHING BUT THE TRUE RELIGION, DIE INFIDELS. :) J
Re: Dave and Religion
Jason Clifford wrote: On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Iain Tatch wrote: If he / she / it is worshipped, then regardless of what name they're given, I still maintain it's a god. While some people fall into that trap there are not many Catholics who worshop Mary at all. Certainly the official position of the Church is that doing so is forbidden. You are being presented an external view yet answer with theology -- theology is of little importance to the external eye. The old Egyptian/Kemetic religion is often called polytheistic, when in fact their theology claims that there is only one Divinity (it just happens to have lots of names). She's no more a God than Madonna is. Do those who adore Madonna generally do so as a god? Dunno. She sure looks good in some of those leather outfits. -- Robin Berjon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Scientist, Expway http://expway.com/ 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
Re: Dave and Religion
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Robin Berjon wrote: You are being presented an external view yet answer with theology -- theology is of little importance to the external eye. The old Egyptian/Kemetic religion is often called polytheistic, when in fact their theology claims that there is only one Divinity (it just happens to have lots of names). How often are stereotypes correct? You are asserting a stereotype about a religious group. I answered with a couple of facts. I did not state theology other than as absolutely necessary. Between those who believe and those who do not lies a very large gulf. All of it is inconsequential in respect to Christianity as everything an outsider see is just trappings and fundementally it's worthless stuff. She's no more a God than Madonna is. Do those who adore Madonna generally do so as a god? Dunno. She sure looks good in some of those leather outfits. A god of slaughtered cows? ;) Jason Clifford -- UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net http://www.ukfsn.org/ ADSL Broadband available now
Re: Dave and Religion
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Jason Clifford wrote: She's no more a God than Madonna is. Do those who adore Madonna generally do so as a god? I dunno. Is Guy Richie subbed to the list ? S.
Re: Dave and Religion
On 05/09/2003 at 18:29 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote: Jason Clifford wrote: She's no more a God than Madonna is. Do those who adore Madonna generally do so as a god? Dunno. She sure looks good in some of those leather outfits. On the other hand, in the latest video she really manages to look her age. This wouldn't be so bad if she was wearing any clothes, but sadly she's prancing about in a negligee and a couple of really terrifying sundresses. Come to think of it, most of her recent videos have been utter rubbish. Ray of Light was a terrible bluescreen+timelapse horrorshow, and the one in front of the bluescreen prairie was equally bad. As for the Ali G half-animated one; please. Not in front of the children. Let's not even start on the sub-Tatu girls-kissing stunt at the VMA last week. Please, start acting your age. Not that Mick Jagger is any better. At least he doesn't pop up on the music TV channels so often, though. -- :: paul :: historic light cone
Re: Dave and Religion
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:35:47PM +0100, James Campbell wrote: I was reading Mr Cantrell's Free Press and was very amused and impressed by the section on Religion. . . . Uh-oh, is that a massive bolt of... What has this got to do with Ben's message on Bad C Source? Just curious. Nicholas Clark
Re: Dave and Religion
James Campbell wrote: I was reading Mr Cantrell's Free Press and was very amused and impressed by the section on Religion. http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/religion/ And it's due for a re-write. It's been due for a re-write for ages, but I just can't be bothered. Most of the content there is something like four years old, the only changes have been a couple of minor corrections (which are noted at the bottom of the page) and the ongoing battle to stop retarded neo-nazis from linking to the image and using my bandwidth for their own moronic amusement. -- Grand Inquisitor David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david Considering the number of wheels Microsoft has found reason to invent, one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even vaguely resembles a circle. -- anon, on Usenet
Re: Dave and Religion
On Friday, September 5, 2003, 5:08:00 PM, Paul Makepeace wrote:
PM http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/features/beginner/index.shtml
PM ``You have to believe that there is only one God, Allah, who created the
PM entire universe, and that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is his final
PM messenger on earth.''
I know what Muslims believe, and what the Koran teaches. However just
because someone utters a statement such as There is no God but Allah. The
Prophets merely carry his word doesn't mean that they aren't treating the
Prophets in a near-identical fashion to the way in which Allah is
worshipped.
Self-proclamations of belief are generally fairly worthless: eg Stalin
spent decades proclaiming that the Soviet Union's socio-political system
was the pinnacle of human achievement and a near-Utopian society. Just
because he said it was so, didn't make it so.
PM I thought this was common knowledge? Perhaps I'm biased living working
PM in East London for a few years.
I was brought up in East London and went to a school which had more
practising muslims than christians, so I consider myself reasonably aware
of what religions profess. My point is that as a militant atheist trying
to observe the religions objectively, I believe that of the three main
self-proclaimed monotheistic religions, Judaism seems to be the only one
that treats its minor deities more as superhumans rather than out-and-out
gods.
Anyway, I started this whole thing by saying that this was one of my
favourite wind up the Christians tactics. Perhaps I've trolled too
successfully.
Let's talk about Buffy. Or Ponies.
--
Iain | PGP mail preferred: pubkey @ www.deepsea.f9.co.uk/misc/iain.asc
($=,$,)=split m$13/$,qq;1313/tl\.rnh r HITtahkPctacriAneeeusaoJ;;
for(@[EMAIL PROTECTED] m,,,$,){$..=$$[$=];$$=$=[$=];[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]
]eq$$$==$?;$==$?;for(@$)[EMAIL PROTECTED] eq$_;;last if!$@;$=++}}print$..$/
Re: Dave and Religion
Nicholas Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:35:47PM +0100, James Campbell wrote: I was reading Mr Cantrell's Free Press and was very amused and impressed by the section on Religion. . . . Uh-oh, is that a massive bolt of... What has this got to do with Ben's message on Bad C Source? Just curious. Gods too considered harmful? paul -- Paul Sharpe Tel: 619 523 0100 Fax: 619 523 0101 Russell Sharpe, Inc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 4993 Niagara Avenue, Suite 209 http://www.russellsharpe.com/ San Diego, CA 92107-3185
Re: Dave and Religion
Paul Mison wrote: On 05/09/2003 at 18:29 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote: Jason Clifford wrote: She's no more a God than Madonna is. Do those who adore Madonna generally do so as a god? Dunno. She sure looks good in some of those leather outfits. On the other hand, in the latest video she really manages to look her age. This wouldn't be so bad if she was wearing any clothes, but sadly she's prancing about in a negligee and a couple of really terrifying sundresses. I was referring to that book from the early 90s, I think it was simply called Sex. The rest I don't really mind or care about, I don't have TV. Not in front of the children. But then, I don't have any. Let's not even start on the sub-Tatu girls-kissing stunt at the VMA last week. Please, start acting your age. I heard of that. But what's the issue? Is there an age for kissing girls? -- Robin Berjon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Scientist, Expway http://expway.com/ 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
Re: Dave and Religion
Andy Wardley wrote: That's about the only thing that all the religious texts can agree on - that God, or whatever name you chose for the concept, is omniprescient and omnipotent. This implies that God is everywhere and in everything and there can be nothing that is outside of God. Iain Tatch wrote: Only in Monotheistic religions... I'm sure you're right. I don't really know much about religion at all. In fact, I wasn't being entirely serious. Well, half-serious. I like my definition of God == Universe because it works for me. But the whole point of religion/spirituality/belief is that it is entirely personal. It should be based on your own beliefs, not on what anyone else tells you to believe. I don't want my karma to run over anyone's dogma. :-) Too late: http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/ May the force be with you. A
Re: Dave and Religion
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 04:34:16PM +0100, Jason Clifford wrote: Christianity is a derived form of Judaism. It teaches that there is one God and that's it. Not quite. It teaches that YHWH is the only *true* God, but the Hebrew Scriptures are full of stories of other gods. Tony
Re: Dave and Religion
Jason Clifford wrote: On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Robin Berjon wrote: Dunno. She sure looks good in some of those leather outfits. A god of slaughtered cows? ;) Nah, radiocative decay. A cowium atom decays into several steakiums and some leatherium, plus a handful of neutrinos, a loud moo and some blood. While they do this naturally anyway, we can speed the process up by bombarding the cowium atom with a stunner and high-speed knives. Furrfu, why do people have to keep inventing deities for perfectly simple natural processes? And why isn't there a God Of Having A Really Big Dump, You Know, The Ones Where You Just Have To Get It Out But Strain And Strain As Much As You Like It Just Doesn't Want To Move? -- David Cantrell | Benevolent Dictator | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david One person can change the world, but most of the time they shouldn't -- Marge Simpson
Re: Dave and Religion
Andy Wardley wrote: In fact, I wasn't being entirely serious. Well, half-serious. I like my definition of God == Universe because it works for me. But the whole point of religion/spirituality/belief is that it is entirely personal. It should be based on your own beliefs, not on what anyone else tells you to believe. S, now. Your starting to make me wonder which part of his body did Leibniz use to pen his many, many letters. -- Robin Berjon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Scientist, Expway http://expway.com/ 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
Re: Dave and Religion
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, David Cantrell wrote: Furrfu, why do people have to keep inventing deities for perfectly simple natural processes? And why isn't there a God Of Having A Really Big Dump, You Know, The Ones Where You Just Have To Get It Out But Strain And Strain As Much As You Like It Just Doesn't Want To Move? That's how Terry Pratchett's Discworld Gods work: they feed on people's beliefs. If more people believe in them, then they grow more powerful, if no-one believes in them, they die. I have always thought it made sense. But no god is going to get much power from me anyway, so why should they care... -- Michel Rodriguez Perl amp; XML http://www.xmltwig.com
Re: Dave and Religion
On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 11:39 AM, Jonathan Peterson wrote: Hence also the central tenet 'There is no God but God'. and here all this time i thought it went the tao that can be named is not the true tao. /me ducks It's worth remembering that most of the saints were created in Christianity's early days, when there were many recent converts who remembered the old ways. so it's cruft? thus, protestantism is a result of refactoring and should be a good thing?
Re: Dave and Religion
On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 12:42 PM, Jason Clifford wrote: How often are stereotypes correct? rather often. it's how they become stereotypes, you know. ;-)
Re: Dave and Religion - Inventing Deities
Furrfu, why do people have to keep inventing deities for perfectly simple natural processes? And why isn't there a God Of Having A Really Big Dump, You Know, The Ones Where You Just Have To Get It Out But Strain And Strain As Much As You Like It Just Doesn't Want To Move? Talking about inventing deities ... was anyone around when the GOD 'Kibo' was invented on Usenet? I may have this wrong, but as I understand it a guy grepped Usenet for all instances of the word 'Kibo'. If you happened to mention the Great Lord's Name, 'Kibo', in your Usenet post, you might be blessed with a reply from the Great Lord himself! Soon young acolytes we're pleading for Kibo's divine attention. This omnipotent, grep-wielding, digital deity soon had a religon on his hands: Kibology. If I'm lucky he may even reply to this ... ;-) Nige p.s. I wonder if Kibo has now upgraded to Perl 5.8? -- Nigel Hamilton Turbo10 Metasearch Engine email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel:+44 (0) 207 987 5460 fax:+44 (0) 207 987 5468 http://turbo10.com Search Deeper. Browse Faster.
