Sorry, John. I set your subscription to "no email" thinking you wanted to 
unsubscribe. I've changed it back now. For future reference you can check your 
subscription status at
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kim Jones 
  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:19 AM
  Subject: Re: Natural Order & Belief

  Dear John,

  This is ancient history judging from the post date. Just the same - I saw a 
post from you some time ago with the single word in the subject line 
"unsubscribe". I'm not dreaming - I saw it. Did you lean on the big, bright 
yellow unsubscribe button by mistake?

  Kim Jones

  On 16/12/2006, at 8:53 AM, John M wrote:

    Dear list:
    this was the last post I received (I think I am subscribed)
    Have I been (or the list?) terminated?
    John Mikes
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Bruno Marchal
      Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:27 AM
      Subject: Re: Natural Order & Belief


      You are right, I was wrong. Those deeds are not contingent. They 
      probably appears automatically when one give a name to God.

      Perhaps, "God" could be "defined" by this: it is the one which is such 
      that once you give it a name or a definition trouble appears.

      Obviously such a sentence should not be taken to much literally (if we 
      do we are led to an obvious inconsistency).

      So, from now on, each time I use the word "God" it will means the 
      impersonal big unnameable 0-person point of view, that is Plotinus' 
      ONE, and/or some of its possible arithmetical (set theoretical) 
      interpretation(s), that is arithmetical truth (resp. set theoretical 

      I will recall the theory in my reply to Tom Caylor.


      Le 20-nov.-06, à 18:03, John M a écrit :

      > Bruno:
      > How far Occident? Quetzealcoatle was not much better.
      > Orientals? did they care at all? they were occupied
      > with their lovers. Germanics and Scandinavians? no
      > better, not to spek about Maori, African, Hawaiian
      > etc.
      > requiring virgins to be thrown into the Volcano. The
      > priests of the smarter ones ate them.
      > Did you notice the Catholic homophag rite: "Take it
      > and eat it: it is my body. Drink it: it is my blood.
      > And literary thousands of protestant rites follow
      > suit.
      > Muslims cleaned that up, they concentrate on heavennly
      > sex (hueis).
      > Sorry if I hurt feelings.
      > John
      > --- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
      >> Le 18-nov.-06, à 21:49, John M a écrit :
      >>> Why do the religions (almost all of them) depict a
      >> god after the worst
      >>> human
      >>> characters: jealous, flatterable, requiring praise
      >> and  blind
      >>> obedience,
      >>> vengeful, irate, picking favorites,
      >>> even sadistic and not caring? Why does he punish
      >> for deeds done
      >>> exactly as
      >>> he created the sinner?
      >> I disagree with the "(almost all of them)". True,
      >> since a long time, in
      >> Occident, the main religions are based on such a
      >> "God", probably
      >> because he looks like the "terrifying father", very
      >> useful to
      >> manipulate people by fear and terror.
      >> But this is contingent, and eventually I take that
      >> sad contingent truth
      >> as a supplementary motivation to come back on
      >> "serious theology", by
      >> which I mean 3-person sharable theology (even if
      >> such a theology does
      >> talk about first person unsharable notion).
      >> Bruno
      > >

      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.11/543 - Release Date: 


 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to