Is this true???
DonFro...@webtv.net
"A Painted House" calls Grisham "the world's most commercially
successful novelist in the last decade (more than 100 million books in
31 languages)... Is this true, or some sort of hype? I'd have thought
King would be considered the leader in this are? Or is that a King
fan's prejudice?
DON
Lilja
I don't know about the commerciall aspect of it but I know King has been
translated into more languares. 38 to be exact. If you want to see some
covers and know what those 38 languages are, check out the THE INTERNATIONAL
SECTION on my site.
Lilja
--
Lilja's Library - The World of Stephen King: http://come.to/liljas-library
{Now you can sign up for notifications about updates!}
<DonFro...@webtv.net> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:14093-3A...@storefull-626.iap.bryant.webtv
.net...
Max Devore
<DonFro...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14093-3A...@storefull-626.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Grisham's book have consistently higher sales than King's. First printings
of new Grisham hardcovers are generally 2.5 million copies, whereas with
King they are usually in the 1.25 to 1.75 million copy range. Grisham
doesn't publish as often (only one book per year) and hasn't been publishing
nearly as long, so King's total numbers are much higher than Grisham's.
--
Bev Vincent
Dreams age faster than dreamers
-- Stephen King, "Dreamcatcher"
raven
news:GNig6.12036$Qb7.1...@newsb.telia.net...
> Hi
>
> I don't know about the commerciall aspect of it but I know King has been
> translated into more languares. 38 to be exact. If you want to see some
> covers and know what those 38 languages are, check out the THE
INTERNATIONAL
> SECTION on my site.
And in the December issue of Biography, they list 'Our 50 Favorite People'
and S.K. is listed in the Spellbinders section. They state that "King has
returned to writing [after his accident], to the immense relief of fans who
have bought over *200 million* of his books."
If anyone would like, I will transcribe the whole thing. Just let me know.
--
Lesley
"Coach! It looks like I just jacked off an elephant."
Franklin - 'The Replacements'
Inkswamp
<DonFro...@webtv.net> wrote:
You have to pay very close attention to that kind of statistical
hyperbole. Look at how its worded. "The world's most commercially
successful novelist IN THE LAST DECADE..." I would bet if you put
King's overall sales figures for his whole career up against Grisham's,
King would be far, far ahead of Grisham. I would easily believe Grisham
has outsold King in the last ten years, however, since Grisham's
popularity has seen a huge boost in the past decade, while King appears
to be taking a slightly more subdued approach (not as much publicity
and all that as he was doing in the 80s.)
John Kennedy
Inkswamp wrote in message <070220011534129782%inks...@nas.com>...
--
"Death is a worry of the living. The dead only worry about decay and
necrophiliacs."
-Chris Rock, Dogma
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
Christopher Hill
John Kennedy <zero...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:iRlg6.16$3i6....@nntp2.onemain.com...
And JC and the rest of the disciples have probably outsold Lamour.
--
Chris Hill
To reply, John Wayne Bobbitt me
q99207...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au
"If you love someone, put their name in a circle, not a heart. Hearts can
break, but circles go on forever."
John Kennedy
Christopher Hill wrote in message <3a82080e$1...@news.connect.usq.edu.au>...
--
"Death is a worry of the living. The dead only worry about decay and
necrophiliacs."
-Chris Rock, Dogma
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
>--
Inkswamp
<zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
[...]
> >and all that as he was doing in the 80s.)
> And Louis Lamour has sold more than King, so what?
*sigh*
I knew someone was going to assume incorrectly that I cared how many
books King has sold. I was just pointing out how carefully worded
publicity statements like that can make any "fact" sound correct. By
restricting the sales info to the last decade, it becomes possible that
Grisham has outsold King. Frankly, I don't care if King sells one book
or ten million. His stuff is good regardless of sales figures.
Inkswamp
<q99207...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote:
> And JC and the rest of the disciples have probably outsold Lamour.
Which just demonstrates the lasting popularity of fictional works. :^)
John Kennedy
Inkswamp wrote in message <080220010318179040%inks...@nas.com>...
argument is that how can I be so sure that it's not? Well, I can't....
Max Devore
"Inkswamp" <inks...@nas.com> wrote in message
news:070220011534129782%inks...@nas.com...
> since Grisham's popularity has seen a huge boost in the past decade
On the other hand, have you ever read alt.books.john-grisham? It exists, but
is more desolate than the wastelands. People may read Grisham, but they
don't seem to have much inclination to discuss his work.
Max Devore
I was at a book fair last weekend and one exhibitor had an autographed copy
of The Bible! Seriously! (autographed by the designer...)
John Kennedy
Max Devore wrote in message ...
>
>"Inkswamp" <inks...@nas.com> wrote in message
>news:070220011534129782%inks...@nas.com...
>
>> since Grisham's popularity has seen a huge boost in the past decade
>
>On the other hand, have you ever read alt.books.john-grisham? It exists,
but
>is more desolate than the wastelands. People may read Grisham, but they
>don't seem to have much inclination to discuss his work.
know b/c I frequent all three....
--
"Death is a worry of the living. The dead only worry about decay and
necrophiliacs."
-Chris Rock, Dogma
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
>
Inkswamp
<zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
> >> And JC and the rest of the disciples have probably outsold Lamour.
> >
> >Which just demonstrates the lasting popularity of fictional works. :^)
> How can you be so sure that it is fictional? And I'll bet your counter
> argument is that how can I be so sure that it's not? Well, I can't....
No, my counter-argument is that I have never seen an iota of proof to
convince me that the Bible is based on any reality, and that comes from
the first 18 years of my life when I was a devout Christian. When I
started looking into biblical history on my own, out of curiosity about
what my own church wasn't teaching me, I soon discovered where much of
the Christian mythology was derived. Much of it comes from other,
earlier cultures (cultural historians call this kind of borrowing
"syncretism" if you're interested in studying it further.)
Almost all aspects of the Bible are derived from earlier myths and
mythical figures. The most glaringly obvious example is the Sumerian
myth "Epic of Gilgamesh" which predates the earliest Hebrew writings by
approx. 1200 years. Gilgamesh tells the tale of how the gods have
become displeased with the human race and decide to open the flood
gates at the ends of the world. However, one god lets his favorite
human survive by warning him of the coming floods and instructing him
to build a boat. Since this god is the patron god of animals, he
instructs this person to take two of each animal aboard....
Um... well, I'm sure you know the rest. :^)
To me, that was pretty convincing stuff. The Bible is basically an
amalgamation of previous cultural ideas and myths. Oh well. Doesn't
mean you can appreciate it for the wisdom and ideas that it contains. I
still think it's a significant and meaningful work, albeit completely
fictional and far from a divinely-influence piece.
So, there's my side of it. To turn your retort on yourself, how can you
be so sure that it is non-fictional? And I'll bet your counter-argument
is that you don't need proof--you have faith. Whatever that means....
Inkswamp
<zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
> >On the other hand, have you ever read alt.books.john-grisham? It exists,
> but
> >is more desolate than the wastelands. People may read Grisham, but they
> >don't seem to have much inclination to discuss his work.
> Same is true for alt.fan.dirk-pitt and alt.books.Crichton. I should
> know b/c I frequent all three....
Remember how skewed a view of the world you get when you see it from
the perspective of the Internet. All that may really mean is that
either a) the same people who are drawn to King's work tend to be more
computer literate and therefore end up on the 'net discussing his works
or; b) there may be some inherent difference between King's work and
others which may make King's work more "discussable". I would buy that
last explanation since King is working in a fantasy/supernatural realm
which lends itself to easy debates and more numerous interpretations.
Cybernetic Tiger
<sigh>... we've been having essentially the same argument in
alt-fan.blade-runner. I've gotten tired of it, so I'm not going to argue
with anyone anymore. Except to say.... no, nope, not gonna do it. I have
work to do. :)
lsd.
John Kennedy
Inkswamp wrote in message <080220011131557970%inks...@nas.com>...
than there are here....
John Kennedy
Inkswamp wrote in message <080220011144564961%inks...@nas.com>...
>In article <djwg6.263$3i6.1...@nntp2.onemain.com>, John Kennedy
><zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
>> >> And JC and the rest of the disciples have probably outsold Lamour.
>> >
>> >Which just demonstrates the lasting popularity of fictional works. :^)
>> How can you be so sure that it is fictional? And I'll bet your
counter
>> argument is that how can I be so sure that it's not? Well, I can't....
>
>No, my counter-argument is that I have never seen an iota of proof to
>convince me that the Bible is based on any reality, and that comes from
>the first 18 years of my life when I was a devout Christian. When I
>started looking into biblical history on my own, out of curiosity about
>what my own church wasn't teaching me, I soon discovered where much of
>the Christian mythology was derived. Much of it comes from other,
>earlier cultures (cultural historians call this kind of borrowing
>"syncretism" if you're interested in studying it further.)
found in Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Japanese/Chinese/Greek/Roman
mythology (of sorts), even in some American Indian tribes. The flood is
also mentioned in ALL of them.
>
>Almost all aspects of the Bible are derived from earlier myths and
>mythical figures. The most glaringly obvious example is the Sumerian
>myth "Epic of Gilgamesh" which predates the earliest Hebrew writings by
>approx. 1200 years. Gilgamesh tells the tale of how the gods have
>become displeased with the human race and decide to open the flood
>gates at the ends of the world. However, one god lets his favorite
>human survive by warning him of the coming floods and instructing him
>to build a boat. Since this god is the patron god of animals, he
>instructs this person to take two of each animal aboard....
A woman who insists that Jesus is fake has used such arguments based on
HER research. She states that Jesus was fictional b/c he fit several
different mythological beings. My counter is, and always will be, that in
order for Jesus to be the Son of God, he had to fit ALL of the Prophecies
and some of them may very well be found in other Religions but that does not
mean he wasn't real.
>
>Um... well, I'm sure you know the rest. :^)
>
>To me, that was pretty convincing stuff. The Bible is basically an
>amalgamation of previous cultural ideas and myths. Oh well. Doesn't
>mean you can appreciate it for the wisdom and ideas that it contains. I
>still think it's a significant and meaningful work, albeit completely
>fictional and far from a divinely-influence piece.
>
>So, there's my side of it. To turn your retort on yourself, how can you
>be so sure that it is non-fictional? And I'll bet your counter-argument
>is that you don't need proof--you have faith. Whatever that means....
It takes more than just blind belief. It also takes logic. Let's take the
big-bang, or Evolution. Neither of these is sufficiently explained by
Christianity--but neither is sufficiently explained by Science, either.
David Hendrix
[...]
> No, my counter-argument is that I have never seen an iota of proof to
> convince me that the Bible is based on any reality, and that comes from
> the first 18 years of my life when I was a devout Christian.
Ah, yes...reading and studying. The arch-enemies of organized religion
and belief throughout all of history.
It's no wonder the Dark Ages happened; mass ignorance intentionally
imposed upon Europe by the Church, which destroyed countless important
documents, records and scientific/medical treatises from the Greco-Roman
cultures. Why? Because these were "pagan" things. They would cause
people to ask Questions. The Church, of course, would not have that...if
people cease to be blind sheep, believing every word the Church says,
then the Church no longer has any power.
Think how far advanced Society would be right now, if not for these
several centuries of willful ignorance -- I don't suppose we'd need
Usenet, or this newsgroup, for one thing; we'd all just be having this
conversation telepathically. ;)
> When I started looking into biblical history on my own, out of curiosity
> about what my own church wasn't teaching me, I soon discovered where
> much of the Christian mythology was derived.
I did some of the same kind of studying -- in, ironically, the
University of Notre Dame library. ;)
Hey, at least ND had this stuff on the shelves; I doubt very much that
Oral Roberts University does.
> Much of it comes from other, earlier cultures (cultural historians call
> this kind of borrowing "syncretism" if you're interested in studying it
> further.)
Right. Almost all the trappings of Christianity are pagan in origin.
> Almost all aspects of the Bible are derived from earlier myths and
> mythical figures. The most glaringly obvious example is the Sumerian
> myth "Epic of Gilgamesh" which predates the earliest Hebrew writings by
> approx. 1200 years. Gilgamesh tells the tale of how the gods have become
> displeased with the human race and decide to open the flood gates at the
> ends of the world. However, one god lets his favorite human survive by
> warning him of the coming floods and instructing him to build a boat.
> Since this god is the patron god of animals, he instructs this person to
> take two of each animal aboard....
A lot of ancient Greek and Roman imagery is in Scripture, too, very
thinly disguised.
> Um... well, I'm sure you know the rest. :^)
> To me, that was pretty convincing stuff. The Bible is basically an
> amalgamation of previous cultural ideas and myths. Oh well. Doesn't mean
> you can appreciate it for the wisdom and ideas that it contains.
I think that's what most learned people respect it for. I know complete
atheists who study and respect it, but they look at it largely as
Mythology, the same as Zeus and Apollo.
> I still think it's a significant and meaningful work, albeit completely
> fictional and far from a divinely-influence piece.
Well, it *is* "divinely-influenced"; it was inspired by the authors'
idea of what is Divine. The old Egyptian and Greco-Roman mythology is
also "divinely-influenced." So is Buddhism, Islam and everything else.
> So, there's my side of it. To turn your retort on yourself, how can you
> be so sure that it is non-fictional? And I'll bet your counter-argument
> is that you don't need proof--you have faith. Whatever that means....
That's the rub: Faith = believing in something, but not knowing
exactly why you do. I must confess that I had a hard time,
intellectually, with that concept.
And so went my earliest career choice -- at one time, I wanted to be a
Priest!! And one of my intended ND minors was Theology... ;)
--
DH
"Your mind is being monitored. Please think clearly."
David Hendrix
[...]
> > since Grisham's popularity has seen a huge boost in the past decade
> On the other hand, have you ever read alt.books.john-grisham? It exists, but
> is more desolate than the wastelands. People may read Grisham, but they
> don't seem to have much inclination to discuss his work.
> --
> Bev Vincent
Hmmm. I'm not at all surprised. Not much to talk about, really, in
Grisham's case. Formula legal dramas. Entertaining, but meaningless.
King may at times lack depth -- one point that I most definitely agree
with Rob Whelan on -- but compared to Grisham, he's Charles Dickens. ;)
So many useless NGs out there, devoted to topics that are hardly worth
talking about -- although ABSK is far from perfect, it makes me value it
all the more.
David Hendrix
> > > On the other hand, have you ever read alt.books.john-grisham? It
> > > exists, but is more desolate than the wastelands. People may read
> > > Grisham, but they don't seem to have much inclination to discuss his
> > > work.
[John Kennedy:]
> > Same is true for alt.fan.dirk-pitt and alt.books.Crichton. I should
> > know b/c I frequent all three....
[Inkswamp:]
> Remember how skewed a view of the world you get when you see it from
> the perspective of the Internet.
Perpetuating the myth that "The Internet is not Real Life," are we? ;)
That old chestnut's been done to death. And it's *not* even true
anymore.
The Internet *reflects* RL. As RL goes, so the Internet goes. The Net is
*not* a self-contained entity unto itself anymore.
The reason I am here, exchanging views about SK's work with people all
over the world, is the same reason I sometimes exchange views about SK's
work in my own living room with RL friends and neighbors.
It's safe to guess that people don't sit in their RL living rooms
discussing Grisham much, except to say "It's good." (What's to discuss,
eh?) So, therefore, they're not discussing Grisham much on the Internet,
either. And so the 'Net follows RL.
In 2001, the Internet is not just something people do "when they're
bored," or "when they have spare time on their hands" anymore. It's an
integral part of people's "real lives" now, for better or for worse.
> All that may really mean is that either a) the same people who are drawn
> to King's work tend to be more computer literate and therefore end up on
> the 'net discussing his works or;
I know a lot of very tech-savvy people who read Grisham, including
several IP administrators. Courtroom dramas are one of those "easy-
money" genres that almost everyone, from every walk of life, enjoys.
> b) there may be some inherent difference between King's work and others
> which may make King's work more "discussable". I would buy that last
> explanation since King is working in a fantasy/supernatural realm which
> lends itself to easy debates and more numerous interpretations.
That's it, right there, IMO.
Also, King, to his credit, has never really fallen into the "formula"
trap, like Grisham and his ilk has. With every new King book, be it good
or bad, you can reasonably expect something different. With each new
Grisham tome, you can usually expect more of the same.
The "predictablity factor" -- or, in SK's case, the "unpredictabliity
factor" -- is what makes King more "discussable."
Absinthe
>
> Inkswamp wrote in message <080220011144564961%inks...@nas.com>...
> >In article <djwg6.263$3i6.1...@nntp2.onemain.com>, John Kennedy
> ><zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >> And JC and the rest of the disciples have probably outsold Lamour.
> >> >
> >> >Which just demonstrates the lasting popularity of fictional works. :^)
> >> How can you be so sure that it is fictional? And I'll bet your
> counter
> >> argument is that how can I be so sure that it's not? Well, I can't....
> >
> >No, my counter-argument is that I have never seen an iota of proof to
> >convince me that the Bible is based on any reality, and that comes from
> >the first 18 years of my life when I was a devout Christian. When I
> >started looking into biblical history on my own, out of curiosity about
> >what my own church wasn't teaching me, I soon discovered where much of
> >the Christian mythology was derived. Much of it comes from other,
> >earlier cultures (cultural historians call this kind of borrowing
> >"syncretism" if you're interested in studying it further.)
> And who is to say that these things never happened? Adam and Eve are
> found in Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Japanese/Chinese/Greek/Roman
> mythology (of sorts), even in some American Indian tribes. The flood is
> also mentioned in ALL of them.
That's exactly the point... all the major events that repeat themselves over
and over in the "flavor of the millennium" of the time are actually symbols
of our very own psyche... to take a Freudian look at it. And those that
aren't are actually exaggerations of natural events that happen from time to
time. There is not one thing in any religion except maybe Buddhism (which
really isn't a religion since there is no god or higher power, but rather a
way of life) that cannot be explained via science or literary prerogative.
>
> >
> >Almost all aspects of the Bible are derived from earlier myths and
> >mythical figures. The most glaringly obvious example is the Sumerian
> >myth "Epic of Gilgamesh" which predates the earliest Hebrew writings by
> >approx. 1200 years. Gilgamesh tells the tale of how the gods have
> >become displeased with the human race and decide to open the flood
> >gates at the ends of the world. However, one god lets his favorite
> >human survive by warning him of the coming floods and instructing him
> >to build a boat. Since this god is the patron god of animals, he
> >instructs this person to take two of each animal aboard....
> A woman who insists that Jesus is fake has used such arguments based
on
> HER research. She states that Jesus was fictional b/c he fit several
> different mythological beings. My counter is, and always will be, that in
> order for Jesus to be the Son of God, he had to fit ALL of the Prophecies
> and some of them may very well be found in other Religions but that does
not
> mean he wasn't real.
Ah, but Jesus does not. I do not believe that he is a fictional character
but a real man... but just a man. there is evidence that even the corrupt
Catholic church cannot deny that he traveled to the Himalayan mountains and
spent a good time with Buddhists and studied their teachings. It is within
Buddhism that turn the other cheek & love thy neighbor comes from, not an
original concept of Jesus. When he returned, he then taught what he
learned. there is evidence that he traveled east and northwest and picked
up bits & pieces of this religion and that. From the age of 12 until he was
30, there is no account of him in the Bible at all, but yet there lies
evidence that he most probably traveled during this period of time. The town
of Nazareth where he supposedly grew up was also 3 miles away from a trading
mecca in that area which would have also exposed him to all sorts of
different beliefs. He took what he knew well (Judaism) and incorporated
what he had learned from other religions & started preaching what he thought
of as a more well rounded, accurate religion that soon turned into early
Christianity, which should not be confused with the bastardized version of
it that is practiced today. But there is one thing... preaching is not a
god make. And other than words written by someone a hundred years after his
death & then inaccurately translated over time & reinterpreted thousands of
times over, there is no physical proof or even physical hypothesis that he
ever even claimed to be a god.
>
> >
> >Um... well, I'm sure you know the rest. :^)
> >
> >To me, that was pretty convincing stuff. The Bible is basically an
> >amalgamation of previous cultural ideas and myths. Oh well. Doesn't
> >mean you can appreciate it for the wisdom and ideas that it contains. I
> >still think it's a significant and meaningful work, albeit completely
> >fictional and far from a divinely-influence piece.
> >
> >So, there's my side of it. To turn your retort on yourself, how can you
> >be so sure that it is non-fictional? And I'll bet your counter-argument
> >is that you don't need proof--you have faith. Whatever that means....
>
> It takes more than just blind belief. It also takes logic. Let's take
the
> big-bang, or Evolution. Neither of these is sufficiently explained by
> Christianity--but neither is sufficiently explained by Science, either.
>
>
There is more backing for the big bang theory than there is that a god
exists... much more. There is such a thing as an educated guess... but when
it comes to the existence of a god, there hasn't yet been one educated
guess, just blind guesses.
I like a quote from the boy in The Seventh Sign studying who was a student
of a rabbi who went to visit a priest to ask some questions... "What if
we're all wrong?"
--
Heather
http://absinthe-green.com
http://communities.msn.com/AbsintheGreen
Updated 02/07/2001
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keep your 'lectric eye on me babe
Put your ray gun to my head
Press your space face close to mine, love
Freak out in a moonage daydream oh yeah!
-Bowie
.
Absinthe
"David Hendrix" <dthe...@libertybay.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14ed016c2...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
<snip>
> Hey, at least ND had this stuff on the shelves; I doubt very much that
> Oral Roberts University does.
>
Hey! I visited oral Roberts University while on business in Tulsa one year.
Did ya check out the giant praying hands? Did ya know that it is the
largest single mold sculpture in the world?
Sorry... just had to bring that up. I've been dying to since I saw em.
Looney
>The most glaringly obvious example is the Sumerian
>myth "Epic of Gilgamesh" which predates the earliest Hebrew writings by
>approx. 1200 years. Gilgamesh tells the tale of how the gods have
>become displeased with the human race and decide to open the flood
>gates at the ends of the world. However, one god lets his favorite
>human survive by warning him of the coming floods and instructing him
>to build a boat. Since this god is the patron god of animals, he
>instructs this person to take two of each animal aboard....
>
>Um... well, I'm sure you know the rest. :^)
>
Interesting though, that the Old Testament describes a seaworthy vessel, whilst
the Epic of Gilgamesh describes, basically, a cube, which when bouyant would be
susceptible to capsizing...
Does that mean anything? No, not really... I just thought it was interesting
:-)
Anthony "Looney" Toohey
----
I want to run,
I want to hide.
I want to tear down the walls,
That hold me inside.
I want to reach out,
And touch the flame,
Where the Streets Have No Name...
-- U2
DonFro...@webtv.net
wanted. The best explaination being that Grisham's one book a year sells
more, but that King generally writes more than one book a year. And
the point made here that these things have to be carefully read is very
valid. Will any one buy that I got it and was testing the group? Glad
I asked, if only because it lead to some mildly interesting discussion.
DON
John Kennedy
Absinthe wrote in message <95vkea$hv5r9$1...@ID-51823.news.dfncis.de>...
fact in EVERYTHING that lies in the Bible.
I know this theory, too. In fact, this is true from my studies--He did
travel. But who is to say that is not what was meant to be.... And in the
original Latin translations, there is still quotes of Christ claiming to be
the son of God. But for an interesting take on the whole Christ story,
check out the Gemini Contenders by Robert Ludlum....
>
>>
>> >
>> >Um... well, I'm sure you know the rest. :^)
>> >
>> >To me, that was pretty convincing stuff. The Bible is basically an
>> >amalgamation of previous cultural ideas and myths. Oh well. Doesn't
>> >mean you can appreciate it for the wisdom and ideas that it contains. I
>> >still think it's a significant and meaningful work, albeit completely
>> >fictional and far from a divinely-influence piece.
>> >
>> >So, there's my side of it. To turn your retort on yourself, how can you
>> >be so sure that it is non-fictional? And I'll bet your counter-argument
>> >is that you don't need proof--you have faith. Whatever that means....
>>
>> It takes more than just blind belief. It also takes logic. Let's take
>the
>> big-bang, or Evolution. Neither of these is sufficiently explained by
>> Christianity--but neither is sufficiently explained by Science, either.
>>
>>
>
>
>There is more backing for the big bang theory than there is that a god
>exists... much more. There is such a thing as an educated guess... but
when
>it comes to the existence of a god, there hasn't yet been one educated
>guess, just blind guesses.
Who says that the Big Bang wasn't God? What caused the Big Bang? What
caused God? These are things we may never know, but until Science can FULLY
explain everything about the history of man and show actual proof of
Evolution, then I will continue to believe in what the Bible says.
>
>I like a quote from the boy in The Seventh Sign studying who was a student
>of a rabbi who went to visit a priest to ask some questions... "What if
>we're all wrong?"
Then I quote History of the World Pt 1: "Orgy at Midnight: First
Served, First Come!"
--
"Death is a worry of the living. The dead only worry about decay and
necrophiliacs."
-Chris Rock, Dogma
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
>
>
>
>
Michael Rosefield
> I believe there is fact in EVERYTHING that lies in the Bible.
Obviously. Apart from the bits that aren't fact. Obviously.
Inkswamp
<dthe...@libertybay.com> wrote:
> Ah, yes...reading and studying. The arch-enemies of organized religion
> and belief throughout all of history.
>
> It's no wonder the Dark Ages happened; mass ignorance intentionally
[...]
> And so went my earliest career choice -- at one time, I wanted to be a
> Priest!! And one of my intended ND minors was Theology... ;)
Thanks for such a great response!
A science teacher of mine in junior high once told us about an article
he had read where historians and scientists looked into what sort of
knowledge likely existed in classical Greek/Roman times. While there
were no texts supporting it directly, they were able to infer from
references in other surviving works that scientists were close or had
already figured out much of what mankind took the next 1800 years to
figure out all over again. The article had extrapolated that we likely
would have been populating the moon by 1000AD if this knowledge hadn't
been destroyed by rampant paranoia by the early Christian cults.
And to think that there are people who still adhere to the claim that
religion has done mankind good.
I'll think we'll make our greatest strides if, and when, we are able to
shed this dead skin and move on.
Inkswamp
<dthe...@libertybay.com> wrote:
> Perpetuating the myth that "The Internet is not Real Life," are we? ;)
> That old chestnut's been done to death. And it's *not* even true
> anymore.
>
> The Internet *reflects* RL. As RL goes, so the Internet goes. The Net is
> *not* a self-contained entity unto itself anymore.
True, but the Internet is populated mostly by specific subsets of the
planet. People who are either wealthy enough or live in societies
wealthy enough to own computers; then those who are computer literate
enough to get on the Internet; then those who are literate enough to
figure out how to participate in Usenet; then those who are King fans
and who want to discuss his works. You can probably further reduce all
that to finer details too. That makes people here a very specific
subset of King fans. I'm hesitant to say the Internet reflects real
life in much way that really means anything. I'm not saying it doesn't
have value, btw. Why else would I be here?
Inkswamp
<zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
> And who is to say that these things never happened? Adam and Eve are
> found in Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Japanese/Chinese/Greek/Roman
> mythology (of sorts), even in some American Indian tribes. The flood is
> also mentioned in ALL of them.
Have you ever heard of Jung's theories on the collective unconscious
and archetypal figures/stories? That is a far more plausible
explanation for syncretism than the outrightly silly notion that there
was once an Adam and Eve who lived in a garden with a tree of knowledge
or a worldwide flood or that the world and universe is populated with
little spiritual entities representing good and evil.
> A woman who insists that Jesus is fake has used such arguments based on
> HER research. She states that Jesus was fictional b/c he fit several
> different mythological beings.
Again, refer to my comments about the collective unconscious and
archetypes. I think you'll find that line of reasoning far more
satisfying than the concept that God's son turned water into wine and
healed lepers with a single touch. The former is a serious probing into
the workings of the human mind and outward manifestations of those
workings (i.e. stories, images, mythical figures) while the latter is
simply storytelling to illustrate points. For whatever reason, modern
man seems to need desperately to believe his myths were real events.
> It takes more than just blind belief. It also takes logic. Let's take the
> big-bang, or Evolution. Neither of these is sufficiently explained by
> Christianity--but neither is sufficiently explained by Science, either.
However, Christianity would never have figured out these concepts, nor
would it have had the power or structure to support and further
investigate them; and while Christians are perfectly comfortable
dismissing theories and ideas that they have no knowledge about,
scientists further explore and pursue knowledge that they do not yet
have. Science is a powerful tool that allows the user to further
explore and investigate unanswered questions while religion requires
that you do nothing of the sort or risk disproving its claims. There
has been no more effective assault on the accomplishments of science
than the current attempts to make religion and science out to be two
sides of the same coin.
Inkswamp
<wilyk...@cs.comkillspam> wrote:
> Interesting though, that the Old Testament describes a seaworthy vessel,
> whilst
> the Epic of Gilgamesh describes, basically, a cube, which when bouyant would
> be
> susceptible to capsizing...
>
> Does that mean anything? No, not really... I just thought it was interesting
> :-)
I can't tell if you're joking or not. The similarities are startling
and were very startling for me back when I read it and was still a
Christian. It can be a bit of a jolt. In the Gilgamesh epic, the god
instructs the man to build the boat and gives him specific dimensions
just like God does with Noah in the Bible.
At the end of the Flood story in the Bible there is yet another
borrowing of myth in the bit about Ham (I think?) seeing Noah passed
out drunk and naked in his tent (and how much sense does that make--the
world's most virtuous man, saved by God, gets drunk and passes out
naked. Uh-huh.) There is this inexplicable wording the Bible about how
Noah awoke and (paraphrased) "saw what his son had done to him" and Ham
gets exiled. The Bible doesn't actually explain what the son "did to"
Noah. That bit was taken from a Greek myth where one of Zeus's sons
finds Zeus passed out drunk and castrates him. Early changes in the
Bible exised that part, but they inexplicably left in the mention of
"what had been done" and the exile. Strange that Christians don't
question this stuff more closely as I did when I was one of them.
Inkswamp
<zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
> I'm not talking about Frued as he was a nutcase! I believe there is
> fact in EVERYTHING that lies in the Bible.
Do you say that because you have evidence that he was a "nutcase" or
are you afraid some of his and Jung's ideas might threaten your sense
of comfort and certainty in your religious identity?
Can you provide examples of why Freud was a nutcase?
John Kennedy
Inkswamp wrote in message <100220011852020546%inks...@nas.com>...
say that he was a nutcase because it threatens my religious security. I say
that Freud is a nutcase b/c everything was about sex with him.
John Kennedy
Inkswamp wrote in message <100220011839234875%inks...@nas.com>...
majority of the world believes in it in some form or another. If it gives
us morals to live by, dignity, honor, life, and love, why is it such a bad
thing? Have you ever considered any of this? Or are you the kind that
thinks if there is no physical proof, then it must not be real? Well, I'll
give you this: is there any real proof of evolution? No. Is there any
proof of a big bang? Yes. What caused the big bang? We don't know. Could
it have been God that was the big bang? Sure. Again, I say, until there is
actual proof that God does not exist, then I will continue in believing
there is a God.
John Kennedy
Inkswamp wrote in message <100220011830473839%inks...@nas.com>...
>In article <1THg6.1694$3i6.3...@nntp2.onemain.com>, John Kennedy
><zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
>> And who is to say that these things never happened? Adam and Eve are
>> found in Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Japanese/Chinese/Greek/Roman
>> mythology (of sorts), even in some American Indian tribes. The flood is
>> also mentioned in ALL of them.
>
>Have you ever heard of Jung's theories on the collective unconscious
>and archetypal figures/stories? That is a far more plausible
>explanation for syncretism than the outrightly silly notion that there
>was once an Adam and Eve who lived in a garden with a tree of knowledge
>or a worldwide flood or that the world and universe is populated with
>little spiritual entities representing good and evil.
>
>> A woman who insists that Jesus is fake has used such arguments based
on
>> HER research. She states that Jesus was fictional b/c he fit several
>> different mythological beings.
>
>Again, refer to my comments about the collective unconscious and
>archetypes. I think you'll find that line of reasoning far more
>satisfying than the concept that God's son turned water into wine and
>healed lepers with a single touch. The former is a serious probing into
>the workings of the human mind and outward manifestations of those
>workings (i.e. stories, images, mythical figures) while the latter is
>simply storytelling to illustrate points. For whatever reason, modern
>man seems to need desperately to believe his myths were real events.
And it is also seriously trying to kill EVERYTHING moral in this world.
And why must they be myths? Why can't there be some fact to them? Troy,
for instance.
>
>> It takes more than just blind belief. It also takes logic. Let's take
the
>> big-bang, or Evolution. Neither of these is sufficiently explained by
>> Christianity--but neither is sufficiently explained by Science, either.
>
>However, Christianity would never have figured out these concepts, nor
>would it have had the power or structure to support and further
>investigate them; and while Christians are perfectly comfortable
>dismissing theories and ideas that they have no knowledge about,
>scientists further explore and pursue knowledge that they do not yet
>have. Science is a powerful tool that allows the user to further
>explore and investigate unanswered questions while religion requires
>that you do nothing of the sort or risk disproving its claims. There
>has been no more effective assault on the accomplishments of science
>than the current attempts to make religion and science out to be two
>sides of the same coin.
Would you REALLY be happier knowing that there were no Hell? Would you
be happier knowing that you can just go and kill, steal, rape, do whatever
you please without consequences? Wouldn't that, rather, ruin a safety net?
Wouldn't that basically turn out world over to complete anarchy?
John Kennedy
Inkswamp wrote in message <100220011849230988%inks...@nas.com>...
18 years of Christ's life and of how Cain and Abel were sent to the Land of
Nod to find wives if Adam and Eve were the first man and woman on Earth.
Rev. Bleech_
spewed forth:
>>Have you ever heard of Jung's theories on the collective unconscious
>>and archetypal figures/stories? That is a far more plausible
>>explanation for syncretism than the outrightly silly notion that there
>>was once an Adam and Eve who lived in a garden with a tree of knowledge
>>or a worldwide flood or that the world and universe is populated with
>>little spiritual entities representing good and evil.
>
> A what about the silly notion of evolution?
Difference between that "silly notion" is that it is fact, with plenty
of evidence to support it, and the rest...well, isn't.
Put DOWN the Chick comix.
--
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
BleechWorld : Too Fly to Die - http://www.bleechworld.com
To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD.
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
X is for XERXES devoured by mice.
Floyd Code : v1.2a r BO 0/0/r tinG 0- 0 Animals/WYWH 22 129 22.3% <27jan01>
Rev. Bleech_
spewed forth:
> Secular Humanism. Why is organized Religion a threat to you? The
>majority of the world believes in it in some form or another. If it gives
>us morals to live by, dignity, honor,
You misspelled "dogma". HTH
> life, and love, why is it such a bad
>thing? Have you ever considered any of this?
Because it breeds and preys on small minds.
--
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
BleechWorld : Too Fly to Die - http://www.bleechworld.com
To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD.
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
A is for AMY who fell down the stairs.
Final Frontier
wrote:
> (wow, just a whole bunch of stuff...)
I've always thought that if Jesus Christ and Sigmund Freud were to come back
today, they'd both be appalled.
"What the hell have you done to my teachings??? I gave you simply an idea to
explore human nature; you mistook it, and you fucked it up like THIS???"
John Kennedy
Rev. Bleech_ wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:29:54 -0500, "John Kennedy" <zero...@cvn.net>
>spewed forth:
>
>> Secular Humanism. Why is organized Religion a threat to you? The
>>majority of the world believes in it in some form or another. If it gives
>>us morals to live by, dignity, honor,
>
>You misspelled "dogma". HTH
>
>> life, and love, why is it such a bad
>>thing? Have you ever considered any of this?
>
>Because it breeds and preys on small minds.
Like Television doesn't?
--
"Death is a worry of the living. The dead only worry about decay and
necrophiliacs."
-Chris Rock, Dogma
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
John Kennedy
Rev. Bleech_ wrote in message
>On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:35:07 -0500, "John Kennedy" <zero...@cvn.net>
>spewed forth:
>
>>>Have you ever heard of Jung's theories on the collective unconscious
>>>and archetypal figures/stories? That is a far more plausible
>>>explanation for syncretism than the outrightly silly notion that there
>>>was once an Adam and Eve who lived in a garden with a tree of knowledge
>>>or a worldwide flood or that the world and universe is populated with
>>>little spiritual entities representing good and evil.
>>
>> A what about the silly notion of evolution?
>
>Difference between that "silly notion" is that it is fact, with plenty
>of evidence to support it, and the rest...well, isn't.
--
"Death is a worry of the living. The dead only worry about decay and
necrophiliacs."
-Chris Rock, Dogma
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
>
Inkswamp
<zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
> >Difference between that "silly notion" is that it is fact, with plenty
> >of evidence to support it, and the rest...well, isn't.
>
> What proof?
The only people I've ever met in life who ask this question about
evolution also COINCIDENTALLY happen to be those who have never
actually sat down with a good book examining the issue.
If that's the case with you (and no high school texts and
church-provided material do not count), do yourself a favor and go pick
up a few books by Stephen Jay Gould. He makes the topic rather
accessible even to non-scientific types (like me). Evolution is such an
enormous, complex topic that it's not worth the time to try to convince
someone if they aren't familiar with it on a deeper level than what the
media and your typical church offer. Go out and read about evolution.
The "proof" isn't something that can be summed up and dropped here with
a few senteces. To get it, you really have to understand all aspects of
it and see how it all works together.
BTW, there is proof of evolution being recorded every day. Every single
day. It just happens. It's so obvious that it happens by this point
that it's utterly pointless trying to disprove it. Questioning it is a
lot like questioning the existence of the sun.
Rev. Bleech_
spewed forth:
>
>Rev. Bleech_ wrote in message ...
>>On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:29:54 -0500, "John Kennedy" <zero...@cvn.net>
>>spewed forth:
>>
>>> Secular Humanism. Why is organized Religion a threat to you? The
>>>majority of the world believes in it in some form or another. If it gives
>>>us morals to live by, dignity, honor,
>>
>>You misspelled "dogma". HTH
>
> I didn't mention Dogma, you prick.
If you need a church to have morals, well...stay the hell away from my
daughter.
>>> life, and love, why is it such a bad
>>>thing? Have you ever considered any of this?
>>
>>Because it breeds and preys on small minds.
>
> Like Television doesn't?
Interesting response. In that it's not a denial.
--
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
BleechWorld : Too Fly to Die - http://www.bleechworld.com
To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD.
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
The correct answer was MEEN-ky boodle !!!
John Kennedy
Rev. Bleech_ wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:35:30 -0500, "John Kennedy" <zero...@cvn.net>
>spewed forth:
>
>>
>>Rev. Bleech_ wrote in message ...
>>>On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:29:54 -0500, "John Kennedy" <zero...@cvn.net>
>>>spewed forth:
>>>
>>>> Secular Humanism. Why is organized Religion a threat to you? The
>>>>majority of the world believes in it in some form or another. If it
gives
>>>>us morals to live by, dignity, honor,
>>>
>>>You misspelled "dogma". HTH
>>
>> I didn't mention Dogma, you prick.
>
>If you need a church to have morals, well...stay the hell away from my
>daughter.
>
>>>> life, and love, why is it such a bad
>>>>thing? Have you ever considered any of this?
>>>
>>>Because it breeds and preys on small minds.
>>
>> Like Television doesn't?
>
>Interesting response. In that it's not a denial.
No, it's not denial b/c I'm not going to argue with a closed minded fuck
who is afraid that there is a God, who is afraid of Heaven and Hell, who is
afraid that he just MAY be judged after death....
--
"Death is a worry of the living. The dead only worry about decay and
necrophiliacs."
-Chris Rock, Dogma
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
>--
simm...@hotmail.com
"Inkswamp" <inks...@nas.com> wrote in message
news:110220011906048413%inks...@nas.com...
Inkswamp, while I certainly respect your opinions I must say that there is a
reason it's still called the THEORY of evolution. Gould makes the concept
accessible, yes, but there are also many other angles to evolution, and in
fact there are a growing number of anthropologists, sociologists,
biologists, etc. who believe that evolution is a flawed theory. That Darwin
had it ALMOST right but there are a number of things that don't fit the
model, such as spontaneous mutation. There are also a vast number of
Evolutionary Creationists out there.
My point being, it is possible to be just as dogmatic about
science/psychology, etc as about religion.
Hey, not trying to flame or anything here, it just sorta riles me when
people point the finger (or the other finger)at religious people and accuse
them of not "seeing the light".:)
Simm
Wojo
> Ok, gotta stop lurking for moment...
> Inkswamp, while I certainly respect your opinions I must say that there is a
> reason it's still called the THEORY of evolution. Gould makes the concept
> accessible, yes, but there are also many other angles to evolution, and in
> fact there are a growing number of anthropologists, sociologists,
> biologists, etc. who believe that evolution is a flawed theory. That Darwin
> had it ALMOST right but there are a number of things that don't fit the
> model, such as spontaneous mutation. There are also a vast number of
> Evolutionary Creationists out there.
> My point being, it is possible to be just as dogmatic about
> science/psychology, etc as about religion.
> Hey, not trying to flame or anything here, it just sorta riles me when
> people point the finger (or the other finger)at religious people and accuse
> them of not "seeing the light".:)
This debate could go on for thousands of years (and has). There are
plenty of holes in theories of every kind as to the history of humanity.
Religious? Fine. Darwinian? Fine. I, personally am a combination and
I'm comfortable with that. I've never understood the concept of arguing
it though. Religion is based on "faith" which is an unshakable belief.
Scientific atheism is based on "known facts" which are, as stated, known.
There is no argument that can be posed by either side that will sway the
other, so what's the point?
Wojo
simm...@hotmail.com
"Wojo" <ke...@jvlnet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14f14bfc...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Rev. Bleech_
spewed forth:
>>>>You misspelled "dogma". HTH
>>>
>>> I didn't mention Dogma, you prick.
>>
>>If you need a church to have morals, well...stay the hell away from my
>>daughter.
>
> I'm married you fucknut.
Does your wife know you rely on the church for morals ? Eeesh.
>>>>> life, and love, why is it such a bad
>>>>>thing? Have you ever considered any of this?
>>>>
>>>>Because it breeds and preys on small minds.
>>>
>>> Like Television doesn't?
>>
>>Interesting response. In that it's not a denial.
>
> No, it's not denial b/c I'm not going to argue with a closed minded fuck
Er, so what are you doing right now ?
>who is afraid that there is a God, who is afraid of Heaven and Hell, who is
>afraid that he just MAY be judged after death....
Nah. I'm pretty sure there is a God. It's just that, unlike you
(judging from what I've seen thus far), I don't accept everything the
church says as literal truth.
Again, have you been reading Chick comix ?
--
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
BleechWorld : Too Fly to Die - http://www.bleechworld.com
To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD.
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
N is for NEVILLE who died of ennui.
John Kennedy
Rev. Bleech_ wrote in message ...
>spewed forth:
>
>>>>>You misspelled "dogma". HTH
>>>>
>>>> I didn't mention Dogma, you prick.
>>>
>>>If you need a church to have morals, well...stay the hell away from my
>>>daughter.
>>
>> I'm married you fucknut.
>
>Does your wife know you rely on the church for morals ? Eeesh.
>
>>>>>> life, and love, why is it such a bad
>>>>>>thing? Have you ever considered any of this?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because it breeds and preys on small minds.
>>>>
>>>> Like Television doesn't?
>>>
>>>Interesting response. In that it's not a denial.
>>
>> No, it's not denial b/c I'm not going to argue with a closed minded
fuck
>
>Er, so what are you doing right now ?
I respect others beliefs, I just don't see the point of trying, as you
have, to force it down others throats.
>
>>who is afraid that there is a God, who is afraid of Heaven and Hell, who
is
>>afraid that he just MAY be judged after death....
>
>Nah. I'm pretty sure there is a God. It's just that, unlike you
>(judging from what I've seen thus far), I don't accept everything the
>church says as literal truth.
And why shouldn't I? I don't see why I can't, and why I should have any
reason to doubt it.
>
>Again, have you been reading Chick comix ?
What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
--
"Death is a worry of the living. The dead only worry about decay and
necrophiliacs."
-Chris Rock, Dogma
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
>--
Rev. Bleech_
forth:
>Ok, gotta stop lurking for moment...
>Inkswamp, while I certainly respect your opinions I must say that there is a
>reason it's still called the THEORY of evolution.
Look up the word. Evolution is not a theory, it is a stone cold fact
no matter how badly creationists would like it not to be. The only
theory involved is in regards to part of the evolution of certain
species. Anyone who thinks God created mankind in literally 7 days is
sadly deluded
--
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
BleechWorld : Too Fly to Die - http://www.bleechworld.com
To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD.
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
P is for PRUE trampled flat in a brawl.
simm...@hotmail.com
"Rev. Bleech_" <BOLLOCK...@ac.net> wrote in message
news:o3bf8ts24vggnugv3...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:21:59 -0800, > no matter how badly creationists
would like it not to be. The only
> forth:
>
> >Ok, gotta stop lurking for moment...
> >Inkswamp, while I certainly respect your opinions I must say that there
is a
> >reason it's still called the THEORY of evolution.
>
> Look up the word.
> theory involved is in regards to part of the evolution of certain
> species.
question, whether in whole or part, sort of skewers the stone cold part...
>Anyone who thinks God created mankind in literally 7 days is
> sadly deluded
Regardless, you've just underscored my point for me: dogmatic is dogmatic,
whether you are "religious" or "scientific" or "lillipution" or
"macrobiotic" or whatever the hell you want to be.
Simm
Absinthe
"John Kennedy" <zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
> Would you REALLY be happier knowing that there were no Hell?
Would you
> be happier knowing that you can just go and kill, steal, rape, do
whatever
> you please without consequences? Wouldn't that, rather, ruin a
safety net?
> Wouldn't that basically turn out world over to complete anarchy?
>
One does not need the fear of the wrath of an angry god in order for
one to be humaine & treat others with respect and consideration. I
know people from all walks of life. I know people who are Islamic,
Jewish, Catholic, Born Again, Wiccan, Pagan, Druid, Buddhist, & Hindu.
I also know a lot of Athiest & Agnostics... Every single last one of
them are giving & compassionate in their own way & not nary a one would
ever be so silly to assume that one needs a beliefe in a god in order
for humanity to behave in such a way. As a matter of fact, almost
every heineous act of war or atrocity such as genocide has been done in
the name of some god. So your little theory there is shot to shit. A
belief in a god doesn't make people kind & loving & compassionate...
but being human does give us the ability to be that way. Instilling
fear in someone with the threat if eternal damnation only serves to
make the populace ignorant and fearful, not loving.
--
Heather
http://www.absinthe-green.com
~~^~~^~~^~~^~~^~~^
You're such a wonderful person
But you've got problems
- David Bowie
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Absinthe
>
> This debate could go on for thousands of years (and has). There are
> plenty of holes in theories of every kind as to the history of
humanity.
> Religious? Fine. Darwinian? Fine. I, personally am a combination
and
> I'm comfortable with that. I've never understood the concept of
arguing
> it though. Religion is based on "faith" which is an unshakable
belief.
> Scientific atheism is based on "known facts" which are, as stated,
known.
> There is no argument that can be posed by either side that will sway
the
> other, so what's the point?
>
> Wojo
>
> --
> http://www.jvlnet.com/~kenw
>
It is via argument (or debate, for a better word... to me its not an
argument until personal insults are used that have nothing to do with
the topic on hand) that we make most of our progress as humans. It is
someone stopping, thinking & saying "hey, I don't think the reason I
was taught is right" or "I disagree". What a boring planet this would
be if everyone was in constant agreement.
Absinthe
were a Christian or a whatever, I definitly wouldn't want you
representing me & my religion of choice, thats for sure. You called
the man a prick for no apparent reason other than the fact that he
disagreed with you. Pretty pathetic. Oh, and not very Christian
either.
John Kennedy
Absinthe wrote in message <968s3s$1th$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <QOnh6.1968$3f1.1...@nntp3.onemain.com>,
> "John Kennedy" <zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
>>
>
>> Would you REALLY be happier knowing that there were no Hell?
>Would you
>> be happier knowing that you can just go and kill, steal, rape, do
>whatever
>> you please without consequences? Wouldn't that, rather, ruin a
>safety net?
>> Wouldn't that basically turn out world over to complete anarchy?
>>
>One does not need the fear of the wrath of an angry god in order for
>one to be humaine & treat others with respect and consideration. I
>know people from all walks of life. I know people who are Islamic,
>Jewish, Catholic, Born Again, Wiccan, Pagan, Druid, Buddhist, & Hindu.
>I also know a lot of Athiest & Agnostics... Every single last one of
>them are giving & compassionate in their own way & not nary a one would
>ever be so silly to assume that one needs a beliefe in a god in order
>for humanity to behave in such a way. As a matter of fact, almost
>every heineous act of war or atrocity such as genocide has been done in
>the name of some god. So your little theory there is shot to shit. A
>belief in a god doesn't make people kind & loving & compassionate...
>but being human does give us the ability to be that way. Instilling
>fear in someone with the threat if eternal damnation only serves to
>make the populace ignorant and fearful, not loving.
mentioned, all of them have something in common: if you do wrong, you get
punished. Even the Athiests and Agnostics believe this. But it is not a
theory. If certain groups wanted to get together after knowing there was no
God, Allah, YHWH, etc., then what is there to stop them in thinking they
could overrun a government?
--
"Death is a worry of the living. The dead only worry about decay and
necrophiliacs."
-Chris Rock, Dogma
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
>--
Rev. Bleech_
spewed forth:
>>Nah. I'm pretty sure there is a God. It's just that, unlike you
>>(judging from what I've seen thus far), I don't accept everything the
>>church says as literal truth.
>
> And why shouldn't I? I don't see why I can't, and why I should have any
>reason to doubt it.
Because you have reason to doubt EVERYTHING. If I said I took
everything I saw on the TV as literal truth, you would have a
conniption fit. What gives the church any more credibility ? Do you
believe everything, say, the Government tells you ?
>>Again, have you been reading Chick comix ?
>
> What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
Because it's like I'm talking to the man himself
--
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
BleechWorld : Too Fly to Die - http://www.bleechworld.com
To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD.
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
"Zere vill be no VISTLING in ze hall !!!!!!!"
Rev. Bleech_
forth:
>I believe I said Evolutionary Creationists. Look up the word.
Yep, you did.
But you also said evolution was only a theory. Which is
fundamentalist fantasy.
--
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
BleechWorld : Too Fly to Die - http://www.bleechworld.com
To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD.
=-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-=
"It is I, Osaki Yorimoto, Japan's greatest Kendo master. But you can call me Bob. We will start your first lesson."
Michael Rosefield
Have you actually read your bible? Oh, sorry, it's not just about sex;
there's plenty of violence in there too.
Absinthe
"John Kennedy" <zero...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:GhUh6.84$2U3....@nntp1.onemain.com...
> Heather, I'm not trying to instill fear. And of those religions you
> mentioned, all of them have something in common: if you do wrong, you get
> punished. Even the Athiests and Agnostics believe this. But it is not a
> theory. If certain groups wanted to get together after knowing there was
no
> God, Allah, YHWH, etc., then what is there to stop them in thinking they
> could overrun a government?
>
Err...Wrong. We do not believe that you get "punished". If you get caught,
then society may punish you but there is no automatic punishment... no rule
of "getting yours in the end" due to some karma thing. Most people get
thiers in the end because eventually they get caught and society, not karma
or god or any mysitcal force, punishes them in some way to make it safer and
more liveable for everyone else... at least that is the ideal. Doesn't
always work out that way because humans aren't perfect. Humans don't need
some threat of brimstone & eternal suffering in order to have morals. The
simple realization that you will be treated based on how you treat others
tends to be enough for the most part. There is no god behind that thought.
its simple preservation of society, the clan, the tribe, the social
structure which also stretches to many other animals in this world that
drives us to keep our morals, nothing more.
The fact that Athiests HAVE been organized for quite some time & have made
very few, if any attempts to over run any government might give you a clue.
But many, many organized religions have... over & over again throughout
history. Its not subtle either, it screams off the pages of any world
history book, right there for everyone and anyone to read... it screams from
our current world events found in any newspaper that isn't too local, but
lots of people choose to be ignorant and disregard what is blatantly obvious
(thankfully not all or even most religious people I have met are this blind)
for fear of it shattering their illusion of their chosen faith. A simple
look at the semi threatening millitias that have sprung up in the US all are
building up their "army" in the name of some god or another. Every hate
group in this country is practicing under "God's charge"... believing that
they are doing the will of some god. Nothing can stop any powerful group of
people from over running any gov't, country or whatever... but history has
already proven time and time again that it is those who are acting under
some "divine privelage" who tend to be the most active in the over running &
raping & pillaging. Jail is full of religious people, but there aren't too
many Athiests or Agnostics there. Go figure.
BTW... an Athiest is someone who does not believe that there is a god in any
shape or form. You could say that they have "faith" in the non-existance.
Do you even know what an Agostic is?
--
Heather
http://absinthe-green.com
http://communities.msn.com/AbsintheGreen
Updated 02/07/2001
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keep your 'lectric eye on me babe
Put your ray gun to my head
Press your space face close to mine, love
Freak out in a moonage daydream oh yeah!
-Bowie
.
InviziCat
Is it someone who's not sure either way?
~cathi~
"Never ruin an apology with an excuse."
Wojo
> >Do you even know what an Agostic is?
>
> Is it someone who's not sure either way?
AgNostic (which I consider myself) is somebody who doesn't necessarily
*not* believe in God but who chooses to live his/her life as they choose
and not "worship" any particular God. They neither believe nor
disbelieve. Agostic sounds like a type of sock pattern...
Wojo
--
http://www.jvlnet.com/~kenw
John Kennedy
Besq <Besq*ns*@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3A728284...@qwest.net...
> My apologies if this offends anyone. I thought it humorous and wanted to
share it.
>
> > The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington
> > chemistry mid term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that
the
> > professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of
> > course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
> >
> > Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
(absorbs
> > heat)?
> >
> > Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law
> > (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed)
> > or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
> >
> > First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we
> > need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they
are
> > leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to
> > Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how
many
> > souls
> > are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in
the
> > world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a
member of
> > their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of
these
> > religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we
> > can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as
they
> > are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase
exponentially.
> >
> > Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because
Boyle's
> > Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to
stay
> > the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are
> > added.
> >
> > This gives two possibilities:
> >
> > 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls
> > enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase
until all
> > Hell breaks loose.
> >
> > 2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase
> > of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until
Hell
> > freezes over.
> >
> > So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa
during
> > my Freshman year, "... it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep
with
> > you," and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in
having
> > sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true. Thus, I am sure
> > that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze.
> >
> > The student received the only "A" given.
>
>
>
--
"Death is a worry of the living. The dead only worry about decay and
necrophiliacs."
-Chris Rock, Dogma
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
Absinthe wrote in message <96a09q$k4uor$1...@ID-51823.news.dfncis.de>...
Cybernetic Tiger
An agnostic is not sure that there is a God, but doesn't rule out the
possibility.
An argyle is a type of sock.
An argylostic is a person who is not sure that there are socks, but doesn't
rule out the possibility.
An Agostic is a toy invented by the Zizzlezwump Company - it's a combination
dessert topping and floor wax.
Tiger.
Inkswamp
<simm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My point being, it is possible to be just as dogmatic about
> science/psychology, etc as about religion.
Oh I totally agree with you. I probably came off more dogmatic than I
really am--I tend to do that to counter someone else's dogmatic
behavior.
I understand that there are actually many flaws and problems with
evolution. What's funny is I hear a lot of Christians attack evolution
with silly non-arguments about the so-called missing link when in fact,
if any of them would bother reading about it, they would discover that
there are quite a few problems that haven't been explained.
> Hey, not trying to flame or anything here, it just sorta riles me when
> people point the finger (or the other finger)at religious people and accuse
> them of not "seeing the light".:)
I understand where you're coming from. No offense taken. However, I
don't go so far as to say that evolution is a useless theory because it
has a few problems. Hell, Christians are willing to say that but
simultaneously overlook the numerous problems with their religion. ;^)
It's the old "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" thing. I think
science is on the right path with evolutionary concepts, but it will be
a long time before all the anomalous parts of it are understood.
Inkswamp
> A what about the silly notion of evolution?
How much have you read about this topic? You are making judgments about
it with the proper foundation in the topic first, I assume.
> And it is also seriously trying to kill EVERYTHING moral in this world.
> And why must they be myths? Why can't there be some fact to them? Troy,
> for instance.
I'm trying to word this so I don't come off sounding condescending, but
how much have you studied mythology? The common misconception about
mythology is that it is a falsehood. Myths are not literal truth, but
they represent a Truth. The Bible can have lots of value as a myth, in
many ways more value than as historical document because then atheists
and adherents to other religions won't be so put off by it. It's not an
insult to refer to the Bible as a myth, unless you're an overly
defensive Christian who doesn't want to hear otherwise.
> Would you REALLY be happier knowing that there were no Hell? Would you
> be happier knowing that you can just go and kill, steal, rape, do whatever
> you please without consequences? Wouldn't that, rather, ruin a safety net?
> Wouldn't that basically turn out world over to complete anarchy?
I have strong beliefs that human beings are basically good, that we
tend toward goodness and treating each other well and loving each
other. That was something I found sorely lacking in the Christian
concept of the world. In the eyes of the Judeo-Christian tradition,
we're all basically evil, stupid, wicked and greedy and aspire to live
up to God's expectations only because of the threat of punishment.
In my view, mankind is more noble than that and we can have morality
and right and wrong without some "final judgment" waiting for us but
rather because we can reason that this is the best path to take. There
are many philosophical viewpoints that say we give our lives meaning by
our own deeds, not because of external structures. Buddhists believe
this and I think they are absolutely correct. Don't kid
yourself--Christians don't hold a monopoly on right and wrong. In fact,
I think you don't need to look very far to see examples of Christians
behaving in very unbecoming ways (*cough* Pat Robertson *cough* *cough*
Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker *cough*).
Besides, if Christianity is the answer, please explain why in the
mid-20th century a predominantly Christian country suddenly went crazy
for the Nazi party and committed some of the most heinous and abhorrent
crimes against humanity in recent history. Do you get the feeling that
perhaps Christianity wasn't filling some necessary void in their lives,
that there was an opportunity for something new, some pseudo-religion
like Naziism, to come in and lure people? Do you think clinging to a
religious tradition that clearly no longer answers questions or has
little to no relevance to its adherents a good thing?
When people insist on clinging to an empty religion which is more about
political power than God, that's when you'll see anarchy.
Inkswamp
<absinth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> What a boring planet this would
> be if everyone was in constant agreement.
I agree with that! ;^)
Inkswamp
<zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
>>Islamic,
>>Jewish, Catholic, Born Again, Wiccan, Pagan, Druid, Buddhist, & Hindu.
>>I also know a lot of Athiest & Agnostics...
[...]
> Heather, I'm not trying to instill fear. And of those religions you
> mentioned, all of them have something in common: if you do wrong, you get
> punished.
No absolutely not, and you're gradually revealing that you know less
and less on these topics (this doesn't vary much from what I already
know about the average Christian out there so I'm not surprised). The
Wiccans and Pagans that I know, believe no such thing at all. Buddhists
do not have any sort of system similar to the Christian heaven and hell
concept. Hindus have a system that, twisted through a Christian bias,
might appear to be a reward and punishment system, but really isn't.
Atheists and Agnostics do not have a believe system per se to which any
generalization can be safely applied so I'm not sure where you get that
idea. Clearly you need to better familiarize yourself with these
religions and points of view before speaking for them.
> Even the Athiests and Agnostics believe this.
Are you suggesting that Atheists and Agnostics have some standard
belief system to which all of them adhere to? You have missed the
point. Atheists and Agnostics DO NOT HAVE A TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS
BELIEF SYSTEM. Therefore, GENERALIZING ABOUT WHAT THEY ALL BELIEVE AS A
GROUP IS TOTALLY INANE. Sorry for the capitals, but it seems like you
need these things emphasized.
Inkswamp
<invi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Do you even know what an Agostic is?
>
> Is it someone who's not sure either way?
An atheist is someone who simply doesn't believe that there is a god,
for lack of evidence, faith, whatever.
An agnostic is someone who concludes that mankind simply cannot know
one way or the other whether a god exists, that proof for or against
existence is beyond our scope of intelligence.
In that respect, you could theoretically have agnostic Christians, but
modern-day Christians tend toward dogmatic responses to philosophical
issues and would typically never think this through enough to proclaim
themselves such (although there are probably many of them out there).
As a result of Christians being weeded out of this potential group,
most agnostics tend also to be non-believers which leads to lazy,
religious folks who don't want to bother with understanding the
difference. That's why Christians frequently lump atheists and
agnostics together under one definition. I've already seen that a few
times in this thread and it's interesting how much it reveals about
people.
InviziCat
>for lack of evidence, faith, whatever.
>
>An agnostic is someone who concludes that mankind simply cannot know
>one way or the other whether a god exists, that proof for or against
>existence is beyond our scope of intelligence.
Thank you for your reply. I think I definitely qualify as an agnostic under
these terms. I will not deny the existence of God, but neither will I rely on
it.
~cathi~
"Does emotion hold some virtue
or does forgiveness want revenge in return?"
- from "She Follows" by Cats and Dogs
John Kennedy
Inkswamp wrote in message <150220011550111582%inks...@nas.com>...
>In article <GhUh6.84$2U3....@nntp1.onemain.com>, John Kennedy
><zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
>>>Islamic,
>>>Jewish, Catholic, Born Again, Wiccan, Pagan, Druid, Buddhist, & Hindu.
>>>I also know a lot of Athiest & Agnostics...
>[...]
>> Heather, I'm not trying to instill fear. And of those religions you
>> mentioned, all of them have something in common: if you do wrong, you
get
>> punished.
>
>No absolutely not, and you're gradually revealing that you know less
>and less on these topics (this doesn't vary much from what I already
>know about the average Christian out there so I'm not surprised). The
>Wiccans and Pagans that I know, believe no such thing at all. Buddhists
>do not have any sort of system similar to the Christian heaven and hell
>concept. Hindus have a system that, twisted through a Christian bias,
>might appear to be a reward and punishment system, but really isn't.
>Atheists and Agnostics do not have a believe system per se to which any
>generalization can be safely applied so I'm not sure where you get that
>idea. Clearly you need to better familiarize yourself with these
>religions and points of view before speaking for them.
do wrong in this life-time, you are punished by not being able to reach
Nirvana as soon as you would like.
>
>> Even the Athiests and Agnostics believe this.
>
>Are you suggesting that Atheists and Agnostics have some standard
>belief system to which all of them adhere to? You have missed the
>point. Atheists and Agnostics DO NOT HAVE A TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS
>BELIEF SYSTEM. Therefore, GENERALIZING ABOUT WHAT THEY ALL BELIEVE AS A
>GROUP IS TOTALLY INANE. Sorry for the capitals, but it seems like you
>need these things emphasized.
NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM, BUT, RATHER, ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS BELIEVE IF YOU
DO WRONG, THEN YOU GET PUNISHED "BY A COURT OF LAW!" There, is that better
for you? And I'm NOT sorry for the capitals, but it seems that I NEEDED to
EMPHASIZE things for you!
Inkswamp
<invi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >An atheist is someone who simply doesn't believe that there is a god,
> >for lack of evidence, faith, whatever.
> >
> >An agnostic is someone who concludes that mankind simply cannot know
> >one way or the other whether a god exists, that proof for or against
> >existence is beyond our scope of intelligence.
>
> Thank you for your reply. I think I definitely qualify as an agnostic under
> these terms. I will not deny the existence of God, but neither will I rely on
> it.
You're welcome. It's interesting really. If you look into the history
of the agnostics, you'll see that they were a group that split off from
the gnostics who were a religious group. The agnostics were not by
definition anti-religious. It's curious how modern Christians have
demonized the meaning of that term not realizing that many of them can,
or are, agnostics as well. Ironically, the most faithful Christians
(i.e. the ones who consider proof an irrelevant issue) are the most
likely candidates for being considered agnostic in their beliefs. I
also consider them to be the cream of the crop amongst Christians
because they don't try to prop up their beliefs with silly arguments.
They believe and have faith. It's personal. Period. No arguments for or
against. I think that kind of attitude is the most admirable a
religious person can have.
Inkswamp
<zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
> Speaking as a "FORMER" Wiccan follower, I should know. Buddhism, if you
> do wrong in this life-time, you are punished by not being able to reach
> Nirvana as soon as you would like.
I know Wiccans and have asked recently about this. You are wrong.
Considering that you also continue to insist that Buddhists also have a
reward and punishment system only shows that you're either willfully
ignorant about this or can't separate other cultural concepts from your
own Christian bias. Nothing I can say will get through that.
> NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM, BUT, RATHER, ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS BELIEVE IF YOU
> DO WRONG, THEN YOU GET PUNISHED "BY A COURT OF LAW!"
I'm not sure how that ties in with your claims that other religions
have a reward and punishment system in their belief system. There are
lots of ways that people can be rotten, lying and corrupt without
breaking the law and I know many non-believers who are still good
people in those regards. How do you explain that? If there are no laws
against being an asshole or lying to people or committing adultery or
excessive drinking (which there aren't) then why aren't all
non-believers lying, adulterous drunken assholes? Non-believers *CAN
AND DO* have their own reasons for being good people. You don't need
religion to hold you hand.
I made the statement that Christianity does not have a monopoly on
right and wrong. You have failed to disprove that. Not surprising.
>There, is that better
> for you? And I'm NOT sorry for the capitals, but it seems that I NEEDED to
> EMPHASIZE things for you!
I'm not surprised you're not sorry for anything. Again, very typical of
Christians. They believe that they can behave in any way they want
because they can simply and conveniently pray and be forgiven.
Non-believers have to deal with their own conscience and guilt if they
do something wrong. Religion is the easy way out.
Cybernetic Tiger
"Inkswamp" <inks...@nas.com> wrote in message
news:160220011443177536%inks...@nas.com...
IAWTP - although, as a Christian myself, I can tell you it's unbelievably
frustrating sometimes, trying to believe and have faith and just leave it at
that. You can goad _anyone_ into an argument if you try hard enough. We're
only human, after all. :)
tiger.
NettiesArk
>Christians. They believe that they can behave in any way they want
>because they can simply and conveniently pray and be forgiven.
I believe you're thinking of Catholicism.
Confession and you're forgiven.
Annette
Inkswamp
<netti...@aol.com> wrote:
Actually, I remember being told in the protestant church that I
attended that Catholics "had it easy" because they had only to go to
confession to be forgiven. Of course, once I discussed this with a
Catholic friend and found out how mortifying an experience it can be to
have to tell someone else your sins (even semi-anonymously) did it
occur to me that just having to pray to get forgiveness was in fact the
easy way out. Catholics must also perform a penance, which doesn't
happen in other traditional Christian denominations.
I can't speak for all religions of course, and what any others do for
attonement, but from my experience, just silently admitting your
wrongdoings to some make-believe old man in the sky is getting off
pretty easy.
Absinthe
> In article <s08j6.4203$Ia7.2...@nntp1.onemain.com>, John Kennedy
> <zero...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
> > Speaking as a "FORMER" Wiccan follower, I should know. Buddhism, if
you
> > do wrong in this life-time, you are punished by not being able to reach
> > Nirvana as soon as you would like.
>
> I know Wiccans and have asked recently about this. You are wrong.
> Considering that you also continue to insist that Buddhists also have a
> reward and punishment system only shows that you're either willfully
> ignorant about this or can't separate other cultural concepts from your
> own Christian bias. Nothing I can say will get through that.
I studied Wicca briefly, thinking it might be right for me (it wasn't...
still the whole god issue). It teaches what we as humans already know just
through being human... if ya treat others like shit, you will be treated
like shit too... some people mistake that for "punishment" which is jsut
plain wrong. it all has to do with our social survival (since we are social
creatures) and there is no god in that.
As far as Buddhist are concerned, he is dead wrong. Nirvana is a state of
being, not a place such as heaven. The goal to reach Nirvana has to do with
a goal to reach a state of bliss. the path to Nirvana is considered long
but not definable, but there are guidelines that may be taken as is (as many
traditional Buddhists do) or one can take their own path (which is something
a lot of "western Buddhists" do). The guidelines take you through certain
phases in life that include indulgence while in youth & self sacrifice when
older that includes celibacy (usually most take this on during their latter
years, after the children are around) in order to be more focused & "pure of
heart", so to speak.
I do not consider myself an expert by a long shot... jsut an interested
person, same way I am interested in King & his work... but this Kennedy dude
speaks about what he is quite ignorant of... based probably on what he sees
& hears in the News & on TV & through Pop culture, taking it as "law"
because it conveniently fits into his view of what is right & wrong & it
validates his god for him.
Clue for Kennedy: If your faith in your god was so strong, it would need no
validation.
>
> > NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM, BUT, RATHER, ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS BELIEVE IF
YOU
> > DO WRONG, THEN YOU GET PUNISHED "BY A COURT OF LAW!"
>
> I'm not sure how that ties in with your claims that other religions
> have a reward and punishment system in their belief system. There are
> lots of ways that people can be rotten, lying and corrupt without
> breaking the law and I know many non-believers who are still good
> people in those regards. How do you explain that? If there are no laws
> against being an asshole or lying to people or committing adultery or
> excessive drinking (which there aren't) then why aren't all
> non-believers lying, adulterous drunken assholes? Non-believers *CAN
> AND DO* have their own reasons for being good people. You don't need
> religion to hold you hand.
>
> I made the statement that Christianity does not have a monopoly on
> right and wrong. You have failed to disprove that. Not surprising.
He is trying to link different societies & cultures to his religious beliefs
in an attempt to validate them. Religion & its fans are much like King &
his fans... There are some obvious, blatant links in his work, some
inferred & then there are those that are fabricated by his fans in order to
draw some deeper meening & validate the man in their own minds (for what
reason, I have no clue) and also turn the man into something much larger
than he really is.
>
> >There, is that better
> > for you? And I'm NOT sorry for the capitals, but it seems that I NEEDED
to
> > EMPHASIZE things for you!
>
> I'm not surprised you're not sorry for anything. Again, very typical of
> Christians. They believe that they can behave in any way they want
> because they can simply and conveniently pray and be forgiven.
> Non-believers have to deal with their own conscience and guilt if they
> do something wrong. Religion is the easy way out.
I know lots of Christians of all different sects, be it Catholic to Mormon.
Most are reasonable folk who just happen to believe in a god I don't. They
have faith & they are content with that... but they will also look at the
blatant errors within their own religion with an objective mind (they
eventually consider it trivial & unimportant which is fine for them but not
for me). Then there are those like this Kennedy guy who will argue without
any background knowledge or reference and resort to using "un-Christian"
tactics such as badgering, & calling people "pricks" while unprovoked.
Kendra
> In article <20010216215019...@ng-cp1.aol.com>, NettiesArk
> <netti...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >Again, very typical of
> > >Christians. They believe that they can behave in any way they want
> > >because they can simply and conveniently pray and be forgiven.
> >
> > I believe you're thinking of Catholicism.
> > Confession and you're forgiven.
Not just Catholics - some Protestant religions believe that once "saved",
always "saved". They also pray & are are forgiven (just directly to the
source & not in the ritual confessional way of Catholics).
>
> Actually, I remember being told in the protestant church that I
> attended that Catholics "had it easy" because they had only to go to
> confession to be forgiven. Of course, once I discussed this with a
> Catholic friend and found out how mortifying an experience it can be to
> have to tell someone else your sins (even semi-anonymously) did it
> occur to me that just having to pray to get forgiveness was in fact the
> easy way out. Catholics must also perform a penance, which doesn't
> happen in other traditional Christian denominations.
>
You think that semi-anonymous confessing is mortifying - imagine how you'd
feel about face-to-face confessing *G* (which is what the Catholic Church
introduced many years ago - luckily in most churches it's optional
although some people seem to prefer it the face-to-face way).
Kendra
Kendra
> >
> >
<snippage happened - if the quoting got confused sorry>
> > > NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM, BUT, RATHER, ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS
> > > BELIEVE IF YOU DO WRONG, THEN YOU GET PUNISHED "BY A COURT
> > > OF LAW!"
> >
> > I'm not sure how that ties in with your claims that other religions
> > have a reward and punishment system in their belief system. There are
> > lots of ways that people can be rotten, lying and corrupt without
> > breaking the law and I know many non-believers who are still good
> > people in those regards. How do you explain that? If there are no laws
> > against being an asshole or lying to people or committing adultery or
> > excessive drinking (which there aren't) then why aren't all
> > non-believers lying, adulterous drunken assholes? Non-believers *CAN
> > AND DO* have their own reasons for being good people. You don't need
> > religion to hold you hand.
> >
> > I made the statement that Christianity does not have a monopoly on
> > right and wrong. You have failed to disprove that. Not surprising.
>
> He is trying to link different societies & cultures to his religious
> beliefs in an attempt to validate them. Religion & its fans are much
> like King & his fans... There are some obvious, blatant links in his
> work, some inferred & then there are those that are fabricated by his
> fans in order to draw some deeper meening & validate the man in their
> own minds (for what reason, I have no clue) and also turn the man into
> something much larger than he really is.
>
All I'm gonna say is that I agree with you both about most of what you
said - one doesn't have to be religious to be a "good" person. Too many
times people equate
morality/ethics with religion thinking you can't have one (or teach the
concepts) without the other.
Kendra
not an atheist or true agnostic but openminded hopefully
Nanny Ogg
writes:
>I've always thought that if Jesus Christ and Sigmund Freud were to come back
>today, they'd both be appalled.
>"What the hell have you done to my teachings??? I gave you simply an idea to
>explore human nature; you mistook it, and you fucked it up like THIS???"
Jesus, yes, but why Freud? I can't see that we've done anything that different
to his teachings.
wondered
Sarah
--
`If you love, Ka-tet can never be broken' - Thom, Prince Hatesbane
`To vanquish demons from without with love that burns within' - Joe Lamb
`Bah, the old complainers nowadays just aren't made like they were' - Ashen
Shugar
Nanny Ogg
writes:
>An agnostic is someone who concludes that mankind simply cannot know
>one way or the other whether a god exists, that proof for or against
>existence is beyond our scope of intelligence.
>
>In that respect, you could theoretically have agnostic Christians,
How so? I mean, how could you believe that Jesus had been sent as God's
messenger and resurrected to avoid God punishing us without feeling this to be
definite evidence of God's existence?
Nanny Ogg
<zero...@cvn.net> writes:
>>Can you provide examples of why Freud was a nutcase?
> Just an opinion, you dick. And who the fuck is Jung?
Another famous psychiatrist. Went on a lot about dreams and the subconscious.
> And no I don't
>say that he was a nutcase because it threatens my religious security. I say
>that Freud is a nutcase b/c everything was about sex with him.
He was probably quite sane, actually. It's the cocaine addiction that caused
all the weirdness.
commented
Nanny Ogg
writes:
>I'm not surprised you're not sorry for anything. Again, very typical of
>Christians. They believe that they can behave in any way they want
>because they can simply and conveniently pray and be forgiven.
>Non-believers have to deal with their own conscience and guilt if they
>do something wrong. Religion is the easy way out.
Not necessarily. Some Christians do believe this, but I think most wouldn't
feel that the belief that you can claim forgiveness for any sin automatically
equates to the belief that it's quite all right to commit the sin in the first
place. That's rather a travesty of mainstream Christianity (not to mention
that it's somewhat sloppy to talk about religion in general as if it equated to
Christiainity).
Nanny Ogg
writes:
>> Heather, I'm not trying to instill fear. And of those religions you
>> mentioned, all of them have something in common: if you do wrong, you get
>> punished.
>
>No absolutely not, and you're gradually revealing that you know less
>and less on these topics (this doesn't vary much from what I already
>know about the average Christian out there so I'm not surprised). The
>Wiccans and Pagans that I know, believe no such thing at all.
I'm confused here. I would have thought the Rule of Three rated to a
punishment system. Are you saying that Wiccans believe this to be a law of the
universe rather than the specific workings of a god, and hence it's different?
Or what?
questioned
Nanny Ogg
<zero...@cvn.net> writes:
>Would you REALLY be happier knowing that there were no Hell?
Well, frankly, yes. (Not that it would make all that much difference, since I
don't believe there is anyway, but I suppose it would be nice to know for
sure.)
> Would you
>be happier knowing that you can just go and kill, steal, rape, do whatever
>you please without consequences?
Why would that make any difference to me? I'm not planning to do any of these
things anyway, and I already don't believe in Hell. Also, it wouldn't follow
from the non-existence of Hell that there were no consequences. Quite apart
from the possible consequences here on Earth, Hell is only one form of
theoretical after-death punishment. Even if it doesn't exist, who's to say
that other methods may not exist?
> Wouldn't that, rather, ruin a safety net?
>Wouldn't that basically turn out world over to complete anarchy?
Clearly not, since the vast majority of the people who don't believe in Hell
aren't anarchists as a result.
All the best,
Nanny Ogg
<zero...@cvn.net> writes:
> Secular Humanism. Why is organized Religion a threat to you? The
>majority of the world believes in it in some form or another. If it gives
>us morals to live by, dignity, honor, life, and love, why is it such a bad
>thing?
I agree.
> Have you ever considered any of this? Or are you the kind that
>thinks if there is no physical proof, then it must not be real? Well, I'll
>give you this: is there any real proof of evolution? No.
Yes, there is. Scientists have seen evolution occurring on a small scale, with
populations of fruit flies in laboratories undergoing genetic mutation until
they can no longer breed with the original species. They've seen natural
selection - for example, growing antibiotic resistance among bacteria, and the
change in moth species from predominantly dark grey to predominantly light grey
last century secondary to the lessening in pollution that made walls lighter in
colour. The fossil record shows evidence of these changes occurring on a much
grander scale over millions of years, with one species becoming another over
time. There are also vestigial features in many animals which aren't easily
explained except by the understanding that these are genetic leftovers from
when the animal's ancestors had a very different form.
Nanny Ogg
simpler than answering them correctly.)
>John Kennedy wrote:
In article <95vkea$hv5r9$1...@ID-51823.news.dfncis.de>, "Absinthe"
<hmc...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>> And who is to say that these things never happened? Adam and Eve are
>> found in Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Japanese/Chinese/Greek/Roman
>> mythology (of sorts), even in some American Indian tribes. The flood is
>> also mentioned in ALL of them.
But Christianity originated from Judaism, and Islam from an offshoot of the
people who eventually became Jews. John, you're talking there as if three
completely separate religions came up with the same myths independently. As
for the Japanese/Chinese/Greek/Roman/American Indian mythology, I don't know
enough about the myths in question to comment, so I'd be interested to hear
more.
>That's exactly the point... all the major events that repeat themselves over
>and over in the "flavor of the millennium" of the time are actually symbols
>of our very own psyche... to take a Freudian look at it. And those that
>aren't are actually exaggerations of natural events that happen from time to
>time.
That strikes me as being a much more obvious explanation of the flood myths
than `symbols of our own psyche'. After all, early civilisations tend to set
up in places where there's a major source of water nearby - a river, lake, or
large stream. Sources of water like this tend to flood occasionally, so most
early civilisations are going to be flooded out at some point in their history,
and because they have no idea how far the world spreads, it's natural for them
to believe that the flood that's spreading as far as they can see covers the
whole world. Add in a few generations of story-telling to pass that on and
whatever the local mythology is, and you've got a story about a Great Flood
sent by the gods to kill off the sinful. It's no surprise that there are going
to be similar myths all over the world.
I remember once having a discussion with some fundamentalist Christians (the
sort who take every single thing in the Bible as literal word-for-word truth)
about whether the story of Noah's Ark was actually factual. They told me that
there were over two hundred flood myths in existence in the world and didn't
that prove that there _must_ have been a Great Flood at some point - thereby
providing evidence for the Bible version of events? I pointed out to them that
if anything, it worked the other way - if there were so many flood myths, how
did they know that their particular version was `the correct one' and not just
one of the two hundred inaccurate versions? I've got to say, it was quite
amusing to see the `Oh, dear, I hadn't thought of that' looks on their faces.
................
>Ah, but Jesus does not. I do not believe that he is a fictional character
>but a real man... but just a man. there is evidence that even the corrupt
>Catholic church cannot deny that he traveled to the Himalayan mountains and
>spent a good time with Buddhists and studied their teachings.
OK, you got me. What evidence?
> It is within
>Buddhism that turn the other cheek & love thy neighbor comes from, not an
>original concept of Jesus.
I don't even see the need to look as far as Buddhism, since these concepts are
also found in Jesus's birth religion, Judaism. (I don't know of any equivalent
in Judaism to the actual phrase about turning the other cheek, but it does
teach that you should actively try to do good to your enemies.)
> When he returned, he then taught what he
>learned. there is evidence that he traveled east and northwest and picked
>up bits & pieces of this religion and that. From the age of 12 until he was
>30, there is no account of him in the Bible at all, but yet there lies
>evidence that he most probably traveled during this period of time.
OK.... I'm listening. What's the evidence?
> The town
>of Nazareth where he supposedly grew up was also 3 miles away from a trading
>mecca in that area which would have also exposed him to all sorts of
>different beliefs. He took what he knew well (Judaism) and incorporated
>what he had learned from other religions & started preaching what he thought
>of as a more well rounded, accurate religion that soon turned into early
>Christianity,
I don't agree that what he preached was notably different from the Judaism of
his time in any way. Although many people believe that his teachings set off
down a new and different path, it doesn't really stand up to examination once
you take into account the Gentile influences on the church by the time his
words were set down. He was telling his followers to be better Jews.
> which should not be confused with the bastardized version of
>it that is practiced today. But there is one thing... preaching is not a
>god make. And other than words written by someone a hundred years after his
>death & then inaccurately translated over time & reinterpreted thousands of
>times over, there is no physical proof or even physical hypothesis that he
>ever even claimed to be a god.
In fact, I'd say there's a fair bit of evidence that he didn't. Someone who
was claiming to be the Messiah wouldn't be likely to claim to be God as well,
as it would only confuse the issue (the Messiah was never, ever thought of at
that time as being God) and there are also verses where he specifically talks
as if he was a separate being from God.
Nanny Ogg
>Inkswamp, while I certainly respect your opinions I must say that there is a
>reason it's still called the THEORY of evolution.
There is, but it's not because scientists doubt that evolution occurred and is
occurring.
This is a common source of misunderstanding, because the word `theory' has more
than one meaning. `Theory' is used most often in everyday life to mean
`something that's not yet proven fact'. So a lot of people hear about the
theory of evolution and think `Well, if it's still just a theory, obviously it
hasn't been proved yet'.
However, scientists will use `theory' to refer to the way a whole set of
ideas/proven facts fit together, and this is how it's used in this phrase.
There's no doubt that evolution occurred in the past and is occurring in the
present. What scientists disagree on is how much of a part was played by
different mechanisms. We know that natural selection accounts for most of the
changes and random variation for some - but how much of evolution is accounted
for by each? Some biologists now think that random variation plays more of a
part than was hitherto accounted for. And do these changes take place slowly
and steadily (gradual evolution) or in rapid bursts of time (punctuated
evolution)? If I understand correctly, most scientists now feel that both of
these play at least some part, but the relative part each plays is still under
dispute.
Now, none of these disagreements over the details mean that evolution didn't
happen or couldn't account for the spread of lifeforms we have today.
Creationists often talk as if this was the case, taking quotes out of context
and making it sound as if scientists were arguing so much about evolution that
_everything_ about it was in doubt. But, in fact, the scientists who argue
still don't disagree that evolution happened. Claiming that disputes over the
details discredit the whole theory is as illogical as claiming that the
disputes between the different branches of Christianity over the details of the
faith automatically discredit the whole thing.
> Gould makes the concept
>accessible, yes, but there are also many other angles to evolution, and in
>fact there are a growing number of anthropologists, sociologists,
>biologists, etc. who believe that evolution is a flawed theory. That Darwin
>had it ALMOST right but there are a number of things that don't fit the
>model, such as spontaneous mutation.
Well, of course Darwin didn't come up with all the answers, if that's what you
mean. He opened the door to our understanding of evolution, but it's only to
be expected that the theory itself would change and grow (`evolve', if you like
;-) ) over the century or so since then.
> There are also a vast number of
>Evolutionary Creationists out there.
I don't understand what this term means. I thought a creationist was someone
who _didn't_ believe in evolution?
Robert Whelan
On 18 Feb 2001, Nanny Ogg wrote:
> In article <vCnh6.341$jo.3...@nntp2.onemain.com>, "John Kennedy"
> <zero...@cvn.net> writes:
>
> >>Can you provide examples of why Freud was a nutcase?
> > Just an opinion, you dick. And who the fuck is Jung?
>
> Another famous psychiatrist. Went on a lot about dreams and the subconscious.
>
> > And no I don't
> >say that he was a nutcase because it threatens my religious security. I say
> >that Freud is a nutcase b/c everything was about sex with him.
>
> He was probably quite sane, actually. It's the cocaine addiction that caused
> all the weirdness.
This is interesting. Are you aware of any particular period of his
work, or ideas, that are associated with his cocaine addiction?
I heard someone interviewed, who was talking about how they didn't
understand the attraction of cocaine, since all it does is make you
talk "nothing but bullshit" for hours. Does cocaine bypass the
judgement centers that inhibit speaking one's thoughts before one
has examined them for validity?
This is interesting because it might explain the Sex scene in IT.
If it was a cocaine derived inspiration, it explains why it wasn't
discarded.
John Kennedy
Nanny Ogg wrote in message <20010218092140...@nso-fc.aol.com>...
>(I'm answering a bit of John's post here, as well as Absinthe's, as it
seemed
>simpler than answering them correctly.)
>
>>John Kennedy wrote:
>
>In article <95vkea$hv5r9$1...@ID-51823.news.dfncis.de>, "Absinthe"
><hmc...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>>> And who is to say that these things never happened? Adam and Eve
are
>>> found in Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Japanese/Chinese/Greek/Roman
>>> mythology (of sorts), even in some American Indian tribes. The flood is
>>> also mentioned in ALL of them.
>
>But Christianity originated from Judaism, and Islam from an offshoot of the
>people who eventually became Jews. John, you're talking there as if three
>completely separate religions came up with the same myths independently.
As
>for the Japanese/Chinese/Greek/Roman/American Indian mythology, I don't
know
>enough about the myths in question to comment, so I'd be interested to hear
>more.
different. They have similar tales, and yet such different backgrounds.
I'll admit it: I'd never thought of it that way....
>
>................
>
>>Ah, but Jesus does not. I do not believe that he is a fictional character
>>but a real man... but just a man. there is evidence that even the corrupt
>>Catholic church cannot deny that he traveled to the Himalayan mountains
and
>>spent a good time with Buddhists and studied their teachings.
>
>OK, you got me. What evidence?
The "He was missing or 18 years in the Bible kind of evidence"?
>
>> It is within
>>Buddhism that turn the other cheek & love thy neighbor comes from, not an
>>original concept of Jesus.
>
>I don't even see the need to look as far as Buddhism, since these concepts
are
>also found in Jesus's birth religion, Judaism. (I don't know of any
equivalent
>in Judaism to the actual phrase about turning the other cheek, but it does
>teach that you should actively try to do good to your enemies.)
It also says an eye for an eye.
>
>> When he returned, he then taught what he
>>learned. there is evidence that he traveled east and northwest and picked
>>up bits & pieces of this religion and that. From the age of 12 until he
was
>>30, there is no account of him in the Bible at all, but yet there lies
>>evidence that he most probably traveled during this period of time.
>
>OK.... I'm listening. What's the evidence?
>
>> The town
>>of Nazareth where he supposedly grew up was also 3 miles away from a
trading
>>mecca in that area which would have also exposed him to all sorts of
>>different beliefs. He took what he knew well (Judaism) and incorporated
>>what he had learned from other religions & started preaching what he
thought
>>of as a more well rounded, accurate religion that soon turned into early
>>Christianity,
>
>I don't agree that what he preached was notably different from the Judaism
of
>his time in any way. Although many people believe that his teachings set
off
>down a new and different path, it doesn't really stand up to examination
once
>you take into account the Gentile influences on the church by the time his
>words were set down. He was telling his followers to be better Jews.
True, since most of the Gospels were written several years after his
death. And the book of Revelation was written in around AD 90.
>
>> which should not be confused with the bastardized version of
>>it that is practiced today. But there is one thing... preaching is not a
>>god make. And other than words written by someone a hundred years after
his
>>death & then inaccurately translated over time & reinterpreted thousands
of
>>times over, there is no physical proof or even physical hypothesis that he
>>ever even claimed to be a god.
>
>In fact, I'd say there's a fair bit of evidence that he didn't. Someone
who
>was claiming to be the Messiah wouldn't be likely to claim to be God as
well,
>as it would only confuse the issue (the Messiah was never, ever thought of
at
>that time as being God) and there are also verses where he specifically
talks
>as if he was a separate being from God.
God? No. Son of God, yes.
--
"Death is a worry of the living. The dead only worry about decay and
necrophiliacs."
-Chris Rock, Dogma
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
>
John Kennedy
Nanny Ogg wrote in message <20010218092144...@nso-fc.aol.com>...
>In article <150220011550111582%inks...@nas.com>, Inkswamp
<inks...@nas.com>
>writes:
>
>>> Heather, I'm not trying to instill fear. And of those religions you
>>> mentioned, all of them have something in common: if you do wrong, you
get
>>> punished.
>>
>>No absolutely not, and you're gradually revealing that you know less
>>and less on these topics (this doesn't vary much from what I already
>>know about the average Christian out there so I'm not surprised). The
>>Wiccans and Pagans that I know, believe no such thing at all.
>
>I'm confused here. I would have thought the Rule of Three rated to a
>punishment system. Are you saying that Wiccans believe this to be a law of
the
>universe rather than the specific workings of a god, and hence it's
different?
>Or what?
threefold in a GOOD way. The same is true for doing wrong.
--
"Death is a worry of the living. The dead only worry about decay and
necrophiliacs."
-Chris Rock, Dogma
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
>
Nanny Ogg
Whelan <rwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes:
>> > And no I don't
>> >say that he was a nutcase because it threatens my religious security. I
>say
>> >that Freud is a nutcase b/c everything was about sex with him.
>>
>> He was probably quite sane, actually. It's the cocaine addiction that
>caused
>> all the weirdness.
>
>This is interesting. Are you aware of any particular period of his
>work, or ideas, that are associated with his cocaine addiction?
As I recall, he used cocaine heavily through his entire adult life. My
information on this comes from a fascinating book called `The Freudian
Fallacy', by E.M. Thornton. It's been quite a while since I read this, but, as
I recall, he was known to be a cocaine user and the way he writes - endless
commentary on ideas that he considers to be of crucial importance although, in
fact, they don't even make sense - is very typical of someone using cocaine.
So is the obsession with sex.
The other factor that greatly influenced his work, according to this book, was
the widely-held belief that psychological factors - hysteria - were the cause
of inexplicable physical symptoms. In fact, with greater medical knowledge
today, it's possible to look back on the cases he describes having seen as both
a trainee and a psychoanalyst and to recognise them as known physical
conditions which the doctors in Freud's day just didn't know about.
>I heard someone interviewed, who was talking about how they didn't
>understand the attraction of cocaine, since all it does is make you
>talk "nothing but bullshit" for hours. Does cocaine bypass the
>judgement centers that inhibit speaking one's thoughts before one
>has examined them for validity?
<g> I doubt if there are any actual neuroanatomical structures corresponding
to `judgement centres' or a neuropsychological process corresponding to what
you describe, but you've got the right idea as to the effect. Cocaine, as a
stimulant, produces a state similar to mania. The person who takes it may
develop `pressure of speech' - which, as it sounds, involves talking on and on
about anything or nothing - and also becomes supremely confident in themselves
and the inherent fascination of what they're saying. Another symptom is the
belief that their thoughts have tremendous significance and wisdom. You can
see how the combination of these factors is likely to produce a lot of talking
about rubbish.
>This is interesting because it might explain the Sex scene in IT.
>If it was a cocaine derived inspiration, it explains why it wasn't
>discarded.
Very good point. I must say that my reaction to finding out about King's
cocaine habit was `But of course! I should have realised' just on the basis of
how much more wordy he's become in his later novels compared to his earlier
ones. Some of it's just his style, of course, but even so...... it does sound
like pressure of speech. It hadn't occurred to me that it could also have
influenced the way he wrote about sex, but it's a possibility, all right.
Nanny Ogg
(Nanny Ogg) writes:
>(I'm answering a bit of John's post here, as well as Absinthe's, as it seemed
>simpler than answering them correctly.)
And, of course, that SHOULD have read `separately'. Damned hurried posting.
<slaps head, crawls into corner to hide>
Nanny Ogg
<zero...@cvn.net> writes:
>Nanny Ogg wrote in message <20010218092140...@nso-fc.aol.com>...
>>(I'm answering a bit of John's post here, as well as Absinthe's, as it
>seemed
>>simpler than answering them correctly.)
>>
>>>John Kennedy wrote:
>>
>>In article <95vkea$hv5r9$1...@ID-51823.news.dfncis.de>, "Absinthe"
>><hmc...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>>> And who is to say that these things never happened? Adam and Eve
>are
>>>> found in Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Japanese/Chinese/Greek/Roman
>>>> mythology (of sorts), even in some American Indian tribes. The flood is
>>>> also mentioned in ALL of them.
>>
>>But Christianity originated from Judaism, and Islam from an offshoot of the
>>people who eventually became Jews. John, you're talking there as if three
>>completely separate religions came up with the same myths independently.
>As
>>for the Japanese/Chinese/Greek/Roman/American Indian mythology, I don't
>know
>>enough about the myths in question to comment, so I'd be interested to hear
>>more.
> I realize those three have the same beginnings, but the others are quite
>different. They have similar tales, and yet such different backgrounds.
As I said, I don't know anything about these particular myths, so I'd be
interested to hear about whatever the points of similarity are supposed to be.
(much snippage)
>>I don't even see the need to look as far as Buddhism, since these concepts
>are
>>also found in Jesus's birth religion, Judaism. (I don't know of any
>equivalent
>>in Judaism to the actual phrase about turning the other cheek, but it does
>>teach that you should actively try to do good to your enemies.)
> It also says an eye for an eye.
As a system by which society as a whole applies just punishments, yes - not as
a way for individuals to act towards each other. Besides, the literal
interpretation of `an eye for an eye' had long since been discarded by the
mainstream (the Pharisees) by Jesus's time, on the basis that a literal
interpretation wouldn't allow the spirit of the law to be interpreted fairly.
A fine was paid instead.
>>> And other than words written by someone a hundred years after
>his
>>>death & then inaccurately translated over time & reinterpreted thousands
>of
>>>times over, there is no physical proof or even physical hypothesis that he
>>>ever even claimed to be a god.
>>
>>In fact, I'd say there's a fair bit of evidence that he didn't. Someone
>who
>>was claiming to be the Messiah wouldn't be likely to claim to be God as
>well,
>>as it would only confuse the issue (the Messiah was never, ever thought of
>at
>>that time as being God) and there are also verses where he specifically
>talks
>>as if he was a separate being from God.
> God? No. Son of God, yes.
Exactly. A very different concept indeed, to someone of that background.
Robert Whelan
It also throws doubt on King's claim that he has quit his drug habit.
The wordiness has not decreased since he claims to have quit
(1988 or so) nor has the obsession with sex. Since King has
constructed rather elaborate lies to cover his drug habit before..
(I remember the foreward to one novel affectionately referring
to his crazy housekeeper "who always thinks I look ill") I wouldn't
be surprised if his claims of being clear of the drugs are also
a sham.
Looney
>It also throws doubt on King's claim that he has quit his drug habit.
>The wordiness has not decreased since he claims to have quit
>(1988 or so) nor has the obsession with sex. Since King has
>constructed rather elaborate lies to cover his drug habit before..
>(I remember the foreward to one novel affectionately referring
>to his crazy housekeeper "who always thinks I look ill") I wouldn't
>be surprised if his claims of being clear of the drugs are also
>a sham.
You can have your opinions, but this is plain shitty. You're a fuckwad without
a clue. What a horrible thing to say, but I shouldn't be suprised that this
shit sprang from your black heart.
Anthony "Looney" Toohey
----
I want to run,
I want to hide.
I want to tear down the walls,
That hold me inside.
I want to reach out,
And touch the flame,
Where the Streets Have No Name...
-- U2
En4cerLutair
>The wordiness has not decreased since he claims to have quit
>(1988 or so) nor has the obsession with sex. Since King has
>constructed rather elaborate lies to cover his drug habit before..
>(I remember the foreward to one novel affectionately referring
>to his crazy housekeeper "who always thinks I look ill") I wouldn't
>be surprised if his claims of being clear of the drugs are also
>a sham.
Or perhaps that's just how he is rather than a refelction on drug addiction.
Nah, you simply can't comprehend that.
Robert Whelan
On 19 Feb 2001, Nanny Ogg wrote:
> >This is interesting. Are you aware of any particular period of his
> >work, or ideas, that are associated with his cocaine addiction?
>
> As I recall, he used cocaine heavily through his entire adult life. My
> information on this comes from a fascinating book called `The Freudian
> Fallacy', by E.M. Thornton. It's been quite a while since I read this, but, as
> I recall, he was known to be a cocaine user and the way he writes - endless
> commentary on ideas that he considers to be of crucial importance although, in
> fact, they don't even make sense - is very typical of someone using cocaine.
> So is the obsession with sex.
Another question, if you happen to know (but a biography on Freud wouldn't
likely enlighten). Do you know what other side effects there are to
cocaine use? Does it raise blood pressure? I ask because I know a
patient who, when blood pressure is high, is also extremely
obsessed with sex, but with it controlled, is normal. And I
know that high blood pressure damages the brain over time (through
micro-hemmorages, I believe, and/or temporary cut offs of blood
supply.)
Walter Lane
the After-death. It's on my website.
--
Fearmonger, a novel of supernatural horror,
in now available in a softcover edition.
http://members.dencity.com/horroresq
coming soon! horroresq.com SOON AS THE TRANSFER IS DONE!
..............................................................
John Kennedy <zero...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:Xq3i6.916$2U3.3...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> A theory that fits all....
>
> Besq <Besq*ns*@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:3A728284...@qwest.net...
> > My apologies if this offends anyone. I thought it humorous and wanted
to
> share it.
> >
> > > The following is an actual question given on a University of
Washington
> > > chemistry mid term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that
> the
> > > professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of
> > > course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
> > >
> > > Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
> (absorbs
> > > heat)?
> > >
> > > Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law
> > > (gas cools off when it expands and heats up when it is compressed)
> > > or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
> > >
> > > First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So
we
> > > need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate
they
> are
> > > leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to
> > > Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for
how
> many
> > > souls
> > > are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist
in
> the
> > > world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a
> member of
> > > their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of
> these
> > > religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion,
we
> > > can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates
as
> they
> > > are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase
> exponentially.
> > >
> > > Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because
> Boyle's
> > > Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to
> stay
> > > the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls
are
> > > added.
> > >
> > > This gives two possibilities:
> > >
> > > 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which
souls
> > > enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase
> until all
> > > Hell breaks loose.
> > >
> > > 2. Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the
increase
> > > of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until
> Hell
> > > freezes over.
> > >
> > > So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa
> during
> > > my Freshman year, "... it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep
> with
> > > you," and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded
in
> having
> > > sexual relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true. Thus, I am sure
> > > that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze.
> > >
> > > The student received the only "A" given.
> >
> >
> >
> --
> "Death is a worry of the living. The dead only worry about decay and
> necrophiliacs."
> -Chris Rock, Dogma
>
>
> The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
> the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
>
> ICQ# 78150961
>
>
> Absinthe wrote in message <96a09q$k4uor$1...@ID-51823.news.dfncis.de>...
> >
> >"John Kennedy" <zero...@cvn.net> wrote in message
> >news:GhUh6.84$2U3....@nntp1.onemain.com...
> >
> >> Heather, I'm not trying to instill fear. And of those religions
you
> >> mentioned, all of them have something in common: if you do wrong, you
> get
> >> punished. Even the Athiests and Agnostics believe this. But it is not
a
> >> theory. If certain groups wanted to get together after knowing there
was
> >no
> >> God, Allah, YHWH, etc., then what is there to stop them in thinking
they
> >> could overrun a government?
> >>
> >
> >
> >Err...Wrong. We do not believe that you get "punished". If you get
> caught,
> >then society may punish you but there is no automatic punishment... no
rule
> >of "getting yours in the end" due to some karma thing. Most people get
> >thiers in the end because eventually they get caught and society, not
karma
> >or god or any mysitcal force, punishes them in some way to make it safer
> and
> >more liveable for everyone else... at least that is the ideal. Doesn't
> >always work out that way because humans aren't perfect. Humans don't
need
> >some threat of brimstone & eternal suffering in order to have morals.
The
> >simple realization that you will be treated based on how you treat others
> >tends to be enough for the most part. There is no god behind that
thought.
> >its simple preservation of society, the clan, the tribe, the social
> >structure which also stretches to many other animals in this world that
> >drives us to keep our morals, nothing more.
> >
> >The fact that Athiests HAVE been organized for quite some time & have
made
> >very few, if any attempts to over run any government might give you a
clue.
> >But many, many organized religions have... over & over again throughout
> >history. Its not subtle either, it screams off the pages of any world
> >history book, right there for everyone and anyone to read... it screams
> from
> >our current world events found in any newspaper that isn't too local, but
> >lots of people choose to be ignorant and disregard what is blatantly
> obvious
> >(thankfully not all or even most religious people I have met are this
> blind)
> >for fear of it shattering their illusion of their chosen faith. A
simple
> >look at the semi threatening millitias that have sprung up in the US all
> are
> >building up their "army" in the name of some god or another. Every hate
> >group in this country is practicing under "God's charge"... believing
that
> >they are doing the will of some god. Nothing can stop any powerful group
> of
> >people from over running any gov't, country or whatever... but history
has
> >already proven time and time again that it is those who are acting under
> >some "divine privelage" who tend to be the most active in the over
running
> &
> >raping & pillaging. Jail is full of religious people, but there aren't
too
> >many Athiests or Agnostics there. Go figure.
> >
> >BTW... an Athiest is someone who does not believe that there is a god in
> any
> >shape or form. You could say that they have "faith" in the
non-existance.
> >Do you even know what an Agostic is?
simm...@hotmail.com
"Nanny Ogg" <swhi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010218092144...@nso-fc.aol.com...
a dogmatic stance rather than the reality of evolution.
> Now, none of these disagreements over the details mean that evolution
didn't
> happen or couldn't account for the spread of lifeforms we have today.
> Creationists often talk as if this was the case, taking quotes out of
context
> and making it sound as if scientists were arguing so much about evolution
that
> _everything_ about it was in doubt. But, in fact, the scientists who
argue
> still don't disagree that evolution happened. Claiming that disputes over
the
> details discredit the whole theory is as illogical as claiming that the
> disputes between the different branches of Christianity over the details
of the
> faith automatically discredit the whole thing.
Yes, I agree. (See below about Evolutionary Creationists...)
> > Gould makes the concept
> >accessible, yes, but there are also many other angles to evolution, and
in
> >fact there are a growing number of anthropologists, sociologists,
> >biologists, etc. who believe that evolution is a flawed theory. That
Darwin
> >had it ALMOST right but there are a number of things that don't fit the
> >model, such as spontaneous mutation.
>
> Well, of course Darwin didn't come up with all the answers, if that's what
you
> mean. He opened the door to our understanding of evolution, but it's only
to
> be expected that the theory itself would change and grow (`evolve', if you
like
> ;-) ) over the century or so since then.
Yes...I wasn't referring to Darwin's understanding of his work, but those
that followed him who believed that he got it all right the first time.
Again, that dogmatic stance which doesn't allow for the introduction of new
concepts.
> > There are also a vast number of
> >Evolutionary Creationists out there.
>
> I don't understand what this term means. I thought a creationist was
someone
> who _didn't_ believe in evolution?
In fact, there are many now in both the scientific and religious communities
who believe that the two concepts do not necessarily cancel each other out.
In contrast to Fundamentalists who are literalists about the bible, a vast
majority of modern churches agree that much of the bible is parable or
figurative in order to illustrate a point. Jesus for example, had to speak
in terms that his audiences would understand and relate to. In his sermons
he nearly always told a story to explain his concepts. In reference to
creation, the concept of 7 days of creatoin (well, 6) appears to be a
figurative concept as well. Just saying that such was God's power that he
could do this thing. There is a reference (I believe in Job, but I'm not
sure...and sorry, I can't remember the exact quote) where God says something
like A day is as a thousand years to me. So, to bring it all back to the
point, creation need not have happened in seven days, it could have taken
millenium. And evolution could have been triggered by the act of a supreme
being. And since this is not something we could ever know, there are those
that accept that both concepts could be equally valid.
Sorry, that was kind of long-winded...
I guess I was sort of abrupt in that previous post, but I was replying to an
..inflexable? attitude, more than the actual ideas. :)
btw, thanks for the thoughtful response.
Simm