Series 3
John Long
Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that
there is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride,
which doesn't really count as part of the series.
Does anyone agree?
Cue the social misfits and the anti RTD brigade..
(sigh)
JL
The Doctor
Blink!
--
Member - Liberal International
This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Merry CHRISTmas 2007 and Happy New Year 2008! CHRIST is the reason for the season!
TopPoster
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:fl9ojs$dsh$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
Agamemnon
"John Long" <lo...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:JbudnTK_g8FI_OXa...@comcast.com...
>
> Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that there
> is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride, which doesn't
> really count as part of the series.
>
> Does anyone agree?
Mostly, apart from Smith and Jones and Gridlock which were very badly
written, buts still infinatly better than Fear Her and rewatchable unlike
Series 2 which I can't bare to watch again because of Fear Her, the
Cyberrubbish, The Idiotic Lantern, and Love and Monsters.
Nod
news:pOqdnY0ZjOln9OXa...@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "John Long" <lo...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:JbudnTK_g8FI_OXa...@comcast.com...
>>
>> Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that there
>> is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride, which
>> doesn't really count as part of the series.
>>
>> Does anyone agree?
>
I guess you didn't watch the last two episodes then?
Nod
--
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?username=Nod
John Long
> "John Long"
>>Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that there
>>is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride, which doesn't
>>really count as part of the series.
>>
>>Does anyone agree?
>
>
> Mostly, apart from Smith and Jones and Gridlock which were very badly
> written, buts still infinatly better than Fear Her and rewatchable unlike
> Series 2 which I can't bare to watch again because of Fear Her, the
> Cyberrubbish, The Idiotic Lantern, and Love and Monsters.
Congratulations, Agamemnon. This is a very mature and accurate
response, and one that I can actually relate to. I also had problems
with parts of season 2. Although Fear Her is one of the worst
episodes ever, I would humbly suggest that you not let it ruin the
season for you. Yes, in hindsight, Idiot's Lantern is also quite
rubbish.
I must disagree with you on just a few points. Smith and Jones is a
blast, mostly because of the judoon. And Gridlock applies the kind of
satire and moments of clarity near the end that DW has always excelled
at. The cybermen two parter I also have no problem with. But my
intention was to point out the greatness of season 3, not necessarily
the shortcomings of season 2. As you have already pointed out, even
the bits of season 3 which you disliked were miles ahead of the worst
of season 2, which I completely agree with. Ok, progress has been
made. Let no one say that rec.arts is a lost cause.
JL
John Long
> I guess you didn't watch the last two episodes then?
Yes, and I thought they were great, if a bit wankish and overblown.
And 1 repeated viewing has not changed my opinion. The 3 part finale
is vastly superior to the Cybermen vs Daleks stuff from last year.
JL
AGw. (Usenet)
> Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that
> there is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride,
> which doesn't really count as part of the series.
>
> Does anyone agree?
I don't agree, but I do think that on the whole it's a decent series.
What I found when watching it the first time around was that whenever
it wandered down pathways I didn't like, the following week I'd
probably find myself back where I wanted to be. I've not rewatched
most of the stories as yet, but no doubt will at some point.
I thought "Smith and Jones" was very enjoyable, and it was certainly a
much stronger start than "New Earth" was. The Judoon were great fun,
and were handled well. Overall the episode also works well in making
you want to see more of Martha, which at the end of the day is what
the episode was for. Roy Marsden was woefully underused, which is a
shame.
I was a bit underwhelmed by the Shakespeare episode. Part of the
problem was that the promise that was Martha seemed to evaporate a
bit, which I think is due to it being so early on in the series with a
major new character that hadn't been created by the episode's author.
However, there's something about the rest of the episode that didn't
quite grab me, either.
"Gridlock" was really good. I could knock points off here and there
for this and that, but really it was RTD at pretty much his best; we
had the domestic, the outrageous, the philosophical, the familiar...
and some more good stuff from Martha.
After that we hit a bit of a mixed patch, ranging from ones showing
what proved to be unfulfilled promise through the somewhat forgettable
to the downright dire.
Then we hit the "Human Nature" two-parter, which is very hard for me
to fault. I think it's one of the best Who stories ever made, and I'm
not one for declaring something to be "The Best Episode Ever!!!!" as a
rule. Admittedly I'm a bit of a sucker for anything vaguely
historical. Tennant's performance is extraordinary, really. We get
some more good stuff from Martha, leaving aside the wince-inducing
thing about him falling in love with the wrong human. I'm sure nobody
can have realised that the fobwatch business was laying a seed for the
finale, either, which is expert work from RTD. I thought Paul Cornell
did a decent job with "Father's Day" even if it was clearly
emotionally manipulative, but he really did an outstanding job with
this story.
"Blink" was more solid work from Steven Moffat. His DVD easter egg
conceit was a truly brilliant way of making this a Doctor-lite episode
with the Doctor featuring regularly. I didn't think this story was
quite as extraordinary as others seemed to, but that's probably just
quibbling. I believe we're getting a two-parter from him next year,
and I'll certainly be happy to see what he comes up with next. I can
certainly understand why RTD just had "whatever he wants!" against
Moffat's name when planning out the themes for each episode in the
series.
If I've got the sequence right, that then leads us up to "Utopia". If
he'd been in the same room as me I'd have thrown a book at RTD for the
Futurekind business, but fortunately this hammily performed cliché is
almost entirely incidental to the real meat of the story. Derek
Jacobi was great, and I think it's a great shame that he's another
good actor who was underused; obviously we got a lot of him in this
episode, but I would like to have seen more of him, particularly as
the Master. Anyway, this episode contains one of my most favourite
moments ever from Who, when Jack is running with Martha and the Doctor
and says "Oh, I've missed this!" with a huge grin on his face; it
encapsulates wonderfully what the series should be about, and how it
should make both the fictional companions and the actual viewers feel
while watching... it also represents how any kid watching should be
feeling. The hints that something was going on with Yana really wrong-
footed me at first, as despite having heard the rumours that the
Master would be in the finale I was left wondering if this was some
future incarnation of the Doctor's. The business with the fobwatch
seems to come out of nowhere, tying in brilliantly with the earlier
two-parter. Finally, Tennant's playing of his despair as the Master
abandons them, and the Doctor's hopes and fears come crashing together
is just wonderful. If he'd have played some of the stuff in Series 2
in this way I'd have been much happier.
All that brings us up to the final two episodes, of which perhaps the
least said the better. I never took to Simm's portrayal of the
Master, although that's as much or more to do with how the part was
written. Capt. Jack was also redundant, which was greatly
disappointing. Indeed I sat through "The Sound of Drums" feeling
first disappointed and then bored (a first for me for the new series,
and hopefully a unique occurrence!), while the final episode had me
wincing almost the whole way through it. I really, really did not
like the finale.
Anyway, I've written a lot more than I'd intended! This series did
have some of the best and the worst Who I've ever seen, but it was
full of lots of lovely moments, odd things thrown in to make you
think, unexpected humour, and all the rest of it. Tennant's
performance was much more even than in the previous year, and no doubt
the writers had established a clearer idea of his character after
having actually seen him on the screen playing it. I'd say that the
production as a whole had a more assured feeling this year as well,
which is all to the good. A shame that one of the worst episodes (in
my view) was at the end and followed on from a clunker, because it
left a sour taste in my mouth at the end of the series, rather than
leaving me on a high. Still, time and the Christmas special has
restored most of my faith.
I just hope that Catherine Tate will be as I hope, and not as I
fear...
--
AGw.
Lukan
*snip*
- Post of the week.
John Smith
Ah, I see you are still here, John. I was beginning to think that all the
bullshit posts might have chased you off.
Ian Salsbury
On first viewing I didn`t like Gridlock, although it improved second time
around. The resolution of the dalek story was a dodgy episode but overall I
still think it was a fun watch. For the most part then, yes, I`d agree. S3
was great, I even seem to be one of the few that really enjoyed the final 2
episodes.
Ignis Fatuus
Nothing as bad as 'Aliens of London' or 'Love and Monsters', but a lot
of mediocrity, and nothing as good as 'Dalek' or 'Empty Child' or
'Father's Day'. 'Gridlock', and the Mills and Boon romance 'Human
Nature' were the low points for me. 'Blink' was my favourite, and
'Daleks' was another high point. The finale was a waste of four
episodes and two superb actors.
= IF
Ignis Fatuus
<agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>
>"John Long" <lo...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:JbudnTK_g8FI_OXa...@comcast.com...
>>
>> Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that there
>> is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride, which doesn't
>> really count as part of the series.
>>
>> Does anyone agree?
>
>Mostly, apart from Smith and Jones and Gridlock which were very badly
>written, buts still infinatly better than Fear Her and rewatchable unlike
>Series 2 which I can't bare to watch again because of Fear Her, the
>Cyberrubbish, The Idiotic Lantern, and Love and Monsters.
>
I usually wear some clothes when I'm watching.
= IF
Ian Salsbury
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:pOqdnY0ZjOln9OXa...@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> news:JbudnTK_g8FI_OXa...@comcast.com...
>>
>> Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that there
>> is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride, which
>> doesn't really count as part of the series.
>>
>> Does anyone agree?
>
> Mostly, apart from Smith and Jones and Gridlock which were very badly
> written, buts still infinatly better than Fear Her and rewatchable unlike
> Series 2 which I can't bare to watch again because of Fear Her, the
> Cyberrubbish, The Idiotic Lantern, and Love and Monsters.
Do you feel obliged to watch S2 from start to finish? I doubt I`ll ever
watch Fear Her or The Idiot`s Lantern again but the bulk of the series I`m
happy to re-watch. I quite enjoyed the cybermen stories.
Nod
I thought those two reeked of cheese, especially when the Doctor turn into
Gollum. Other than that, Blink and Human Nature were outstanding.
Nod
The Doctor
The Doctor
powrwrap
> Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that
> there is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride,
> which doesn't really count as part of the series.
>
> Does anyone agree?
Agreed. Not only was there not one clunker but it featured the
excellence of the Human Nature two-parter and Blink. The finale was
kind of a flawed letdown but not a terrible story.
Hercule Platini
The Cyberman/Dalek stuff wasn't that great, but it did triumph as an exit
for Rose. (Which is why to bring her back now completely invalidates that
triumph.) Series 3 was largely great (save for Gridlock) until the end of
Utopia, then it went downhill very very quickly.
--
Hercule Platini
"Wheeeeeee!!!"
Hercule Platini
[snipped]
Largely agreed, although I hated Gridlock and rather liked The Shakespeare
Code.
--
Hercule Platini
Hercule Platini
"Ian Salsbury" <I...@salsbury42.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5trrbrF...@mid.individual.net...
Didn't like Gridlock at all and haven't seen it since. And I'd forgotten
the Daleks one/two; it didn't really work.
--
Hercule Platini
Ian Salsbury
"Hercule Platini" <vio...@wheelbarrow.com> wrote in message
news:p_ydnXPshqP...@bt.com...
>
> "John Long" <lo...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:T-GdnbsUwPQn5uXa...@comcast.com...
>> Nod wrote:
>> > I guess you didn't watch the last two episodes then?
>>
>> Yes, and I thought they were great, if a bit wankish and overblown.
>> And 1 repeated viewing has not changed my opinion. The 3 part finale
>> is vastly superior to the Cybermen vs Daleks stuff from last year.
>
>
> The Cyberman/Dalek stuff wasn't that great, but it did triumph as an exit
> for Rose. (Which is why to bring her back now completely invalidates that
> triumph.)
People have been quick to say this...we don`t even know how it will be
handled yet. Tennant has said he hasn`t filmed any scenes with Piper so
perhaps they don`t even meet up ( although I must admit I find this
un-likely )?
John Long
> Ah, I see you are still here, John. I was beginning to think that all the
> bullshit posts might have chased you off.
Burns, is that you?
I just bought a house and I've spent the last few weeks moving into
it. Now the dust has settled, my internet is back up and running, and
I shall be around here and there whenever I'm not working. I've still
got yads and topshitter killfiled, so no problems there.
JL
John Long
>>John Long
>>there is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride,
>>which doesn't really count as part of the series.
>>
>>Does anyone agree?
>
>
> Agreed. Not only was there not one clunker but it featured the
> excellence of the Human Nature two-parter and Blink. The finale was
> kind of a flawed letdown but not a terrible story.
>
Ah, you have great taste as usual Alan.
The lack of one single clunker is a great achievement. As several
have pointed out, there are certain episodes that are better than
others, and nothing is perfect. As Ian pointed out, the resolution to
Evolution was a bit ridiculous, but nothing as deeply offensive as
Fear Her. I really like series 3. After viewing the season boxset a
second time, it could be the best series of the three so far. I hope
they top it next year, although Tate does not inspire me.
JL
John Long
> Didn't like Gridlock at all and haven't seen it since.
I see alot of people bashing Gridlock and I just don't understand it.
I thought it was excellent, satirical and witty with moments of true
inspiration. It will clearly be a classic someday.
JL
TopPoster
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:flauhs$lrf$5...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
TopPoster
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:flauir$lrf$6...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
The Master
>> Yes, and I thought they were great, if a bit wankish and overblown.
>> And 1 repeated viewing has not changed my opinion. The 3 part finale
>> is vastly superior to the Cybermen vs Daleks stuff from last year.
>
>
> The Cyberman/Dalek stuff wasn't that great, but it did triumph as an exit
> for Rose.
The Cyberman/Dalek exchange was TV greatness...
"You are superior in only one respect"
"What is that?"
"You are better at dying"
Now that's GOOD TV right there... The rest of the two-parter sucked
though.
With the exception of the reintroduction of the Master, Utopia was
fundamentally worthless. It was "feel good" fluff, had no real point. It
didn't suck, it wasn't good. It's just sort of there...
In a way, Utopia serves as a speed bump. Season 3 started out slow, and
increased speed. The Human Nature two-parter and Blink were fantastic
ends to the season. But it wasn't the end. So along comes Utopia, slows
the series back down, so RTD can create his standard swill at the end.
The Doctor
John Long <lo...@nospam.net> wrote:
>John Smith wrote:
>> Ah, I see you are still here, John. I was beginning to think that all the
>Burns, is that you?
>
>I just bought a house and I've spent the last few weeks moving into
>it. Now the dust has settled, my internet is back up and running, and
>I shall be around here and there whenever I'm not working. I've still
>got yads and topshitter killfiled, so no problems there.
>
>JL
>
Looks doubtful to me.
The Doctor
Peter J Ross
<lo...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that
> there is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride,
> which doesn't really count as part of the series.
>
> Does anyone agree?
>
> Cue the social misfits and the anti RTD brigade..
>
> (sigh)
"Watching Season 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that
there is not one bad episode, with the exception of The Feast of
Steven, which doesn't really count as part of the series.
Does anyone agree?
Cue the social misfits and the anti Hartnell brigade..."
(an anonymous RADW post dated December 1967)
(sigh)
:-D
Seriously, why is it that the pro-RTD/Hartnell and anti-RTD/Hartnell
factions have never been able to have reasonable discussions or ignore
each other?
In real life, the fans in Love & Monsters would have been killed not
by an unfunny stunt-casted comedian but by a gang of rival fans.
And there's something wrrrrrrong with that... it's not what was meant
to happen...
--
PJR :-)
powrwrap
> I see alot of people bashing Gridlock and I just don't understand it.
> I thought it was excellent, satirical and witty with moments of true
> inspiration.
It had all of that, I admit. But I just couldn't buy into the plot
point that these people have been stranded on a motorway for years--
and had accepted that fate. If I ignore that setup then the dialogue
and action is pretty good.
> It will clearly be a classic someday.
Perhaps.
BTW, congratulations on your home purchase and happy new year.
Ignis Fatuus
wrote:
>In rec.arts.drwho on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:27:55 -0500, John Long
><lo...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that
>> there is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride,
>> which doesn't really count as part of the series.
>>
>> Does anyone agree?
>>
>> Cue the social misfits and the anti RTD brigade..
>>
>> (sigh)
>
>"Watching Season 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that
>there is not one bad episode, with the exception of The Feast of
>Steven, which doesn't really count as part of the series.
>
>Does anyone agree?
>
'Myth Makers' and 'Gunfighters' are my personal favourites. 'Master
Plan' was too long, and only the Spooner episodes come to life. John
Lucarotti's 'Massacre' script was sabotaged by Wiles and Tosh as part
of their campaign against Hartnell. 'Ark' was rather dull; 'Toymaker'
was just plain silly; and 'Savages' and 'War Machines' are in my
opinion two of the worst scripts in the history of the series.
>Cue the social misfits and the anti Hartnell brigade..."
>
>(an anonymous RADW post dated December 1967)
>
>(sigh)
>
>:-D
>
>Seriously, why is it that the pro-RTD/Hartnell and anti-RTD/Hartnell
>factions have never been able to have reasonable discussions or ignore
>each other?
>
>In real life, the fans in Love & Monsters would have been killed not
>by an unfunny stunt-casted comedian but by a gang of rival fans.
>
>And there's something wrrrrrrong with that... it's not what was meant
>to happen...
= IF
TopPoster
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:flbjil$cob$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
TopPoster
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:flbjkk$cob$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
John Smith
> I just bought a house and I've spent the last few weeks moving into it.
> Now the dust has settled, my internet is back up and running, and I shall
> be around here and there whenever I'm not working. I've still got yads
> and topshitter killfiled, so no problems there.
What about all the other off-topic garbage? How are you dealing with that?
Ian Salsbury
> 'Myth Makers' and 'Gunfighters' are my personal favourites. 'Master
> Plan' was too long, and only the Spooner episodes come to life. John
> Lucarotti's 'Massacre' script was sabotaged by Wiles and Tosh as part
> of their campaign against Hartnell. 'Ark' was rather dull; 'Toymaker'
> was just plain silly; and 'Savages' and 'War Machines' are in my
> opinion two of the worst scripts in the history of the series.
The Ark is one of my favourite Hartnell stories.
John Long
> It had all of that, I admit. But I just couldn't buy into the plot
> point that these people have been stranded on a motorway for years--
> and had accepted that fate. If I ignore that setup then the dialogue
> and action is pretty good.
If you can buy into the herd menatality of the human race, and our
tendency to follow rather than lead, it's not hard to imagine. It
really only serves as a metaphor anyways.
> BTW, congratulations on your home purchase and happy new year.
Thanks. Cheers. Have a Chimay on New Years Day!
JL
John Long
> "John Long"
>>Now the dust has settled, my internet is back up and running, and I shall
>>be around here and there whenever I'm not working. I've still got yads
>>and topshitter killfiled, so no problems there.
>
> What about all the other off-topic garbage? How are you dealing with that?
Every post from the last 2 weeks got marked as read when I setup my
new server. So I am blissfully ignorant of the problem, but anything
that happens from now on shall be dealt with accordingly.
Happy 2008, Burns.
JL
Stephen Wilson
"powrwrap" <powr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e98824d6-0f2f-448d...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 31, 1:21 pm, John Long <l...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> I see alot of people bashing Gridlock and I just don't understand it.
>> I thought it was excellent, satirical and witty with moments of true
>> inspiration.
>It had all of that, I admit. But I just couldn't buy into the plot
>point that these people have been stranded on a motorway for years--
>and had accepted that fate. If I ignore that setup then the dialogue
>and action is pretty good.
But maybe in a few centuries, people will be looking back at the kind of
things we buy into and laugh in disbelief. Organised religion. Suicide
bombers. Football fanatics. Sitting on a gridlocked motorway for hours, as
we spend our lives trying to get from A to B, only to leave B to head back
for A almost as soon as we get there.
Hercule Platini
I just wasn't prepared to accept the idea that people would willingly choose
to spend their entire lives in a flying car going nowhere and eating their
own bowel movements.
--
Hercule Platini
powrwrap
> But maybe in a few centuries, people will be looking back at the kind of
> things we buy into and laugh in disbelief. Organised religion.
Yeah, right. Because organized religion is such a fresh and new idea.
In just a few centuries it will have passed away. Get real.
<snip drivel>
Luke Curtis
>
>Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that
>there is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride,
>which doesn't really count as part of the series.
>
>Does anyone agree?
>
>Cue the social misfits and the anti RTD brigade..
>
>(sigh)
>
>JL
The first half of the season was disappointing, Smith and Jones was
lightweight nonsense but enjoyable, like Rose the story was secondary
this was all about introducing the new companion.
The Shakespeare code was again lightweight but enjoyable except for
the OTT cackling of the witches which was a little annoying but
overall it was OK, the same could be same of Gridlock.
The Dalek episodes where a big disappointment for me, for a start that
they feature the Daleks, enough already!
It start off fairly well with some atmospheric scenes in the slum and
in the tunnels but then you get that horribly OTT music hall singer
and it turns into such a disappointment, climaxing with that ludicrous
Dalek / Human Hybrid ruining the whole reason why the Daleks are so
successful - because they look nothing like a human!
Fortunately things get a lot better, the Lazarus Experiment is lot
darker, a lot more serious - not a brilliant story but far better than
the previous stories.
from then on it is all quality IMHO, 42 is very good, all of Human
Nature to Sound of Drums are all excellent IMHO and Last of the Time
Lords would be up to that quality except for that ridiculous shrunken
Doctor and the method of his subsequent return to normality.
-
Got unwanted CDs, DVDs & Games?
www.swapshop.co.uk/default.aspx?referrerid=b788c9b0-70e7-4192-91cc-d549e513f0bf
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
Stephen Wilson
Organised religion is not a fresh and new idea, no. It's been perpetuated
through the centuries.
Are you seriously telling me that when you see the more fanatic Muslims, who
are prepared to kill themselves along with hundreds of other people, you
don't shake your head in disbelief?
Here we are in the 21st century. And still people in the Western world are
scared of the numbers 13 and 666. I've seen people nearly cause an accident
while driving because they've seen a single magpie they had to salute. A
woman had a fit when I tried to pass her on the stairs. Why? Because her
grandmother had told her it was unlucky.
Will religion and other illogical superstitions have passed away in 200
years? Probably not. But it's certainly on the decline in Britain.
TopPoster
children grow up they stop their belief in Santa and the tooth fairy
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
"Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:cXRej.21659$ou3....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
Luke Curtis
I just assume that there is physically no other way to get there and
you need to get there then you will be willing to spend that amount of
time doing it - Charles Darwin's voyage on the Beagle was 5 years long
to do a job that today can be done in hours, likewise when the England
Cricket team toured Australia in the early 20th century the journey
there took months, and that it just to play cricket, not to
(presumably) to travel permanently to an infinitely better life.
powrwrap
>
> Here we are in the 21st century. And still people in the Western world are
> scared of the numbers 13 and 666. I've seen people nearly cause an accident
> while driving because they've seen a single magpie they had to salute. A
> woman had a fit when I tried to pass her on the stairs. Why? Because her
> grandmother had told her it was unlucky.
Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
triskaidekaphobia?
Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia?
Which one requires you to salute a magpie?
I think you are mixing up irrational superstitions with organized
religions.
hulahoop
> > On Jan 2, 1:51 pm, "Stephen Wilson" wrote:
>
> > Here we are in the 21st century. And still people in the Western world are
> > scared of the numbers 13 and 666. I've seen people nearly cause an accident
> > while driving because they've seen a single magpie they had to salute. A
> > woman had a fit when I tried to pass her on the stairs. Why? Because her
> > grandmother had told her it was unlucky.
>
> Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
> triskaidekaphobia?
>
> Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
> Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia?
>
> Which one requires you to salute a magpie?
>
Couldn't find the phobia for the irrational fear of not saluting
magpies!!! I wonder what it is?
Regards
Ged
Stephen Wilson
"Luke Curtis" <lu...@whofan.pNOSPAMlus.com> wrote in message
news:7uqnn35tnf7dk5svl...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 01:09:08 -0000, "Hercule Platini"
> <vio...@wheelbarrow.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Long" <lo...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>news:CvadnX9JipXV3OTa...@comcast.com...
>>> Hercule Platini wrote:
>>> > Didn't like Gridlock at all and haven't seen it since.
>>>
>>> I see alot of people bashing Gridlock and I just don't understand it.
>>> I thought it was excellent, satirical and witty with moments of true
>>> inspiration. It will clearly be a classic someday.
>>
>>
>>I just wasn't prepared to accept the idea that people would willingly
>>choose
>>to spend their entire lives in a flying car going nowhere and eating their
>>own bowel movements.
>
>
> I just assume that there is physically no other way to get there and
> you need to get there then you will be willing to spend that amount of
> time doing it - Charles Darwin's voyage on the Beagle was 5 years long
> to do a job that today can be done in hours, likewise when the England
> Cricket team toured Australia in the early 20th century the journey
> there took months, and that it just to play cricket, not to
> (presumably) to travel permanently to an infinitely better life.
Personally I never assumed it was meant to be taken too seriously. It's
taking something that we routinely do (sit stuck in a traffic jam on a
motorway for hours) and exaggerating it.
Stephen Wilson
>> On Jan 2, 1:51 pm, "Stephen Wilson" wrote:
>>
>> Here we are in the 21st century. And still people in the Western world
>> are
>> scared of the numbers 13 and 666. I've seen people nearly cause an
>> accident
>> while driving because they've seen a single magpie they had to salute. A
>> woman had a fit when I tried to pass her on the stairs. Why? Because her
>> grandmother had told her it was unlucky.
>
>Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
>triskaidekaphobia?
Christianity. Judas was the last person to sit at the table. Judas was the
13th person to sit at the table. Therefore Christians think the number 13
carries a curse.
>Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
>Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia?
Christianity. 666 is the number of the beast according to the book of
Revelation.
>Which one requires you to salute a magpie?
Christianity. An old English folk tale states that when Jesus was crucified
on the cross, all of the world's birds wept and sang to comfort him in his
agony. The only exception was the magpie, and for this, it is forever
cursed.
>I think you are mixing up irrational superstitions with organized
>religions.
Superstition: "an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear".
Religion: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control
human destiny"
Not much difference really...
Peter J Ross
<sween...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I suggest "oukhairokissophobia" (pronounced oo-Cairo-kiss-o-phobia).
ou (not)
khairein (to greet or to salute)
kissa (a magpie or jay)
phobein (to fear)
--
PJR :-)
powrwrap
> > "powrwrap" <powrw...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> Here we are in the 21st century. And still people in the Western world
> >> are
> >> scared of the numbers 13 and 666. I've seen people nearly cause an
> >> accident
> >> while driving because they've seen a single magpie they had to salute. A
> >> woman had a fit when I tried to pass her on the stairs. Why? Because her
> >> grandmother had told her it was unlucky.
,
> >Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
> >triskaidekaphobia?
.
> Christianity. Judas was the last person to sit at the table. Judas was the
> 13th person to sit at the table. Therefore Christians think the number 13
> carries a curse.
.
No, a very small minority of insecure, superstitious so-called
Christians may be bothered by the number 13.
.
> >Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
> >Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia?
>
> Christianity. 666 is the number of the beast according to the book of
> Revelation.
Yeah, so? Which synod, ecclesiastical assembly, advisory council,
bishop's council, or presbytery teaches that their congregation should
be afraid of the number 666?
> >Which one requires you to salute a magpie?
> Christianity. An old English folk tale states that when Jesus was crucified
> on the cross, all of the world's birds wept and sang to comfort him in his
> agony. The only exception was the magpie, and for this, it is forever
> cursed.
Oh, I see. So olde English folklore has been elevated to official
church doctrine?
Seriously, the ignorance regarding Christianity and Christian doctrine
on this ng is astonishing. The way some unbelievers relish attacking
and belittling believers is likewise stunning.
Would the numerous atheists on this ng remain silent if I were to
assert that they worship Mother Nature because they believe in
evolution? I'm fairly certain I'd be corrected in an instant and quite
loudly. BTW, don't start in on me because I don't think evolutionists
worship nature.
Bazza
> Christianity. 666 is the number of the beast according to the book of
> Revelation.
Yeah, so? Which synod, ecclesiastical assembly, advisory council,
bishop's council, or presbytery teaches that their congregation should
be afraid of the number 666?
Strangley enough at least here in the UK there is never a house given the
number "666". House numbers always jump from 666 to 668, if you don't
believe me check it out. That has always been the case as far as I know.
Same with hotel room numbers.
Baz
Peter J Ross
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "powrwrap" <powr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:2ebb786b-8915-4800...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jan 2, 1:51 pm, "Stephen Wilson" wrote:
>>>
>>> Here we are in the 21st century. And still people in the Western world
>>> are
>>> scared of the numbers 13 and 666. I've seen people nearly cause an
>>> accident
>>> while driving because they've seen a single magpie they had to salute. A
>>> woman had a fit when I tried to pass her on the stairs. Why? Because her
>>> grandmother had told her it was unlucky.
>>
>>Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
>>triskaidekaphobia?
>
> Christianity. Judas was the last person to sit at the table. Judas was the
> 13th person to sit at the table. Therefore Christians think the number 13
> carries a curse.
It's not any kind of official doctrine, and I doubt if many Christians
believe it.
>>Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
>>Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia?
>
> Christianity. 666 is the number of the beast according to the book of
> Revelation.
It's a code, probably for "Neron Kaisar" ("Nero Caesar" transliterated
into Greek). You're right in suggesting that the number would have had
no special significance without Christianity, but again there's no
doctrinal reason to avoid the number.
>>Which one requires you to salute a magpie?
>
> Christianity. An old English folk tale states that when Jesus was crucified
> on the cross, all of the world's birds wept and sang to comfort him in his
> agony. The only exception was the magpie, and for this, it is forever
> cursed.
Again, it's a folk tale, not any kind of doctrine.
>>I think you are mixing up irrational superstitions with organized
>>religions.
>
> Superstition: "an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear".
> Religion: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control
> human destiny"
>
> Not much difference really...
Have you read Dawkins? He argues that before Darwin it was more
rational to believe in God than not to.
--
PJR :-)
Stephen Wilson
"Bazza" <bazz...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8GTej.129604$cJ3....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> <snip>
>
>> Christianity. 666 is the number of the beast according to the book of
>> Revelation.
>
> Yeah, so? Which synod, ecclesiastical assembly, advisory council,
> bishop's council, or presbytery teaches that their congregation should
> be afraid of the number 666?
You'd be surprised. Here's just one example:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/beast666.aspx
> Strangley enough at least here in the UK there is never a house given the
> number "666". House numbers always jump from 666 to 668, if you don't
> believe me check it out. That has always been the case as far as I know.
> Same with hotel room numbers.
Much the same with the number 13. You won't find a 13th floor in a hotel.
You won't find a ward 13 in a hospital. And many streets skip the number 13
(either by going straight from 12 to 14, or by changing 13 to 12b).
Stephen Wilson
>>>Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
>>>triskaidekaphobia?
>
>> Christianity. Judas was the last person to sit at the table. Judas was
>> the
>> 13th person to sit at the table. Therefore Christians think the number 13
>> carries a curse.
>
>No, a very small minority of insecure, superstitious so-called
>Christians may be bothered by the number 13.
Most Christians I know are highly worried by the number 13.
>>>Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
>>>Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia?
>>
>> Christianity. 666 is the number of the beast according to the book of
>> Revelation.
>
>Yeah, so? Which synod, ecclesiastical assembly, advisory council,
>bishop's council, or presbytery teaches that their congregation should
>be afraid of the number 666?
Try asking the people living in a town in southwest Louisiana.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/122907dntex666exchange.4d47a.html
> >Which one requires you to salute a magpie?
>> Christianity. An old English folk tale states that when Jesus was
>> crucified
>> on the cross, all of the world's birds wept and sang to comfort him in
>> his
>> agony. The only exception was the magpie, and for this, it is forever
>> cursed.
>
>Oh, I see. So olde English folklore has been elevated to official
>church doctrine?
Official church doctrine changes through the years. It is almost universally
believed and preached that Jesus was born in a stable, even though this
isn't stated anywhere in the Bible itself. Every year, churches re-enact the
nativity scene, featuring angels, shepherds and wise men, although they were
never in the same place at the same time.
>Seriously, the ignorance regarding Christianity and Christian doctrine
>on this ng is astonishing. The way some unbelievers relish attacking
>and belittling believers is likewise stunning.
Of course they do. People on this ng attack anything and everything!
Sylvester McCoy, RTD... why should Christianity be exempt?!
Peter J Ross
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[powrwrap wrote:]
>> Yeah, so? Which synod, ecclesiastical assembly, advisory council,
>> bishop's council, or presbytery teaches that their congregation should
>> be afraid of the number 666?
>
> You'd be surprised. Here's just one example:
> http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/beast666.aspx
That seems to be a sermon by a Russian monk. He doesn't seem to advise
his congregation to fear the number 666. Instead, he explains in
passing why in his opinion the number 666 was a good symbol to choose
for the Antichrist.
Anyway, powrwrap is quite right to point out that doctrine is decided
by Councils (and since 1871 by Popes, for some people), not be
individual preachers.
obWho: apart from 42 in the New Series (thanks to an episode title and
a reference in VotD), have any numbers received any special emphasis
in DW? I can't think of any.
However, the TARDIS console has SIX sides, the wall decorations are
SIX-sided, and the Doctor regenerated SIX times during the classic
series. SIX-SIX-SIX! Evidently, DW is the work of Antichrist! No
wonder the BBC burned so much of it! It was heresy! :-)
--
PJR :-)
Andrew
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> said:
>
> "powrwrap" <powr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:2ebb786b-8915-4800...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jan 2, 1:51 pm, "Stephen Wilson" wrote:
>>>
>>> Here we are in the 21st century. And still people in the Western world
>>> are
>>> scared of the numbers 13 and 666. I've seen people nearly cause an
>>> accident
>>> while driving because they've seen a single magpie they had to salute. A
>>> woman had a fit when I tried to pass her on the stairs. Why? Because her
>>> grandmother had told her it was unlucky.
>>
>> Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
>> triskaidekaphobia?
>
> Christianity. Judas was the last person to sit at the table. Judas was the
> 13th person to sit at the table. Therefore Christians think the number 13
> carries a curse.
No. We don't. Do try to get your facts straight before proclaiming your
ignorance in public. The irrational fear of the number 13 is as old (at
least) as Hammurabi, where the list of rules jumps from12 to 14. It was
also regarded as unlucky by the Vikings, who held that Loki was the
13th god. The tradition os associating triskaidekaphobia with the Last
Supper is a post hoc rationalisation and has no basis in Christian
scripture or doctrine.
>
>> Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
>> Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia?
>
> Christianity. 666 is the number of the beast according to the book of
> Revelation.
Yes it is. I am not aware of any accodents having been caused by this
number. Please supply evidence.
>
>> Which one requires you to salute a magpie?
>
> Christianity. An old English folk tale states that when Jesus was crucified
> on the cross, all of the world's birds wept and sang to comfort him in his
> agony. The only exception was the magpie, and for this, it is forever
> cursed.
In other words it's not Christian belief at all. It's a folk tale that
has been adapted to a Christian environment. Again, superstition
regarding magpies (and all members of the crow family) is widespread
and certainly does not spring from any organised religion.
>
>> I think you are mixing up irrational superstitions with organized
>> religions.
>
> Superstition: "an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear".
> Religion: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control
> human destiny"
If you choose to define it like that. Putting inverted commas around it
doesn't make your definition objective. Moreover. as the two
definitions contain only one word in common, it's difficult to see why
you think there is no difference.
>
> Not much difference really...
Andrew
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> said:
>
> "Bazza" <bazz...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8GTej.129604$cJ3....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Christianity. 666 is the number of the beast according to the book of
>>> Revelation.
>>
>> Yeah, so? Which synod, ecclesiastical assembly, advisory council,
>> bishop's council, or presbytery teaches that their congregation should
>> be afraid of the number 666?
>
> You'd be surprised. Here's just one example:
> http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/beast666.aspx
None of which suggests that the number itself is to be feared.
>
>> Strangley enough at least here in the UK there is never a house given the
>> number "666". House numbers always jump from 666 to 668, if you don't
>> believe me check it out. That has always been the case as far as I know.
>> Same with hotel room numbers.
>
> Much the same with the number 13. You won't find a 13th floor in a hotel.
> You won't find a ward 13 in a hospital. And many streets skip the number 13
> (either by going straight from 12 to 14, or by changing 13 to 12b).
In other words it's got bugger all to do with religion.
Andrew
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> said:
>
> "powrwrap" <powr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:5e25879a-8e31-416f...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
>>>> triskaidekaphobia?
>>
>>> Christianity. Judas was the last person to sit at the table. Judas was
>>> the
>>> 13th person to sit at the table. Therefore Christians think the number 13
>>> carries a curse.
>>
>> No, a very small minority of insecure, superstitious so-called
>> Christians may be bothered by the number 13.
>
> Most Christians I know are highly worried by the number 13.
Yes - but so are lots of the atheists I know.
>
>>>> Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
>>>> Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia?
>>>
>>> Christianity. 666 is the number of the beast according to the book of
>>> Revelation.
>>
>> Yeah, so? Which synod, ecclesiastical assembly, advisory council,
>> bishop's council, or presbytery teaches that their congregation should
>> be afraid of the number 666?
>
> Try asking the people living in a town in southwest Louisiana.
> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/122907dntex666exchange.4d47a.html
Which
>
>>> one requires you to salute a magpie?
>
>>> Christianity. An old English folk tale states that when Jesus was
>>> crucified
>>> on the cross, all of the world's birds wept and sang to comfort him in
>>> his
>>> agony. The only exception was the magpie, and for this, it is forever
>>> cursed.
>>
>> Oh, I see. So olde English folklore has been elevated to official
>> church doctrine?
>
> Official church doctrine changes through the years. It is almost universally
> believed and preached that Jesus was born in a stable, even though this
> isn't stated anywhere in the Bible itself. Every year, churches re-enact the
> nativity scene, featuring angels, shepherds and wise men, although they were
> never in the same place at the same time.
So now nativity plays are official church doctrine? What ARE you
talking about? Yes doctrine changes - we call that "thinking". You
might want to try it. The point is that this bollocks you're talking
about 13, 666 and magpies has NEVER been church doctrine. Ever. Nor is
at all likely to be.
>
>> Seriously, the ignorance regarding Christianity and Christian doctrine
>> on this ng is astonishing. The way some unbelievers relish attacking
>> and belittling believers is likewise stunning.
>
> Of course they do. People on this ng attack anything and everything!
> Sylvester McCoy, RTD... why should Christianity be exempt?!
Feel free, but do try not to come across as an ignoarnt bigot.
Andrew
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> said:
I'm sure this is right. I took it much the same way. The thing is, once
you're in a jam there's really not much you can do but make the best of
it and occasionally scream at the kids. You can get off at a service
station, but there's always that nagging doubt that when you've
finished what can only loosely be called your meal you'll still be
stuck in a jam, but further back.
Hercule Platini
>
> "powrwrap" <powr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:2ebb786b-8915-4800...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia?
>
> Christianity. 666 is the number of the beast according to the book of
> Revelation.
Just having watched QI which tuched on this very subject: the correct number
is 616, not 666. Apparently there was a Moscow bus company that had a route
666 and changed it - to 616.
--
Hercule Platini
hulahoop
<stephen.wilson2004nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
> >triskaidekaphobia?
>
> Christianity. Judas was the last person to sit at the table. Judas was the
> 13th person to sit at the table. Therefore Christians think the number 13
> carries a curse.
But fear of the number 13 is not actually mentioned in the Bible, so
to say Christianity promotes trsikadiddlyphobia is not really a valid
thing to do, as you lack actual sources for this information. I am
afraid that the phrase "Urban Myth" comes to mind
In the Bible we see that Judas hung himself. Somewhere else in the
Bible is the phrase "Go do likewise". Let's link those two things and
see where that takes us?!
> >Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
> >Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia?
>
> Christianity. 666 is the number of the beast according to the book of
> Revelation.
Not according to QI - it was actually a mistranslation and should be
616. Not that I am claiming that QI is the be all and end all when it
comes to odd bits of info, but apart from claiming that Cruethne was
the second earth moon most of their info seems to be fairly sound (cue
horde of info demonstrating unsoundness of QI info)
> >Which one requires you to salute a magpie?
>
> Christianity. An old English folk tale states that when Jesus was crucified
> on the cross, all of the world's birds wept and sang to comfort him in his
> agony. The only exception was the magpie, and for this, it is forever
> cursed.
Jesus wept (which is from the Bible) - you are kidding aren't you?
What has an old English Folk Tale to do with Christian Doctrine?
Regards
Ged
hulahoop
>
> Anyway, powrwrap is quite right to point out that doctrine is decided
> by Councils (and since 1871 by Popes, for some people), not be
> individual preachers.
Would I be right in assuming that 1871 was when the Catholic Church
decided that in matters of doctrine, the Pope was infallible?
As a Catholic I think I was told that the Assumption was one of those
areas of doctrine infalliblated on by a Pope. Is that correct AFAYK?
Regards
Ged
Andrew
As a Presbyterian I may well be wrong here, but I think what you say is
true. The doctrine of the Assumption was, I think, confirmed by Papal
dispensation in 1950. The doctrine of Papal infallibility was defined
by the First Vatican Council in 1870-71.
Peter J Ross
<sween...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 11:06 pm, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> Anyway, powrwrap is quite right to point out that doctrine is decided
>> by Councils (and since 1871 by Popes, for some people), not be
>> individual preachers.
>
> Would I be right in assuming that 1871 was when the Catholic Church
> decided that in matters of doctrine, the Pope was infallible?
Yes, though I may have got the date slightly wrong. The dates given
here (1869-70) are more likely to be accurate:
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm>
> As a Catholic I think I was told that the Assumption was one of those
> areas of doctrine infalliblated on by a Pope. Is that correct AFAYK?
Yes, it was declared to be a necessary part of Catholic doctrine by
Pope Pius XII in 1950.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm>
I suspect that it's a mortal sin to deny either of these dogmas, since
they're officially equal to anything stated in the Nicene Creed.
obWHO: Interestingly, skillful architecture and painting make St
Peter's, Rome, seem bigger on the inside than it is on the outside...
--
PJR :-)
<http://peadarruadh.wordpress.com/>
Stephen Wilson
"Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2008010300510111272-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
Sorry, but you're the one sounding like an ignorant bigot. I didn't say that
church doctrine decreed 13 and 666 as unlucky numbers. I said that
Christians are extremely worried by the numbers 13 and 666. I didn't say
this fear was exclusive to Christianity, or even that it had been started by
Christianity. It has, however, been perpetuated by Christians in the main.
I am also suggesting that there is very little difference between
Christianity and superstition. They are both things that certain people
choose to believe in, despite any evidence that they really exist.
Stephen Wilson
"hulahoop" <sween...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9987beeb-e185-4f3e...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
>>>triskaidekaphobia?
>>
>> Christianity. Judas was the last person to sit at the table. Judas was
>> the
>> 13th person to sit at the table. Therefore Christians think the number 13
>> carries a curse.
>
>But fear of the number 13 is not actually mentioned in the Bible, so
>to say Christianity promotes trsikadiddlyphobia is not really a valid
>thing to do, as you lack actual sources for this information. I am
>afraid that the phrase "Urban Myth" comes to mind
It may be an urban myth. Either way, I find that it's generally Christians
who are worried by the number. Besides, the Bible itself is full of urban
myths (talking snakes, arks full of every animal on Earth, vengeful Gods,
loving Gods, virgin births, treks from Nazareth to Bethlehem for a census
that, if it really had occurred, would have been carried out only to
determine how much tax was owed and would certainly not have required
everyone to travel to their place of birth, stars shining on a single
building, angels, devils, walking on water, you name it!)
>In the Bible we see that Judas hung himself. Somewhere else in the
>Bible is the phrase "Go do likewise". Let's link those two things and
>see where that takes us?!
Are you sure? Judas hanged himself in Matthew. But in Acts, we are told he
fell onto rocks and his body burst open.
>>>Please tell me which organized religion contains the doctrine of
>>>Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia?
>>
>> Christianity. 666 is the number of the beast according to the book of
>> Revelation.
>
>Not according to QI - it was actually a mistranslation and should be
>616. Not that I am claiming that QI is the be all and end all when it
>comes to odd bits of info, but apart from claiming that Cruethne was
>the second earth moon most of their info seems to be fairly sound (cue
>horde of info demonstrating unsoundness of QI info)
Well yes, there are plenty of examples of mistranslations. One of them is
responsible for making Mary a virgin (the relevant old testament prophecy
did not use the word virgin, but it was misinterpreted by Matthew)
>>>Which one requires you to salute a magpie?
>>
>> Christianity. An old English folk tale states that when Jesus was
>> crucified
>> on the cross, all of the world's birds wept and sang to comfort him in
>> his
>> agony. The only exception was the magpie, and for this, it is forever
>> cursed.
>
>Jesus wept (which is from the Bible) - you are kidding aren't you?
Nope.
>What has an old English Folk Tale to do with Christian Doctrine?
I didn't say it was Christian doctrine. It is, however, one reason why
people to this day insist on saluting magpies. Also, from
http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/bird_superstition
"Many people believed that the Magpie was Satan in disguise and that he was
visiting your area to cause mischief. If you say "Good Morning Mr Magpie"
you are letting Satan know that you have seen him sneaking around and so he
will leave you alone. If you see a magpie you should take off your hat or
make a cross with your fingers to ward off the evil spirits."
powrwrap
> Sorry, but you're the one sounding like an ignorant bigot. I didn't say that
> church doctrine decreed 13 and 666 as unlucky numbers. I said that
> Christians are extremely worried by the numbers 13 and 666. I didn't say
> this fear was exclusive to Christianity, or even that it had been started by
> Christianity. It has, however, been perpetuated by Christians in the main.
.
You used the phrase "organized religion" and "Christians". Organized
religion implies official doctrine from a governing body. Sorry, but
your backpedaling isn't working.
Hercule Platini
> <vio...@wheelbarrow.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Long" <lo...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >news:CvadnX9JipXV3OTa...@comcast.com...
> >> Hercule Platini wrote:
> >> > Didn't like Gridlock at all and haven't seen it since.
> >>
> >> I see alot of people bashing Gridlock and I just don't understand it.
> >> I thought it was excellent, satirical and witty with moments of true
> >> inspiration. It will clearly be a classic someday.
> >
> >
> >I just wasn't prepared to accept the idea that people would willingly
choose
> >to spend their entire lives in a flying car going nowhere and eating
their
> >own bowel movements.
>
>
> I just assume that there is physically no other way to get there and
> you need to get there then you will be willing to spend that amount of
> time doing it - Charles Darwin's voyage on the Beagle was 5 years long
> to do a job that today can be done in hours, likewise when the England
> Cricket team toured Australia in the early 20th century the journey
> there took months, and that it just to play cricket, not to
> (presumably) to travel permanently to an infinitely better life.
But travel is quicker now than it was then, whereas in Gridlock it's slow to
the point of not moving at all. The whole setup is just entirely
illogical - what's infinitely powering these cars? You can't exist solely
on your own bodily waste. No-one has ever thought "hang on, WHY can't we
use those other tunnels to finally get somewhere?". No-one has ever thought
"sod it, let's just WALK".
--
Hercule Platini
Stephen Wilson
> On Jan 3, 12:22?pm, "Stephen Wilson"
>>Sorry, but you're the one sounding like an ignorant bigot. I didn't say
>>that
>>church doctrine decreed 13 and 666 as unlucky numbers. I said that
>>Christians are extremely worried by the numbers 13 and 666. I didn't say
>>this fear was exclusive to Christianity, or even that it had been started
>>by
>>Christianity. It has, however, been perpetuated by Christians in the main.
>
>You used the phrase "organized religion" and "Christians". Organized
>religion implies official doctrine from a governing body. Sorry, but
>your backpedaling isn't working.
You're barking up the wrong tree entirely. If you actually check, you will
see the only religion I originally referred to was Islam. I then talked
about superstitions such as fears of such things as numbers. Christianity
was only brought into the argument when you asked which religions are
responsible for the fear of the numbers 13 and 666.
powrwrap
> You're barking up the wrong tree entirely. If you actually check, you will
> see the only religion I originally referred to was Islam. I then talked
> about superstitions such as fears of such things as numbers. Christianity
> was only brought into the argument when you asked which religions are
> responsible for the fear of the numbers 13 and 666.
Congratulations, you have a future in politics.
Andrew
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> said:
Which
You still don't get it. "Christians" AREN'T worried by the numbers 13
or 666 - at least no more than anyone else - including atheists. What
you are doing is attributing to a whole group of people a belief which
they actually do not hold as a consequence of being a member of that
group. Now if you can think of a better word to describe that than
'bigotry', I'll entertain it.
> I didn't say
> this fear was exclusive to Christianity, or even that it had been started by
> Christianity. It has, however, been perpetuated by Christians in the main.
Only in this country because most of the population has been Christian.
I repeat again, because you really are desperately ignorant in this
regard, there is no connection, whatever, between the number 13 and
Christian belief.
I am also suggesting that there is very little difference between
> Christianity and superstition. They are both things that certain people
> choose to believe in, despite any evidence that they really exist.
That's just a careless use of the word 'believe'. People believe all
sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. That does not make those
beliefs superstitions.
hulahoop
> But travel is quicker now than it was then, whereas in Gridlock it's slow to
> the point of not moving at all. The whole setup is just entirely
> illogical - what's infinitely powering these cars? You can't exist solely
> on your own bodily waste. No-one has ever thought "hang on, WHY can't we
> use those other tunnels to finally get somewhere?". No-one has ever thought
> "sod it, let's just WALK".
>
> --
> Hercule Platini
I am not sure if this is relevant or not but I have stayed in hotels
in the USA where the nearest shopping mall is about half a mile away.
Hotel staff have had to arrange a taxi for me to go to said shopping
malls as there is actually no pavement for pedestrians to walk on
between hotel and shopping mall. To me, the lack of "sod it, let's
just walk" in Gridlock is not that ridiculous an extension of that
Regards
Ged
hulahoop
> Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that
> there is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride,
> which doesn't really count as part of the series.
>
> Does anyone agree?
>
> Cue the social misfits and the anti RTD brigade..
>
> (sigh)
>
> JL
Is it me or is this the kind of thread that radw is screaming out for?
Regards
Ged
The Face of Po
hulahoop got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
If I get to treat the final arc as individual episodes, I think that
"Last of the Time Lords" was mostly rubbish. It may be that I'm only
remembering the awful bits, and overlooking everything that was
satisfactory or better, but it had:
* The Master dancing
* The Tinkerbell solution
* The Big Reset Switch
All of these were in some way justified, but they all represent a bad
direction that I think the show could be taking.
--
Remove caps to communicate more easily.
Happiness will prevail
Stephen Wilson
>>
>> Sorry, but you're the one sounding like an ignorant bigot. I didn't say
>> that
>> church doctrine decreed 13 and 666 as unlucky numbers. I said that
>> Christians are extremely worried by the numbers 13 and 666.
>
> You still don't get it. "Christians" AREN'T worried by the numbers 13 or
> 666 - at least no more than anyone else - including atheists. What you are
> doing is attributing to a whole group of people a belief which they
> actually do not hold as a consequence of being a member of that group. Now
> if you can think of a better word to describe that than 'bigotry', I'll
> entertain it.
In my experience they are. I find Christians are far more superstitious than
the atheists I know. Maybe it's different in your experience.
>> I didn't say
>> this fear was exclusive to Christianity, or even that it had been started
>> by
>> Christianity. It has, however, been perpetuated by Christians in the
>> main.
>
> Only in this country because most of the population has been Christian. I
> repeat again, because you really are desperately ignorant in this regard,
> there is no connection, whatever, between the number 13 and Christian
> belief.
If I am so ignorant, please provide your explanation for why you think
people in Britain and America (predominantly Christian cultures) think 13 is
unlucky, but most Sikhs consider 13 to be lucky.
> I am also suggesting that there is very little difference between
>> Christianity and superstition. They are both things that certain people
>> choose to believe in, despite any evidence that they really exist.
>
> That's just a careless use of the word 'believe'. People believe all sorts
> of things for all sorts of reasons. That does not make those beliefs
> superstitions.
People believe that opening an umbrella is unlucky because that is what
they've been told. However actually opening an umbrella indoors has no
impact on your luck.
People believe in the Bible because they've been told it's true. However if
you read it from an unbiased position, you'd put it in the same category as
any story by Hans Christian Andersen.
Just take a look at Lourdes. About 6 million pilgrims visit every year. They
all go thinking there is some mystical quality there that will cure all
their ills, simply because some 14 year old girl claimed to see the Blessed
Virgin Mary. Yet the Catholic Church itself has only recognised 67 "miracle"
cures between 1858 and the present day. That's 67 over 150 years. Now let's
suppose it was actually 67 each year instead of 67 in total (and that the
miracles are actually genuine). That would equate to a miracle rate of
0.001%. Wow.
The Face of Po
>
> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> news:2008010400454275249-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> >>
> >> Christianity and superstition. They are both things that certain people
> >> choose to believe in, despite any evidence that they really exist.
> >
> > That's just a careless use of the word 'believe'. People believe all sorts
> > of things for all sorts of reasons. That does not make those beliefs
> > superstitions.
>
> People believe that opening an umbrella is unlucky because that is what
> they've been told. However actually opening an umbrella indoors has no
> impact on your luck.
Some superstitions are based on things that make some kind of sense.
Umbrellas can be large unwieldy things, and opening one indoors may
cause you to knock something over. Walking under a ladder opens you up
to the risk of the window cleaner (accidentally or otherwise) dropping
their sponge on your head. Broken mirrors leave sharp bits of glass all
over the place.
Some superstitions are like outdated traditions, based on things that no
longer apply. For example, one explanation for saying "bless you" to
someone who's just sneezed involves the plague.
Stephen Wilson
"The Face of Po" <gkenn...@claIrVOYaNT.coLD.DuCk> wrote in message
news:slrnfnt29p.66...@abrasive.chive...
The nursery rhyme "Ring a ring of roses" is all about the plague too. The
ring is a mark you'd get on your skin. The pocket full of posies is because
you needed tissues. Then you'd sneeze, and fall down - dead.
In fact, if you look at old English nursery rhymes you'll find their origins
are quite bizarre in many cases.
Andrew
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> said:
Actually I think it came in from the Norse - influences on British
history and therefore American; though one has to remember that there
are traces back as far as Hammurabi. Nor should we forget that in
Persia people avoid going out on the 13th day of the new year, or the
tradition, in Greece, of associating the number 13 with Alexander the
Great; or the number of full moons in a year. Or that card number 13 in
a Tarot deck is Death.
One should also note that in those superstitious "Christian-based"
societies you mention, many sportsmen have regarded 13 as lucky
>
>> I am also suggesting that there is very little difference between
>>> Christianity and superstition. They are both things that certain people
>>> choose to believe in, despite any evidence that they really exist.
>>
>> That's just a careless use of the word 'believe'. People believe all sorts
>> of things for all sorts of reasons. That does not make those beliefs
>> superstitions.
>
> People believe that opening an umbrella is unlucky because that is what
> they've been told. However actually opening an umbrella indoors has no
> impact on your luck.
>
> People believe in the Bible because they've been told it's true.
People don't believe in the Bible. They believe in God - a subtle
point, but a necessay one.
> However if
> you read it from an unbiased position, you'd put it in the same category as
> any story by Hans Christian Andersen.
That unbiased position would be yours, I take it.
>
> Just take a look at Lourdes. About 6 million pilgrims visit every year. They
> all go thinking there is some mystical quality there that will cure all
> their ills, simply because some 14 year old girl claimed to see the Blessed
> Virgin Mary. Yet the Catholic Church itself has only recognised 67 "miracle"
> cures between 1858 and the present day. That's 67 over 150 years. Now let's
> suppose it was actually 67 each year instead of 67 in total (and that the
> miracles are actually genuine). That would equate to a miracle rate of
> 0.001%. Wow.
Astonishing revelation from that calculations - miracles are rare. Duh!
And don't confuse belief with hope.
Andrew
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> said:
Actually there is no known basis for linking this nursery rhyme with
the plague.
The Face of Po
> > People believe in the Bible because they've been told it's true.
>
> People don't believe in the Bible. They believe in God - a subtle
> point, but a necessay one.
>
> > However if
> > you read it from an unbiased position, you'd put it in the same category as
> > any story by Hans Christian Andersen.
>
> That unbiased position would be yours, I take it.
Personally, I'd file it with Aesop's fables. Am I similarly biased?
hulahoop
>
> Actually there is no known basis for linking this nursery rhyme with
> the plague.
>
Tis true, my old favourite QI indicated that this came from an 19th
Cebntury American rhyme
Unfortunately it is a myth about "Ring a ring a roses" being about the
black death. It is as true as the one about Bob Holness (he of
Blockbusters fame) played saxaphone on Baker Street by Gerry
thingummywhatsit
Regards
Ged
Diane L.
No, you're biased in a way that's unique to you. Just like everyone
else.
Diane L.
Stephen Wilson
>>
>> People believe that opening an umbrella is unlucky because that is what
>> they've been told. However actually opening an umbrella indoors has no
>> impact on your luck.
>>
>> People believe in the Bible because they've been told it's true.
>
> People don't believe in the Bible. They believe in God - a subtle point,
> but a necessay one.
Jews believe in God. Muslims believe in God. Christians believe in God. So
why don't they all hug each other? The point must be a little too subtle...
What is the basis of your belief in God? Have you met him or communicated
with him? How did you become aware of his existence?
>> However if
>> you read it from an unbiased position, you'd put it in the same category
>> as
>> any story by Hans Christian Andersen.
>
> That unbiased position would be yours, I take it.
If you read any book other than the Bible which had stories of talking
animals, world-wide floods with a little wooden boat filled to the brim of 2
creatures of every kind, virgin births, people being brought back to life,
people walking on water, etc, would you be inclined to classify it as an
accurate report of things that really happened?
>> Just take a look at Lourdes. About 6 million pilgrims visit every year.
>> They
>> all go thinking there is some mystical quality there that will cure all
>> their ills, simply because some 14 year old girl claimed to see the
>> Blessed
>> Virgin Mary. Yet the Catholic Church itself has only recognised 67
>> "miracle"
>> cures between 1858 and the present day. That's 67 over 150 years. Now
>> let's
>> suppose it was actually 67 each year instead of 67 in total (and that the
>> miracles are actually genuine). That would equate to a miracle rate of
>> 0.001%. Wow.
>
> Astonishing revelation from that calculations - miracles are rare. Duh!
> And don't confuse belief with hope.
I know all about hope. My mother was not predicted to last beyond her 50th
birthday. Cancer. We didn't send her to Lourdes. We didn't pray for her. We
didn't suddenly find faith in God. We still had hope. This year she
celebrated her 65th birthday. The doctors don't know why she's still alive,
let alone be able to go snorkelling, skating, etc. Is that a miracle?
Stephen Wilson
On Jan 4, 9:35 pm, Andrew <thecr...@macunlimited.net> wrote:
>>
>> Actually there is no known basis for linking this nursery rhyme with
>> the plague.
>>
>
>Tis true, my old favourite QI indicated that this came from an 19th
>Cebntury American rhyme
>
>Unfortunately it is a myth about "Ring a ring a roses" being about the
>black death.
Having just looked it up, it appears that there's little evidence one way or
the other. Wikipedia states that it was first printed in 1881, but was
recited to the current tune at least as early as the 1790s. The Bubonic
plague occurred in 1665.
It's possible it is a myth, but the jury's still out!
Andrew
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> said:
>
> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> news:2008010421330075249-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>>>
>>> People believe that opening an umbrella is unlucky because that is what
>>> they've been told. However actually opening an umbrella indoors has no
>>> impact on your luck.
>>>
>>> People believe in the Bible because they've been told it's true.
>>
>> People don't believe in the Bible. They believe in God - a subtle point,
>> but a necessay one.
>
> Jews believe in God. Muslims believe in God. Christians believe in God. So
> why don't they all hug each other? The point must be a little too subtle...
I don't know - I've hugged lots of Jews and Muslims. One of the ironies
of humanity is that we most often ate those who are most similar to us
- perhaps because it's like looking in a distrting mirror.
>
> What is the basis of your belief in God? Have you met him or communicated
> with him?
Yes.
> How did you become aware of his existence?
An overwhelming spritual experience that made my atheism untenable.
>
>>> However if
>>> you read it from an unbiased position, you'd put it in the same category
>>> as
>>> any story by Hans Christian Andersen.
>>
>> That unbiased position would be yours, I take it.
>
> If you read any book other than the Bible which had stories of talking
> animals, world-wide floods with a little wooden boat filled to the brim of 2
> creatures of every kind, virgin births, people being brought back to life,
> people walking on water, etc, would you be inclined to classify it as an
> accurate report of things that really happened?
But the Bible - as I'm sure you're aware - is not a single book
containing a single kind of literature. This makes it very difficult to
classify in the way you suggest.
>
>>> Just take a look at Lourdes. About 6 million pilgrims visit every year.
>>> They
>>> all go thinking there is some mystical quality there that will cure all
>>> their ills, simply because some 14 year old girl claimed to see the
>>> Blessed
>>> Virgin Mary. Yet the Catholic Church itself has only recognised 67
>>> "miracle"
>>> cures between 1858 and the present day. That's 67 over 150 years. Now
>>> let's
>>> suppose it was actually 67 each year instead of 67 in total (and that the
>>> miracles are actually genuine). That would equate to a miracle rate of
>>> 0.001%. Wow.
>>
>> Astonishing revelation from that calculations - miracles are rare. Duh!
>> And don't confuse belief with hope.
>
> I know all about hope. My mother was not predicted to last beyond her 50th
> birthday. Cancer. We didn't send her to Lourdes. We didn't pray for her. We
> didn't suddenly find faith in God. We still had hope. This year she
> celebrated her 65th birthday. The doctors don't know why she's still alive,
> let alone be able to go snorkelling, skating, etc. Is that a miracle?
Perhaps. Whatever, I'm pleased to hear it. All the best to her.
Stephen Wilson
>>>
>>> People don't believe in the Bible. They believe in God - a subtle point,
>>> but a necessay one.
>>
>> Jews believe in God. Muslims believe in God. Christians believe in God.
>> So
>> why don't they all hug each other? The point must be a little too
>> subtle...
>
> I don't know - I've hugged lots of Jews and Muslims.
As it happens, so have I...
> One of the ironies of humanity is that we most often ate those who are
> most similar to us - perhaps because it's like looking in a distrting
> mirror.
>
>>
>> What is the basis of your belief in God? Have you met him or communicated
>> with him?
>
> Yes.
This is where our experience differs. I haven't.
>> How did you become aware of his existence?
>
> An overwhelming spritual experience that made my atheism untenable.
I still classify myself as agnostic (although tending towards atheism).
Until I've had that experience for myself, I'm just not the sort of person
who can believe in something that doesn't make sense to me just because
other people do. I'd like to think I'm open. But so far in my life, I've had
no flash of inspiration that has suddenly made me think that one religion in
particular has got it all right.
>>>> However if
>>>> you read it from an unbiased position, you'd put it in the same
>>>> category
>>>> as
>>>> any story by Hans Christian Andersen.
>>>
>>> That unbiased position would be yours, I take it.
>>
>> If you read any book other than the Bible which had stories of talking
>> animals, world-wide floods with a little wooden boat filled to the brim
>> of 2
>> creatures of every kind, virgin births, people being brought back to
>> life,
>> people walking on water, etc, would you be inclined to classify it as an
>> accurate report of things that really happened?
>
> But the Bible - as I'm sure you're aware - is not a single book containing
> a single kind of literature. This makes it very difficult to classify in
> the way you suggest.
It's difficult to classify in any way. It is a collection of writings and
the canon was agreed, from a Christian perspective, in the 4th century.
There are plenty of stories that were rejected for being too contradictory.
In other words, at a certain point in time, a group of people read through
all the material available and decided amongst them which books could be
deemed part of the canon and which couldn't. The books that were rejected
were deemed "apocryphal".
Is it really any more remarkable in that sense than "One Thousand and One
Nights"?
>>>> Just take a look at Lourdes. About 6 million pilgrims visit every year.
>>>> They
>>>> all go thinking there is some mystical quality there that will cure all
>>>> their ills, simply because some 14 year old girl claimed to see the
>>>> Blessed
>>>> Virgin Mary. Yet the Catholic Church itself has only recognised 67
>>>> "miracle"
>>>> cures between 1858 and the present day. That's 67 over 150 years. Now
>>>> let's
>>>> suppose it was actually 67 each year instead of 67 in total (and that
>>>> the
>>>> miracles are actually genuine). That would equate to a miracle rate of
>>>> 0.001%. Wow.
>>>
>>> Astonishing revelation from that calculations - miracles are rare. Duh!
>>> And don't confuse belief with hope.
>>
>> I know all about hope. My mother was not predicted to last beyond her
>> 50th
>> birthday. Cancer. We didn't send her to Lourdes. We didn't pray for her.
>> We
>> didn't suddenly find faith in God. We still had hope. This year she
>> celebrated her 65th birthday. The doctors don't know why she's still
>> alive,
>> let alone be able to go snorkelling, skating, etc. Is that a miracle?
>
> Perhaps. Whatever, I'm pleased to hear it. All the best to her.
Thanks.
Andrew
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> said:
Which is, of course, an entirely reasonable position and one I entirely
understand and respect.
The difference of course is that no one ever held any part of 1001
Nights to be true. With particular regard to the NT materials those who
set the canon were looking for authenticity.
Stephen Wilson
>>
>> Is it really any more remarkable in that sense than "One Thousand and One
>> Nights"?
>
> The difference of course is that no one ever held any part of 1001 Nights
> to be true. With particular regard to the NT materials those who set the
> canon were looking for authenticity.
OK. Well let's take one step back and look at just one story in the Bible -
the birth of Jesus - and consider how likely it is to be true.
According to Matthew, Mary's pregnancy was announced to Joseph by an angel
in a dream. According to Luke, Gabriel appeared to Mary while she was awake
once Jesus had been conceived.
This leaves a number of questions:
Angels - I've never seen an angel and I don't know anyone else who ever has.
What is the evidence for their existence?
Why were both Mary and Joseph surprised at the shepherd's story after the
birth of their son? Surely after having experienced a virgin birth and
having been visited by angels they were already aware their son was special.
Who did Mary and Joseph tell for Matthew and Luke to be able to include
their experiences in their books?
It doesn't sound like Mary and Joseph actually discussed these visitations
with each other. Which sounds improbable to me.
Was Mary really a virgin? Not something that sounds likely from my knowledge
of biology. However, there were plenty of stories of virgin births in
ancient stories. And why is Matthew the only one to consider it significant?
Is it just possible that he felt it was necessary in order to fulfill an old
testament passage that he thought read "a virgin shall conceive and bear a
son"? The actual translation would in fact have been "young woman of
marriageable age" rather than "virgin".
Joseph and Mary travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem because of a censusl.
Sounds sensible, yes? No. Polls are only required for governments to know
how much tax is owed. People would not have been required to travel from
their home town to their place of birth for the sake of a census. Even
assuming this unlikely requirement was true, it would only be the men who
would have been required to participate. Why would Joseph risk the life of
his wife and baby by dragging them along during the last stages of Mary's
pregnancy? And why is there no evidence (outside the Bible) for such a poll?
Matthew and Luke both trace Joseph's line back to David. But the genealogy
differs. And why did they feel it so important to show this if Joseph wasn't
even the father of Jesus?
Wise men followed a star. According to Matthew at least. This is
astronomically impossible. No star shines over a single building. However,
this kind of story is fairly common in mythological tales.
Jesus was born in a stable, yes? Not according to the Bible. According to
Matthew, the wise men visited Jesus in a house. Luke has the shepherd
visiting Jesus and mentions a manger. But no stable and no animals.
Herod slaughtered every male infant in Judea. But only according to Matthew.
This slaughter doesn't appear in any other gospel. It is not recorded in any
historical record. And if you stop for just a minute, do you think any King
could get away with such an act? At the very least, a war would have broken
out.
Where did Mary and Joseph go after this apparent journey to Bethlehem?
Matthew reckons they fled to Egypt to escape Herod's wrath. Luke simply says
they returned home. Presumably he was totally unaware Herod's aforementioned
persecution.
Sorry, but much as I love the nativity story, there are far too many
impossible (or at the very least, improbable) events for it to be taken as
the literal truth. Far more likely that the authors took ancient myths and
combined them with old testament prophecy to weave the story we know today.
It's a powerful story. But not one that I can take too seriously.
Andrew
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> said:
>
> "Andrew" <thec...@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
> news:2008010515003650073-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
>>>
>>> Is it really any more remarkable in that sense than "One Thousand and One
>>> Nights"?
>>
>> The difference of course is that no one ever held any part of 1001 Nights
>> to be true. With particular regard to the NT materials those who set the
>> canon were looking for authenticity.
>
> OK. Well let's take one step back and look at just one story in the Bible -
> the birth of Jesus - and consider how likely it is to be true.
>
> According to Matthew, Mary's pregnancy was announced to Joseph by an angel
> in a dream. According to Luke, Gabriel appeared to Mary while she was awake
> once Jesus had been conceived.
> This leaves a number of questions:
> Angels - I've never seen an angel and I don't know anyone else who ever has.
> What is the evidence for their existence?
This is an ontlological question. angels either exist or they don't.
I'm inclined to view them as a manifestation of God.
> Why were both Mary and Joseph surprised at the shepherd's story after the
> birth of their son? Surely after having experienced a virgin birth and
> having been visited by angels they were already aware their son was special.
I'm not sure what your reference is here. I can't find a reference in
Luke to Mary or Joseph being amazed by the shepherds' story.
> Who did Mary and Joseph tell for Matthew and Luke to be able to include
> their experiences in their books?
> It doesn't sound like Mary and Joseph actually discussed these visitations
> with each other. Which sounds improbable to me.
It does say, however, that the shepherds did talk about it. It also
says that that Mary remembered all these things. Who did she speak to?
That's hard to say.
>
> Was Mary really a virgin? Not something that sounds likely from my knowledge
> of biology. However, there were plenty of stories of virgin births in
> ancient stories.
This enters into the realm of miracle. A knowledge of biology won't help.
> And why is Matthew the only one to consider it significant?
> Is it just possible that he felt it was necessary in order to fulfill an old
> testament passage that he thought read "a virgin shall conceive and bear a
> son"? The actual translation would in fact have been "young woman of
> marriageable age" rather than "virgin".
Why do you suggest that only Matthew thinks it significant? Luke
mentions it as well (1:34) - and bear in mind that it is likely that
Luke and Matthew were using different sources of information.
>
> Joseph and Mary travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem because of a censusl.
> Sounds sensible, yes? No. Polls are only required for governments to know
> how much tax is owed. People would not have been required to travel from
> their home town to their place of birth for the sake of a census.
This was a question of tax.
> Even
> assuming this unlikely requirement was true, it would only be the men who
> would have been required to participate. Why would Joseph risk the life of
> his wife and baby by dragging them along during the last stages of Mary's
> pregnancy? And why is there no evidence (outside the Bible) for such a poll?
Were there family members in Nazareth who would look after Mary while
Joseph was away?
>
> Matthew and Luke both trace Joseph's line back to David. But the genealogy
> differs. And why did they feel it so important to show this if Joseph wasn't
> even the father of Jesus?
The genealogies are complex and symbolic.
>
> Wise men followed a star. According to Matthew at least. This is
> astronomically impossible. No star shines over a single building. However,
> this kind of story is fairly common in mythological tales.
>
> Jesus was born in a stable, yes? Not according to the Bible. According to
> Matthew, the wise men visited Jesus in a house. Luke has the shepherd
> visiting Jesus and mentions a manger. But no stable and no animals.
Agreed. Your point is? That nativity plays don't reflect the Bible exactly?
>
> Herod slaughtered every male infant in Judea. But only according to Matthew.
> This slaughter doesn't appear in any other gospel. It is not recorded in any
> historical record. And if you stop for just a minute, do you think any King
> could get away with such an act? At the very least, a war would have broken
> out.
Possibly an overstatement on Matthew's part of a real event.
>
> Where did Mary and Joseph go after this apparent journey to Bethlehem?
> Matthew reckons they fled to Egypt to escape Herod's wrath. Luke simply says
> they returned home. Presumably he was totally unaware Herod's aforementioned
> persecution.
>
> Sorry, but much as I love the nativity story, there are far too many
> impossible (or at the very least, improbable) events for it to be taken as
> the literal truth. Far more likely that the authors took ancient myths and
> combined them with old testament prophecy to weave the story we know today.
> It's a powerful story. But not one that I can take too seriously.
One can, I think, take the nativity stories too literally. They draw,
almost certainly, on stories that circulated about the early years of
Jesus and are intended to act as introductions to the core of all four
gospel narratives - the Passion and Resurrection. It's likely that the
authors of Matthew and Luke drew on sources that they believed to be
reliable, but one should not regard either as acting simply as
journalists or biographers. They were theologians and selected material
and presented it in a way that described what they regarded as
important.
Luke Curtis
<vio...@wheelbarrow.com> wrote:
but is it?
The average speed of travel in London now is slower than in the 19th
century when everybody was using horse and carts.
In the air the newly released Boeing 777's cruising speed is 560mph,
yet the now obsoluete and out of commision Concorde's average cruising
speed was 1350mph
>The whole setup is just entirely
>illogical - what's infinitely powering these cars?
This is not a problem - there was a news report on the latest British
Nuclear Submarine to be launched will never have to be refeuled, the
fuel will last the entire life cycle of the sub.
>You can't exist solely
>on your own bodily waste.
this is a problem, perhaps they have a replicator? <G>
>No-one has ever thought "hang on, WHY can't we
>use those other tunnels to finally get somewhere?". No-one has ever thought
>"sod it, let's just WALK".
You can't walk in the tunnels because of the extereme pollution that
will kill you in minutes IIRC from the beginning of the episode, plus
the Macra in the tunnel floor would be a slight handicap as well!
-
Got unwanted CDs, DVDs & Games?
www.swapshop.co.uk/default.aspx?referrerid=b788c9b0-70e7-4192-91cc-d549e513f0bf
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
Luke Curtis
I'd rate it with Thomas the Tank Engine, the same amount of depth and
complexitity and relevance to the real world...
TopPoster
her turn
--
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous
"Stephen Wilson" <stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:UhKfj.47268$wD5....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
Hercule Platini
But Gridlock has characters taking *decades* to cross a city. It's just not
viable. If I crawled on my hands and knees it wouldn't take me 20 years to
cross London.
> >The whole setup is just entirely
> >illogical - what's infinitely powering these cars?
>
> This is not a problem - there was a news report on the latest British
> Nuclear Submarine to be launched will never have to be refeuled, the
> fuel will last the entire life cycle of the sub.
That may be - but Gridlock's cars weren't nuclear; they produced exhaust
fumes.
> >No-one has ever thought "hang on, WHY can't we
> >use those other tunnels to finally get somewhere?". No-one has ever
thought
> >"sod it, let's just WALK".
>
> You can't walk in the tunnels because of the extereme pollution that
> will kill you in minutes IIRC from the beginning of the episode, plus
> the Macra in the tunnel floor would be a slight handicap as well!
Well, there are parts of the city that aren't motorway - the street stalls
at the beginning of the episode. There's no way around the city outside of
the motorway? I can't buy that.
Did the people know about the Macra? In truth, I haven't seen the episode
since it was first shown.
--
Hercule Platini
Chancellor_Goth
"Hercule Platini" <vio...@wheelbarrow.com> wrote in message
news:9pednTTX-ZTtqh3a...@bt.com...
> Well, there are parts of the city that aren't motorway - the street stalls
> at the beginning of the episode. There's no way around the city outside
> of
> the motorway? I can't buy that.
Those parts were all sealed off from each other (and the overcity) when the
mass deaths occurred from the patches.
> Did the people know about the Macra? In truth, I haven't seen the episode
> since it was first shown.
Nor have I.
--
Chancellor Goth
--
Jen: Why do you never see any cockney goths?
Richmond: They're too cheerful. They ruin it for the rest of us.
L. Ross Raszewski
Those aren't parts of the city proper. They're analogous to turnpike
rest areas. Sealed off from the city above (we know this, because
*otherwise the people in them would have died in the plague*), with
access only back to the motorway.
There may be (and probably are) plenty of ways to get around the city
without using the motorway. But there's no way *to get on or off the
motorway* except through the exits. That's what "restricted access
highway" means ('Restricted access highway' is the technical term for
an expressway). Getting out of the system on a real-life restricted
access higway, without taking an exit, would require getting out of
your car and walking *off the roadway*, that is, through the woods or
open fields. On an expressway that goes through an urban area -- IN
REAL LIFE -- it would probably involve either climbing down from an
elevated roadway or scaling a concrete barrier several meters high.
Freeways in real life, particularly those which go through urban areas
are *specifically designed to be hard to get on and off of without
using the exit ramps*
>
> Did the people know about the Macra? In truth, I haven't seen the episode
> since it was first shown.
>
>
No. They don't know about them. I imagine that at the beginning, a
lot of people tried to make a break for it. They all died. The people
we meet twentyseveral years down the road have been self-selected for
*not being the sort of people who would have a go at escaping.*
Wayne J. Kinsella
>
>Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that
>there is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride,
>which doesn't really count as part of the series.
>
>Does anyone agree?
>
>Cue the social misfits and the anti RTD brigade..
>
>(sigh)
>
>JL
Oh fuck off, dickhead.
Go get stalked by your ex-bunny boiler.
Season 3 is patchy at best. You like crap like 42, Gridlock, Daleks in
Manhatten/Evolution of the Daleks then good for you. However that does
not make them good.
Season 3 really turned the corner with Human Nature and was excellent
after that til the end of the series.
Wayne J. Kinsella
>Agamemnon wrote:
>> "John Long"
>>>Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that there
>>>is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride, which doesn't
>>>really count as part of the series.
>>>
>>>Does anyone agree?
>>
>>
>> Mostly, apart from Smith and Jones and Gridlock which were very badly
>> written, buts still infinatly better than Fear Her and rewatchable unlike
>> Series 2 which I can't bare to watch again because of Fear Her, the
>> Cyberrubbish, The Idiotic Lantern, and Love and Monsters.
>
>Congratulations, Agamemnon. This is a very mature and accurate
>response,
perfectly in keeping with your pathetic and immature comments in the
original thread.
Wayne J. Kinsella
wrote:
>In rec.arts.drwho on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:27:55 -0500, John Long
><lo...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Watching Series 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that
>> there is not one bad episode, with the exception of Runaway Bride,
>> which doesn't really count as part of the series.
>>
>> Does anyone agree?
>>
>> Cue the social misfits and the anti RTD brigade..
>>
>> (sigh)
>
>"Watching Season 3 for a 3rd time, I've come to the conclusion that
>there is not one bad episode, with the exception of The Feast of
>Steven, which doesn't really count as part of the series.
>
>Does anyone agree?
>
>Cue the social misfits and the anti Hartnell brigade..."
>
>(an anonymous RADW post dated December 1967)
>
>(sigh)
>
>:-D
>
Marvellous post
>Seriously, why is it that the pro-RTD/Hartnell and anti-RTD/Hartnell
>factions have never been able to have reasonable discussions or ignore
>each other?
>
>In real life, the fans in Love & Monsters would have been killed not
>by an unfunny stunt-casted comedian but by a gang of rival fans.
>
>And there's something wrrrrrrong with that... it's not what was meant
>to happen...