Christian, creation based science fiction

[Millennian1260]

Has anyone worked on this concept that can share something about their findings, research, scripting, music, ideas for casting, or production planning?

One theme for our first work is at http://www.millennian.org/
Some musical thought is at http://www.sacredscrolls.org/

We'd like to see Areospace Archaeology introduced into the sciences in the USA.

Out you tube clip http://youtu.be/PfYHQ9h4egk

[hielan' laddie]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:59:24 -0400, Millennian1260 wrote
(in article <c076bd87-5d39-4291...@googlegroups.com>):

Robert Heinlein perpetuated _Job_ many, many, MANY years ago.

Other than that, there's the teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy problem that
creationism IS NOT SCIENCE and it's just a tad difficult to do SCIENCE
fiction based on it. Fantasy, now, that's trivial.

[Wayne Throop]

: hielan' laddie <bobbi...@bobbybruce.co.uk.not>
: Robert Heinlein perpetuated _Job_ many, many, MANY years ago.

Do you mean "perpetrated"? Perpetuated doesn't seem to make sense.

: Other than that, there's the teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy problem that

: creationism IS NOT SCIENCE and it's just a tad difficult to do SCIENCE
: fiction based on it. Fantasy, now, that's trivial.

I might suggest Brust's "To Reign in Hell".


"I am perpetual now." --- Nomad

[Dorothy J Heydt]

There's always _The Magician's Nephew_, which of course is
fantasy not SF, but in which Aslan (the Narnian incarnation of
the Second Person of the Trinity, _per quem omnia facta sunt_)
creates, not this world (Lewis knew better) but Narnia _ex nihilo_
by singing, and the animals pop up out of the ground, fully
grown, just as in Milton's _Paradise Lost_ (Milton, of course,
*didn't* know better).

Some years back on this forum (unless it was rasf-c, but I think
not) there was an earnest young fellow who wanted to know how he
could have the sun circling the planet and make it hard science.
Everybody spent *weeks* trying to convince him that he just
couldn't, and even then I think he went away unconvinced. He
wanted to have, in one and the same story, "God created it that
way" and "it's science fiction conforming to real-world physics."
Does not compute.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Aug 18, 11:36 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> Some years back on this forum (unless it was rasf-c, but I think
> not) there was an earnest young fellow who wanted to know how he
> could have the sun circling the planet and make it hard science.
> Everybody spent *weeks* trying to convince him that he just
> couldn't, and even then I think he went away unconvinced.  He
> wanted to have, in one and the same story, "God created it that
> way" and "it's science fiction conforming to real-world physics."

I think that person reappears every so often; I recall being one of
those unsuccessful convincers just last year.

> Does not compute.

Indeed.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Leif Roar Moldskred]

hielan' laddie <bobbi...@bobbybruce.co.uk.not> wrote:
>
> Other than that, there's the teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy problem that
> creationism IS NOT SCIENCE and it's just a tad difficult to do SCIENCE
> fiction based on it.

I think "Strata" by Terry Pratchett fits the bill.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <NJ-dne_3p6_Ljq3N...@giganews.com>,

I was under the impression that he wrote exclusively fantasy.
But since I can't read him nohow, I await correction.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <NJ-dne_3p6_Ljq3N...@giganews.com>,
Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@dimnakorr.com> wrote:

But hey, we allow FTL into SF so why not creationism?

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:

> But hey, we allow FTL into SF so why not creationism?

Because FTL serves a legitimate narrative purpose?

--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press

[Robert A. Woodward]

In article <m2d32nh...@kelutral.omcl.org>,

Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:

> begin fnord
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:
>
> > But hey, we allow FTL into SF so why not creationism?
>
> Because FTL serves a legitimate narrative purpose?

And creationism can not?

ObSF: _The Great Fetish_ by L. Sprague de Camp.

--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 18, 7:40 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> But hey, we allow FTL into SF so why not creationism?

I know that Isaac Asimov wrote a story about the Last Judgment.

Science fiction for people who don't believe in mainstream science
certainly is possible. So much of what passes for current science
fiction, after all, is anti-technological.

So that we might see what the original poster is hoping for, SF that's
safe for creationists, is not impossible. After all, one of the
commonest scientific blunders in SF is having astronauts finding
people on alien planets.

It wouldn't take much to turn Ursula K. LeGuin's "The Dispossessed"
into explicitly Creationist science fiction.

John Savard

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

"Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> writes:

> In article <m2d32nh...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>
>> begin fnord
>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:
>>
>> > But hey, we allow FTL into SF so why not creationism?
>>
>> Because FTL serves a legitimate narrative purpose?
>
> And creationism can not?

FTL lets your hero go to the Veil Nebula and come back while his
girlfriend is still a girl. Creationism lets you sell to whackjobs.

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article,
<proto-92E317....@news.panix.com> pr...@panix.com,
Walter Bushell drifted dangerously towards magmanimosity:

> Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@dimnakorr.com> wrote:
>> hielan' laddie <bobbi...@bobbybruce.co.uk.not> wrote:
>>>Other than that, there's the teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy problem that
>>>creationism IS NOT SCIENCE and it's just a tad difficult to do
>>>SCIENCE fiction based on it.
>>
>>I think "Strata" by Terry Pratchett fits the bill.
>
>But hey, we allow FTL into SF so why not creationism?

- because doing so might let such forbidden delights as
sheckley's superb _Dimension of Miracles_ and lafferty's
sublime "Snuffles" shuffle into sf - not to mention eric
frank russell's truly amazingly beautiful "Hobbyist" ?

- love, a ppint. uncertain whether the anti-creationist
inquisition would permit perusal of _Ringworld_ or
_Orbitsville_, but pretty sure they'd outlaw zelazny's
excellent _Isle of the Dead_ (and with it, if only by
association, the sequel _To Die in Italbar_) - not to
mention, blish's pantropic "Surface Tension".

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"Oh, come *on*. Revelation was a mushroom dream that belonged in the Apocrypha.
The New Testament is basically about what happened when God got religion."
- Terry Pratchett on alt.fan.pratchett

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <59dccbe7-97d7-4164...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Aug 18, 7:40 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> But hey, we allow FTL into SF so why not creationism?
>
>I know that Isaac Asimov wrote a story about the Last Judgment.
>
>Science fiction for people who don't believe in mainstream science
>certainly is possible. So much of what passes for current science
>fiction, after all, is anti-technological.
>
>So that we might see what the original poster is hoping for, SF that's
>safe for creationists, is not impossible. After all, one of the
>commonest scientific blunders in SF is having astronauts finding
>people on alien planets.

Depends on how you define "people."

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:43:00 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in
<news:M8z8n...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> In article <NJ-dne_3p6_Ljq3N...@giganews.com>,
> Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@dimnakorr.com> wrote:

>>hielan' laddie <bobbi...@bobbybruce.co.uk.not> wrote:

>>> Other than that, there's the teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy
>>> problem that creationism IS NOT SCIENCE and it's just a
>>> tad difficult to do SCIENCE fiction based on it.

>>I think "Strata" by Terry Pratchett fits the bill.

> I was under the impression that he wrote exclusively fantasy.
> But since I can't read him nohow, I await correction.

His first two novels, _The Dark Side of the Sun_ and
_Strata_, were science fiction and have been mentioned here
a number of times. In fact _The Dark Side of the Sun_ is by
far my favorite Pratchett.

But I don't think that _Strata_ really qualifies.

Brian

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:08:02 PM UTC+1, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:43:00 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
> <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in
> <news:M8z8n...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> > In article <NJ-dne_3p6_Ljq3N...@giganews.com>,
> > Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@dimnakorr.com> wrote:
> >>I think "Strata" by Terry Pratchett fits the bill.
>
> > I was under the impression that he wrote exclusively fantasy

> > But since I can't read him nohow, I await correction.
>
> His first two novels, _The Dark Side of the Sun_ and
> _Strata_, were science fiction and have been mentioned here
> a number of times. In fact _The Dark Side of the Sun_ is by
> far my favorite Pratchett.
>
> But I don't think that _Strata_ really qualifies.

As Creationism? As I remember, God would disagree with you.

By the way, I'm /pretty/ sure that the writing style, if that's
something that bothers you about Terry Pratchett, is plenty
different in the early works, too - except for _The Carpet People_,
which he rewrote.

[John F. Eldredge]

_Strata_ involves planets being created, complete with fake fossils.
However, the creation is being done by scientific means, by mortals
(humans, if I recall correctly), so the creationists probably wouldn't
approve of it.

--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 19, 7:59 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <59dccbe7-97d7-4164-b808-8d6c7effe...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

> Quadibloc  <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >So that we might see what the original poster is hoping for, SF that's
> >safe for creationists, is not impossible. After all, one of the
> >commonest scientific blunders in SF is having astronauts finding
> >people on alien planets.
>
> Depends on how you define "people."

I should have been clearer.

Finding alien intelligent life on distant planets is plausible
scientifically, and contradicts Creationism.

Finding, instead, that inhabited planets around distant stars have
human beings exactly like ourselves, only perhaps somewhat more likely
to be Caucasian, and yet of independent origin, is common in SF,
despite that tending to lead to the conclusion that they, and we, were
created by God in His image.

John Savard

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <6ea2fc8e-03d7-4979...@googlegroups.com>,

I can't tell what bothered me, style or content or wotthehell. I
just had this very strong abreaction.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <c453b8f4-ba0a-46c5...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

On the other hand, I don't *think* even the most nutty
creationists really think God has arms and legs and nostrils --
at least, not until he took on humanity in the early years of the
Roman Empire. The image of God in which man is made is that he
is intelligent, loving, and creative.

(Cf. Dorothy L. Sayers's _The Mind of the Maker_, in which she
compares the creative work of God to that of a human artist,
using herself as example. A priest friend of mine tells me she
got it all from St. Augustine, and I must ask him sometime which
work; the only Augustine I've read is the Confessions.)

[Butch Malahide]

On Aug 19, 11:08 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> On the other hand, I don't *think* even the most nutty
> creationists really think God has arms and legs and nostrils --
> at least, not until he took on humanity in the early years of the
> Roman Empire.  The image of God in which man is made is that he
> is intelligent, loving, and creative.

Leaving those nutty creationists aside, aren't there some modern
religions that *do* think God has "arms and legs and nostrils"? I
believe I've heard that said of Mormons and Rastafarians, not that I
know much of anything about those religions.

[Michael Ikeda]

"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote in
news:a9cg1i...@mid.individual.net:

> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:08:02 -0400, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:43:00 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
>> <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in
>> <news:M8z8n...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>>> In article <NJ-dne_3p6_Ljq3N...@giganews.com>,
>>> Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@dimnakorr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>hielan' laddie <bobbi...@bobbybruce.co.uk.not> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Other than that, there's the teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy
>>>>> problem that creationism IS NOT SCIENCE and it's just a tad
>>>>> difficult to do SCIENCE fiction based on it.
>>
>>>>I think "Strata" by Terry Pratchett fits the bill.
>>
>>> I was under the impression that he wrote exclusively fantasy.
>>> But since I can't read him nohow, I await correction.
>>
>> His first two novels, _The Dark Side of the Sun_ and _Strata_,
>> were science fiction and have been mentioned here a number of
>> times. In fact _The Dark Side of the Sun_ is by far my
>> favorite Pratchett.
>>
>> But I don't think that _Strata_ really qualifies.
>>
>> Brian
>
> _Strata_ involves planets being created, complete with fake
> fossils. However, the creation is being done by scientific
> means, by mortals (humans, if I recall correctly), so the
> creationists probably wouldn't approve of it.
>

(rot13 spoiler)

Vg gheaf bhg gung gur ragver havirefr jnf npghnyyl perngrq ol na
nyvra fcrpvrf.

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 19, 10:08 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> On the other hand, I don't *think* even the most nutty
> creationists really think God has arms and legs and nostrils --
> at least, not until he took on humanity in the early years of the
> Roman Empire.  The image of God in which man is made is that he
> is intelligent, loving, and creative.

You would be surprised. In literature from the Worldwide Church of
God, back before Herbert W. Armstrong passed away, it was at one point
noted that the Bible, being the infallible and inerrant Word of God,
specifically referred to God as having a face, a back, hands, and so
on in various places.

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

There are stories where the Earth /does/ turn out to be a recent
creation - sometimes in imitation of the /real/ Earth. But it tends
to be the big surprise ending, so it isn't very nice to talk
about those stories, as a set, in case you spoil it for someone
who hasn't read all of the stores.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
<news:6ea2fc8e-03d7-4979...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:08:02 PM UTC+1, Brian M. Scott wrote:

>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:43:00 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
>> <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in
>> <news:M8z8n...@kithrup.com> in rec.arts.sf.written:

>>> In article <NJ-dne_3p6_Ljq3N...@giganews.com>,
>>> Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@dimnakorr.com> wrote:

>>>>I think "Strata" by Terry Pratchett fits the bill.

>>> I was under the impression that he wrote exclusively fantasy
>>> But since I can't read him nohow, I await correction.

>> His first two novels, _The Dark Side of the Sun_ and
>> _Strata_, were science fiction and have been mentioned here
>> a number of times. In fact _The Dark Side of the Sun_ is by
>> far my favorite Pratchett.

>> But I don't think that _Strata_ really qualifies.

> As Creationism? As I remember, God would disagree with
> you.

Then I really think that you don't remember who was actually
doing the creating in _Strata_.

> By the way, I'm /pretty/ sure that the writing style, if
> that's something that bothers you about Terry Pratchett,
> is plenty different in the early works, too - except for
> _The Carpet People_, which he rewrote.

In case this was addressed to me rather than to Dorothy:
it's not. Nothing actually *bothers* me about his work; I
can read it and over the years have in fact read more than a
few Discworld novels. It just doesn't do much for me: I
find most of the characters insufficiently interesting and
appealing and the stories generally a bit on the thin side,
and too much of the humor is either too obvious or a bit
strained. They're throwaway entertainment that I just don't
find entertaining enough to be worth the time and money.

Brian

[erilar]

In article <proto-92E317....@news.panix.com>,

Because it's fantasy, not science?

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <2395dd50-679e-41aa...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

Me neither.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <m28vdbg...@kelutral.omcl.org>,

Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:

> begin fnord
> "Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> writes:
>
> > In article <m2d32nh...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> > Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
> >
> >> begin fnord
> >> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > But hey, we allow FTL into SF so why not creationism?
> >>
> >> Because FTL serves a legitimate narrative purpose?
> >
> > And creationism can not?
>
> FTL lets your hero go to the Veil Nebula and come back while his
> girlfriend is still a girl. Creationism lets you sell to whackjobs.

The latter is *much* more important as it has real world implications.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<2395dd50-679e-41aa...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:

Well you probably drink to much coffee to understand Mormonism and
smoke to little Mary Jane to understand Rastafarians. Pastafarians are
easier to grok. And then there is the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU).

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:

> In article <m28vdbg...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>
>> begin fnord
>> "Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> writes:
>>
>> > In article <m2d32nh...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>> > Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> begin fnord
>> >> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > But hey, we allow FTL into SF so why not creationism?
>> >>
>> >> Because FTL serves a legitimate narrative purpose?
>> >
>> > And creationism can not?
>>
>> FTL lets your hero go to the Veil Nebula and come back while his
>> girlfriend is still a girl. Creationism lets you sell to whackjobs.
>
> The latter is *much* more important as it has real world implications.

But it's in no way a narrative purpose; it's pander^H^H^H^H^H^Hmarketing.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <proto-4E899F....@news.panix.com>,

Well, they both do, really. Our view of the universe has been
modified more than once by new discoveries; it is not
intrinsically impossible that it might be modified once more and
that something resembling FTL *might* become possible.

And, this article hints at, at least, a new way of observing the
universe.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2012/08/the_pioneer_anomaly_heat_generators_slowed_down_pioneer_10_and_11_in_deep_space_.html

Some quotes:

"With the Pioneer anomaly, suddenly we saw a very unusual tiny
force that fell right in between Newton's gravity and Einstein's
general relativity. That prompted people to think that maybe the
spacecraft was sensing the presence of a new type of physics. It
was either a major discovery or a puzzle that, in the solving,
would help us build better craft to study gravity. It was a
win-win situation for me."

and

"I'd like to see more work on the search for gravitational waves,
which are ripples in the fabric of space-time predicted to exist
by general relativity. They open up a completely different way of
looking at the universe, because these waves would allow us to
detect phenomena beyond what we can see with light."

I don't say that human scientists will be able to go back all the
way to the Big Bang and decide that it's a more accurate way of
saying "Dixitque Deus, Fiat lux, et facta est lux." But it would
be cool if they did.

ObSF, sorta, by Asimov: Moses comes down from the mountain and
says to his brother Aaron, "God has been telling me the most
wonderful story about how the universe was created!"

"Great," says Aaron. "Let me grab my writing materials and I'll
take it down."

"All right," says Moses. "It all started around thirteen billion
years ago--"

"Wait, wait, wait. What's a billion?"

"It's a thousand million."

"What's a million then?"

"It's a thousand thousand. The Egyptian hieroglyphic for it is a
seated man holding up his hands, looking very surprised."

"Look, I've only got a few sheets of papyrus. Cut it down to
seven days."

"But--"

"SEVEN DAYS!"

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <proto-088EAE....@news.panix.com>,

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article
><2395dd50-679e-41aa...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 19, 11:08 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> >
>> > On the other hand, I don't *think* even the most nutty
>> > creationists really think God has arms and legs and nostrils --
>> > at least, not until he took on humanity in the early years of the
>> > Roman Empire.  The image of God in which man is made is that he
>> > is intelligent, loving, and creative.
>>
>> Leaving those nutty creationists aside, aren't there some modern
>> religions that *do* think God has "arms and legs and nostrils"? I
>> believe I've heard that said of Mormons and Rastafarians, not that I
>> know much of anything about those religions.
>

>Well you probably drink too much coffee to understand Mormonism and
>smoke too little Mary Jane to understand Rastafarians. Pastafarians are

>easier to grok. And then there is the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU).

I don't know him. I know about the Flying Spaghetti Monster
though; some day I'm going to express him in edible form using
fruitcake, threads of marzipan, and two great big truffles.

As to the Rastafarians, who believe that the late Haile Selassie
was the Son of God, well, remembering his dignified and futile
appearance before the League of Nations, one could certainly call
him a virtuous and worthy man. If one didn't know anything about
his subsequent life. I understand he had more bastards than any
monarch since Alexander II of Scotland.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:54:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>I should have been clearer.
>
>Finding alien intelligent life on distant planets is plausible
>scientifically, and contradicts Creationism.

How so?

(other than science in general contradicts Creationism, which is
different from the Bible itself contradicts Creationism).

Would, say, finding intelligent porpoises or computers on Earth
contradict Creationism?

>Finding, instead, that inhabited planets around distant stars have
>human beings exactly like ourselves, only perhaps somewhat more likely
>to be Caucasian, and yet of independent origin, is common in SF,
>despite that tending to lead to the conclusion that they, and we, were
>created by God in His image.

I agree with that.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:30:23 -0500, erilar
<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:

>> But hey, we allow FTL into SF so why not creationism?
>
>Because it's fantasy, not science?

Are you implying that only one of the above is fantasy, not science?

[Chris]

On Aug 17, 6:59 pm, Millennian1260 <jhole...@pldi.net> wrote:
> Has anyone worked on this concept that can share something about their findings, research, scripting, music, ideas for casting, or production planning?
>
> One theme for our first work is athttp://www.millennian.org/
> Some musical thought is athttp://www.sacredscrolls.org/
>
> We'd like to see Areospace Archaeology introduced into the sciences in the USA.
>
> Out you tube cliphttp://youtu.be/PfYHQ9h4egk

_The Last Question_ by Asimov kind of sums it all up, I'd think.

But I KNOW it's not what you're looking for.

Chris

[Butch Malahide]

On Aug 19, 5:10 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> As to the Rastafarians, who believe that the late Haile Selassie
> was the Son of God, well, remembering his dignified and futile
> appearance before the League of Nations,

I'm too young to remember that, but you went and reminded me of an
Ogden Nash poem:

The Emperor of Abyssinia
Had cousins in Harlem and Virginia
And representatives at Geneva
[. . .]

[Bill Snyder]

At least if paired with Fredric Brown's "Answer."


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[William George Ferguson]

Since nobody else has pointed it out yet, far as I've seen, the Mormons are
one of those nutty creationist groups. They are an outlier of
Christianity, as are the Adventists and the Witnesses, but they definitely
are under the umbrella. Their full name is Church of Jesus Christ of the
Latter Day Saints. They completely believe the Bible is the Word of God,
they just believe he added a few more books after Revelations (one of them,
the Book of Mormon, is where they got their popuolar name).

Rastafarianism is also a spinoff of Christianity, although it spins
somewhat further off. What Rasta and LDS have in common, along with
Catholocism, the Orthodox churches, and the Anglican church, is that God
has a living spokesperson who acts as his direct agent on Earth, whether,
Pope, or Patriarch, or Prophet, or Queen, or. in the case of Rasta, Emperor
Haile Selassie of Ethiopia.

There are, of course, non-Christiab religions who also believe in
god-=chosen spokespeople, the branch of Buddhism that follows the Dalai
Lama is likely the most well-known, but far from the only one.

--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:59:24 -0700 (PDT), Millennian1260 <jhol...@pldi.net> wrote:
| Has anyone worked on this concept that can share something about their findings, research, scripting, music, ideas for casting, or production planning?
|

| One theme for our first work is at http://www.millennian.org/
| Some musical thought is at http://www.sacredscrolls.org/

|
| We'd like to see Areospace Archaeology introduced into the sciences in the USA.
|
| Out you tube clip http://youtu.be/PfYHQ9h4egk

The most "religion-friendly" SF I can remember reading are the various
stories by Zenna Henderson about "The People".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People_(Zenna_Henderson)


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2012-08-19 20:55:57 -0400, William George Ferguson said:

> There are, of course, non-Christiab religions who also believe in
> god-=chosen spokespeople, the branch of Buddhism that follows the Dalai
> Lama is likely the most well-known, but far from the only one.

The Dalai Lama isn't a divinely chosen spokesperson; he's the
reincarnation of Avelokitesvara, one of the greatest of all
bodhisattvas. He doesn't speak for any god, only for his former self.

Avelokitesvara achieved total enlightenment, a complete and perfect
understanding of the nature of the universe and our place in it, but
was so overcome with compassion that rather than merging into the
universal nothingness of nirvana, or passing beyond it into the eternal
bliss of the Parinirvana as Gautama Buddha did, he swore to be
reincarnated on Earth until every living soul other than himself had
achieved enlightenment.

So far, he's kept that oath through fourteen additional lifetimes,
using the title "Dalai Lama."




--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <c076bd87-5d39-4291...@googlegroups.com>,

Millennian1260 <jhol...@pldi.net> wrote:
>Has anyone worked on this concept that can share something about their
>findings, research, scripting, music, ideas for casting, or production
>planning?

Asimov's once published a short story based on Genesis chapter 2, if
that is what you are looking for:

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?42623

But you probably wouldn't like it.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 8/19/12 10:30 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On 2012-08-19 20:55:57 -0400, William George Ferguson said:
>
>> There are, of course, non-Christiab religions who also believe in
>> god-=chosen spokespeople, the branch of Buddhism that follows the Dalai
>> Lama is likely the most well-known, but far from the only one.
>
> The Dalai Lama isn't a divinely chosen spokesperson; he's the
> reincarnation of Avelokitesvara, one of the greatest of all
> bodhisattvas. He doesn't speak for any god, only for his former self.
>
> Avelokitesvara achieved total enlightenment, a complete and perfect
> understanding of the nature of the universe and our place in it, but was
> so overcome with compassion that rather than merging into the universal
> nothingness of nirvana, or passing beyond it into the eternal bliss of
> the Parinirvana as Gautama Buddha did, he swore to be reincarnated on
> Earth until every living soul other than himself had achieved
> enlightenment.
>
> So far, he's kept that oath through fourteen additional lifetimes, using
> the title "Dalai Lama."
>

Well, I don't know if I believe any of that, but I do know that what
I've seen and heard of him makes him sound like a pretty cool guy
overall -- certainly a lot better than many other leaders.

>
>
>


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Rod Speed]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:k0s95g$4qu$2...@dont-email.me...

Apparently lots of those who have had much to do with him personally
disagree.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

I don't think I believe any of it, either, but since I majored in
comparative religion and my specialty was Mahayana Buddhism, I knew the
whole story.

He is a cool guy. Growing up being told that you're more or less the
incarnation of peace and compassion is probably a good way to come out
a nice guy, more so than thinking that God chose you to deliver his
messages.

Of course, it's not infallible; the OTHER great Tibetan bodhisattva,
the Panchen Lama, is kind of an asshole in his current incarnation.
(He's working with the Chinese.)

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <k0s84k$5bi$3...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>In article <c076bd87-5d39-4291...@googlegroups.com>,
>Millennian1260 <jhol...@pldi.net> wrote:
>>Has anyone worked on this concept that can share something about their
>>findings, research, scripting, music, ideas for casting, or production
>>planning?
>
>Asimov's once published a short story based on Genesis chapter 2, if
>that is what you are looking for:
>
>http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?42623
>
>But you probably wouldn't like it.

It would appear that there's no way of reading it except by
finding the original copy of _Asimov's_. So I, for one, will
never know.

[garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

> Some years back on this forum (unless it was rasf-c, but I think
> not) there was an earnest young fellow who wanted to know how he
> could have the sun circling the planet and make it hard science.
> Everybody spent *weeks* trying to convince him that he just
> couldn't, and even then I think he went away unconvinced.

This is *very easy* - just use a frame of reference where the Sun
circles the Earth. Since Einstein, we know that there is no universal
frame of reference, we are free to chose an Earth based one (this will
make some calculations - like space probe trajectories - much more
difficult, but some other calculations - e.g. trajectory of a golf ball
- much easier). And it could be even locally inertial under some
constrains.



--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

[Walter Bushell]

In article <k0s7gv$vn2$1...@dont-email.me>,

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:

> On 2012-08-19 20:55:57 -0400, William George Ferguson said:
>
> > There are, of course, non-Christiab religions who also believe in
> > god-=chosen spokespeople, the branch of Buddhism that follows the Dalai
> > Lama is likely the most well-known, but far from the only one.
>
> The Dalai Lama isn't a divinely chosen spokesperson; he's the
> reincarnation of Avelokitesvara, one of the greatest of all
> bodhisattvas. He doesn't speak for any god, only for his former self.
>
> Avelokitesvara achieved total enlightenment, a complete and perfect
> understanding of the nature of the universe and our place in it, but
> was so overcome with compassion that rather than merging into the
> universal nothingness of nirvana, or passing beyond it into the eternal
> bliss of the Parinirvana as Gautama Buddha did, he swore to be
> reincarnated on Earth until every living soul other than himself had
> achieved enlightenment.
>
> So far, he's kept that oath through fourteen additional lifetimes,
> using the title "Dalai Lama."

But remember emptiness is form.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <c453b8f4-ba0a-46c5...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>On Aug 19, 7:59=A0am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> In article <59dccbe7-97d7-4164-b808-8d6c7effe...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc =A0<jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>> >So that we might see what the original poster is hoping for, SF that's
>> >safe for creationists, is not impossible. After all, one of the
>> >commonest scientific blunders in SF is having astronauts finding
>> >people on alien planets.
>>
>> Depends on how you define "people."

>
>I should have been clearer.
>
>Finding alien intelligent life on distant planets is plausible
>scientifically, and contradicts Creationism.

How so? If God could create life here, why wouldn't He be able to create
life on other planets? Who are you to set limits to what He is capable
of doing?

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.

[Michael Stemper]

Brother!

[Michael Stemper]

In article <k0snlp$94b$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk writes:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

>> Some years back on this forum (unless it was rasf-c, but I think
>> not) there was an earnest young fellow who wanted to know how he
>> could have the sun circling the planet and make it hard science.
>> Everybody spent *weeks* trying to convince him that he just
>> couldn't, and even then I think he went away unconvinced.
>
>This is *very easy* - just use a frame of reference where the Sun
>circles the Earth. Since Einstein, we know that there is no universal

inertial

>frame of reference, we are free to chose an Earth based one (this will
>make some calculations - like space probe trajectories - much more
>difficult, but some other calculations - e.g. trajectory of a golf ball
>- much easier). And it could be even locally inertial under some
>constrains.

I'm no physicist, but wouldn't making the Sun whip around the Earth
every 24 hours (+/-) have some visible effects on it?

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <M90w4...@kithrup.com>,

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

>Our view of the universe has been
>modified more than once by new discoveries; it is not
>intrinsically impossible that it might be modified once more and
>that something resembling FTL *might* become possible.

In general relativity, FTL = time travel. Discoveries in physics tend
to not override previous results -- Neutonial physics is still a valid
approximation as relative velocities go to zero. So it's hard to see
how a theory that's been tested many ways can be stomped out of
existence.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Paul Colquhoun]

From at least one groups point of view, it's not the existence of life
elsewhere that would be the problem, but the fact that we found it.

Earth/humans are the bad example. We are the only ones that fell and
needed redemption. If we find/contact life elsewhere we would
contaminate it.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <k0u98n$562$3...@dont-email.me>,

I think it's even harder than that. Two bodies, said Sir Isaac,
are going to revolve, not one around the other, but around their
mutual center of mass. In the Earth/Moon system, their mutual
center of mass happens to be inside the Earth, but not at the
Earth's center. And the mutual center of mass of a planet and a
star would be so far inside the star that the Devil and a
bloodhound couldn't find it.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <k0u8tk$562$1...@dont-email.me>,

Quite so. But I get the impression that your basic fundie
creationist is unwilling to believe that there would be aliens on
other worlds, because Only Earth is where God became Man.

To which one should reply, How do you know?

http://poetry.elcore.net/CatholicPoets/Meynell/Meynell074.html

But Meynell seems to be assuming, _au contraire_ (N.B. she wasn't
a fundie, she was a Catholic), that the Incarnation happened
everywhere.

Which is not a valid assumption either, because, as C. S. Lewis
pointed out, we would first have to assume

* that there are beings with immortal souls on other worlds;

* that they have somehow fallen from grace;

* that the way to their redemption would be another Incarnation; and

* that they have, or have not yet, had the Incarnation happen for them.

That's a lot of assumptions.

[Robert Carnegie]

Having the mocking of creationists as something of a hobby, I suggest
it is a not a matter of what God /can/ do, but what he /did/ do.

I'm nevertheless not very clear on why extraterrestrial intelligent
life challenges creationism, but they don't like it here:
<http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/kw/aliens-bible>
("Kids Answers")

It occurs to me that if kids get a different answer from another
religious authority about this, the smarter ones will entertain
conjecture that the people laying down the law on this topic
actually don't know.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <slrnk35fur.o...@andor.dropbear.id.au>,

Lewis again. "Interstellar distances are God's quarantine
regulations."

But again ... how does he know?

Well, NOW (having been dead since 1963) he probably does know.
But NOW he can't tell us.

"A fig for all the poets who said the dead could speak to the
enlightenment of the living. I have so many things I want to
tell you, and the words have not yet been made."
-- "Journey's End," by your humble servant, rebutting T. S.
Eliot

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:

> And the mutual center of mass of a planet and a
> star would be so far inside the star that the Devil and a
> bloodhound couldn't find it.

Unless the planet in question is Jupiter, whose barycenter is in open
space. The Devil wouldn't even need the bloodhound, but He might want
a vacuum suit and possibly sunglasses.

--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <1961b156-5661-4449...@googlegroups.com>,

Of course they don't. It is not necessary either to faith or to
morals that we should believe there were intelligences on other
planets, or that we should disbelieve it.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <m28vd9h...@kelutral.omcl.org>,

Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>begin fnord
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>> And the mutual center of mass of a planet and a
>> star would be so far inside the star that the Devil and a
>> bloodhound couldn't find it.
>
>Unless the planet in question is Jupiter, whose barycenter is in open
>space. The Devil wouldn't even need the bloodhound, but He might want
>a vacuum suit and possibly sunglasses.

Heh.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:53:15 +1000, Paul Colquhoun
<newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

>| How so? If God could create life here, why wouldn't He be able to create
>| life on other planets? Who are you to set limits to what He is capable
>| of doing?
>
>
>From at least one groups point of view, it's not the existence of life
>elsewhere that would be the problem, but the fact that we found it.
>
>Earth/humans are the bad example. We are the only ones that fell and
>needed redemption. If we find/contact life elsewhere we would
>contaminate it.

It's not supported in scriptures that we are the only ones that fell.
It doesn't address aliens at all.

I certainly observe characteristics in other animals that qualify as
sins when people do it.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <7sv53856ffretij12...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:53:15 +1000, Paul Colquhoun
><newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>
>>| How so? If God could create life here, why wouldn't He be able to create
>>| life on other planets? Who are you to set limits to what He is capable
>>| of doing?
>>
>>
>>From at least one groups point of view, it's not the existence of life
>>elsewhere that would be the problem, but the fact that we found it.
>>
>>Earth/humans are the bad example. We are the only ones that fell and
>>needed redemption. If we find/contact life elsewhere we would
>>contaminate it.
>
>It's not supported in scriptures that we are the only ones that fell.
>It doesn't address aliens at all.

There's the old tale, "The Bible Reader and the Woman of Peace."
Seems this Scotswoman was sitting on her front stoop, reading the
Bible, when a woman of peace (a fairy, in other words) appeared
and asked her whether there was anything in her book about
salvation for the people of peace. The woman said that there was
no mention of salvation for any but the sons of Adam; whereupon
the woman of peace gave a terrible cry and sank into the ground.

It's, among other things, a lesson to us all to choose our words
carefully. She might have said, "This book is all about God's
dealings with the sons of Adam. What he plans for the people of
peace is not in this book, which may not even have been written
yet," and given the woman of peace cause for hope instead of
despair.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

Ray Bradbury got a pretty good story out of those assumptions: "The Man."

[Walter Bushell]

In article <k0u98n$562$3...@dont-email.me>,

Ah, if you use an Earth centered frame you could do it in quasi
Newtonian physics even if you add enough fictitious forces. A common
fictitious force is centrifugal. And in General Relativity gravity is
a fictitious force.

[Quadibloc]

On Aug 20, 6:32 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> Of course they don't.  It is not necessary either to faith or to
> morals that we should believe there were intelligences on other
> planets, or that we should disbelieve it.

It is not necessary to faith or to morals that we should disbelieve
Darwin.

But for those who disagree with that, then independently-evolved life
on other worlds would be a problem. If, instead, God used the same
blueprints everywhere, this would refute the evolutionists.

John Savard

[Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk]

On Sunday, 19 August 2012 17:08:50 UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <c453b8f4-ba0a-46c5...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>

> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>
> >On Aug 19, 7:59 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> >> In article
>
> ><59dccbe7-97d7-4164-b808-8d6c7effe...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>

> >> Quadibloc  <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> >So that we might see what the original poster is hoping for, SF that's
>
> >> >safe for creationists, is not impossible. After all, one of the
>
> >> >commonest scientific blunders in SF is having astronauts finding
>
> >> >people on alien planets.
>
> >>
>
> >> Depends on how you define "people."
>
> >
>
> >I should have been clearer.
>
> >
>
> >Finding alien intelligent life on distant planets is plausible
>
> >scientifically, and contradicts Creationism.
>
> >
>

> >Finding, instead, that inhabited planets around distant stars have
>
> >human beings exactly like ourselves, only perhaps somewhat more likely
>
> >to be Caucasian, and yet of independent origin, is common in SF,
>
> >despite that tending to lead to the conclusion that they, and we, were
>
> >created by God in His image.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, I don't *think* even the most nutty
>
> creationists really think God has arms and legs and nostrils --
>
> at least, not until he took on humanity in the early years of the
>
> Roman Empire. The image of God in which man is made is that he
>
> is intelligent, loving, and creative.
>
I find the reverse to be more plausible.
>
> (Cf. Dorothy L. Sayers's _The Mind of the Maker_, in which she
>
> compares the creative work of God to that of a human artist,
>
> using herself as example. A priest friend of mine tells me she
>
> got it all from St. Augustine, and I must ask him sometime which
>
> work; the only Augustine I've read is the Confessions.)

Pass it on if you find out; it sounds of interest.

Tim (off to Google 'St. Augustine bibliography.')

[Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk]

On Tuesday, 21 August 2012 13:46:30 UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:

> Tim (off to Google 'St. Augustine bibliography.')

Ah.

Wikipedia states 'Augustine was one of the most prolific Latin authors in terms of surviving works, and the list of his works consists of more than one hundred separate titles.' Sort of Isaac Asimov with a halo.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:32:00 AM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> It is not necessary either to faith or to morals
> that we should believe there were intelligences on
> other planets, or that we should disbelieve it.

I duuno, it may make a difference to morals if you have
a sense of being watched. Therefore, some preachers
encourage this.

This depends on whether you consider it moral to behave better
only from a fear of being detected doing otherwise. I suppose
if you're /not/ swindling widows and ruining virgins, maybe
that is more important than that it's only that you'd be
embarrassed to.

As for SF: "No one would have believed in the last years
of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched
keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and
yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about
their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied,
perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might
scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply
in a drop of water." If they /had/, well, maybe they'd have
been more careful of washing their hands, for a start.

Then again, it turned out in that story that, trezf ner bhe sevraqf.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <a527b1e4-40cf-4520...@googlegroups.com>,

<Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
>On Sunday, 19 August 2012 17:08:50 UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article
><c453b8f4-ba0a-46c5...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Aug 19, 7:59 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> ><59dccbe7-97d7-4164-b808-8d6c7effe...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Quadibloc  <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >> >So that we might see what the original poster is hoping for, SF that's
>> >> >safe for creationists, is not impossible. After all, one of the
>> >> >commonest scientific blunders in SF is having astronauts finding
>> >> >people on alien planets.
>>
>> >> Depends on how you define "people."
>>
>> >I should have been clearer.
>>
>> >Finding alien intelligent life on distant planets is plausible
>> >scientifically, and contradicts Creationism.
>>
>> >Finding, instead, that inhabited planets around distant stars have
>> >human beings exactly like ourselves, only perhaps somewhat more likely
>> >to be Caucasian, and yet of independent origin, is common in SF,
>> >despite that tending to lead to the conclusion that they, and we, were
>> >created by God in His image.

Or the descendants of a space-faring race of humanoids from quite
a long time ago. F. L. Wallace's "Big Ancestor" dealt with that
idea with a particularly wry twist.

>>
>> On the other hand, I don't *think* even the most nutty
>> creationists really think God has arms and legs and nostrils --
>> at least, not until he took on humanity in the early years of the
>> Roman Empire. The image of God in which man is made is that he
>> is intelligent, loving, and creative.
>>
>I find the reverse to be more plausible.
>>
>> (Cf. Dorothy L. Sayers's _The Mind of the Maker_, in which she
>> compares the creative work of God to that of a human artist,
>> using herself as example. A priest friend of mine tells me she
>> got it all from St. Augustine, and I must ask him sometime which
>> work; the only Augustine I've read is the Confessions.)
>
>Pass it on if you find out; it sounds of interest.
>
>Tim (off to Google 'St. Augustine bibliography.')

Okay, I asked him. He said, "Well, I don't think I put it quite
*that* way." (N.B.: He did.) "But it's certainly a very
Augustinian viewpoint." So I said, "Well, what should I read to
get an idea of the Augustinian viewpoint? All I've read of him
is the Confessions." And he said, "Read _De Trinitate._" So
I've ordered a copy -- in translation, because my Latin is not up
to Augustine.

Stay tuned.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <044650ca-e946-42c2...@googlegroups.com>,

And, by the way, he was black. He came from Numidia, the modern
Senegal. I got that from no less a man than Yaakov Malkiel.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <k0v645$l9l$1...@dont-email.me>,

Oh, sure, you can get excellent stories out of assumptions that
turn out to have minimal correspondence to reality.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <f1b598b4-3d49-4116...@s6g2000pbm.googlegroups.com>,

Now I'm trying to remember the passage (again in C. S. Lewis, but
I can't remember where) in which he quotes St. Augustine (we seem
to be having an Augustinian morning) to the effect that the
question of whether fauns, melusines, and so forth have souls can
be tabled until we find out whether there are any. I've asked
the same priest if he knows what the Saint actually said and
where, and he said this Sunday that he's still looking into it,
off and on, and hasn't found it yet and is beginning to get a bit
dubious.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <3224cdc0-c603-475f...@googlegroups.com>,

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:32:00 AM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> It is not necessary either to faith or to morals
>> that we should believe there were intelligences on
>> other planets, or that we should disbelieve it.
>
>I duuno, it may make a difference to morals if you have
>a sense of being watched. Therefore, some preachers
>encourage this.

Yes, but certainly what they want to get across is that we are
being watched by God and his angels, not by aliens on other
planets. Whether cool, vast, and unsympathetic, or not.

[Kip Williams]

Dorothy J Heydt wrote, On 8/21/12 11:17 AM:

> Now I'm trying to remember the passage (again in C. S. Lewis, but
> I can't remember where) in which he quotes St. Augustine (we seem
> to be having an Augustinian morning)

...

The august Augustine!
Ah, what is so rare as an August day?


Kip W
rasfw

[david.sh...@ymail.com]

On Aug 21, 11:13 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <044650ca-e946-42c2...@googlegroups.com>,
[St. Augustine bibliography]

> And, by the way, he was black.  He came from Numidia, the modern
> Senegal.  I got that from no less a man than Yaakov Malkiel.

The standard view is that Numidia was in modern Algeria.
Status as "black" depends on whether you see Berbers as black.
Your racial classifications may vary.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <M92sv...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>In article <k0u8tk$562$1...@dont-email.me>, Michael Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In article <c453b8f4-ba0a-46c5...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

>>>Finding alien intelligent life on distant planets is plausible
>>>scientifically, and contradicts Creationism.
>>
>>How so? If God could create life here, why wouldn't He be able to create
>>life on other planets? Who are you to set limits to what He is capable
>>of doing?
>
>Quite so. But I get the impression that your basic fundie
>creationist is unwilling to believe that there would be aliens on
>other worlds, because Only Earth is where God became Man.
>
>To which one should reply, How do you know?

Exactly.

As in your parable regarding the "lady of peace", the Bible tells
the story of humanity's relationship to God. It does not address
the presence or absence of other intelligent races.

As Aslan said, "that's not our story."

>http://poetry.elcore.net/CatholicPoets/Meynell/Meynell074.html
>
>But Meynell seems to be assuming, _au contraire_ (N.B. she wasn't
>a fundie, she was a Catholic),

Judging from the URL, I guessed that, and also that she was a poet.

> that the Incarnation happened
>everywhere.
>
>Which is not a valid assumption either, because, as C. S. Lewis
>pointed out, we would first have to assume
>
>* that there are beings with immortal souls on other worlds;
>
>* that they have somehow fallen from grace;
>
>* that the way to their redemption would be another Incarnation; and
>
>* that they have, or have not yet, had the Incarnation happen for them.
>
>That's a lot of assumptions.

Well, I think that we can throw out the last item. It's pretty safe
to speculate that it has or has not happened.

But, Lewis was hardly closed to the idea that other races could be
the recipients of an Incarnation, was he? And, since he wasn't
Catholic, it shows that this possibility is accepted by more than
one Christian tradition.

I'm really hazy on details, but between P.J. Farmer's _Father to
the Stars_ and James Blish's _A Case of Conscience_, we get an
example of an alien race that did not fall, and an example of one
that had fallen but not yet been redeemed.

I think.

Corrections welcomed.

[JimboCat]

On Saturday, August 18, 2012 6:12:38 PM UTC-4, Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
> hielan' laddie <bobbi...@bobbybruce.co.uk.not> wrote:
> > Other than that, there's the teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy problem that
>>
>> creationism IS NOT SCIENCE and it's just a tad difficult to do SCIENCE
>> fiction based on it.

>I think "Strata" by Terry Pratchett fits the bill

I haven't read "Strata", but I would nominate "Tower of Babylon" in Ted Chiang's _Stories of your Life and Others_.

It may not be about a created world, but it is a convincing enough hard SF story of one with a very weird geometry, and near the top of the Tower they have to actually dodge stars...

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Atheist: a man with no invisible means of support."

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

A February day is somewhat rarer.

[Kip Williams]

Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote, On 8/21/12 1:22 PM:

> On 2012-08-21 12:04:02 -0400, Kip Williams said:
>
>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote, On 8/21/12 11:17 AM:
>>
>>> Now I'm trying to remember the passage (again in C. S. Lewis, but
>>> I can't remember where) in which he quotes St. Augustine (we seem
>>> to be having an Augustinian morning)
>> ...
>>
>> The august Augustine!
>> Ah, what is so rare as an August day?
>
> A February day is somewhat rarer.

Especially the 29th.

Should have said august August August day, I guess.


Kip W
rasfw

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <M942H...@kithrup.com>,

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

>Now I'm trying to remember the passage (again in C. S. Lewis, but
>I can't remember where) in which he quotes St. Augustine (we seem
>to be having an Augustinian morning) to the effect that the
>question of whether fauns, melusines, and so forth have souls can
>be tabled until we find out whether there are any.

I vaguely remember that the last time you vaguely remembered that,
it was Thomas Aquinas, not Augustine.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Quadibloc]

One is in a bit of a quandary here.

On the one hand, that we ignorantly visualize every important figure
in European letters as white, and that St. Augustine doesn't quite
qualify by some standards is a nice politically-correct thing to
remind people of.

But an Arab is definitely not a... person of sub-Saharan African
descent.

Ah, well. At least he was... swarthy. Pity we don't have a politically-
correct word for that.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

I wrote:

> But an Arab is definitely not a... person of sub-Saharan African
> descent.

While a Berber has about the same skin tone as an Arab, the Imazighen
(ⵉⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⴻⵏ, thanks Wikipedia) are definitely not Arabs.

John Savard

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <k10k0i$vh$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Do you know, I think you're right.

All the more telling, in that case, that the good Father was not
able to find it; he's a Dominican and has studied Aquinas intensively.

But darn it, unless it's a completely false memory, I read it
*some*where.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:48:29 PM UTC+1, Michael Stemper wrote:
> But, Lewis was hardly closed to the idea that other races could be
> the recipients of an Incarnation, was he? And, since he wasn't
> Catholic, it shows that this possibility is accepted by more than
> one Christian tradition.

Well, is Aslan an "Incarnation"? In chronological order, he just
shows up in the form of a talking lion and creates Narnia. He does
pull off a certain particular bit of magic, of course.

And in the planetary romances, the setting is "this" universe
and there's only one Incarnation, which sets the template for
intelligent life thereafter. But I suppose that God /could/ have
been born in any species in the universe that he chose, and more
than once if he chose. Having read some Jack Chalker stories -

[David DeLaney]

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On 2012-08-21 12:04:02 -0400, Kip Williams said:
>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote, On 8/21/12 11:17 AM:
>>> Now I'm trying to remember the passage (again in C. S. Lewis, but
>>> I can't remember where) in which he quotes St. Augustine (we seem
>>> to be having an Augustinian morning)
>> ...
>>
>> The august Augustine!
>> Ah, what is so rare as an August day?
>
>A February day is somewhat rarer.

Three Septembers and a January?

Dave "Thermidor!" "Gesundheit!" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

Michael Stemper <mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote:
>As in your parable regarding the "lady of peace", the Bible tells
>the story of humanity's relationship to God. It does not address
>the presence or absence of other intelligent races.
>
>As Aslan said, "that's not our story."

And shall be told another time.

Dave "ende of the world" DeLaney

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <6b1904ae-9167-4e34...@googlegroups.com>,

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:48:29 PM UTC+1, Michael Stemper wrote:
>> But, Lewis was hardly closed to the idea that other races could be
>> the recipients of an Incarnation, was he? And, since he wasn't
>> Catholic, it shows that this possibility is accepted by more than
>> one Christian tradition.
>
>Well, is Aslan an "Incarnation"? In chronological order, he just
>shows up in the form of a talking lion and creates Narnia. He does
>pull off a certain particular bit of magic, of course.

Theologically, yes. He's the Second Person of the Trinity,
called "the Son," through whom, says the Nicene Creed, all things
were made.

>And in the planetary romances, the setting is "this" universe
>and there's only one Incarnation, which sets the template for
>intelligent life thereafter. But I suppose that God /could/ have
>been born in any species in the universe that he chose, and more
>than once if he chose.

Of course. Whether and how this happened/will happen, of course,
we don't know.

In the case of Malacandra, the three races of _hnau_ (not to
mention the eldila) were attacked, may have been tempted, but
certainly didn't fall. They didn't need the Son to be incarnate
as one or any of their races.

In the case of Perelandra, there are only the two first parents
of the _hnau_ of that planet, whose children are "not yet." They
(well, the Lady; we don't see how, where, or whether the Lord is
tempted) resist temptation, but the Devil is still laying siege
to her, and Ransom discovers that he has been appointed God's
soldier in the battle.

>Having read some Jack Chalker stories -

Which I never have...

[Brenda Clough]

On 8/21/2012 11:17 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article<f1b598b4-3d49-4116...@s6g2000pbm.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 6:32 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>
>>> Of course they don't. It is not necessary either to faith or to
>>> morals that we should believe there were intelligences on other
>>> planets, or that we should disbelieve it.
>>
>> It is not necessary to faith or to morals that we should disbelieve
>> Darwin.
>>
>> But for those who disagree with that, then independently-evolved life
>> on other worlds would be a problem. If, instead, God used the same
>> blueprints everywhere, this would refute the evolutionists.
>
> Now I'm trying to remember the passage (again in C. S. Lewis, but
> I can't remember where) in which he quotes St. Augustine (we seem
> to be having an Augustinian morning) to the effect that the
> question of whether fauns, melusines, and so forth have souls can
> be tabled until we find out whether there are any. I've asked
> the same priest if he knows what the Saint actually said and
> where, and he said this Sunday that he's still looking into it,
> off and on, and hasn't found it yet and is beginning to get a bit
> dubious.
>

it was in his essay "Of Other Worlds" which is reprinted in the
collection THE WORLD'S LAST NIGHT.

Brenda


--
My latest novel SPEAK TO OUR DESIRES is available exclusively from Book
View Cafe.
http://www.bookviewcafe.com/index.php/Brenda-Clough/Novels/Speak-to-Our-Desires-Chapter-01

[Brenda Clough]

On 8/21/2012 12:48 PM, Michael Stemper wrote:
>
> But, Lewis was hardly closed to the idea that other races could be
> the recipients of an Incarnation, was he? And, since he wasn't
> Catholic, it shows that this possibility is accepted by more than
> one Christian tradition.
>

You may be thinking of Dimble's oration in THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH, in
which he notes that each -nation- has its vision of Heaven. He mentions
the true rule of Reason in France, the genuine reign of Heaven in China.
He didn't mention the US, which obviously needed to be truly One Nation
Under God.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <k10ukm$hbg$2...@dont-email.me>, Brenda Clough <Brenda...@yahoo.com> writes:
>On 8/21/2012 12:48 PM, Michael Stemper wrote:

>> But, Lewis was hardly closed to the idea that other races could be
>> the recipients of an Incarnation, was he? And, since he wasn't
>> Catholic, it shows that this possibility is accepted by more than
>> one Christian tradition.
>
>You may be thinking of Dimble's oration in THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH,

Nope, I never managed to get through the first of the three books. I
was thinking of Aslan, who is the Incarnation in Narnia.

>which he notes that each -nation- has its vision of Heaven. He mentions
>the true rule of Reason in France, the genuine reign of Heaven in China.
>He didn't mention the US, which obviously needed to be truly One Nation
>Under God.

I'm unclear how these ideas relate to the "Incarnation", which is
loosely translated as "He's made into meat". In Catholic-speak, it
refers to the second Person of the Holy Trinity becoming flesh and
dwelling among us.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:39:04 -0400, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>> The august Augustine!
>>> Ah, what is so rare as an August day?
>>
>> A February day is somewhat rarer.
>
>Especially the 29th.
>
>Should have said august August August day, I guess.

And especially in this time of the year.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Lynn McGuire]

On 8/19/2012 5:07 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <proto-4E899F....@news.panix.com>,
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <m28vdbg...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>
>>> begin fnord
>>> "Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> In article <m2d32nh...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>>>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> begin fnord
>>>>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But hey, we allow FTL into SF so why not creationism?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because FTL serves a legitimate narrative purpose?
>>>>
>>>> And creationism can not?
>>>
>>> FTL lets your hero go to the Veil Nebula and come back while his
>>> girlfriend is still a girl. Creationism lets you sell to whackjobs.
>>
>> The latter is *much* more important as it has real world implications.
>
> Well, they both do, really. Our view of the universe has been
> modified more than once by new discoveries; it is not
> intrinsically impossible that it might be modified once more and
> that something resembling FTL *might* become possible.
>
> And, this article hints at, at least, a new way of observing the
> universe.
>
> http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2012/08/the_pioneer_anomaly_heat_generators_slowed_down_pioneer_10_and_11_in_deep_space_.html
>
> Some quotes:
>
> "With the Pioneer anomaly, suddenly we saw a very unusual tiny
> force that fell right in between Newton's gravity and Einstein's
> general relativity. That prompted people to think that maybe the
> spacecraft was sensing the presence of a new type of physics. It
> was either a major discovery or a puzzle that, in the solving,
> would help us build better craft to study gravity. It was a
> win-win situation for me."
>
> and
>
> "I'd like to see more work on the search for gravitational waves,
> which are ripples in the fabric of space-time predicted to exist
> by general relativity. They open up a completely different way of
> looking at the universe, because these waves would allow us to
> detect phenomena beyond what we can see with light."
>
> I don't say that human scientists will be able to go back all the
> way to the Big Bang and decide that it's a more accurate way of
> saying "Dixitque Deus, Fiat lux, et facta est lux." But it would
> be cool if they did.
>
> ObSF, sorta, by Asimov: Moses comes down from the mountain and
> says to his brother Aaron, "God has been telling me the most
> wonderful story about how the universe was created!"
>
> "Great," says Aaron. "Let me grab my writing materials and I'll
> take it down."
>
> "All right," says Moses. "It all started around thirteen billion
> years ago--"
>
> "Wait, wait, wait. What's a billion?"
>
> "It's a thousand million."
>
> "What's a million then?"
>
> "It's a thousand thousand. The Egyptian hieroglyphic for it is a
> seated man holding up his hands, looking very surprised."
>
> "Look, I've only got a few sheets of papyrus. Cut it down to
> seven days."
>
> "But--"
>
> "SEVEN DAYS!"

That is funny! However, I suspect that Aaron got more
freaked out by the 600+ laws of cleanliness for the
Jews. I mean, who washes their hands before a meal ?

Lynn

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:35:16 +0000 (UTC), Michael Stemper
<mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote in
<news:k10uuj$mi0$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> In article <k10ukm$hbg$2...@dont-email.me>, Brenda Clough
> <Brenda...@yahoo.com> writes:

[...]

>> You may be thinking of Dimble's oration in THAT HIDEOUS
>> STRENGTH,

> Nope, I never managed to get through the first of the three books.

I think that I forced myself to finish the first one -- I
was still very young -- but even then I couldn't manage the
second. _That Hideous Strength_ is the only one that I
consider actually readable.

[...]

Brian

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <k10ukm$hbg$2...@dont-email.me>,

Brenda Clough <Brenda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 8/21/2012 12:48 PM, Michael Stemper wrote:
>>
>> But, Lewis was hardly closed to the idea that other races could be
>> the recipients of an Incarnation, was he? And, since he wasn't
>> Catholic, it shows that this possibility is accepted by more than
>> one Christian tradition.
>>
>
>You may be thinking of Dimble's oration in THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH, in
>which he notes that each -nation- has its vision of Heaven. He mentions
>the true rule of Reason in France, the genuine reign of Heaven in China.
>He didn't mention the US, which obviously needed to be truly One Nation
>Under God.

Pause to check the _Complete Father Brown_ to find the correct
story title.

It's "The Strange Crime of John Boulnois," and the plot need not
concern us, except that toward the end of the story a philosopher's
wife is told that unless a journalist quickly pulls the story
he's just submitted, the philosopher's name will be mud in the
United States.

"You don't understand," said Mrs. Boulnois. "He wouldn't mind.
I don't think he imagines that America is really a place."

I sometimes wonder if Lewis felt the same way. He tried hard, in
_Mere Christianity_ and elsewhere, to express as low a common
denominator of Christianity as he could; but I suspect the
varieties we have on this side of the pond would've baffled him.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <k10uf1$hbg$1...@dont-email.me>,

Brenda Clough <Brenda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 8/21/2012 11:17 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article<f1b598b4-3d49-4116...@s6g2000pbm.googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Aug 20, 6:32 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course they don't. It is not necessary either to faith or to
>>>> morals that we should believe there were intelligences on other
>>>> planets, or that we should disbelieve it.
>>>
>>> It is not necessary to faith or to morals that we should disbelieve
>>> Darwin.
>>>
>>> But for those who disagree with that, then independently-evolved life
>>> on other worlds would be a problem. If, instead, God used the same
>>> blueprints everywhere, this would refute the evolutionists.
>>
>> Now I'm trying to remember the passage (again in C. S. Lewis, but
>> I can't remember where) in which he quotes St. Augustine (we seem
>> to be having an Augustinian morning) to the effect that the
>> question of whether fauns, melusines, and so forth have souls can
>> be tabled until we find out whether there are any. I've asked
>> the same priest if he knows what the Saint actually said and
>> where, and he said this Sunday that he's still looking into it,
>> off and on, and hasn't found it yet and is beginning to get a bit
>> dubious.
>>
>
>
>it was in his essay "Of Other Worlds" which is reprinted in the
>collection THE WORLD'S LAST NIGHT.

Zowie! You are right! Only in my copy, at least, it's retitled
"Religion and Rocketry."

And it is Augustine, not Aquinas, and here's what Lewis said:

"If I remember rightly, St. Augustine raised a question about the
theological position of satyrs, monopods, and other semi-human
creatures. It decided it could wait till we knew there were
any."

Hooray and hallelujah; I shall take this to church on Sunday and
see if Father is around. H's not the pastor of the church; he's
a professor up at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology
(aka "Holy Hill"), which means I don't always see him around on
any given Sunday.

Thank you, Brenda.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

My father was a pre-med student once, before he could no longer
afford it and had to take a real job. But he still had some of
his texts around, including one on the history of public health,
which had a whole chapter on Moses and the Mosaic Law.

His take was, "Here was this intelligent man surrounded by a lot
of stupid primitives who believed in God." [Note this was written
in the thirties.] "He understood the principles of sanitation,
but how to get it across to his fellows? By telling them that
God had told them to wash their hands before eating, not to eat
pork or shellfish, to bury their excreta, and so on."

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <f2rj90zrsqk1$.ukztte9z...@40tude.net>,

I find *parts* of it readable. I like rereading the scenes at
St. Anne's. The parts at the Institute I generally skip.

[Rod Speed]

"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:M94MD...@kithrup.com...

Its far from clear tho that it was just one intelligent man.

And its harder to see why someone decided that it made
sense to hack the end of kid's dicks on day 7 or whenever it is.

Let alone the other stuff like those dreadlock things that hang
down in front of their ears etc.

Or stoning to death for that matter.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <a9iiqg...@mid.individual.net>,

/shrug

I didn't write the book. This other guy did.

>And its harder to see why someone decided that it made
>sense to hack the end of kid's dicks on day 7 or whenever it is.

Well, according to Campbell (who was full of weird ideas), it was
originally done to adolescents, not only as a trial, but as a
mark of tribal membership. I believe some of the Australian
aboriginal tribes still do just that.

>Let alone the other stuff like those dreadlock things that hang
>down in front of their ears etc.

A whole lot of things like that stem from a general order "Don't
do what your pagan neighbors do; don't do anything that LOOKS
like what your pagan neighbors do, and don't intermarry with them,
and while you're at it don't mix sheep/goats, wool/linen, or
anything else miscible."

>Or stoning to death for that matter.

It was a way of executing someone you thought needed executing
without getting his blood on your hands. The early Hebrews were
really paranoid about blood.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:52:38 PM UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <6b1904ae-9167-4e34...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:48:29 PM UTC+1, Michael Stemper wrote:
>
> >> But, Lewis was hardly closed to the idea that other races could be
> >> the recipients of an Incarnation, was he? And, since he wasn't
> >> Catholic, it shows that this possibility is accepted by more than
> >> one Christian tradition.
> >
> >Well, is Aslan an "Incarnation"? In chronological order, he just
> >shows up in the form of a talking lion and creates Narnia. He does
> >pull off a certain particular bit of magic, of course.
>
> Theologically, yes. He's the Second Person of the Trinity,
> called "the Son," through whom, says the Nicene Creed, all things
> were made.

All things in Narnia, anyway. But I think what I meant to say is something
like, is Aslan /another/ Incarnation, or is he Jesus in a lion body?
(Accepting the premises of the story.)

But I guess that Aslan may not be the case you (Michael) were talking about.

[Rod Speed]

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote

>>> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote

And I was just commenting on that other guy's take there.

>> And its harder to see why someone decided that it made
>> sense to hack the end of kid's dicks on day 7 or whenever it is.

> Well, according to Campbell (who was full of weird ideas),
> it was originally done to adolescents, not only as a trial,
> but as a mark of tribal membership.

Sure, but that�s clearly not what that book is about.

> I believe some of the Australian
> aboriginal tribes still do just that.

Nope, its died out now.

>> Let alone the other stuff like those dreadlock
>> things that hang down in front of their ears etc.

> A whole lot of things like that stem from a general order
> "Don't do what your pagan neighbors do; don't do
> anything that LOOKS like what your pagan neighbors do,

But the rational appears to be more to make your group
stand out from the rest, like Sheik turbans etc do.

> and don't intermarry with them, and while you're at it don't
> mix sheep/goats, wool/linen, or anything else miscible."

That stuff is harder to rationalise as some smarty working
out what makes sense and realising that it makes a lot more
sense to proclaim that that�s what some god or other demands,
rather than just trying to explain why it�s a good idea tho.

>> Or stoning to death for that matter.

> It was a way of executing someone you thought needed
> executing without getting his blood on your hands. The
> early Hebrews were really paranoid about blood.

Doesn�t explain why others like moslems are into that approach too tho.

They certainly don�t give a damn about blood on
their hands except when grovelling towards mecca etc.

I think its more likely to have been done that way so
that no one really knows who did the most damage etc.