[OT] Happy birthday to me...
Karkadinn
--
Signing off as Stephen Mackey, the Multi-Threaded RFE Database Liaison.
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
Julian Day
>I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
I don't think you're supposed to. It takes the fun out of things.
Happy birthday.
--
Julian Day <ac...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca>
http://members.shaw.ca/jcday/
John Rowat
> I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
Oh dear lord, I'm old.
-John (what are you doing HERE?
Go out! Have fun! Find hot
monkey sex!)
--
Sometimes, you just have to grin and try again with a fresher corpse and
slight changes to the formula.
-The Onion Horoscopes, Feb 13 2002.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
Ye gads, you're young.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Melissa Basinger
: I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
:
:
Happy Birthday
Melissa
Juuso Heimonen
news:20020423144938...@mb-ci.aol.com...
: I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
"You gotta keep one eye looking over your shoulder.
You know it's going to get harder, and harder, and harder as you get older.
And in the end you'll pack up and fly down south,
Hide your head in the sand,
Just another sad old man,
All alone and dying of cancer."
Happy Birthday in any case =)
--
Juuso Heimonen / juuso.h...@gmx.co.uk
rachel walmsley
> I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
You're younger than I am? Gah. I know that most of the people
here are pimply teens but I figured you for slightly older than
me. Goes to show what I know.
Oh yes, and happy birthday. Or something.
(once a year we celebrate
with stupid hats and plastic plates
the fact that you were able to make
another trip around the sun
-- The Arrogant Worms
that song seems to quite nicely sum up my feelings
about birthdays. Except my last one that is. I got
a cheque for a new computer then, which is *clearly*
worthwhile.)
rw
--
http://www.quoth.org.uk/ - Quoth the Rachel... /////
Bringing giant hedgehogs to the , o__///////
common steamroller since 2001 O=O___\'///////___
"my foo's got no bar!" "then how does it baz?" "quux!"
Karkadinn
S'funny. In this rping program I'm on a fair amount, a few people knew it was
my birthday, and they were commenting about how they'd expected me to be
YOUNGER. Heh. Just goes to show that people's maturity levels can rise or
fall in any given setting, I guess.
(Really, I'm scary on there when I'm bored. I go around singing karaoke and
decorating random strangers as Christmas trees.)
Sam Blanning
>
Angelo Braz
>I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
Happy birthday! Now go give your mother a hug, she deserves that ;)
Angelo
PS: I'm 23, and I don't feel much more mature... Rumours say that
thing comes only at 30 years old, or so... :p
Cody Hatch
ci.aol.com>:
>I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
Hmmm, I've got a cofee mug somewhere that says "You're only young once, but
you can be immature forever." Words to live by. :-)
In any case, happy birthday.
Cody
matija
> I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
::hands shawn a sixpack of budweiser::
--
the yeti loves to drink shnaps too, so he's like a real shaman... he, uhm,
uh, if you want to contact him, you have to put some alcoholic offerings in
front of the forest. [-mystery of the yeti]
address is scrambled - remove SPAMISEVIL to reply
Julian Day
>As roses wither, so does Karkadinn:
>
>> I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
>
>Oh dear lord, I'm old.
>
> -John (what are you doing HERE?
> Go out! Have fun! Find hot
> monkey sex!)
He may not be fortunate enough to have someone to provide birthday
monkey sex.
John Rowat
> On 23 Apr 2002 19:32:43 GMT, John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote:
>>As roses wither, so does Karkadinn:
>>> I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
>>
>>Oh dear lord, I'm old.
>>
>> -John (what are you doing HERE?
>> Go out! Have fun! Find hot
>> monkey sex!)
> He may not be fortunate enough to have someone to provide birthday
> monkey sex.
They can be found. He's 21 and in the states, and trophy geeks are the
"in thing" lately.
Go out. Meet hot-monkey-sex MOTAS if necessary.
-John
Kazoo King
"Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:aa4e2k$9mv$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
My god you're old... ;)
Karkadinn
>::hands shawn a sixpack of budweiser::
::hands it back::
Thanks, but I prefer red wine.
::pause, shudder::
And stop calling me... Shawn...
Karkadinn
>>>> I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
>>>
>>>Oh dear lord, I'm old.
>>>
>>> -John (what are you doing HERE?
>>> Go out! Have fun! Find hot
>>> monkey sex!)
>
>> He may not be fortunate enough to have someone to provide birthday
>> monkey sex.
>
>They can be found. He's 21 and in the states, and trophy geeks are the
>"in thing" lately.
>
>Go out. Meet hot-monkey-sex MOTAS if necessary.
Uh... as interesting as my prospective sex life is to y'all, I'm afraid to
burst your bubble: the only women I'll be having hot monkey sex with without
being married to her is whoever I fantasize about in my dreams.
(And I hate it when that happens, actually... it gets me depressed. x_x)
(And as a completely irrelevant sidenote, I got four games for thirty bucks
today. Both the Fallouts, Thief 2, and Anachronox. Go me. I have enough
gameplay to last me a while and still have a hundred bucks left over.)
(And no, I'm not going to use the money left to visit a hooker, in case
anyone's wondering. :P)
Karkadinn
>Happy birthday! Now go give your mother a hug, she deserves that ;)
I did, actually. :)
Dimensional
"Karkadinn" <kark...@aol.com> wrote in message
> I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
HaPpY BiRtHdAY
don't worry about the maturity thing anyway - maturity is overrated.
Maturity comes with responsibility and who wants that?
Jeremy
John Rowat
>>Go out. Meet hot-monkey-sex MOTAS if necessary.
> Uh... as interesting as my prospective sex life is to y'all, I'm afraid to
> burst your bubble: the only women I'll be having hot monkey sex with without
> being married to her is whoever I fantasize about in my dreams.
You're young. This will change.
> (And as a completely irrelevant sidenote, I got four games for thirty bucks
> today. Both the Fallouts, Thief 2, and Anachronox. Go me. I have enough
> gameplay to last me a while and still have a hundred bucks left over.)
Note to self: Kill you, take Thief 2. It's surprisingly hard to find
around these parts, and Thief 1 won't run on my machine any more. It's
depressing. I like Thief.
matija
> >::hands shawn a sixpack of budweiser::
>
> ::hands it back::
> Thanks, but I prefer red wine.
::hands a ton of delicate and moldy french cheese to go
with the wine::
> ::pause, shudder::
> And stop calling me... Shawn...
why? :(
Karkadinn
>> Uh... as interesting as my prospective sex life is to y'all, I'm afraid to
>> burst your bubble: the only women I'll be having hot monkey sex with
>without
>> being married to her is whoever I fantasize about in my dreams.
>
>You're young. This will change.
It's not a matter of me being unattractive (although I AM, of course...). I'm
just not going to outgrow my moral code. ;P
>Note to self: Kill you, take Thief 2. It's surprisingly hard to find
>around these parts, and Thief 1 won't run on my machine any more. It's
>depressing. I like Thief.
I wonder if I could manage to copy the cds. You could always just send some
cash straight to the company as payment.
What's wrong with ordering online?
Kazoo King
> It's not a matter of me being unattractive (although I AM, of course...).
I'm
> just not going to outgrow my moral code. ;P
I was voted must-unlikely-to-get-laid-ever back in my Highschool. I had one
of those silly moral code things. Had. I'm still a God-fearing Christian
and all that stuff but until the dude comes down and says to me : Thou shalt
not poke that poonani", or something to that effect...
Karkadinn
>::hands a ton of delicate and moldy french cheese to go
> with the wine::
Woohoo!
::loves his cheese:;
>> ::pause, shudder::
>> And stop calling me... Shawn...
>
> why? :(
Because it's a one syllable name. Monosyllabic names have no dignity. I
cherish my two syllables.
@_@
Karkadinn
>I was voted must-unlikely-to-get-laid-ever back in my Highschool. I had one
>of those silly moral code things. Had. I'm still a God-fearing Christian
>and all that stuff but until the dude comes down and says to me : Thou shalt
>not poke that poonani", or something to that effect...
>
::shruggle::
There's a REASON why there's a zillion different flavors of Christianity. But
I take my beliefs seriously. If I ever have sex before marriage I'll probably
be so depressed afterwards that I'll kill myself. It's one of the emotionally
higher level rules for me, on the "Break it and you will have no self-respect
for yourself anymore" platform.
David Chapman
news:aa5opt$343$1...@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca...
> As roses wither, so does Karkadinn:
>> John Rowat said:
>
>>> Go out. Meet hot-monkey-sex MOTAS if necessary.
>
>> Uh... as interesting as my prospective sex life is to y'all, I'm
>> afraid to burst your bubble: the only women I'll be having hot
>> monkey sex with without being married to her is whoever I fantasize
>> about in my dreams.
>
> You're young. This will change.
>
>> (And as a completely irrelevant sidenote, I got four games for
>> thirty bucks today. Both the Fallouts, Thief 2, and Anachronox. Go
>> me. I have enough gameplay to last me a while and still have a
>> hundred bucks left over.)
>
> Note to self: Kill you, take Thief 2. It's surprisingly hard to find
> around these parts,
Thief 2 is readily available in the UK. Just don't ask me to get
it for you, as I still haven't got those bloody books for Juuso;
I'm awful when it comes to that kind of thing.
--
"Do you just keep your newbies locked up in cages all alone?"
"Of course! That's what pets are for!"
David Chapman
> Kazoo King said:
>
>> I was voted must-unlikely-to-get-laid-ever back in my Highschool. I
>> had one of those silly moral code things. Had. I'm still a God-
>> fearing Christian and all that stuff but until the dude comes down
>> and says to me : Thou shalt not poke that poonani", or something to
>> that effect...
>>
>
>>> shruggle::
> There's a REASON why there's a zillion different flavors of
> Christianity. But I take my beliefs seriously. If I ever have sex
> before marriage I'll probably be so depressed afterwards that I'll
> kill myself.
If only because you realise you've been missing out for quite
a few years.
It's one of the emotionally higher level rules for me,
> on the "Break it and you will have no self-respect for yourself
> anymore" platform.
Can you point me to the "no sex before marriage" prohibition
in the Bible?
Karkadinn
>Can you point me to the "no sex before marriage" prohibition
>in the Bible?
You know, it's rather amusing... I was browsing all the verses I recalled,
ready to prove my beliefs, and then I realized that all the verses talked about
"sexual immorality" without being explicit about whether or not it meant sex
outside of marriage was to be included in that rather vague phrase. I nearly
had myself a panic attack/crisis of faith/plummet into depression/whatever you
care to call it, but decided to see if Google could help me with the
translation before I got too freaked out. Five seconds later, I came up with
the following:
http://www.twopaths.com/faq_premaritalsex.htm
Thank you, Google.
Will Thompson
>John Rowat said:
>
>>> Uh... as interesting as my prospective sex life is to y'all, I'm afraid to
>>> burst your bubble: the only women I'll be having hot monkey sex with
>>without
>>> being married to her is whoever I fantasize about in my dreams.
>>
>>You're young. This will change.
>
>It's not a matter of me being unattractive (although I AM, of course...). I'm
>just not going to outgrow my moral code. ;P
>
>>Note to self: Kill you, take Thief 2. It's surprisingly hard to find
>>around these parts, and Thief 1 won't run on my machine any more. It's
>>depressing. I like Thief.
>
You want to come to the UK. My city centre is full of the things. I've
even seen a couple of non-budget copies recently ;-) I love it too.
Can't get enough of it...
--
Will Thompson
Change 'me' to 'will' to reply by e-mail.
Nicholas Taylor
> > (And as a completely irrelevant sidenote, I got four games for
> > thirty bucks today. Both the Fallouts, Thief 2, and Anachronox.
> > Go me. I have enough gameplay to last me a while and still have a
> > hundred bucks left over.)
>
> Note to self: Kill you, take Thief 2. It's surprisingly hard to find
> around these parts, and Thief 1 won't run on my machine any more. It's
> depressing. I like Thief.
What does Thief 1 dislike about your machine? I'm now very afraid to
upgrade - I haven't finished Thief 1 yet...
On the Thief 2 front, Eidos seem to be willing to sell it on their
website, though it's US$30, and I know they've released it as part of
their budget range. I don't know how they feel about flinging it
.ca-wards, never having been in a position to find out.
--
Nicholas Taylor
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the
eyeballs on coffee.
matija
> >> And stop calling me... Shawn...
> >
> > why? :(
>
> Because it's a one syllable name. Monosyllabic names have no dignity. I
> cherish my two syllables. @_@
i have three. beat that.
Karkadinn
>> >> And stop calling me... Shawn...
>> >
>> > why? :(
>>
>> Because it's a one syllable name. Monosyllabic names have no dignity. I
>> cherish my two syllables. @_@
>
> i have three. beat that.
Damn you.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> David Chapman said:
>>Can you point me to the "no sex before marriage" prohibition
>>in the Bible?
IIRC, it's generally derived from Corinthians 1, Chapter 6. Verses 15-17,
from the New international Version:
"15.Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?
Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a
prostitute? Never!
16.Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one
with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
17.But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit."
Essentially, the attitude is that sex is marriage on some level,
dammit--the two becoming one flesh, a reference back to Genesis, which
explains the understanding of a man and woman becoming one flesh upon
marrying as being based on Adam and Eve being of one flesh--so if you're
going to do it you'd better do it properly. Which usually means
undergoing the marriage ceremony. Exceptions are reputed to have been
made where appropriate (witness Adan and Eve themselves, for example).
In addition to which, the body is a temple and a representation of Christ,
so don't get slutty (in the original sense, i.e. dirty, unclean) with it.
It's disrespectful, to both you and Christ.
> You know, it's rather amusing... I was browsing all the verses I recalled,
> ready to prove my beliefs, and then I realized that all the verses talked about
> "sexual immorality" without being explicit about whether or not it meant sex
> outside of marriage was to be included in that rather vague phrase. I nearly
> had myself a panic attack/crisis of faith/plummet into depression/whatever you
> care to call it, but decided to see if Google could help me with the
> translation before I got too freaked out. Five seconds later, I came up with
> the following:
> http://www.twopaths.com/faq_premaritalsex.htm
Worth pointing out, IMHO, that--especially coming from the same site
that manages to never answer the question of whether the KJV is the
"most authentic", on a page specifically devoted to answering that
question, and manages to imply that the only reason one would ever use
another version is because of the archaic English (although they
actually concede that there were "many minor corrections"
made)--a claim that _porneia_ "almost certainly" includes pre-marital sex
is not a very reliable one.
Especially when some etymological websites (dear gods, I need to get
to a decent reference work) identify 'porneia' as meaning 'prostitution'.
Regarding the last sentance on that page: Emotional damage is a valid
concern, and the jackass who tells you you're wrong or stupid for not
wanting to have sex under particular circumstances is just that. But
risks of disease and unwanted pregnancy don't vanish when you put on a
wedding ring.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Julian Day
<mSkPr...@jaIgSor.srEcVe.IhLr> wrote:
>Karkadinn, completely geschtonkenflapped, wrote:
>> >> And stop calling me... Shawn...
>> >
>> > why? :(
>>
>> Because it's a one syllable name. Monosyllabic names have no dignity. I
>> cherish my two syllables. @_@
>
> i have three. beat that.
I also have three. Mine is a good name.
John Rowat
> Monosyllabic names have no dignity. I cherish my two syllables.
Smile when you say that.
John Rowat
> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> writes:
>> Note to self: Kill you, take Thief 2. It's surprisingly hard to find
>> around these parts, and Thief 1 won't run on my machine any more. It's
>> depressing. I like Thief.
> What does Thief 1 dislike about your machine? I'm now very afraid to
> upgrade - I haven't finished Thief 1 yet...
My video card. Voodoo3 does not seem to agree with it - it crashes
immediately after starting, every time.
I never finished 1, either. I got very far along, but not to the end,
every time I played it. The fact that my favourite levels are the first
few didn't help. (Bonehoard BAD. Bafford GOOOD.)
> On the Thief 2 front, Eidos seem to be willing to sell it on their
> website, though it's US$30, and I know they've released it as part of
> their budget range. I don't know how they feel about flinging it
> .ca-wards, never having been in a position to find out.
I'd just have to pay in American, I'm sure.
My objection to ordering online is a principle thing. It's like refusing
to use Interac at a fast food restaurant.
Cody Hatch
<aa5opt$343$1...@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca>:
>As roses wither, so does Karkadinn:
>
>> (And as a completely irrelevant sidenote, I got four games for thirty
>> bucks today. Both the Fallouts, Thief 2, and Anachronox. Go me. I
>> have enough gameplay to last me a while and still have a hundred bucks
>> left over.)
>
>Note to self: Kill you, take Thief 2. It's surprisingly hard to find
>around these parts, and Thief 1 won't run on my machine any more. It's
>depressing. I like Thief.
Thief 2 is definetly better. Fewer bugs, and much nicer levels and
missions.
I bought both Thief games 2nd hand for $20 from Switchouse a month or two
ago. Since they've now folded, I'd recommend checking out one of the many
alternatives. Random examples: Amazon selling Thief 2 used for $15,
Half.com used for $13 (including shipping). Also, dragon.ca is selling it
new for $35 canadian.
Cody
Dai
Karkadinn's post instead:
> (And as a completely irrelevant sidenote, I got four games for thirty bucks
> today. Both the Fallouts, Thief 2, and Anachronox. Go me. I have enough
> gameplay to last me a while and still have a hundred bucks left over.)
> (And no, I'm not going to use the money left to visit a hooker, in case
> anyone's wondering. :P)
>
I enjoyed Anachronox so much, I didn't even think about playing Adom
until I'd finished it. Of course, the RNG had its revenge...
Anyway, happy birthday.
--
Dai - http://www.daiswebsite.fsnet.co.uk
I don't try to guess what a million people will like. It's hard
enough to know what I like. - John Huston
David Chapman
> Karkadinn (kark...@aol.com) writes:
>> David Chapman said:
>
>>> Can you point me to the "no sex before marriage" prohibition
>>> in the Bible?
>
> IIRC, it's generally derived from Corinthians 1, Chapter 6. Verses
> 15-17, from the New international Version:
> "15.Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?
> Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a
> prostitute? Never!
> 16.Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is
> one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one
> flesh." 17.But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him
> in spirit."
OK, I'll just nip off and fuck God, then.
I've always been a little leary of any Biblical argument that
relies on any of the New Testament outside the Gospels. It's
not based on the word of Christ. I'm especially leary of any
argument that calls any woman who has sex outside marriage
a whore (and thus, a lesser person). JC never said this, and
he damn well never treated whores as lesser people. This
is one of Paul's Finer Rants, I think.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> IIRC, it's generally derived from Corinthians 1, Chapter 6. Verses
>> 15-17, from the New international Version:
>> "15.Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?
>> Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a
>> prostitute? Never!
>> 16.Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is
>> one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one
>> flesh." 17.But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him
>> in spirit."
> OK, I'll just nip off and fuck God, then.
Good luck. From what I've heard, you tend to die of that. Actually, you
tend to die from even looking at one properly (cool ways to get rid of
your husband's girlfriend if your husband happens to be Zeus: convince
them that the want to see what he looks like).
> I've always been a little leary of any Biblical argument that
> relies on any of the New Testament outside the Gospels. It's
> not based on the word of Christ.
Given the number of translations, the lack of complete original
manuscripts, the difference in languages and conveyable concepts, the
fact that English is evolving, all the bits that got snipped out, and
sundry other details, I am a little leery about the odds of anything being
an accurate representation of the original document. Wether or not the
original document was an accurate record of the words of Yeshua ben Miriam
and wether or not he was the Messiah are questions I'm not going to get
into.
> I'm especially leary of any
> argument that calls any woman who has sex outside marriage
> a whore (and thus, a lesser person).
Heads up: it doesn't.
It says if you have sex with a prostitute, then you and that prostitute
are of one flesh, as you would be in marriage. It does not say that
having sex outside of marriage makes you a prostitute.
<appropriate religious POV>
Now, given that God blesses/enters into/converts/alters/what-have-you a
man and a woman during the marriage ceremony, it's generally okay for
them to be of one flesh. They got rehauled during the liminal phase of
the ritual. The installation of FleshUnity 1.0.0 was overseen by a
competent professional in accordance with the MarriageFormat documents.
It's all good.
Becoming of one flesh without God--and given the nature of the work
involved, a higher being is kind of needed to oversee it; not only do
humans not perceive metaphysics very well, but they tend to be concerned
with the slippery bits during sex--around to help you through the process
is dangerous, simply because you're not qualified to do it on your own.
</POV>
In addition to which, if you look at the context of the time as best as
can be determined, Paul was attempting to explain the tenets of the faith
to the Corinthians. Temple prostitution was what he was ranting about, as
it was one of the more accepted forms--and he was ranting about it not
only because it was sex outside of marriage but because it was sex with
an unbeliever. Therefore, not only are you doing it without ensuring
you'll get the necessary metaphysical help, but you're doing it with
someone who, even if you do get it, can't receive the necessary
metaphysical help. Money for sex wasn't an issue--metaphysically unsafe
sex with an unbeliever was.
> JC never said this, and
> he damn well never treated whores as lesser people. This
> is one of Paul's Finer Rants, I think.
While you don't adhere to it, you're the one who brought the viewpoint of
"She is a prostitute, therefore she is a lesser person" to the argument,
not Paul. Paul doesn't maintain that a prostitute is less than another
person, only that having sex without benefit of marriage is an affront to
both you and Christ--moreso when the person you are having sex with does
not accept Christ (as in the case of a temple prostitute) and so cannot be
properly married.
Love and coffee,
Frances (no, not a Christian)
Angelo Braz
Jesus said that a man (not talking about a married man) who that have
lustful thought about a woman, is already sinning in his heart.
Also says that fornication is a sin.
And two questions:
1) Why would you not consider marrying the woman before having sex?
If the answer is that you
don't know her well enough to be able to answer that question, I would
suggest the same answer applys to having sex with her.
2) If you would consider marrying the woman, why not wait until
marriage? If
the answer is "because I miss sex and want to get my groove on" then
you
should ask yourself if this is an expression of love or
self-gratification.
Angelo Braz
>> There's a REASON why there's a zillion different flavors of
>> Christianity. But I take my beliefs seriously. If I ever have sex
>> before marriage I'll probably be so depressed afterwards that I'll
>> kill myself.
>
>If only because you realise you've been missing out for quite
>a few years.
>
You are the one who is loosing something very special. Have you
thought about that?
Arglefex
Angelo Braz wrote in message ...
Given the discussion at hand, this seems like a rather comical time for
a loosing vs. losing mispelling.
matija
> >> I cherish my two syllables. @_@
> >
> > i have three. beat that.
>
> I also have three. Mine is a good name.
i once dated a girl named julijana. mmm... beautiful name.
she had big ... eyes.
Sam Blanning
"Angelo Braz" <angel...@clix.pt> wrote in message
news:ht5ecucitfr1fikd6...@4ax.com...
Since you obviously have, maybe you'd like to tell us about it.
Sam Blanning
"matija" <mSkPr...@jaIgSor.srEcVe.IhLr> wrote in message
news:MPG.1730b1a0f...@news.carnet.hr...
> > >>
> > >> And stop calling me... Shawn...
> > >
> > > why? :(
> >
> > Because it's a one syllable name. Monosyllabic names have no dignity.
I
> > cherish my two syllables. @_@
>
> i have three. beat that.
>
(I have two. But I prefer the monosyllabic version. Dignity, fine, but I
prefer a name which you can't misspell.)
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Jesus said that a man (not talking about a married man) who that have
> lustful thought about a woman, is already sinning in his heart.
Actually, he said "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman
lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew
5:28, NIV). It says nothing about the man not being married. Being
married only guarantees that you're committing adultery in your heart
every time you lust after someone you're not married to.
> Also says that fornication is a sin.
"Pornea" or "porneia", the word used in the Bible that is translated
"fornication" or "sexual immorality", means harlotry (including
adultery and incest). On a figurative level, it means idolatry, or
breaking God's laws about sex. Breaking God's laws about anything is a
sin.
> And two questions:
> 1) Why would you not consider marrying the woman before having sex?
> If the answer is that you
> don't know her well enough to be able to answer that question, I would
> suggest the same answer applys to having sex with her.
Entirely possible. However, you can not consider marrying him before
having sex because you're simply not interested in getting married.
> 2) If you would consider marrying the woman, why not wait until
> marriage? If
> the answer is "because I miss sex and want to get my groove on" then
> you
> should ask yourself if this is an expression of love or
> self-gratification.
Would somebody mind explaining to me what, exactly, is wrong with mutually
consenting to indulge in self-gratification?
Love and coffee,
Frances (Leviticus law-breaker)
Will Thompson
>
>>> >> And stop calling me... Shawn...
>>> >
>>> > why? :(
>>>
>>> Because it's a one syllable name. Monosyllabic names have no dignity. I
>>> cherish my two syllables. @_@
>>
>> i have three. beat that.
>
>Damn you.
Hang on. Kar-Ka-Dinn. I count three. Oh, you mean your _real_ name.
Hehe. I have three also. :-P
matija
> > > I cherish my two syllables. @_@
> >
> > i have three. beat that.
> >
> Can we call you Matt?
yeah. you probably can't pronounce my real name, so this is ok :)
> (I have two. But I prefer the monosyllabic version. Dignity, fine, but I
> prefer a name which you can't misspell.)
two? if your name is samuel, you have three. no ... sammy?!?
David Chapman
Ah, no sex. I've always wanted one of those.
Seriously; I don't believe in waiting for marriage, but that
doesn't mean I hop into bed with just anybody. I still
insist on affection with my nookie.
David Chapman
> "David Chapman" (evil...@madasafish.com) writes:
>> I'm especially leary of any
>> argument that calls any woman who has sex outside marriage
>> a whore (and thus, a lesser person).
>
> Heads up: it doesn't.
>
> It says if you have sex with a prostitute, then you and that
> prostitute are of one flesh, as you would be in marriage. It does
> not say that having sex outside of marriage makes you a prostitute.
It doesn't specifically state that, no. But when you use it as an
argument for not having sex outside marriage, it does.
Kassandra Velez
>*snip a bunch of people saying how young I am*
>
>S'funny. In this rping program I'm on a fair amount, a few people knew it was
>my birthday, and they were commenting about how they'd expected me to be
>YOUNGER. Heh. Just goes to show that people's maturity levels can rise or
>fall in any given setting, I guess.
>(Really, I'm scary on there when I'm bored. I go around singing karaoke and
>decorating random strangers as Christmas trees.)
*snerk* Happy slightly belated birthday, in any case. :)
John Rowat
> Angelo Braz (angel...@clix.pt) writes:
>> 2) If you would consider marrying the woman, why not wait until
>> marriage? If
>> the answer is "because I miss sex and want to get my groove on" then
>> you
>> should ask yourself if this is an expression of love or
>> self-gratification.
> Would somebody mind explaining to me what, exactly, is wrong with mutually
> consenting to indulge in self-gratification?
Pleasure that doesn't come from the church is sin. After all, you're more
likely to give money in the hopes of a better life after death if you're
miserable in this one.
Buying indulgences, my ass.
> Frances (Leviticus law-breaker)
You and your wearing of multiple fabrics!
-John, without the patience to
argue seriously in this thread.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>>> I'm especially leary of any
>>> argument that calls any woman who has sex outside marriage
>>> a whore (and thus, a lesser person).
>> Heads up: it doesn't.
>> It says if you have sex with a prostitute, then you and that
>> prostitute are of one flesh, as you would be in marriage. It does
>> not say that having sex outside of marriage makes you a prostitute.
> It doesn't specifically state that, no. But when you use it as an
> argument for not having sex outside marriage, it does.
No, actually, it doesn't.
It says that if you have sex with a prostitute, you and the prostitute
will be of one flesh. If you have sex with a seamstress, you and that
seamstress will be of one flesh. If you have sex with a computer
programmer, you and that computer programmer will be of one flesh. Deal.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> As roses wither, so does Frances Kathleen Moffatt:
>> Frances (Leviticus law-breaker)
> You and your wearing of multiple fabrics!
That and the tattoo... Hey, did you know you're not supposed to cut the
hair on the sides of your head?
Those poor damned mullet-wearers.
Love and coffee,
Frances (heavily tongue-in-cheek)
Cody Hatch
<oh5ecugk8fv1e7gu0...@4ax.com>:
>And two questions:
>
>1) Why would you not consider marrying the woman before having sex?
>If the answer is that you
>don't know her well enough to be able to answer that question, I would
>suggest the same answer applys to having sex with her.
What if you don't want to marry her because you don't know what the sex is
like? Or to be slightly more serious, marriage always has serious and
long-term consequences. Sex doesn't, unless you, heh, screw up.
In fact, I seriously object to the idea that sex and marriage are equally
serious, not because I think that sex isn't that serious (or not entirely),
but because I think marriage isn't that trivial. I think a lot of very
unhappy mariages got started that way.
>2) If you would consider marrying the woman, why not wait until
>marriage? If
>the answer is "because I miss sex and want to get my groove on" then
>you
>should ask yourself if this is an expression of love or
>self-gratification.
And what if you wouldn't consider marrying her? Sex, when divorced from
the reproductive act, is a lot like two people giving each other a back
massage, just a lot MORE so. Morality doesn't need to enter in to it.
Further, you imply that sex-without-marriage is good if it's an expression
of love, and bad if it's just mutual gratification (I assume you don't mean
self-gratification, since we're discussing sex, not masturbation). But not
only is it often damaging when it *IS* about love, it's often MORE
damaging. The more important something is, the sharper it can cut. :-/
And in any case, it's certainly not clear why it would have to be damaging
if it's "just" mutual gratification.
Or to be blunt, get a life. Like most stuff, sex is only as important as
both people (or whatever) involved make it, and it's their decision. Of
course, just assuming you both agree on how serious it is tends to lead to
problems, but that's neither here nor there.
Cody
Totto
news:MPG.172ff3889...@news.carnet.hr:
> Karkadinn, completely geschtonkenflapped, wrote:
>> I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
>
> ::hands shawn a sixpack of budweiser::
Unless that be of the *Czeck*, I feel a burning necessity to comment on
American beers and their similarity to lovemaking in a canoe.
*hands over a sixpack of Guinness. Sheesh!*
;)
- Totto
Karkadinn
I swear to God I didn't mean to start this.
::shudder::
--
Signing off as Stephen Mackey, the Multi-Threaded RFE Database Liaison.
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
John Rowat
> matija <mSkPr...@jaIgSor.srEcVe.IhLr> wrote in
>> Karkadinn, completely geschtonkenflapped, wrote:
>>> I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
>>
>> ::hands shawn a sixpack of budweiser::
> Unless that be of the *Czeck*, I feel a burning necessity to comment on
> American beers and their similarity to lovemaking in a canoe.
I disagree. Horse piss is significantly different from water.
-John
John Rowat
> 1) Why would you not consider marrying the woman before having sex?
> 2) If you would consider marrying the woman, why not wait until
> marriage?
The answer to both questions is the same; what if she's a really lousy
lay?
Would *you* want to get stuck with the world's worst fleshsmacker for as
long as it takes for the divorce proceedings to go through?
-John
--
Maybe I shouldn't bait the newbie.
Yeah, right, like that's ever stopped me before.
Sam Blanning
>
> > 2) If you would consider marrying the woman, why not wait until
> > marriage? If
> > the answer is "because I miss sex and want to get my groove on" then
> > you
> > should ask yourself if this is an expression of love or
> > self-gratification.
>
> Would somebody mind explaining to me what, exactly, is wrong with mutually
> consenting to indulge in self-gratification?
>
your power over someone is to make them suffer; otherwise, how do you know
that they are obeying your commands and not theirs?
Sam Blanning
"matija" <mSkPr...@jaIgSor.srEcVe.IhLr> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > I cherish my two syllables. @_@
> > >
> > > i have three. beat that.
> > >
> > prefer a name which you can't misspell.)
>
> two? if your name is samuel, you have three. no ... sammy?!?
>
Sam Blanning
"Karkadinn" <kark...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020425022417...@mb-cj.aol.com...
> *snip a long debate about sex*
>
> I swear to God I didn't mean to start this.
> ::shudder::
>
some religious troll.
Olli "Shader" Juhala
>Kazoo King said:
>
>>I was voted must-unlikely-to-get-laid-ever back in my Highschool. I had one
>>of those silly moral code things. Had. I'm still a God-fearing Christian
>>and all that stuff but until the dude comes down and says to me : Thou shalt
>>not poke that poonani", or something to that effect...
>>
>
>::shruggle::
>There's a REASON why there's a zillion different flavors of Christianity. But
>I take my beliefs seriously. If I ever have sex before marriage I'll probably
>be so depressed afterwards that I'll kill myself. It's one of the emotionally
>higher level rules for me, on the "Break it and you will have no self-respect
>for yourself anymore" platform.
You know, if I was completly bored, I could take this as an opportunity to
start a discussion to religion, ethics, morality and whatnot in general, but I
won't.
Or, what the heck, I'll bite.
Generally speaking, I have no problem with people believing in stuff, and
having moral codes of their own. But founding ones ethics on a religion, and
Christianity in general, has always seemed bit, well, pointless to me.
Especially those beliefs which are based on Bible alone. Now, what is the
BIble, apart from a book, written by people 2000 odd years ago, from said
peoples point of view, and coloured by said peoples own moral codes? How it
applies in any way to modern life is well beyond me, apart from the most
general sense. Thou shalt not kill, for example, but that should be obvious to
anyone. THe fact that it's not, only shows humanity is stupid.
Apart from being the basis of christian belief, Bible is also an epoch, not
quite unlike Edda, or similar works of cultural heritage. And like Edda,
Kalevala, and whatnot, I'll bet my hairy ass that when the Bible was
originally put together, there was a quiet little committee of quiet little
men who made sure that the parts of the original texts which did not conform
to their belief, and since they were quiet little men working in dark, smoky
rooms and sitting on comfortable chairs, the belief was *everyones* belief,
were carefully edited out.
And this brings the whole Bible's validity as a foundation of ethics to
question. So, if you don't believe in sex before marriage, which is propably
just another silly convention invented by someone with serious social issues,
then that's fine. Good for you. Great that there are people who show some
moral backbone, even if their morals aren't the same as others. But why bother
trying to justify it whit something as artificial as religion?
--
Olli "Shader" Juhala
"The only good goth is a shoggoth..."
-- Alistair J.R. Young
sha...@SPAMNOT.surffi.net, ICQ# 81231128
David Chapman
news:aa87ki$o3r$2...@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca...
> As roses wither, so does Totto:
>> matija <mSkPr...@jaIgSor.srEcVe.IhLr> wrote in
>>> Karkadinn, completely geschtonkenflapped, wrote:
>
>>>> I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
>>>
>>> ::hands shawn a sixpack of budweiser::
>
>> Unless that be of the *Czeck*, I feel a burning necessity to comment
>> on American beers and their similarity to lovemaking in a canoe.
>
> I disagree. Horse piss is significantly different from water.
And describing American beer as horse-piss is a woeful
overestimation of both their strength and their taste.
David Chapman
> As roses wither, so does Angelo Braz:
>
>> 1) Why would you not consider marrying the woman before having sex?
>> 2) If you would consider marrying the woman, why not wait until
>> marriage?
>
> The answer to both questions is the same; what if she's a really
> lousy lay?
>
> Would *you* want to get stuck with the world's worst fleshsmacker for
> as long as it takes for the divorce proceedings to go through?
Ah, but he's a righteous man, John. He doesn't believe
in divorce.
David Chapman
And by saying sex outside marriage is a sin, you say
that all of these are equally bad; that a computer
programmer is no better than a prostitute [1]. You
make no distinction between paying for sex and
receiving it from someone you love, but just happen
not to be married to.
[1] Not that there aren't certain similarities...
matija
> > > prefer a name which you can't misspell.)
> >
> > two? if your name is samuel, you have three. no ... sammy?!?
>
> Most people I know pronounce it 'Sam-you'll', not 'Sam-you-ell'.
well, now you know someone who doesn't :)
jeez, we're SOOO offtopic here ...
matija
> > ::hands shawn a sixpack of budweiser::
>
> Unless that be of the *Czeck*, I feel a burning necessity to comment on
> American beers and their similarity to lovemaking in a canoe.
i once did it in a small boat. canoes should be even more fun.
> *hands over a sixpack of Guinness. Sheesh!*
the only good beer is actually vodka.
VampiricAngel
> even seen a couple of non-budget copies recently ;-) I love it too.
> Can't get enough of it...
I Have to step in here and totally agree..I can't walk through
Birmingham (UK) without falling over all the thieves hanging about
street corner's. ;-)
And on a side note; The bible's the worst work of fiction ive EVER
read, shame the front page of it was lost,
"All characters, places and event's in this work are fictious, and
bear no relation to any person or people alive or dead."
A greater cause of world wide povety, war and oppression has never
existed that in any way equals the church!!
Juuso Heimonen
news:aa87ia$o3r$1...@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca...
: Would *you* want to get stuck with the world's worst fleshsmacker for as
: long as it takes for the divorce proceedings to go through?
What if they love each other?
Anyway, why is this Thread still called "monkey sex"? =)
--
Juuso Heimonen / juuso.h...@gmx.co.uk
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> As roses wither, so does Totto:
>> matija <mSkPr...@jaIgSor.srEcVe.IhLr> wrote in
>>> Karkadinn, completely geschtonkenflapped, wrote:
>>>> I'm twenty-one now. Hm. Funny, I don't feel any more mature.
>>> ::hands shawn a sixpack of budweiser::
>> Unless that be of the *Czeck*, I feel a burning necessity to comment on
>> American beers and their similarity to lovemaking in a canoe.
> I disagree. Horse piss is significantly different from water.
Especially when said horse has diabetes.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:aa7q9s$5dm$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> "David Chapman" (evil...@madasafish.com) writes:
>>> Frances Kathleen Moffatt <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>>>> "David Chapman" (evil...@madasafish.com) writes:
>>>>> I'm especially leary of any
>>>>> argument that calls any woman who has sex outside marriage
>>>>> a whore (and thus, a lesser person).
>>>> Heads up: it doesn't.
>>>> It says if you have sex with a prostitute, then you and that
>>>> prostitute are of one flesh, as you would be in marriage. It does
>>>> not say that having sex outside of marriage makes you a prostitute.
>>> It doesn't specifically state that, no. But when you use it as an
>>> argument for not having sex outside marriage, it does.
>> No, actually, it doesn't.
>> It says that if you have sex with a prostitute, you and the prostitute
>> will be of one flesh. If you have sex with a seamstress, you and that
>> seamstress will be of one flesh. If you have sex with a computer
>> programmer, you and that computer programmer will be of one flesh.
> And by saying sex outside marriage is a sin, you say
> that all of these are equally bad; that a computer
> programmer is no better than a prostitute [1].
And no worse.
> You
> make no distinction between paying for sex and
> receiving it from someone you love, but just happen
> not to be married to.
(So?)
You're right. So Paul is also saying that a prostitute is just as worthy
a person as someone you love, but happen not to be married to. Glad you
got that.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> Would somebody mind explaining to me what, exactly, is wrong with mutually
>> consenting to indulge in self-gratification?
> It's the old principle from Orwell's '1984'. The only real way to assert
> your power over someone is to make them suffer; otherwise, how do you know
> that they are obeying your commands and not theirs?
*blink blink*
I'm still a little tired, but I think it sounds as if you're discussing a
rather odd form of self-gratification rather than portraying the concept
that "something is wrong with self-gratification" as a way for a religious
organization to assert its power.
(Which, BTW, is something I'm going to bitch about now: the assumption
that the Church is a big bad *eeevil* organization out to ruin people's
lives. Goddamnit. Why are people so willing to attribute to malice what
can as easily be explained by human stupidity?)
Love and coffee,
Frances
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Generally speaking, I have no problem with people believing in stuff, and
> having moral codes of their own. But founding ones ethics on a religion, and
> Christianity in general, has always seemed bit, well, pointless to me.
> Especially those beliefs which are based on Bible alone. Now, what is the
> BIble, apart from a book, written by people 2000 odd years ago, from said
> peoples point of view, and coloured by said peoples own moral codes? How it
> applies in any way to modern life is well beyond me, apart from the most
> general sense. Thou shalt not kill, for example, but that should be obvious to
> anyone. THe fact that it's not, only shows humanity is stupid.
And yet there are plenty of examples of cases where it isn't evident, ad
is accepted within a society. Capital punishment. _wergild_. War.
Killing the very old with exposure. Killing daughters because sons are
more valuable.
> And this brings the whole Bible's validity as a foundation of ethics to
> question.
What, that the ethics it promotes that you don't agree with are old, and
the ethics it promotes that you do agree with you believe are so
fundamental that people should obey them regardless?
> So, if you don't believe in sex before marriage, which is propably
> just another silly convention invented by someone with serious social issues,
> then that's fine.
Actually, it seems to have a solid basis in security, property, and
definition of social roles. For most of history, the value of someone as
a spouse was determined by how clean and reliable they were (so you could
make sure she was giving birth to your children, or alternately could make
sure that he wasn't out creating people with another claim on your
security)--hell, to a large degree, it still is. Given that having sex
(especially without condoms, pills, or testing) is a wonderful way to
get (someone) pregnant--thereby screwing severly with property claims an
your own reputation for reliability--and catch diseases, sex before
marriage was generally considered a bad thing. If nothing else, it
endangered your health and qualifications.
Plus which, a child is the child of a father and a mother. If there's
been no marriage, there's no formal recognition of at least one of those
roles. Social roles are important. It's one of the reasons incest is so
badly regarded.
I would consider all of the above serious social issues, yes, but perhaps
not in the way you meant it. :)
> Good for you. Great that there are people who show some
> moral backbone, even if their morals aren't the same as others. But why bother
> trying to justify it whit something as artificial as religion?
Or as artificial as society, or upbringing, or... Oh, wait. Because when
something is a factor in the creation of your worldview, it tends to be
given weight as appropriate.
BTW, what's your justification for asserting that not killing should be
obvious, and people not following it is an example of stupidity? Just
curious, here.
Love and coffee,
Frances
rachel walmsley
> (Which, BTW, is something I'm going to bitch about now: the assumption
> that the Church is a big bad *eeevil* organization out to ruin people's
> lives. Goddamnit. Why are people so willing to attribute to malice what
> can as easily be explained by human stupidity?)
Because of human stupidity. Duh.
Personally, I prefer to consider religions as meme complexes.
But then that's probably just me...
rw
--
http://www.quoth.org.uk/ - Quoth the Rachel... /////
Bringing giant hedgehogs to the , o__///////
common steamroller since 2001 O=O___\'///////___
"my foo's got no bar!" "then how does it baz?" "quux!"
rachel walmsley
>
> "Karkadinn" <kark...@aol.com> wrote
>>
>> I swear to God I didn't mean to start this.
>> ::shudder::
>>
> The moment you started an OT thread, you agreed to far worse things than
> some religious troll.
So. How do people feel about the important moral issue that is
starting off topic threads before marriage?
David Chapman
> "David Chapman" (evil...@madasafish.com) writes:
>> You
>> make no distinction between paying for sex and
>> receiving it from someone you love, but just happen
>> not to be married to.
>
> (So?)
>
> You're right. So Paul is also saying that a prostitute is just as
> worthy a person as someone you love, but happen not to be married to.
While at the same time using prostitutes as the explicit
example of How Not To Do It. So he thought they were
as bad as you could get. No amount of obfuscation or
gerrymandering on your part is going to alter this fact.
Olli "Shader" Juhala
Moffatt) wrote
>"Olli \"Shader\" Juhala" (sha...@surffi.net) writes:
>
>> Generally speaking, I have no problem with people believing in stuff, and
>> having moral codes of their own. But founding ones ethics on a religion, and
>> Christianity in general, has always seemed bit, well, pointless to me.
>> Especially those beliefs which are based on Bible alone. Now, what is the
>> BIble, apart from a book, written by people 2000 odd years ago, from said
>> peoples point of view, and coloured by said peoples own moral codes? How it
>> applies in any way to modern life is well beyond me, apart from the most
>> general sense. Thou shalt not kill, for example, but that should be obvious to
>> anyone. THe fact that it's not, only shows humanity is stupid.
>
>And yet there are plenty of examples of cases where it isn't evident, ad
>is accepted within a society. Capital punishment. _wergild_. War.
>Killing the very old with exposure. Killing daughters because sons are
>more valuable.
Tradition and politics have rarely anything to do with ethics and morality.
Anyone who chooses either above life is wrong and should be the one living
with his decision. Life is sacred, and should not be taken from someone for
any reason. The fact that someone has sometimes done so, is no excuse to
continue the practise.
>
>> And this brings the whole Bible's validity as a foundation of ethics to
>> question.
>
>What, that the ethics it promotes that you don't agree with are old, and
>the ethics it promotes that you do agree with you believe are so
>fundamental that people should obey them regardless?
No, but because it promotes someone elses ideals. Basing your decions and
conduct to what someone else wrote down once only makes those deciosion
deceitful and invalid, since you can always say ("My god I was wrong!! It was
the Bible/Choran/Talmud/Penthouse Summer Issue that made me do it!!").
In other words: Basing your belief on anything except personal, inner
decision, is like preparing the easy way out. Backing out on someone elses
words is so much easier than backing out on yours.
>
>> So, if you don't believe in sex before marriage, which is propably
>> just another silly convention invented by someone with serious social issues,
>> then that's fine.
>
>Actually, it seems to have a solid basis in security, property, and
>definition of social roles. For most of history, the value of someone as
>a spouse was determined by how clean and reliable they were (so you could
>make sure she was giving birth to your children, or alternately could make
>sure that he wasn't out creating people with another claim on your
>security)--hell, to a large degree, it still is. Given that having sex
>(especially without condoms, pills, or testing) is a wonderful way to
>get (someone) pregnant--thereby screwing severly with property claims an
>your own reputation for reliability--and catch diseases, sex before
>marriage was generally considered a bad thing. If nothing else, it
>endangered your health and qualifications.
So, what does it matter what other people do think your about you and your
spouse. Marriage is between two people, and
>
>Plus which, a child is the child of a father and a mother. If there's
>been no marriage, there's no formal recognition of at least one of those
>roles. Social roles are important. It's one of the reasons incest is so
>badly regarded.
Social roles are trivial. They change with history. If a knew a couple, who
were obviously in love with each other, the fact that they were, for example,
a brother and a sister would be trivial. Marriage should always, *always* be
about us rather than them. Whereas as someone marrying someone for maoney,
rather than for the person is, IMHO, the ultimate perversion of marriage.
>
>I would consider all of the above serious social issues, yes, but perhaps
>not in the way you meant it. :)
Again social values and traditions have nothing to do with personal morality
and ethics. A marriage should be a an understanding and a contract between
two, hopefully sensible and living people. If the people and the law don't
extend same courtesy and rights to non-married as they do to the married, then
it's the people and law who are wrong.
>
>> Good for you. Great that there are people who show some
>> moral backbone, even if their morals aren't the same as others. But why bother
>> trying to justify it whit something as artificial as religion?
>
>Or as artificial as society, or upbringing, or... Oh, wait. Because when
>something is a factor in the creation of your worldview, it tends to be
>given weight as appropriate.
Social structers, and upbringing, while undeniably influenced by religion do
constantly change with the times. Whereas religion, barring certain exeptions,
has the tendency to stagnate, and be controlled by whoever is in the top of
it's hierarchy. Any and all religions, after the death of their originator,
become merely representations of the beliefs of it's most influential members.
Christianity today is merely a collection of 2000 years worth of interpreting
and colouring words of a man who never even wanted it to become a new
religion. The views we hold today are approprately attributed to popes and
other religious leadrs, who cose which view should be considered the correct
one, rather than to Jesus Christ.
>
>BTW, what's your justification for asserting that not killing should be
>obvious, and people not following it is an example of stupidity? Just
>curious, here.
You kill someone, they die. You kill, they die. The immediate concequences of
your actions end someone elses life. You don't want anyone to kill you, so by
that logic you can't assume anyone wants you to kill them? Killing someone
else is therefore illogical, and we do generally consider illogical things
stupid.
>
>Love and coffee,
> Frances
--
Olli "Shader" Juhala
A wand of wishing.
A BLOODY WAND OF BLOODY WISHING!
FIVE!
A BLOODY WAND OF BLOODY WISHING WITH FIVE BLOODY CHARGES!
-Wyld Karde at rec.games.roguelike.adom
sha...@SPAMNOT.surffi.net, ICQ# 81231128
Olli "Shader" Juhala
wrote
>Sam Blanning <enqu...@nationalcoursingclub.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "Karkadinn" <kark...@aol.com> wrote
>>>
>>> I swear to God I didn't mean to start this.
>>> ::shudder::
>>>
>> The moment you started an OT thread, you agreed to far worse things than
>> some religious troll.
>
>So. How do people feel about the important moral issue that is
>starting off topic threads before marriage?
>
as long as they use tags, it's fine by me :)
>rw
Sam Blanning
"rachel walmsley" <flo...@sheepish.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8709aa...@willow.local.intranet...
> >>
> >> I swear to God I didn't mean to start this.
> >> ::shudder::
> >>
> > The moment you started an OT thread, you agreed to far worse things than
> > some religious troll.
>
> So. How do people feel about the important moral issue that is
> starting off topic threads before marriage?
>
wife's name was Maacah."
This has sod-all to do with the topic at hand, but I'm not going to tell you
that. Instead I'm going to tell you that this passage clearly shows that
thou shalt not start off topic threads before marriage.
Then I'm going to proclaim that everyone should follow a very long code of
conduct which can be probably be summarized by: "don't do what I'm doing
with your money or your children".
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Personally, I prefer to consider religions as meme complexes.
> But then that's probably just me...
Hm. "Meme" is, IIRC, a piece of information that gets passed around, a
kind of memory that's spread throughout a culture?
So a meme complex would be a collection of these pieces of information,
all interconnected?
Cool. (If I've got it right, which I'm not sure I do.)
Love and coffee,
Frances
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>>> You
>>> make no distinction between paying for sex and
>>> receiving it from someone you love, but just happen
>>> not to be married to.
>> You're right. So Paul is also saying that a prostitute is just as
>> worthy a person as someone you love, but happen not to be married to.
> While at the same time using prostitutes as the explicit
> example of How Not To Do It. So he thought they were
> as bad as you could get. No amount of obfuscation or
> gerrymandering on your part is going to alter this fact.
*cough* So your ignoring of the detail that he was referring to temple
prostitution, and that it was bad not because they were prostitutes but
because they were heathens who were *incapable* of doing it properly--is
that obfuscation, gerrymandering, or just stubborn refusal to acknowledge
any source for history that is not found in the Bible?
Love and coffee,
Frances
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> So. How do people feel about the important moral issue that is
> starting off topic threads before marriage?
I have a confession. I think I've done it.
It's a horrible thing. It leads to long, rambling discourses, irritation,
vituperation, and the expressed desire to put a crowbar through somebody's
head. And yet the habit is harder to kill than a snake with two hearts.
And I'm *still* not planning on getting married. Shocking.
Love and coffee,
Frances
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> On 25 Apr 2002 11:59:14 GMT, dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Frances Kathleen
>>> Generally speaking, I have no problem with people believing in stuff, and
>>> having moral codes of their own. But founding ones ethics on a religion, and
>>> Christianity in general, has always seemed bit, well, pointless to me.
>>> Especially those beliefs which are based on Bible alone. Now, what is the
>>> BIble, apart from a book, written by people 2000 odd years ago, from said
>>> peoples point of view, and coloured by said peoples own moral codes? How it
>>> applies in any way to modern life is well beyond me, apart from the most
>>> general sense. Thou shalt not kill, for example, but that should be obvious to
>>> anyone. THe fact that it's not, only shows humanity is stupid.
>>And yet there are plenty of examples of cases where it isn't evident, ad
>>is accepted within a society. Capital punishment. _wergild_. War.
>>Killing the very old with exposure. Killing daughters because sons are
>>more valuable.
> Tradition and politics have rarely anything to do with ethics and morality.
Tradition and social structure--which largely define politics, BTW--are
the foundation from which people build their ethics and morality.
> Anyone who chooses either above life is wrong and should be the one living
> with his decision. Life is sacred, and should not be taken from someone for
> any reason. The fact that someone has sometimes done so, is no excuse to
> continue the practise.
That's your POV. It's largely mine, too, but that does not change the
fact that there are plenty of cases wheretaking a life is seen as a
morally correct act.
And IMHO, neither you nor I nor anyone who believes it is morally correct
is qualified to stand up and say "This *is* right"--with all the
absolutist connotations there are--rather than "I *believe* this is right."
If you or anyone else can refer me to an irrefutable source of absolute
wisdom which supports your POV, I will accept it. In the absence of such
an irrefutable source, I'll keep in mind that people's opinions on
morality are just that--opinions.
>>> And this brings the whole Bible's validity as a foundation of ethics to
>>> question.
>>What, that the ethics it promotes that you don't agree with are old, and
>>the ethics it promotes that you do agree with you believe are so
>>fundamental that people should obey them regardless?
> No, but because it promotes someone elses ideals. Basing your decions and
> conduct to what someone else wrote down once only makes those deciosion
> deceitful and invalid, since you can always say ("My god I was wrong!! It was
> the Bible/Choran/Talmud/Penthouse Summer Issue that made me do it!!").
You can always say "X made me do it!". But at that point, it's your own
damn desire to cop out that leads you to being deceitful, not your decision
to take X into account in the first place.
Ever take anyone's advice on anything--cars to buy, ways to study, medicine
to take, books to read? If so, do you consider those decisions, which
were based on what someone else said, to be deceitful and invalid?
> In other words: Basing your belief on anything except personal, inner
> decision, is like preparing the easy way out. Backing out on someone elses
> words is so much easier than backing out on yours.
Given that ethics and morality, the language to discuss them, the value
system by which to weight them, and the worldview according to which they
are applied are all taught, I would be very impressed if you could point
me to a personal inner decision reagading an ethical or moral question that
did *not* take some outside influence into consideration.
>>Actually, it seems to have a solid basis in security, property, and
>>definition of social roles. For most of history, the value of someone as
>>a spouse was determined by how clean and reliable they were (so you could
>>make sure she was giving birth to your children, or alternately could make
>>sure that he wasn't out creating people with another claim on your
>>security)--hell, to a large degree, it still is. Given that having sex
>>(especially without condoms, pills, or testing) is a wonderful way to
>>get (someone) pregnant--thereby screwing severly with property claims an
>>your own reputation for reliability--and catch diseases, sex before
>>marriage was generally considered a bad thing. If nothing else, it
>>endangered your health and qualifications.
> So, what does it matter what other people do think your about you and your
> spouse. Marriage is between two people, and
What spouse? This is *before* you're married, remember. And it matters
because if you do not come across as acceptable, you will not get
married. And for a great many people, not getting married means having no
children, no family, no-one to support them, no means of income... It's a
matter of survival.
>>Plus which, a child is the child of a father and a mother. If there's
>>been no marriage, there's no formal recognition of at least one of those
>>roles. Social roles are important. It's one of the reasons incest is so
>>badly regarded.
> Social roles are trivial. They change with history.
That they may change does not make them any less important at the point in
time at which they exist.
Have sex with your mother and make it public knowledge. The transgression
of social roles (mother/child, which forbids roles of lover/lover) is not
going to be a trivial thing, and neither will the reaction to it.
> If a knew a couple, who
> were obviously in love with each other, the fact that they were, for example,
> a brother and a sister would be trivial. Marriage should always, *always* be
> about us rather than them. Whereas as someone marrying someone for maoney,
> rather than for the person is, IMHO, the ultimate perversion of marriage.
Pretty common 'perversion' throughout history, then. Mind you, the
concept of perversion implies that there's an absolute and correct way to
view it. See earlier comments about irrefutable ultimate wisdom over opinion.
>>I would consider all of the above serious social issues, yes, but perhaps
>>not in the way you meant it. :)
> Again social values and traditions have nothing to do with personal morality
> and ethics.
You seem to be saying that the basis from which you form your ideas of
'right' and 'wrong'--in fact, the very environment from which you gain
your concept of right, wrong, justification, consequence, and all such
things--have nothing to do with morality and ethics.
If this is what you are saying, could you provide me with an example of a
person who has been isolated from social values and traditions? Aside from
the fact that I'd be fascinated to see what ethics they've developed, I'd
be impressed if such a person even existed.
In the absence of such a person, I would appreciate an explanation of what
you are basing your assertion that social environment has nothing to do
with ethics on. :)
If this is not what you are saying, could you please clarify?
> A marriage should be a an understanding and a contract between
> two, hopefully sensible and living people. If the people and the law don't
> extend same courtesy and rights to non-married as they do to the married, then
> it's the people and law who are wrong.
I think you need a little more clarification in there. I have an
understanding and a contract with my roommate, and I don't think the
people and the law are wrong in not treating me as his spouse.
>>> Good for you. Great that there are people who show some
>>> moral backbone, even if their morals aren't the same as others. But why bother
>>> trying to justify it whit something as artificial as religion?
>>Or as artificial as society, or upbringing, or... Oh, wait. Because when
>>something is a factor in the creation of your worldview, it tends to be
>>given weight as appropriate.
> Social structers, and upbringing, while undeniably influenced by religion do
> constantly change with the times. Whereas religion, barring certain exeptions,
> has the tendency to stagnate, and be controlled by whoever is in the top of
> it's hierarchy. Any and all religions, after the death of their originator,
> become merely representations of the beliefs of it's most influential members.
(Would that not be a change, rather than a stagnation? If it was actually
completly unchanging, the religion would still perfectly reflect the
founder's views, no?)
> Christianity today is merely a collection of 2000 years worth of interpreting
> and colouring words of a man who never even wanted it to become a new
> religion. The views we hold today are approprately attributed to popes and
> other religious leadrs, who cose which view should be considered the correct
> one, rather than to Jesus Christ.
Wether or not it's reflecting the views of the founder, of the current
influential members, or of some other group, a religion can still be a
powerful influence on someone's worldview. Therefore--like society,
upbringing, and other factors which influence someone's
worldview--religion may be a consideration in people's morality.
The validity, accuracy, stagnation, or rationality of the influence isn't
under debate here, AFAIK--that it *is* an influence is, and religion can
be one such influence.
>>BTW, what's your justification for asserting that not killing should be
>>obvious, and people not following it is an example of stupidity? Just
>>curious, here.
> You kill someone, they die. You kill, they die. The immediate concequences of
> your actions end someone elses life.
With you so far.
> You don't want anyone to kill you, so by
> that logic you can't assume anyone wants you to kill them? Killing someone
> else is therefore illogical, and we do generally consider illogical things
> stupid.
It's only illogical if you accept that everyone else has the same
odds/rights/what-have-you of killing you as you do of killing them. That
is an assumption revolving around the social environment in which you were
raised and the way it teaches you to view other people.
Love and coffee,
Frances
John Rowat
> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote in message
>> Would *you* want to get stuck with the world's worst fleshsmacker for
>> as long as it takes for the divorce proceedings to go through?
> Ah, but he's a righteous man, John. He doesn't believe
> in divorce.
That would be the point, yes, hence the modified signature about baiting
the newbies.
Sheesh.
-John
--
Sometimes, you just have to grin and try again with a fresher corpse and
slight changes to the formula.
-The Onion Horoscopes, Feb 13 2002.
Cody Hatch
<r2efcuc3359q4tbq8...@4ax.com>:
>On 24 Apr 2002 10:56:46 GMT, kark...@aol.com (Karkadinn) wrote
>
>>There's a REASON why there's a zillion different flavors of
>>Christianity. But I take my beliefs seriously. If I ever have sex
>>before marriage I'll probably be so depressed afterwards that I'll kill
>>myself. It's one of the emotionally higher level rules for me, on the
>>"Break it and you will have no self-respect for yourself anymore"
>>platform.
>
>You know, if I was completly bored, I could take this as an opportunity
>to start a discussion to religion, ethics, morality and whatnot in
>general, but I won't.
>
>Or, what the heck, I'll bite.
>
>Generally speaking, I have no problem with people believing in stuff,
>and having moral codes of their own. But founding ones ethics on a
>religion, and Christianity in general, has always seemed bit, well,
>pointless to me.
I'd agree. Everyone can and should give some serious thought to roughing out a
good moral/ethical system for themselves. I dislike christianity-as-a-moral-
system because it violates that idea twice. First, it tends to short-circuit
the thought process ("this is good, this is evil, obey and go to heaven,
question and fry" does not lend itself to introspection). Second, because it
close enough to impossible to pull a coherent moral system out of the Bible.
>Especially those beliefs which are based on Bible
>alone. Now, what is the BIble, apart from a book, written by people 2000
>odd years ago, from said peoples point of view, and coloured by said
>peoples own moral codes?
Actually, it always struck me as reading like a random mixture of fairly tales,
delirous ravings, and city ordinances, edited by several generations of
illiterate fanatics, then translated into swahili and back by someone who spoke
it like a native...of mongolia. :-P
I mean, would someone explain to me the moral or religious relavence of not
being allowed to eat shrimp?
>How it applies in any way to modern life is
>well beyond me, apart from the most general sense. Thou shalt not kill,
>for example, but that should be obvious to anyone. THe fact that it's
>not, only shows humanity is stupid.
It isn't obvious to me, and I like to think I'm not completly stupid. Self
defence? War? Capital punishment? Killing animals? Only humans? What *IS*
a human? Do gorillas count? Blacks? Should a test of something determine it?
Of what? IQ? Should whales count as human? And what about the crusades? The
inquisition? Persecution of witchcraft? Persecution of jews?
Then, if your feeling bored, you can always toss all the othe references to
killing and mercy in, most of which contradict each other.
<snip>
>And this brings the whole Bible's validity as a foundation of ethics to
>question. So, if you don't believe in sex before marriage, which is
>propably just another silly convention invented by someone with serious
>social issues, then that's fine.
Not so! Few things are inventented for no reason. Diatary laws, a feature of
most religions, were all started for good (albeit non-religious) reasons.
Sexual mores have a range of reasons, instincts, and genetic imperitives
backing them up.
The most basic (as in, way sub-conscious) is that people (and most other
animals) want to find the best possible source for genetic material, and ensure
that the child is then brought up. The act of mating (if succesful) "locks" a
female into a particular match, but not the male. If the female has not yet
secured some commitment from the male to help support her and the offspring,
the outlook is (or was) fairly poor. From the males point of view, he'd rather
impregnate as many females as possible, then pick the best one (or more, if he
could support them), and only raise those offspring. Since most species have a
roughly 1:1 ratio of males to females, this requires a lot of males to die
(either literally, or genetically, by being unable to pass on their genes).
You end up with violent societies dominated by a few males with large harems,
where women are property.
Some animals still use similar systems, humans have moved on. The next step is
for females to refuse to mate without first securing a commitment. For this to
work, an entire society must accept it - cheating would make it fall apart, and
the society would regress back down. This leads to long courtships, intense
taboos against sex before marriage, draconian penalties for females (and,
occasionaly, males) breaking the rules, and often an aversion to divorce. This
last is s sort of over-reaction to having to accept marriage at all, the idea
being that women shouldn't be allowed to "lock down" a male just long enough to
raise a child, then divorce him and repeat. Only men should be able to do
that. :-) Religions were mostly formed during this period, and so it's quite
natural they it would be this system they try and enforce.
Genetically speaking, there's nothing particularly great about it though.
Humans, once again, have moved on (somewhat, and more so in some places than
others). Increasingly (although still, sadly, not universally), having a child
is something a pair of rational adults decide to do after careful thought and
consideration, as befits something with such serious consequences. Society is
advanced enough that some (again, sadly, not all) people can trust that their
partner will stick around to help raise the child, and that the child and any
future children will indeed be thiers, without having to rely on the force of
law. Women, of course, don't need to worry about whether a child is theirs or
not, for reasons that should be obvious. Men also don't tend to worry about
having the woman run off and leave the child, since maternal instincts tend to
be strong enough to prevent it.
For that reason, marriage is historically a means of keeping women faithful,
and men tied down...with generally a much stronger emphasis on the first than
the second, because of where civilization was coming FROM.
But because of where civilization is moving TO, marriage is less and less
important and common, particularly the forms of it that are more akin to legal
slavery than a solemn promises between equals. I'm not sure I can really bring
myself to call that a bad thing, either.
In any case, all of this makes the religious prohabitions against sex before
marraige, infedelity, and so forth, largely out of date.
There's still a problem with STD's, of course, but that's also a shrinking
problem. If religion wanted to move with the times,a prohabition against sex
without a condom before marriage might be useful...
If your feeling bored, you can toss in all the fun biblical lines about how all
sex is bad, impure thoughts are the same as impure acts, and all women are
evil, but this has little to do with modern christianity, so why bother?
>Good for you. Great that there are
>people who show some moral backbone, even if their morals aren't the
>same as others. But why bother trying to justify it whit something as
>artificial as religion? --
That is a good question. Religion is a poor vehicle for thought. It is
designed to force, bribe, and blackmail the masses into doing things once
considered good without thinking about them. In todays world, I'd prefer to
think we could trust people to actually think things through and come out with
the right answers. Sadly, I'm afraid the evidence is against me.
Cody
John Rowat
> And IMHO, neither you nor I nor anyone who believes it is morally correct
> is qualified to stand up and say "This *is* right"--with all the
> absolutist connotations there are--rather than "I *believe* this is right."
I agree! Nobody who believes in the absolutely sanctity of life above all
else is qualified to be the absolute judge of morality, because I don't
believe that and I *AM* the absolute judge of morality! So there.
> In the absence of such
> an irrefutable source, I'll keep in mind that people's opinions on
> morality are just that--opinions.
And when those opinions disgree with me, they're objectively wrong. Why?
Because I'm a moral absolute, of course.
>> If a knew a couple, who
>> were obviously in love with each other, the fact that they were, for example,
>> a brother and a sister would be trivial. Marriage should always, *always* be
>> about us rather than them. Whereas as someone marrying someone for maoney,
>> rather than for the person is, IMHO, the ultimate perversion of marriage.
So you're saying that your sister is hot and you're both broke, then?
-John
--
Yes, I'm out to offend everybody. It makes the thread more interesting.
John Rowat
> "matija" <mSkPr...@jaIgSor.srEcVe.IhLr> wrote in message
>> two? if your name is samuel, you have three. no ... sammy?!?
>>
> Most people I know pronounce it 'Sam-you'll', not 'Sam-you-ell'.
Weird. There are three distinct vowel noises in that.
The obvious (and morally correct! Hah!) solution is thus to stone those
who are purveyors of such linguistic perversity.
Simple.
-John
--
Everybody must get stoned!
Sam Blanning
>
> > So. How do people feel about the important moral issue that is
> > starting off topic threads before marriage?
>
> I have a confession. I think I've done it.
>
> It's a horrible thing. It leads to long, rambling discourses, irritation,
> vituperation, and the expressed desire to put a crowbar through somebody's
> head. And yet the habit is harder to kill than a snake with two hearts.
>
> And I'm *still* not planning on getting married. Shocking.
>
David Chapman
> As roses wither, so does David Chapman:
>> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote in message
>
>>> Would *you* want to get stuck with the world's worst fleshsmacker
>>> for as long as it takes for the divorce proceedings to go through?
>
>> Ah, but he's a righteous man, John. He doesn't believe
>> in divorce.
>
> That would be the point, yes, hence the modified signature about
> baiting the newbies.
Guess who doesn't read sigs, John?
Julian Day
John Rowat
> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote in message
>> As roses wither, so does David Chapman:
>>> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote in message
>>
>>>> Would *you* want to get stuck with the world's worst fleshsmacker
>>>> for as long as it takes for the divorce proceedings to go through?
>>
>>> Ah, but he's a righteous man, John. He doesn't believe
>>> in divorce.
>>
>> That would be the point, yes, hence the modified signature about
>> baiting the newbies.
> Guess who doesn't read sigs, John?
That would be the point of putting the revelatory notice THERE instead of
in the body of the post.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> I mean, would someone explain to me the moral or religious relavence of not
> being allowed to eat shrimp?
Absolutely none. Given the importance of religion in the society and the
importance of not eating bad food, spreading infectious diseases (the
description of different skin lesions in Leviticus is detailed, but not
something I'd enjoy reading over lunch), or attempting body modification in
an unsanitary environment, saying "God thinks this is bad" was actually a
decent way of getting people to not, say, stay in public and squeeze
"zits" 'til they'd infected everyone with leprosy.
Think of it as some cosmic father figure telling you to wash your hands
before you eat--not necessarily a high moral issue, but done out of
concern for your health and to teach you a beneficial habit.
> Then, if your feeling bored, you can always toss all the othe references to
> killing and mercy in, most of which contradict each other.
Have I yet mentioned that I think Jael was very cool?
[snip long, clear, and IMHO well-written explanation of the social
evolution of marriage, and the part which religion played in
creating/reinforcing it.]
Yeah. That. Wow. 8)
>>Good for you. Great that there are
>>people who show some moral backbone, even if their morals aren't the
>>same as others. But why bother trying to justify it whit something as
>>artificial as religion? --
> That is a good question. Religion is a poor vehicle for thought. It is
> designed to force, bribe, and blackmail the masses into doing things once
> considered good without thinking about them.
I'm actually going to quibble with that. I don't know that it's actually
*designed* to do that--and more than surveys, public opinion, or
patriotism are--but that is often the effect it has.
Design implies deliberate intent, dammit--so who designed it?
> In todays world, I'd prefer to
> think we could trust people to actually think things through and come out with
> the right answers. Sadly, I'm afraid the evidence is against me.
*sigh* Yeah, well... I keep hoping. :)
Love and coffee,
Frances
Kazoo King
[snip a whole lot of stuff]
And anyway, back to the subject of monkey sex, has anyone here seen that
'educational video', which I know was shown in many High School Biology
classes in New Zealand, that depicts a species of primate that discipline
and control each other via acts of (often inconsentual) sexual intercourse
or sodomy?
John Rowat
> "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> [snip a whole lot of stuff]
> And anyway, back to the subject of monkey sex, has anyone here seen that
> 'educational video', which I know was shown in many High School Biology
> classes in New Zealand, that depicts a species of primate that discipline
> and control each other via acts of (often inconsentual) sexual intercourse
> or sodomy?
Oh, you mean the Roman centurions?
You think I'm joking.
(And I think humans could learn a lot from bonobos sometimes. Then again,
I think you could stick the average human down in front of them and ask
him to learn from the good lessons avaiable, and you'd come back to see
him scratching himself and throwing feces.)
David Chapman
> As roses wither, so does David Chapman:
>> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote in message
>>> As roses wither, so does David Chapman:
>>>> John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> Would *you* want to get stuck with the world's worst fleshsmacker
>>>>> for as long as it takes for the divorce proceedings to go through?
>>>
>>>> Ah, but he's a righteous man, John. He doesn't believe
>>>> in divorce.
>>>
>>> That would be the point, yes, hence the modified signature about
>>> baiting the newbies.
>
>> Guess who doesn't read sigs, John?
>
> That would be the point of putting the revelatory notice THERE
> instead of in the body of the post.
You mean, so it's not actually a revelation at all?
David Chapman
> Cody Hatch (co...@chaos.net.nz) writes:
>> That is a good question. Religion is a poor vehicle for thought.
>> It is designed to force, bribe, and blackmail the masses into doing
>> things once considered good without thinking about them.
>
> I'm actually going to quibble with that. I don't know that it's
> actually *designed* to do that--and more than surveys, public
> opinion, or patriotism are--but that is often the effect it has.
>
> Design implies deliberate intent, dammit--so who designed it?
Look for where the money is going, and whose
personal prejudices are being upheld, and you'll
soon find the answer.
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> "Frances Kathleen Moffatt" <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> And anyway, back to the subject of monkey sex, has anyone here seen that
> 'educational video', which I know was shown in many High School Biology
> classes in New Zealand, that depicts a species of primate that discipline
> and control each other via acts of (often inconsentual) sexual intercourse
> or sodomy?
I am so glad I'm in Canada.
Love and coffee,
Frances (how the hell would you discipline someone with *consensual*
sexual intercourse, anyway? ...don't answer that.)
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Frances Kathleen Moffatt <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>>> That is a good question. Religion is a poor vehicle for thought.
>>> It is designed to force, bribe, and blackmail the masses into doing
>>> things once considered good without thinking about them.
>> I'm actually going to quibble with that. I don't know that it's
>> actually *designed* to do that--and more than surveys, public
>> opinion, or patriotism are--but that is often the effect it has.
>> Design implies deliberate intent, dammit--so who designed it?
> Look for where the money is going, and whose
> personal prejudices are being upheld, and you'll
> soon find the answer.
That's a cop-out. The structure/design of religion is what's being
discussed, not who benefits from it.
You may claim that Jesus Christ, for example, was deliberately
manipulating people to uphold his personal prejudices, but you'd have a
really hard time convincing people that he single-handedly came up with
the format in which religion exists (especially considering innumerable
other cultures and thousands of years of religion which do not involve
him, and which have just as much potential for inducing absolutism).
Bloody inability to distinguish between _nomos_ and _cosmos_... *grumble*
Love and coffee,
Frances