[I] Modern Art vs Perversion. (WARNING: Contains Obscene Language)
Leo Breebaart
"Ross A Chapman" <off...@senet.com.au> writes:
> now, i am not saying that we should simply let everything go without
> consorship. things which are public viewing and may be offensive to some
> people should be censored. but, i think the outcry against things such as
> this are arrogant and conceited. you don't have to go into the exhibit.
> you don't have to go see the play. if you don't want your kids to go see it
> don't let them. just don't stop people who might think that it might be
> good from doing it.
Um, Ross, maybe it's just me, but the first two sentences of that paragraph
seem to be saying exactly the opposite of the last two sentences. Exactly
what point are you trying to make here?
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Ross A Chapman
I am worried about the path that our society seems to be taking in regards
to modern art.
Recently in Melbourne, Australia there was an exposition of modern art by a
certain Painter (his name escapes me at the moment). amongst the paintings
was a controversial painting called "Piss Christ" showing a crucifix
imersed in urine.
now this may not have been in good taste according to some people. The
painting's showing was much protested against by religious persons of
Victoria.
a few nights ago three young youths broke into the Gallery and vandalised
the painting with a hammer, smashing it. the Melbourne Art Gallery then
decided to close the exhibition, saying that the exibit was putting their
staff in danger. The painter condemned the art gallery saying,
(paraphrased): "the people that did this were stupid idiots, but the art
gallery are setting the worst kind of example by taking it down, condemning
freedom of speech."
now, during the Melbourne festival, a play is going to be done called
"Shopping and Fucking." it is a British play, based on the effects of Post
Thatcherism on a group of people. Just as the title says it contains
explicit sexual material on stage. it also includes drugs and the rest of
in vogue stuff that the youth[1]. According to reports there is actualy
fucking on stage [2] although the plays writer/producer assured JJJ that it
was faked as the erect penis was teh second great myth of acting [3]???
Th play itself has been critically aclaimed all round the world, being
nominated for the Best New Play in the UK. if there are any afpers who have
seen it i would be uinterested in responses.
i do not wish to dwell on these though, the question i wish to raise is
about the censorship that one received and the censorship that the other is
bound to eventually receive.
now the "Piss Christ" was much proested against by Christians of Melbourne.
i wold not be surprised if the Death threats recieved by the Director of
the Gallery were from major religious personalities [6] they said it was
disgusting and sacraligious. it defamed their lord etc etc. i am sure i
don't need to go into it. it was the usual argument that religious people
come up with in these situations.[7]
the problems with these arguments is that they are personal. they are not
based on political nor physical dangers. but on things which a greater
increasing number of people do not believe nor care about. So why do we
still censor them in such a way, and why do some people still think that
they can mount protests about things based entirely on tehir opinion.
the essence of our society is _supposedly_ freedom of speech. each man
and/or woman pver the age of 18 (or 21in some countries) can make the
choice of what they go to and what they don't, what they watch and what
they don't watch, what the belive and what they don't believe.it is already
possible to corrupt free thinking, and it is done, it is called education.
but that besides the point, i think that it is very arrogant of people to
think that solely because tehy think something is sacraligious, they speak
for everyone.
the really scary thing about the "piss Christ" event was that i had
recently been reading a non-fiction book [8] called "Monty Python: The Case
Against" all about the censorship that Monty Python recieved when they came
out. There were two chapters based on the protests against "The Life Of
Brian" by Church groups. the protests against Piss Christ were strangely
familiar.
now, i am not saying that we should simply let everything go without
consorship. things which are public viewing and may be offensive to some
people should be censored. but, i think the outcry against things such as
this are arrogant and conceited. you don't have to go into the exhibit.
you don't have to go see the play. if you don't want your kids to go see it
don't let them. just don't stop people who might think that it might be
good from doing it.
rant finished, you can all go back to whatever you were doing now.
The Free RaC ...
[1] --- Which i am meant to be part of?????
[2] --- yes, i am taking advantage of the warning to swear in my usual
manner.
[3] --- along with death.[4]
[4] --- supposedly you always see them get up at the end and bow.[5]
[5] --- or in the case get down.
[6] --- that was a hypotheses.
[7] --- This is not a condemnation, merely an observation.
[8] --- Yes they are really out there, just like the truth.
--
Ross A Chapman, off...@senet.com.au 55% AFPure
http://www.senet.com.au/~offler
SP Almighty God and Grey Coat Bearer. "Everyone's a Deity"
You a Pratchettphile or AFPhile???? Go To http://www.lspace.org/
Ross A Chapman
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org> wrote :
> "Ross A Chapman" <off...@senet.com.au> writes:
>
> > now, i am not saying that we should simply let everything go without
> > consorship. things which are public viewing and may be offensive to
some
> > people should be censored. but, i think the outcry against things such
as
> > this are arrogant and conceited. you don't have to go into the
exhibit.
> > you don't have to go see the play. if you don't want your kids to go
see it
> > don't let them. just don't stop people who might think that it might be
> > good from doing it.
>
> Um, Ross, maybe it's just me, but the first two sentences of that
paragraph
> seem to be saying exactly the opposite of the last two sentences. Exactly
> what point are you trying to make here?
things which are offensive and _in public view_, ie. television, newspapers
etc. should probably be censored. But things that are in an ARt Gallery,
which is a closed exhibit except to people who actually want to see it, or
plays, which are the same, shouldn't really be censored though. you can't
accidently be corrupted by a Art Gallery Exhibit, nor a play which you
actually have to go and buy a ticket for.
does this make it clearer?
if not i will try to expand, i have trouble putting my vagrant thoughts
onto paper (virtual or real).
HTH. HAND.
Leo Breebaart
"Ross A Chapman" <off...@senet.com.au> writes:
> > > now, i am not saying that we should simply let everything go without
> > > consorship. things which are public viewing and may be offensive to
> > > some people should be censored. but, i think the outcry against
> > > things such as this are arrogant and conceited. you don't have to go
> > > into the exhibit. you don't have to go see the play. if you don't
> > > want your kids to go see it don't let them. just don't stop people
> > > who might think that it might be good from doing it.
> >
> > Um, Ross, maybe it's just me, but the first two sentences of that
> > paragraph seem to be saying exactly the opposite of the last two
> > sentences. Exactly what point are you trying to make here?
>
> things which are offensive and _in public view_, ie. television,
> newspapers etc. should probably be censored. But things that are in an
> ARt Gallery, which is a closed exhibit except to people who actually want
> to see it, or plays, which are the same, shouldn't really be censored
> though. you can't accidently be corrupted by a Art Gallery Exhibit, nor a
> play which you actually have to go and buy a ticket for.
>
> does this make it clearer?
Yes, in the sense that I hadn't realised your definition of "public
viewing" did *not* include theatres and art galleries and such.
No, in the sense that I still don't understand your reasoning. Are you
seriously suggesting that our governments "should probably be censoring"
newspapers and television?
I find that hard to believe! Surely, it is just as much my personal
decision whether or not I buy a TV or buy a newspaper, as it is whether I
buy a theatre ticket or enter an art gallery? I don't see how you can make
a distinction.
Conversely, isn't it true that many art galleries/musea/theatres are
subsidised, if not downright owned by the government, and doesn't that make
your definition of public viewing applicable to them after all? These
things may be closed exhibits, but if the public is actually *paying* for
them anyway, whether they attend them or not, I can't find it entirely
unreasonable for some of that public to speak up and say "I don't want my
tax money spent on *that*".
The problem, as always, is of course who gets to decide when something is
"offensive", and when "enough" people have been offended for censorship to
kick in "legitimately" and officially.
Quis custodiet...
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Gidjabolgo
Ross A Chapman <off...@senet.com.au> writes:
>
> things which are offensive and _in public view_, ie. television,
newspapers
> etc. should probably be censored. But things that are in an ARt Gallery,
> which is a closed exhibit except to people who actually want to see it,
or
> plays, which are the same, shouldn't really be censored though. you can't
> accidently be corrupted by a Art Gallery Exhibit, nor a play which you
> actually have to go and buy a ticket for.
>
> does this make it clearer?
No, since noone is forced to view TV or read newspapers, and you have
to pay for them too. Possibly, this could be a problem in commercials
in papers and on TV, where you cannot warn the audience that "We will
now show paid commercial material of offencive nature." These should,
by some, be in need of censorship, but that should be a deciscion for
the managers of said media. And what is offencive, at that? Who is to
make these deciscions? I can only think of one case of a rally valid,
or righteous, censoship: the parents responsibility to protect childs
minds, until they are old and mature enough to deal with all the real
world's unpleasant facts and phenomenon. *NOT* to prevent them seeing
things that contradict their opinions and views.
And, since this is a family newsgroup, I will illustrate this, and do
some young minds irreparable harm by saying FUCK! Do you feel defiled
now? How come you react at your origin? Or foul language? Is that not
only offencive if you associate it with something you dislike?
I'll stop now, it's time to go home. I went to work last morning, and
been working til now. Please send personal attacks and flammage to my
mailbox (no, the address is not mangled/spamtrapped) and constructive
arguments to the list.
--
Gidjabolgo, further explained at http://hem2.passagen.se/gidjabol/
AFP Code 1.0 AC$ d+ s: a->+++ UP+ R F++ h- P- OSD--: C++ M-
pp--- L+ c-(+) B Cn:+ PT--- Pu65- 5 X+ MT+ e++ r+++ x++++ end
Victoria Martin
On 14 Oct 1997, Leo Breebaart wrote:
> No, in the sense that I still don't understand your reasoning. Are you
> seriously suggesting that our governments "should probably be censoring"
> newspapers and television?
[snip]>
>
> Conversely, isn't it true that many art galleries/musea/theatres are
> subsidised, if not downright owned by the government, and doesn't that make
> your definition of public viewing applicable to them after all? These
> things may be closed exhibits, but if the public is actually *paying* for
> them anyway, whether they attend them or not, I can't find it entirely
> unreasonable for some of that public to speak up and say "I don't want my
> tax money spent on *that*".
>
> The problem, as always, is of course who gets to decide when something is
> "offensive", and when "enough" people have been offended for censorship to
> kick in "legitimately" and officially.
That, of course, is a problem with all morality. At which point do you
draw the line? There is always going to be a grey area (do you defend the
right to free speech even where that right is abused to incite violence?
Do you defend the right to an abortion after 12 weeks? After 20? After 28?
If you don't eat meat, do you still wear leather shoes?).
I think it's helpful to draw a distinction between censorship by the
government (which is true censorship) and the decision by individual
organisations or individual people not to produce/display something
because
they know it would upset people. My own view of the Myra Hindley portrait
was that it was a quite extraordinarily selfish decision by the artist to
display it, and that someone marginally less self obsessed would probably
have chosen not to cause that much pain to people who had been personally
affected by the Moors murders, but I wouldn't call the decision not to
display the painting censorship (not even self-censorship).
Victoria
H.L. Hanson
Ross A Chapman wrote:
> Recently in Melbourne, Australia there was an exposition of modern art by a
> certain Painter (his name escapes me at the moment). amongst the paintings
> was a controversial painting called "Piss Christ" showing a crucifix
> imersed in urine.
Some Background info on this exhibit...
It is a photograph not a painting.
The photographer's name is Andres Serrano. In 1990, in America this
painting was creating a lot of contraversy not only due to the less than
tasteful subject matter but due to the fact the Serrano's work was
funded by a grant from the National Endowment of the Arts. The NEA was
also under a lot of heat for funding another photographer by the name of
Robert Maplethorpe.(1) There was a lot of coverage in _Time_, _Newsweek_
etc.
I think Flag burning was a big issue too during this period.
Anyway, as somewhat of an artist myself, I like "Piss Christ" for many
reasons. (2)(3)
1. He was a gay photographer whose b/w photos were very graphic, showed
bondage, men on men, (lots of "tasteful" still lifes too)(4). It was a
photo of a bullwhip stuffed up a man's ass that really got people upset.
2. I love the colors and the content of taking a sacred icon and placing
it in urine makes a great statement.
3. I like Maplethorpe too.
4. He does regular nudes, floral still lifes, and other classic subject
matters.
H. L. Hanson believes that good art should not match your sofa.
o dai wai
H.L. Hanson:
>1. He [mapletorpe] was a gay photographer whose b/w photos were very graphic, showed
>bondage, men on men, (lots of "tasteful" still lifes too)(4). It was a
>photo of a bullwhip stuffed up a man's ass that really got people upset.
Maplethorpe is/was a superb photographer whose work included many
explicit images. Most of his work which was considered 'tasteless' was
self portraiture and resulted from his desire to experiment both with
himself and with his medium. There is a book covering his work which I'm
sure can be found by anyone willing to search on "+Maplethorpe +Photo".
(I haven't tried this and am not responsible for any upset caused by any
using the word photo in a web search engine and being surprised by what
they find.)
I have had some of my still lifes categorised as 'in the style of
Maplethorpe' by a professional photographer and this was meant as (and
taken as) a compliment.
I would hazard a guess that the reason people got upset was that he
lavished the same care and attention on all his subjects, even those
that 'nice people' would rather not have seen. More fool them.
Judge the quality of the work and the skill of the artist, not your
maiden aunt's reaction to the material.
--
/ O Dai Wai - The Gurning Idiot Formerly Known As Dave \
\ http://www.diaspoir.demon.co.uk/ TSARFKAHK /
Ross A Chapman
Ross A Chapman <off...@senet.com.au> wrote
> they don't watch, what the belive and what they don't believe.it is
already
> possible to corrupt free thinking, and it is done, it is called
education.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
After a conversation with Mike Knell and some others in #afp last night, i
figure i needed to explain what i meant here.
i am a University student studying Arts. my current experience of education
has been twelve years of schooling and almost one year of uni.
from experience all that is taught in school these days is like the
following:
"This is how it was, now write an essay on it."
When it comes to the Social Sciences (i'm not talking about Physics etc.
that is a different type of education) the teachers and the curicculam
(sp!) do not allow the students to gain tehir own ideas, they simply
regurgatatetheir ideas and say that that is how it is. I only started to
think for myself after i started to read PTerry's works, and that was
_greatly_ discouraged by my Enlgish teachers, saying i should be reading
real literature.
My opinion of education come only from my experience though, that of going
through an Australian Private School called Westminster, and my ideas may
not be the same for others.
Gabriel Krabbe
on 14 Oct 1997 08:12:48 GMT, Ross A Chapman wrote
regarding "[I] Modern Art vs Perversion":
> I am worried about the path that our society seems to be taking in regards
> to modern art.
me too, but rather differently.
> Recently in Melbourne, Australia there was an exposition of modern art by a
> certain Painter (his name escapes me at the moment). amongst the paintings
> was a controversial painting called "Piss Christ" showing a crucifix
> imersed in urine.
>
> now this may not have been in good taste according to some people. The
> painting's showing was much protested against by religious persons of
> Victoria.
and hopefully by many others. my view on religion is thus: personally,
i have none, and am an atheist. however, i accept the fact that
religion can be a source of inner balance and stability for many, and
should therefore _never_ be used as a tool against people (both ways;
neither defaming people's religion to get at them, nor use religion as
argument why people should be aggressive towards others, cf. fanatics
calling themselves fundamentalists and entirely misunderstanding their
own religion, more often than not).
if somebody wants to shock others, by all means. _but_ do not do so by
actively ridiculing and defaming what they value. it is a difficult
balance to find, but religion occupies a very special position in
life, one that is best left untouched for this purpose. in short:
shocking can be perfectly all right, but deliberately hurting is
never.
> a few nights ago three young youths broke into the Gallery and vandalised
> the painting with a hammer, smashing it. the Melbourne Art Gallery then
> decided to close the exhibition, saying that the exibit was putting their
> staff in danger. The painter condemned the art gallery saying,
> (paraphrased): "the people that did this were stupid idiots, but the art
> gallery are setting the worst kind of example by taking it down, condemning
> freedom of speech."
let me paraphrase him: "the people that did this reacted out of
precisely the motivation i wished to cause, but are spoilsports
because they took away the weapon i used to hurt them. the art gallery
should value my interest of attacking people higher than their
personal safety. and to make this all sound reasonable, i'll say it's
a freedom of speach issue, just like cyberpromo."
> now, during the Melbourne festival, a play is going to be done called
> "Shopping and Fucking." it is a British play, based on the effects of Post
> Thatcherism on a group of people. Just as the title says it contains
> explicit sexual material on stage.
[...]
> i do not wish to dwell on these though, the question i wish to raise is
> about the censorship that one received and the censorship that the other is
> bound to eventually receive.
>
> i would not be surprised if the Death threats recieved by the Director of
> the Gallery
i call that self-preservation, not censorship.
those from whom the threats issued were deeply shocked and hurt by the
image. if anyone tells me that this was _not_ the intention of the
creator, i will publically laugh at him. i do not agree with resorting
to violence or threatening with it as a solution - it isn't -, but i
fail to see why anyone would be _surprised_ by either.
in short, closing the exhibition (or at least removing the offending
piece) is not censorship at all, in my book. proof: a) the gallery
displayed it in the first place, b) it wasn't any more due to the
simple judgement that personal safety is of more value than one
person's wish to become famous by being aggressive, c) demanding that
it not be publically displayed is as much free speech as demanding
that nobody should be that deeply offended.
as for the play: for one thing, i have no idea what sex and drugs have
to do with "post thatcherism" (what is that defined as, anyway? i'm
assuming it's something political, so where's the connection?) for
another, why should explicit action in a play be treated differently
from explicit depictions in a porn magazine or a live sex show as
viewable in so-called red light districts?
> were from major religious personalities [6] they said it was
> disgusting and sacraligious. it defamed their lord etc etc. i am sure
> i don't need to go into it. it was the usual argument that religious
> people come up with in these situations.[7]
>
> [6] --- that was a hypotheses.
> [7] --- This is not a condemnation, merely an observation.
a hypothesis i completely disagree with. _i_ object to the picture in
question on philosophical grounds, and am myself certainly not a
religious man.
see above.
> the problems with these arguments is that they are personal. they are not
> based on political nor physical dangers. but on things which a greater
> increasing number of people do not believe nor care about. So why do we
> still censor them in such a way, and why do some people still think that
> they can mount protests about things based entirely on tehir opinion.
for the same reason that people think that no protests should be
mounted about things, based merely on their opinion.
> the essence of our society is _supposedly_ freedom of speech. each man
> and/or woman pver the age of 18 (or 21in some countries) can make the
> choice of what they go to and what they don't, what they watch and what
> they don't watch, what the belive and what they don't believe.
"why should anyone be concerned about others ridiculing and putting
down that which i value when i needn't listen?"
why should i care about a gang of hooligans loudly going on about how
worthless germans are, when i neither have to listen nor care about
football? because maybe they'll find supporters and get aggressive
about it all.
why should anyone be really concerned about scientologists, when
nobody is forced to join? because those that do have a hard time once
there.
why should anyone be concerned about religious issues anywhere, when
nobody's really all that interested in them anymore? because they
still are a big issue in most bits of the world. africa, the middle
east, to name two large areas; northern ireland and yugoslavia to name
two areas on our doorstep.
religion is a tool when referred to in an extreme. a tool that has yet
to be used in a positive way. until then, it is better to steer clear.
> it is already possible to corrupt free thinking, and it is done, it
> is called education.
oh hell. please qualify that statement, otherwise i'll get started
on a really aggressive rant. and yes, i intend to contradict you, if
only for being absolutist in that statement as it stands.
> but that besides the point, i think that it is very arrogant of
> people to think that solely because tehy think something is
> sacraligious, they speak for everyone.
i think it is very arrogant of people to think that just because they
think something isn't sacrilegious, nobody else should get worked up
about it.
> the really scary thing about the "piss Christ" event was that i had
> recently been reading a non-fiction book called "Monty Python: The Case
> Against" all about the censorship that Monty Python recieved when they
> came out. There were two chapters based on the protests against "The Life
> Of Brian" by Church groups. the protests against Piss Christ were strangely
> familiar.
there is a difference between ridiculing by defamation and ridiculing
by caricature. read small gods, then read slman rushdie's "satanic
verses", then read the anti-judaistic propaganda of the third reich.
all of them poke at some religion or other, but in different ways.
small gods very much makes fun of some aspects commonly regarded as
stereotypical of roman-catholicism. but it also points out the aspects
of religion for which i respect it.
i repeat: if you wish to shock in order to make a point, by all means,
go ahead, and i will fight for your right to do so. if you wish to
shock _and_hurt_, knowing perfectly well that you will do both, then
there is no point worthy of making. especially not if the point is so
little apparent. i, for one, fail to see any point other than shocking
for its own sake in the "piss christ" thing, which i refuse to call
"art".
Gabriel
--
What has four legs and an arm? A happy pitbull.
email will be posted as i see fit.
Mike Knell
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97101...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>they know it would upset people. My own view of the Myra Hindley portrait
>was that it was a quite extraordinarily selfish decision by the artist to
>display it, and that someone marginally less self obsessed would probably
>have chosen not to cause that much pain to people who had been personally
>affected by the Moors murders, but I wouldn't call the decision not to
>display the painting censorship (not even self-censorship).
OK. This is all IMHO..
Art operates on two levels. The "higher" level is that which artists and
the art critic world operate on, the other level is that which the
"ordinary people" which the arty community spend so much time pouring scorn
on live at.
Let's take an example - you take explicit photos of people screwing, inserting
things in orifices that things aren't meant to have things inserted in
them, and indulging in various other activities that a *lot* of people find
offensive. If you're an arty person, it's a challenging exploration of the
human wossname. If you're an ordinary person, it's pornography. The fact that
artists will go out and exhibit this stuff and then scream "censorship!"
when people say "right, this stuff's a bit rude, you'll need an appointment
to see it, we can't just let any 12-year old wander in.." just goes to
show that they're either (a) not on this planet, (b) staggeringly snobbish
and patronising towards non art-critic people, or (c) being deliberately
obtuse in order to attract public reaction. I suspect (c).
A lot of art that is created specifically to shock is done so, IMHO, to get
negative publicity, and further the artist's reputation - cynical
manipulation of the media. Damien Hurst wouldn't be nearly as famous as he
is if it wasn't for the public furore surrounding the sheep-in-formaldehyde
incident (I still don't get that. Does anyone who is a non art critic?)
To create shocking art and then feign surprise and refuse to say "right,
this is what this is supposed to be doing.." when there's a public outcry,
or it's put into a closed exhibition by a gallery, is cold and cynical
manipulation of public opinion - people don't get to know what the art is
about, they just know it's nasty. "Yes, but is it art?", they say.
And this manipulation is for purely selfish reasons, self-promotion by the
artist and the criticish types that follow them. Mucking with people's
minds like this to the great detriment of many, and the sole benefit in
public exposure, saleability, etc, of the artist is selfishness taken to
the extreme.
Basically, what I'm saying is that 99.5% of the population, when presented
with a shovel, will call it a shovel, not an innovative exploration of
the celestial insignificance of man, and if the other 0.5% of the
population chooses not to explain *why* it's an IEOTCIOM, then they shouldn't
be surprised when people don't get it, and file it under "pornography" or
"pretentious arse".
The mission of art (we were just discussing this on #afp..) is to stimulate
the senses and the emotions. If the emotions are stimulated in a certain
(generally intended) way, especially an adverse one, by a particular piece
of art, it should be part of the mission of the artist to explain to those
who don't understand the reasons for it why it's as shocking as it is.
The sooner the art community gets this into their head, the sooner they'll
start operating for the good of the community as a whole, rather than
for their own selfish, introspective, navel-gazing good.
OK. Even briefer summary - if I go out and indulge in various, er, explicit
acts, take polaroids of them, and go around showing them to random strangers
in the street, or publish them in a top shelf magazine, it's pornography. If
I stick them on the wall of a gallery, however, it's art. The image is the
same - where's the difference? Most people don't understand this, and the
art community never bothers to explain to them. Some surprise when there's
a public outcry, then..
Mike
--
Mike Knell -- Officially Too Clueless To Admin Solaris (tm) [MK771]
"more stress, what for?" - 3ppts. --- http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~mpk/
Kevin Hackett
Mike Knell <m...@library.lspace.org> wrote in article
<620i7q$ov7$1...@library.lspace.org>...
> OK. This is all IMHO..
>
> Art operates on two levels. The "higher" level is that which artists and
> the art critic world operate on, the other level is that which the
> "ordinary people" which the arty community spend so much time pouring
scorn
> on live at.
>
<snipped example> [1]
>
> A lot of art that is created specifically to shock is done so, IMHO, to
get
> negative publicity, and further the artist's reputation - cynical
> manipulation of the media. Damien Hurst wouldn't be nearly as famous as
he
> is if it wasn't for the public furore surrounding the
sheep-in-formaldehyde
> incident (I still don't get that. Does anyone who is a non art critic?)
>
<snipping again>
>
> The mission of art (we were just discussing this on #afp..) is to
stimulate
> the senses and the emotions. If the emotions are stimulated in a certain
> (generally intended) way, especially an adverse one, by a particular
piece
> of art, it should be part of the mission of the artist to explain to
those
> who don't understand the reasons for it why it's as shocking as it is.
> The sooner the art community gets this into their head, the sooner
they'll
> start operating for the good of the community as a whole, rather than
> for their own selfish, introspective, navel-gazing good.
>
I pretty much agree with you here, but I think you may be jumping to a few
conclusions. Yes, often artists make pointless or gratuitous-seeming
works. This does not mean that he just made it up. There is almost always
a reason, even if we don't know it. As an example, the Damien Hurst sheep
was supposed to be viewed from between the two glass cases, meaning that
you were standing inside the sheep. You were then in a place that is
otherwise impossible to get to. There were other reasons, but I can't
remember them at the moment. I didn't realise any of this stuff until it
was explained
to me.
Damien Hurst didn't mind the publicity one bit, but it wasn't him that
created it.
One thing that I definately agree with is the arrogance of most artists.
They bring out a piece of work that is apparently pointless, and think it
beneath themselves to explain it. They don't seem to want people to find
out, they keep it as an in-joke between them and the critics.
I'm not an art critic (I am an artist, but for a computer games company -
not exactly high art), but my dad's a sculptor. He studied art with a
passion, and used to explain this stuff when I complained how stupid modern
art seemed.
Some work is quite stunning, if only you know how to look at it. For
example, those pictures that seemed to be just a huge canvas of one colour.
Looking at them on TV, they look like a complete rip-off. What I didn't
realise is that they're designed to be viewed at the gallery, so close that
the canvas takes up your entire view. Looking at the actually quite
roughly painted canvas, your eyes pick out patterns in the brush strokes
and build up a picture that even the artist didn't spot. I haven't had any
chance (or real inclination) to try this, but it makes more sense now.
If artists really cared about sharing their work with the public, rather
than just selling it off and looking down on everyone, they would take the
time to explain themselves. Would a writer not bother to give the plot?
I'm lucky, I sometimes find out.
There, I got that off my chest.
I think I'd better start working again.
Cheers,
Kevin
[1] I should mention where I crop more often. Apologies to all those I've
edited.
VeloraCat
In article <01bcd879$1d152a20$cfed...@offler.senet.com.au>, "Ross A
Chapman" <off...@senet.com.au> writes:
>a few nights ago three young youths broke into the Gallery and vandalised
>the painting with a hammer, smashing it. the Melbourne Art Gallery then
>decided to close the exhibition, saying that the exibit was putting their
>staff in danger. The painter condemned the art gallery saying,
>(paraphrased): "the people that did this were stupid idiots, but the art
>gallery are setting the worst kind of example by taking it down, condemning
>freedom of speech."
This may come as a surprise to you, but the galleries around here display
artwork in order to sell it. They also have every right to choose what
they will and will not display. The funny thing about freedom of speech is
that the entity [1] which is actually the vehical to saying the message [2]
can choose [3] what gets said.
Now, as for what should and should not be sensored, that is very personal.
The point about "just where do you draw the line?" has been made reather
well, and doesn't really need elaborated. They haven't even been able to
define pornography well enough to ban it.
Pornography is the one thing that everyone seems to want to ban. It is
degrading, disgusting, etc. People are especially sure they want to keep
their kids from seeing it, it might difile their minds or something. To
this end, pornography becomes forbidden fruit to the child, and what is
more attractive than forbidden fruit? Just a thought from someone whose
parents did not bother to keep her from pornogaphy and has never bothered
to look.
[1] This includes businesses, a little research can revile court cases to
support this.
[2] In this case, the gallery.
[3] Or, in the case of businesses, the owners choose.
--
The little black kitty.
My horoscope claims I should use this quote gratuitously:
"Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash, and I'm happy to say I have no
grasp of it whatsoever." -from _The_Adventures_of_Baron_Munchausen_
VeloraCat
In article <01bcd8ef$8564f260$6dee...@offler.senet.com.au>, "Ross A
Chapman" <off...@senet.com.au> writes:
>Ross A Chapman <off...@senet.com.au> wrote
>> they don't watch, what the belive and what they don't believe.it is already
>> possible to corrupt free thinking, and it is done, it is called education.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>After a conversation with Mike Knell and some others in #afp last night, i
>figure i needed to explain what i meant here.
>i am a University student studying Arts. my current experience of education
>has been twelve years of schooling and almost one year of uni.
>from experience all that is taught in school these days is like the
>following:
>"This is how it was, now write an essay on it."
This may be so, although my own experience is "here are a bunch of views,
now write an essay on your opinion". Still, education gives one the
knowledge to weigh arguements as well as different tools to interpret and
refute them. The ignorant man (or woman) has nothing to base an oppinion on.
Gid Holyoake
Kevin Hackett wrote:
>
> One thing that I definately agree with is the arrogance of most artists.
> They bring out a piece of work that is apparently pointless, and think it
> beneath themselves to explain it. They don't seem to want people to find
> out, they keep it as an in-joke between them and the critics.
>
Snippetry..
> If artists really cared about sharing their work with the public, rather
> than just selling it off and looking down on everyone, they would take the
> time to explain themselves. Would a writer not bother to give the plot?
> I'm lucky, I sometimes find out.
>
<Cynic mode on>
Perhaps the Artist doesn't actually know what they've created or why, so
they wait for a renowned Art Critic to explain it for them!
<Cynic mode off>
Gid
--
The Most Noble and Exalted Peculiar , Harem Master to Veiled Concubines
Guardian of the Sacred !!!!!'s , Defender of the Temple of AFPdoration
Click on http://www.lspace.org/ for the most FAQish Pratchett Website
AFP Code 1.1 ANL/AT d-- s+:+ a34+++ UP+ R+++ F++ h- P-- OSD: C+++
M pp+ L+ c B Cn:+ PT+++ Pu46- 5 X++ MT !e rp++++ y+++ end
Maurice Barnes
m...@library.lspace.org (Mike Knell) annunciated to the gathered
multitude :
>A lot of art that is created specifically to shock is done so, IMHO, to get
>negative publicity, and further the artist's reputation - cynical
>manipulation of the media. Damien Hurst wouldn't be nearly as famous as he
>is if it wasn't for the public furore surrounding the sheep-in-formaldehyde
>incident (I still don't get that. Does anyone who is a non art critic?)
Well said Mike, alot of these folk have to do it for the publicity, I
mean, if you had never heard of Picasso, would YOU buy one of his
paintings (assuming you had the cash of course)? Just because some
snotty art critic gushes over a piece and says how marvellous it is
seems to add about 500% to the price. They are usually the ones who
have bought all the back-catalogue and then help with the hype.
I can remember a documentery about a painter. All he did was dribble
some clear varnish vertically down a 10 foot square canvas and proudly
proclaimed that he could sell it for 2000ukp as soon as it was dry.
It's all drivel this art lark. It doesn't matter what you do so long
as you have a clever explaination for doing it and make the viewer
think he/she is stupid for not seeing the meaning in the first place.
Unfortunatly some of the garden designs at Chelsea this year seem to
be going the same way.
AFPCode 1.1 AB$/NL d>++ s+: a@24 UP+ R++ F++ h P- OSD-: C---
M@-- pp L+ c(-) B>+ Cn-:+ PT+ Pu55- 5++ !X MT? eV+ r-@ y-- end
Maurice Barnes (Mr O.)- SPAMTRAP Remove * from Address bar...@globalnet.co.uk
All Things Discworldly at http://www.lspace.org
Karen
In article <620i7q$ov7$1...@library.lspace.org>, Mike Knell
<m...@library.lspace.org> writes
>In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.97101...@ermine.ox.ac.uk>,
>Victoria Martin <sann...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>they know it would upset people. My own view of the Myra Hindley portrait
>>was that it was a quite extraordinarily selfish decision by the artist to
>>display it, and that someone marginally less self obsessed would probably
>>have chosen not to cause that much pain to people who had been personally
>>affected by the Moors murders, but I wouldn't call the decision not to
>>display the painting censorship (not even self-censorship).
>
>
<snip levels of art appreciation>
>
>Let's take an example - you take explicit photos of people screwing, inserting
>things in orifices that things aren't meant to have things inserted in
>them, and indulging in various other activities that a *lot* of people find
>offensive. If you're an arty person, it's a challenging exploration of the
>human wossname. If you're an ordinary person, it's pornography. The fact that
>artists will go out and exhibit this stuff and then scream "censorship!"
>
>A lot of art that is created specifically to shock is done so, IMHO, to get
>negative publicity, and further the artist's reputation - cynical
>manipulation of the media. Damien Hurst wouldn't be nearly as famous as he
>is if it wasn't for the public furore surrounding the sheep-in-formaldehyde
>incident (I still don't get that. Does anyone who is a non art critic?)
I saw the cow-cut-in-half and other bits of Hirst at the Tate along with
lots of other exhibits of abstract/modern art although most would not be
described as shocking. I went with a friend who has a particular
interest in modern art (I am no expert in visual arts myself) simply
because I had previously found much of it to be incomprehensible.
Regarding the Hirst animals I understood the point to be that they were
being viewed from an unusual position, showing aspects of which you
would not otherwise be aware. The cow was in two cases close together
and you had to walk between them - a very strange sensation and the
proximity made me look at the colours and textures of the tissues in a
way I would never have done in a lab. Now whether or not this
constitutes art is a matter of debate but it would probably fulfil the
criteria of stimulation. I had also heard and read interviews of Hirst
explaining his work which helped me to form some appreciation of what he
was trying to achieve.
I think the key for me was to have an accompanying friend who could
actually explain the object of some works and for some simply say "why
should it have an object - it is simply a beautiful
design/shape/texture". I was struck by how different (and how much
better) many of these works seemed in the "flesh", having only
previously seen pictures of them. The main losses seemed to be of
texture and 3d form - both pretty critical in non realist art!
>
>To create shocking art and then feign surprise and refuse to say "right,
>this is what this is supposed to be doing.." when there's a public outcry,
>or it's put into a closed exhibition by a gallery, is cold and cynical
>manipulation of public opinion - people don't get to know what the art is
>about, they just know it's nasty. "Yes, but is it art?", they say.
>
aol
<snip>
>
>The mission of art (we were just discussing this on #afp..) is to stimulate
>the senses and the emotions. If the emotions are stimulated in a certain
>(generally intended) way, especially an adverse one, by a particular piece
>of art, it should be part of the mission of the artist to explain to those
>who don't understand the reasons for it why it's as shocking as it is.
>The sooner the art community gets this into their head, the sooner they'll
>start operating for the good of the community as a whole, rather than
>for their own selfish, introspective, navel-gazing good.
And I find it particularly irritating that "shock jock" art is
invariably described simply as "modern" rather than a self indulgent,
small subset of the art world, thus deterring people from discovering
the more abstract arts for themselves. I don't think artists always need
to explain their works, but if an artist is going out of his/her way to
shock and offend it would seem to be their responsibility to at least
give a reason for this.
>
>OK. Even briefer summary - if I go out and indulge in various, er, explicit
>acts, take polaroids of them, and go around showing them to random strangers
>in the street, or publish them in a top shelf magazine, it's pornography. If
>I stick them on the wall of a gallery, however, it's art. The image is the
>same - where's the difference? Most people don't understand this, and the
>art community never bothers to explain to them. Some surprise when there's
>a public outcry, then..
>
aol again
>
>
Karen
(who is still developing when it comes to modernish exhibits but likes
Andy Goldworthy's photographs if they are not too realistic to count<g>)
--
New to Pratchett and/or afp?
Try http://www.lspace.org for all you could want to know (including the FAQs)
No web access? Look out for postings with headers marked [FAQ] - Try "hello,
welcome to alt.fan.pratchett" first.
helen pile
In article <61vbgk$41c$1...@rama.twi.tudelft.nl>, Leo Breebaart
<l...@lspace.org> writes
>"Ross A Chapman" <off...@senet.com.au> writes:
>
>> now, i am not saying that we should simply let everything go without
>> consorship. things which are public viewing and may be offensive to some
>> people should be censored. but, i think the outcry against things such as
>> this are arrogant and conceited. you don't have to go into the exhibit.
>> you don't have to go see the play. if you don't want your kids to go see it
>> don't let them. just don't stop people who might think that it might be
>> good from doing it.
>
>Um, Ross, maybe it's just me, but the first two sentences of that paragraph
>seem to be saying exactly the opposite of the last two sentences. Exactly
>what point are you trying to make here?
>
I just have to say something and put my opinion in....
If people are offended by what they see on telly, let it be sex,
language, racism, violence, etc. then why don't they turn the telly
over, and watch something else.
If they see it in the papers, don't read it or in books, just don't read
it!
Also all that calamity over the Girls magazines, ie:'Suger', 'More' and
so forth, us kids, (I'm 16) find out more about life in them mags, then
anywhere else.
I mean how embarressing is it for us kids and our parents to ask sexual
questions?
But, why is it that us 'mere' children, don't know a thing about life,
and responsibilities. I have a part time job, pay my share around the
house and so forth.
pls reply, if you agree or disagree, I'm open to all views.
--
helen
Sebastian Vielhauer
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:47:06, m...@library.lspace.org (Mike Knell)
wrote:
There is so much I would like to reply to in this post, but I will try
to focus only on some points. Please excuse if my text sounds a bit
overcomplicated, but as a furriner I have to use the words and phrases
I picked up somewhere, although they are not always optimal. Let's
start:
> Art operates on two levels. The "higher" level is that which artists and
> the art critic world operate on, the other level is that which the
> "ordinary people" which the arty community spend so much time pouring scorn
> on live at.
Here we find already a nice sample of the weakest point in Mike's
argumentation: heavy simplification.
Art can work on many levels, where the sensual impressions when you
see a sculpture, hear a piece of music etc. is only the starting
point. For example the external context (how you see your piece of art
[POA] in its environment) and the internal context (how is the
relation of the POA compared to other POAs, in what historical frame
was it created) can be important. And of course to see the reaction of
other people when confronted with the POA is such a level. So, when we
discuss here on afp the pros and cons of modern art, it is really part
of that work of some Australian artist! And this is for me one of the
joys when I "consume" arts: to find approaches to a POA starting from
completely different points, depending of the POA itself. This does of
course not not work for every form of art, and it is possibly not
worth the effort for some forms.
Now Mike claims that there are two ways to interpret art, the "higher"
and the "ordinary" one: It seems you need some sort of diploma or
degree for the former way: it makes you part of the "arty community"
where people have some elitist notions, so that they can look down on
the rest of us.
I'll leave it like that - this thought is not really worth discussing.
Just go to an exhibition somewhere near your place and look at the
other visitors. Most of them are plain, ordinary people, only maybe
less common than possible.
> Let's take an example - you take explicit photos of people screwing, inserting
> things in orifices that things aren't meant to have things inserted in
> them, and indulging in various other activities that a *lot* of people find
> offensive. If you're an arty person, it's a challenging exploration of the
> human wossname. If you're an ordinary person, it's pornography. The fact that
> artists will go out and exhibit this stuff and then scream "censorship!"
> when people say "right, this stuff's a bit rude, you'll need an appointment
> to see it, we can't just let any 12-year old wander in.." just goes to
> show that they're either (a) not on this planet, (b) staggeringly snobbish
> and patronising towards non art-critic people, or (c) being deliberately
> obtuse in order to attract public reaction. I suspect (c).
Here Mike makes a valid point: it seems that art has more freedom to
exceed the borders set by the moralistic standards than other means.
But this has a long tradition. After all, in many museums worldwide,
there are portraits and sculptures of completely naked men and women -
on some ancient Greek pottery obviously depicted in states of sexual
intercourse - and nearly no-one really bothered all the years. School
classes are even encouraged to visit these places!
It would seem to me that pornography - as something to protect
children against - includes more than the image of some obsecenity.
Pornography is also formed by what we think (or are supposed to think)
when we see the image.
Anyhow, our moralistic standards concerning nudity and obscenity are
moving swiftly. In Germany you can nowadays see nude models (not in
frontal view, but that is only a matter of time) in advertisments for
perfumes, radio stations and even fot the local electricity supplier.
Only one generation back such things would have been impossible to
show.
Art can, by breaking those moralistic rules, help to make us more
conscient about these standards, and I think this is a good reason to
be more tolerant in this case.
> A lot of art that is created specifically to shock is done so, IMHO, to get
> negative publicity, and further the artist's reputation - cynical
> manipulation of the media. Damien Hurst wouldn't be nearly as famous as he
> is if it wasn't for the public furore surrounding the sheep-in-formaldehyde
> incident (I still don't get that. Does anyone who is a non art critic?)
Sorry, I missed that. Do you mean som guy chose to exhibit a dead
sheep and suddenly all newspapers and TV-shows started the annual
"Is-This-Still-Art Featuring The-Man-In-The-Street Interview" (tm)
thread?
> To create shocking art and then feign surprise and refuse to say "right,
> this is what this is supposed to be doing.." when there's a public outcry,
> or it's put into a closed exhibition by a gallery, is cold and cynical
> manipulation of public opinion - people don't get to know what the art is
> about, they just know it's nasty. "Yes, but is it art?", they say.
> And this manipulation is for purely selfish reasons, self-promotion by the
> artist and the criticish types that follow them. Mucking with people's
> minds like this to the great detriment of many, and the sole benefit in
> public exposure, saleability, etc, of the artist is selfishness taken to
> the extreme.
This is again much too simple to be convincing. To cause provocation
can of course be a central element of a POA, but then it is usually
plain to see that it's meant that way (like this cross in urine
thingie). There are indeed quite a lot of those pieces around, and
most of them never make it into the news. So maybe the artist promotes
it a bit. Maybe he only wants the Melbourne observer to make a local
story from it, as a kind of cheap advertisment, but the whole things
ends a world-wide discussion on USENET? It's not so easy to see the
truth behind these stories, and to accuse someone of being selfish and
greedy without any proof is most unfair.
And it is not the fault of the artist, if the people don't get the
information they'd need to get to a better understanding of his
offending works. It is rather the way the media (and also the people)
stick to the well-known stereotype of the nutty artist who wants to
poke fun at everybody.
> Basically, what I'm saying is that 99.5% of the population, when presented
> with a shovel, will call it a shovel, not an innovative exploration of
> the celestial insignificance of man, and if the other 0.5% of the
> population chooses not to explain *why* it's an IEOTCIOM, then they shouldn't
> be surprised when people don't get it, and file it under "pornography" or
> "pretentious arse".
Sorry, I don't understand this. Is there a pune or play on words
involved?
> The mission of art (we were just discussing this on #afp..) is to stimulate
> the senses and the emotions. If the emotions are stimulated in a certain
> (generally intended) way, especially an adverse one, by a particular piece
> of art, it should be part of the mission of the artist to explain to those
> who don't understand the reasons for it why it's as shocking as it is.
> The sooner the art community gets this into their head, the sooner they'll
> start operating for the good of the community as a whole, rather than
> for their own selfish, introspective, navel-gazing good.
In your definition, a bottle of beer is art. Personally, I wouldn't
object, but for stimulating the senses and emotions, a kick in the
groin is already sufficient and I am not interested in that.
It is definetly *not* the artists job to explain what he is intending.
If he had the gift to give a good verbal description of what he wants
to express, he'd write a book. It's much cheaper to do and you don't
get all those stains on your clothings.
As my last point I would like to emphasize that being an artist has
very much to do with being selfish and introspective and that art is
always a personal thing of the artist. When art is put under the
obligation to do something for the community, it stagnates (like with
socialist realism).
Sebastian,
whose only artitic ambitions lie in cooking...
Sockii
Kevin Hackett wrote:
>
> I'm not an art critic (I am an artist, but for a computer games company -
> not exactly high art), but my dad's a sculptor. He studied art with a
> passion, and used to explain this stuff when I complained how stupid modern
> art seemed.
>
My sister studied art (not with a passion) and explained it helps to know
the artist's other works, i.e. how the current work developed. For instance
I'm sure that most afpers agree that PTerry's DW books have gotten better,
e.g. TCoM/TLF vs IT/FoC/HF (depending which one you're up to). I do at any
rate.
So for a single art work be able to stand alone without any guide/interpretation
of it (e.g. Leonardo Da Vinci's stuff - his sketches of man,etc) means that
it is outstanding. [a bit circular, but I don't know else how to explain it]
> Some work is quite stunning, if only you know how to look at it. For
> example, those pictures that seemed to be just a huge canvas of one colour.
> Looking at them on TV, they look like a complete rip-off. What I didn't
> realise is that they're designed to be viewed at the gallery, so close that
> the canvas takes up your entire view. Looking at the actually quite
> roughly painted canvas, your eyes pick out patterns in the brush strokes
> and build up a picture that even the artist didn't spot. I haven't had any
> chance (or real inclination) to try this, but it makes more sense now.
I'll try it when I get the chance.
Sockii
--
---
Sockii
helen pile wrote:
>
> I just have to say something and put my opinion in....
> If people are offended by what they see on telly, let it be sex,
> language, racism, violence, etc. then why don't they turn the telly
> over, and watch something else.
> If they see it in the papers, don't read it or in books, just don't read
> it!
If you think about a wee bit more (I am not being patronising/sarcastic),
you may realise that you expect 'people' to be mere spectators in life,
not participants. Surely if you care about something e.g. starving children
in the 3rd world, you would do your darndest to do something e.g. donate to
their cause. Or in Mother Teresa's case, she actively helped the ones
concerned (and that's why I admire her).
What you are proposing cuts 'people' off from the rest of the world; for
instance if say a tv program which replaced your favourite show offends you,
and you don't watch it, the market researchers are likely to pass your
unfavourable opinion over, and so you do not get a say in what you would
like
to see on tv. (this is a case of selection bias which leads to a biased point
of view).
(I also reckon this is why some of my preferred programs have never had
another season. Luckily _Whose Line Is It Anyway_ <new season> is back on
another channel.)
You also appear to be of the opinion that it is better to practice self-
censorship, that it is better to be bombarded with all these "choices"
that you would rather not be bombarded with. If I may use an analogy -
is it better to be spammed and be able to censor which spam you get, or
not to be spammed at all?
In the current Western world, in the signal:noise battle, the noise seems to
be winning. (Freedom takes up a lot of energy.)
> Also all that calamity over the Girls magazines, ie:'Suger', 'More' and
> so forth, us kids, (I'm 16) find out more about life in them mags, then
> anywhere else.
I really question about what you think is 'life'. Girls magazine are *very*
selective about their target e.g. the young-set, which have more time to go
out and buy things, tend not to worry about savings, and participate in the
*Girls* mag definition of life. (They really are prejudiced towards
exhorting their audience to spend money, gossip about stars as if the stars
knew the audience personally -- no surprise really about celebraty-stalkers.)
To most people e.g. ones who have been around a while, say at least one quarter
of a century, and have more experience in the RL 'life', the Girls mag's
'life' are ... well, have as much basis as DW. Both exist, but tend to be
tenously connected to RL.
> I mean how embarressing is it for us kids and our parents to ask sexual
> questions?
[In which case I suppose that the parties involved can pretend
that sexual questions don't exist, if I'm following your 1st point.]
O.K, I agree with that, but I'd advise non-fiction books for information rather
than mags created to sell a certain image. And even then I suggest that you
search for another point of view. That's what being a adult should be
about,IMO.
(Haven't quite reached that pinnacle yet 'cos being that type of informed
adult requires a lot of energy.)
BTW, I do find the information on hair care and stuff quite informative
(gosh, I sure hope that is the type of magazines you're talking about --
or my waffle would be out of context) but I do find myself affected by the
constant exhortions to be tall and pretty. Tho' there are token articles
about "accepting who you are", mainly I find that the point of them is
negated by the other more frequent articles on "how to look taller",
"how to fit into the swimsuit you bought last year" (why not get a new one?),
"how to use makeup to make your face look like everyone else's", etc.[1]
> But, why is it that us 'mere' children, don't know a thing about life,
> and responsibilities. I have a part time job, pay my share around the
> house and so forth.
A part-time job doesn't really qualify. A full-time one would. Money is
cheap compared to time. (OTOH so forth requires a lot of energy. ;-> )
'Mere' children probably have not yet experienced the devastion of life,
and the many *bad* things which happen during life. Sure your friends have
died in car crashes, have been injured in road accidents,
BUT 'mere' children don't know a single thing until you have to struggle
on living on only $40 pw for you and your child. [ref. a report in the
local paper in West Auckland.]
'Mere' children probably do not have experience of another moral-value set
(which hopefully is bound to come in 25+ yrs of living).
Of course 'mere' children applies to all sons and daughters, until their
loving-but-overbearing parents die. That is, "'mere' children" exists
only in the mind of the perciever.
> pls reply, if you agree or disagree, I'm open to all views.
ditto with the above, truly. (I'm a Libran)
Sockii
[1] Thankfully I've stopped fighting Nature, and have accepted myself for who
I am -- a short person who needs glasses, who never wanted to be in "fashion",
is indecisive, a babbler, is sullen, does not crave chocolate [whoopsa -
heresy on afp!], does not find slapstick appealing (e.g. Mr Bean), does not feel
the lack of a partner in my life, prefers to test the waters before jumping in,
and is lacking in self-confidence. And above all, a person who is *happy* with
themself.[2]
[2] Well, maybe not "happy", but certainly content.
--
---
Gidjabolgo
Suzi <Su...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
<kschnipp!>
>
> Suzi
> (sorry - one of my pet hates is the "art" which takes all the money away
> from "real" art.)
<rant=ON>
Was I brave enough, I'd ask for a definition :-) But I wonder:
Does Art have to have a purpose, whether it is holding a mirror
to life, question the society, shock the conformistic John Smith
or tell a story? I mean, van Gogh is Art and his landscapes are
held to be the best there is and so what? Some fields, a tree,
a house, it is not saying anything! Yeah sure, it is masterly
done, it looks really real, if you know what I mean, but after
I've left, I left it behind. Something I have not managed to do
with a Rembrandt. Does this mean that Art can be merely pleasing
and friendly, a bringer of peace instead of a revolutionary? As
I see what is said to be Art nowadays, in galleries, theatres,
concert halls etcetera, I find it hard to *enjoy*. And indeed
it is said that Art should not be enjoyed, but suffered, and I
wonder: Why? Why does it have to be difficult and introspective
and using a method of expression that you'll have to spend years
at a University to fathom? Why does it have to be so depressing
to partake (mostly concerning stage plays)? Don't anybody want
to produce something funny, or peaceful, or soothing anymore?
<rant=OFF>
Stig M. Valstad
"Kevin Hackett" <ke...@sci.spamskip.co.uk> wrote:
>
>One thing that I definately agree with is the arrogance of most artists.
>They bring out a piece of work that is apparently pointless, and think it
>beneath themselves to explain it. They don't seem to want people to find
>out, they keep it as an in-joke between them and the critics.
But much of the fun in being an artist is hearing/reading the
frequently hilarious interpretations offered by spectators. If
I explained what I meant with everything, I would miss that.
Oh, and the critics are often more off the mark than the general
audience.
--
Stig M. Valstad - sval...@sn.no - http://www.sn.no/~svalstad/
"...you sound like you've been wandering around mumbling in
dark, quiet corners..." Joann L. Dominik
Stig M. Valstad
helen pile <he...@growler.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>But, why is it that us 'mere' children, don't know a thing about life,
>and responsibilities. I have a part time job, pay my share around the
>house and so forth.
Those who want to censor everything always do it to protect kids,
but in my experience kids always handle such things well. I guess
I was about 9 or 10 when I saw my first porn magazine. I got no
emotional problems from that, on the contrary I think it helped
me towards a natural development. Unfortunately I can't say the
same about Christianity. I was one of those bigotted, narrow-
minded christians from about age 11 to 17, and I've still got
deep emotional scars from that time. Religion works by breaking
people's minds to make them easier to control.
A bit muddled but my conclusions are:
- Offensive art or music is not the danger to our youth, religion
is.
- Kids are often more sensible than adults.
Suzi
Maurice Barnes wrote:
>
> Mike Knell annunciated to the gathered multitude :
>
> >A lot of art that is created specifically to shock is done so, IMHO, to get
> >negative publicity, and further the artist's reputation - cynical
> >manipulation of the media. Damien Hurst wouldn't be nearly as famous as he
> >is if it wasn't for the public furore surrounding the sheep-in-formaldehyde
> >incident (I still don't get that. Does anyone who is a non art critic?)
>
> mean, if you had never heard of Picasso, would YOU buy one of his
> paintings (assuming you had the cash of course)? Just because some
> snotty art critic gushes over a piece and says how marvellous it is
> seems to add about 500% to the price. They are usually the ones who
> have bought all the back-catalogue and then help with the hype.
Hear, hear.
When I see a piece of so-called "art", where some pretentious reason has
had to be dreamt up to try and explain it away... I always think of the
tale of the Emperor's New Clothes... if it looks like tat and sounds
like tat, then it probably *is* tat, it's just that no-one's got the
gumption to say so!
Suzi
(sorry - one of my pet hates is the "art" which takes all the money away
from "real" art.)
--
"You could turn it into Suzi, and it sounded as though you danced on
tables for a living.........." Soul Music (B.F., AFPetite & AFProud)
~~ AFP Code 1.1 APA/Mu/C$ d s--:+ a34>+++ UP+ R+++ F+++ h- P-- OSD--:
C++ M pp+ L+ c-@ B Cn:+ PT+ Pu49- 5++ X++ MT eV+ rp++++ x+++ End~~
http://www.lspace.org/ - The Ultimate Terry Pratchett fan site!
Keith Knop
Stig M. Valstad <sval...@sn.no> wrote in article
<625o8b$ide$1...@news1.sol.no>...
> helen pile <he...@growler.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<largish excision>
> Religion works by breaking people's minds to make them easier to control.
<smaller excision>
You have apparently confused "Religion" with "Power-And-Hate-Mongering
Stupid
People." Admittedly, it can often be difficult to see the one for the vast
squad of
the other standing in the way, but I firmly believe that the distinction
needs to be
made, and anyone who disagrees is perfectly welcome to be completely
ignored
by me.
--
It is quite obvious that God has a well-developed sense of
humor, as nothing else could explain the music of Schoenberg.
squigger
Gidjabolgo wrote:
>
> Suzi <Su...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> <kschnipp!>
> >
> > Suzi
> > (sorry - one of my pet hates is the "art" which takes all the money away
> > from "real" art.)
>
> Was I brave enough, I'd ask for a definition :-) But I wonder:
> Does Art have to have a purpose, whether it is holding a mirror
> to life, question the society, shock the conformistic John Smith
> or tell a story? I mean, van Gogh is Art and his landscapes are
> held to be the best there is and so what? Some fields, a tree,
> a house, it is not saying anything! Yeah sure, it is masterly
> done, it looks really real, if you know what I mean, but after
> I've left, I left it behind. Something I have not managed to do
> with a Rembrandt. Does this mean that Art can be merely pleasing
> and friendly, a bringer of peace instead of a revolutionary? As
> I see what is said to be Art nowadays, in galleries, theatres,
> concert halls etcetera, I find it hard to *enjoy*. And indeed
> it is said that Art should not be enjoyed, but suffered, and I
> wonder: Why? Why does it have to be difficult and introspective
> and using a method of expression that you'll have to spend years
> at a University to fathom? Why does it have to be so depressing
> to partake (mostly concerning stage plays)? Don't anybody want
> to produce something funny, or peaceful, or soothing anymore?
> <rant=OFF>
>
> --
> Gidjabolgo, further explained at http://hem2.passagen.se/gidjabol/
> AFP Code 1.0 AC$ d+ s: a->+++ UP+ R F++ h- P- OSD--: C++ M-
> pp--- L+ c-(+) B Cn:+ PT--- Pu65- 5 X+ MT+ e++ r+++ x++++ end
>
>
been watching this thread, trying to find somewhere to butt in - well,
here it is.
Van Gogh is crap. I can't understand why anyone thinks otherwise. It
seems that because it is old, and he was some loony who cut his ear off
to give to his girlfriend, whatever he did is worth something. Why?
His style is finger painting (well, not quite, but it was damn well on
the way). I can understand Rembrandt being called a good artist - his
work is as close to photorealistic as it was possible to get back then.
Why is shit such as fingerpainting and hurling buckets of paint around
so good?
squigger hops again
Stig M. Valstad
"Keith Knop" <kn...@rhodes.edu> wrote:
>
>Stig M. Valstad <sval...@sn.no> wrote in article
><625o8b$ide$1...@news1.sol.no>...
>
>> Religion works by breaking people's minds to make them easier to control.
><smaller excision>
>
>You have apparently confused "Religion" with "Power-And-Hate-Mongering
>Stupid People."
No, I haven't. Those people I associated with were good people
who only wanted what was good for me and the branch of
Christianity was a mild form. What broke me was a belief system
out of control that clashed with my personality, not any single
person.
> Admittedly, it can often be difficult to see the one
>for the vast squad of the other standing in the way,
Particularly when the "Power-And-Hate-Mongering Stupid People."
do it unconsiously and appear to both themselves and other to
be doing good.
> but I firmly
>believe that the distinction needs to be made, and anyone who disagrees
>is perfectly welcome to be completely ignored by me.
Ah yes, the standard mode of religous discussion - ignoring what
your opponents say.
helen pile
In article <01bcdaa7$1b36c8a0$de1d4ec6@keith-knop>, Keith Knop
<kn...@rhodes.edu> writes
>
><largish excision>
>> Religion works by breaking people's minds to make them easier to control.
><smaller excision>
>
>You have apparently confused "Religion" with "Power-And-Hate-Mongering
>Stupid
>squad of
>the other standing in the way, but I firmly believe that the distinction
>needs to be
>made, and anyone who disagrees is perfectly welcome to be completely
>ignored
>by me.
>
>It is quite obvious that God has a well-developed sense of
>humor, as nothing else could explain the music of Schoenberg.
I didn't write the beginning bit, about racism.. please apologise!
--
helen
Stephen Litterst
squigger wrote in message <3446EC...@hotmail.com>...
>Gidjabolgo wrote:
>>
>> Suzi <Su...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>> <kschnipp!>
>> >
>> > Suzi
>> > (sorry - one of my pet hates is the "art" which takes all the money
away
>> > from "real" art.)
>>
>> <rant=ON>
>been watching this thread, trying to find somewhere to butt in - well,
>here it is.
>Van Gogh is crap. I can't understand why anyone thinks otherwise.
MAybe if you were more able to understand why some people like Van Gogh,
you'd be closer to appreciating Van Gogh.
I could go on about his style being radical and different for the time, and
how he was the earliest notable example of suffering for art, etc, etc...
but it would all be just so much BS, since i don't know my art history.
One thing many people seem to forget about Art (Capital "A") is that
traditionally it was never created for public consumption. It is only
comparatively recently that "public" displays of art have become popular.
Centuries ago, if Baron X wanted a nice picture of his fief, he'd ask around
at the Baron's club and hire an artist to do it. If the Baron's
descendant's needed money, they'd sell the painting.
Say what you will about "artistic integrity" but artists, dancers, actors,
poets, etc are all trying to make a living. That's the purpose. Some
realize that they can get a quick blast of fame by being controversial (a
technique made famous by Van Gogh), others prefer to starve.
Steve, off to find some relevance in all of this.
Keith Knop
helen pile <he...@growler.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<N0ZEvDAF...@growler.demon.co.uk>...
<vast amounts of excision>
> I didn't write the beginning bit, about racism.. please apologise!
>
> --
> helen
I'm sorry. I've never really gotten used to following all the confusing
strands of attributions and things. I didn't even notice your name was
in there. Sorry. I'll be more careful next time. -Keith
--
It's quite obvious that God has a well-developed
sense of humor. . . nothing else could explain
the music of Schoenberg.
Anthony W. Youngman
In article <625o87$idd$1...@news1.sol.no>, "Stig M. Valstad"
<sval...@sn.no> writes
>"Kevin Hackett" <ke...@sci.spamskip.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>One thing that I definately agree with is the arrogance of most artists.
>>They bring out a piece of work that is apparently pointless, and think it
>>beneath themselves to explain it. They don't seem to want people to find
>>out, they keep it as an in-joke between them and the critics.
>
>But much of the fun in being an artist is hearing/reading the
>frequently hilarious interpretations offered by spectators. If
>I explained what I meant with everything, I would miss that.
>Oh, and the critics are often more off the mark than the general
>audience.
>
critics than the general public ;-)
--
Anthony W. Youngman
wol at thewolery d demon d co d uk | The L-Space Web- http://www.lspace.org
Ask Christopher Robin where it is. | The Ultimate Terry Pratchett fan site!
If replying by e-mail please mail wol.
Anything else may get missed amongst the spam.
Adam Jones
Brian Howlett wrote:
> Good luck in your Peter Pan attempt! I'm trying this too - so far I've
> made it to 41 without growing up!
The cynical (or female) among us would say that this is a natural part
of being male...
--
Adam Jones (ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) (http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~mauei/)
Kethas epetai-Khemara
Murky (mu...@lspace.org) wrote:
: In alt.fan.pratchett, Anthony W. Youngman was seen to say...
: >At the end of the day, I am all in favour of censorship that says "No
: >you DO NOT have a right to offend other people".
: A rule of thumb perhaps, but a flawed one... as *someone* seems to get
: offended at *anything*.
: A US senator (and I'm paraphrasing here) suggested that 'Schindler's
: List' was offensive to all[1] decent people and so should not be shown
: on TV..... Some of the actions portrayed SHOULD be offensive - and
: that, I believe, is one of the points of the film.
: An extreme example, but the same principle applies. I am not offended
: by a small amount of bad language, but some people are offended at
: very mild swearwords. Is something which is not offensive to a
: majority of people to be censored because some people find it
: offensive?
: How many people have to be offended before it needs to be censored? If
: all these people are offended already, then censoring is closing the
: stable door after the horse has bolted. If all these people haven't
: seen it then I find it /very/ patronising for someone to say "You will
: find this offensive, therefore we will not let you see it".
: I've been reading up online recently about banned books... mostly US
: based references - but the principal is there.
: Recent banned books in parts of the US (usually banned by boards of
: education) include:
: The Adventures of Huck Finn, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.
: Brave New World
WHAT??? You're lying, aern't you? Please say you are . . . all these books are bloody good, IMHO; but
banning Mark Twains kids stories is actively criminal. I remember enjoying these *immensely* when I was
about 10. . . not that long ago, thanks ;)
And as for banning Huxley . . . well, maybe that had something to do with corpoatae imperialism
in the states . . . i.e., Ford ;)
: and
: The Diary of Anne Frank.
Unable to comment , I haven't read it ... but for a country that allegedly believes in freedom of
speech, surely it's *illegal* to ban books? Or is it only "free" if the government approve of it? ;)
Ahh, why not just declare Clinton Emporer, and have done with it?
: (I found the last banning, in Alabama IIRC, absolutely disgusting. The
: reason given, I believe, was "it's a bit of a downer")
: However, I am NOT advocating that we all be bombarded with things we
: don't like - however this may not be in the advertisers best interest
: as a general rule.....
No, but it should be *your* choice as to whether you read something or not . . . for example, I
read L. Niven & J . Pournelles satire of "Inferno" about 2 years ago (an SF writer in the role of Dante .
. . who tries to hanglide out on the thermals ;) BTW, I think there's a ref to the Niven satiire in
"Eric" . . . Pterry appears to have read his Niven, anyway . . . ), and tried to find an English
translation of the
orginal . . .very difficult. Had to resort the the university *library* . . . bad habit going in there,
people indulge in some very bad habits in that sort of place . . . like work. ;)
Now not having that siort
of thing in public librraies or available from bookshops isn't censorship per se . . .but it's very
worrying none the less. Reminds me of another Niven book, "fallen angels" . . .
: (Heh, I imagine a situation where we have a feedback loop... a schism
: in advertising results, "hard core washing up liquid" vs. "whiter than
: white soapy suds" - anybody "middle of the road" is simply drowned
: out).
Well, my politics aern't very "middle of the road" . . . but I refuse to be drawn into a political debate
. . .I *like* not having carpal tunnel syndrome ;)
--
Wayne Haley; aka "Kethas epetai-Khemara" |"Malt does more than Milton can,
3rd Year BSc (Hons) Comp. & Phys. student| to justify Gods' ways to man."
E-mail: wm...@saturn.bton.ac.uk | - A.E. Housman
WWW: http://www.comp.it.bton.ac.uk/~wmhl |
Alex Kamilewicz
Kethas epetai-Khemara <wm...@bton.ac.uk> wrote:
> : Recent banned books in parts of the US (usually banned by boards of
> : education) include:
>
> : The Adventures of Huck Finn, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.
> : Brave New World
> WHAT??? You're lying, aern't you? Please say you are . . . all these books are
He is not lying. U.S. education boards tend to be local affairs
populated only by those who can bother (generally churchmen/women or
housewives) and they tend to have their own views on what's good and
what's salicious. Mind you, I find parts of the Bible rather
offensive....
--
Alex Kamilewicz (35% of thesis complete...stalled)
manc0046@
sable.ox. "ill take a quiet life. a handshake some
ac.uk carbon monoxide.+ no alarms and no surprises."
Stig M. Valstad
"Anthony W. Youngman" <w...@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>And how many "religious" "christian" people do you know who obviously
>follow Jesus' teachings? Probably a lot less than those who obviously
>don't (deliberately excluding those where you cant tell - most people
>who really do follow His example it's not immediately obvious).
I said much the same thing on alt.discordia some time ago, while
I argued that Christianity has went pretty much downhill after
the death of Jesus.
Then someone replyed with a list of bible verses that didn't show
Jesus in such a positive light.[1] Unfortunately I seem to have
deleted it.
--
Stig M. Valstad - sval...@sn.no - http://www.sn.no/~svalstad/
"...you sound like you've been wandering around mumbling in
dark, quiet corners..." Joann L. Dominik
[1] One of those turned out to be totally different in the
Norwegian translation of the Bible.
Stig M. Valstad
"Stephen Litterst" <slit...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Say what you will about "artistic integrity" but artists, dancers, actors,
>poets, etc are all trying to make a living. That's the purpose. Some
>realize that they can get a quick blast of fame by being controversial (a
>technique made famous by Van Gogh), others prefer to starve.
Van Gogh was not wery successfull in his application of that
technique, however. AFAAIK he only sold two paintings while
he lived.
Stig M. Valstad
squigger <squiggerC...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>***vicious attack warning***
You call that a vicious attack? You must be new on usenet.
>And would you miss the truly obscene amounts of money wasted on such
>bullshit?
I just wish some of that money was spent on my art.
I did not intend to imply that Sturgeon's law does not apply to
modern art or that modern art is not sometimes overpriced.
Alistair Sutherland
Sockii <sta...@cs.auckland.ac.enz> wrote in article
<stan007-1610...@uglr4.cs.auckland.ac.nz>...
> helen pile wrote:
>
> >
> > I just have to say something and put my opinion in....
> >
> snip snip
> If you think about a wee bit more (I am not being patronising/sarcastic),
> Could have fooled me.
>
>
>
>
> > Also all that calamity over the Girls magazines, ie:'Suger', 'More' and
> > so forth, us kids, (I'm 16) find out more about life in them mags, then
> > anywhere else.
>
> I really question about what you think is 'life'. Girls magazine are
*very*
> selective about their target e.g. the young-set, which have more time to
go
> out and buy things, tend not to worry about savings, and participate in
the
> *Girls* mag definition of life.
Not that i disaggree with this, but arent most womans/mens magazines also
ful of this type of stuff? For example, this months cosmo has a threepage
article on using the internet to buy clothes. FHM etc concentrate entirely
on georgous female stars, to the same extent that girls mags concentrate on
male stars.
Show me any non news magazine that doesnt subscribe to a fictiious way of
life and i'll erase all this.
> To most people e.g. ones who have been around a while, say at least one
quarter
> of a century, and have more experience in the RL 'life', the Girls mag's
> 'life' are ... well, have as much basis as DW. Both exist, but tend to
be
> tenously connected to RL.
I really question your cut off point of 25 here. Im 22- does that somehow
make me a child?
>
>
>
> (
> > But, why is it that us 'mere' children, don't know a thing about life,
> > and responsibilities. I have a part time job, pay my share around the
> > house and so forth.
>
> A part-time job doesn't really qualify. A full-time one would. Money is
> cheap compared to time. (OTOH so forth requires a lot of energy. ;->
)
Do i understand you correctly here? Kids who work part time do it in
addition to school five days a week. Although most dont experience 'real
life' according to your definition, neither do most adults, imho.
> BUT 'mere' children don't know a single thing until you have to struggle
> on living on only $40 pw for you and your child. [ref. a report in the
> local paper in West Auckland.]
Does this mean that my experiences of adult life are tottally invalid?
Sorry, although i agreed with a lot of your points, i just felt that you
degenerated into a rant on the lines of 'your not a real adult unless youve
suffered in the way i have'
Good day.
Sara
Eelco Giele
Anthony W. Youngman <w...@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip, whack, lots snipped>
> I have to be careful with what I say, having seen - and enjoyed - "The
> Life of Brian", but if I remember correctly, the Monty Python team were
> most surprised at the furore it caused, blown up largely by the press!
> Yes it was a religious spoof, and I am a (almost fundamentalist)
> Christian. But I found it very funny, not least because the only
> connections with Jesus were the ones I, as the viewer, put there. It was
> only the story of a normal man going through perfectly normal (if
> extremely unlikely) situations similar to those that faced Jesus.
> At the end of the day, I am all in favour of censorship that says
> "No you DO NOT have a right to offend other people". I don't think
> it is a good idea for me to say you can't be offensive, but if you
> set out to provoke offense to innocent passers-by (defined as you
> interfering in their normal daily lives) then yes you should be
> censored out of existence. And don't forget some people do not have
> any choice about what they hear or see - at least not if they want
> to live a normal life.
.. Ehhmmm, I'm going to be very blunt. Just like to warn you up
front. Please don't read this if you are easily offended. And if you
disagree, you are always welcome to discuss things with me.
Well, you being a (almost fundamentalist) Christian[1] have you ever
considered the amount of noise church bells make? It's not the amount
of noise (which I do think is more then should be allowed but is not
in itself offensive) but the idea behind those church bells. This is
really complex to explain but I'll give it a try.
I am strongly opposed to the ideas expressed by the christian church
[2] and although I would rather see churches disappear, I think it is
everybodies free choice to join a specific belief. A church bell is a
call for the community to 'join for prayer' and more general to come
to church.
Combine these two, and churches are calling people to come share
an opinion which I despise with every fibre in my body. It is like
painting a swastika or a klu-klux-clan (sp?) symbol on your front
porch[4].
So, do you think church bells should be banished? Probably not (I'm
assuming things here, correct me if I'm wrong). I don't demand church
bells banished (although volume may be lowered :) ) so I do demand
the same amount of tolerance from those who are 'guilty' of doing
something offensive theirselves.
Final conclusion: You can't censor things based on provoking offense
in passers-by if you don't want to censor everything.
Greetings, Eelco
[1] Your own words. Would be nice to know what you understand under
almost fundamentalist. I don't think 'really fundamentalist'-s would be
allowed to read the heretic discworld series :)
[2] Any church really. And yes, I include harmfull explanations of
ideas which are in themselves harmless as part of the believe of that
church because if they would disagree it would be their task to set
things right.[3]
[3] Not to mention the catholic church which has institutionalised
hatefull and mis-interpretations.
[4] For those thinking a swastika is going way overboard, do I really
need to calculate the amount of people murdered in the name of some
church[5]?
[5] With a special place for the catholic church which would probably
be leading the list by a large margin.
> Unfortunately the phrase "gutter press" describes most of our
> ?news?papers only too well. And then they start getting all "high and
> mighty" :=(.
> --
> Anthony W. Youngman
> wol at thewolery d demon d co d uk | The L-Space Web- http://www.lspace.org
> Ask Christopher Robin where it is. | The Ultimate Terry Pratchett fan site!
> If replying by e-mail please mail wol.
> Anything else may get missed amongst the spam.
--
>What is this `holiday'' of which you speak?
I think that's the time when you can sit in the garden with your
laptop instead of in the office with the large screen.
Jenny Holmberg on afp
Ben Hutchings
In article <pIc3EABc...@thewolery.demon.co.uk>,
Anthony W. Youngman <kn...@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>At the end of the day, I am all in favour of censorship that says "No
>you DO NOT have a right to offend other people". I don't think it is a
>good idea for me to say you can't be offensive, but if you set out to
>provoke offense to innocent passers-by (defined as you interfering in
>their normal daily lives) then yes you should be censored out of
>existence. And don't forget some people do not have any choice about
>what they hear or see - at least not if they want to live a normal life.
The whole point of freedom of speech is that people have a right to say
offensive things, because that's the only reason people would want to
ban them in the first place. It is the principle that no-one can be
offensive in any way that underlies the extremes of political correct-
ness (which, in its milder forms, is quite a good thing).
--
Ben Hutchings, compsci&mathmo | ICOAmiga http://www.lapcopaintball.com/icoa/
email/finger m95...@ecs.ox.ac.uk | homepage http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223/
Nothing is ever a complete failure; it can always serve as a bad example.
Gid Holyoake
Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> The whole point of freedom of speech is that people have a right to say
> offensive things, because that's the only reason people would want to
> ban them in the first place. It is the principle that no-one can be
> offensive in any way that underlies the extremes of political correct-
> ness (which, in its milder forms, is quite a good thing).
There is an *awful* lot of difference between the phrases *being
offensive* and *being found offensive*.. If I say the word *fuck*, you
may find my language offensive.. If I say "fuck off", I am being
offensive.. to those who cannot cope with the word "fuck", I say "fuck
off".. In that way I am being offensive with offensive language.....
As far as political correctness goes, I would just say.. when I was
working for an LEA[1] as a Technician, my boss was a Sikh (of Punjabi
extraction!)
His favourite phrase was: "What this place needs is a few less chiefs,
and a few more Indians.."
Was this a *racist* remark??
All language has to be tempered with intent.. All feelings have to be
tempered with intent.. therefore, if no *ill* intent is meant, none
should be taken.....
Gid
[1] A Local Education Authority..
--
The Most Noble and Exalted Peculiar , Harem Master to Veiled Concubines
Guardian of the Sacred !!!!!'s , Defender of the Temple of AFPdoration
Click on http://www.lspace.org/ for the most FAQish Pratchett Website
AFP Code 1.1 ANL/AT d-- s+:+ a34+++ UP+ R+++ F++ h- P-- OSD: C+++
M pp+ L+ c B Cn:+ PT+++ Pu46- 5 X++ MT !e rp++++ y+++ end
Darran D. Rimron
Iwan Lamble <iw...@lamble.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
[..]
> In Cardiff High [...]
Buggger, more Welsh afp's this is getting scarey - Just when you thought
you were all along in the world, someone taps on your should and says
"Sorry Sonny, are you lost"
Baaaaaa
-Cheers, D
--
| Darran Rimron <dar...@rimron.co.uk> <dar...@lspace.org> |
| Rimron Design & Consultancy http://www.rimron.co.uk/ |
| Consultancy and Internet bod to the masses |
| F6 73 14 D9 25 53 BF 55 F9 FB 25 5A D7 CC C6 DA |
Kevin Hackett
Barasifam <bara...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971021080...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> In article <01bcddb8$199705a0$658ea8c0@scully>, "Darran D. Rimron"
> <dar...@lspace.org> writes:
>
> >Buggger, more Welsh afp's this is getting scarey - Just when you thought
> >you were all along in the world, someone taps on your should and says
> >"Sorry Sonny, are you lost"
>
> Says something for us Welshies then doesn't it?
>
> Leo Barasi (Bloody Welsh.....and proud of it)
>
Nice to see some Taffs in here. Makes me homesick.
One thing that struck me (a taxi came close) when I went to Manchester
University, was the number of people who thought I played rugby. I'm about
the most unfit-looking fella you're likely to meet outside intensive care,
but because I was Welsh they kept asking me to play. Go figure.
Oh, by the way, just clearing up another misconception. There was nothing
between me and Flossy. It was purely platonic. Those photos were faked
<faint baaing> Not now! I'm busy!
More Welsh, that's what I say. Maybe then it'll rain less in LLameddos
(sp?).
Cheers,
Kevin.
Q: What do you call two sheep tied to a lamp post?
A: Swansea Leisure Centre.
Sorry
Oliver Carpenter
Brian Howlett wrote:
>
> In message <d96268da47%mat...@soup-kitchen.demon.co.uk>
> Matthew Bloch <mat...@eh.org> wrote:
>
> > In message <625o8b$ide$1...@news1.sol.no>
> > sval...@sn.no (Stig M. Valstad) wrote:
> >
> >> A bit muddled but my conclusions are:
> >> - Offensive art or music is not the danger to our youth, religion is.
> >
> >
> >> - Kids are often more sensible than adults.
> >
> >
> Good luck in your Peter Pan attempt! I'm trying this too - so far I've
> made it to 41 without growing up!
> Brian Howlett
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------> I was going to join the Apathetic Society, but I couldn't be bothered...
My 52 year-old mother's motto is "Grow old disgracefully" which I feel is
a more practical approach to this as acting young is considered
disgraceful in some situations. You can also keep the experience that
age has lent you (speaking as an 18-teen year-old. of course). ;-)
-----------------------
Oliver Carpenter
Life as an illusion brought on by the lack of alcohol
Mattheq
In article <01bcdd6e$1e5d3fe0$de1d4ec6@keith-knop>, "Keith Knop"
<kn...@rhodes.edu> wrote:
> "Aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!"
> -lots of people, at various points in history.
"What big hippo?" Lots of other people, standing nearby.
Mattheq
--
"And then, one Thursday nearly two thousand years after one man had been
nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change..."
Tom De Mulder
>> Good luck in your Peter Pan attempt! I'm trying this too - so far I've
>> made it to 41 without growing up!
>The cynical (or female) among us would say that this is a natural part
>of being male...
I can only hope so...
+____.
.\ / + Tom De Mulder
\/ . to reply, please remove trailing 'y' from email address
* +
... Thirteen cheeses arrive regularly upon the plateau.
Keith Knop
Murky <mu...@lspace.org> wrote in article
<344f9793...@news.ftech.net>...
> In alt.fan.pratchett, Keith Knop was seen to say...
<snip>
> Erm... as the person being followed up to, perhaps you could point
out
> where I was "screaming very loudly" as opposed to stating a point of
> view?
<snip>
Oh, dear. I fear I may be getting into a habit of this. Screaming
very
loudly has absolutely *nothing* to do with you. It was a completely
new
introduction into the stream of conversation, and any implications
other-
wise were totally unintentional. I thought I'd snipped all traces of
attribution from the post, but evedently not. . . . Sorry for any
confusion.
Keith
--
"Baa!" -a sheep
Sockii
Rudolph the Deliverer wrote:
> Eelco Giele <ee...@stack.nl> wrote:
> >Combine these two, and churches are calling people to come share
> >an opinion which I despise with every fibre in my body. It is like
> >painting a swastika or a klu-klux-clan (sp?) symbol on your front
> >porch[4].
> >
> >[4] For those thinking a swastika is going way overboard, do I really
> >need to calculate the amount of people murdered in the name of some
> >church[5]?
>
> Jesus for a start.
>
well, the swastika came from a Russian Christian symobl (AFAIK), and I believe
Jesus was killed by politics (They who did not want to relinquish their Power
-- similar to Vorbis); or if you believe, then Jesus was never
murdered/killed since he rose on Easter Friday.
Sockii
--
"I'm looking for something..."
'Food? Friendship? or Champagne?'
hans...@tc.umn.edu
In article <62b8t4$j...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Snip
> >> Suzi <Su...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> >> <kschnipp!>
> >> >
> >> > Suzi
> >> > (sorry - one of my pet hates is the "art" which takes all the money
> away
> >> > from "real" art.)
All art is real art. It is your personal opinion if it is good, bad or
completely stupid, but not if it is "real" or not.
"Stephen Litterst" <slit...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Say what you will about "artistic integrity" but artists, dancers, actors,
> poets, etc are all trying to make a living. That's the purpose. Some
> realize that they can get a quick blast of fame by being controversial (a
> technique made famous by Van Gogh), others prefer to starve.
I am sorry but your lack of knowledge about van Gogh ruins your argument
about "artistic integrity". Van Gogh was _not_ famous in his lifetime. He
would have starved if it wasn't for the support of his brother Theo.
Vincent, in his life time, was an unstable man who was obsessed/driven by
his need to paint. All the artists that I personally know
paint/draw/scuplt/etc because it is in their blood, not to make money. In
fact they work at jobs they don't like just so they can have the money to
make art. If they can make money doing something they love, all the
better for them.
--
H.L. Hanson
"Since I cannot sing, I paint"
Georgia O'Keeffe
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mike Dimmick
In article <345088...@netcomuk.co.uk>,
Suzi <Su...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes:
> I'm sorry... but that pile of bricks in the Tate (or wherever it was)
> was just a pile of bricks... the money could have been better used
> building theatres, or providing art facilities in schools, etc....
And the bricks, too...
<g,d&r>
--
Michael Dimmick, Aston University <dimm...@aston.ac.uk>
Chairman, Aston Orienteering Klub <http://www.aston.ac.uk/~dimmicmj/>
Maintainer, Status Quo FAQ - list at <statu...@pyramid.com>
Suzi
hans...@tc.umn.edu wrote:
>
> > >> Suzi <Su...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> <kschnipp!>
> > >> >
> > >> > Suzi
> > >> > (sorry - one of my pet hates is the "art" which takes all the money
> > >> > away from "real" art.)
>
> All art is real art. It is your personal opinion if it is good, bad or
> completely stupid, but not if it is "real" or not.
I'm sorry... but that pile of bricks in the Tate (or wherever it was)
was just a pile of bricks... the money could have been better used
building theatres, or providing art facilities in schools, etc....
Suzi
--
"You could turn it into Suzi, and it sounded as though you danced on
tables for a living.........." Soul Music (B.F., AFPetite & AFProud)
~~ AFP Code 1.1 APA/Mu/C$ d s--:+ a34>+++ UP+ R+++ F+++ h- P-- OSD--:
C++ M pp+ L+ c-@ B Cn:+ PT+ Pu49- 5++ X++ MT eV+ rp++++ x+++ End~~
http://www.lspace.org/ - The Ultimate Terry Pratchett fan site!
Wallace Greenslade
hans...@tc.umn.edu wrote in article <8776380...@dejanews.com>...
>
>All art is real art. It is your personal opinion if it is good, bad or
>completely stupid, but not if it is "real" or not.
>
If I may mention points of interest. :)
Artwork can be a forgery, and in such a case its "reality" does dictate its
definition as art.
When artwork is done without soul, when it has no life or feeling or
purpose - is it really art? Art without the passion, art without power - is
it really art? Perhaps the definition of art needs to change to encompass
something deeper?
Wal.
Alistair Sutherland
H.L. Hanson <hans...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in article
<345104...@tc.umn.edu>...
> Wallace Greenslade wrote:
>
> Ideally tho, all art should have soul. How do you decide if the artwork
> has soul or not? Is not the artist the decision maker in such cases? If
> the work moves the artist and nobody else is affected is it still art?
>
Well, I went to a degree art show of a friend of mine, and one guy there
had his display just of pictures of him and his friends hanging a tarpaulin
over a shop, and he had written things like:
We hung the tarpaulin at 6.30 pm the people inside the shop did not find
scissors and escape untill 6.54
What the hell was that?
If anyone can tell me where the art is in that I'll be most gratefull.
David Geelan
G'day Tom
You wrote:
> In article <aZrrwJBB...@thewolery.demon.co.uk>, "Anthony W.
> Youngman" <w...@thewolery.demon.co.uk> writes
> >And how many "religious" "christian" people do you know who obviously
> >follow Jesus' teachings? Probably a lot less than those who obviously
> >don't (deliberately excluding those where you can't tell - most people
> >who really do follow His example it's not immediately obvious).
>
> Hmmm, this seems to me to confuse Jesus and the institution founded in
> his name. Whilst there may well be areas of common ground between the
> two, they are most certainly distinct.
I (as a Christian) agree. It's not always easy to hack and tear away the
layers of tradition and church culture that have accumulated over the
years around Jesus' quite simple and very powerful teaching. In my own
denomination, abstinence from the evils of alcohol, the cinema and
makeup (on women, OK!) have all come to be tangled around the gospel.
Certainly if we look at the history of institutionalised religion,
there's an awful lot that's in direct opposition to Jesus' teaching -
any oppression and persecution of non-believers for a start.
I'm sure other people will have expressed similar things. What I wanted
to ask is "Have you read Robert Pirsig's [1] book 'Lila'"? In it, he
makes a distinction between 'static quality' and 'Dynamic Quality'. He
suggests that all social progress is created by individuals displaying
Dynamic Quality - being radical, out-of-step, iconoclastic. He suggests
that Buddha and Jesus are such individuals.
But in order for society to maintain that progress and move forward
(kind of like a ratchet tooth) patterns of values accrete around the
original Dynamic insight, and this is static quality. He claims both are
necessary, but they need to be kept in balance. I suspect in the 2000
years since Jesus, the static accretion around his teachings has become
so extreme that it often ends up facing in the opposite direction!
I haven't done Pirsig's argument or approach justice here, and this is
really just one small example he uses - check the book out, is my
recommendation.
See ya,
Bravus
[1] Yep, the author of 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'.
--
David R. Geelan, Science & Maths Education Centre, Curtin University
GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, 6107. Ph: +618 9266 3594 Fax: +618 9266 2503
Home Page: http://alpha7.curtin.edu.au/~pgeelandr/bravus.htm
Perfect love casts out fear. 1 John 4:18
Angela MacKellar
: <kn...@rhodes.edu> writes
: >Stig M. Valstad <sval...@sn.no> wrote
: >> helen pile <he...@growler.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: ><largish excision>
: >> Religion works by breaking people's minds<snip snip>
: ><smaller excision>: >
: >You have apparently confused "Religion" with "Power-And-Hate-:Mongering
Stupid People." <snip snip>
: And how many "religious" "christian" people do you know who obviously
: follow Jesus' teachings? <snip snip>
Um, 'scuse me, but this conversation has a nasty flavour. Not what I come
to this ng for. I also subscribe to uk.religion.christian, so I'll see you
over there if you want to argue about religion. Okay? Now, let's have some
fun, perlease!
--
Angela MacKellar
anyt...@anggab.enta.net
Sarah Wittman
Gidjabolgo wrote:
>
> The Bellinghman wrote:
> >
> > As for Easter Friday - that's the wrong end of the 3-day period.
> > Easter Sunday is when he "rose again". Good Friday is when he died.
> Now, that says a lot about the English christian psyche,
> or at least, about the people who gave that holy day its
> totally weird name. I mean, how could it be said better?
It works for me.
Good Friday = four day long weekend = no school, definatly good
and
Good Friday = fish = salmon steak, also good.
no problems here..
Sarah
Send me no spam
Gidjabolgo wrote:
>
> The Bellinghman wrote:
> >
> > As for Easter Friday - that's the wrong end of the 3-day period.
> > Easter Sunday is when he "rose again". Good Friday is when he died.
> Now, that says a lot about the English christian psyche,
> or at least, about the people who gave that holy day its
> totally weird name. I mean, how could it be said better?
*Actually* "Good Friday" is a corruption of the original "God Friday" (I
think), a bit like the "Red Sea" used to be the "Reed Sea". HTH.
--
Boggly The Snail
___ The Boggly Homepage can be found at:
|_|/ _ \ http://www.collicutt.demon.co.uk
|_||__||__ To reply by email from a newsgroup:
\________\ Change "SPAMTRAP" to "Charles" and remove ".geoffrey"
Leo Breebaart
al...@lspace.org (The Bellinghman) writes:
> (However, we now get onto the case of just how annoyed God would have
> been if Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate hadn't done what they did - I
> have even seen suggestions that Iscariot was instructed to do what he
> did
This is, essentially, the spin that "Jesus Christ Superstar" puts on the
story. At the end Judas is convinced that both God and Jesus *wanted* him
to do what he did, and what's more: that they messed up his mind to that
purpose. When he finally can see clearly again and realizes what he's done
/ what he's been made to do, he hangs himself: "You have murdered me!!"
I always thought that Tim Rice handled all of this with particular (and
some might say: uncharacteristic) subtlety. Judas' realisations at the end
refer nicely back to his line with which the musical opens: "My mind is
clearer now, at last I can see...", the point being that if God & Jesus
have indeed been using Judas as a convenient dupe, than that opening scene
would have been just about the moment where his judgment actually would
have *started to cloud*. Very ironic.
Another nice thing about the musical, however, is that they never actually
*tell* you that this is what happened. It's entirely possible that Judas is
simply deluding himself and refusing to accept responsibility for something
he damn well did all by himself, and is in the end simply taking a coward's
(or honourable?) way out.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Keith Knop
Gidjabolgo <gidj...@hem2.passagen.se> wrote in article
<01bce51a$e5c95a60$192d0d93@lt4525>...
<snippage>
> Good friday implies a good day, which is remarkable here
> unless you want to say that the chap up there did have a
> lot of fun when nailed to the cross.
Certainly it wasn't much fun for _him_, but from the point of view of
the rest of humanity (depending on your beliefs, of course), the
***outcome*** was good. The act itself was a major bummer. It's one
of them dichotomy things.[1]
[1] Like when they take your tonsils out.[2]
[2] I just realized that what started as a flippant and oblique
reference to RM can actually be read on a deeper level: It sucks when
the doctor's in there with sharp pieces of metal, hacking out portions
of your anatomy that he claims you don't need, but when it's over you
stop getting strep throat or whatever every other week.
Keith
Stephen Litterst
Leo Breebaart wrote in message <63ak8q$1pb$1...@rama.twi.tudelft.nl>...
>al...@lspace.org (The Bellinghman) writes:
>
>> (However, we now get onto the case of just how annoyed God would have
>> been if Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate hadn't done what they did - I
>> have even seen suggestions that Iscariot was instructed to do what he
>> did
Actually, the Gospel of John says this:
"so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said,"Tell us who it is of whom he
speaks [about betrayal]." So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he
said to him, "Lord, who is it?" Jesus answered, "It is he to whom I shall
give this morsel when I have dipped it." So when he had dipped the morsel,
he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Then after the morsel,
Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do
quickly."
John 14:24-27
So, the morsel gives Satan the path to corrupt Judas.
It's actually, IME, a fairly common belief that Judas was destined to betray
Jesus into the hands of the pharisees. IMHO, the God of the Old Testament
was never hesitant about sacrificing a life (or a city) for the good of the
world, Judas was a necessary sacrifice to complete the Plan.
The thing to remember about Pilate is that he was not the one that had
Christ crucified. He beat him, imprisoned him, but washed his hands of
Christ at that point. Yes,he could have stopped the act but that wasn't
part of the Plan.
Steve L.
Stuart Lavin
The message <34542541...@news.lspace.org>
from al...@lspace.org (The Bellinghman) contains these words:
> At least you qualified the bit about the swastika - it's somewhat more
> ancient than the Russian Church - you can find it in pre-Xtian Roman
> mosaics among other places.
Was the swastika not originally African, or somesuch similar?
Victoria Martin
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, ppint. wrote:
> > Leo Breebaart wrote in message <63ak8q$1pb$1...@rama.twi.tudelft.nl>...
> >
> >It's actually, IME, a fairly common belief that Judas was destined to betray
> >Jesus into the hands of the pharisees. IMHO, the God of the Old Testament
> >was never hesitant about sacrificing a life (or a city) for the good of the
> >world, Judas was a necessary sacrifice to complete the Plan.
>
> - "did he who made the lamb make thee ?"
>
> - if the deity is good - *if* the deity exists, that is - _how_can
> such a deity pre-condemn any one of its intelligent and moral cre-
> ations to such a path, and such a doom ?
Are we talking about hypothetical deities in general or the Christian god
in particular? As far as the latter goes, doesn't he make quite a habit of
this pre-condemning business? I was under the impression that there is a
respectable theological tradition that holds that even the fall of Satan
is part of the Divine Plan? And that whole business of the tree in the
gGarden of Eden looks like a set-up job, IMHO.
Victoria
Leo Breebaart
> > > Leo Breebaart wrote in message <63ak8q$1pb$1...@rama.twi.tudelft.nl>...
> > >
> > >It's actually, IME, a fairly common belief that Judas was destined to betray
> > >Jesus into the hands of the pharisees. IMHO, the God of the Old Testament
> > >was never hesitant about sacrificing a life (or a city) for the good of the
> > >world, Judas was a necessary sacrifice to complete the Plan.
Everybody: *please* watch your attributions, especially in potentially
controversial threads like this one (well, I *tried* to defuse things by
writing about a musical, but it obviously didn't work :-)).
Anyway, I did not write the above, and although in this instance the text
attributed to me is harmless enough, I would not want my name erroneously
attached to religious arguments and opinions that are not, in fact, mine.
Sorry to be picky about this, but I have enough trouble with people getting
upset at me for the opinions that I *do* hold...
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Stephen Litterst
Victoria Martin wrote in message ...
>Are we talking about hypothetical deities in general or the Christian god
>in particular? As far as the latter goes, doesn't he make quite a habit of
>this pre-condemning business? I was under the impression that there is a
>respectable theological tradition that holds that even the fall of Satan
>is part of the Divine Plan? And that whole business of the tree in the
>gGarden of Eden looks like a set-up job, IMHO.
I had been talking about the Judeo-Christian God, although, IIRC, there are
many theological examples of other gods doing such things. The Greco-Roman
deities had a wonderful time mucking about in the lives of their peoples.
Heck, Zeus/Jupiter alone fathered more half-breeds than I can recall and
Hera/Juno spent most of her time tracking down her husbands bastards and
making their lives difficult. And I'm sure that Norse tradition tells of
Loki causing a ruckus or two, although I can't recall specific stories.
This was one of my favorite things about Good Omens. Pterry and Neil raised
the point that *everything* is part of God's "ineffable"plan for the
Universe. The Apple, the Betrayal, the Inquisition, etc.
I'm gonna shut up now, before I get a reputation as the local religious
freak.
Steve L.
Barasifam
In article <878286...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk>, ypp...@lspace.orgy ("ppint.")
for some reason which I don't fully comprehend, wrote:
>"did he who made the lamb make thee ?"
"Tiger, tiger burning bright,
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye,
Framed thy fearful symmetry?"
Sorry - it was on my bedroom wall for a good few years, and I *did* know
it all off-by-heart. <G>
Leo Barasi
mmes...@mindspring.com
Stephen Litterst wrote:
<snip>
> This was one of my favorite things about Good Omens. Pterry and Neil raised
> the point that *everything* is part of God's "ineffable"plan for the
I think that was a bit of sarcasm. What was it? Something about playing
a game in which you can't see the cards and don't know the rules, with
someon who *always smiles*?
> Universe. The Apple, the Betrayal, the Inquisition, etc.
I don't think I could worship a diety who included the inquisition in
his/her plans for the universe.
> I'm gonna shut up now, before I get a reputation as the local religious
> freak.
There are those who take pride in such a lable.
I'm debating whether or not to post a fairly amusing and highly relevent
story (a parable, even) that I just came across. I suppose I shan't, as
it's a bit long. But I can point to you a www version at
http://www.infidels.org/library/humor/judgement.html
I don't think I can summarize it well, but it involves a happy sociopath
on the island of hypothetical philosophical dilemnas, an axe, and
judgement day.
-Mary
Send me no spam
In article <199710311...@zetnet.co.uk>, Stuart Lavin
<sl...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
The swastika is a Hindu symbol for good luck and general Goodness
reversed; this (some believe) is because Hitler and his henchmen for
"black magicians" of a sort. It is certainly true that towards the end
of his career Hitler was using pendulums to choose where to strike by
seeing which way round they span when hung over a point on a map.
Keith Knop
Iwan Lamble <iw...@lamble.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<c7o9gbAt...@lamble.demon.co.uk>...
<snip>
> It is one of the more complicated teachings [1] of the Bible
> (Calvinistic or something?) that everyone who will be saved was known
by
> God before the beginning of time.
However, it is quite possible to argue that Jean Calvin was full of
horse feathers and was only spouting off about predestination because
he was a gloomy S.O.B. with a superiority complex . . . and to do so
with full Biblical support.
For example, the Bible, at wide-spread points, both asserts that there
is no god but God, and implies that other gods are all over the place.
Just 'cuz it's written doesn't mean, as Crowly and Aziraphael point
out, that it isn't written differently somplace else where you can't
see it, in bigger letters, underlined twice. Okay, that's not really
relevant, but I just felt the need to work it in.
> However, it is impossible to say that God knows everything [2] but
not
> the future (it would be a cantradiction). Therefore, before the
> beginning of time, God must have known who would be saved and who
> wouldn't.
The question here is: what if he doesn't want to? Omniscience doesn't
necessarily mean that you *have* to know everything, only that you are
fully capable. And if God /Supreme Being Of Your Choice is omnipotent,
then it stands to reason that he would have the power to choose not to
know something. Otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent. (If I may turn
your arguement against you :) And what'd be the point of a Last
Judgement if he'd already decided? And why bother to create a universe
if only to have to watch people muck the whole thing up?
Eternity'd get bloody boring if you knew the plot already.
Keith
Jens Kristoffer Nielsen
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 15:16:27 +0000, Send me no spam
<SPAM...@collicutt.demon.co.uk.geoffrey> wrote:
>Gidjabolgo wrote:
>*Actually* "Good Friday" is a corruption of the original "God Friday" (I
>think), a bit like the "Red Sea" used to be the "Reed Sea". HTH.
The Red Sea _is_ red at times. Comes from a kind of algae, that
colours the water at certain times.
/Kristoffer
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world
The unreasonable man tries to adapt the world to himself
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
- George Bernard Shaw
J & R Hookey
Barasifam <bara...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <878286...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk>, ypp...@lspace.orgy ("ppint.")
> for some reason which I don't fully comprehend, wrote:
>
> >"did he who made the lamb make thee ?"
>
> "Tiger, tiger burning bright,
> In the forests of the night,
> What immortal hand or eye,
> Framed thy fearful symmetry?"
"What the shoulder, what the art,
Did twist the sinues of thy'n heart?
And when thy'n heart begain to beat,
What dread hands formed thy'n dread feet?"
> Sorry - it was on my bedroom wall for a good few years, and I *did* know
> it all off-by-heart. <G>
Sorry too, but Blake's sooooo good it just had to be quoted!
Ookey
--
Official Abuser of the Sacred!!!!!'s
AFPurity 41% - Official Member of the Gid Holyoake Harem - AFPetite
AFP Code 1.1 ANL d+ s---:+ a U++ R++ F+++ h !P OS-:+ C+++ M pp- L+ c--
B+ Cn PT--- Pu40- 5 X++ MT eV r++ x++++
Keith Knop
> In article <c7o9gbAt...@lamble.demon.co.uk>,
> Iwan Lamble <iw...@lamble.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >... Anyway, there is no law that gods have to save humans, is there?
Erm. . . <fx: takes deep breath with puzzled-cocker-spaniel look>
Well, if it would seem immoral to us for a god *not* to save humans,
and assuming that morality come from something higher than the human
brain[1], then it would seem to follow that, by the morality created by
whatever god we happen to be discussing, the yes, gods do have to save
humans.
Unless of course you get the whole I Am Om And Shall Smite Whom I
Please complex going, which pretty much shoots down my arguement.
Keith
[1] Five to six feet, on average, when standing.
replace spam-b-gone with rhodes
Marina
Send me no spam wrote:
>
> In article <199710311...@zetnet.co.uk>, Stuart Lavin
> <sl...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
> >The message <34542541...@news.lspace.org>
> > from al...@lspace.org (The Bellinghman) contains these words:
> >
> >> At least you qualified the bit about the swastika - it's somewhat more
> >> ancient than the Russian Church - you can find it in pre-Xtian Roman
> >> mosaics among other places.
> >
> >Was the swastika not originally African, or somesuch similar?
>
> The swastika is a Hindu symbol for good luck and general Goodness
> reversed;
It is a stilysed wheel - able to role only counter-clockwise, against
the sun - hence a symbol of evil. The mirror image of that symbol, i.e.,
the wheel that can only turn clockwise (with the sun) was a mystical
symbol of good, light, knowledge etc. It was rather popular as a
decorative motif in ancient Greece.
Marina
Marina
Iwan Lamble wrote:
>
> In article <01bce655$d3ea7d60$de1d4ec6@keith-knop>, Keith Knop
> <kn...@rhodes.edu> writes
> >For example, the Bible, at wide-spread points, both asserts that there
> >is no god but God, and implies that other gods are all over the place.
>
> I think that there's some difference between a God and a god. Satan is
> called a god, IIRC. Prehaps the 'gods' were called gods because that way
> they could easily be understood by the contempary people. I'm not too
> sure about this, I'm just hypothesising.
>
Actuaslly, I think I am in a position to clarify this point here: In
biblical (and modern) Hebrew, God and god are two entirely different and
distinct words. Same root, but dofferent words and a world of difference
in the meaning. By calling something a "god" in Hebrew, you do not in
any way acknowledge its devinity - only the fact that some (poor
misguided...) people seem to want to worship it.
Marina
Barasifam
In article <199711021...@zetnet.co.uk>, Stuart Lavin
<sl...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>- I disagree. Blake, IMNSHO, used dull poety to indulge his weird
>fantasies, which seem to stem directly from the death of his
>brother[1], in a boring, ineffective meter. There is no rhythm or
>soul to his work. It defies me how such ludicrous beliefs, embodied
>in such mediocre poetry and medicore art, could possibly become so
>respected. You can blame the hippies, I suppose - "Ooh, look, Hedonism!".
>
>
Are you at all related to Squigger?
Leo Barasi
Topi Saavalainen
In article <199711022...@zetnet.co.uk>, sl...@zetnet.co.uk says...
>
>The message <345C77A1...@sunsite.huji.ac.il>
> from Marina <mar...@sunsite.huji.ac.il> contains these words:
>> It is a stilysed wheel - able to role only counter-clockwise, against
>> the sun - hence a symbol of evil. The mirror image of that symbol,
i.e.,
>> the wheel that can only turn clockwise (with the sun) was a mystical
>> symbol of good, light, knowledge etc. It was rather popular as a
>> decorative motif in ancient Greece.
>
>evil? Or did he perhaps not realise that the direction of the hooks
>held a significance?
From the typographical point of view, the swastika is facing
right, which is the 'positive' and 'forward' direction, at
least in the western culture (direction of reading etc.).
Dunno if that's what he had in mind.
Topi.
Tom Pearson
In article <3466c6f1...@news.algonet.se>, Jenny Holmberg <jenny-
h...@algonet.se> writes
>On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:06:00 -0500, in alt.fan.pratchett "Stephen
>Litterst" <slit...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>This was one of my favorite things about Good Omens. Pterry and Neil raised
>>the point that *everything* is part of God's "ineffable"plan for the
>
>What about the IBM PC, then?
Well, the universe was a bit of a rush job see, and some of the problems
weren't fully ironed out before it went into beta testing. Hence the IBM
PC. Of course though, its all part of this ineffable bloody plan.
Tom.
Who has more cards than IRQ's, and is not very happy about it.
WJ O'Hagan
Remember if you will that Jesus said that there were twelve thrones for
the deciples in his "Father's house". From this, we are to understand
that Jesus either didn't know that Judas was going to betray him (i.e.
the Godhead can keep secrets from itself) or that Judas STILL managed to
reach heaven. Although it isn't written that he repented, he is supposed
to have hanged himself and it's a LONG way down. There's plenty of time
to repent! On the other hand, there's a veiled reference in Acts (I
think) to Judas dying after being pushed off a cliff or building. Did
someone else (the deciples) bump him off? Or on the other other hand (I
have three hands, somebody gave me one once) did God see that as Judas
HAD to do what he did, that he would not be punnished.
Such an act is by no means outside the "character of God" as he
let Saul of Tarsus off for all the persecution he performed because it
was in the best interests of the rest of the game.
Are we to understand that before the nativity, Jesus was a part
of God? If so, we must take it that there WERE twelve thrones in heaven.
Now, as God is omniscient, he must have known what was going to happen
and therefore Judas MUST have been forgiven for his "crime".
I'm going to stop this now. I've realised that I sound like a
Bible basher. Anyway, feel free to get back to me. It's probably best to
mail me directly too because I don't check the newsgroups too often.
Jimbo.
Andrew Mobbs
In article <3466c6f1...@news.algonet.se>,
Jenny Holmberg <jen...@algonet.se> wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:06:00 -0500, in alt.fan.pratchett "Stephen
>Litterst" <slit...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>This was one of my favorite things about Good Omens. Pterry and Neil raised
>>the point that *everything* is part of God's "ineffable"plan for the
>>Universe. The Apple, the Betrayal, the Inquisition, etc.
> ^^^^^
>
>What about the IBM PC, then?
Something that ill-designed *had* to have been created, evolution tends
to come up elegent designs like eyeballs, not crawling horrors from the
deepest pits of hell (unless of course you're in a deep pit of hell and
a crawling horror is a local maximum in the evolutionary curve).
ObWibble: I strongly advise people that it's a Bad Idea to smash your
head into a low oak beam while at a lunch attended by a dozen people,
one of whom is the Managing Director of the whole company group.
Particually when you're only there as a contractor, with a contract
which expires in less than a month which you're hoping will be
renewed. The Creme Brulee was nice though.
--
Andrew Mobbs - http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andrewm/
Gid Holyoake
Kevin Hackett wrote:
>
> Andrew Mobbs <and...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in article
> <63ks0v$i36$1...@virgo.software.plasmon>...
> >
> > ObWibble: I strongly advise people that it's a Bad Idea to smash your
> > head into a low oak beam while at a lunch attended by a dozen people,
> > one of whom is the Managing Director of the whole company group.
> > Particually when you're only there as a contractor, with a contract
> > which expires in less than a month which you're hoping will be
> > renewed. The Creme Brulee was nice though.
> >
>
> remember, come in incredibly handy at least once in your life. Other ones
> include 'If you're going to go to the corner shop while your flatmate is
> out for about the next 8 hours, check you have your keys on you'. That's
> one I should have had written down. Luckily, it wasn't raining.
>
> At least mine didn't hurt as much. You have my sympathy.
>
Along with.. If you *do* get married, get married to a/n /opposite/same
sex person who is your intellectual *inferior*, not one who will argue
the toss about *every* little proposal you may dare/purport/try to
make.....<Big Grin>
Sorry Suzi, my darling, meine Liebchen, Cariad.....
Gid
--
The Most Noble and Exalted Peculiar , Harem Master to Veiled Concubines
Guardian of the Sacred !!!!!'s , Defender of the Temple of AFPdoration
Click on http://www.lspace.org/ for the most FAQish Pratchett Website
AFP Code 1.1 ANL/AT d-- s+:+ a34+++ UP+ R+++ F++ h- P-- OSD: C+++
M pp+ L+ c B Cn:+ PT+++ Pu46- 5 X++ MT !e rp++++ y+++ end
bobbi
<snipped Swastika stuff>
> It is a stilysed wheel - able to role only counter-clockwise, against
> the sun - hence a symbol of evil. The mirror image of that symbol, i.e.,
> the wheel that can only turn clockwise (with the sun) was a mystical
> symbol of good, light, knowledge etc. It was rather popular as a
> decorative motif in ancient Greece.
>
> Marina
>
There is a rock on Ilkley Moor in Yorkshire,UK with a rather fetching
carving of a swastika on it, apparently this carving is well over 1000
years old (anybody know exactly how old?), the rock is called.......the
swastika stone.
--
bobbi iddod
X
poppi iqqiq
Stuart Lavin
The message <19971102195...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
from bara...@aol.com (Barasifam) contains these words:
> Are you at all related to Squigger?
I have my opinions which I shall express as will. Note the IMO-type
acronym in the post.
Stuart, bringing you AFPosts for the past 1 1/2 years...
Dick Eney
In article <H5fbQWA1WgX0IwL$@lamble.demon.co.uk>,
Iwan Lamble <iw...@lamble.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <199711022...@zetnet.co.uk>, Stuart Lavin
><sl...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>>The message <345C77A1...@sunsite.huji.ac.il>
>> from Marina <mar...@sunsite.huji.ac.il> contains these words:
>>
>>> the sun - hence a symbol of evil. The mirror image of that symbol, i.e.,
>>> the wheel that can only turn clockwise (with the sun) was a mystical
>>> symbol of good, light, knowledge etc. It was rather popular as a
>>> decorative motif in ancient Greece.
>>
>>evil? Or did he perhaps not realise that the direction of the hooks
>>held a significance?
>
>the best so adopted their symbol (and thinking of Hitler he probably
>wouldn't have cared what the Hindus thought it was a symbol of)
Traditional indo-european religion swastikas roll in both directions, with
positive imagery for both. So do the ones in the near east. Hitler was
studying eastern religions with intention of magical work (for details,
find somebody else - opinions vary a whole lot) and that's where he
grabbed it from, to try to get the sun-symbolism connected to his local
cult of personality.
=Tamar
bobbi
Jenny Holmberg wrote
Stephen Litterst wrote:
>
> >This was one of my favorite things about Good Omens. Pterry and Neil
raised
> >the point that *everything* is part of God's "ineffable"plan for the
> >Universe. The Apple, the Betrayal, the Inquisition, etc.
> ^^^^^
> What about the IBM PC, then?
>
The PC 'does' belong to God (a.k.a. Mr.Gates)
Rocky Frisco
Stephen Litterst wrote:
> This was one of my favorite things about Good Omens. Pterry and Neil raised
> the point that *everything* is part of God's "ineffable" plan for the
> Universe. The Apple, the Betrayal, the Inquisition, etc.
I'm not sure the plan is really ineffable; I've heard people eff it a
few times.
-Rock
--
<rocky...@earthlink.net> http://home.earthlink.net/~rockyfrisco/
Visit my Mini-Cooper page at http://www.geocities.com/~rockyfrisco
Rocky Frisco
Iwan Lamble wrote:
> It is one of the more complicated teachings [1] of the Bible
> (Calvinistic or something?) that everyone who will be saved was known by
> God before the beginning of time.
>
> 'That's not fair' shouts everyone, 'how can God send people to hell for
> things they couldn't help do because they weren't chosen to be saved?'.
> However, it is impossible to say that God knows everything [2] but not
> the future (it would be a cantradiction). Therefore, before the
> beginning of time, God must have known who would be saved and who
> wouldn't.
>
> Therefore He must have known that Judas would never be saved and could
> use him as an instrument to save other people (after all, Judas can't
> complain - God made him so He isn't taking anything away from Judas [3]
> that He hadn't given him when He uses him in this way).
--------------------(Lots more similar stuff snipped.)-------------
This fails to take into account that "God" is not just humans, but also
chickens and cows and slime-molds and praying mantissessesses and
political candidates. This whole "Earth" thing was an attempt to breed
cockroach superheroes who could withstand radiation and toxic chemicals,
which has actually worked rather well.
The whole cockup with the Messiah and his wacky sidekick, Judy the
Confused, was a side-issue that didn't scan very well and has been swept
under the celestial carpet as something better forgotten. You Know Who
is not happy that a certain misguided sect has kept the embarrassing
tale alive for so many centuries.
Rocky Frisco
Stuart Lavin wrote:
>
> The message <19971101144...@ts80ip29.cadvision.com>
> from hoo...@cadvision.com (J & R Hookey) contains these words:
>
> > "What the shoulder, what the art,
> > Did twist the sinues of thy'n heart?
> > And when thy'n heart begain to beat,
> > What dread hands formed thy'n dread feet?"
> >
> > > Sorry - it was on my bedroom wall for a good few years, and I *did* know
> > > it all off-by-heart. <G>
>
> > Sorry too, but Blake's sooooo good it just had to be quoted!
>
> fantasies, which seem to stem directly from the death of his
> brother[1], in a boring, ineffective meter. There is no rhythm or
> soul to his work. It defies me how such ludicrous beliefs, embodied
> in such mediocre poetry and medicore art, could possibly become so
> respected. You can blame the hippies, I suppose - "Ooh, look, Hedonism!".
>
> deserves through artistic merit to endure beyond his time.
>
> Stu
>
> [1] I would flash the dubious look at anyone who quotes Blake's
> claims that he saw "spirits" before this occasion.
Hmmm . . . am I going to have do savage things to another Lavin in here?
This is getting to be a habit.
bobbi
Rocky Frisco's at 'em again...
> Hmmm . . . am I going to have do savage things to another Lavin in here?
> This is getting to be a habit.
>
> -Rock
Do 'im Rock,
BTW Rock, <snigger> watch your snail-mail box within the next few weeks,
you have a present on the way ;-)
Don't worry/I'm sorry (1) Customs won't and can't stop it.
(1) please circle as appropriate
Lindsay Gilmour
In article <21N$HSAqoi...@chris-h.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hill
<Ch...@chris-h.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>"Tiger, tiger burning bright,
>Watch out! You'll set the jungle alight!"
>
>Spike Milligan.
not to worry,
there's holes in the sky where the rain gets in
the holes are small
that's why rain is thin
also Spike Milligan
lindsayg
--
Lindsay G
Adrian P. Morgan
Victoria Martin wrote:
^
| in particular? As far as the latter goes, doesn't he make quite a habit of
| this pre-condemning business? I was under the impression that there is a
| respectable theological tradition that holds that even the fall of Satan
| is part of the Divine Plan?
Yeah? Well it's not respected by *me* ;-) ! My God is the God of
whom it is said that if so much as one individual refused Him, His
grief would be as great as if the whole world had not come to Him.
I haven't got my Bible in front of me right now, else I'd give the
reference for where it says that "He has no wish that anyone should
be destroyed".
^
| And that whole business of the tree in the
| gGarden of Eden looks like a set-up job, IMHO.
v
I'm not a creationist
(see http://www.ozemail.com.au/~contacts/conx-creatdebate.htm)
but to quote God's page from Monty Python's Bongosock,
"All right, I admit there was an inherent risk, but honestly, if you
could do anything you wanted in the loveliest garden ever made, would
you seek out the nearest snake and ask how to best get a rise our of
the park-keeper?"
--
-ADRIAN MORGAN-------------------------------------------------------
| In 1997, resident at the Bible College of South Australia and |
| studying second year BSc(Comp) at Flinders University. Interests |
| in science, theology, programming, SF, comedy, music, etc. All |
| intelligent email welcome. |
--------------------------------------<apmo...@ist.flinders.edu.au>-
Kevin Hackett
Gid Holyoake <G...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in article
<345E14...@netcomuk.co.uk>...
>
> Along with.. If you *do* get married, get married to a/n /opposite/same
> sex person who is your intellectual *inferior*, not one who will argue
> the toss about *every* little proposal you may dare/purport/try to
> make.....<Big Grin>
>
> Sorry Suzi, my darling, meine Liebchen, Cariad.....
>
I don't think that's going to save you.
Ah, well, it was nice knowing you. Where shall I send the 'Get well soon'
card?
Such a shame. To go so young.... possibly (well, I don't know how old he
is).
Suzi, please leave him with an operational hand [1]. We need as many Welsh
here as we can get. (You are Welsh, aren't you?)
Cheers,
Kevin
[1] Hey! This is a family ng! Clean your brain out with soap and water.
Therion Ware
On Tue, 04 Nov 1997 13:41:58 +1030, "Adrian P. Morgan"
<apmo...@ist.flinders.edu.au> decided to say, in alt.fan.pratchett,
using 37 valuable lines of text:
>Victoria Martin wrote:
> ^
> | Are we talking about hypothetical deities in general or the Christian god
> | in particular? As far as the latter goes, doesn't he make quite a habit of
> | this pre-condemning business? I was under the impression that there is a
> | respectable theological tradition that holds that even the fall of Satan
> | is part of the Divine Plan?
> v
>
>Yeah? Well it's not respected by *me* ;-) ! My God is the God of
>whom it is said that if so much as one individual refused Him, His
>grief would be as great as if the whole world had not come to Him.
>I haven't got my Bible in front of me right now, else I'd give the
>reference for where it says that "He has no wish that anyone should
>be destroyed".
But will never-the-less condemn untold millions to an eternity of
agony? I always found this rather reprehensible in an alleged God of
Love.
[snip]
---
Hell is a City Much Like Dis, and it's Pandemonium, "for why this is Hell,
nor am I out of it".
---
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
- Pauline Reage
---- alternatively, buy some exquisite oriental rosewood furniture
<http://arachnos.supernews.com/rosewood/home.html>
Adrian P. Morgan
reference to
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~contacts/conx-creatdebate.htm
should have read
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~contact/contacts/conx-creatdebate.htm
Thanks.
Stuart Lavin
The message <345E26...@earthlink.net>
from Rocky Frisco <rocky...@earthlink.net> contains these words:
> Hmmm . . . am I going to have do savage things to another Lavin in here?
> This is getting to be a habit.
Do as you will, Rocky. But I doubt you'll convince me that I do,
indeed, find Blake interesting and stimulating.
*plonk*, Rocky. Oh, look, it'll have to be over private mail now.
What a shame, eh?
Graham Somerville
WJ O'Hagan wrote in article ...
Judas betrayed Jesus, but all the disciples abandoned him. With all the
other disciples Judas shared a misunderstanding of why Jesus had come. They
wanted and were expecting Jesus to make all the right political moves and to
be a mighty leader. His talk of dying spawned in them anger, fear, and
disappointment, they thought that his death would be his failure.
The exact motivation of Judas is not clear, but, judos did allow his desires
to put him in a position where Satan could manipulate him. In this way he
did accept the money and point out to the guards in the garden who Jesus
was, and betray him.
It is possible that because of his misconception of Jesus' purpose, he was
trying to rouse Jesus into action, action and force Judas and the other
disciples thought was necessary. Judas was trying to force Jesus' hand and
evoke a rebellion against the Roman Empire and a new political government.
Whatever the plan of Judas, he did try and undo the evil and give the money
back, but it was to late.
Perhaps this offers a solution to why God let Judas betray. God gives us a
choice of our own free will, and Judas choose to Betray. So it seems Judas
cannot be destined for one of the 12 thrones because in the end, instead of
reaching for the forgiveness God could offer him he committed suicide.
Sorry I cannot shed any light on the twelve thrones bit (weren't they for
the tribes or something, I don't know)
Suzi
Gid Holyoake wrote:
>
> Along with.. If you *do* get married, get married to a/n /opposite/same
> sex person who is your intellectual *inferior*, not one who will argue
> the toss about *every* little proposal you may dare/purport/try to
> make.....<Big Grin>
Which is obviously what *I* did if you thought you were going to get
away with *that*! Anyway... it's a well know fact that *discussions*
(heated or otherwise) are a normal part of any partnership... which must
mean we are very noraml <G>
Suzi
--
"You could turn it into Suzi, and it sounded as though you danced on
tables for a living.........." Soul Music (B.F., AFPetite & AFProud)
~~ AFP Code 1.1 APA/Mu/C$ d s--:+ a34>+++ UP+ R+++ F+++ h- P-- OSD--:
C++ M pp+ L+ c-@ B Cn:+ PT+ Pu49- 5++ X++ MT eV+ rp++++ x+++ End~~
http://www.lspace.org/ - The Ultimate Terry Pratchett fan site!
Adrian Ogden
In article <21N$HSAqoi...@chris-h.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hill
<Ch...@chris-h.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>"Tiger, tiger burning bright,
>Watch out! You'll set the jungle alight!"
>
>Spike Milligan.
Another version (whose author I can't recall):
"Tiger, tiger burning bright,
In the forest of the night.
Someone must have, after dark,
Set fire to the safari park."
<< Adrian Ogden -- "Sic Biscuitus Disintegrat" -- A.N....@reading.ac.uk >>
"Scum? You've bought a leopard, haven't you?"
Keith Knop
Graham Somerville <som...@bopis.co.nz> wrote in article
<EJ430...@bopis.co.nz>...
<Snippage of Massive Propotions>
> So it seems Judas
> cannot be destined for one of the 12 thrones because in the end,
instead of
> reaching for the forgiveness God could offer him he committed
suicide.
<pedant>
Yes, but nowhere does it *say* that Judas never begged forgiveness.
(And if it does, see next sentence.) After all, I doubt any of the
authors of the gospels were *there.* They just found him swinging from
the rafters. And hanging oneself sounds pretty damn remorseful to
*me*.
</pedant>
Keith
Adrian P. Morgan
Therion Ware (Therion Ware) wrote:
^
| On Tue, 04 Nov 1997 13:41:58 +1030, "Adrian P. Morgan"
| <apmo...@ist.flinders.edu.au> decided to say, in alt.fan.pratchett,
| using 37 valuable lines of text:
| >
| >whom it is said that if so much as one individual refused Him, His
| >grief would be as great as if the whole world had not come to Him.
| >I haven't got my Bible in front of me right now, else I'd give the
| >reference for where it says that "He has no wish that anyone should
| >be destroyed".
|
| But will never-the-less condemn untold millions to an eternity of
| agony? I always found this rather reprehensible in an alleged God of
| Love.
We need to be careful here - the Bible itself actually says very
little about Hell, since the only thing we really need to know about
it is that God doesn't want us to go there. You'll find that every
Christian has a different theory.
My own theology is this: If someone explicitely refuses to accept
the God of the Lord Jesus Christ, then they thereby forfeit the right
to take any further part in His world (i.e. Heaven) after death. I
suspect that our illusions about spiritual matters are removed when
we die, so that a person who has condemned themself to miss out on
Heaven will *know* that they have done so, and be left in the end
with nothing but the knowledge of what they could have had - of what
God would gladly have given them. It is this knowledge, I suspect,
which is the agony of Hell.
I have read that the Greek word translated 'eternal' does not
have exactly the same connotations as the English word, and that it
is Scripturally possible that the agony of Hell does not actually
last forever. After all, the Bible does refer to the condemned as
being "destroyed", and what God creates He can destroy. Perhaps the
condemned sort of slowly fade away into nothing, their spirit slowly
destroyed. As I understand it, this is compatible with descriptions
of Hell in their Greek form, if not in the English.
I don't have all the answers. Only God has them all.
I became a Christian at about 13 years, and I found the concept of
Hell to be the hardest of all to understand. But God is not simply
part of my belief system, He is part of my *experience*. I *know*
what it is like to stand in the presence of the greatest Power in
the Universe, to know that I have access to that Power at a personal
level. I don't expect non-Christians to understand what I mean by
this, but nevertheless it is the *case*. I know that God is a God
of Love because I *experience* Him as a God of Love. Like God, I
don't want to see anyone miss out on that experience.
Alright, enough!!!!! I've got exams coming up, so I won't be
reading afp for a while. If there's anything you'd like me to see,
I will still be checking my email occasionally.
Bye!
ric...@greenend.org.uk
"Kevin Hackett" <ke...@sci.spamskip.co.uk> writes:
> Suzi, please leave him with an operational hand [1]. We need as
> many Welsh here as we can get. (You are Welsh, aren't you?)
>
> [1] Hey! This is a family ng! Clean your brain out with soap and
> water.
Bring back Skud, that's what I say.