666 Who is the Beast ?
K. W.
Let's try and figure out: Who is the Beast ?
The Beast has been predicted in the Bible,
Book of Revelation, chapter 13.
This where we have to look for hints to identify the Beast:
>(16) He also caused everyone, small and great, rich and poor,
>free and slave, to have a mark placed on their right hands
>or on their foreheads
>(17) so that no-one could buy or sell unless he had the mark
>either the name of the Beast or the number
(initials)
>that stands for the name
Obviously nobody "can buy or sell" unless he has money.
This means that the name of the Beast or the initials
can be found on money in a particular country.
It also means that the Beast must be a very important political
figurehead of that country, because the name or the initials must be
on every piece of money there.
People don't normally wear names or initials of their President, King,
Prime Minister or Queen on their foreheads, but certain people
wear heads with these letters in the front, which means they wear
them on their foreheads. So look on the hats, helmets or caps
of officials and you may see the mark of the Beast.
>(18) This calls for wisdom. If anyone is intelligent,
>let him work out, what the number of the Beast means,
>because the number stands for a person
(which means it is the initials),
>and the numerical value of its letters is 666.
How can we link a name to the number 666 ?
We could add the numbers of the letters:
A=1, B=2,....Z=26. The problem is that you will need
about 60 letters to come to 666. No name is that long.
What about multiplication ?
666 = 333 × 2, 666 = 111 × 6, 666 = 37 × 18
The beast way is 37 × 18.
The problem is we don't have letter number 37,
because there are only 26 letters in the alphabet.
With 111 and 333 this problem is even worse.
At least we have letter No 18, which is R.
The number of the Beast could contain the R,
and there must also be at least two more letters
or perhaps a letter or a number in it to calculate 37.
You got a suspicion about the Beast ?
Do you live in the right country ?
The solution to this riddle can be obtained
free of charge from:
> http://home.t-online.de/home/072722649
There you will also find other persons and problems
of modern life, which have been predicted centuries ago
and you will learn about predictions that will probably
come true in the near future.
The Anglo-American culture which has become the culture
of the world plays an outstanding part
in these predictions and in the dramatic events to come.
Yours Klaus
P & H
>Let's try and figure out: Who is the Beast ?
>The Beast has been predicted in the Bible,
>Book of Revelation, chapter 13.
>This where we have to look for hints to identify the Beast:
>
Major snip
>
>>(18) This calls for wisdom. If anyone is intelligent,
>>let him work out, what the number of the Beast means,
>>because the number stands for a person
>(which means it is the initials),
>>and the numerical value of its letters is 666.
>
>How can we link a name to the number 666 ?
>We could add the numbers of the letters:
>A=1, B=2,....Z=26. The problem is that you will need
>about 60 letters to come to 666. No name is that long.
>What about multiplication ?
>666 = 333 × 2, 666 = 111 × 6, 666 = 37 × 18
>The beast way is 37 × 18.
>The problem is we don't have letter number 37,
>because there are only 26 letters in the alphabet.
>With 111 and 333 this problem is even worse.
>At least we have letter No 18, which is R.
>The number of the Beast could contain the R,
>and there must also be at least two more letters
>or perhaps a letter or a number in it to calculate 37.
>
Snip again
>
>Yours Klaus
>
>
In a story By Robert Heinlein called "The number of the Beast" Mr
Heinlein suggested that the number is not a name but a dimentional
location.
If I can recall correctly it goes something like this:
Think of a box, which has 6 sides, to this add a box to each side and
again to those boxes. We live in a three dimentional world, (he did
not take in time as a factor) but in each dimention you can travel
forward or backwards, up or down, left or right.
Mathmatically this works out to 6^6^6 powers. If when those that took
the bible down to ink did not under stand dimensional arcitechture
they may have misinterupted the word as 666.
_________________________________________________
Reality is in our minds. All else is a delusion.
Virtual reality is just a figment of the illusion.
_________________________________________________
Amy Anderson
In article <332ea1e2...@192.168.100.3>,
Rider.on.the...@t-online.de wrote:
> Let's try and figure out: Who is the Beast ?
> The Beast has been predicted in the Bible,
> Book of Revelation, chapter 13.
> This where we have to look for hints to identify the Beast:
>
> >(16) He also caused everyone, small and great, rich and poor,
> >free and slave, to have a mark placed on their right hands
> >or on their foreheads
> >(17) so that no-one could buy or sell unless he had the mark
> >either the name of the Beast or the number
> (initials)
> >that stands for the name
>
> O
How about Satan being the beast
Amy
www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/1141/unicorn.html
Michael Kilian
On 19 Mar 1997, Marc A. Selig wrote:
> (I did not see the original post, so I am replying to this followup.)
Ditto.
>
> p...@infi.net (P & H) writes:
> > On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:11:35 GMT, Rider.on.the...@t-online.de
> > (K. W.) wrote:
> >
> > >How can we link a name to the number 666 ?
> > >We could add the numbers of the letters:
> > >A=1, B=2,....Z=26. The problem is that you will need
> > >about 60 letters to come to 666. No name is that long.
Actually, with an average letter value of 13.5, it'd take about 50 letters
to add up to 666. Given the habit of middle names, and the (relatively)
recent trend of hyphenated last names, this is easily possible (although
not common). This is putting it in Western terms though; I'd study the
language Revelations was written originally (and I'm not sure it was
Hebrew) if I wanted to seriously persue the matter.
> In Hebrew, each letter is assigned a number, but in a different way
> than the one you used. While you actually start out with A (Aleph) =
> 1, B (Beth) = 2, you later find L (Lamed) = 30, R (Resh) = 200 etc.
> As you can plainly see, it is quite easy to reach 666 in this way.
>
> Other people will be able to give you a much more elaborate
> explanation.
>
> cu
> Marc Andre
Mike (Of course, it could simply be a three part name with each part
having 6 letters, i.e. George Thomas Kilian. Scary thoughts of my
great-great granddad, no?) Kilian
Zev Sero
Rider.on.the...@t-online.de(K. W.) wrote:
>>How can we link a name to the number 666 ?
>>We could add the numbers of the letters:
>>A=1, B=2,....Z=26. The problem is that you will need
>>about 60 letters to come to 666. No name is that long.
That's not how gematria works. Instead imagine a grid
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A B C D E F G H I
J K L M N O P Q R
S T U V W X Y Z
A= 1, B= 2...I= 9
J= 10, K= 20...R= 90
S=100, T=200...Z=800
Both Greek and Hebrew had this system. The way I heard
it, 666 is the gematria of `To Mega Therion', or `the
great beast'. To make it work, I've had to postulate
a missing letter between pi and rho, equivalent to the
Hebrew tzadi. Here's how it goes:
Tau = 300
Omicron = 70
Mu = 40
Epsilon = 5
Gamma = 3
Alpha = 1
Theta = 9
Eta = 8
Rho = 100
Iota = 10
Omicron = 70
Nu = 50
---
666
I've no idea whether this is really where it comes from, or
it's apocryphal.
--
Zev Sero Don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne
zs...@idt.net For more info, see http://www.lp.org
blu...@cyberhighway.net
I used to think it was ABBA (all of them). These days I'm leaning toward
Alan Greenspan....
blueox
Dorothy J Heydt
In article <3330f1f3....@news.idt.net>,
Zev Sero <zs...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Both Greek and Hebrew had this system. The way I heard
>it, 666 is the gematria of `To Mega Therion', or `the
>great beast'. To make it work, I've had to postulate
>a missing letter between pi and rho, equivalent to the
>Hebrew tzadi.
Well, there was a letter once corresponding to Latin Q;
it was called "quoppa" and looked a little like a Latin Q and a
little like a Greek phi. It vanished from the alphabet when
the [kw] sound vanished from the Greek language.
But before you start counting all over again, keep in mind that
(a) "quoppa" disappeared centuries before St. John's time, so he
would never have heard of it; and (b) Greek numeration, in addition
to using all the letters, used a special character, not zeta, for six.
This may throw your counting off again.
What they tell *me* was that if you use Hebrew gematria on
"Neron Caesar" it comes out 666. Yes, Nero was dead before
St. John wrote (or rather dictated) Revelations. But he may
have been alive at the time of the vision.
I bought some luggage tags once from a woman who, on seeing that
the total with tax came to $6.66, turned pale and knocked a cent
off. How Nero would chuckle if he could've seen it.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@uclink
(still here for the moment....)
Shane Glaseman
P & H wrote:
<snip>
> In a story By Robert Heinlein called "The number of the Beast" Mr
> Heinlein suggested that the number is not a name but a dimentional
> location.
>
> If I can recall correctly it goes something like this:
>
> Think of a box, which has 6 sides, to this add a box to each side and
> again to those boxes. We live in a three dimentional world, (he did
> not take in time as a factor) but in each dimention you can travel
> forward or backwards, up or down, left or right.
>
> Mathmatically this works out to 6^6^6 powers. If when those that took
> the bible down to ink did not under stand dimensional arcitechture
> they may have misinterupted the word as 666.
Well, first, Heinlein's book is admitted fiction -- something you're
never going to get serious readers of the Bible to admit to. Heinlein
wasn't seriously suggesting that this is what the Biblical reference
referred to.
The premise in the story is that, through the invention of a device
permitting interdimensional travel, the total number of "universes"
accessible by the version of the device in the story is six, raised to
the sixth power, this number in turn again raised to the sixth power.
When a character in the story quickly writes this number (6^6^6) on a
blackboard, he does it sloppily, making it look like 666 -- and another
character says, "Hmm. 'The Number of the Beast'."
The characters postulate that perhaps the authors of the Bible really
did mean the exponential number, and that the true meaning was lost
through translation ("What if the original Greek was 'Zeta, zeta,
zeta!'?"). But this postulation was in context -- it's fiction.
Anton Dil
>
> The characters postulate that perhaps the authors of the Bible really
> did mean the exponential number, and that the true meaning was lost
> through translation ("What if the original Greek was 'Zeta, zeta,
> zeta!'?"). But this postulation was in context -- it's fiction.
>
If we're going that way, I was told not so long ago by someone who ought
to know (that's to say, someone whose scientific knowledge I have some
belief in) that there is a movement towards us all having six fingers.
(I've never gone looking for more information about this.) He said that
it was a dominant trait, and in another 20 generations or so, we'd all
'ave 'em. (So, how about adding a sixth toe too? That'd do it.) Of
course, most people have them removed. Tends to shock other people a bit,
so easier lopped off.
Anton
No Use
On 20 Mar 1997, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <3330f1f3....@news.idt.net>,
> Zev Sero <zs...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
> >Both Greek and Hebrew had this system. The way I heard
> >it, 666 is the gematria of `To Mega Therion', or `the
> >great beast'. To make it work, I've had to postulate
> >a missing letter between pi and rho, equivalent to the
> >Hebrew tzadi.
>
> Well, there was a letter once corresponding to Latin Q;
> it was called "quoppa" and looked a little like a Latin Q and a
> little like a Greek phi. It vanished from the alphabet when
> the [kw] sound vanished from the Greek language.
>
> But before you start counting all over again, keep in mind that
> (a) "quoppa" disappeared centuries before St. John's time, so he
> would never have heard of it; and (b) Greek numeration, in addition
> to using all the letters, used a special character, not zeta, for six.
>
Actually, koppa doesn't have anything to do with the segment /kw/
which didn't survive into the alphabetic period of Greek. It was a sign
for for the simple velar in certain local alphabets in certain
environments. Moreover, it is irrelevant that it wasn't used in the
alphabet of the koine, that being the common Hellenistic dialect closer
to biblical Greek, because the use of the letters of the original
alphabets as a number system existed independently. You just affixed a
little mark to your letters and they counted as numbers. I mean, even san
pi got used as number and that was terribly rare in archaic epichoric
alphabets.
The interesting fact about the text is that to mega therion never
actually shows up in it, though one might expect such a thing.
Christian A. Bloom
Princeton Univ.
Dept. of Classics
Ian A. York
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.970321095848.21156A-100000@leofric>,
Anton Dil <csx...@coventry.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>to know (that's to say, someone whose scientific knowledge I have some
>belief in) that there is a movement towards us all having six fingers.
>(I've never gone looking for more information about this.) He said that
>it was a dominant trait, and in another 20 generations or so, we'd all
If I were you, I'd stop believing in the scientific knowledge of someone
who could misunderstand the basics of evolution this badly.
Ian "note followups" York
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
Damon Todd Silver
Anton Dil <csx...@coventry.ac.uk> spake thuslike:
>>
>> The characters postulate that perhaps the authors of the Bible really
>> did mean the exponential number, and that the true meaning was lost
>> through translation ("What if the original Greek was 'Zeta, zeta,
>> zeta!'?"). But this postulation was in context -- it's fiction.
>>
>
>If we're going that way, I was told not so long ago by someone who ought
>belief in) that there is a movement towards us all having six fingers.
>(I've never gone looking for more information about this.) He said that
>it was a dominant trait, and in another 20 generations or so, we'd all
>course, most people have them removed. Tends to shock other people a bit,
>so easier lopped off.
>
>Anton
I believe you're referring to polydactyly, a genetic syndrome where
the victim has too many digits, often with some or all of them
deformed. It most commonly manifests as a single extra digit, but
some individuals are born with 10 or more digits on one hand! It is
in fact a dominant trait, but not necessarily an evolutionary or
socially advantageous one.
HTH.
- Damon Silver
--
**************************************************************************
* ide...@leland.Stanford.EDU * http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~ideaman/ *
**************************************************************************
Jack Durst
Anton Dil (csx...@coventry.ac.uk) wrote:
: >
: > The characters postulate that perhaps the authors of the Bible really
: > did mean the exponential number, and that the true meaning was lost
: > through translation ("What if the original Greek was 'Zeta, zeta,
: > zeta!'?"). But this postulation was in context -- it's fiction.
: >
: If we're going that way, I was told not so long ago by someone who ought
: to know (that's to say, someone whose scientific knowledge I have some
: belief in) that there is a movement towards us all having six fingers.
: (I've never gone looking for more information about this.) He said that
: it was a dominant trait, and in another 20 generations or so, we'd all
: 'ave 'em. (So, how about adding a sixth toe too? That'd do it.) Of
: course, most people have them removed. Tends to shock other people a bit,
: so easier lopped off.
I hate to drag this thread even further off topic but...
Yes, the gene for six-fingeredness is dominant, but it's a fairly rare
gene. Most commonly it occurs through mutation (oddly enough, most
mutant genes are dominant) or is occasionally passed down in families.
No, this dosn't mean we have to worry about everyone having six fingers
20 generations from now. Looking at my genetics textbook, it lists the
mutation as occuring in 1:25,000 people. I'll take the population of a
small city and assume that it is relatively stable at 100,000 and that
people from this city only breed with each other and that there is no
immigration to the city, and no emmigration from the city.
Statistically, 4 of these people are six-fingered. Now, we'll assume
that everyone breeds, and since the population is stable at 100,000 that
everyone has 2 kids. Since the 6 fingered gene is dominant, those who
have it are six fingered. Now assuming that they don't breed with each
other, there is a 25% chance that any given child of a six-fingered
parent will have six fingers. So given that we have four six-fingered
parents, each having 2 kids, there will be 6 six fingered children in the
second generation. (4 from the mutation rate, 2 genetically) The next
generation will produce 7, the next 7.5, the next 9.5, yealding a formula:
X=4+0.5Y (where Y is the previous generation)
Y=0, X=4
Y=4, X=6
Y=6, X=7
Y=7, X=7.5
Y=7.5, X=7.75
Y=7.75, X=7.875
Y=7.875, X=7.9375
...
Y=7.99975, X=7.99988
Y=7.99988, X=7.99994
Y=7.99994, X=7.99997* (if there could be fractional people, there would
still be less than 7 by the 20th generation.) but since there are no
fractional people, I'll redo the exercise, rounding up for all fractions
over .5
X=4+.5Y (If Y > n.5 round up)
Y=7.5, X=7.75
Y=8~, X=8
Y=8, X=8
...
Y=8, X=8
Rounding up decimals over .5 the population remains stable at 8 six
fingered persons in 100,000 and not changing until the mutation rate changes.
Sincerely,
Jack Durst
Sp...@sierra.net
Graculus
> How can we link a name to the number 666 ?
> We could add the numbers of the letters:
> A=1, B=2,....Z=26. The problem is that you will need
> about 60 letters to come to 666.
what's wrong with F=6 making 666 = FFF?
Patrick O'Connell
Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
...
> I bought some luggage tags once from a woman who, on seeing that
> the total with tax came to $6.66, turned pale and knocked a cent
> off. How Nero would chuckle if he could've seen it.
Consider that Arizona spent a fair amount of money a few years ago
changing the signs for US highway 666 to 191. Superstition.
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Steve Sloan
Patrick O'Connell wrote:
>
> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >
> ...
> > I bought some luggage tags once from a woman who, on seeing that
> > the total with tax came to $6.66, turned pale and knocked a cent
> > off. How Nero would chuckle if he could've seen it.
>
> Consider that Arizona spent a fair amount of money a few years ago
> changing the signs for US highway 666 to 191. Superstition.
No, they just didn't want their highway featured in a bad horror
movie. \
:-)>
/
_____________________________________________________________________
Steve Sloan E-mail: sl...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov
Senior in Computer Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
Check out Kithrup.JPG on MY NEW WEB SITE (I'm so excited):
http://www.cs.uah.edu/cs/students/ssloan/
Byron Lehman
>Patrick O'Connell wrote:
>>
>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> >
>> ...
>> > I bought some luggage tags once from a woman who, on seeing that
>> > the total with tax came to $6.66, turned pale and knocked a cent
>> > off. How Nero would chuckle if he could've seen it.
>>
>> Consider that Arizona spent a fair amount of money a few years ago
>> changing the signs for US highway 666 to 191. Superstition.
>
One must remember that the premise of the number 666 as set out in Revelation
13:18 is best understood when analized with what is said at Revelation 1:1.
This indicates that the revelation given to John was presented in signs, thus
it would hold that the number 666 is symbolic of something just as the beast
is also. This makes the statement at Revelation 13:18, prior to mentioning
666, better understood-it would require wisdom to understand. Which wisdom
would that be? Certainly not the wisdom of this world. Paul said such wisdom
was foolishness to God. It would hold then that such wisdom could only
come from a knowledge of the scriptures.
Those who earnestly look for a 666 under every rock and around every corner
will certainly see what ever they wish to see. What the intellect can not
discern, ignorance will fill in the blanks.
brl
XanaDragon
Major snip:
Let's try and figure out: Who is the Beast ?
The Beast has been predicted in the Bible,
Book of Revelation, chapter 13.
This where we have to look for hints to identify the Beast:
>(16) He also caused everyone, small and great, rich and poor,
>free and slave, to have a mark placed on their right hands
>or on their foreheads
>(17) so that no-one could buy or sell unless he had the mark
>either the name of the Beast or the number
(initials)
>that stands for the name
>Obviously nobody "can buy or sell" unless he has money.
>This means that the name of the Beast or the initials
>can be found on money in a particular country.
>It also means that the Beast must be a very important political
>figurehead of that country, because the name or the initials must be
>on every piece of money there.
>People don't normally wear names or initials of their President, King,
>Prime Minister or Queen on their foreheads, but certain people
>wear heads with these letters in the front, which means they wear
>them on their foreheads. So look on the hats, helmets or caps
>of officials and you may see the mark of the Beast.
Being marked with a number so that you must have it in order to buy
something is rather scary and I'm not saying anything as something more
that an idea, but you know that certain things we can not get unless we
have a social security number in America? Like wise, how many times in
the last month have any of you been asked for your telephone number, zip
code, or address and name?
I don't want anyone to think I am paranoid or something but I'm speaking
from experience. I walked into a Service Mercandise store earlier this
month and when I went to buy something they wanted my name, address, and
phone number just to buy a silly $5.00 toy!!!!!! You don't have to give
them that kind of information if you don't want to, but many people do and
they make lists of that information. Those lists are availiable to anyone
who wants them. I don't mean like if you or I were to call up and ask for
them, but other corporations and things like that. They sell each other
mailing lists all the time and of course the government can get their
hands on anything they want.
Please don't e-mail me with alot of mail saying I'm nuts or something.
I was just forwarding this as an idea about the topic. {:^J
Zev Sero
>>Both Greek and Hebrew had this system. The way I heard
>>it, 666 is the gematria of `To Mega Therion', or `the
>>great beast'. To make it work, I've had to postulate
>>a missing letter between pi and rho, equivalent to the
>>Hebrew tzadi.
>
>Well, there was a letter once corresponding to Latin Q;
>it was called "quoppa" and looked a little like a Latin Q and a
>little like a Greek phi. It vanished from the alphabet when
>the [kw] sound vanished from the Greek language.
That would be it, then, and it would be equivalent to the
Hebrew Qoph. Thanks.
>But before you start counting all over again
No need; as I said above, I postulated a letter in that
position, because I needed it to make the gematria work.
>, keep in mind that (a) "quoppa" disappeared centuries before
> St. John's time, so he would never have heard of it;
Either it was still in obscure use, or he happened to know
that one, or the 666 number was actually an older oral
tradition/old wives tale that he had rattling around in his
brain when he found the mushroom patch :-)
> and (b) Greek numeration, in addition
>to using all the letters, used a special character, not zeta, for six.
>This may throw your counting off again.
No, I was counting digamma as six.
>What they tell *me* was that if you use Hebrew gematria on
>"Neron Caesar" it comes out 666.
If you use the standard spelling it comes to 676, but you
could make it 666 by dropping the yod from Kesar (standard
spelling is Nun Resh Vav Nun, Qoph Yod Samech Resh).
>Yes, Nero was dead before
>St. John wrote (or rather dictated) Revelations. But he may
>have been alive at the time of the vision.
Or see above.
Shin Chyang Yu
In article <5h7o62$p...@whitecliff.sierra.net>,
Jack Durst <sp...@sierra.net> wrote:
>
>other, there is a 25% chance that any given child of a six-fingered
>parent will have six fingers.
Shouldn't that be 50%? But in any case, just because a gene
is dominate, it doesn't mean everyone will have it in the
future. If a dominating gene kills the person before
puberty, it will never be come a very common gene. On the
other hand if some alien come along and kills off 95% of
the population with 5 fingers but none of the people with
6 fingers, human will evolve to have 6 fingers pretty
quickly.
John Yu
No Use
Speaking of ignorance filling in the blanks, you are assuming an
awful lot about the authorship and composition of revelations that others
would not agree with. Those who earnestly look for a talkative,
all-knowing creator under every rock and around every corner will
certainly tell people to believe whatever they wish to be true.
Christian A. Bloom
WalksFar
In article <19970328125...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
xanad...@aol.com says...
"Does anyone remember several years ago that little fiasco in
Florida? The one where the government came up with a way to track children
in case of kidnapping by estranged parents or strangers? They tested a
microchip that was inserted under the skin in the forehead or right wrist.
Why those locations? The pulse drives the microchip and monitors in trucks
going up and down streets could tune in on the chips to locate their owners.
Each chip is an identification mark for that person. Fundamentalist
Christians were in an uproar over it and the government stopped field
testing, and they were removed from the children so marked.
During the Loma Prieta earthquake in the Bay area in 1989, FEMA tried
to set up the same operation for survivors needeing FEMA loans and grants to
rebuild, but were unable to do it because the national guard had already
taken care of it with computer databases and the military would not give them
use of the now defunct bases there.
Just thought I'd throw that in. The mark of the beast could be THIS
Microchip. It would make for a cashless society. Scanners in stores and
shops would identify and deduct or add amounts from one's credit account.
Check cashing would be impossible without it. Taxes would automatically
deducted, and so forth ... SAY! The IRS is the Beast!"
WalksFar ...
Nemo
>> >
>> One must remember that the premise of the number 666 as set out in
Revelation
>> 13:18 is best understood when analized with what is said at Revelation 1:1.
>> This indicates that the revelation given to John was presented in
signs, thus
>> it would hold that the number 666 is symbolic of something just as the beast
>> is also. This makes the statement at Revelation 13:18, prior to mentioning
>> 666, better understood-it would require wisdom to understand. Which wisdom
>> would that be? Certainly not the wisdom of this world. Paul said such
wisdom
>> was foolishness to God. It would hold then that such wisdom could only
>> come from a knowledge of the scriptures.
>> Those who earnestly look for a 666 under every rock and around every corner
>> will certainly see what ever they wish to see. What the intellect can not
>> discern, ignorance will fill in the blanks.
>>
>> brl
I think you're on the right track--that the number is merely a symbolic
identity.
I'm not given over to any of the typical nonesense, and admittedly, this
subject would be ripe for a lot of it, BUT I have heard this (which I'll
share) that set me back a bit.
It does not require the invocation of a lost number or pounding any square
pegs into round holes.
In Latin, as in Hebrew (and Elvish tengwar), letters were often assigned
numerical values, as others have astutely pointed out.
Here it is:
V = 5
I = 1
C = 100
A = 0
R = O
I = 1
V = 5
S = 0
------------
= 112
F = 0
I = 1
L = 50
I = 1
V = 5
S = 0
------------
= 57
D = 500
E = 0
I = 1
------------
= 501
-----------
= 666
"Vicarivs [Vicarius, as Latin didn't have a "U," and used "V" instead]
Filivs Dei" means "In place of the Son of God" and is the inscription on
the ribbon on the Pope's miter.
Interesting, no?
All the more interesting, considering WHEN it was written.
Nemo
--
| You can lead a fool to reason, but you cannot make it think. |
Fhaolan
walk...@psnw.com (WalksFar) wrote:
> "Does anyone remember several years ago that little fiasco in
>Florida? The one where the government came up with a way to track children
>in case of kidnapping by estranged parents or strangers? They tested a
>microchip that was inserted under the skin in the forehead or right wrist.
>Why those locations? The pulse drives the microchip and monitors in trucks
>going up and down streets could tune in on the chips to locate their owners.
> Each chip is an identification mark for that person. Fundamentalist
>Christians were in an uproar over it and the government stopped field
>testing, and they were removed from the children so marked.
Fhaolan wanders by, "Actually, tha' system is in use up here in Canada
for pets an' stuff. For a fee, ye can have a microchip inserted intae
yer dog or cat, an' if they turn up at a pound withou' a collar, they
can 'scan' tha animal tae find ou' who owns tha poor beastie."
-
Fhaolan the Celtic Wolfie
ark...@istar.ca
http://rat.org/pub/furry/kempal/index.htm
"An nae! I dinn'a have tae eat Dr. Ballards tae have a nice shiny coat!" - Fhaolan
FurryCode: FCW3admrswA++CD+H++M+PR+T+++W-ZSm+ RLCTacw++d+e++f+h*i+psm-
Chris Ellison
Graculus Spaketh;
:=D0 >
:=D0 >
:=D0 >> How can we link a name to the number 666 ?
:=D0 >> We could add the numbers of the letters:
:=D0 >> A=3D1, B=3D2,....Z=3D26. The problem is that you will need
:=D0 >> about 60 letters to come to 666.=20
:=D0 >
:=D0 >what's wrong with F=3D6 making 666 =3D FFF?
Since we're dealing with sixes, let's do this;
A=3D6, B=3D12, C=3D18,...Z=3D156.
Then;
C=3D018
O=3D090
M=3D078
P=3D096
U=3D126
T=3D120
E=3D030
R=3D108 +
---------------------
** 666 **
Chris
Tolerance; Realising that your way may not be the only right way.
"There are many mountains, and each mountain has many faces, and they all=
lead up.
Patricia A. Shaffer
That's an interesting twist! I'd always heard that "Vicarius Filus Dei"
translated as the "Vicar of the Son of God", meaning one who stood for
or held the authority of Christ. My Latin dictionary defines "vicarius"
as "a substitute for, esp. an under-servant". But it could as easily be
translated as you have done. Thanks for the tidbit; food for thought,
certainly.
Patricia
Rick Sutcliffe
If I may chip in a little, I see the 666 as a symbolic number representing
the best of human political, economic and religious systems--a triple
falling short of God, who is often in the Bible symbolized with the number
7 to indicate various kinds of completeness and/or perfection.
Rick
--
Rick Sutcliffe Assoc. Prof. Computing/Math Trinity Western University
comp.lang.modula-2 FAQ maintainer & WG13(Can) chair. Not speaking for TWU/WG13
Michelle B. Weller
Rick Sutcliffe fell short on the answer. Read the book of Revalations in
the Bible. It is very clear who the beast is. He is the Anti-Christ,
Satatn. The Bible is a great source for answers to these type of
question. Let me know if I can be of anymore help.
The return address on this reply is mwe...@bsf.net but it was sent by
dwe...@bsf.net
Mike Ralls
In ancient days, letters could be numbers, and numbers could be letters.
If you take 666 as letters it spells :Julius Cesar. A big bad daddy for
the christians.
Jacques E. Bouchard
Rick Sutcliffe wrote:
>
> If I may chip in a little, I see the 666 as a symbolic number representing
> the best of human political, economic and religious systems--a triple
> falling short of God, who is often in the Bible symbolized with the number
> 7 to indicate various kinds of completeness and/or perfection.
>
> Rick
Isn't 7 the number of times the Styx river circles hell?
Jaybee
LeeAnn Rucker
In article <rsutc-ya02368000...@scipio.cyberstore.ca>,
rs...@twu.ca (Rick Sutcliffe) wrote:
>If I may chip in a little, I see the 666 as a symbolic number representing
>the best of human political, economic and religious systems--a triple
>falling short of God, who is often in the Bible symbolized with the number
>7 to indicate various kinds of completeness and/or perfection.
>
>Rick
So 777 is perfection? I thought 777 was full access to everyone.
(a Unix pun. <sigh> 's what happens when you're working for Sun)
Lincoln McFarland
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970408231813.15288C-100000@gemini>,
How so, if Julius Caesar died some 40 years before Christ was born?
-lrm
Byron Lehman
>Rick Sutcliffe fell short on the answer. Read the book of Revalations in
>the Bible. It is very clear who the beast is. He is the Anti-Christ,
>Satatn. The Bible is a great source for answers to these type of
>question. Let me know if I can be of anymore help.
>The return address on this reply is mwe...@bsf.net but it was sent by
>dwe...@bsf.net
I tend to agree with Rick. As for this posting and its content, it leaves
some doors open or shut. I'm not sure which.
There is but one Satan, but the Bible says their are many antichrist. So the
Satan and the antichrist could not be the same.
brl
Han...@ix.netcom.com
Here's an example of the amazing power of numerology:
If A = 100 and each subsequent letter is 1 number higher (B=101, C=102,
etc.)
What number will you get if you add together the values of these
letters:
H I T L E R
The surprising answer is: 666.
Have fun!
Jacques E. Bouchard
More like the surprising power of self-deception.
Why must A=100? And does A ALWAYS = 100 in every numerology party game?
And if not, why not? By what mystical rule can A take on new values? Why
can't A=57.879, and every subsequent letter be the preceding letter * 34
/ 0.5678?
Jaybee
Michael F Schein
Mike Ralls (mra...@willamette.edu) wrote:
: In ancient days, letters could be numbers, and numbers could be letters.
: If you take 666 as letters it spells :Julius Cesar. A big bad daddy for
: the christians.
I heard that 666 was Nero. Wasn't he the real persecutor of the
Christians, anyway?
Mike Ralls
On 12 Apr 1997, Michael F Schein wrote:
> : If you take 666 as letters it spells :Julius Cesar. A big bad daddy for
> Christians, anyway?
NERO! That's right. I knew I messed up, but couldn't figure out what.
Thanks.
Byron Lehman
>Here's an example of the amazing power of numerology:
>If A = 100 and each subsequent letter is 1 number higher (B=101, C=102,
>etc.)
>What number will you get if you add together the values of these
>letters:
>H I T L E R
>The surprising answer is: 666.
>Have fun!
I don't have the information in front of me, but wasn't Hitler's real name
Hidler, perhaps his father's name, but his birth certificate mentioned his
last name as Schickelburger (Or something like that). In any case as has
been proven in many posts this business of assigning numerical values is
pointless cause you can come up with just about anything.
brl
Robert J. Sawyer
>Here's an example of the amazing power of numerology:
>
>If A = 100 and each subsequent letter is 1 number higher (B=101, C=102,
>etc.)
>
>What number will you get if you add together the values of these
>letters:
>
>H I T L E R
>
>The surprising answer is: 666.
Oh, poppycock. It's not an "example of the amazing power of numerology"
at all. Rather, it's an example of the amazing gullibity of people.
The only meaningful way of assigning sequential numbers to the letters
of the alphabet is in alphabetical order, starting at 1. There is no
logical way in which A is the zeroth letter of the alphabet; it is
clearly the first. Nor is there any logical way in which it's the
hundredth letter of the alphabet. If you add up the ordinal value
of the letters comprising the name HITLER, you get 72. All your silly
little trick does is pick a seemingly abritrary starting point,
carefully chosen so that it adds 594 to 72. That 594 plus 72 totals
666 isn't amazing at all; it's simply inevitable because of the way
you rigged the numbers.
-----------------------------------------------
R O B E R T J . S A W Y E R
Next Novel: FRAMESHIFT (Tor, June 1997)
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sawyer
-----------------------------------------------
Ogre
In article <5iop5l$eqm$1...@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>,
Robert J. Sawyer <7670...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>>Here's an example of the amazing power of numerology:
>>If A = 100 and each subsequent letter is 1 number higher (B=101, C=102,
>>etc.)
>>What number will you get if you add together the values of these
>>letters:
>>H I T L E R
>>The surprising answer is: 666.
>
>Oh, poppycock. It's not an "example of the amazing power of numerology"
>at all. Rather, it's an example of the amazing gullibity of people.
>
>The only meaningful way of assigning sequential numbers to the letters
>of the alphabet is in alphabetical order, starting at 1.
Why use the English alphabet, at all? Wouldn't numerology on an
Austrian name be better off done with the German alphabet? (Don't
know if it'd make much different - I know they've got a few different
letters, but don't know where...)
Or, since we're trying to tie this back in to an old biblical
prophecy, use the ancient Greek or Hebrew alphabets.
--
"Most people learn from their past mistakes and in future
lives go on to grow into better people. Others, who don't,
become ogres." - E. A. Scarborough, _The Godmother_
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:38:54, brle...@alpha.wcoil.com (Byron Lehman)
wrote:
>I don't have the information in front of me, but wasn't Hitler's real name
>Hidler...
Hiedler, actually. Illiteracy can do interesting things to the
spelling of surnames, and his grandfather was illiterate.
>...but his birth certificate mentioned his
>last name as Schickelburger
Schickelgrueber. I don't think it's that on his birth certificate;
rather, that's what his name would have been if his father, Alois
Hitler, hadn't been legitimated.
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, November 1997
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Updated 2/7/97
Beyond Comics at Lakeforest Mall, Gaithersburg MD is now open!
Byron Lehman
>On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:38:54, brle...@alpha.wcoil.com (Byron Lehman)
>wrote:
>>I don't have the information in front of me, but wasn't Hitler's real name
>>Hidler...
>Hiedler, actually. Illiteracy can do interesting things to the
>spelling of surnames, and his grandfather was illiterate.
>>...but his birth certificate mentioned his
>>last name as Schickelburger
>Schickelgrueber. I don't think it's that on his birth certificate;
>rather, that's what his name would have been if his father, Alois
>Hitler, hadn't been legitimated.
Thanks for the correction and info.
brl
Keith Lynch
In article <5iop5l$eqm$1...@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>,
Robert J. Sawyer <7670...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> The only meaningful way of assigning sequential numbers to the
> letters of the alphabet is in alphabetical order, starting at 1.
Not at all. A is 65, and Z is 90. Unless you're talking about
lowercase, in which a is 97 and z is 122.
And the letters are not combined by simply adding their values.
The cumulative total (starting with zero) must be multiplied by
256 just before adding each new letter.
Of course the rules for EBCDIC are different, as are those for BAUDOT,
but hardly anyone uses those character codes these days.
> There is no logical way in which A is the zeroth letter of the
> alphabet; it is clearly the first.
What is the zeroth letter of the alphabet, then? I agree that it
isn't A. I say it's NUL.
What name adds up to 666? ^B^Z. (The high bit should be turned
on for the second character.) So if any world leader with a name
consisting of those two control characters appears, watch out!
--
Keith Lynch, k...@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/kfl/
I boycott all spammers.
Michael A. Dayton
Mike Ralls wrote:
>
> In ancient days, letters could be numbers, and numbers could be letters.
Actually, there is a very good argument for the Beast being _Nero_ at
Aaron Bergman
In article <5iuefo$d...@clarknet.clark.net>, k...@clark.net (Keith Lynch) wrote:
:What name adds up to 666? ^B^Z. (The high bit should be turned
:on for the second character.) So if any world leader with a name
:consisting of those two control characters appears, watch out!
Bill Gates + 3.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/>
Smoke a cigarette. Slit your throat. Same concept.
Lincoln McFarland
In article <5iuefo$d...@clarknet.clark.net>, Keith Lynch <k...@clark.net> wrote:
>In article <5iop5l$eqm$1...@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>,
>Robert J. Sawyer <7670...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>> The only meaningful way of assigning sequential numbers to the
>> letters of the alphabet is in alphabetical order, starting at 1.
>
>Not at all. A is 65, and Z is 90. Unless you're talking about
>lowercase, in which a is 97 and z is 122.
Death to the heretic! Cast off the evil ASCII and embrace the
righteous future of Unicode. I wonder what you get if you add up
the letters in ASCII of the string "Dan Farmer"?
-lrm
William H. Graham III
Keith Lynch wrote:
>
> In article <5iop5l$eqm$1...@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>,
> Robert J. Sawyer <7670...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> > The only meaningful way of assigning sequential numbers to the
> > letters of the alphabet is in alphabetical order, starting at 1.
>
> Not at all. A is 65, and Z is 90. Unless you're talking about
> lowercase, in which a is 97 and z is 122.
>
Keith's reply simply reinforces R.J.S. point: anyone can either
manipulate an indexed system or formulate a a brand new one in order to
substantiate whatever silly claim they care to submit.
I'm no math wiz, but I think a slight correction to Robert Sawyer's
statement may further demonstrate the simplicity of Herr Boner's claim:
It seems to me that shifting the ordinality of "A" from _system+1_ to
_system+0_ gives 'hitler' a cumulative ordinality score of '66' instead
of '72', thus making the required offset form '666' equal to '600'.
'600' in turn produces a nice round number of '100' when divided by the
number of elements in the word (6).
The magic here is not that numerology is amazing, but that 600 happens
to be nicely divisible by 6.
P.S. Any slob can be the devil in Herr Boner's system if you change the
"base" number thusly:
b=(666-(ov-e))/e
where b is the 'magic number' which acts as the new starting index
('100' in Herr Boner's example)
ov is the cumulative ordinal value of the target villian's name (in the
King's English where a=1, b=2...)
e is the number of letters in the target villian's name
thus for Herr Boner's example we get
b=(666-(72-6))/6
b=(666-66)/6
b=600/6
b=100
"An amazing example of the power of eighth-grade math!"
P.P.S.
56.6 "reveals" Santa Claus as Satan
35.27=Kathy Lee Gifford
28.47=Barney the Dinosaur
47.82=Jesus Christ
WHG3
--
"Spelling mistakes? Impossible: I own an error-correcting modem!"
Angela Curtis
Aaron Bergman wrote:
> :What name adds up to 666?
<snip>
> Bill Gates + 3.
I remember seeing mention once of a Persian or Babylonian (don't mean to
cause offense, just not my neighborhood) dragon who represented greed,
lust for power, etc. It was known as Geates.
Now if only I could remember if it was actual mythology or made-up....
delurking (be gentle!)
--Taliesin XXV
Radar
Michael F Schein wrote:
> I heard that 666 was Nero. Wasn't he the real persecutor of the
> Christians, anyway?
You are correct. In some ancient text written in Greek, this number is
616 not 666, and it spells Caesar Nero.
Radar
Matthew Malthouse
This radish know no Greek but I'm curious; even knowing that
the greeks used alpha-chars (with varients) to represent
numerals I still have no idea how the same characters could
possibly be translated/transliterated/transformed into both
a three numeral number and a name of five vowels and five
consonants?
Can someone explain?
Matthew
--
mailto:matthew....@guardian.co.uk [work]
mailto:dha...@geocities.com [home]
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6630/
The opinions expressed are not those of the Guardian Media Group
Jeff Suzuki
Robert J. Sawyer (7670...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: The only meaningful way of assigning sequential numbers to the letters
: of the alphabet is in alphabetical order, starting at 1.
Except this also gets into arbitrary assumptions, with an end result
of being able to prove that just about _anyone_ has 666 in their name.
Some variables: which alphabet of what language? Should we convert
each person's name to their own native alphabet, and use its ordering?
Or, considering that the oldest copies of Reveleations are in Greek,
do we transliterate into Greek? Or maybe Hebrew? Which alphabet?
From which time period? When someone has more than one name, which do
we use? Stalin or Dzugashvili? (And the Georgian alphabet is
slightly different from Cyrillic, and let's not forget that alphabets
change over time...) Do we count titles? What does the "Saint" that
appears in so many English names count as, especially since it's often
written as "St.-".
If you put all these together, the end result is that you can prove
just about _anyone_ has the number of the beast. (The most
interesting I've seen is one that "proves" Ronald Wilson Reagan is the
beast: count the letters in the names. It wasn't a serious proposal,
so far as I know).
Jeffs
Paul S. Person
matthew....@guardian.co.uk (Matthew Malthouse) wrote:
You assign numbers to the letters and then add them up.
The point about 616 is that the last letter of Nero in Greek is "nu"
(that is, the Greek form is actually Neron, with o=omega) and "nu" had
the value "50". Drop the final "nu", and 666 becomes 616: which may
suggest, at a minimum, that somebody back then thought it meant
"Nero".
--
For email: remove initial "_".
Did I miss something? I think I have my filters done right --
I just adjusted them.
Christian R. Conrad
> On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:38:54, brle...@alpha.wcoil.com (Byron Lehman) wrote:
> >I don't have the information in front of me, but wasn't Hitler's real name
> >Hidler...
> Hiedler, actually. Illiteracy can do interesting things to the
> spelling of surnames, and his grandfather was illiterate.
I thought it was little Adolf _himself_ who was legitimized by
his parents marrying after he was born; but it's a _looong_ time
since I read about that, so you're most probably quite right.
But the spelling thing doesn't strictly have to be illiteracy, I think.
(Quite probably _is_, but: ) Spelling itself was in a state of flux in
many languages before the turn of the century -- well, maybe one could
say that it _always_ is -- and names are even more susceptible to change
due to the express wishes of their bearers, or to other circumstances.
IIRC, the name might originally have been Hütler (Huetler, for those of
you with German-challenged newsreaders :), a "line-of-work" name like
Smith, Miller, etc, meaning "Hatmaker". It is consistent with Austrian
pronounciation of German for this to tend towards an 'i' as the first
vowel. And the profession isn't especially glorious or macho, so maybe
they were quite content to distance themselves from the literal sense?
> >...but his birth certificate mentioned his
> >last name as Schickelburger
> Schickelgrueber. I don't think it's that on his birth certificate;
> rather, that's what his name would have been if his father, Alois
> Hitler, hadn't been legitimated.
I seem to have a better memory for spelling than for facts: I'm almost
certain it was "Schickl", without an 'e', and "gruber", with an ordinary
'u', not an 'ü' (which Lawrence renders as 'ue'). So, "Schicklgruber".
But, hey, maybe _that_ spelling was "in a state of flux", too... ;^)
Christian R. Conrad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proud and sole owner of all opinions (except quotes) expressed above!
loix...@atlas.uvigo.es
The Pope is the BEAST:
V 5
I 1
C 100
A
R
I 1
V 5
S
F
I 1
L 50
I 1
I 1
D 500
E
I 1
(+)
__________
666
Inorog
So what? any suggestions what to do about it? >:)
On the other hoof, this is a bit childish to play with figures and
letters like this.... I bet that if you try really hard, you can get
from your name that you're devil's son too... <G>
Don't take it so hard, anyway.
Inorog.
James Guinn
loix...@atlas.uvigo.es wrote in article
<Pine.LNX.3.95.970513...@atlas.uvigo.es>...
>
> The Pope is the BEAST:
>
> V 5 +5
> I 1 -1
> C 100 +100
> A
> R
> I 1 -1
> V 5 +5
> S
>
> F
> I 1 -1
> L 50 +50
> I 1 +1
> I 1 +1
>
> D 500 +500
> E
> I 1 +1
>
> (+)
> ________________
> 666 660
>
>
>
"So, if the pope weighs the same as a duck...."
--
The soon to be famous:
James Guinn
<Applause!>
<Applause!>
Chiapet
An article I once read (I think it was in Scientific American) on string
theory expounded on the possible number of co-existing universes....
They said that there could only be one co-exisiting universe with one
dimension, two with two dimensions, three with three dimensions, etc,
etc....
They went further and said that scientists thought there could be a maximum
of 36 possible dimensions.
The article (strangely) did not follow through on the math, so I did,
adding 1+2+3+etc, until I got up to the 36th dimension....
*gasp*
666 posible co-existing dimensions?!!!
--- chiapet
Robert Link
In article <01bc6201$049b30a0$c5d2...@aggibson.ix.netcom.com>, "Chiapet"
<unsol...@atlantadental.com> wrote:
*An article I once read (I think it was in Scientific American) on string
*theory expounded on the possible number of co-existing universes....
<ahem, ah, snip?>
*666 posible co-existing dimensions?!!!
I only looked into this thread because of the faint hope that it was a
reference to Robert A. Heinlein's book, "The Number of the Beast," in
which characters travel to a number of silly predicaments via a machine
that uses such multi-dimensional notions. Anyone out here read it?
--
"Favorite Oxymoron: Objective Empiricism"
Robert Link -- rl...@west.net
http://www.west.net/~rlink/home.htm
Stephen B. Mann
Robert Link wrote:
> I only looked into this thread because of the faint hope that it was a
> reference to Robert A. Heinlein's book, "The Number of the Beast," in
> which characters travel to a number of silly predicaments via a machine
> that uses such multi-dimensional notions. Anyone out here read it?
Yup, but so long ago, I really don't remember it.
--
Stephen B. Mann sm6...@cnsvax.albany.edu
Webmaster
Center on English Learning & Achievement http://www.albany.edu/cela
Peter Leclerc
In article <337E66...@cnsvax.albany.edu>, sm6...@cnsvax.albany.edu says...
>
>Robert Link wrote:
>> I only looked into this thread because of the faint hope that it was a
>> reference to Robert A. Heinlein's book, "The Number of the Beast," in
>> which characters travel to a number of silly predicaments via a machine
>> that uses such multi-dimensional notions. Anyone out here read it?
>
> Yup, but so long ago, I really don't remember it.
>
As to the number 666 , the way I understand , the number really means 6 to
the 6th to the 6th power, meaning the number of different parallel universes.
Pete
Raj Rijhwani
In article <rlink-17059...@term1-22.sb.west.net>
rl...@west.net "Robert Link" writes:
> I only looked into this thread because of the faint hope that it was a
> reference to Robert A. Heinlein's book, "The Number of the Beast," in
> which characters travel to a number of silly predicaments via a machine
> that uses such multi-dimensional notions. Anyone out here read it?
Yup. The worst of his "big" (i.e. thick) books. By far.
--
Raj Rijhwani (umtsb5/16) | This is the voice of the Mysterons...
r...@courtfld.demon.co.uk | ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
sca...@fido.zetnet.co.uk | "Lieutenant Green: Launch all Angels!"
http://www.courtfld.demon.co.uk/raj/ (demon, and gods, willing...)
pmccall
Raj Rijhwani <r...@courtfld.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> > "The Number of the Beast," in
> > which characters travel to a number of silly predicaments via a machine
> > that uses such multi-dimensional notions. Anyone out here read it?
>
> Yup. The worst of his "big" (i.e. thick) books. By far.
IMHO, it's not nearly as bad as The Cat Who Walks Through Walls
Jacques E. Bouchard
pmccall wrote:
>
> IMHO, it's not nearly as bad as The Cat Who Walks Through Walls
You're right. That's got to be one bad-ass kitty.
jaybee
drizzt
pmccall wrote:
> Raj Rijhwani <r...@courtfld.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> > > "The Number of the Beast," in
> > > which characters travel to a number of silly predicaments via a
> machine
> > > that uses such multi-dimensional notions. Anyone out here read
> it?
> >
> > Yup. The worst of his "big" (i.e. thick) books. By far.
>
> IMHO, it's not nearly as bad as The Cat Who Walks Through Walls
I rather enjoyed both books! I think they receive way to much bashing
on this NG. Sure, they weren't his best, but even Heinlein's worst is
better than some authors' best.....
d...@nospam.rpa.net
I Horsewell <ph...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.95.970519121750.13785B-100000@lily>...
[wrt Heinlein's _The Number of the Beast_]
> on the nature of reality. The Beast in question is the Beast Of
> Revelations from one of the later books of the Bible.
The book in question is called "Revelation", or, if you're
feeling long-winded, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (which
is also the opening text of the book). Revelation is, in fact,
the last book in the Bible.
I seem to remember a post some time ago which made the claim
fairly convincingly that Heinlein meant the Beast in the title
to be the author of the text (as I recall, many of the names
used by the Beast are anagrams on various forms of Heinlein's
name).
> The 'Number', which
> is also the number of man (apparently) is 666 - commonly associated with
> the devil.
Probably because of Revelation 13:18:
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number
of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is
Six hundred threescore and six.
In the Bible, six is associated with man and 3 with God. If you accept
this, then one interpretation of 666 is that "man is god".
pmccall
drizzt <man...@tenet.edu> wrote in article
> I rather enjoyed both books! I think they receive way to much bashing
> on this NG. Sure, they weren't his best, but even Heinlein's worst is
> better than some authors' best.....
>
>
Actually, I agree with you. Both books, along with To Sail... offered a
rare chance to revisit characters that I like a lot. Not many authors give
us that chance. I also love the multi-universe theory espoused in them.
Brett Weiss
I'm sorry--IMO (and that's all this is, anyway) To Sail Beyond the Sunset
is, by far, the worst of RAH's books, with The Cat Who Walks Through Walls
coming in second. I enjoy TNOTB.
--
Brett
Raj Rijhwani <r...@courtfld.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<864002...@courtfld.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <rlink-17059...@term1-22.sb.west.net>
> rl...@west.net "Robert Link" writes:
>
> > I only looked into this thread because of the faint hope that it was a
> > reference to Robert A. Heinlein's book, "The Number of the Beast," in
> > which characters travel to a number of silly predicaments via a machine
> > that uses such multi-dimensional notions. Anyone out here read it?
>
> Yup. The worst of his "big" (i.e. thick) books. By far.
Bob Mutascio
In article <864002...@courtfld.demon.co.uk>, r...@courtfld.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>> I only looked into this thread because of the faint hope that it was a
>> reference to Robert A. Heinlein's book, "The Number of the Beast," in
>> which characters travel to a number of silly predicaments via a machine
>> that uses such multi-dimensional notions. Anyone out here read it?
>
>Yup. The worst of his "big" (i.e. thick) books. By far.
Really? It wasn't that bad. It always seemed to me like a bit of play-acting
for Heinlein. He was just having fun jumping into his favorite universes. And
the characters are definitely aspects of Bob and Ginny. But it's the last
chapters, where solipsism comes into play, that are the most important in this
book.
The worst? By far, it's got to be "Job: A Comedy of Justice". It's the only
Heinlein book that EVER left a bad taste in my mouth.
Bob Mutascio
Tree of Knowledge Enterprises
"In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes
true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally.
These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the mind, there are
no limits." John Lilly
Flytrap
Bob Mutascio wrote:
> The worst? By far, it's got to be "Job: A Comedy of Justice". It's the only
> Heinlein book that EVER left a bad taste in my mouth.
I actually thought JOB was the best of his post TIA novels...
D. Citron
Subject: Re: 666 Who is the Beast ?
Newsgroups: alt.mythology.mythic-animals,rec.arts.sf.written,misc.writing,alt.fan.heinlein
Followup-To: alt.mythology.mythic-animals,rec.arts.sf.written,misc.writing,alt.fan.heinlein
References: <rlink-17059...@term1-22.sb.west.net> <864002...@courtfld.demon.co.uk> <01bc68ca$415b0d60$3289...@lawyer.erols.com>
Distribution:
Brett Weiss (law...@erols.com) wrote:
: I'm sorry--IMO (and that's all this is, anyway) To Sail Beyond the Sunset
: is, by far, the worst of RAH's books, with The Cat Who Walks Through Walls
: coming in second. I enjoy TNOTB.
I'll agree with the second part. (Never read the other book.) I was told
that The Cat Who Walks Through Walls was a sequel to The Moon is a Harsh
Mistress. (Never forgave the guy who told me that! <g> It was really bad.)
I read his "Job" book. It was a disappointment, but still interesting.
(I don't understand what this has to do with the subject line, however.)
BTW, I saw a very interesting bumper sticker today. It said:
CTUHULHU For President 1996
Why Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?
Well, I didn't see that name on the ballot last fall, but we certainly
didn't elect the lesser of evils, did we?
Posted as a public service by .............................. D. Citron
"The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public
authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind. ... In this
field every person must be his own watchman for the truth, because the
forefathers did not trust any government to separate the truth from
the false for us."
...Thomas v Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945)
Todd
Who is the beast? Can't say for sure. But we have several good candidates in
this group.
Today's fun fact: 6.66% is the interest rate of the beast
Todd (havin' my devil's food cake and eatin' it too) Prepsky
Raj Rijhwani
In article <5msn13$p...@snews1.zippo.com>
bo...@treeofknowledge.com "Bob Mutascio" writes:
> In article <864002...@courtfld.demon.co.uk>, r...@courtfld.demon.co.uk
> says...
> >> I only looked into this thread because of the faint hope that it was a
> >> reference to Robert A. Heinlein's book, "The Number of the Beast," in
> >> which characters travel to a number of silly predicaments via a machine
> >> that uses such multi-dimensional notions. Anyone out here read it?
> >Yup. The worst of his "big" (i.e. thick) books. By far.
> Really? It wasn't that bad. It always seemed to me like a bit of play-acting
> for Heinlein. He was just having fun jumping into his favorite universes. And
> the characters are definitely aspects of Bob and Ginny. But it's the last
> chapters, where solipsism comes into play, that are the most important in this
> book.
That's what makes it so dreadful. It's all just a bit too contrived.
It's certainly one of the most annoying books I've ever read. The only
reason I stuck with it was to find out why things were happening, and
who or what the beast was and who was trying to vapourise the four
protagonists. And these are the very things that go by the board.
That really pissed me off. It's the only time I've ever finished a
book and wished I'd put it down after the first page.
> The worst? By far, it's got to be "Job: A Comedy of Justice". It's the only
> Heinlein book that EVER left a bad taste in my mouth.
Oooh! Them's fightin' words. Everyone I know who's read it loves
Job. It's such a marvellous poke at religion. Put's it all into
perfect perspective. And at least you get explanations for things.
Damien Broderick
Raj Rijhwani wrote [of Number of the Beast--]:
> It's certainly one of the most annoying books I've ever read. The only
> reason I stuck with it was to find out why things were happening, and
> who or what the beast was and who was trying to vapourise the four
> protagonists. And these are the very things that go by the board.
> That really pissed me off. It's the only time I've ever finished a
> book and wished I'd put it down after the first page.
Hey, try a little harder. The Beast (in various guises) is the author,
Robert Anson Heinlein. What else could it be, in a solipsistic multiverse
generated by Heinlein? The names - such as the full form of Dr N. O. Brain -
are anagrams. Sorry, I mean anagram's.
> Put's it all into perfect perspective.
Doe's, ye's
Damien Broderick
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <865557...@courtfld.demon.co.uk>,
Raj Rijhwani <r...@courtfld.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The worst? By far, it's got to be "Job: A Comedy of Justice". It's the only
>> Heinlein book that EVER left a bad taste in my mouth.
>
>Oooh! Them's fightin' words. Everyone I know who's read it loves
>Job. It's such a marvellous poke at religion. Put's it all into
>perfect perspective. And at least you get explanations for things.
I'd read Twain and Cabell, so I'd seen that poke before. Maybe
if I'd grown up with Fundamentalists, I'd be more amused at
seeing them satirized.
--
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
October '96 calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
David Johnston
> Raj Rijhwani <r...@courtfld.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> The worst? By far, it's got to be "Job: A Comedy of Justice". It's the only
> >> Heinlein book that EVER left a bad taste in my mouth.
> >
> >Oooh! Them's fightin' words. Everyone I know who's read it loves
> >Job. It's such a marvellous poke at religion. Put's it all into
> >perfect perspective. And at least you get explanations for things.
I'd rather read a story than a poke at religion.
Jonathan M. Barel
>generated by Heinlein? The names - such as the full form of Dr N. O. Brain -
>are anagrams. Sorry, I mean anagram's.
It is? Prove it. I haven't got the book around, though. What's N. O.
Brain's full name?
Jonathan M. Barel
redd...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/1061
I Horsewell
Now, please note that I don't have the book in front of me, so I'm doing
this from memory. I'm pretty sure this is on the net somewhere but I
haven't seen the page yet;
Neil O'Heret Brain (Prof. of Math) - Robert A Heinlein
Bennie Hibol ('Federal Ranger') - Bob Heinlein
Snob, Lien, Torne (?) and (?) (at the convention) - Robert Anson Heinlein
I couldn't find anything for Morinsky or Iver-Herd Jones (on Mars-10)
although Zeb (and someone else) comments that they look similar to one of
the other, identified, Heinlein anagrams.
The ranger at the end, L Ron O'Leemy, shifts to 'Mellrooney', mentioned by
Sir Isaac as 'the worst troublemaker in all the worlds'. This sounds
familiar, but I don't know where from. Anyone know?
Please correct me where I am wrong - I, too, would love to know where some
of the other names come from.
Ian
Ian Horsewell 8^) University Of Warwick
i.j.ho...@warwick.ac.uk - http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~phuwv
--- Living is the only thing in the world worth dying for ---
Damien Broderick
Jonathan M. Barel wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 00:23:08 -0700, Damien Broderick
> <dam...@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >generated by Heinlein? The names - such as the full form of Dr N. O. Brain -
> >are anagrams. Sorry, I mean anagram's.
>
> It is? Prove it. I haven't got the book around, though. What's N. O.
> Brain's full name?
> Jonathan M. Barel
Neil O'Heret. Then there's Bennie Hibol, the `Ranger' (Bob Heinlein, natch).
I won't spoil your fun as you trawl the text...
And I really shouldn't have been snide about the apostrophe's. A neurosi's I
learned at my Mammy's knee.
Damien Broderick
D. Barrington
I Horsewell (ph...@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
: Now, please note that I don't have the book in front of me, so I'm doing
: this from memory. I'm pretty sure this is on the net somewhere but I
: haven't seen the page yet;
: Neil O'Heret Brain (Prof. of Math) - Robert A Heinlein
: Bennie Hibol ('Federal Ranger') - Bob Heinlein
: Snob, Lien, Torne (?) and (?) (at the convention) - Robert Anson Heinlein
: I couldn't find anything for Morinsky or Iver-Herd Jones (on Mars-10)
: although Zeb (and someone else) comments that they look similar to one of
: the other, identified, Heinlein anagrams.
: The ranger at the end, L Ron O'Leemy, shifts to 'Mellrooney', mentioned by
: Sir Isaac as 'the worst troublemaker in all the worlds'. This sounds
: familiar, but I don't know where from. Anyone know?
These are both anagrams of "Lyle Monroe", an RAH pen name from the 1940's.
I've seen a comprehensive list of these anagrams someplace, but I forget
where.
Dave MB
Raj Rijhwani
In article <339AF2...@telusplanet.net>
rgo...@telusplanet.net "David Johnston" writes:
> I'd rather read a story than a poke at religion.
Each to their own, I suppose, but I'd argue that that it IS a good story.
The thing that set's it aside is the wonderful sideswipe at the dominant
Western belief system. As far as I'm concerned anything that knocks
modern religion of its self-reverential pedestal deserves applause.
David Johnston
Raj Rijhwani wrote:
>
> In article <339AF2...@telusplanet.net>
> rgo...@telusplanet.net "David Johnston" writes:
>
> > I'd rather read a story than a poke at religion.
>
> Each to their own, I suppose, but I'd argue that that it IS a good story.
I can't argue the point. Because it's one of the few books I simply
can't remember clearly.
> The thing that set's it aside is the wonderful sideswipe at the dominant
> Western belief system. As far as I'm concerned anything that knocks
> modern religion of its self-reverential pedestal deserves applause.
Religions have always been self-reverential. And the spectacularly good
thing about modern Christianity is it's tolerance of blasphemy and
mockery. That's historically rare.
That's
Steve Sloan
David Johnston wrote:
> Religions have always been self-reverential. And the
> spectacularly good thing about modern Christianity is it's
> tolerance of blasphemy and mockery. That's historically rare.
Only in the last two or three centuries.
_____________________________________________________________________
Steve Sloan E-mail: sl...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov
Computer Science graduate at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
Science fiction and raytracing pictures and links:
http://mars.cs.uah.edu/cs/students/ssloan/
C++: a language that allows your friends to access your private parts
"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" Homer J. Simpson
Crucial Critic
( The symbolism of the 4 elements: earth, fire, water and air
is explained on my home-page in great detail. )
Bible, Revelation, chapter 13: The Beast out of the Earth
( This part of chapter 13 is a prediction which has accidentally
been fulfilled by the present "Queen" of England in great detail,
which is one of the "Signs of the End of the Age". The ideas that
this Beast is the devil or the "Antichrist" are forgeries. They do not
come from the Revelation. The "Queen" however is the figurehead
of an evil, outdated system that is about to come to an end. )
>(11) Then I saw another Beast ***coming out of the earth***.
( Earth here symbolizes **money**, which is the basis of British
world power today. Behind the scenes the banks control the State,
which is symbolized by the "Queen". )
>She
( Male chauvinist translators have always taken for granted
that this Beast would be male, quite wrongly, see Isaiah 3:12. )
>had two horns like a lamb,
( The upper parts of the English crown, unlike the crowns of other
European monarchies look like 2 horns bent inward. Have a look
on my home-page and in Britain look at a Royal Mail van ! )
>and she spoke like a dragon.
( The "Queen" is the figurehead for the evil worldwide money power
of the City of London whose heraldic sign is the Dragon. )
>(12) She exercised all the authority of the first beast
( the Lion and Unicorn symbolizing the Monarchy,
see my explanations on Revelation 13, first part. )
>in its presence
( displaying these signs )
[ ... ]
>(16) She also caused everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free
>and slave, to have a mark placed on their right hands
( British, Canadian, Australian, etc. money )
>or on their foreheads
( tag on policemen's helmets and caps in most parts of Britain.
On my home-page there is a picture of the "Mark of the Beast". )
>(17) so that no-one could buy or sell unless he had the mark
( on British money ),
>either the name of the Beast
( Elizabeth on British coins )
>or the number
( initials )
>that stands for the name.
( E II R, the abbreviation of Elizabeth the Second Regina,
can be found on British bank-notes and on a tag British policemen
have on their foreheads, when they wear their helmet or cap. )
>(18) This calls for wisdom. If anyone is intelligent,
>let him work out, what the number of the Beast means,
>because the number stands for a person
( which means it is the initials ),
>and the numerical value of its letters is 666.
( E II R can be calculated into 666 : 666 = 37 в 18,
R is number 18 in the alphabet, and E, letter No 5,
and the 2 ( from II ) can be calculated into 37
in the following way: 3=5-2 ; 7=5+2. )
Further explanations on Biblical predictions about our future
and others that have been fulfilled today, including predictions
by Isaiah, Nostradamus and the complete Book of Revelation
are available free of charge from Our Future Revealed:
> http://home.t-online.de/home/072722649
You can now chose to either open the complete book
to your browser or download a compressed zip-file in less
than half the time (2 minutes).
This electronic book contains all the links within itself.
You can go to the topics you are interested in off-line
with a mouse click from the menus. It will tell you the predicted
meaning of many things happening these days,
and what options for the future we can chose from.
Yours Klaus
Guy Gordon
>David Johnston wrote:
>
>> Religions have always been self-reverential. And the
>> spectacularly good thing about modern Christianity is it's
>> tolerance of blasphemy and mockery. That's historically rare.
Christianity is only tolerant when out of power. "Modern
Christianity" was ousted from power by Science. It's called "The
Enlightenment" (as opposed to The Dark Ages).
John & Linda VanSickle
You're confusing Christianity with Roman Catholicism...
Regards,
John
--
"And if I still feel the smart of my crushed leg, though it be now
so long dissolved; then, why mayest not thou, carpenter, feel the
fiery pains of hell for ever, and without a body?" -- Ahab, Moby Dick
Bob Pastorio
John & Linda VanSickle wrote:
>
> Guy Gordon wrote:
> >
> > >David Johnston wrote:
> > >
> > >> Religions have always been self-reverential. And the
> > >> spectacularly good thing about modern Christianity is it's
> > >> tolerance of blasphemy and mockery. That's historically rare.
> >
> > Christianity is only tolerant when out of power. "Modern
> > Christianity" was ousted from power by Science. It's called "The
> > Enlightenment" (as opposed to The Dark Ages).
>
> You're confusing Christianity with Roman Catholicism...
Can't recall a time - recent or historical - when Roman Catholicism was
tolerant of anything not theirs. In recent years, there has seemed to
be some relaxation of the rigidity of the dogma. But it doesn't mean a
retreat from the "only true religion" position of too many centuries.
And it is all of Christianity that has suffered the loss of much of its
muscle. The worldwide exposure to other viewpoints through radio, TV,
cheap books and travellers has tempered what people will accept and
submit to. Much more discussion of inclusion and participation rather
than subjection to the priestly classes. Much more discussion of gender
value. Much more discussion of subscribers being part of the planning
process. Much more discussion of some return on investment before
dying. Much more, "step aside while I read this book for myself."
Modern christianity isn't tolerant, it's virtually powerless. Not many
pillories and burning grounds in my town. There *is* a woman with an
"A" on her forehead, though. She also has 34 picturesque piercings.
Bob(ex almost-seminarian)Pastorio
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP
actually, almost all current forms of Christianity tend to be
intolerant when given the chance: cf "The Scopes Monkey Trial" and the
current push to in several areas to teach Genesis creationism as the
only explanation of the current state of the world. Those are both
pushed by Protestant Denominations.
ck
John & Linda VanSickle <vans...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>Guy Gordon wrote:
>>
>> >David Johnston wrote:
>> >
>> >> Religions have always been self-reverential. And the
>> >> spectacularly good thing about modern Christianity is it's
>> >> tolerance of blasphemy and mockery. That's historically rare.
>>
>> Christianity is only tolerant when out of power. "Modern
>> Christianity" was ousted from power by Science. It's called "The
>> Enlightenment" (as opposed to The Dark Ages).
>
>You're confusing Christianity with Roman Catholicism...
>
>Regards,
>John
>--
>"And if I still feel the smart of my crushed leg, though it be now
>so long dissolved; then, why mayest not thou, carpenter, feel the
>fiery pains of hell for ever, and without a body?" -- Ahab, Moby Dick
Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP KC5EVN, Member, PGBFH
remove "nospam*" in the "from" address to reply and convert
the words to charectors
"Reckless, Hell! I hit jus' where I was aimin'"
"Bubba Shot the Jukebox!" Mark Chestnut, 1995
Randy
In article <33C951...@erols.com>, John & Linda VanSickle <vans...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>Guy Gordon wrote:
>>
>> >David Johnston wrote:
>> >
>> >> Religions have always been self-reverential. And the
>> >> spectacularly good thing about modern Christianity is it's
>> >> tolerance of blasphemy and mockery. That's historically rare.
>>
>> Christianity is only tolerant when out of power. "Modern
>> Christianity" was ousted from power by Science. It's called "The
>> Enlightenment" (as opposed to The Dark Ages).
>
>You're confusing Christianity with Roman Catholicism...
Hmmm...I think you are confusing Roman Catholicism with
institutionalized ignorance, something that can afflict any
organization, including Science, but especially the more
fundamentalist Protestant sects. While the Church has a
vested interest in Revealed Truth, it has made enormous
strides in the past fifty years in acknowledging the role of
Derived Truth. To me, Revealed and Derived Truth intercept
each other at the Godhead. Removing Galileo from the Index
was a sign that the Holy See is beginning to recognize that
the reconciliation of Created with Creator cannot be
accomplished through Revealed Truth alone.
-Randy
Rich Rostrom
John & Linda VanSickle <vans...@erols.com> wrote:
> > Christianity is only tolerant when out of power. "Modern
> > Christianity" was ousted from power by Science. It's called "The
> > Enlightenment" (as opposed to The Dark Ages).
>
> You're confusing Christianity with Roman Catholicism...
There have been Protestant established churches as well, and some of
them have been as intolerant of religious dissent as the Catholic Church
ever was.
Note the Puritans of early New England, or in England during the
"Commonwealth" - religious conformity was imposed by law, with
dissenters punished severely.
--
Rich Rostrom | You could have hit him over the head with it and he
| wouldn't have minded. He never did mind being hit
R-Rostrom@ | with small things like guns and axe handles.
neiu.edu | - Ellis Parker Butler, "That Pup of Murchison's"
Fred Willard
In article <33cb4de8...@news.iamerica.net>, ck...@Iamerica.net*no.spam
says...
>
>actually, almost all current forms of Christianity tend to be
>intolerant when given the chance: cf "The Scopes Monkey Trial" and the
>current push to in several areas to teach Genesis creationism as the
>only explanation of the current state of the world. Those are both
>pushed by Protestant Denominations.
>
Actually, I am an Episcopal and we embrace everything as long as there is
a pop psychology book that goes along with it.
--
-----------------------------------
Fred Willard
fwil...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~fwillard
Steve Sloan
Rich Rostrom wrote:
> Note the Puritans of early New England, or in England during the
> "Commonwealth" - religious conformity was imposed by law, with
> dissenters punished severely.
And they, too, bitched and moaned about being persecuted when they
were not in power.
Grey
In article <33CBDA...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov>,
sl...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov says...
Here's another interesting Tidbit about the Puritans: They are unwitting
followers of St. Augustine... the guy who defined Christian Morality.
Closet Catholics LOL
--
Grey
Reluctant Channel Manager for #Artist
Frequent guest on #Authors
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/4235/
Michael Hargreave Mawson
In article <MPG.e3617f43...@news.earthlink.net>, Grey
<faer...@juno.com> writes
>In article <33CBDA...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov>,
>sl...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov says...
>> Rich Rostrom wrote:
>>
>> > Note the Puritans of early New England, or in England during the
>> > "Commonwealth" - religious conformity was imposed by law, with
>> > dissenters punished severely.
>>
>> And they, too, bitched and moaned about being persecuted when they
>> were not in power.
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> Steve Sloan E-mail: sl...@geosim.msfc.nasa.gov
>> Computer Science graduate at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
>> Science fiction and raytracing pictures and links:
>> http://mars.cs.uah.edu/cs/students/ssloan/
>> C++: a language that allows your friends to access your private parts
>> "In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" Homer J. Simpson
>>
>
>
>
>Here's another interesting Tidbit about the Puritans: They are unwitting
>followers of St. Augustine... the guy who defined Christian Morality.
Isn't he responsible for the prayer, "Lord, grant me chastity, but not
yet, Lord, not yet..."?
--
Mike
Eric Wadsworth
Randy wrote:
> Hmmm...I think you are confusing Roman Catholicism with
> institutionalized ignorance, something that can afflict any
> organization, including Science, but especially the more
> fundamentalist Protestant sects. While the Church has a
> vested interest in Revealed Truth, it has made enormous
> strides in the past fifty years in acknowledging the role of
> Derived Truth. To me, Revealed and Derived Truth intercept
> each other at the Godhead.
Doesn't Revealed Truth originate at the godhead, while derived Truth
comes from interpretations of Revealed Truth? It seems to me that one
should put one's trust in pure Revealed Truth, rather that
unsubstantiated derivations of it.
--
Eric Wadsworth http://un.cs.byu.edu/~wad w...@acm.org
"Real men don't move the ROCKS when they pitch their tent."
------- \/\/ /-\ [)
Frank Helms
Not only does revealed truth stem from the GodHead, it is only available
through Jesus Christ. Because no unclean thing can come into the
presence of Heavenly Father, and survive, our revelation must be
mediated by our Elder Brother.
There is also a problem with derived knowledge in that it can be
influenced by Satan, the father of all lies. This to me is a very scary
situation.
Scott Elyard
In article <33D59E...@kode.net>, fhe...@kode.net wrote:
#Not only does revealed truth stem from the GodHead, it is only available
#through Jesus Christ. Because no unclean thing can come into the
#presence of Heavenly Father, and survive, our revelation must be
#mediated by our Elder Brother.
#
#There is also a problem with derived knowledge in that it can be
#influenced by Satan, the father of all lies. This to me is a very scary
#situation.
And I myself am always fascinated by fundamentalists who claim they can
tell the difference.
Even the devil can quote scripture to suit his purposes.
.oO=-------------------------------------------------------=Oo.
| Scott Elyard, Stone Bug Studios(tm) |
| --ooOOoo-- |
| Animation, Graphics, Modeling, Rendering Research & Writing |
| s...@tc-net.com http://www.tc-net.com/~sbs |
\~------------------------------------------------------------/
Iain McNaughton
In article <33D59E...@kode.net>, Frank Helms <fhe...@kode.net> writes
>Eric Wadsworth wrote:
>>
>> Randy wrote:
>> > Hmmm...I think you are confusing Roman Catholicism with
>> > institutionalized ignorance, something that can afflict any
>> > organization, including Science, but especially the more
>> > fundamentalist Protestant sects. While the Church has a
>> > vested interest in Revealed Truth, it has made enormous
>> > strides in the past fifty years in acknowledging the role of
>> > Derived Truth. To me, Revealed and Derived Truth intercept
>> > each other at the Godhead.
>>
>> Doesn't Revealed Truth originate at the godhead, while derived Truth
>> comes from interpretations of Revealed Truth? It seems to me that one
>> should put one's trust in pure Revealed Truth, rather that
>> unsubstantiated derivations of it.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Wadsworth http://un.cs.byu.edu/~wad w...@acm.org
>> "Real men don't move the ROCKS when they pitch their tent."
>> ------- \/\/ /-\ [)
>
>
Pardon me, but would you keep this crud out of the science fiction
groups, and leave it with the superstitious ?
Thanks.
--
Iain McNaughton
Frank Helms
you bet he can.. So question everything, and find your own answers.
Never be afraid to step out from ideas that are comfortable, that you
may find the truth. Thanks for the comeback.
Frank Helms
> >
> >Not only does revealed truth stem from the GodHead, it is only available
> >
>
> Pardon me, but would you keep this crud out of the science fiction
> groups, and leave it with the superstitious ?
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Iain McNaughton
I believe this thread is related to the one about SF replacing
religion... a reasonable topic for this group. Talking about one brings
about discussing the other. You do have the right not to read what I
write.