Repost: Mortal Sin Versus Venial Sin
gun...@softfarm.com
Anyway, I am interested in the group's view of Mortal Sin and Venial Sin.
Which common sins are which in your opinion?
Please don't just spew out some Church teaching, because I know everbody has
their own opinion on what is which.
Thanks
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Theodore M. Seeber
> My last post got some garbage thrown into it.
>
> Anyway, I am interested in the group's view of Mortal Sin and Venial Sin.
>
> Which common sins are which in your opinion?
Isn't this already in the Bible? Personally, I have no opinion on Church
terminology other than that which the church teaches me.
But here goes:
Mortal sins: Sins related to the commission of one of the Seven Deadly
sins or ommission of one of the Seven Capital Virtues (those virtues that
are the opposite of the Seven Deadly sins). Only the first 7 of these 14
is in the Bible, but the second seven are derived from the first 7 anyway.
As a test for myself (I'm currently writing a cyberpunk novel based on
these two groups) here goes: 1. Pride 2. Gluttony 3. Sloth 4. Avarice 5.
Lust 6. x damn, I lost the last two....I'll never think up poetic
justice for them at this rate.
Venial sin: any sin against a human being or God for which a simple, I'm
sorry and I will pay for my crime, will do. Speeding. Insulting people,
that sort of thing.
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
If you believe in government of the people, for the people, by the people,
and in fact no separation between people and government, click on the
above link.
KayJay
> My last post got some garbage thrown into it.
HEY!!!! I hope that wasn't for meeeee! :(
I thought my sins were funny.... ;P
> Anyway, I am interested in the group's view of Mortal Sin and Venial Sin.
Ah.. now I don't think you were quite clear on that...
> Which common sins are which in your opinion?
Well, honestly gunner, I don't think it matters much what I *think* is and
insn't a sin, agreed? If I think watching porn while eating 16 buckets of
chicken is only a venial sin, doesn't that say more about *me* than
anything else? Mmmm....chicken...
> Please don't just spew out some Church teaching, because I know everbody has
> their own opinion on what is which.
Spew? <grin> why don't you list some sins, and ask for a vote of whether
ppl know if they are venial/mortal or not. I doubt anyone's going to say
"adultery....venial!" or something... ;P
KJ
Patrick St. Jean
> these two groups) here goes: 1. Pride 2. Gluttony 3. Sloth 4. Avarice 5.
> Lust 6. x damn, I lost the last two....I'll never think up poetic
> justice for them at this rate.
Greed and Vengance?
Pat
--
Patrick St. Jean '97 XLH 883 p...@cgmlarson.com
Programmer & Systems Administrator +1 713-977-4177 x115
Larson Software Technology http://www.cgmlarson.com
Joseph Paul
: Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
: > these two groups) here goes: 1. Pride 2. Gluttony 3. Sloth 4. Avarice 5.
: > Lust 6. x damn, I lost the last two....I'll never think up poetic
: > justice for them at this rate.
: Greed and Vengance?
My understanding is that those are called Capitol Sins because they lead
to other sins. Mortal sins are sins that compleatly sever you relationship
with God. Venial sins damage it.
If the above were mortal sins I think a lot of us would be in a lot of
trouble.
--
<Joseph Paul><jp...@engsoc.carleton.ca><Computer Systems Engineering>
<Carleton University><IVCF Treasurer><St. Marys's Church> ....
"Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks"
1st Thessalonians 5: 16-18 ** I wish I could do this **
Theodore M. Seeber
> Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > these two groups) here goes: 1. Pride 2. Gluttony 3. Sloth 4. Avarice 5.
> > Lust 6. x damn, I lost the last two....I'll never think up poetic
> > justice for them at this rate.
>
> Greed and Vengance?
Vengance, yeah. Greed and Avarice are the same thing I think. Now if I
can only find that Catholic Dictionary that I lost in the car while
camping....
gun...@softfarm.com
KayJay
<sniff>
anyone seen my halo?
KJ
Alan Craft
><sniff>
>anyone seen my halo?
You mean that ol' rusty, bent round thing laying in the weeds by an
interstate in Indiana?
No. :o]>
Christopher Beattie
> <sniff>
> anyone seen my halo?
I think the kids over there have it. I think they think it's
a glow in the dark frisbee. <G>
--
| _______ |Christopher Beattie | 801 Eisenhower Dr|
| /__ __\ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33040|
| / \ and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
| /___\ Good |chr...@Tansoft.com | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
| |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp> |
Chad Lautner
a mortal sin?
Chad
---
Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre?
Is that a scroll in your toga, or are you just happy to see me?
janet
<ae...@tcnet.org> said unto us:
>Can we all come into agreement that deliberate USENET trolling is
>a mortal sin?
>
>Chad
>
Grin... Nope!!
(well? Everyone KNEW I was going to say that, right?) ;)
--
janet
Whether the angels play only Bach in praising God I am not quite sure;
I am sure, however, that 'en famille', they play Mozart
Karl Barth
Christopher Beattie
>
> Can we all come into agreement that deliberate USENET trolling is
> a mortal sin?
No, I think we can all come into agreement that it is not. <G>
A really really really huge venial sin, perhaps. <G>
But I wouldn't want anyone to go to Hell just because of that.
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <35d60833...@news.gtii.com>, Chad Lautner
> <ae...@tcnet.org> said unto us:
> >Can we all come into agreement that deliberate USENET trolling is
> >a mortal sin?
>
> Grin... Nope!!
>
> (well? Everyone KNEW I was going to say that, right?) ;)
Yes, janet, we all know your non-orthodox position of dealings with
heretics........including witches..... :-)
KayJay
> ><sniff>
> >anyone seen my halo?
>
> You mean that ol' rusty, bent round thing laying in the weeds by an
> interstate in Indiana?
HEY! I ain't NEVAH been near INdiana... it's ALBERTA, darlin'....
>
> No. :o]>
>
>
KayJay
--------
Sirach 38:9
Lee Ann Rucker
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, janet wrote:
>
>> In article <35d60833...@news.gtii.com>, Chad Lautner
>> <ae...@tcnet.org> said unto us:
>> >Can we all come into agreement that deliberate USENET trolling is
>> >a mortal sin?
>>
>> Grin... Nope!!
>>
>> (well? Everyone KNEW I was going to say that, right?) ;)
Now, if you'd said posting html, or binaries, janet might have felt
otherwise ;-)
janet
>, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>
>Yes, janet, we all know your non-orthodox position of dealings with
>heretics........including witches..... :-)
>Ted
Could you tell me how my dealings with witches, (who can not, by
definition, be heretics) are unorthodox, please?
And what are my unorthodox dealings with heretics, please?
--
janet
Theodore M. Seeber
> Could you tell me how my dealings with witches, (who can not, by
> definition, be heretics) are unorthodox, please?
Have you ever read the author's notes to _1984_ on orthodoxy? If not,
it's not neccessary, but that's where my (totally facicous) argument about
your wish to leave the trolls and wiccans in our NG comes from.
Orwell defined Orthodoxy from the idea that the totally Orthodox mind is
capable of something he called DOUBLETHINK, the ability to do the
following two things:
1. Keep two totally contradictory thoughts in the head without noticeing
the contradiction.
2. Automatically reject any thought or person who is not Orthodox.
He related this to the 10 commandments, specifically the one about idols,
in a story about an ancient Orthdox Jew who knew simultaneously that other
gods did and did not exist. (obviously other gods exist, or why mention
that you should hold no other God before Yahweh? Also, just as obviously,
all other Gods were false and did not exist). Thus, when faced with the
primitive Baal worshiper, the Baal worshiper was rejected automatically,
almost subconciously, and the Orthodox Jew would have nothing to do with
the Baal worshiper, even if the Baal worshiper spoke good true philosophy
and was a really nice guy, because to have relations with heretics is to
damage one's own orthodoxy.
> And what are my unorthodox dealings with heretics, please?
As above, talking to heretics damages one's orthodoxy... :-)
Not that I actually believe Orwell's definition of orthodoxy, it denies
the ability of mankind to learn from others. But then again, so did the
government of Oceana, and so did Orwell's mythical Jew. Our trolls really
are heretics, preaching heresy. And same with the wiccans, who preach
other Gods, at least from the Orthodox point of view.
Being an Anglophile, I would have thought you would have got the allusion.
But then again, there's so much liturature out there, and I should not
have assumed that you had read Orwell.
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.98081...@user1.teleport.com
> >, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
> >
> >Yes, janet, we all know your non-orthodox position of dealings with
> >heretics........including witches..... :-)
>
> Could you tell me how my dealings with witches, (who can not, by
> definition, be heretics) are unorthodox, please?
>
> And what are my unorthodox dealings with heretics, please?
I just noticed you disappointed me in another way, Janet.
I expected you to answer "I'm Roman, not Orthodox". :-)
janet
>, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, janet wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.98081...@user1.teleport.com
>> >, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>> >
>> >Yes, janet, we all know your non-orthodox position of dealings with
>> >heretics........including witches..... :-)
>>
>> Could you tell me how my dealings with witches, (who can not, by
>> definition, be heretics) are unorthodox, please?
>>
>> And what are my unorthodox dealings with heretics, please?
>
>I just noticed you disappointed me in another way, Janet.
>I expected you to answer "I'm Roman, not Orthodox". :-)
>Ted
>
But disappointment is a part of life, Ted.....
janet
>, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, janet wrote:
>
>> Could you tell me how my dealings with witches, (who can not, by
>> definition, be heretics) are unorthodox, please?
>
Yes. Many years ago.
But that's hardly the way the term is generally used on this ng, is it?
[]
>
>> And what are my unorthodox dealings with heretics, please?
>
>As above, talking to heretics damages one's orthodoxy... :-)
Right, then, Francis and Dominic are in trouble, or were, for a start.
And, using your definition of heretics, which I do not accept, the
Pope's kinda in trouble, as well, isn't he?
>Not that I actually believe Orwell's definition of orthodoxy, it denies
>the ability of mankind to learn from others. But then again, so did the
>government of Oceana, and so did Orwell's mythical Jew. Our trolls really
>are heretics, preaching heresy.
Actually, they aren't.
One can NOT teach heresy OUTSIDE the church.
Heresy is teaching, "The church says THIS" while INSIDE the church, and
knowing that it does no such thing.
(And while one might be able to make a case that certain trolls qualify,
Wiccans, per definition, do not).
> And same with the wiccans, who preach
>other Gods, at least from the Orthodox point of view.
How much do you know about Wicca?
>
>Being an Anglophile,
Sigh... Did I say I was?
I live here, Ted. I am not an Anglophile in the general American
meaning of the word...
> I would have thought you would have got the allusion.
Why should I suddenly know that when you used "orthodox" you didn't mean
what you usually mean?
>But then again, there's so much liturature out there, and I should not
>have assumed that you had read Orwell.
I have read Orwell.
I'm afraid I still don't take kindly to being called unorthodox for
talking to and associating with people who do not believe as I do.
Nor do I think this is "our" ng.
We don't own it. We participate in it, yes, but we don't own it.
If you want an ng where posts are controlled, (how many times have I
said this...?), the solution is simple.
Ok, it's not simple, but it is within your grasp.
WHY don't you folks who want to have a newsgroup without trolls DO
something about it? I mean, do something to bring it about? Because
this will never be one! It's unmoderated. You'll never chase away the
trolls, Ted.
Wouldn't it be a more constructive use of time?
It seems to me that it took us about 5 months to get a moderated group
going, and it seems to me that about that long has been spent here by
people complaining about trolls....?
--
janet
modstaff, arwm
Legatus
<ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Could you tell me how my dealings with witches, (who can not, by
> definition, be heretics) are unorthodox, please?
Some time ago I addressed this issue of "heretics". Who can and can NOT be
"an heretic".
"Properly" you are correct, of course, that brings up the question of "if
you aren't orthodox, and you aren't a "heretic"...what does that
leave?...infidel?! :)
HOWEVER...people who deny the fullness of Church teaching do hold
"heresies"... their beliefs then are "heretical"...they are
therefore..."heretics".
This is similar to all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are
squares bit. For instance, all heretics are "schismatic", not all
schismatics are heretics holding a formal heresy (...they may be
"schismatic by default"). Now, I consider that a VERY fine line, but
that's the way it works.
So, the "hierarchy of infidelity" may be said to follow the hierarchy of
the Church, in a twisted sort of way. a Pope is a bishop but not all
bishops are popes, an Archbishop is a bishop but not all bishops are
archbishops, a Bishop is a priest, etc.
At the highest level of "infidelity" a person may be properly described as
a schismatic, heretic, all the way up to and including the pernicious
appellation of "unwashed heathen with stinky feet".
Once a heresy has been defined as such by the appropriate authority,
adherents of a particular formal heresy MAY be "labeled" heretical in
belief...or the short form "heretic" may be used by the laity, even
without a formal declaration by the legitimate hierarch.
Therefore, persons who deny the Assumption of the Virgin, hold a heretical
belief...they may ALSO be "unwashed heathens with stinky feet"...
--
Steve
"We are in schism." Fr. John Hardon, July 11, 1998
janet
t>, Legatus <leg...@bellsouth.boredom.net> said unto us:
>In article <yJ8CGjCn...@allestree.demon.co.uk>, janet
><ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Could you tell me how my dealings with witches, (who can not, by
>> definition, be heretics) are unorthodox, please?
>
>Some time ago I addressed this issue of "heretics". Who can and can NOT be
>"an heretic".
>
>"Properly" you are correct, of course, that brings up the question of "if
>you aren't orthodox, and you aren't a "heretic"...what does that
>leave?...infidel?! :)
(I am assuming that the "you" in there is meant as "one" and not
directed at me).
Thank you at least for saying that I was correct.
There are a few other matters.
One is that only a bishop may proclaim anyone a heretic.
Another is that the church seems quite happy to use terms like
"separated brethren", rather than infidel....
From Nostra Aetate....after speaking of Hinduism, Buddhism, and "other
religions"....[After much discussion, other specific faiths were not
mentioned particularly, but they WERE to be thought to be included in
the general statement "other religions"; this was particularly in
reference to the religions known to the African bishops].
"The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in these
religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct
and life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many
particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often
reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men....
The Church therefore has this exhortation for her sons: [church
law makes it clear that "sons" includes all children, unless otherwise
specified] prudently and lovingly, through dialogue and collaboration
with the followers of other religions, and in witness of Christian faith
and life, acknowledge, preserve, and promote the spiritual and moral
goods found among these men, as well as the values in their society and
culture." (Given at St. Peter's, October 28, 1965, by Pope Paul).
I'm still waiting to be told how my dealings with "heretics and Wiccans"
are unorthodox....particularly in view of the above.
--
janet
Theodore M. Seeber
> >Have you ever read the author's notes to _1984_ on orthodoxy?
>
> Yes. Many years ago.
>
> But that's hardly the way the term is generally used on this ng, is it?
True, which is why I changed it to FLUFF.....
Also we do use it when refering to our Eastern brothers in schism.
> >> And what are my unorthodox dealings with heretics, please?
> >
> >As above, talking to heretics damages one's orthodoxy... :-)
>
> Right, then, Francis and Dominic are in trouble, or were, for a start.
>
> And, using your definition of heretics, which I do not accept, the
> Pope's kinda in trouble, as well, isn't he?
YEP :-) We's all heretics at heart :-)
Especially us Roman, nonorthodox, Catholics.
> >Not that I actually believe Orwell's definition of orthodoxy, it denies
> >the ability of mankind to learn from others. But then again, so did the
> >government of Oceana, and so did Orwell's mythical Jew. Our trolls really
> >are heretics, preaching heresy.
>
> Actually, they aren't.
>
> One can NOT teach heresy OUTSIDE the church.
>
> Heresy is teaching, "The church says THIS" while INSIDE the church, and
> knowing that it does no such thing.
If the Bible says it, the church does not?
> (And while one might be able to make a case that certain trolls qualify,
> Wiccans, per definition, do not).
True.
> > And same with the wiccans, who preach
> >other Gods, at least from the Orthodox point of view.
>
> How much do you know about Wicca?
Enough to know that their version of Trinity is as much different from
ours as worshiping Wodin, Thor, and Loci......
> > I would have thought you would have got the allusion.
>
> Why should I suddenly know that when you used "orthodox" you didn't mean
> what you usually mean?
FLUFF Bunny Hop usually means that I'm making a joke...
And in jokes, like on the sign the woman read in the rock ballad
_Stairway_to_Heaven_ sometimes words have two meanings.
> Nor do I think this is "our" ng.
>
> We don't own it. We participate in it, yes, but we don't own it.
That's a matter of opinion that is not supported by usenet tradition,
however.
> WHY don't you folks who want to have a newsgroup without trolls DO
> something about it? I mean, do something to bring it about? Because
> this will never be one! It's unmoderated. You'll never chase away the
> trolls, Ted.
We did when alt.religion.christian.ROMAN-CATHOLIC was created, in one way.
Tell me, why do you think this NG was created? To allow trolls to come in
and try to convert us, or to discuss Catholic issues?
> Wouldn't it be a more constructive use of time?
>
> It seems to me that it took us about 5 months to get a moderated group
> going, and it seems to me that about that long has been spent here by
> people complaining about trolls....?
I remember that moderated group. I was kicked out the first time I
implied that Catholicism has more truth than other christian faiths.
Yeah, sure that worked just fine.
janet
>, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>
>> >Have you ever read the author's notes to _1984_ on orthodoxy?
>>
>> Yes. Many years ago.
>>
>> But that's hardly the way the term is generally used on this ng, is it?
>
>True, which is why I changed it to FLUFF.....
Fine, but I still don't appreciate it, Ted.
Putting "this is a joke" around an insult doesn't usually work.
>Also we do use it when refering to our Eastern brothers in schism.
>
>> >> And what are my unorthodox dealings with heretics, please?
>> >
>> >As above, talking to heretics damages one's orthodoxy... :-)
>>
>> Right, then, Francis and Dominic are in trouble, or were, for a start.
>>
>> And, using your definition of heretics, which I do not accept, the
>> Pope's kinda in trouble, as well, isn't he?
>
>YEP :-) We's all heretics at heart :-)
You may find that funny, I do not.
>
>Especially us Roman, nonorthodox, Catholics.
>
>> >Not that I actually believe Orwell's definition of orthodoxy, it denies
>> >the ability of mankind to learn from others. But then again, so did the
>> >government of Oceana, and so did Orwell's mythical Jew. Our trolls really
>> >are heretics, preaching heresy.
>>
>> Actually, they aren't.
>>
>> One can NOT teach heresy OUTSIDE the church.
>>
>> Heresy is teaching, "The church says THIS" while INSIDE the church, and
>> knowing that it does no such thing.
>
>If the Bible says it, the church does not?
That's not what I said, is it?
>
>> (And while one might be able to make a case that certain trolls qualify,
>> Wiccans, per definition, do not).
>
>True.
Then why lump them in with heretics?
BTW, did you read the bit I posted from Nostra Aetatae?
>
>> > And same with the wiccans, who preach
>> >other Gods, at least from the Orthodox point of view.
>>
>> How much do you know about Wicca?
>
>Enough to know that their version of Trinity is as much different from
>ours as worshiping Wodin, Thor, and Loci......
"Their version of the Trinity"??
IOW, you don't know a lot about Wicca, right?
That's fine, no reason you should, but...
>
>> > I would have thought you would have got the allusion.
>>
>> Why should I suddenly know that when you used "orthodox" you didn't mean
>> what you usually mean?
>
>FLUFF Bunny Hop usually means that I'm making a joke...
>And in jokes, like on the sign the woman read in the rock ballad
>_Stairway_to_Heaven_ sometimes words have two meanings.
Right, whatever.
Let's just say I didn't find it funny.
>
>> Nor do I think this is "our" ng.
>>
>> We don't own it. We participate in it, yes, but we don't own it.
>
>That's a matter of opinion that is not supported by usenet tradition,
>however.
Really?
What does the "alt." stand for?
What usenet tradition is that?
Why do you think so many alt.unmoderated groups have created moderated
ones?
>
>> WHY don't you folks who want to have a newsgroup without trolls DO
>> something about it? I mean, do something to bring it about? Because
>> this will never be one! It's unmoderated. You'll never chase away the
>> trolls, Ted.
>
>We did when alt.religion.christian.ROMAN-CATHOLIC was created, in one way.
You were around then?
*I* wasn't, and I think I've been here longer than you.
>Tell me, why do you think this NG was created? To allow trolls to come in
>and try to convert us, or to discuss Catholic issues?
*shrug*.
I can't think of many alt. unmoderated groups without trolls, Ted.
And we ARE discussing a catholic issue here, Ted.
As for the trolls, well, we know my solution to them.
>
>> Wouldn't it be a more constructive use of time?
>>
>> It seems to me that it took us about 5 months to get a moderated group
>> going, and it seems to me that about that long has been spent here by
>> people complaining about trolls....?
>
>I remember that moderated group.
No, you don't.
What you're talking about is not a moderated newsgroup, Ted, get it
right, please.
Mail lists and moderated groups are not the same thing.
You may well have been to the moderated group I mean, but that's not
what you're talking about below.
> I was kicked out the first time I
>implied that Catholicism has more truth than other christian faiths.
I'm not going to discuss that here.
>Yeah, sure that worked just fine.
>Ted
Ted, a moderated group is NOT a mail list.
IF you folks would get on and set one up, YOU could decide about posting
rights.
When we set up arwm, (which is the group I'm talking about), we worked
harder over that than over any other single item.
But, within the rules laid down for the alt. heirarchy, you could
decide...
*I* would suggest rejecting posts, rather than banning posters, and
using that ONLY as a last resort.
That's me... (I don't like the idea of banning ANYONE from an alt.
group... although I will concede that those who can and do generate
over 100 posts per hour soley for the sake of flaming the group might
JUST rate that....But ONLY after they have done it once to the ng,
against the charter).
If you're interested, I can send you the charter we eventually ended up
with, at least the bits about posting and who can and can not post, and
what is permissable, and so on...It's in the public domain, I think,
it's certainly posted on a web site or two... Or you could go to the
group and ask, but I'm happy to send it...
For a catholic group, it would be a LOT easier to define what posts are
acceptable, and why, I should think!!! At least you'd all be working
from the same definition of justice, and the same view of the human
person, right? (YOU try working that out with the diverse group that
set up arwm....!).
We also put in, in rather strong language for us, the fact that the ng
MUST remain a place of religious tolerance, and posts which contribute
to an atmosphere of INtolerance would be, (and have been) rejected.
Again, I would be glad to forward it...
I will say again: this is an UNMODERATED group.
NO ONE can say who may post here, (other than ISP's...) or what posts
must/can consist of, (other than general nettiquitte, and even that is
honoured, at times, more in the breach...).
Not on an unmoderated group.
Forgive me, but instead of trying to change THIS group, (which was
discussed, and not overly well taken up a while back) why not just
create the kind of group you want?
I just don't see why not...?
Mitch
<ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk> enlightened us all with:
>> I was kicked out the first time I
>>implied that Catholicism has more truth than other christian faiths.
Lets get the facts straight, Ted.
You were on a private mailing list (which I run) not a moderated
public newsgroup. You actually withdrew yourself from the list . I
still have a copy of the mail.
If you recall there were a lot of complaints -- also still in the
archive -- because you were not only intolerant but bloody rude and
aggressive.
I also kept a copy of your mail admitting (rather ruefully) that your
post had been rather OTT -- and apologising.
--
Mitch
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"
Kevin Beach
Depends what those dealings are, surely?
Kevin
janet
<kevin...@mcmail.com> said unto us:
>
>> I'm still waiting to be told how my dealings with "heretics and Wiccans"
>> are unorthodox....particularly in view of the above.
>> --
>> janet
>
>Depends what those dealings are, surely?
>
>Kevin
talking to people
discussing things with them
learning things from them, hopefully returning the favour
feeding people.
Still waiting to be told how that's unorthodox...
Theodore M. Seeber
> >True, which is why I changed it to FLUFF.....
>
> Fine, but I still don't appreciate it, Ted.
>
> Putting "this is a joke" around an insult doesn't usually work.
Then you've missed an essential bit of humor in humans: Most jokes are
insults to one group or another.
> >If the Bible says it, the church does not?
>
> That's not what I said, is it?
Every single one of our "trolls" refers to the Bible to support a teaching
that the church does not. Thus, they are preaching heresy, because the
Bible is linked to the Catholic Church.
> Then why lump them in with heretics?
To make the point about how the only truly Orthodox Christian is one
living in a hermitage.....
> BTW, did you read the bit I posted from Nostra Aetatae?
I hardly ever read everything posted to this list anymore.
> >Enough to know that their version of Trinity is as much different from
> >ours as worshiping Wodin, Thor, and Loci......
>
> "Their version of the Trinity"??
Something about a Mother Goddess and threefold rule?
All religions refer to the trinity in one way or another; it's a part and
parcel of the five god system that's built into our DNA.
> IOW, you don't know a lot about Wicca, right?
Nor care...Preaching untruth is preaching untruth.
> Let's just say I didn't find it funny.
Which is fine, nobody ever said that all jokes had to be funny.
> Really?
>
> What does the "alt." stand for?
>
> What usenet tradition is that?
>
> Why do you think so many alt.unmoderated groups have created moderated
> ones?
Perhaps in that case we should simply delete the entire alt.* hierarchy
and start over. Usenet tradition states that a newsgroup is to discuss
interests pertaining to the newsgroup charter INCLUDEING the alt.*
hierarchy, which is simply unmoderated.
> >We did when alt.religion.christian.ROMAN-CATHOLIC was created, in one way.
>
> You were around then?
I've been on and off of usenet for 15 years now.
> *I* wasn't, and I think I've been here longer than you.
This time around.
> >Tell me, why do you think this NG was created? To allow trolls to come in
> >and try to convert us, or to discuss Catholic issues?
>
> *shrug*.
>
> I can't think of many alt. unmoderated groups without trolls, Ted.
But this is new within the last 5 years or so. Probabally related to
opening up Usenet and the internet beyond academia.
> And we ARE discussing a catholic issue here, Ted.
Very few of us are. Heck, out of any given 400 messages, less than 50 are
related to Catholic issues.
> As for the trolls, well, we know my solution to them.
Yes we do.
> Forgive me, but instead of trying to change THIS group, (which was
> discussed, and not overly well taken up a while back) why not just
> create the kind of group you want?
Because it doesn't solve the problem of heresy. Which is indeed the only
reason I stay on this newsgroup at all.
janet
, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>On Sat, 15 Aug 1998, janet wrote:
>
>> >True, which is why I changed it to FLUFF.....
>>
>> Fine, but I still don't appreciate it, Ted.
>>
>> Putting "this is a joke" around an insult doesn't usually work.
>
>insults to one group or another.
Actually, humour is an interrupted defense mechanism.
And I don't find insults to groups funny.
>
Which still doesn't cover the fact that I found what you said insulting.
>> >If the Bible says it, the church does not?
>>
>> That's not what I said, is it?
>
>Every single one of our "trolls" refers to the Bible to support a teaching
^ ^ ^
>that the church does not.
Really?
Doubt it.
> Thus, they are preaching heresy, because the
>Bible is linked to the Catholic Church.
Hardly.
We've been through this before....
>
>> Then why lump them in with heretics?
>
>To make the point about how the only truly Orthodox Christian is one
>living in a hermitage.....
Again, I disagree with your definition of orthodox.
I will take the church's over Orwell's.
>
>> BTW, did you read the bit I posted from Nostra Aetatae?
>
>I hardly ever read everything posted to this list anymore.
Fine.
Read it in the documents of Vatican II.
It's certainly in the Flannery edition, although there are probably
newer ones about...
>
>> >Enough to know that their version of Trinity is as much different from
>> >ours as worshiping Wodin, Thor, and Loci......
>>
>> "Their version of the Trinity"??
>
>Something about a Mother Goddess and threefold rule?
Try again....
The threefold rule has nothing to do with a trinity, Ted. It's the law
of threefold RETURN... and many Wiccans do not accept it...not all
accept the Rede, either...
And there is a huge debate about the place of the Goddess and the God...
Again, there's no need for you to know anything about Wicca, UNLESS you
are going to say: "they" believe this...
(The general idea, from Wiccans themselves, is if you ask three of them
a question, you will get four answers...).
>
>All religions refer to the trinity in one way or another; it's a part and
>parcel of the five god system that's built into our DNA.
Five god system?
Run that past me again....?
>
>> IOW, you don't know a lot about Wicca, right?
>
>Nor care...Preaching untruth is preaching untruth.
None of the Wiccans on the catholic ngs I've seen have ever done any
preaching, Ted.
Unless general posting is preaching...?
>
>> Let's just say I didn't find it funny.
>
>Which is fine, nobody ever said that all jokes had to be funny.
Ted, you called me unorthodox and heretical.
I still don't think that's a joke.
>
>> Really?
>>
>> What does the "alt." stand for?
>>
>> What usenet tradition is that?
>>
>> Why do you think so many alt.unmoderated groups have created moderated
>> ones?
>
>Perhaps in that case we should simply delete the entire alt.* hierarchy
>and start over. Usenet tradition states that a newsgroup is to discuss
>interests pertaining to the newsgroup charter INCLUDEING the alt.*
>hierarchy, which is simply unmoderated.
Again, no.
Alt. means: alternative.
I have no desire to delete it and start over, I'm relatively happy with
the way things are...and it's not up to me, anyway....
When a newsgroup is no longer what I want from it, I leave.
*If* I think there is milage in making a new, moderated group to deal
with a troll problem and provide a safe place to post about things which
are important to people, then I get involved in doing it. I don't have
the capability to do it on my own, but as the saying goes, I know people
who do, and did, and I did what (little) I could to help...
*shrug* Seems simpler to do that...
>
>> >We did when alt.religion.christian.ROMAN-CATHOLIC was created, in one way.
>>
>> You were around then?
>
>I've been on and off of usenet for 15 years now.
That didn't answer the question....
>
>> *I* wasn't, and I think I've been here longer than you.
>
>This time around.
Fine, whatever, Ted.
Then how can you confuse a mail list with a moderated group?
>
>> >Tell me, why do you think this NG was created? To allow trolls to come in
>> >and try to convert us, or to discuss Catholic issues?
>>
>> *shrug*.
>>
>> I can't think of many alt. unmoderated groups without trolls, Ted.
>
>But this is new within the last 5 years or so. Probabally related to
>opening up Usenet and the internet beyond academia.
Fine, but that's what's happened...
And if you look at this particular group, there aren't many here posting
from academic sites... (*I* don't post from one, even though I have
access to one...).
>
>> And we ARE discussing a catholic issue here, Ted.
>
>Very few of us are. Heck, out of any given 400 messages, less than 50 are
>related to Catholic issues.
Depends on your point of view. Catholic means universal.
And THIS thread is certainly about catholic issues...
>
>> As for the trolls, well, we know my solution to them.
>
>Yes we do.
Which, I should have pointed out, I do NOT say others should take on...
that's personal choice!
>
>> Forgive me, but instead of trying to change THIS group, (which was
>> discussed, and not overly well taken up a while back) why not just
>> create the kind of group you want?
>
>Because it doesn't solve the problem of heresy. Which is indeed the only
>reason I stay on this newsgroup at all.
>Ted
I'm STILL waiting to be told what my heretical dealings were.
Theodore M. Seeber
> talking to people
> discussing things with them
> learning things from them, hopefully returning the favour
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> feeding people.
>
> Still waiting to be told how that's unorthodox...
Thought I explained this. The definition of the word orthodox that I was
useing would prevent the oportunity to learn from others, thus learning
from them would be unorthodox.
Theodore M. Seeber
> Actually, humour is an interrupted defense mechanism.
>
> And I don't find insults to groups funny.
I'm sorry you don't find insults to groups funny. Must never have gotten
the point of all the Mr. Humphry's Jokes in Are You Being Served (all of
the jokes surrounding the character were insults against flameing gays).
> Which still doesn't cover the fact that I found what you said insulting.
So? What jokes DON'T you find insulting?
> >Every single one of our "trolls" refers to the Bible to support a teaching
> ^ ^ ^
>
> >that the church does not.
>
> Really?
>
> Doubt it.
Let's take a look at those who've been named trolls:
Nicholas: refers to the Bible almost constantly.
CB: refers to the Bible in some 75% of his messages
The Murrays: always used the Bible when cornered into the wall.
Your statement that they don't use the Bible is ludicrous at best.
> > Thus, they are preaching heresy, because the
> >Bible is linked to the Catholic Church.
>
> Hardly.
>
> We've been through this before....
In what way is the Bible not linked to the Catholic Church?
> >To make the point about how the only truly Orthodox Christian is one
> >living in a hermitage.....
>
> Again, I disagree with your definition of orthodox.
>
> I will take the church's over Orwell's.
Which just means that you didn't get the joke.
> (The general idea, from Wiccans themselves, is if you ask three of them
> a question, you will get four answers...).
Which just goes to show how confused they are with theology.
> >All religions refer to the trinity in one way or another; it's a part and
> >parcel of the five god system that's built into our DNA.
>
> Five god system?
>
> Run that past me again....?
My name for it. In many cases, the gods are more forces of nature than
given names, except in truly pagan systems.
Basically though:
3 forces of good.
1 force of nutrality (which uses evil to accomplish good)
1 force of evil
Usually only the first three are worshiped, but even the first three may
be coded into law.
> Unless general posting is preaching...?
to a Protestant it is :-)
> Ted, you called me unorthodox and heretical.
>
> I still don't think that's a joke.
Just because you didn't get it.
> Again, no.
>
> Alt. means: alternative.
>
> I have no desire to delete it and start over, I'm relatively happy with
> the way things are...and it's not up to me, anyway....
In that case, my "joke" is just that, a joke, and whether you're happy or
unhappy with it makes no difference.
> Then how can you confuse a mail list with a moderated group?
To me, they're one and the same. Only difference is in the packet info.
> >Very few of us are. Heck, out of any given 400 messages, less than 50 are
> >related to Catholic issues.
>
> Depends on your point of view. Catholic means universal.
>
> And THIS thread is certainly about catholic issues...
No, this thread isn't at all. As implied by the "FLUFF" headline.
> I'm STILL waiting to be told what my heretical dealings were.
I'm sorry I've failed you in that, but I have no better way to explain it
than taking the worldview of wiccans over that of the church....
AND I've never said that those heretical dealings were real (as shown,
once again, by the FLUFF subject line).
Theodore M. Seeber
> Again, may I suggest you read Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate?
Will do. At sometime, you're going to have to explain to me where the
church definition of a joke is as well.
janet
, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>
>> talking to people
>> discussing things with them
>> learning things from them, hopefully returning the favour
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> feeding people.
>>
>> Still waiting to be told how that's unorthodox...
>
>Thought I explained this. The definition of the word orthodox that I was
>useing would prevent the oportunity to learn from others, thus learning
>from them would be unorthodox.
>Ted
>
orthodox in the church.
Again, may I suggest you read Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate?
--
Mitch
<see...@teleport.com> enlightened us all with:
>I'm sorry you don't find insults to groups funny. Must never have gotten
>the point of all the Mr. Humphry's Jokes in Are You Being Served (all of
>the jokes surrounding the character were insults against flameing gays).
Strangely enough, Janet and I were discussing humour recently and both
of us used this program as an example of what we *don't* find funny.
Anything which encourages people to laugh *at* a group not *with* a
group is insulting, not funny.
Theodore M. Seeber
> >I'm sorry you don't find insults to groups funny. Must never have gotten
> >the point of all the Mr. Humphry's Jokes in Are You Being Served (all of
> >the jokes surrounding the character were insults against flameing gays).
>
> Strangely enough, Janet and I were discussing humour recently and both
> of us used this program as an example of what we *don't* find funny.
Somehow, that makes sense. Where I find such humor incredibly funny,
there was once a time when I had less control over my temper as well, and
thus failed to find such jokes funny.
> Anything which encourages people to laugh *at* a group not *with* a
> group is insulting, not funny.
Please give an example of a joke where people laugh with a group instead
of at them.
janet
, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>
>>
>> And I don't find insults to groups funny.
>
>the point of all the Mr. Humphry's Jokes in Are You Being Served (all of
>the jokes surrounding the character were insults against flameing gays).
>
I got the point, alright...
But then, I don't find homophobia funny, either... (see Mitch's post on
the subject...).
>> Which still doesn't cover the fact that I found what you said insulting.
>
>So? What jokes DON'T you find insulting?
Jokes which rely on puns... which require a use of something other than
insult....jokes which rely on shared knowledge (cf the threads where
people discussed things with Telemachus), or shared experience....jokes
which do not demean but rather simply point out the absurd....
I don't find sexist, racist, gay, straight, etc. jokes funny. I find
them sad, to be honest.
>
>> >Every single one of our "trolls" refers to the Bible to support a teaching
>> ^ ^ ^
>>
>> >that the church does not.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> Doubt it.
>
>Let's take a look at those who've been named trolls:
>Nicholas: refers to the Bible almost constantly.
>CB: refers to the Bible in some 75% of his messages
>The Murrays: always used the Bible when cornered into the wall.
There are others who are trolls, though, are there not? I see the
ubiquitous Melissa is back....
>
>Your statement that they don't use the Bible is ludicrous at best.
I was actually quibbling about the "every single"....
>
>> > Thus, they are preaching heresy, because the
>> >Bible is linked to the Catholic Church.
>>
>> Hardly.
>>
>> We've been through this before....
>
>In what way is the Bible not linked to the Catholic Church?
I'm talking about the definition of heresy.
AND who may proclaim it.
>
>
>> >To make the point about how the only truly Orthodox Christian is one
>> >living in a hermitage.....
>>
>> Again, I disagree with your definition of orthodox.
>>
>> I will take the church's over Orwell's.
>
>Which just means that you didn't get the joke.
Which means that you still think that it's ok to insult someone AS LONG
as you say, "it was only a joke".
I disagree.
(Look at the title of the thread this came from: heresy is considered a
mortal sin, Ted....).
>
>> (The general idea, from Wiccans themselves, is if you ask three of them
>> a question, you will get four answers...).
>
>Which just goes to show how confused they are with theology.
*shrug*
I'm not going to pronounce on "Wiccan" theology, as there is no central
authority...
It is not my path.
>
>> >All religions refer to the trinity in one way or another; it's a part and
>> >parcel of the five god system that's built into our DNA.
>>
>> Five god system?
>>
>> Run that past me again....?
>
>My name for it. In many cases, the gods are more forces of nature than
>given names, except in truly pagan systems.
>Basically though:
>3 forces of good.
>1 force of nutrality (which uses evil to accomplish good)
>1 force of evil
>
>Usually only the first three are worshiped, but even the first three may
>be coded into law.
In other words, a trinity and dualism.
Odd, Ted.
Can you reconcile that with the church's teaching about God and the
natural law? (Honestly interested here).
>
>> Unless general posting is preaching...?
>
>to a Protestant it is :-)
I thought you were talking about Wiccans as well...?
>
>> Ted, you called me unorthodox and heretical.
>>
>> I still don't think that's a joke.
>
>Just because you didn't get it.
No, because I don't think it's a joke.
Believe me, I "got" what you were trying to say....
>
>> Again, no.
>>
>> Alt. means: alternative.
>>
>> I have no desire to delete it and start over, I'm relatively happy with
>> the way things are...and it's not up to me, anyway....
>
>In that case, my "joke" is just that, a joke, and whether you're happy or
>unhappy with it makes no difference.
It does to me.
It doesn't bother you that you've insulted someone?
>
>> Then how can you confuse a mail list with a moderated group?
>
>To me, they're one and the same. Only difference is in the packet info.
Then you need to do a LOT more reading about the subject.
There is a thread on arwm called "why don't the modstaff...?" at the
moment, written by one of the modstaff, (the most experienced one by a
LOOONNNGGGG shot...). It might be worth a look, it explains much.
But the difference between a mail list and a public (though moderated)
ng is fairly clear, I should have thought.
>
>> >Very few of us are. Heck, out of any given 400 messages, less than 50 are
>> >related to Catholic issues.
>>
>> Depends on your point of view. Catholic means universal.
>>
>> And THIS thread is certainly about catholic issues...
>
>No, this thread isn't at all. As implied by the "FLUFF" headline.
You are talking about the definition of heresy, and the connection
between the bible and the church, and views of God, and it's not
catholic?
>
>> I'm STILL waiting to be told what my heretical dealings were.
>
>I'm sorry I've failed you in that, but I have no better way to explain it
>than taking the worldview of wiccans over that of the church....
Which you know very little about, Ted...
One more time.
There *IS* no "Wiccan worldview".
There is and are the worldviews of individual Wiccans. Within that, you
will find a diety, two deities, a pantheon, no god whatsoever,
pantheism, reincarnation, a denial of reincarnation, use of magic, no
use of magic, women only groups, mixed groups, male only groups...
By definition, (except to some of the very traditional people, from some
of the very traditional groups...) there just ISN'T a central teaching
authority in Wicca. You can't talk about "the Wiccan world view" like
that...
Even the two Wiccans who regularly post to tnnrc have very different
views on some things.... ;)
(Lasanga, though, they agree about....). (oh, almost. One won't eat it
with meat in it....). ;)
None of which tells me what *my* heretical dealings were, Ted.
>AND I've never said that those heretical dealings were real (as shown,
>once again, by the FLUFF subject line).
In other words, you didn't mean it?
Theodore M. Seeber
> I got the point, alright...
>
> But then, I don't find homophobia funny, either... (see Mitch's post on
> the subject...).
Show me one joke including a pun that doesn't require insulting some
group.
> >So? What jokes DON'T you find insulting?
>
> Jokes which rely on puns... which require a use of something other than
> insult....
The entire reason a pun is funny is because somebody mispoke a word, which
is laughing at the person's mistake.
> jokes which rely on shared knowledge (cf the threads where
> people discussed things with Telemachus)
Which is funny because it's laughing at those people who are outside of
the group with shared knowledge.
>, or shared experience....jokes
> which do not demean but rather simply point out the absurd....
The absurd is ALWAYS demeaning to somebody.
> I don't find sexist, racist, gay, straight, etc. jokes funny. I find
> them sad, to be honest.
You just pointed out three types of jokes that were demeaning to other
groups than yours. Please give me an example of something that doesn't.
> >Let's take a look at those who've been named trolls:
> >Nicholas: refers to the Bible almost constantly.
> >CB: refers to the Bible in some 75% of his messages
> >The Murrays: always used the Bible when cornered into the wall.
>
> There are others who are trolls, though, are there not? I see the
> ubiquitous Melissa is back....
She's never been deemed a troll as far as I know.
> >In what way is the Bible not linked to the Catholic Church?
>
> I'm talking about the definition of heresy.
>
> AND who may proclaim it.
If other Christians are not claiming authority and therefore heresy, then
I'm sorry, I don't see the point of the eccumenical councils. Every
single one of them has thrown heretics out of the church, who are
therefore no longer in the church.
> >Which just means that you didn't get the joke.
>
> Which means that you still think that it's ok to insult someone AS LONG
> as you say, "it was only a joke".
>
> I disagree.
In that case, there are no jokes, only degrees of insult.
> (Look at the title of the thread this came from: heresy is considered a
> mortal sin, Ted....).
Exactly my point.
> >Which just goes to show how confused they are with theology.
>
> *shrug*
>
> I'm not going to pronounce on "Wiccan" theology, as there is no central
> authority...
>
> It is not my path.
If it's not your path, then why bother to listen to them?
> >My name for it. In many cases, the gods are more forces of nature than
> >given names, except in truly pagan systems.
> >Basically though:
> >3 forces of good.
> >1 force of nutrality (which uses evil to accomplish good)
> >1 force of evil
> >
> >Usually only the first three are worshiped, but even the first three may
> >be coded into law.
>
> In other words, a trinity and dualism.
>
> Odd, Ted.
>
> Can you reconcile that with the church's teaching about God and the
> natural law? (Honestly interested here).
I'm not sure about that one, because as of late, I've become unsure of the
Church's definition of Natural Law. What is obvious to me is not obvious
to most.
I can however show you the duality half of the five gods in Catholicism:
Michael the Archangel is the force of Neutrality, who uses war to achive
good.
Satan is the god of evil to be despised (I have noticed that, very few
religions that have this five god system worship either Neutrality or
Evil, but often worship the Trinity of Good. Exceptions do exist however,
The Cult of Set from the Egyptian multi-god system is one).
> I thought you were talking about Wiccans as well...?
I'm with you on the idea that wiccans rarely preach, unless it's a part of
their personal healing process dealing with some very specific evil done
to them.
> Believe me, I "got" what you were trying to say....
Not if you didn't vind using an alternate viewpoint of the word orthodox
(which is basically a pun) funny.
> It doesn't bother you that you've insulted someone?
Once again, all jokes insult somebody. It's a sign of how mature you are
when you learn to laugh with instead of being laughed at.
> >To me, they're one and the same. Only difference is in the packet info.
>
> Then you need to do a LOT more reading about the subject.
>
> There is a thread on arwm called "why don't the modstaff...?" at the
> moment, written by one of the modstaff, (the most experienced one by a
> LOOONNNGGGG shot...). It might be worth a look, it explains much.
>
> But the difference between a mail list and a public (though moderated)
> ng is fairly clear, I should have thought.
Not very. I even know of a few public, moderated ngs that are ALSO usenet
ngs (and I have participated in a few as well).
> >No, this thread isn't at all. As implied by the "FLUFF" headline.
>
> You are talking about the definition of heresy, and the connection
> between the bible and the church, and views of God, and it's not
> catholic?
The thread is about the single pun of the word orthodox that you found
insulting.
Nothing more, really, and other topics need to be pulled out.
> None of which tells me what *my* heretical dealings were, Ted.
A joke. Nothing more.
> >AND I've never said that those heretical dealings were real (as shown,
> >once again, by the FLUFF subject line).
>
> In other words, you didn't mean it?
Jokes are NEVER to be taken seriously, as the Political Correctness crowd
often forgets.
janet
, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>
>
>church definition of a joke is as well.
>Ted
>
eaten the last bits of Aristotle...
(that is a reference to The Name of the Rose. It is not meant to be
historical...).
I haven't said, "You should not laugh at x".
I have said, "I don't find y funny".
>
--
janet
Feminae, infantes atque illi qui latine loqui possint antecedant
janet
, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>
>> I got the point, alright...
>>
>> But then, I don't find homophobia funny, either... (see Mitch's post on
>> the subject...).
>
>Show me one joke including a pun that doesn't require insulting some
>group.
>
?
Ted, maybe we're using a different definition of insult here...
>> >So? What jokes DON'T you find insulting?
>>
>> Jokes which rely on puns... which require a use of something other than
>> insult....
>
>The entire reason a pun is funny is because somebody mispoke a word, which
>is laughing at the person's mistake.
Not if the pun was intentional.
Can I suggest reading Terry Pratchett's books?
>
>> jokes which rely on shared knowledge (cf the threads where
>> people discussed things with Telemachus)
>
>Which is funny because it's laughing at those people who are outside of
>the group with shared knowledge.
No, Ted... It's laughing with the people who have it... the whole
reason that the discussions with Telemachus were funny was because we
were using shared knowledge to ask about his mother, tell him Dad would
be home soon, etc... Who was being laughed at there?
>
>>, or shared experience....jokes
>> which do not demean but rather simply point out the absurd....
>
>The absurd is ALWAYS demeaning to somebody.
How so?
>
>> I don't find sexist, racist, gay, straight, etc. jokes funny. I find
>> them sad, to be honest.
>
>You just pointed out three types of jokes that were demeaning to other
>groups than yours. Please give me an example of something that doesn't.
?
You laugh at nothing that does not demean someone else?
Again, try reading The Colour of Magic, or Wyrd Sisters....
>
>> >Let's take a look at those who've been named trolls:
>> >Nicholas: refers to the Bible almost constantly.
>> >CB: refers to the Bible in some 75% of his messages
>> >The Murrays: always used the Bible when cornered into the wall.
>>
>> There are others who are trolls, though, are there not? I see the
>> ubiquitous Melissa is back....
>
>She's never been deemed a troll as far as I know.
Then I suggest you look back in deja news for the last time she was
here.
>
>> >In what way is the Bible not linked to the Catholic Church?
>>
>> I'm talking about the definition of heresy.
>>
>> AND who may proclaim it.
>
>If other Christians are not claiming authority and therefore heresy, then
>I'm sorry, I don't see the point of the eccumenical councils. Every
>single one of them has thrown heretics out of the church, who are
>therefore no longer in the church.
Yes, but they were in the church to START with, Ted.
>
>> >Which just means that you didn't get the joke.
>>
>> Which means that you still think that it's ok to insult someone AS LONG
>> as you say, "it was only a joke".
>>
>> I disagree.
>
>In that case, there are no jokes, only degrees of insult.
Only if your only definition of humour is "that which demeans".
>
>> (Look at the title of the thread this came from: heresy is considered a
>> mortal sin, Ted....).
>
>Exactly my point.
And mine.
>
>> >Which just goes to show how confused they are with theology.
>>
>> *shrug*
>>
>> I'm not going to pronounce on "Wiccan" theology, as there is no central
>> authority...
>>
>> It is not my path.
>
>If it's not your path, then why bother to listen to them?
Because I am LEARNING.
Because there is also a reasonable amount of misinformation about
catholicism around, and I hope people learn from me.
We can all learn from EACH OTHER.
That's why I recommended N.A. as a document to read.
>
>> >My name for it. In many cases, the gods are more forces of nature than
>> >given names, except in truly pagan systems.
>> >Basically though:
>> >3 forces of good.
>> >1 force of nutrality (which uses evil to accomplish good)
>> >1 force of evil
>> >
>> >Usually only the first three are worshiped, but even the first three may
>> >be coded into law.
>>
>> In other words, a trinity and dualism.
>>
>> Odd, Ted.
>>
>> Can you reconcile that with the church's teaching about God and the
>> natural law? (Honestly interested here).
>
>I'm not sure about that one, because as of late, I've become unsure of the
>Church's definition of Natural Law. What is obvious to me is not obvious
>to most.
>I can however show you the duality half of the five gods in Catholicism:
>Michael the Archangel is the force of Neutrality, who uses war to achive
>good.
?????
You can show me that in catholic theology?
>Satan is the god of evil to be despised
Satan in catholic theology is no such thing.
He is NOT a god.
He is not on a par with God.
He is a creature.
>(I have noticed that, very few
>religions that have this five god system worship either Neutrality or
>Evil, but often worship the Trinity of Good. Exceptions do exist however,
>The Cult of Set from the Egyptian multi-god system is one).
Hang about, hang about...
First of all, if it's genetic, it would be found in ALL human societies.
Or at least, in most, with the exceptions being just that....
Secondly, the church is fairly strong AGAINST duality, Ted. The idea
that Satan is a force for evil on the level of the univresal force for
good got quashed LONG ago...
Evil is, in scholastic theology, a LACK, Ted, not a force....
>
>> I thought you were talking about Wiccans as well...?
>
>I'm with you on the idea that wiccans rarely preach, unless it's a part of
>their personal healing process dealing with some very specific evil done
>to them.
Then why did you just say that they did?
>
>> Believe me, I "got" what you were trying to say....
>
>Not if you didn't vind using an alternate viewpoint of the word orthodox
>(which is basically a pun) funny.
I don't find being called unorthodox and heretical funny, Ted, no.
>
>> It doesn't bother you that you've insulted someone?
>
>Once again, all jokes insult somebody. It's a sign of how mature you are
>when you learn to laugh with instead of being laughed at.
>
Right, with you. If YOU insult someone and they don't laugh, it's
THEIR fault for not being as mature as you are?
Right....
>> >To me, they're one and the same. Only difference is in the packet info.
>>
>> Then you need to do a LOT more reading about the subject.
>>
>> There is a thread on arwm called "why don't the modstaff...?" at the
>> moment, written by one of the modstaff, (the most experienced one by a
>> LOOONNNGGGG shot...). It might be worth a look, it explains much.
>>
>> But the difference between a mail list and a public (though moderated)
>> ng is fairly clear, I should have thought.
>
>Not very. I even know of a few public, moderated ngs that are ALSO usenet
>ngs (and I have participated in a few as well).
Hello? Moderated ngs are ngs.
I should have thought that most, if not all moderated ngs are usenet
ngs...?
Email groups, mail lists, etc., are not.
There are some public listserves.
The one we were on about is NOT public.
The moderation process is different, access is different....
The privacy involved is different.
I can quite easily and happily talk about what is posted in the
moderated ng, because that is in the public forum. (Although I wouldn't
repost a post without the author's permission, but that's probably just
me being me....).
An email list is something else again. I would NOT discuss in a public
forum what is posted to an email list...
An email list is not a moderated ng, Ted.
>
>> >No, this thread isn't at all. As implied by the "FLUFF" headline.
>>
>> You are talking about the definition of heresy, and the connection
>> between the bible and the church, and views of God, and it's not
>> catholic?
>
>The thread is about the single pun of the word orthodox that you found
>insulting.
>Nothing more, really, and other topics need to be pulled out.
YOU brought up the Bible, Ted.
YOU made statements about all trolls, about the theology of Wicca, about
the five god system which you seem to see operating in a Trinitarian
system such as Catholicism....
Theodore M. Seeber
> Greetings,
>
> Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
> > Show me one joke including a pun that doesn't require insulting some
> > group.
>
>
> ----------------------------
>
> "The study of syntax is very complicated."
>
> "How can you say that?" :-p
Insulting to people of lower intelligence (who won't get the joke anyway
because to them, both are proper syntax).
> -----------------------------
>
> Would a vorpal candy bar be a “Snicker Snack?” :-P
This one could get you in deep trouble with the people at Hershey's.
> -----------------------------
>
> What is the most profitable way to put your dog out for stud?
>
> Try leashing him out!
>
> [needs to be said out loud. :-p]
And dog lovers everywhere would be stunned (especially those who think
that dogs are better than people).
> All *very* bad puns.
> All created by me!
> They are their own jokes.
> None insult a group.
> [As far as I know. :-)]
I'll put the groups insulted by above. It simply wouldn't be funny if it
didn't insult somebody. And very few jokes don't (two rules of thumb for
stand up commedians who never want to have a bad night is to make jokes
about themselves and about dead people. Rodney Dangerfield often follows
this rule).
Ted
Theodore M. Seeber
> >Show me one joke including a pun that doesn't require insulting some
> >group.
>
> ?
> Ted, maybe we're using a different definition of insult here...
If somebody can possibly find it offensive, it's an insult.
> >The entire reason a pun is funny is because somebody mispoke a word, which
> >is laughing at the person's mistake.
>
> Not if the pun was intentional.
Even then, the person that does not get the joke is being laughed at.
> Can I suggest reading Terry Pratchett's books?
I have. His jokes about witches are extremely funny. But I know a few
American "Witches" who think Terry Pratchett is making fun of them. Just
as I know a few Catholics who worked to get _Nothing_Sacred_ taken off the
air....
> >Which is funny because it's laughing at those people who are outside of
> >the group with shared knowledge.
>
> No, Ted... It's laughing with the people who have it... the whole
> reason that the discussions with Telemachus were funny was because we
> were using shared knowledge to ask about his mother, tell him Dad would
> be home soon, etc... Who was being laughed at there?
Everybody outside of the group.
> >The absurd is ALWAYS demeaning to somebody.
>
> How so?
It's demeaning to the people you find absurd.
> >You just pointed out three types of jokes that were demeaning to other
> >groups than yours. Please give me an example of something that doesn't.
>
> You laugh at nothing that does not demean someone else?
No, I do, and I'm not ashamed of it.
> Again, try reading The Colour of Magic, or Wyrd Sisters....
Both extremely demeaning to American Witchcraft in general.
The reason it's funny is because it pokes fun at our stereotypical
witches.
> >If other Christians are not claiming authority and therefore heresy, then
> >I'm sorry, I don't see the point of the eccumenical councils. Every
> >single one of them has thrown heretics out of the church, who are
> >therefore no longer in the church.
>
> Yes, but they were in the church to START with, Ted.
Any Christian who uses the Bible is, in a sense, in the church to start
with.
> >In that case, there are no jokes, only degrees of insult.
>
> Only if your only definition of humour is "that which demeans".
There is no other definition, as I've shown you.
> >I'm not sure about that one, because as of late, I've become unsure of the
> >Church's definition of Natural Law. What is obvious to me is not obvious
> >to most.
> >I can however show you the duality half of the five gods in Catholicism:
> >Michael the Archangel is the force of Neutrality, who uses war to achive
> >good.
>
> ?????
>
> You can show me that in catholic theology?
The war casting the fallen angels out of heaven.
> >Satan is the god of evil to be despised
>
> Satan in catholic theology is no such thing.
>
> He is NOT a god.
>
> He is not on a par with God.
>
> He is a creature.
Who is more powerfull than we are, which is the original definition of
"god" (small g, not the God we worship which is better defined as the
creator of the universe).
> Hang about, hang about...
>
> First of all, if it's genetic, it would be found in ALL human societies.
> Or at least, in most, with the exceptions being just that....
I'm not entirely willing to rule out that there might be exceptions to the
rule.
> Secondly, the church is fairly strong AGAINST duality, Ted. The idea
> that Satan is a force for evil on the level of the univresal force for
> good got quashed LONG ago...
>
> Evil is, in scholastic theology, a LACK, Ted, not a force....
On an academic level, sure. But how many of us are on that level? I know
of people who still work in the rite of Exorcism, my diocese still has a
department for that ancient rite.
> >I'm with you on the idea that wiccans rarely preach, unless it's a part of
> >their personal healing process dealing with some very specific evil done
> >to them.
>
> Then why did you just say that they did?
Because the original pun depended on the fact that you do talk to and
learn from them. And if there is learning, then somebody is doing the
lectureing.
> >Not if you didn't vind using an alternate viewpoint of the word orthodox
> >(which is basically a pun) funny.
>
> I don't find being called unorthodox and heretical funny, Ted, no.
I'm sorry that you don't. But I do see a parallel in my own life. It
took me 12 years of living in the area that I do to laugh with when
someone else was laughing at my religion.
I even stabbed somebody over it at one time.
But I outgrew that when I was 15. I didn't realize that adults still
bothered.
> >Once again, all jokes insult somebody. It's a sign of how mature you are
> >when you learn to laugh with instead of being laughed at.
>
> Right, with you. If YOU insult someone and they don't laugh, it's
> THEIR fault for not being as mature as you are?
That's the way I grew up. True, the German Apostolic Christians were not
a good influence on me in other ways, but they did teach me maturity, and
the ability to laugh at myself.
> >Not very. I even know of a few public, moderated ngs that are ALSO usenet
> >ngs (and I have participated in a few as well).
>
> Hello? Moderated ngs are ngs.
Not neccessarily.
> I should have thought that most, if not all moderated ngs are usenet
> ngs...?
There are also moderated ListServ NGs.
> An email list is not a moderated ng, Ted.
Depends on how you set it up.
> YOU brought up the Bible, Ted.
>
> YOU made statements about all trolls, about the theology of Wicca, about
> the five god system which you seem to see operating in a Trinitarian
> system such as Catholicism....
I see it operating in all systems. It doesn't take a trinitarian system
to make it work. The five forces don't even have to carry the name "god"
to work. But the five forces are always there.
This led into other things. The main point is that it's all FLUFF.
Christopher Beattie
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, janet wrote:
> > >Show me one joke including a pun that doesn't require insulting some
> > >group.
> > Ted, maybe we're using a different definition of insult here...
> If somebody can possibly find it offensive, it's an insult.
By that definition all jokes are insults. There's always one person
who might find something offensive. Come to think of it, all things
are insults by that definition.
Calling Mary, "Mother of God" is an insult, because there's at least
one protestant out there somewhere who will be "offended."
Calling Bill Clinton a "Democrat" is an insult, because there's at
least one democratic out there somewhere who will be "offended." <G>
(To be even handed, the same argument can be used for George Bush
and "Republican.") <G>
--
| _______ |Christopher Beattie | 801 Eisenhower Dr|
| /__ __\ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33040|
| / \ and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
| /___\ Good |chr...@Tansoft.com | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
| |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp> |
janet
>, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>
>> >Show me one joke including a pun that doesn't require insulting some
>> >group.
>>
>> ?
>> Ted, maybe we're using a different definition of insult here...
>
>If somebody can possibly find it offensive, it's an insult.
*shrug*
So one is careful, and one apologises if one goofs.
>
>> >The entire reason a pun is funny is because somebody mispoke a word, which
>> >is laughing at the person's mistake.
>>
>> Not if the pun was intentional.
>
>Even then, the person that does not get the joke is being laughed at.
Hardly! (quizzical look).
>
>> Can I suggest reading Terry Pratchett's books?
>
>I have. His jokes about witches are extremely funny. But I know a few
>American "Witches" who think Terry Pratchett is making fun of them. Just
>as I know a few Catholics who worked to get _Nothing_Sacred_ taken off the
>air....
Grin... your friends need to get to know Pratchett, then....
>
>> >Which is funny because it's laughing at those people who are outside of
>> >the group with shared knowledge.
>>
>> No, Ted... It's laughing with the people who have it... the whole
>> reason that the discussions with Telemachus were funny was because we
>> were using shared knowledge to ask about his mother, tell him Dad would
>> be home soon, etc... Who was being laughed at there?
>
>Everybody outside of the group.
Why?
I sincerely apologise to anyone who felt belittled because they had not
read the Odessy!
>
>> >The absurd is ALWAYS demeaning to somebody.
>>
>> How so?
>
>It's demeaning to the people you find absurd.
What if it is a situation one finds absurd?
>
>> >You just pointed out three types of jokes that were demeaning to other
>> >groups than yours. Please give me an example of something that doesn't.
>>
>> You laugh at nothing that does not demean someone else?
>
>No, I do, and I'm not ashamed of it.
I didn't ask you to be ashamed, I just asked for information. I find it
odd, but that's neither here nor there....
>
>> Again, try reading The Colour of Magic, or Wyrd Sisters....
>
>Both extremely demeaning to American Witchcraft in general.
PRATCHETT IS A UK RESIDENT!
Sheesh... Ted, oh, Ted, Pratchett is hardly demeaning to witches!
>
>The reason it's funny is because it pokes fun at our stereotypical
>witches.
No, no, no, it pokes fun at Hamlet, Ted!
It is a parody of Hamlet, Ted.
It says almost NOTHING about stereotypical witches!! (quizzical look...
who's stereotypical? Granny, I suppose... but hardly!).
>
>> >If other Christians are not claiming authority and therefore heresy, then
>> >I'm sorry, I don't see the point of the eccumenical councils. Every
>> >single one of them has thrown heretics out of the church, who are
>> >therefore no longer in the church.
>>
>> Yes, but they were in the church to START with, Ted.
>
>Any Christian who uses the Bible is, in a sense, in the church to start
>with.
Hello? Heresy is about CATHOLICISM, Ted....
>
>> >In that case, there are no jokes, only degrees of insult.
>>
>> Only if your only definition of humour is "that which demeans".
>
>There is no other definition, as I've shown you.
Which I do not accept.
>
>> >I'm not sure about that one, because as of late, I've become unsure of the
>> >Church's definition of Natural Law. What is obvious to me is not obvious
>> >to most.
>> >I can however show you the duality half of the five gods in Catholicism:
>> >Michael the Archangel is the force of Neutrality, who uses war to achive
>> >good.
>>
>> ?????
>>
>> You can show me that in catholic theology?
>
>The war casting the fallen angels out of heaven.
I asked for catholic theology, Ted, about Michael using war....
AND about duality, Ted.
>
>> >Satan is the god of evil to be despised
>>
>> Satan in catholic theology is no such thing.
>>
>> He is NOT a god.
>>
>> He is not on a par with God.
>>
>> He is a creature.
>
>Who is more powerfull than we are, which is the original definition of
>"god" (small g, not the God we worship which is better defined as the
>creator of the universe).
Could I suggest a look at what the Cathars thought?
>
>> Hang about, hang about...
>>
>> First of all, if it's genetic, it would be found in ALL human societies.
>> Or at least, in most, with the exceptions being just that....
>
>I'm not entirely willing to rule out that there might be exceptions to the
>rule.
If it's genetic, there shouldn't be....
>
>> Secondly, the church is fairly strong AGAINST duality, Ted. The idea
>> that Satan is a force for evil on the level of the univresal force for
>> good got quashed LONG ago...
>>
>> Evil is, in scholastic theology, a LACK, Ted, not a force....
>
>On an academic level, sure. But how many of us are on that level? I know
>of people who still work in the rite of Exorcism, my diocese still has a
>department for that ancient rite.
Never said it wouldn't, EVERY diocese is supposed to have an exorcist.
When I say it is a lack, I am not denying the existence of satan.
I *am* denying a dualistic universe, Ted!
And academic or not, as far as I know, the scholastic view of evil is
right in line with church teaching...?
>
>> >I'm with you on the idea that wiccans rarely preach, unless it's a part of
>> >their personal healing process dealing with some very specific evil done
>> >to them.
>>
>> Then why did you just say that they did?
>
>Because the original pun depended on the fact that you do talk to and
>learn from them. And if there is learning, then somebody is doing the
>lectureing.
Really?
I disagree.
I learn from people in conversation, from reading, and all sorts. I can
learn, as we all can, from simply looking or perhaps hearing music.
I would hope that my students learn from me, I know I learn from them,
but, although I get called "the lecturer from hell" for the amount of
paper they use taking notes, (grin....), there IS a great deal of
conversation, and give and take. I am NOT there as an authority, not to
be questioned...
Sorry, I know I've drifted, but I think this is important, as most of
the people who read and post here are adults. And in the general idea
of adult education, the experience and prior learning of the student is
valued and appreciated: sure, there is lecturing, but that is NOT the
sum total, and I wouldn't say that it should be the major part of adult
education.... we are about *allowing* people to learn, helping them to
do so.
I see a good deal of my function as an educator of adults as making
myself redundant, for those particular students: they should get to the
point where they can do it themselves! ;) (And I am VERY pleased to
say that this happens again and again, NOT because of me, but because of
an inbred idea of life long learning in this country. It is to be
valued!!!) <---compliment for the UK idea of the WEA, and so on...
(Worker's Educational Authority).
>
>> >Not if you didn't vind using an alternate viewpoint of the word orthodox
>> >(which is basically a pun) funny.
>>
>> I don't find being called unorthodox and heretical funny, Ted, no.
>
>I'm sorry that you don't. But I do see a parallel in my own life. It
>took me 12 years of living in the area that I do to laugh with when
>someone else was laughing at my religion.
I'm glad you did, to a point...
>
>I even stabbed somebody over it at one time.
there's no answer to that....
>
>But I outgrew that when I was 15. I didn't realize that adults still
>bothered.
About being called heretical and unorthodox in public?
Yep. I bother....
>
>> >Once again, all jokes insult somebody. It's a sign of how mature you are
>> >when you learn to laugh with instead of being laughed at.
>>
>> Right, with you. If YOU insult someone and they don't laugh, it's
>> THEIR fault for not being as mature as you are?
>
>That's the way I grew up. True, the German Apostolic Christians were not
>a good influence on me in other ways, but they did teach me maturity, and
>the ability to laugh at myself.
I don't think I accept your definition of maturity, Ted....
>
>> >Not very. I even know of a few public, moderated ngs that are ALSO usenet
>> >ngs (and I have participated in a few as well).
>>
>> Hello? Moderated ngs are ngs.
>
>Not neccessarily.
What??
I'm lost here. When is a moderated ng not a moderated ng?
>
>> I should have thought that most, if not all moderated ngs are usenet
>> ngs...?
>
>There are also moderated ListServ NGs.
Yes, I said as much.
>
>> An email list is not a moderated ng, Ted.
>
>Depends on how you set it up.
No, it doesn't.
Believe me. There are all kinds of things one has to do to get a
newsgroup on usenet.
There is very LITTLE one has to do to set up an email list.
There are also issues of privacy of public ngs vs. email lists....
>
>> YOU brought up the Bible, Ted.
>>
>> YOU made statements about all trolls, about the theology of Wicca, about
>> the five god system which you seem to see operating in a Trinitarian
>> system such as Catholicism....
>
>I see it operating in all systems. It doesn't take a trinitarian system
>to make it work. The five forces don't even have to carry the name "god"
>to work. But the five forces are always there.
>This led into other things. The main point is that it's all FLUFF.
>Ted
All of the above is fluff???
The discussion of duality (or not) in catholicism, and the definition of
evil?
Theodore M. Seeber
> >If somebody can possibly find it offensive, it's an insult.
>
> *shrug*
>
> So one is careful, and one apologises if one goofs.
And thus it's not exactly the sin of death, is it?
> >Even then, the person that does not get the joke is being laughed at.
>
> Hardly! (quizzical look).
Puns are funny for the same reason that impersenations of retarded people
are funny, they are laughing at those less intelligent than we are.
> Grin... your friends need to get to know Pratchett, then....
My point is that there is very little humor that can't be taken the wrong
way by someone, somewhere.
> I sincerely apologise to anyone who felt belittled because they had not
> read the Odessy!
It's a common enough mistake to assume that everybody has the same level
of education and intelligence that you yourself possess. I'm guilty of it
too! After all, I automatically assumed that you'd see the FLUFF, that
you'd be looking for something out of the ordinary, and that you would
therefore pick up on my Orwellian, as opposed to Catholic, use of the word
orthodox.
I'm truly sorry that you were hurt by the mistake.
> >It's demeaning to the people you find absurd.
>
> What if it is a situation one finds absurd?
Then it's demeaning to the people who got themselves into the situation.
> >Both extremely demeaning to American Witchcraft in general.
>
> PRATCHETT IS A UK RESIDENT!
>
> Sheesh... Ted, oh, Ted, Pratchett is hardly demeaning to witches!
Considering the way he portrays them as fools constantly, I'm suprised.
But, then again, that's why I like Prachett.
> >The reason it's funny is because it pokes fun at our stereotypical
> >witches.
>
> No, no, no, it pokes fun at Hamlet, Ted!
>
> It is a parody of Hamlet, Ted.
>
> It says almost NOTHING about stereotypical witches!! (quizzical look...
> who's stereotypical? Granny, I suppose... but hardly!).
I'd have to go back and re-read those very books (been about a year) to
give you cite names. But the witches in Hamlet were extremely
stereotypical as well, so this makes sense.
> >Any Christian who uses the Bible is, in a sense, in the church to start
> >with.
>
> Hello? Heresy is about CATHOLICISM, Ted....
And Catholicism defined the Bible, Janet...
Snip stuff better suited to a different topic.
> >On an academic level, sure. But how many of us are on that level? I know
> >of people who still work in the rite of Exorcism, my diocese still has a
> >department for that ancient rite.
>
> Never said it wouldn't, EVERY diocese is supposed to have an exorcist.
>
> When I say it is a lack, I am not denying the existence of satan.
>
> I *am* denying a dualistic universe, Ted!
>
> And academic or not, as far as I know, the scholastic view of evil is
> right in line with church teaching...?
Ok, if you're not denying the existance of a creature diametrically
opposed to God which we call by a name directly related to the aramaic
word for advesary, what exactly are you denying?
> >Because the original pun depended on the fact that you do talk to and
> >learn from them. And if there is learning, then somebody is doing the
> >lectureing.
>
> Really?
>
> I disagree.
>
> I learn from people in conversation, from reading, and all sorts. I can
> learn, as we all can, from simply looking or perhaps hearing music.
Conversation is a form of lectureing. If the person had no esteem in your
eyes, you would not listen.
> I would hope that my students learn from me, I know I learn from them,
> but, although I get called "the lecturer from hell" for the amount of
> paper they use taking notes, (grin....), there IS a great deal of
> conversation, and give and take. I am NOT there as an authority, not to
> be questioned...
>
> Sorry, I know I've drifted, but I think this is important, as most of
> the people who read and post here are adults. And in the general idea
> of adult education, the experience and prior learning of the student is
> valued and appreciated: sure, there is lecturing, but that is NOT the
> sum total, and I wouldn't say that it should be the major part of adult
> education.... we are about *allowing* people to learn, helping them to
> do so.
>
> I see a good deal of my function as an educator of adults as making
> myself redundant, for those particular students: they should get to the
> point where they can do it themselves! ;) (And I am VERY pleased to
> say that this happens again and again, NOT because of me, but because of
> an inbred idea of life long learning in this country. It is to be
> valued!!!) <---compliment for the UK idea of the WEA, and so on...
> (Worker's Educational Authority).
Where to me, I've seen too much bad come from the most educated classes in
our society. In the US, as opposed to the UK, the highest divorce rates,
the highest abortion rates, and just today on the radio according to
Oregon Public Health, the highest euthanasia rates are all among the most
educated.
This could simply be knowledge of rights leading to an exercise of those
rights.
Or it could call into question the whole practice of calling things into
question (circular as that sounds).
I'm extremely concerned about the whole process.
> >I'm sorry that you don't. But I do see a parallel in my own life. It
> >took me 12 years of living in the area that I do to laugh with when
> >someone else was laughing at my religion.
>
> I'm glad you did, to a point...
Yeah, at least learning to laugh with them kept me out of jail.
> >But I outgrew that when I was 15. I didn't realize that adults still
> >bothered.
>
> About being called heretical and unorthodox in public?
>
> Yep. I bother....
And not realizeing it is MY fault.
> >That's the way I grew up. True, the German Apostolic Christians were not
> >a good influence on me in other ways, but they did teach me maturity, and
> >the ability to laugh at myself.
>
> I don't think I accept your definition of maturity, Ted....
That's all right, you don't accept my definition of humor either, but
you've yet to show me a joke that isn't offensive to somebody, somewhere.
> >> An email list is not a moderated ng, Ted.
> >
> >Depends on how you set it up.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> Believe me. There are all kinds of things one has to do to get a
> newsgroup on usenet.
>
> There is very LITTLE one has to do to set up an email list.
>
> There are also issues of privacy of public ngs vs. email lists....
It's easy enough to get an index of all the ngs on a listserv.
> All of the above is fluff???
>
> The discussion of duality (or not) in catholicism, and the definition of
> evil?
It's all beside the point, that I hurt your feelings by using a definition
of orthodox of which you were not aware in a pun.
For that reason, I'm begining to snip it out.
Later on, outside of a fluff headline, I'll ask you about duality
directly. I don't see the five (small g) system as duality per say,
especially since I can think of at least three secular governmental
systems of human beings that are set up with this system.
Legatus
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, janet wrote:
>
> > >If somebody can possibly find it offensive, it's an insult.
> >
> > *shrug*
> >
> > So one is careful, and one apologises if one goofs.
>
> And thus it's not exactly the sin of death, is it?
>
> > >Even then, the person that does not get the joke is being laughed at.
> >
> > Hardly! (quizzical look).
>
> Puns are funny for the same reason that impersenations of retarded people
> are funny, they are laughing at those less intelligent than we are.
WHAT!?!?! Fine...I figure someone else will kill you for THAT one, so I'll
leave it alone for now... SHEESH!
> > Grin... your friends need to get to know Pratchett, then....
>
> My point is that there is very little humor that can't be taken the wrong
> way by someone, somewhere.
Well, that's certainly true.
KayJay
TEd, I'll be honest.
It's time to apologize. I think you backhanded janet on the unorthodox
dealings thing, and then backpedaled right quick to an obscure def. of the
word to avoid having been insulting.
Do the right thing.
KJ
Theodore M. Seeber
I thought I had, a couple posts ago.
There is another issue here, however, in dealing with obvious joke posts
that ain't so obvious.
I'm just not sure what it is.
KayJay
> > It's time to apologize. I think you backhanded janet on the unorthodox
> > dealings thing, and then backpedaled right quick to an obscure def. of the
> > word to avoid having been insulting.
> > Do the right thing.
>
> I thought I had, a couple posts ago.
> There is another issue here, however, in dealing with obvious joke posts
> that ain't so obvious.
> I'm just not sure what it is.
Ted, I've read Orwell. I tend to have a similar sense of humour as you,
God save us, and there was NO way I could extrapolate that "joke" from
what you posted. Plain and simple: I think it was a slam at janet for
consorting with witches. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Ted >
KJ
janet
>, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
Thank you.
That closes the whole matter, as far as I am concerned... but there are
still interesting things in that thread, which I will answer separately!
janet
>, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>> >of people who still work in the rite of Exorcism, my diocese still has a
>> >department for that ancient rite.
>>
>> Never said it wouldn't, EVERY diocese is supposed to have an exorcist.
>>
>> When I say it is a lack, I am not denying the existence of satan.
>>
>> I *am* denying a dualistic universe, Ted!
>>
>> And academic or not, as far as I know, the scholastic view of evil is
>> right in line with church teaching...?
>
>Ok, if you're not denying the existance of a creature diametrically
>opposed to God which we call by a name directly related to the aramaic
>word for advesary, what exactly are you denying?
I am denying the EQUALITY of forces between God and satan.
I am denying any equality between them at all, which you seemed to imply
in what you originally said, (did I just not understand it?).
I am denying that satan is a "force" for evil in the same way that God
is a "force" for good: satan is a creature, NOT a god, large G or small
g.
[]
Grin... wellll, it has to be said that most of my students do NOT come
from what one might call the educated classes!! These are people in
their 20's-70's who are coming to something like a college education for
the first time in their lives!!
(And one of them, although I didn't teach her, is now 70 and about to
finish her degree!! YEAH!!!).
But I don't think allowing people to question is the problem.
I think teaching them to do that and then WALKING AWAY is the problem!!
Consider: this is something I have said before, but it's germain here.
AND IT IS NOT DIRECTED AT ANY ONE PERSON. I mean that. I can't think
of anyone here who has done, or would do, this, ok??? I am thinking of
people I have met in RealLife, tm... and heard preach.
There are those who "get people to question" their faith. Really shake
them up. AND THEN LEAVE.
They have got someone to examine whether or not they DO believe, in God,
in the Church, whatever, but they have NOT been there to support them in
the process, to help them, to listen...
Grrrr......
I consdier that awful. Really terrible!! (AND I reiterate AGAIN, it's
about no one here!!!!!!) <--- I can't make that point strongly enough!!
Can you see what I mean? Example: I heard a well known Creation
Spirituality person speak once. Most effective speaker I've ever seen,
and I use that word advisedly: he could have got most of that audience
to do whatever he wanted them to!
And he got them to quesiton the divinity of Christ!! THEN HE GOT IN HIS
CAR AND DROVE AWAY!
So you have 400 or so people, who, when they get home and come down off
the high, are going to go, "ummmmm....." Even if only ONE of them had
trouble after that, found that s/he could no longer accept Christ's
divinity with the same assurance.... grrrrr.......
>
[]
>> >> An email list is not a moderated ng, Ted.
>> >
>> >Depends on how you set it up.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>> Believe me. There are all kinds of things one has to do to get a
>> newsgroup on usenet.
>>
>> There is very LITTLE one has to do to set up an email list.
>>
>> There are also issues of privacy of public ngs vs. email lists....
>
>It's easy enough to get an index of all the ngs on a listserv.
Which isn't the same as a moderated group being the same thing as an
email list, Ted.
They just aren't the same!!
If you want to set up an email list right now, you can....
Theodore M. Seeber
> > I thought I had, a couple posts ago.
> > There is another issue here, however, in dealing with obvious joke posts
> > that ain't so obvious.
> > I'm just not sure what it is.
>
> Ted, I've read Orwell. I tend to have a similar sense of humour as you,
> God save us, and there was NO way I could extrapolate that "joke" from
> what you posted. Plain and simple: I think it was a slam at janet for
> consorting with witches. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You are wrong, but now I see that my joke wasn't so obvious.
If Janet consorting with witches is wrong, so is my consorting with
methodists and Lutherans (two other groups that I subscribe to).
So we're both wrong.
Theodore M. Seeber
> >Ok, if you're not denying the existance of a creature diametrically
> >opposed to God which we call by a name directly related to the aramaic
> >word for advesary, what exactly are you denying?
>
> I am denying the EQUALITY of forces between God and satan.
But in the five god system, they're not equal.
Even assumeing for a second that all small-g gods are equal, the forces of
Good, which we see as the godhead, are at least three times as strong as
the forces of evil.
Four if you count the fact that the "god of neutrality" is fighting on the
side of good.
> I am denying any equality between them at all, which you seemed to imply
> in what you originally said, (did I just not understand it?).
Any equality between them is from the human standpoint, not from God's
standpoint.
Satan is infinately more powerfull than we are.
So is God.
But God is the greater infinity.
> I am denying that satan is a "force" for evil in the same way that God
> is a "force" for good: satan is a creature, NOT a god, large G or small
> g.
Creatures can cause change in the universe too. And that's the point.
Whether some misguided human chooses to worship evil instead of good or
not is what causes a small g god.
This terminology is similar to both the Native American and the Hindu
theologies more than to Christianity, where there is a layer of
"creatures", created demi-gods, between us and our creator in the chain of
evolution. Sure, they are created beings, and are thus creatures. But
that fact does not stop them from having influence in our lives that would
appear "god like" to uninformed minds.
> AND IT IS NOT DIRECTED AT ANY ONE PERSON. I mean that. I can't think
> of anyone here who has done, or would do, this, ok??? I am thinking of
> people I have met in RealLife, tm... and heard preach.
Had to leave the disclaimer in. Other than a couple of trolls here that I
will not name, I know of this type only in RealLife as well.
> There are those who "get people to question" their faith. Really shake
> them up. AND THEN LEAVE.
>
> They have got someone to examine whether or not they DO believe, in God,
> in the Church, whatever, but they have NOT been there to support them in
> the process, to help them, to listen...
>
> Grrrr......
>
> I consdier that awful. Really terrible!! (AND I reiterate AGAIN, it's
> about no one here!!!!!!) <--- I can't make that point strongly enough!!
I would also point out that this type of preacher is often the begining of
a new denomination here in the US, so yes, I'm extremely familiar with the
type.
> Can you see what I mean? Example: I heard a well known Creation
> Spirituality person speak once. Most effective speaker I've ever seen,
> and I use that word advisedly: he could have got most of that audience
> to do whatever he wanted them to!
>
> And he got them to quesiton the divinity of Christ!! THEN HE GOT IN HIS
> CAR AND DROVE AWAY!
>
> So you have 400 or so people, who, when they get home and come down off
> the high, are going to go, "ummmmm....." Even if only ONE of them had
> trouble after that, found that s/he could no longer accept Christ's
> divinity with the same assurance.... grrrrr.......
True. Though I'm unfamiliar with the denomination/sect/theology (we've
got to invent a new word for these new groups) Creation Spirituality, I've
seen similar effects with:
Atheists
Wiccans
Seventh-Day Adventists
Jehovah's Witnesses (this group seems to exist primarily for such
encounters)
Mormon Missionaries
Creation Scientists
And finally horror of horrors, I've even met a Catholic appologist who
does this.
janet
>, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>
>> >opposed to God which we call by a name directly related to the aramaic
>> >word for advesary, what exactly are you denying?
>>
>> I am denying the EQUALITY of forces between God and satan.
>
>Even assumeing for a second that all small-g gods are equal, the forces of
>Good, which we see as the godhead, are at least three times as strong as
>the forces of evil.
>Four if you count the fact that the "god of neutrality" is fighting on the
>side of good.
I'm sorry, Ted, I may just not understand what you're getting at, but I
just do NOT see how that can be aligned with catholic teaching on the
nature of angels... and the nature of God? (That's not a challenge,
it's a question!).
>
>> I am denying any equality between them at all, which you seemed to imply
>> in what you originally said, (did I just not understand it?).
>
>Any equality between them is from the human standpoint, not from God's
>standpoint.
>Satan is infinately more powerfull than we are.
>So is God.
>But God is the greater infinity.
>
Greater infinity?
Satan is an angel, Ted. The powers are angelic, nothing more.
WE are responsible for our actions. Yes, we may be tempted, but the act
of will is ours....
>> I am denying that satan is a "force" for evil in the same way that God
>> is a "force" for good: satan is a creature, NOT a god, large G or small
>> g.
>
>Creatures can cause change in the universe too. And that's the point.
>Whether some misguided human chooses to worship evil instead of good or
>not is what causes a small g god.
>This terminology is similar to both the Native American and the Hindu
>theologies more than to Christianity, where there is a layer of
>"creatures", created demi-gods, between us and our creator in the chain of
>evolution. Sure, they are created beings, and are thus creatures. But
>that fact does not stop them from having influence in our lives that would
>appear "god like" to uninformed minds.
Ummmm... ok, I am not saying that this can NOT be integrated with
catholic doctrine, but I admit I can't see how it can be...?
>
>> AND IT IS NOT DIRECTED AT ANY ONE PERSON. I mean that. I can't think
>> of anyone here who has done, or would do, this, ok??? I am thinking of
>> people I have met in RealLife, tm... and heard preach.
>
>Had to leave the disclaimer in. Other than a couple of trolls here that I
>will not name, I know of this type only in RealLife as well.
Well, the disclaimer was heartfelt, I did NOT mean it about anyone
here!!
>
>> There are those who "get people to question" their faith. Really shake
>> them up. AND THEN LEAVE.
>>
>> They have got someone to examine whether or not they DO believe, in God,
>> in the Church, whatever, but they have NOT been there to support them in
>> the process, to help them, to listen...
>>
>> Grrrr......
>>
>> I consdier that awful. Really terrible!! (AND I reiterate AGAIN, it's
>> about no one here!!!!!!) <--- I can't make that point strongly enough!!
>
>I would also point out that this type of preacher is often the begining of
>a new denomination here in the US, so yes, I'm extremely familiar with the
>type.
Really? Shiver.... I have to say that the two experiences I've had of
it in RL(tm) were from the established churches, (I really don't want to
get any more specific than that: they are *not* representative of their
churches, as far as I can see!), but I can see where what you mention
might well happen...
And I mean that shiver. That's the kind of thing that, to me, goes bump
in the night... the idea of shaking someone's faith.
>
>> Can you see what I mean? Example: I heard a well known Creation
>> Spirituality person speak once. Most effective speaker I've ever seen,
>> and I use that word advisedly: he could have got most of that audience
>> to do whatever he wanted them to!
>>
>> And he got them to quesiton the divinity of Christ!! THEN HE GOT IN HIS
>> CAR AND DROVE AWAY!
>>
>> So you have 400 or so people, who, when they get home and come down off
>> the high, are going to go, "ummmmm....." Even if only ONE of them had
>> trouble after that, found that s/he could no longer accept Christ's
>> divinity with the same assurance.... grrrrr.......
>
>True. Though I'm unfamiliar with the denomination/sect/theology (we've
>got to invent a new word for these new groups) Creation Spirituality,
(grin... if you've got the time, there was a LOONNGGG thread in tnnrc a
few months ago where it was discussed....can't remember the name of the
thread, but it was about the possibility of positing the natural law in
a pantheistic universe. The general feeling was: can't be done.).
>I've
>seen similar effects with:
>Atheists
>Wiccans
>Seventh-Day Adventists
>Jehovah's Witnesses (this group seems to exist primarily for such
>encounters)
>Mormon Missionaries
>Creation Scientists
>And finally horror of horrors, I've even met a Catholic appologist who
>does this.
You know, I think this is one of those things that crosses all faith
boundaries, cause I don't think it's about faith, at all.
(I REITERATE, I am NOT talking about anyone here!!!!!).
I think it's about power. The power to bend, to shape, to shake, to
upset...
In the two examples I know of, there was also a tendency to talk about
being "more enlightened"... (again, I know that has been used by some
here, but NOT in this context, I'm NOT drawing parallels!!). For these
two, "enlightened" meant, "what I believe".
But not, "come and see what I believe, and we will walk together", but,
"what you believe is childish and silly. What I believe is enlightened
and thus modern, intellectual and right. You must take on what I
believe or be thought silly", and then WALKING AWAY!!!!
agghghghghghgh.... Aftercare, anyone?
We do it for cars and air conditioners, what about SOULS?????
(pet peeve, sorry...)
KayJay
Thanks, Ted.. much appreciated. :)
KJ
Theodore M. Seeber
> >But in the five god system, they're not equal.
> >Even assumeing for a second that all small-g gods are equal, the forces of
> >Good, which we see as the godhead, are at least three times as strong as
> >the forces of evil.
> >Four if you count the fact that the "god of neutrality" is fighting on the
> >side of good.
>
> I'm sorry, Ted, I may just not understand what you're getting at, but I
> just do NOT see how that can be aligned with catholic teaching on the
> nature of angels... and the nature of God? (That's not a challenge,
> it's a question!).
Human interpretation of the five god system is many and varied. I
developed the idea without refering to my own religion to begin with,
except in noticeing the trinity. It was much later that I expanded to the
other two, and only under the influence of other religions.
Under this definition of "god", some of these gods are creatures, not
creators. Under this definition of god, a god is only a extra-natural
being that leads, not a full-fledged "One and Only God, creator of the
universe from which all good and all blessings flow". I say
extra-natural, not supernatural, because to a aborigine in the desert
who's never seen white man, a coke bottle falling from a plane is
supernatural. (Ref. Movies. _The_gods_must_be_crazy_, parts I and II).
I think that's where you're getting hung up. The definition of the word
god, you're using the Catholic, I'm using the generic anthropological.
Neither of us is incorrect, just double meanings for the same word.
> >Any equality between them is from the human standpoint, not from God's
> >standpoint.
> >Satan is infinately more powerfull than we are.
> >So is God.
> >But God is the greater infinity.
>
> Greater infinity?
>
> Satan is an angel, Ted. The powers are angelic, nothing more.
Absolutely. Without a doubt. But from a human standpoint, and not
neccessarily a technological human standpoint at that, think about it for
a second.
You're an unlearned savage out in the desert. Your tribe knows only
enough stuff to facilitate survival.
One day, you fall off of the local waterfall. On the way down your life
is saved by a guy in an airplane. He lands, and takes you back to your
tribe. What is your relationship to this strange man who flies?
Before you say it can't happen, something like it did during WWII. A
native people, starving on a South Pacific island, the whole tribe was
dying off. Then some people in big silver birds came, built a runway, and
left behind supplies that saved the tribespeople. After the war ended,
they left again, but the famine was over, the tribe had been saved. As
late as 1982, these people were still building bamboo models of the big
silver birds, and place them on the runway, in hopes of attracting the
gods back to their island...
> WE are responsible for our actions. Yes, we may be tempted, but the act
> of will is ours....
Absolutely, and I'm not denying that. I'm working at a lower level, I'm
saying that a parallel to the Trinity, Michael the Archangel, and Satan
can be found in just about every culture that has developed religion.
Even the Cargo Cult I spoke of in the South Pacific has the trinity of
Marther, rosvelt, and pacommand. And the neutral kernal. And the evil
tojo. (not spelled these ways, of course, these people have no concept of
writing, just generic sounds. The fact that they resemble english is just
these people's ability to mimic)
Something in our basic thought process twists religion into this shape.
Higher theology often gives better explainations such as you are giving.
But the basic shell is still intact.
> Ummmm... ok, I am not saying that this can NOT be integrated with
> catholic doctrine, but I admit I can't see how it can be...?
It already has been, as much as it needs to be, by the existance of
"angels", created beings more powerfull than we are.
That concept is all that is required to complete the integration.
Admiting that angels have "angelic powers". Or, in the case of the Cargo
Cult, admiting that SOMETHING exists that knows more about the outside
world than we do.
> >I would also point out that this type of preacher is often the begining of
> >a new denomination here in the US, so yes, I'm extremely familiar with the
> >type.
>
> Really? Shiver.... I have to say that the two experiences I've had of
> it in RL(tm) were from the established churches, (I really don't want to
> get any more specific than that: they are *not* representative of their
> churches, as far as I can see!), but I can see where what you mention
> might well happen...
It requires that the preacher in question be EXTREMELY charismatic. And
more tuned to using religion to gain power than using government to gain
power (though I have met a few politicians who fit too).
> And I mean that shiver. That's the kind of thing that, to me, goes bump
> in the night... the idea of shaking someone's faith.
Come to think of it, I know one guy who's exactly like that and who has a
web page: An ex-Catholic Trapist Monk by the name of Daniel Quinn. Which
reminds me, anybody hear about a movie called "Ishmael" yet? It's one of
his science fiction books being made into a movie, but I don't know any
more than that.
> >True. Though I'm unfamiliar with the denomination/sect/theology (we've
> >got to invent a new word for these new groups) Creation Spirituality,
>
> (grin... if you've got the time, there was a LOONNGGG thread in tnnrc a
> few months ago where it was discussed....can't remember the name of the
> thread, but it was about the possibility of positing the natural law in
> a pantheistic universe. The general feeling was: can't be done.).
I remember that one. I participated in it with you. I think. Didn't it
start out with the mythical "cultureless" human?
> You know, I think this is one of those things that crosses all faith
> boundaries, cause I don't think it's about faith, at all.
>
> (I REITERATE, I am NOT talking about anyone here!!!!!).
>
> I think it's about power. The power to bend, to shape, to shake, to
> upset...
It certainly is!
> In the two examples I know of, there was also a tendency to talk about
> being "more enlightened"... (again, I know that has been used by some
> here, but NOT in this context, I'm NOT drawing parallels!!). For these
> two, "enlightened" meant, "what I believe".
>
> But not, "come and see what I believe, and we will walk together", but,
> "what you believe is childish and silly. What I believe is enlightened
> and thus modern, intellectual and right. You must take on what I
> believe or be thought silly", and then WALKING AWAY!!!!
>
> agghghghghghgh.... Aftercare, anyone?
>
> We do it for cars and air conditioners, what about SOULS?????
Unfamiliar with the term "aftercare".
In that case Daniel Quinn doesn't quite fit. His message is more "What I
believe is modern, intellectual, and right. And it creates a problem I
can't solve. Can you solve it for me? And if you can't, can you help me
get others to believe?" At which point the general concensus is "we need
to change the basic assumptions humanity makes about life, but nobody
knows how to do it. And because of this, humanity will go extinct within
the next century."
Here's a link to a web page devoted to discussing Quinn's work:
http://www.b-network.com/
janet
>, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>
time...?)
>> >Ok, if you're not denying the existance of a creature diametrically
>> >opposed to God which we call by a name directly related to the aramaic
>> >word for advesary, what exactly are you denying?
>>
>> I am denying the EQUALITY of forces between God and satan.
>
>But in the five god system, they're not equal.
>Even assumeing for a second that all small-g gods are equal, the forces of
>Good, which we see as the godhead, are at least three times as strong as
>the forces of evil.
>Four if you count the fact that the "god of neutrality" is fighting on the
>side of good.
I'm sorry, Ted, I may just not understand what you're getting at, but I
just do NOT see how that can be aligned with catholic teaching on the
nature of angels... and the nature of God? (That's not a challenge,
it's a question!).
>
>> I am denying any equality between them at all, which you seemed to imply
>> in what you originally said, (did I just not understand it?).
>
>Any equality between them is from the human standpoint, not from God's
>standpoint.
>Satan is infinately more powerfull than we are.
>So is God.
>But God is the greater infinity.
>
Greater infinity?
Satan is an angel, Ted. The powers are angelic, nothing more.
WE are responsible for our actions. Yes, we may be tempted, but the act
of will is ours....
>> I am denying that satan is a "force" for evil in the same way that God
>> is a "force" for good: satan is a creature, NOT a god, large G or small
>> g.
>
>Creatures can cause change in the universe too. And that's the point.
>Whether some misguided human chooses to worship evil instead of good or
>not is what causes a small g god.
>This terminology is similar to both the Native American and the Hindu
>theologies more than to Christianity, where there is a layer of
>"creatures", created demi-gods, between us and our creator in the chain of
>evolution. Sure, they are created beings, and are thus creatures. But
>that fact does not stop them from having influence in our lives that would
>appear "god like" to uninformed minds.
Ummmm... ok, I am not saying that this can NOT be integrated with
catholic doctrine, but I admit I can't see how it can be...?
>
>> AND IT IS NOT DIRECTED AT ANY ONE PERSON. I mean that. I can't think
>> of anyone here who has done, or would do, this, ok??? I am thinking of
>> people I have met in RealLife, tm... and heard preach.
>
>Had to leave the disclaimer in. Other than a couple of trolls here that I
>will not name, I know of this type only in RealLife as well.
Well, the disclaimer was heartfelt, I did NOT mean it about anyone
here!!
>
>> There are those who "get people to question" their faith. Really shake
>> them up. AND THEN LEAVE.
>>
>> They have got someone to examine whether or not they DO believe, in God,
>> in the Church, whatever, but they have NOT been there to support them in
>> the process, to help them, to listen...
>>
>> Grrrr......
>>
>> I consdier that awful. Really terrible!! (AND I reiterate AGAIN, it's
>> about no one here!!!!!!) <--- I can't make that point strongly enough!!
>
>I would also point out that this type of preacher is often the begining of
>a new denomination here in the US, so yes, I'm extremely familiar with the
>type.
Really? Shiver.... I have to say that the two experiences I've had of
it in RL(tm) were from the established churches, (I really don't want to
get any more specific than that: they are *not* representative of their
churches, as far as I can see!), but I can see where what you mention
might well happen...
And I mean that shiver. That's the kind of thing that, to me, goes bump
in the night... the idea of shaking someone's faith.
>
>> Can you see what I mean? Example: I heard a well known Creation
>> Spirituality person speak once. Most effective speaker I've ever seen,
>> and I use that word advisedly: he could have got most of that audience
>> to do whatever he wanted them to!
>>
>> And he got them to quesiton the divinity of Christ!! THEN HE GOT IN HIS
>> CAR AND DROVE AWAY!
>>
>> So you have 400 or so people, who, when they get home and come down off
>> the high, are going to go, "ummmmm....." Even if only ONE of them had
>> trouble after that, found that s/he could no longer accept Christ's
>> divinity with the same assurance.... grrrrr.......
>
>True. Though I'm unfamiliar with the denomination/sect/theology (we've
>got to invent a new word for these new groups) Creation Spirituality,
(grin... if you've got the time, there was a LOONNGGG thread in tnnrc a
few months ago where it was discussed....can't remember the name of the
thread, but it was about the possibility of positing the natural law in
a pantheistic universe. The general feeling was: can't be done.).
>I've
>seen similar effects with:
>Atheists
>Wiccans
>Seventh-Day Adventists
>Jehovah's Witnesses (this group seems to exist primarily for such
>encounters)
>Mormon Missionaries
>Creation Scientists
>And finally horror of horrors, I've even met a Catholic appologist who
>does this.
You know, I think this is one of those things that crosses all faith
boundaries, cause I don't think it's about faith, at all.
(I REITERATE, I am NOT talking about anyone here!!!!!).
I think it's about power. The power to bend, to shape, to shake, to
upset...
In the two examples I know of, there was also a tendency to talk about
being "more enlightened"... (again, I know that has been used by some
here, but NOT in this context, I'm NOT drawing parallels!!). For these
two, "enlightened" meant, "what I believe".
But not, "come and see what I believe, and we will walk together", but,
"what you believe is childish and silly. What I believe is enlightened
and thus modern, intellectual and right. You must take on what I
believe or be thought silly", and then WALKING AWAY!!!!
agghghghghghgh.... Aftercare, anyone?
We do it for cars and air conditioners, what about SOULS?????
(pet peeve, sorry...)
janet
>, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
(sorry if this is musty headed...not feeling well at all...blahhhhhhh)
;}
>Human interpretation of the five god system is many and varied. I
>developed the idea without refering to my own religion to begin with,
>except in noticeing the trinity. It was much later that I expanded to the
>other two, and only under the influence of other religions.
>
>Under this definition of "god", some of these gods are creatures, not
>creators. Under this definition of god, a god is only a extra-natural
>being that leads, not a full-fledged "One and Only God, creator of the
>universe from which all good and all blessings flow". I say
>extra-natural, not supernatural, because to a aborigine in the desert
>who's never seen white man, a coke bottle falling from a plane is
>supernatural. (Ref. Movies. _The_gods_must_be_crazy_, parts I and II).
>
>I think that's where you're getting hung up. The definition of the word
>god, you're using the Catholic, I'm using the generic anthropological.
>
No, I think I understand the term, there are plenty of others who would
use it that way, cf Campbell...
But I'm still unsure of the idea of extra-natural...?
Cause angels are created, thus creatures, so how are they extranatural?
>Neither of us is incorrect, just double meanings for the same word.
>
>> >Any equality between them is from the human standpoint, not from God's
>> >standpoint.
>> >Satan is infinately more powerfull than we are.
>> >So is God.
>> >But God is the greater infinity.
>>
>> Greater infinity?
>>
>> Satan is an angel, Ted. The powers are angelic, nothing more.
>
>Absolutely. Without a doubt. But from a human standpoint, and not
>neccessarily a technological human standpoint at that, think about it for
>a second.
>You're an unlearned savage out in the desert. Your tribe knows only
>enough stuff to facilitate survival.
Which is actually a very great deal, but go on...
>
>One day, you fall off of the local waterfall. On the way down your life
>is saved by a guy in an airplane. He lands, and takes you back to your
>tribe. What is your relationship to this strange man who flies?
>
>Before you say it can't happen, something like it did during WWII. A
>native people, starving on a South Pacific island, the whole tribe was
>dying off. Then some people in big silver birds came, built a runway, and
>left behind supplies that saved the tribespeople. After the war ended,
>they left again, but the famine was over, the tribe had been saved. As
>late as 1982, these people were still building bamboo models of the big
>silver birds, and place them on the runway, in hopes of attracting the
>gods back to their island...
Cargo cult, yes...
BUT that's a matter of human interpretation, rather than a matter of
reality...
EG, it's what we KNOW of reality, not what reality IS.
I think we're just talking from different viewpoints here: nominalist
and universalist....
>
>> WE are responsible for our actions. Yes, we may be tempted, but the act
>> of will is ours....
>
>Absolutely, and I'm not denying that. I'm working at a lower level, I'm
>saying that a parallel to the Trinity, Michael the Archangel, and Satan
>can be found in just about every culture that has developed religion.
>Even the Cargo Cult I spoke of in the South Pacific has the trinity of
>Marther, rosvelt, and pacommand. And the neutral kernal. And the evil
>tojo. (not spelled these ways, of course, these people have no concept of
>writing, just generic sounds. The fact that they resemble english is just
>these people's ability to mimic)
>Something in our basic thought process twists religion into this shape.
>Higher theology often gives better explainations such as you are giving.
>But the basic shell is still intact.
Interesting!
But hard to see in many polytheistic religions, surely?
How does that work, for instance, in the Greek pantheon?
>
>> Ummmm... ok, I am not saying that this can NOT be integrated with
>> catholic doctrine, but I admit I can't see how it can be...?
>
>It already has been, as much as it needs to be, by the existance of
>"angels", created beings more powerfull than we are.
Um, actually, I don't know about that "more powerful"...?
DIFFERENT, yes, but the main difference is in the nature of the will:
theirs is fixed, ours is not.
>
>That concept is all that is required to complete the integration.
>Admiting that angels have "angelic powers".
Such as? (again, a question, not a challenge!).
> Or, in the case of the Cargo
>Cult, admiting that SOMETHING exists that knows more about the outside
>world than we do.
Grin... welcome to the wonderful world of epistimology and the round
tower in the distance which is actually square... ;)
>
>> >I would also point out that this type of preacher is often the begining of
>> >a new denomination here in the US, so yes, I'm extremely familiar with the
>> >type.
>>
>> Really? Shiver.... I have to say that the two experiences I've had of
>> it in RL(tm) were from the established churches, (I really don't want to
>> get any more specific than that: they are *not* representative of their
>> churches, as far as I can see!), but I can see where what you mention
>> might well happen...
>
>It requires that the preacher in question be EXTREMELY charismatic.
Yup
> And
>more tuned to using religion to gain power than using government to gain
>power (though I have met a few politicians who fit too).
>
>> And I mean that shiver. That's the kind of thing that, to me, goes bump
>> in the night... the idea of shaking someone's faith.
>
>Come to think of it, I know one guy who's exactly like that and who has a
>web page: An ex-Catholic Trapist Monk by the name of Daniel Quinn. Which
>reminds me, anybody hear about a movie called "Ishmael" yet? It's one of
>his science fiction books being made into a movie, but I don't know any
>more than that.
>
>> >True. Though I'm unfamiliar with the denomination/sect/theology (we've
>> >got to invent a new word for these new groups) Creation Spirituality,
>>
>> (grin... if you've got the time, there was a LOONNGGG thread in tnnrc a
>> few months ago where it was discussed....can't remember the name of the
>> thread, but it was about the possibility of positing the natural law in
>> a pantheistic universe. The general feeling was: can't be done.).
>
>I remember that one. I participated in it with you. I think. Didn't it
>start out with the mythical "cultureless" human?
Oh, that probably got in there somewhere, cause the idea that we can
have such a thing just gets my goat!! ;)
Here, kitty, kitty... (g)
>
>> You know, I think this is one of those things that crosses all faith
>> boundaries, cause I don't think it's about faith, at all.
>
[]
>> But not, "come and see what I believe, and we will walk together", but,
>> "what you believe is childish and silly. What I believe is enlightened
>> and thus modern, intellectual and right. You must take on what I
>> believe or be thought silly", and then WALKING AWAY!!!!
>>
>> agghghghghghgh.... Aftercare, anyone?
>>
>> We do it for cars and air conditioners, what about SOULS?????
>
>Unfamiliar with the term "aftercare".
You sell the product, you take care of it afterwards!! That's the
idea, anyway... it may be an advertising phrase just from round here,
(but I thought most of those came from the dear old homestead!). ;)
>In that case Daniel Quinn doesn't quite fit. His message is more "What I
>believe is modern, intellectual, and right. And it creates a problem I
>can't solve. Can you solve it for me? And if you can't, can you help me
>get others to believe?" At which point the general concensus is "we need
>to change the basic assumptions humanity makes about life, but nobody
>knows how to do it. And because of this, humanity will go extinct within
>the next century."
Oh, how nice! sheesh... People have been saying that since Malthus..
probably a lot earlier, I just can't site them.
There are plenty of other writers saying the same thing. AND saying a
lot of other stuff that, although I agree with in SOME ways, is just
silly in others, but what's new about that?
I mean people like Marilyn French, (um, come to think of it, I can't
think of ANYTHING she says that I agree with...) but others,
(Dinnerstein? Sorry, not together enough for names right now...) who
talk about turning away from what they call the "masculine" view of the
world, (eg, we must conquer and subdue it, and then it is ours to do
with what we will) to the "feminine" view, (we are caretakers...).
I dispute the tags "masculine" and "feminine" in those cases: they're
shorthanded stereotypes, and of less than no use: they incite anger,
rather than thought... But I *can* see the idea that we ARE shifting to
see the world as something we need to take care of, which is a "good
thing", I think!
Theodore M. Seeber
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.98081...@user2.teleport.com
> >, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>
> (sorry if this is musty headed...not feeling well at all...blahhhhhhh)
> ;}
I'm sorry to hear that Janet. I do hope you'll feel better.
> >extra-natural, not supernatural, because to a aborigine in the desert
> >who's never seen white man, a coke bottle falling from a plane is
> >supernatural. (Ref. Movies. _The_gods_must_be_crazy_, parts I and II).
> But I'm still unsure of the idea of extra-natural...?
>
> Cause angels are created, thus creatures, so how are they extranatural?
To the understanding of the human being involved. Natural in this case is
that world which we understand vs. that world which we don't.
Angels in specific: We know from the laws of flight in air that a
wingspan has to be x long to lift y pounds (I don't remember the formula
off hand), but we're faced with aparently solid-looking beings that are
able to fly under their own power with human-sized bodies.
> >Absolutely. Without a doubt. But from a human standpoint, and not
> >neccessarily a technological human standpoint at that, think about it for
> >a second.
> >You're an unlearned savage out in the desert. Your tribe knows only
> >enough stuff to facilitate survival.
>
> Which is actually a very great deal, but go on...
>
> >One day, you fall off of the local waterfall. On the way down your life
> >is saved by a guy in an airplane. He lands, and takes you back to your
> >tribe. What is your relationship to this strange man who flies?
> >
> >Before you say it can't happen, something like it did during WWII. A
> >native people, starving on a South Pacific island, the whole tribe was
> >dying off. Then some people in big silver birds came, built a runway, and
> >left behind supplies that saved the tribespeople. After the war ended,
> >they left again, but the famine was over, the tribe had been saved. As
> >late as 1982, these people were still building bamboo models of the big
> >silver birds, and place them on the runway, in hopes of attracting the
> >gods back to their island...
>
> Cargo cult, yes...
>
> BUT that's a matter of human interpretation, rather than a matter of
> reality...
And what I'm talking about is a matter of human interpretation also. For
some odd reason, we force our religion into this rather odd shape,
regardless of what religion it is. We even force our psychiatric theory
into trinitys and good vs evil battles, as in Freudian. Why?
> EG, it's what we KNOW of reality, not what reality IS.
>
> I think we're just talking from different viewpoints here: nominalist
> and universalist....
I forget for the moment, which of us is which? But certainly I'd agree
with the assessment.
> >Higher theology often gives better explainations such as you are giving.
> >But the basic shell is still intact.
>
> Interesting!
>
> But hard to see in many polytheistic religions, surely?
Not as hard as one might think, though you've got to look at the local.
> How does that work, for instance, in the Greek pantheon?
Universe, race, and city all had Gods to be worshiped (city had a tendency
to change based on local conditions, I don't have my notes for the Greeks
handy at the moment, I went through that one several years ago).
Often times, the god of evil for them changed with the war of the moment
as well.
But the God of neutrality...duh, I'm drawing a blank, I'll describe him,
fast guy, messenger, stole fire from Olympus (and evil act) to give it to
mankind (a good act by the standpoint of mankind!)...Prometheus?
> >It already has been, as much as it needs to be, by the existance of
> >"angels", created beings more powerfull than we are.
>
> Um, actually, I don't know about that "more powerful"...?
>
> DIFFERENT, yes, but the main difference is in the nature of the will:
> theirs is fixed, ours is not.
They also seem to be able to be whereever they're most needed at the
moment, and have wings to acomplish this task, and are able to walk
through walls, and are able to read minds...All with the grace of God, of
course.
> >That concept is all that is required to complete the integration.
> >Admiting that angels have "angelic powers".
>
> Such as? (again, a question, not a challenge!).
Ah, I answered in the above.
> > Or, in the case of the Cargo
> >Cult, admiting that SOMETHING exists that knows more about the outside
> >world than we do.
>
> Grin... welcome to the wonderful world of epistimology and the round
> tower in the distance which is actually square... ;)
Yep. That's the ticket. Now, onward to our mutually hated preacher....
snip.
> >Unfamiliar with the term "aftercare".
>
> You sell the product, you take care of it afterwards!! That's the
> idea, anyway... it may be an advertising phrase just from round here,
> (but I thought most of those came from the dear old homestead!). ;)
Customer service is the American buzzword meaning the same thing (with a
series of ads from GTE phone service pointing this out where somebody goes
up to say, an ice cream cart and asks "When will you be checking back in
with me to see how I liked the fudgecicle?".
> >In that case Daniel Quinn doesn't quite fit. His message is more "What I
> >believe is modern, intellectual, and right. And it creates a problem I
> >can't solve. Can you solve it for me? And if you can't, can you help me
> >get others to believe?" At which point the general concensus is "we need
> >to change the basic assumptions humanity makes about life, but nobody
> >knows how to do it. And because of this, humanity will go extinct within
> >the next century."
>
> Oh, how nice! sheesh... People have been saying that since Malthus..
> probably a lot earlier, I just can't site them.
Yeah, basically, though Quinn's attached it all to our basic definition of
civilization: agriculture. He claims that the seeds of our distruction
were planted when Cain Killed Abel (which he takes to be an allegorical
story that is still being lived out today in the Amazon Basin as
agriculturalists kill off primitive hunter-gatherer tribes for more
farmland), and Cain has been Killing Abel ever since for the last 10,000
years.
> I mean people like Marilyn French, (um, come to think of it, I can't
> think of ANYTHING she says that I agree with...) but others,
> (Dinnerstein? Sorry, not together enough for names right now...) who
> talk about turning away from what they call the "masculine" view of the
> world, (eg, we must conquer and subdue it, and then it is ours to do
> with what we will) to the "feminine" view, (we are caretakers...).
Ok, Quinn calls them Takers (for we take control of the world away from
God) and Leavers (who leave the basic control with God).
> I dispute the tags "masculine" and "feminine" in those cases: they're
> shorthanded stereotypes, and of less than no use: they incite anger,
> rather than thought... But I *can* see the idea that we ARE shifting to
> see the world as something we need to take care of, which is a "good
> thing", I think!
I think so too, but I think Quinn may be right: It's about 5000 years too
late. Hunter gatherer culture worldwide can't support 6 billion people,
it can't even support 1 billion, more like 100,000.
janet
, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, janet wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.GSO.4.02A.98081...@user2.teleport.com
>> >, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>>
>> (sorry if this is musty headed...not feeling well at all...blahhhhhhh)
>> ;}
>
>I'm sorry to hear that Janet. I do hope you'll feel better.
It's not getting better, but where there is life, there's hope....
(grumble... I'm gonna be SOO good at the office tomorrow in this
state...).
>
>> >extra-natural, not supernatural, because to a aborigine in the desert
>> >who's never seen white man, a coke bottle falling from a plane is
>> >supernatural. (Ref. Movies. _The_gods_must_be_crazy_, parts I and II).
>> But I'm still unsure of the idea of extra-natural...?
>>
>> Cause angels are created, thus creatures, so how are they extranatural?
>
>To the understanding of the human being involved. Natural in this case is
>that world which we understand vs. that world which we don't.
>
>Angels in specific: We know from the laws of flight in air that a
>wingspan has to be x long to lift y pounds (I don't remember the formula
>off hand), but we're faced with aparently solid-looking beings that are
>able to fly under their own power with human-sized bodies.
>
Grin...APPARENTLY... but of course, the scholastics held that angels
were incorporeal...
(And thus, NONE of them could dance on the head of a pin, as they had no
bodies. However, I am indebted to a learned colleague who pointed out
to me that as they obviously partook of energy, as all beings do, and
since energy *flows*, they ought to be able to do SOMETHING!) ;)
[]
>>
>> Cargo cult, yes...
>>
>> BUT that's a matter of human interpretation, rather than a matter of
>> reality...
>
>And what I'm talking about is a matter of human interpretation also. For
>some odd reason, we force our religion into this rather odd shape,
>regardless of what religion it is. We even force our psychiatric theory
>into trinitys and good vs evil battles, as in Freudian. Why?
>
Ah, now THAT one, I think I know the answer to!
Because the only way out of that is through revelation.
WIthout revelation, without knowing that God loves us to the point of
dying for us, we can never break out of the dualism that besets so many
other religions.
AND still dogs us. Because it's not *easy* to accept that amount of
love.
>> EG, it's what we KNOW of reality, not what reality IS.
>>
>> I think we're just talking from different viewpoints here: nominalist
>> and universalist....
>
>I forget for the moment, which of us is which? But certainly I'd agree
>with the assessment.
Grin... I was hoping you wouldn't ask that! I always have to go check
it, but I *think* the nominalist names things which are already there,
while the universalist sees unity...?
(There's a really good essay on this in Duberman, when I'm feeling up to
it, I'll check!) (remind me...).
>
>> >Higher theology often gives better explainations such as you are giving.
>> >But the basic shell is still intact.
>>
>> Interesting!
>>
>> But hard to see in many polytheistic religions, surely?
>
>Not as hard as one might think, though you've got to look at the local.
But what about Buddhism?
>
>> How does that work, for instance, in the Greek pantheon?
>
>Universe, race, and city all had Gods to be worshiped (city had a tendency
>to change based on local conditions, I don't have my notes for the Greeks
>handy at the moment, I went through that one several years ago).
>
>Often times, the god of evil for them changed with the war of the moment
>as well.
Ummmm.... well, by the time of Classical Athens, maybe...
But earlier on, the god(dess) of life was also of death.
>
>But the God of neutrality...duh, I'm drawing a blank, I'll describe him,
>fast guy, messenger, stole fire from Olympus (and evil act) to give it to
>mankind (a good act by the standpoint of mankind!)...Prometheus?
No, Prometheus was the one who stole fire, but he was human. The fast
guy was Mercury, I think you mean, or Hermes, the messenger of the Gods?
Hmmmm.... I wouldn't have called either neutral, though....
(One of them was involved in the "Pandora incident", as well, I think,
and that was NOT neutral...).
>
>> >It already has been, as much as it needs to be, by the existance of
>> >"angels", created beings more powerfull than we are.
>>
>> Um, actually, I don't know about that "more powerful"...?
>>
>> DIFFERENT, yes, but the main difference is in the nature of the will:
>> theirs is fixed, ours is not.
>
>They also seem to be able to be whereever they're most needed at the
>moment,
Not being bodily creatures, that's not hard!
>and have wings to acomplish this task,
Ummmm..... I think that may be going from the scriptural to the
legendary there... That they have wings is from Revelation, yes, but
flying about the place?
Or, no, I suppose that's there, too, isn't it? (NOT a book I have
studied in depth, you can tell, can't you!).
> and are able to walk
>through walls,
?
> and are able to read minds...
?
>All with the grace of God, of
>course.
>
>> >That concept is all that is required to complete the integration.
>> >Admiting that angels have "angelic powers".
>>
>> Such as? (again, a question, not a challenge!).
>
>Ah, I answered in the above.
>
>> > Or, in the case of the Cargo
>> >Cult, admiting that SOMETHING exists that knows more about the outside
>> >world than we do.
>>
>> Grin... welcome to the wonderful world of epistimology and the round
>> tower in the distance which is actually square... ;)
>
>Yep. That's the ticket. Now, onward to our mutually hated preacher....
Ah, no, not hate.
I honestly don't think I've ever felt that emotion, (yes, thanks, I'm
not saying I WOULDN'T or COULDN'T, just that I don't think I have).
No, not hate. FEAR. The guy I heard was DANGEROUS.
>
[]
>
>> >In that case Daniel Quinn doesn't quite fit. His message is more "What I
>> >believe is modern, intellectual, and right. And it creates a problem I
>> >can't solve. Can you solve it for me? And if you can't, can you help me
>> >get others to believe?" At which point the general concensus is "we need
>> >to change the basic assumptions humanity makes about life, but nobody
>> >knows how to do it. And because of this, humanity will go extinct within
>> >the next century."
>>
>> Oh, how nice! sheesh... People have been saying that since Malthus..
>> probably a lot earlier, I just can't site them.
>
>Yeah, basically, though Quinn's attached it all to our basic definition of
>civilization: agriculture. He claims that the seeds of our distruction
>were planted when Cain Killed Abel (which he takes to be an allegorical
>story that is still being lived out today in the Amazon Basin as
>agriculturalists kill off primitive hunter-gatherer tribes for more
>farmland), and Cain has been Killing Abel ever since for the last 10,000
>years.
>
Hmmmm... kind of hard to square with anthropology though, isn't it?
(Although he's right up there with Engles, of course, who sees the
invention of the plough as the start of patriarchy... don't yell at me,
I didn't say I agreed!) ;)
>> I mean people like Marilyn French, (um, come to think of it, I can't
>> think of ANYTHING she says that I agree with...) but others,
>> (Dinnerstein? Sorry, not together enough for names right now...) who
>> talk about turning away from what they call the "masculine" view of the
>> world, (eg, we must conquer and subdue it, and then it is ours to do
>> with what we will) to the "feminine" view, (we are caretakers...).
>
>Ok, Quinn calls them Takers (for we take control of the world away from
>God) and Leavers (who leave the basic control with God).
Better, much better.
>
>> I dispute the tags "masculine" and "feminine" in those cases: they're
>> shorthanded stereotypes, and of less than no use: they incite anger,
>> rather than thought... But I *can* see the idea that we ARE shifting to
>> see the world as something we need to take care of, which is a "good
>> thing", I think!
>
>I think so too, but I think Quinn may be right: It's about 5000 years too
>late. Hunter gatherer culture worldwide can't support 6 billion people,
>it can't even support 1 billion, more like 100,000.
>Ted
But we're not h/gs and haven't been for a long time!
A loooonnnnggggggggg time! Hmmm... it would be interesting to know
when we techincally STOPPED being such, though: is there an
anthropologist in the house?
Because obviously we are not (at least not merely) h/gs. We still grow
(via agriculture, and I'm not together enough to remember the difference
between agriculture and horticulture tonight...) a great deal of our
food... and rely to a very small extent on hunted food, in the West...
Bronze age? Iron age? Hmmmm........
Theodore M. Seeber
> >Angels in specific: We know from the laws of flight in air that a
> >wingspan has to be x long to lift y pounds (I don't remember the formula
> >off hand), but we're faced with aparently solid-looking beings that are
> >able to fly under their own power with human-sized bodies.
>
> Grin...APPARENTLY... but of course, the scholastics held that angels
> were incorporeal...
Which I would also point out is outside of our understanding of the
physical universe...
> (And thus, NONE of them could dance on the head of a pin, as they had no
> bodies. However, I am indebted to a learned colleague who pointed out
> to me that as they obviously partook of energy, as all beings do, and
> since energy *flows*, they ought to be able to do SOMETHING!) ;)
True enough.
> >And what I'm talking about is a matter of human interpretation also. For
> >some odd reason, we force our religion into this rather odd shape,
> >regardless of what religion it is. We even force our psychiatric theory
> >into trinitys and good vs evil battles, as in Freudian. Why?
>
> Ah, now THAT one, I think I know the answer to!
>
> Because the only way out of that is through revelation.
>
> WIthout revelation, without knowing that God loves us to the point of
> dying for us, we can never break out of the dualism that besets so many
> other religions.
>
> AND still dogs us. Because it's not *easy* to accept that amount of
> love.
Which explains the dualism. But does not explain the lopsided dualism of
the five-god system, where good is continually stronger than evil (and
evil is sometimes though of as being retarded and short-sighted).
> >I forget for the moment, which of us is which? But certainly I'd agree
> >with the assessment.
>
> Grin... I was hoping you wouldn't ask that! I always have to go check
> it, but I *think* the nominalist names things which are already there,
> while the universalist sees unity...?
I'm still confused as to which of us are which. I see unity in all, but
I'm also nameing something that I discovered (it's not like I INVENTED the
five-god system, it was already there)....
> (There's a really good essay on this in Duberman, when I'm feeling up to
> it, I'll check!) (remind me...).
I'll continue to. Would be nice to have a name for it besides what I've
made up out of my own head.
> >> Interesting!
> >>
> >> But hard to see in many polytheistic religions, surely?
> >
> >Not as hard as one might think, though you've got to look at the local.
>
> But what about Buddhism?
Seems that the longer you've been developing your theology, the more
branches you get in it. Which School?
However, in general, Buddhism "worships" (if you can say that they worship
anything) a trinity of Creator, Helper, and Yidyam (kind of like our
savior, but not quite), whose purpose is to get one to a state of total
neutrality (Nirvana). But like I said, they're more complex, and on that
one, I'm still learning. I've got the basic concepts, but the koan and
the concept of entropy play parts that I hesitate to call "evil"....Even
if they are only to be contemplated, not worshiped among the Buddhists.
This one I'm still studying...and probababally will be for some time. I'm
concentrating on the Zen and Tibetan Schools right now, as those two have
close ties to Christianity in unexpected ways.
> >Universe, race, and city all had Gods to be worshiped (city had a tendency
> >to change based on local conditions, I don't have my notes for the Greeks
> >handy at the moment, I went through that one several years ago).
> >
> >Often times, the god of evil for them changed with the war of the moment
> >as well.
>
> Ummmm.... well, by the time of Classical Athens, maybe...
>
> But earlier on, the god(dess) of life was also of death.
True enough, but the Father God was still the ultimate creator (I want to
say Zeus, but I always get the pantheons of Greece and Rome mixed up)
> >But the God of neutrality...duh, I'm drawing a blank, I'll describe him,
> >fast guy, messenger, stole fire from Olympus (and evil act) to give it to
> >mankind (a good act by the standpoint of mankind!)...Prometheus?
>
> No, Prometheus was the one who stole fire, but he was human. The fast
> guy was Mercury, I think you mean, or Hermes, the messenger of the Gods?
>
> Hmmmm.... I wouldn't have called either neutral, though....
>
> (One of them was involved in the "Pandora incident", as well, I think,
> and that was NOT neutral...).
Was it not neutral? A seemingly evil act, but it brought in all the sins
that we gain the most joy from helping each other to overcome.
> >They also seem to be able to be whereever they're most needed at the
> >moment,
>
> Not being bodily creatures, that's not hard!
But it is a bit beyond our understanding.
> >and have wings to acomplish this task,
>
> Ummmm..... I think that may be going from the scriptural to the
> legendary there... That they have wings is from Revelation, yes, but
> flying about the place?
>
> Or, no, I suppose that's there, too, isn't it? (NOT a book I have
> studied in depth, you can tell, can't you!).
Me either, I was thinking of the Psalm: On wings of eagles they will lift
you, lest you dash your foot against a stone. My favorite hymn as well.
> I honestly don't think I've ever felt that emotion, (yes, thanks, I'm
> not saying I WOULDN'T or COULDN'T, just that I don't think I have).
Luckiy you, I hate what I fear...probabally because I don't like being out
of control.
> No, not hate. FEAR. The guy I heard was DANGEROUS.
Good enough. I'm not sure Quinn isn't.
> >Yeah, basically, though Quinn's attached it all to our basic definition of
> >civilization: agriculture. He claims that the seeds of our distruction
> >were planted when Cain Killed Abel (which he takes to be an allegorical
> >story that is still being lived out today in the Amazon Basin as
> >agriculturalists kill off primitive hunter-gatherer tribes for more
> >farmland), and Cain has been Killing Abel ever since for the last 10,000
> >years.
>
> Hmmmm... kind of hard to square with anthropology though, isn't it?
Not at all. After all, the first Hebrews were nomadic, and they were
living in the same general area as the earliest agriculturalists.
> (Although he's right up there with Engles, of course, who sees the
> invention of the plough as the start of patriarchy... don't yell at me,
> I didn't say I agreed!) ;)
Quinn doesn't either, he puts the patriarchy with learning to plant one's
favorite vegetables and fruits. The plough didn't come until later...
> >Ok, Quinn calls them Takers (for we take control of the world away from
> >God) and Leavers (who leave the basic control with God).
>
> Better, much better.
And not as inciting towards anger, until you find out at the end of the
book that the Taker Culture has made a HUGE mistake, evolutionarily
speaking.
> >I think so too, but I think Quinn may be right: It's about 5000 years too
> >late. Hunter gatherer culture worldwide can't support 6 billion people,
> >it can't even support 1 billion, more like 100,000.
>
> But we're not h/gs and haven't been for a long time!
>
> A loooonnnnggggggggg time! Hmmm... it would be interesting to know
> when we techincally STOPPED being such, though: is there an
> anthropologist in the house?
We haven't entirely yet, after all, there are still a few h/g tribes left,
in the Amazon basin, in the outback of Austrailia. Doubt anyplace else
though.
Cain has been at war with Abel for a VERY long time now.
And as Quinn points out, even though our basic mistake is in adopting
agriculture and horticulture, and outbreeding our "natural" food supply,
we simply can't go back.
> Because obviously we are not (at least not merely) h/gs. We still grow
> (via agriculture, and I'm not together enough to remember the difference
> between agriculture and horticulture tonight...) a great deal of our
> food... and rely to a very small extent on hunted food, in the West...
>
> Bronze age? Iron age? Hmmmm........
Quinn claims we started to switch even earlier than that; and that stone
age tools allow for agriculture, to a certain extent.
At which time we started trying to deny that famine exists.
We increased our food supply.
Which increased our numbers.
We then starved, so we increased our food supply.
We've been doing this for 10,000 years,plus or minus a few millenia, and
always the experiment ends up the same.
"Oh, we're starving again, better increase the food supply"
"Oh, look at that, our numbers increased, we're starving again, better
increase the food supply"
Quinn's basic concept is that increased breeding is not the problem,
increaseing the food supply is and that AUTOMATICALLY results in an
increased worldwide population, which results in hunger, which results in
the decision to increase the food supply, until we can no longer do so or
all die off of our own pollution, whichever comes first.
And, since we're addicted to increasing the food supply, and decreasing it
would mean starving billions.....that's where Quinn leaves us, totally
destroying our trust not in God, but rather in mankind....and I got caught
in his snare last year about this time.
janet
, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>
>> >Angels in specific: We know from the laws of flight in air that a
>> >wingspan has to be x long to lift y pounds (I don't remember the formula
>> >off hand), but we're faced with aparently solid-looking beings that are
>> >able to fly under their own power with human-sized bodies.
>>
>> Grin...APPARENTLY... but of course, the scholastics held that angels
>> were incorporeal...
>
>Which I would also point out is outside of our understanding of the
>physical universe...
>
*LIGHT* is incorporeal...
>> (And thus, NONE of them could dance on the head of a pin, as they had no
>> bodies. However, I am indebted to a learned colleague who pointed out
>> to me that as they obviously partook of energy, as all beings do, and
>> since energy *flows*, they ought to be able to do SOMETHING!) ;)
>
>True enough.
>
>> >And what I'm talking about is a matter of human interpretation also. For
>> >some odd reason, we force our religion into this rather odd shape,
>> >regardless of what religion it is. We even force our psychiatric theory
>> >into trinitys and good vs evil battles, as in Freudian. Why?
>>
>> Ah, now THAT one, I think I know the answer to!
>>
>> Because the only way out of that is through revelation.
>>
>> WIthout revelation, without knowing that God loves us to the point of
>> dying for us, we can never break out of the dualism that besets so many
>> other religions.
>>
>> AND still dogs us. Because it's not *easy* to accept that amount of
>> love.
>
>Which explains the dualism. But does not explain the lopsided dualism of
>the five-god system, where good is continually stronger than evil (and
>evil is sometimes though of as being retarded and short-sighted).
I'd say that's the natural law.
BUT I still don't see how that fits into Catholicism...?
>
>> >I forget for the moment, which of us is which? But certainly I'd agree
>> >with the assessment.
>>
>> Grin... I was hoping you wouldn't ask that! I always have to go check
>> it, but I *think* the nominalist names things which are already there,
>> while the universalist sees unity...?
>
>I'm still confused as to which of us are which. I see unity in all, but
>I'm also nameing something that I discovered (it's not like I INVENTED the
>five-god system, it was already there)....
>
>> (There's a really good essay on this in Duberman, when I'm feeling up to
>> it, I'll check!) (remind me...).
>
>I'll continue to. Would be nice to have a name for it besides what I've
>made up out of my own head.
Ah, it's not a name for the five god system, just for different views of
the universe.
>
>> >> Interesting!
>> >>
>> >> But hard to see in many polytheistic religions, surely?
>> >
>> >Not as hard as one might think, though you've got to look at the local.
>>
>> But what about Buddhism?
>
>Seems that the longer you've been developing your theology, the more
>branches you get in it. Which School?
>However, in general, Buddhism "worships" (if you can say that they worship
>anything)
I thought they were rather clear that they DIDN'T worship anything, and
rejected the whole idea of a god?
> a trinity of Creator, Helper, and Yidyam (kind of like our
>savior, but not quite), whose purpose is to get one to a state of total
>neutrality (Nirvana). But like I said, they're more complex, and on that
>one, I'm still learning. I've got the basic concepts, but the koan and
>the concept of entropy play parts that I hesitate to call "evil"....Even
>if they are only to be contemplated, not worshiped among the Buddhists.
>
>This one I'm still studying...and probababally will be for some time. I'm
>concentrating on the Zen and Tibetan Schools right now, as those two have
>close ties to Christianity in unexpected ways.
>
>> >Universe, race, and city all had Gods to be worshiped (city had a tendency
>> >to change based on local conditions, I don't have my notes for the Greeks
>> >handy at the moment, I went through that one several years ago).
>> >
>> >Often times, the god of evil for them changed with the war of the moment
>> >as well.
>>
>> Ummmm.... well, by the time of Classical Athens, maybe...
>>
>> But earlier on, the god(dess) of life was also of death.
>
>True enough, but the Father God was still the ultimate creator (I want to
>say Zeus, but I always get the pantheons of Greece and Rome mixed up)
Um, no.
Earlier, it wasn't a father god at all, it was a mother god. SHE was
done in by her son/consort, who was in turn done in by Zeus...
>
>> >But the God of neutrality...duh, I'm drawing a blank, I'll describe him,
>> >fast guy, messenger, stole fire from Olympus (and evil act) to give it to
>> >mankind (a good act by the standpoint of mankind!)...Prometheus?
>>
>> No, Prometheus was the one who stole fire, but he was human. The fast
>> guy was Mercury, I think you mean, or Hermes, the messenger of the Gods?
>>
>> Hmmmm.... I wouldn't have called either neutral, though....
>>
>> (One of them was involved in the "Pandora incident", as well, I think,
>> and that was NOT neutral...).
>
>Was it not neutral? A seemingly evil act, but it brought in all the sins
>that we gain the most joy from helping each other to overcome.
Um, no, it wasn't neutral!
Go back and reread it...
>
>> >They also seem to be able to be whereever they're most needed at the
>> >moment,
>>
>> Not being bodily creatures, that's not hard!
>
>But it is a bit beyond our understanding.
>
>> >and have wings to acomplish this task,
>>
>> Ummmm..... I think that may be going from the scriptural to the
>> legendary there... That they have wings is from Revelation, yes, but
>> flying about the place?
>>
>> Or, no, I suppose that's there, too, isn't it? (NOT a book I have
>> studied in depth, you can tell, can't you!).
>
>Me either, I was thinking of the Psalm: On wings of eagles they will lift
>you, lest you dash your foot against a stone. My favorite hymn as well.
Yes, but that's eagles!
>
>> I honestly don't think I've ever felt that emotion, (yes, thanks, I'm
>> not saying I WOULDN'T or COULDN'T, just that I don't think I have).
>
>Luckiy you, I hate what I fear...probabally because I don't like being out
>of control.
>
>> No, not hate. FEAR. The guy I heard was DANGEROUS.
>
>Good enough. I'm not sure Quinn isn't.
>
>> >Yeah, basically, though Quinn's attached it all to our basic definition of
>> >civilization: agriculture. He claims that the seeds of our distruction
>> >were planted when Cain Killed Abel (which he takes to be an allegorical
>> >story that is still being lived out today in the Amazon Basin as
>> >agriculturalists kill off primitive hunter-gatherer tribes for more
>> >farmland), and Cain has been Killing Abel ever since for the last 10,000
>> >years.
>>
>> Hmmmm... kind of hard to square with anthropology though, isn't it?
>
>Not at all. After all, the first Hebrews were nomadic, and they were
>living in the same general area as the earliest agriculturalists.
Yessss... but the first Hebrews weren't the first people. Hewbrew means
sandy: they become that after the "desert experience".
But I meant about agriculturalists and huntergatherers...
>
>> (Although he's right up there with Engles, of course, who sees the
>> invention of the plough as the start of patriarchy... don't yell at me,
>> I didn't say I agreed!) ;)
>
>Quinn doesn't either, he puts the patriarchy with learning to plant one's
>favorite vegetables and fruits. The plough didn't come until later...
>
>> >Ok, Quinn calls them Takers (for we take control of the world away from
>> >God) and Leavers (who leave the basic control with God).
>>
>> Better, much better.
>
>And not as inciting towards anger, until you find out at the end of the
>book that the Taker Culture has made a HUGE mistake, evolutionarily
>speaking.
Oh, I can still agree more with Taker than I can with Masculine, in this
context... (no, the two are NOT sysnomymous, before anyone screams).
>
>> >I think so too, but I think Quinn may be right: It's about 5000 years too
>> >late. Hunter gatherer culture worldwide can't support 6 billion people,
>> >it can't even support 1 billion, more like 100,000.
>>
>> But we're not h/gs and haven't been for a long time!
>>
>> A loooonnnnggggggggg time! Hmmm... it would be interesting to know
>> when we techincally STOPPED being such, though: is there an
>> anthropologist in the house?
>
>We haven't entirely yet, after all, there are still a few h/g tribes left,
>in the Amazon basin, in the outback of Austrailia. Doubt anyplace else
>though.
>Cain has been at war with Abel for a VERY long time now.
>And as Quinn points out, even though our basic mistake is in adopting
>agriculture and horticulture, and outbreeding our "natural" food supply,
>we simply can't go back.
I don't actually want to!
>
>> Because obviously we are not (at least not merely) h/gs. We still grow
>> (via agriculture, and I'm not together enough to remember the difference
>> between agriculture and horticulture tonight...) a great deal of our
>> food... and rely to a very small extent on hunted food, in the West...
>>
>> Bronze age? Iron age? Hmmmm........
>
>Quinn claims we started to switch even earlier than that; and that stone
>age tools allow for agriculture, to a certain extent.
Hmmmm horticulture, but agriculture?
>At which time we started trying to deny that famine exists.
WHAT?
Surely not. Kinda makes Gilgamesh hard to fit in, doesn't it?
>We increased our food supply.
>Which increased our numbers.
>We then starved, so we increased our food supply.
>We've been doing this for 10,000 years,plus or minus a few millenia, and
>always the experiment ends up the same.
>"Oh, we're starving again, better increase the food supply"
>"Oh, look at that, our numbers increased, we're starving again, better
>increase the food supply"
Malthus beat him to it.
>
>Quinn's basic concept is that increased breeding is not the problem,
>increaseing the food supply is and that AUTOMATICALLY results in an
>increased worldwide population, which results in hunger, which results in
>the decision to increase the food supply, until we can no longer do so or
>all die off of our own pollution, whichever comes first.
Yup... Malthus got there centuries before he did.
>
>And, since we're addicted to increasing the food supply, and decreasing it
>would mean starving billions.....that's where Quinn leaves us, totally
>destroying our trust not in God, but rather in mankind....and I got caught
>in his snare last year about this time.
>Ted
But that's Quinn, NOT reality!
In reality, the UN at least used to figure that up to 3/5 of all grain
was destroyed in STORAGE.
What we need is not MORE food, but better ways of getting it around to
the people who need it...
Theodore M. Seeber
> >Which I would also point out is outside of our understanding of the
> >physical universe...
>
> How so?
>
> *LIGHT* is incorporeal...
Not entirely. The electromagnetic spectrum is composed of wavicles, which
are energy waves that have mass like particles. Proof of this is that you
can actually punch holes in things with certain wavelengths of the
electromagnetic spectrum (which is why humans get skin cancer, these days,
but that's another topic).
Incorporeal yet still able to manipulate matter is outside of our
understanding.
> >Which explains the dualism. But does not explain the lopsided dualism of
> >the five-god system, where good is continually stronger than evil (and
> >evil is sometimes thought of as being retarded and short-sighted).
>
> I'd say that's the natural law.
>
> BUT I still don't see how that fits into Catholicism...?
One of the underlying myths of Catholicism, and Judaeo-Christianity in
total, is the eternal battle between heaven and hell, in which we are
caught up in the middle of.
It's assumed that heaven will win out overall. That neutrality is
fighting on our side in the long run. And that heaven's plan, unlike
Hell's actually has a long run (most of the stuff we blame on Satan in
mythology is short sighted and not even very self serving).
> >I'll continue to. Would be nice to have a name for it besides what I've
> >made up out of my own head.
>
> Ah, it's not a name for the five god system, just for different views of
> the universe.
But that's all the five-god system is: a view of the universe. As much
as all religions I've investigated so far embody the five god system, none
do so explicitly.
> >Seems that the longer you've been developing your theology, the more
> >branches you get in it. Which School?
> >However, in general, Buddhism "worships" (if you can say that they worship
> >anything)
>
> I thought they were rather clear that they DIDN'T worship anything, and
> rejected the whole idea of a god?
Actually, it's not very clear at all when you get right down to it.
They have "natural forces" that they worship (why I couldn't remember
Karma and Dharma yesterday, I don't know), which other cultures would have
anthromorphisized into gods....
Below, replace "creator" with Dharma and "Helper" with Karma. Yidyam is
still yidyam, but means closer to teacher than to savior (but still a
mixture of both), and I don't know how to translate it into English yet.
> > a trinity of Creator, Helper, and Yidyam (kind of like our
> >savior, but not quite), whose purpose is to get one to a state of total
> >neutrality (Nirvana). But like I said, they're more complex, and on that
> >one, I'm still learning. I've got the basic concepts, but the koan and
> >the concept of entropy play parts that I hesitate to call "evil"....Even
> >if they are only to be contemplated, not worshiped among the Buddhists.
> >
> >This one I'm still studying...and probababally will be for some time. I'm
> >concentrating on the Zen and Tibetan Schools right now, as those two have
> >close ties to Christianity in unexpected ways.
On to greek.
> >True enough, but the Father God was still the ultimate creator (I want to
> >say Zeus, but I always get the pantheons of Greece and Rome mixed up)
>
> Um, no.
>
> Earlier, it wasn't a father god at all, it was a mother god. SHE was
> done in by her son/consort, who was in turn done in by Zeus...
Like I said, it's been many years. When I studied the greek Pantheon, I
was working three generations down. Usually these "done in" stories are
really about different cultures attacking and replaceing the originals.
Mother Godesses are related mainly to h/g and nomadic cultures, they're
replaced by Father Gods when the agriculturalists take over.
> >Me either, I was thinking of the Psalm: On wings of eagles they will lift
> >you, lest you dash your foot against a stone. My favorite hymn as well.
>
> Yes, but that's eagles!
Often in Judaic myth the angels were described as "having wings as
eagles", and this Psalm earlier has the line "He will send his angels to
protect you".
Symbol and fact are often separate. Everyone has seen an eagle (well,
everyone in that time), not everyone has seen an angel, so when you
describe the wings, you go for the largest bird you know.
> >Not at all. After all, the first Hebrews were nomadic, and they were
> >living in the same general area as the earliest agriculturalists.
>
> Yessss... but the first Hebrews weren't the first people. Hewbrew means
> sandy: they become that after the "desert experience".
>
> But I meant about agriculturalists and huntergatherers...
The Hebrews as a people came later. But something very like the Cain vs
Abel story is in all the cultures of that area.
BTW, a neat twist is this: Anthropologically, Caucasians were the first
to come up with agriculture, thus making "the mark of cain" a white, not a
dark, face....
> >And not as inciting towards anger, until you find out at the end of the
> >book that the Taker Culture has made a HUGE mistake, evolutionarily
> >speaking.
>
> Oh, I can still agree more with Taker than I can with Masculine, in this
> context... (no, the two are NOT sysnomymous, before anyone screams).
And they aren't truly. There have been a few Matriarchial Taker cultures,
the Amazon of Greek myth is one.
> >We haven't entirely yet, after all, there are still a few h/g tribes left,
> >in the Amazon basin, in the outback of Austrailia. Doubt anyplace else
> >though.
> >Cain has been at war with Abel for a VERY long time now.
> >And as Quinn points out, even though our basic mistake is in adopting
> >agriculture and horticulture, and outbreeding our "natural" food supply,
> >we simply can't go back.
>
> I don't actually want to!
Quinn's upper limit that he points out is that we're running out of land
to change over to agriculture.
> >Quinn claims we started to switch even earlier than that; and that stone
> >age tools allow for agriculture, to a certain extent.
>
> Hmmmm horticulture, but agriculture?
A stone is enough to dig a hole and plant a seed. True, you're not going
to get a big yield without being extremely labor intensive, but then
again, at that stage it isn't a big yeild you're looking for, but rather
replanting the Chief's favorite food.
> >At which time we started trying to deny that famine exists.
>
> WHAT?
>
> Surely not. Kinda makes Gilgamesh hard to fit in, doesn't it?
I didn't say that the denial was conscious. Just that we tried to stop
it's existance. Not as much Gilgamesh as Joshua in Egypt....
> >We increased our food supply.
> >Which increased our numbers.
> >We then starved, so we increased our food supply.
> >We've been doing this for 10,000 years,plus or minus a few millenia, and
> >always the experiment ends up the same.
> >"Oh, we're starving again, better increase the food supply"
> >"Oh, look at that, our numbers increased, we're starving again, better
> >increase the food supply"
>
> Malthus beat him to it.
Yeah, but Malthus didn't win a Hugo for it.... :-)
> >And, since we're addicted to increasing the food supply, and decreasing it
> >would mean starving billions.....that's where Quinn leaves us, totally
> >destroying our trust not in God, but rather in mankind....and I got caught
> >in his snare last year about this time.
>
> But that's Quinn, NOT reality!
>
> In reality, the UN at least used to figure that up to 3/5 of all grain
> was destroyed in STORAGE.
>
> What we need is not MORE food, but better ways of getting it around to
> the people who need it...
Very good, that's where Quinn's discussion list has gotten to. Better
distribution, same amount of food, will save us.
janet
>
>> >Which I would also point out is outside of our understanding of the
>> >physical universe...
>>
>> How so?
>>
>> *LIGHT* is incorporeal...
>
>Not entirely. The electromagnetic spectrum is composed of wavicles, which
>are energy waves that have mass like particles. Proof of this is that you
>can actually punch holes in things with certain wavelengths of the
>electromagnetic spectrum (which is why humans get skin cancer, these days,
>but that's another topic).
>Incorporeal yet still able to manipulate matter is outside of our
>understanding.
I am told by the scientist in the house, that you are right!
Ok, try this: LOVE is incorporeal. :)
>
>> >Which explains the dualism. But does not explain the lopsided dualism of
>> >the five-god system, where good is continually stronger than evil (and
>> >evil is sometimes thought of as being retarded and short-sighted).
>>
>> I'd say that's the natural law.
>>
>> BUT I still don't see how that fits into Catholicism...?
>
>One of the underlying myths of Catholicism, and Judaeo-Christianity in
>total, is the eternal battle between heaven and hell, in which we are
>caught up in the middle of.
>It's assumed that heaven will win out overall. That neutrality is
>fighting on our side in the long run. And that heaven's plan, unlike
>Hell's actually has a long run (most of the stuff we blame on Satan in
>mythology is short sighted and not even very self serving).
Ummmmmmmm......
I disagree.
That's an underlying myth of (I'll spell this wrong, sorry)
Zoroastrianism.
The church has been pretty hot on DENYING it.
>
>> >I'll continue to. Would be nice to have a name for it besides what I've
>> >made up out of my own head.
>>
>> Ah, it's not a name for the five god system, just for different views of
>> the universe.
>
>But that's all the five-god system is: a view of the universe. As much
>as all religions I've investigated so far embody the five god system, none
>do so explicitly.
I think that's a nominalist point of view, (which is NOT an insult, a
detraction, or whatever...)!
The nominalist idea is that the order people see is their creation
rather than their perception. (Quote from Boswell, it's the closest to
hand, in Duberman, as I said earlier. I don't agree with his
conclusions, but he sets out the differences well!).
The realist view would be that those categories exist whether or not we
name (nomina) them.
I think your system is nominalist, to be honest, Ted; I think you are
taking what's there and imposing order ON it... which is fine, it's the
only way to make sense of things at times! :)
>
>> >Seems that the longer you've been developing your theology, the more
>> >branches you get in it. Which School?
>> >However, in general, Buddhism "worships" (if you can say that they worship
>> >anything)
>>
>> I thought they were rather clear that they DIDN'T worship anything, and
>> rejected the whole idea of a god?
>
>Actually, it's not very clear at all when you get right down to it.
>They have "natural forces" that they worship (why I couldn't remember
>Karma and Dharma yesterday, I don't know), which other cultures would have
>anthromorphisized into gods....
>Below, replace "creator" with Dharma and "Helper" with Karma. Yidyam is
>still yidyam, but means closer to teacher than to savior (but still a
>mixture of both), and I don't know how to translate it into English yet.
But CAN you replace words like that? (I don't know much about
Buddhism).
That's what I mean about nominalism... (agian, NOT an insult...) :)
>
>> > a trinity of Creator, Helper, and Yidyam (kind of like our
>> >savior, but not quite), whose purpose is to get one to a state of total
>> >neutrality (Nirvana). But like I said, they're more complex, and on that
>> >one, I'm still learning. I've got the basic concepts, but the koan and
>> >the concept of entropy play parts that I hesitate to call "evil"....Even
>> >if they are only to be contemplated, not worshiped among the Buddhists.
>> >
>> >This one I'm still studying...and probababally will be for some time. I'm
>> >concentrating on the Zen and Tibetan Schools right now, as those two have
>> >close ties to Christianity in unexpected ways.
>
>On to greek.
>
>> >True enough, but the Father God was still the ultimate creator (I want to
>> >say Zeus, but I always get the pantheons of Greece and Rome mixed up)
>>
>> Um, no.
>>
>> Earlier, it wasn't a father god at all, it was a mother god. SHE was
>> done in by her son/consort, who was in turn done in by Zeus...
>
>Like I said, it's been many years. When I studied the greek Pantheon, I
>was working three generations down. Usually these "done in" stories are
>really about different cultures attacking and replaceing the originals.
>
>Mother Godesses are related mainly to h/g and nomadic cultures, they're
>replaced by Father Gods when the agriculturalists take over.
Grin... you've been reading Lerner and Baring again, right?
Yes, there are those who say that. Gimbutas is, if you like, the
leading light.
Unfortunately, there are some holes in the whole thing. Like, where did
the worship of those agriculturalists COME from?
>
>> >Me either, I was thinking of the Psalm: On wings of eagles they will lift
>> >you, lest you dash your foot against a stone. My favorite hymn as well.
>>
>> Yes, but that's eagles!
>
>Often in Judaic myth the angels were described as "having wings as
>eagles", and this Psalm earlier has the line "He will send his angels to
>protect you".
>Symbol and fact are often separate. Everyone has seen an eagle (well,
>everyone in that time), not everyone has seen an angel, so when you
>describe the wings, you go for the largest bird you know.
>
>> >Not at all. After all, the first Hebrews were nomadic, and they were
>> >living in the same general area as the earliest agriculturalists.
>>
>> Yessss... but the first Hebrews weren't the first people. Hewbrew means
>> sandy: they become that after the "desert experience".
>>
>> But I meant about agriculturalists and huntergatherers...
>
>The Hebrews as a people came later. But something very like the Cain vs
>Abel story is in all the cultures of that area.
>
>BTW, a neat twist is this: Anthropologically, Caucasians were the first
>to come up with agriculture, thus making "the mark of cain" a white, not a
>dark, face....
Ummmmm....... not in the most recent anthropology, Ted, from what I
understand from colleagues at work....
>
>> >And not as inciting towards anger, until you find out at the end of the
>> >book that the Taker Culture has made a HUGE mistake, evolutionarily
>> >speaking.
>>
>> Oh, I can still agree more with Taker than I can with Masculine, in this
>> context... (no, the two are NOT sysnomymous, before anyone screams).
>
>And they aren't truly. There have been a few Matriarchial Taker cultures,
>the Amazon of Greek myth is one.
Grin.... um..... The Amazon of Greek myth existed for one (cultural)
reason only: to be conquered and killed.
The Amazonamachia (the killing of Amazons) is a central plank in
classical Greek mythology, vase painting and the like...
>
>> >We haven't entirely yet, after all, there are still a few h/g tribes left,
>> >in the Amazon basin, in the outback of Austrailia. Doubt anyplace else
>> >though.
>> >Cain has been at war with Abel for a VERY long time now.
>> >And as Quinn points out, even though our basic mistake is in adopting
>> >agriculture and horticulture, and outbreeding our "natural" food supply,
>> >we simply can't go back.
>>
>> I don't actually want to!
>
>Quinn's upper limit that he points out is that we're running out of land
>to change over to agriculture.
>
>> >Quinn claims we started to switch even earlier than that; and that stone
>> >age tools allow for agriculture, to a certain extent.
>>
>> Hmmmm horticulture, but agriculture?
>
>A stone is enough to dig a hole and plant a seed. True, you're not going
>to get a big yield without being extremely labor intensive, but then
>again, at that stage it isn't a big yeild you're looking for, but rather
>replanting the Chief's favorite food.
>
>> >At which time we started trying to deny that famine exists.
>>
>> WHAT?
>>
>> Surely not. Kinda makes Gilgamesh hard to fit in, doesn't it?
>
>I didn't say that the denial was conscious. Just that we tried to stop
>it's existance. Not as much Gilgamesh as Joshua in Egypt....
Yeah, but Gilgamesh has got to fit in there, if he's talking universals,
doesn't it?
[]
>
>> >And, since we're addicted to increasing the food supply, and decreasing it
>> >would mean starving billions.....that's where Quinn leaves us, totally
>> >destroying our trust not in God, but rather in mankind....and I got caught
>> >in his snare last year about this time.
>>
>> But that's Quinn, NOT reality!
>>
>> In reality, the UN at least used to figure that up to 3/5 of all grain
>> was destroyed in STORAGE.
>>
>> What we need is not MORE food, but better ways of getting it around to
>> the people who need it...
>
>Very good, that's where Quinn's discussion list has gotten to. Better
>distribution, same amount of food, will save us.
Which rather knocks his whole theory on the head, doesn't it?
Cause it's NOT increasing our yeilds...?
>Ted
>
>mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
>http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
>
>If you believe in government of the people, for the people, by the people,
>and in fact no separation between people and government, click on the
>above link.
>
--
Theodore M. Seeber
> >Incorporeal yet still able to manipulate matter is outside of our
> >understanding.
>
> I am told by the scientist in the house, that you are right!
>
> Ok, try this: LOVE is incorporeal. :)
Absolutely! And love is also very much outside of our understanding,
despite us all claiming to feel it from time to time..... :-)
> >One of the underlying myths of Catholicism, and Judaeo-Christianity in
> >total, is the eternal battle between heaven and hell, in which we are
> >caught up in the middle of.
> >It's assumed that heaven will win out overall. That neutrality is
> >fighting on our side in the long run. And that heaven's plan, unlike
> >Hell's actually has a long run (most of the stuff we blame on Satan in
> >mythology is short sighted and not even very self serving).
>
> Ummmmmmmm......
>
> I disagree.
>
> That's an underlying myth of (I'll spell this wrong, sorry)
> Zoroastrianism.
>
> The church has been pretty hot on DENYING it.
Yet despite the denial, the war immagry in the Book of Revelations and in
certain parts of the Book of Genesis still stands...
Hmm, that's a thought: There is a war, but we're not a part of it, we're
just pawns in the game to be won or lost....
Thus while the war brackets our existence (by the two books that make the
most mention of it being at the beginning and at the end) the war is not
neccessarily our existance (we're the part in the middle).
Nah, that way leads to Protestantism....
> >But that's all the five-god system is: a view of the universe. As much
> >as all religions I've investigated so far embody the five god system, none
> >do so explicitly.
>
> I think that's a nominalist point of view, (which is NOT an insult, a
> detraction, or whatever...)!
True.
> The nominalist idea is that the order people see is their creation
> rather than their perception. (Quote from Boswell, it's the closest to
> hand, in Duberman, as I said earlier. I don't agree with his
> conclusions, but he sets out the differences well!).
Ok, that makes sense. We're so different as human beings that any
similarity at all between desparate cultures must be a part of the
creation...
> The realist view would be that those categories exist whether or not we
> name (nomina) them.
In a way, I would say that as well. My naming system is just that, a
naming system. The five categories being:
Creators
Power generators
Friends
Neutral Beings
Destroyers
That's as unbiased and flat as I can get.
> I think your system is nominalist, to be honest, Ted; I think you are
> taking what's there and imposing order ON it... which is fine, it's the
> only way to make sense of things at times! :)
And it MIGHT be influenced by my own path. I'm fully aware of that.
> >Actually, it's not very clear at all when you get right down to it.
> >They have "natural forces" that they worship (why I couldn't remember
> >Karma and Dharma yesterday, I don't know), which other cultures would have
> >anthromorphisized into gods....
> >Below, replace "creator" with Dharma and "Helper" with Karma. Yidyam is
> >still yidyam, but means closer to teacher than to savior (but still a
> >mixture of both), and I don't know how to translate it into English yet.
>
> But CAN you replace words like that? (I don't know much about
> Buddhism).
That's the point, not very well. Dharma, Karma, and Yidyam don't have
good analogues in english, and my five-god system is based more upon what
the forces DO than who they are.
> >Mother Godesses are related mainly to h/g and nomadic cultures, they're
> >replaced by Father Gods when the agriculturalists take over.
>
> Grin... you've been reading Lerner and Baring again, right?
>
> Yes, there are those who say that. Gimbutas is, if you like, the
> leading light.
>
> Unfortunately, there are some holes in the whole thing. Like, where did
> the worship of those agriculturalists COME from?
Fertility rites with both Gods and Godesses, with the fertility rites
dictating the times for planting, weeding, and harvesting for the area.
Before agriculture, 'twas the mother goddesses who provided everything
found. A perfect analogy, really, considering the role women play in
hunter-gatherer cultures.
> >The Hebrews as a people came later. But something very like the Cain vs
> >Abel story is in all the cultures of that area.
> >
> >BTW, a neat twist is this: Anthropologically, Caucasians were the first
> >to come up with agriculture, thus making "the mark of cain" a white, not a
> >dark, face....
>
> Ummmmm....... not in the most recent anthropology, Ted, from what I
> understand from colleagues at work....
Possibly, you're closer to it than I am.
What's the current theory for the spread of agriculture? (as opposed to
the old that I know, Arian Caucasian tribes comming down from the north,
pushed into the Fertile Crescent and India by the ice).
> >And they aren't truly. There have been a few Matriarchial Taker cultures,
> >the Amazon of Greek myth is one.
>
> Grin.... um..... The Amazon of Greek myth existed for one (cultural)
> reason only: to be conquered and killed.
> The Amazonamachia (the killing of Amazons) is a central plank in
> classical Greek mythology, vase painting and the like...
But as we all know, some myths start out as truth. I wouldn't be at all
suprised if we find, about 9000 years ago, a matriarchial society in
greece being conquored by a patriarchial society.
HMM, Above, did your say something about the earliest greek myths being a
Mother Goddess? Perhaps the Amazons worshiped her....
> >> Surely not. Kinda makes Gilgamesh hard to fit in, doesn't it?
> >
> >I didn't say that the denial was conscious. Just that we tried to stop
> >it's existance. Not as much Gilgamesh as Joshua in Egypt....
>
> Yeah, but Gilgamesh has got to fit in there, if he's talking universals,
> doesn't it?
Yes, and Gilgamesh might fit in this way:
The earliest fertile crescent agriculturalists and cities (the Ur of both
the Gilgamesh Epic and Abraham) were not quite perfect at agriculture yet.
They didn't know how to build storehouses to take advantage of "Bumper
Crop" years to survive the "Famine" years yet. Thus we get the stories of
Famine in the epic of Gilgamesh, because they really happened.
Hmm, and Joshua is credited with inventing the storehouse idea as his
brothers are being driven to egypt on the wings of a famine.....
> >Very good, that's where Quinn's discussion list has gotten to. Better
> >distribution, same amount of food, will save us.
>
> Which rather knocks his whole theory on the head, doesn't it?
Not quite. Better distribution is not as cost effective as it seems, the
richer countries hoard while the third world goes hungry.
> Cause it's NOT increasing our yeilds...?
This is the part he warned me about in e-mail when I suggested the idea.
It isn't neccessarily yeild that matters, it's ammount of food AVAILABLE.
H/g tribes will increase and decrease according to the local food supply,
that's why most of the deaths in such tribes occur in winter, when local
food supply is at a low, and most births occur in the spring, when local
food supply is at a high. Likewise, if you increase the flow of food to
the third world countries, you disrupt their historical feeding patterns
by increasing the food supply and thus increaseing the population to a
point where the local food supply collapses.
Thus, sending food into a famine area is not always a good idea, it CAN
result in more starvation later down the road.
janet
>
>> >Incorporeal yet still able to manipulate matter is outside of our
>> >understanding.
>>
>> I am told by the scientist in the house, that you are right!
>>
>> Ok, try this: LOVE is incorporeal. :)
>
>Absolutely! And love is also very much outside of our understanding,
>despite us all claiming to feel it from time to time..... :-)
Hmmm.... but we still don't call it supernatural all the time! :)
>
>> >One of the underlying myths of Catholicism, and Judaeo-Christianity in
>> >total, is the eternal battle between heaven and hell, in which we are
>> >caught up in the middle of.
>> >It's assumed that heaven will win out overall. That neutrality is
>> >fighting on our side in the long run. And that heaven's plan, unlike
>> >Hell's actually has a long run (most of the stuff we blame on Satan in
>> >mythology is short sighted and not even very self serving).
>>
>> Ummmmmmmm......
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> That's an underlying myth of (I'll spell this wrong, sorry)
>> Zoroastrianism.
>>
>> The church has been pretty hot on DENYING it.
>
>Yet despite the denial, the war immagry in the Book of Revelations and in
>certain parts of the Book of Genesis still stands...
>
>Hmm, that's a thought: There is a war, but we're not a part of it, we're
>just pawns in the game to be won or lost....
Yup.....
Which is another reason the church denies it.
WE are responsible for our own salvation, (or not)... Um, help! Let me
rephrase that!
Our salvation has been accomplished in the salvific act of Christ.
(janet wipes brow...).
HOWEVER, whether or not we take up that offer, is up to us.
AND that offer has been made, once for all time.
There's no war, no doubt about the outcome...
[]
>> The nominalist idea is that the order people see is their creation
>> rather than their perception. (Quote from Boswell, it's the closest to
>> hand, in Duberman, as I said earlier. I don't agree with his
>> conclusions, but he sets out the differences well!).
>
>Ok, that makes sense. We're so different as human beings that any
>similarity at all between desparate cultures must be a part of the
>creation...
>
>> The realist view would be that those categories exist whether or not we
>> name (nomina) them.
>
>In a way, I would say that as well. My naming system is just that, a
>naming system. The five categories being:
>Creators
>Power generators
>Friends
>Neutral Beings
>Destroyers
>That's as unbiased and flat as I can get.
>
Hmmmm.... yes, if you're saying that you're imposing that on archetypes
that are already there....
[]
>
>> >Actually, it's not very clear at all when you get right down to it.
>> >They have "natural forces" that they worship (why I couldn't remember
>> >Karma and Dharma yesterday, I don't know), which other cultures would have
>> >anthromorphisized into gods....
>> >Below, replace "creator" with Dharma and "Helper" with Karma. Yidyam is
>> >still yidyam, but means closer to teacher than to savior (but still a
>> >mixture of both), and I don't know how to translate it into English yet.
>>
>> But CAN you replace words like that? (I don't know much about
>> Buddhism).
>
>That's the point, not very well. Dharma, Karma, and Yidyam don't have
>good analogues in english, and my five-god system is based more upon what
>the forces DO than who they are.
>
Grin.... sounds like you've got a thesis there in the making....
>> >Mother Godesses are related mainly to h/g and nomadic cultures, they're
>> >replaced by Father Gods when the agriculturalists take over.
>>
>> Grin... you've been reading Lerner and Baring again, right?
>>
>> Yes, there are those who say that. Gimbutas is, if you like, the
>> leading light.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there are some holes in the whole thing. Like, where did
>> the worship of those agriculturalists COME from?
>
>Fertility rites with both Gods and Godesses, with the fertility rites
>dictating the times for planting, weeding, and harvesting for the area.
>
>Before agriculture, 'twas the mother goddesses who provided everything
>found. A perfect analogy, really, considering the role women play in
>hunter-gatherer cultures.
Grin... You HAVE been reading them, haven't you?
But there are some holes in that...
For one thing, a lot of it relies on some interpretations of paintings,
etc., which are fairly controversial.
Gimubtas is the author you want to read, she holds the "mother god"
line! :) But Baring is good, too...(Gimbutas is on my "to read" list,
Baring at least I have read....).
Grin... you might also like Taylor, "Sex in prehistory", but it looses
a lot of credibility for me by using the Cerne Abbas Giant on the front
of the book, cause I think most anthropologists, etc. think that's a
LOT later than prehistory. But it's still interesting!
[]
>
>> >And they aren't truly. There have been a few Matriarchial Taker cultures,
>> >the Amazon of Greek myth is one.
>>
>> Grin.... um..... The Amazon of Greek myth existed for one (cultural)
>> reason only: to be conquered and killed.
>> The Amazonamachia (the killing of Amazons) is a central plank in
>> classical Greek mythology, vase painting and the like...
>
>But as we all know, some myths start out as truth. I wouldn't be at all
>suprised if we find, about 9000 years ago, a matriarchial society in
>greece being conquored by a patriarchial society.
>
Doubt it.
Amazon has a lot of meanings, but one of them is "priestesses of the
moon", in Persian, I believe... (I could look all this up, if people are
interested...).
For all that French and co would LIKE us to believe, there just doesn't
seem to be any evidence of matriarchies... (although some Victorian men
waxed silly about them!). :)
Egalitarian societies, yes, but matriarchies, no.
Matrilinear, (where men move to where women are) and matrifocal (where
mothers are the centre of the group, and the most important man is not
the mother's husband, but her brother) yes...
>HMM, Above, did your say something about the earliest greek myths being a
>Mother Goddess? Perhaps the Amazons worshiped her....
Gaea. No, they weren't supposed to be worshipping her...
There are a lot of mother-first myths, but I don't think the Amazons
show up till later... ?
>
>> >> Surely not. Kinda makes Gilgamesh hard to fit in, doesn't it?
>> >
>> >I didn't say that the denial was conscious. Just that we tried to stop
>> >it's existance. Not as much Gilgamesh as Joshua in Egypt....
>>
>> Yeah, but Gilgamesh has got to fit in there, if he's talking universals,
>> doesn't it?
>
>Yes, and Gilgamesh might fit in this way:
>The earliest fertile crescent agriculturalists and cities (the Ur of both
>the Gilgamesh Epic and Abraham) were not quite perfect at agriculture yet.
>They didn't know how to build storehouses to take advantage of "Bumper
>Crop" years to survive the "Famine" years yet. Thus we get the stories of
>Famine in the epic of Gilgamesh, because they really happened.
>Hmm, and Joshua is credited with inventing the storehouse idea as his
>brothers are being driven to egypt on the wings of a famine.....
Could be, could be!
>
>> >Very good, that's where Quinn's discussion list has gotten to. Better
>> >distribution, same amount of food, will save us.
>>
>> Which rather knocks his whole theory on the head, doesn't it?
>
>Not quite. Better distribution is not as cost effective as it seems, the
>richer countries hoard while the third world goes hungry.
And thus, (she says, expectedly) the social teaching of the church!
>
>> Cause it's NOT increasing our yeilds...?
>
>This is the part he warned me about in e-mail when I suggested the idea.
>It isn't neccessarily yeild that matters, it's ammount of food AVAILABLE.
>H/g tribes will increase and decrease according to the local food supply,
>that's why most of the deaths in such tribes occur in winter, when local
>food supply is at a low, and most births occur in the spring, when local
>food supply is at a high.
Um, the births occur then cause people PLAN them to, just as they did in
medieval Europe...
> Likewise, if you increase the flow of food to
>the third world countries, you disrupt their historical feeding patterns
>by increasing the food supply and thus increaseing the population to a
>point where the local food supply collapses.
>Thus, sending food into a famine area is not always a good idea, it CAN
>result in more starvation later down the road.
Wry grin...
Teach a man to fish...
Yes, I can see that argument.
BUT it has some rather serious flaws.
Like it doesn't take into account things like colonialisation, and third
world debt....
And, the rather more obvious one, that here in the west, where do DO
have more than enough food, population rates are stable or falling....
Theodore M. Seeber
> >Absolutely! And love is also very much outside of our understanding,
> >despite us all claiming to feel it from time to time..... :-)
>
> Hmmm.... but we still don't call it supernatural all the time! :)
Inadaquacy of english. In Greek, one out of three forms of love (that I'm
aware of) is called supernatural in that humans are unable to do it
perfectly. Agape, in case you don't know which one I'm talking about (but
why wouldn't you?)
> >Yet despite the denial, the war immagry in the Book of Revelations and in
> >certain parts of the Book of Genesis still stands...
> >
> >Hmm, that's a thought: There is a war, but we're not a part of it, we're
> >just pawns in the game to be won or lost....
>
> Yup.....
>
> Which is another reason the church denies it.
>
> WE are responsible for our own salvation, (or not)... Um, help! Let me
> rephrase that!
>
> Our salvation has been accomplished in the salvific act of Christ.
> (janet wipes brow...).
>
> HOWEVER, whether or not we take up that offer, is up to us.
>
> AND that offer has been made, once for all time.
>
> There's no war, no doubt about the outcome...
Even in the original, ancient, pre-Christ version of the war there was
NEVER any doubt about the outcome overall, just the outcome for specific
souls and specific periods. The individual battles were in doubt, not the
war itself.
Hmm, I still think we're talking on different levels here: I'm talking
about the very basics of the ideas that make up our culture, and you keep
jumping thousands of years ahead to post-Christ theology...
How's this, if there is no war there's no need to deny it so vehemently.
> >Creators
> >Power generators
> >Friends
> >Neutral Beings
> >Destroyers
> >That's as unbiased and flat as I can get.
>
> Hmmmm.... yes, if you're saying that you're imposing that on archetypes
> that are already there....
And that I'm simply naming the archetypes, no more than that.
> >> But CAN you replace words like that? (I don't know much about
> >> Buddhism).
> >
> >That's the point, not very well. Dharma, Karma, and Yidyam don't have
> >good analogues in english, and my five-god system is based more upon what
> >the forces DO than who they are.
>
> Grin.... sounds like you've got a thesis there in the making....
Maybe. But it will have to wait until I decide where I'm going to take my
graduate degree (And what field, I've got three major interests:
Computers, theology, and politics).
> >Fertility rites with both Gods and Godesses, with the fertility rites
> >dictating the times for planting, weeding, and harvesting for the area.
> >
> >Before agriculture, 'twas the mother goddesses who provided everything
> >found. A perfect analogy, really, considering the role women play in
> >hunter-gatherer cultures.
>
> Grin... You HAVE been reading them, haven't you?
More third generation from that.....I've read people who have read
them...Kind of like in yet another Asmovian short story (can you tell I
like Asimov) where "research" had all be done centuries ago, so research
became reading what was in the library...
> But there are some holes in that...
>
> For one thing, a lot of it relies on some interpretations of paintings,
> etc., which are fairly controversial.
True.
> Gimubtas is the author you want to read, she holds the "mother god"
> line! :) But Baring is good, too...(Gimbutas is on my "to read" list,
> Baring at least I have read....).
>
> Grin... you might also like Taylor, "Sex in prehistory", but it looses
> a lot of credibility for me by using the Cerne Abbas Giant on the front
> of the book, cause I think most anthropologists, etc. think that's a
> LOT later than prehistory. But it's still interesting!
What about the studies of the Native American h/g tribes? Are there any?
They're the ones I always turn to, rather than the "cave paintings" for
one thing, they're a lot closer to home for me (being in the Pacific
Northwest with Kwakiutal all around me).
> >But as we all know, some myths start out as truth. I wouldn't be at all
> >suprised if we find, about 9000 years ago, a matriarchial society in
> >greece being conquored by a patriarchial society.
>
> Doubt it.
>
> Amazon has a lot of meanings, but one of them is "priestesses of the
> moon", in Persian, I believe... (I could look all this up, if people are
> interested...).
>
> For all that French and co would LIKE us to believe, there just doesn't
> seem to be any evidence of matriarchies... (although some Victorian men
> waxed silly about them!). :)
>
> Egalitarian societies, yes, but matriarchies, no.
>
> Matrilinear, (where men move to where women are) and matrifocal (where
> mothers are the centre of the group, and the most important man is not
> the mother's husband, but her brother) yes...
Hmm, so it's your opinion that matriarchial societies didn't exist at all
in Europe?
> There are a lot of mother-first myths, but I don't think the Amazons
> show up till later... ?
Not sure at all. So many myths have their beginings earlier.
> >Not quite. Better distribution is not as cost effective as it seems, the
> >richer countries hoard while the third world goes hungry.
>
> And thus, (she says, expectedly) the social teaching of the church!
Absolutely. Too bad so many Capitalist Countries are also Democracies,
and the Church has, worldwide avarage, less than 17% of the vote.
> >This is the part he warned me about in e-mail when I suggested the idea.
> >It isn't neccessarily yeild that matters, it's ammount of food AVAILABLE.
> >H/g tribes will increase and decrease according to the local food supply,
> >that's why most of the deaths in such tribes occur in winter, when local
> >food supply is at a low, and most births occur in the spring, when local
> >food supply is at a high.
>
> Um, the births occur then cause people PLAN them to, just as they did in
> medieval Europe...
H/g tribes of the primitiveness that Quinn is talking about haven't
exactly made the 9 month connection between sex and pregnancy yet. It
isn't important, anyway, as I used the wrong term. I should have said
most SURVIVABLE births...
> > Likewise, if you increase the flow of food to
> >the third world countries, you disrupt their historical feeding patterns
> >by increasing the food supply and thus increaseing the population to a
> >point where the local food supply collapses.
> >Thus, sending food into a famine area is not always a good idea, it CAN
> >result in more starvation later down the road.
>
> Wry grin...
>
> Teach a man to fish...
And with Quinn's argument, he fishes all the fish out of the lake, leaving
none to procreate the next generation.
> Like it doesn't take into account things like colonialisation, and third
> world debt....
>
> And, the rather more obvious one, that here in the west, where do DO
> have more than enough food, population rates are stable or falling....
That last one, Quinn points out, is more a sign of having less food,
because we're buying other things with our money.
I never did get an answer to the idea, though, that we should simply
invest to industrialize the third world, thus giving them more important
things than survival to worry about also.
oooh, industrialization as the serpent in the garden....
That's scary.
janet
>, Theodore M. Seeber <see...@teleport.com> said unto us:
>
>> >Absolutely! And love is also very much outside of our understanding,
>> >despite us all claiming to feel it from time to time..... :-)
>>
>> Hmmm.... but we still don't call it supernatural all the time! :)
>
>Inadaquacy of english. In Greek, one out of three forms of love (that I'm
>aware of) is called supernatural in that humans are unable to do it
>perfectly. Agape, in case you don't know which one I'm talking about (but
>why wouldn't you?)
Grin.... I always get them mixed up and leave one out, so yes, thanks!
Yes, I see what you mean... grin...
Ted, I have an idea that you are as slippery a debater as I used to be,
(and that's from someone who wore the hard won title of Crisco Kid in
high school debating circles!). :)
>
>> >Yet despite the denial, the war immagry in the Book of Revelations and in
>> >certain parts of the Book of Genesis still stands...
>> >
>> >Hmm, that's a thought: There is a war, but we're not a part of it, we're
>> >just pawns in the game to be won or lost....
>>
>> Yup.....
>>
>> Which is another reason the church denies it.
>>
>> WE are responsible for our own salvation, (or not)... Um, help! Let me
>> rephrase that!
>>
>> Our salvation has been accomplished in the salvific act of Christ.
>> (janet wipes brow...).
>>
>> HOWEVER, whether or not we take up that offer, is up to us.
>>
>> AND that offer has been made, once for all time.
>>
>> There's no war, no doubt about the outcome...
>
>Even in the original, ancient, pre-Christ version of the war there was
>NEVER any doubt about the outcome overall, just the outcome for specific
>souls and specific periods. The individual battles were in doubt, not the
>war itself.
>
>Hmm, I still think we're talking on different levels here: I'm talking
>about the very basics of the ideas that make up our culture, and you keep
>jumping thousands of years ahead to post-Christ theology...
>
>How's this, if there is no war there's no need to deny it so vehemently.
>
Grin....
Could be.
Really, I think you're talking about an archtype...
Now, how can I put this? This is NOT a slam, it's an explanation!
I think that archetype is there to explain the world we see around us,
which includes pain as well as joy, death as well as life, suffering as
well as dancing... Yes?
The reason I keep jumping ahead is that I think the archetype is ever so
slightly wrong.
I think it is a response to the inherent need of the human soul, for
God, put there by God.
However, the humans (us) couldn't figure out the wonder of God on our
own. That required revelation.
I think revelation puts the archetype into the shade, because the
archetype is a way of trying to explain the cosmos WITHOUT the aid of
revelation, which is the only thing which CAN explain it.
Does that make sense?
>> >Creators
>> >Power generators
>> >Friends
>> >Neutral Beings
>> >Destroyers
>> >That's as unbiased and flat as I can get.
>>
>> Hmmmm.... yes, if you're saying that you're imposing that on archetypes
>> that are already there....
>
>And that I'm simply naming the archetypes, no more than that.
Yes, I can see that. See what I said above! :)
>
>> >> But CAN you replace words like that? (I don't know much about
>> >> Buddhism).
>> >
>> >That's the point, not very well. Dharma, Karma, and Yidyam don't have
>> >good analogues in english, and my five-god system is based more upon what
>> >the forces DO than who they are.
>>
>> Grin.... sounds like you've got a thesis there in the making....
>
>Maybe. But it will have to wait until I decide where I'm going to take my
>graduate degree (And what field, I've got three major interests:
>Computers, theology, and politics).
Combine them.
I'm perfectly serious!
Look, in another thread, I've mentioned the blind watchmaker programme.
You COULD put all those together!
Grin... just off the top of my head, "What are the implications for
theistic belief, in the face of the development of artificial
intelligence?"
Ummmm, that leaves out the politics, but you could work it in!
Now, just don't ask which department is going to supervise it! :) (I'm
always in trouble for coming up with interdisciplinary ideas...).
(No, Dooley, that does NOT have anything to do with spanking, thank
you...).
:>
>
>> >Fertility rites with both Gods and Godesses, with the fertility rites
>> >dictating the times for planting, weeding, and harvesting for the area.
>> >
>> >Before agriculture, 'twas the mother goddesses who provided everything
>> >found. A perfect analogy, really, considering the role women play in
>> >hunter-gatherer cultures.
>>
>> Grin... You HAVE been reading them, haven't you?
>
>More third generation from that.....I've read people who have read
>them...Kind of like in yet another Asmovian short story (can you tell I
>like Asimov) where "research" had all be done centuries ago, so research
>became reading what was in the library...
You mean it's NOT? (ducking....).
Grin....
>
>> But there are some holes in that...
>>
>> For one thing, a lot of it relies on some interpretations of paintings,
>> etc., which are fairly controversial.
>
>True.
>
>> Gimubtas is the author you want to read, she holds the "mother god"
>> line! :) But Baring is good, too...(Gimbutas is on my "to read" list,
>> Baring at least I have read....).
>>
>> Grin... you might also like Taylor, "Sex in prehistory", but it looses
>> a lot of credibility for me by using the Cerne Abbas Giant on the front
>> of the book, cause I think most anthropologists, etc. think that's a
>> LOT later than prehistory. But it's still interesting!
>
>What about the studies of the Native American h/g tribes? Are there any?
Almost certainly.... I don't know about them, but, as the saying goes, I
know a woman who does! I'll ask...
(There is an alt.native. (?american?) group... I don't know the full
name, but it might be worth finding out what it is and lurking...).
>They're the ones I always turn to, rather than the "cave paintings" for
>one thing, they're a lot closer to home for me (being in the Pacific
>Northwest with Kwakiutal all around me).
It would be worth finding out, then... I'll see what I can do!
>
>> >But as we all know, some myths start out as truth. I wouldn't be at all
>> >suprised if we find, about 9000 years ago, a matriarchial society in
>> >greece being conquored by a patriarchial society.
>>
>> Doubt it.
>>
>> Amazon has a lot of meanings, but one of them is "priestesses of the
>> moon", in Persian, I believe... (I could look all this up, if people are
>> interested...).
>>
>> For all that French and co would LIKE us to believe, there just doesn't
>> seem to be any evidence of matriarchies... (although some Victorian men
>> waxed silly about them!). :)
>>
>> Egalitarian societies, yes, but matriarchies, no.
>>
>> Matrilinear, (where men move to where women are) and matrifocal (where
>> mothers are the centre of the group, and the most important man is not
>> the mother's husband, but her brother) yes...
>
>Hmm, so it's your opinion that matriarchial societies didn't exist at all
>in Europe?
MY opinion? Grin... my opinion is that as long as the kids go to bed
when I tell them...
But, no, I don't think so. Let me rephrase that. Scholars whom I trust
to BE scholars, say there is no evidence of them.
Bachofen, who popularised the idea, was enamoured of them. One of the
things that has always made me smile about these Victorian idealists is
that they thought that monogamy came in when men took over. Under the
rule of the mothers, promiscuity reigned!
How DID they explain *that* to their own mothers???? :)
>
>> There are a lot of mother-first myths, but I don't think the Amazons
>> show up till later... ?
>
>Not sure at all. So many myths have their beginings earlier.
>
>> >Not quite. Better distribution is not as cost effective as it seems, the
>> >richer countries hoard while the third world goes hungry.
>>
>> And thus, (she says, expectedly) the social teaching of the church!
>
>Absolutely. Too bad so many Capitalist Countries are also Democracies,
>and the Church has, worldwide avarage, less than 17% of the vote.
I don't think the church has ANY of the vote...
People in the church, do, though!
>
>> >This is the part he warned me about in e-mail when I suggested the idea.
>> >It isn't neccessarily yeild that matters, it's ammount of food AVAILABLE.
>> >H/g tribes will increase and decrease according to the local food supply,
>> >that's why most of the deaths in such tribes occur in winter, when local
>> >food supply is at a low, and most births occur in the spring, when local
>> >food supply is at a high.
>>
>> Um, the births occur then cause people PLAN them to, just as they did in
>> medieval Europe...
>
>H/g tribes of the primitiveness that Quinn is talking about haven't
>exactly made the 9 month connection between sex and pregnancy yet. It
>isn't important, anyway, as I used the wrong term. I should have said
>most SURVIVABLE births...
Ummmm.... there's dispute about that.
For a good while, there was an idea that people didn't connect sex and
birth.
Now, there are anthropologists saying, "***". Well, they're basically
saying, "get real, people could see animals and figure it out".
I don't know what the final outcome of THAT one will be, either!
(But in some h/g socieities, women would begin having intercourse before
they had periods, and in many such socieites, women had low enough body
fat not to ovulate while breastfeeding, (THIS DOES NOT TEND TO WORK FOR
WESTERN WOMEN, DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!!!), so the connections wouldn't
necessarily have been as clear cut...) (and, incidentally, women might
well have had far FEWER periods, thus leading to the idea of the
sacredness of the whole process...).
>
>> > Likewise, if you increase the flow of food to
>> >the third world countries, you disrupt their historical feeding patterns
>> >by increasing the food supply and thus increaseing the population to a
>> >point where the local food supply collapses.
>> >Thus, sending food into a famine area is not always a good idea, it CAN
>> >result in more starvation later down the road.
>>
>> Wry grin...
>>
>> Teach a man to fish...
>
>And with Quinn's argument, he fishes all the fish out of the lake, leaving
>none to procreate the next generation.
>
>> Like it doesn't take into account things like colonialisation, and third
>> world debt....
>>
>> And, the rather more obvious one, that here in the west, where do DO
>> have more than enough food, population rates are stable or falling....
>
>That last one, Quinn points out, is more a sign of having less food,
>because we're buying other things with our money.
No, don't buy that. The food is there, like it or not, buy it or not.
>I never did get an answer to the idea, though, that we should simply
>invest to industrialize the third world, thus giving them more important
>things than survival to worry about also.
>
>oooh, industrialization as the serpent in the garden....
>That's scary.
Well, it's not a new idea.... ;}
--
janet
Loquiturne pontifex maximus latine?
Theodore M. Seeber
> >Inadaquacy of english. In Greek, one out of three forms of love (that I'm
> >aware of) is called supernatural in that humans are unable to do it
> >perfectly. Agape, in case you don't know which one I'm talking about (but
> >why wouldn't you?)
>
> Grin.... I always get them mixed up and leave one out, so yes, thanks!
>
> Yes, I see what you mean... grin...
>
> Ted, I have an idea that you are as slippery a debater as I used to be,
> (and that's from someone who wore the hard won title of Crisco Kid in
> high school debating circles!). :)
I must have improved since high school. I always lost debates back then.
But one of my bills from Student Congress actually almost made it into law
a few years back (with changes, they weren't willing to make it an
Ammendment :(, so it ended up being just a shade of what it could have
been).
> >Even in the original, ancient, pre-Christ version of the war there was
> >NEVER any doubt about the outcome overall, just the outcome for specific
> >souls and specific periods. The individual battles were in doubt, not the
> >war itself.
> >
> >Hmm, I still think we're talking on different levels here: I'm talking
> >about the very basics of the ideas that make up our culture, and you keep
> >jumping thousands of years ahead to post-Christ theology...
> >
> >How's this, if there is no war there's no need to deny it so vehemently.
>
> Grin....
>
> Could be.
>
> Really, I think you're talking about an archtype...
I Am!!!!!!
> Now, how can I put this? This is NOT a slam, it's an explanation!
>
> I think that archetype is there to explain the world we see around us,
> which includes pain as well as joy, death as well as life, suffering as
> well as dancing... Yes?
At least partially, yes.....But only partially.
> The reason I keep jumping ahead is that I think the archetype is ever so
> slightly wrong.
>
> I think it is a response to the inherent need of the human soul, for
> God, put there by God.
>
> However, the humans (us) couldn't figure out the wonder of God on our
> own. That required revelation.
>
> I think revelation puts the archetype into the shade, because the
> archetype is a way of trying to explain the cosmos WITHOUT the aid of
> revelation, which is the only thing which CAN explain it.
>
> Does that make sense?
Ah, yes. but you can go too far the other direction as well. Denial that
Hell exists can be as dangerous as believing that everyone goes there.....
> >Maybe. But it will have to wait until I decide where I'm going to take my
> >graduate degree (And what field, I've got three major interests:
> >Computers, theology, and politics).
>
> Combine them.
>
> I'm perfectly serious!
>
> Look, in another thread, I've mentioned the blind watchmaker programme.
>
> You COULD put all those together!
>
> Grin... just off the top of my head, "What are the implications for
> theistic belief, in the face of the development of artificial
> intelligence?"
>
> Ummmm, that leaves out the politics, but you could work it in!
Especially since theocracies exist...Nah, would make a better sci-fi
novella than a thesis....
The Electronic Catholic Church, presided over by Patriarch XJ-511....who
builds a Holy Cybernetic Empire....
> Now, just don't ask which department is going to supervise it! :) (I'm
> always in trouble for coming up with interdisciplinary ideas...).
That's the hard part. Philosophy, maybe....
> >More third generation from that.....I've read people who have read
> >them...Kind of like in yet another Asmovian short story (can you tell I
> >like Asimov) where "research" had all be done centuries ago, so research
> >became reading what was in the library...
>
> You mean it's NOT? (ducking....).
>
> Grin....
Asimov was dealing with multiple millenia in the future, thus the picture
was even worse, as most types of data storage degrade after 10,000 years
or so....
> >What about the studies of the Native American h/g tribes? Are there any?
>
> Almost certainly.... I don't know about them, but, as the saying goes, I
> know a woman who does! I'll ask...
>
> (There is an alt.native. (?american?) group... I don't know the full
> name, but it might be worth finding out what it is and lurking...).
Hmm, that's a thought that I didn't think of. Though I wonder, do they
write in Cherokee (the only native tounge that has a well-developed
transliteration to the Roman Alphabet?
> >They're the ones I always turn to, rather than the "cave paintings" for
> >one thing, they're a lot closer to home for me (being in the Pacific
> >Northwest with Kwakiutal all around me).
>
> It would be worth finding out, then... I'll see what I can do!
All I've had so far from them is a few interviews with medicine men from
various tribes (Klamath, Klickitat, T'linkit, and T'Chinook). So many of
the tribes out here died of diseases caught from the Russians before
Americans settled the area....
> >Hmm, so it's your opinion that matriarchial societies didn't exist at all
> >in Europe?
>
> MY opinion? Grin... my opinion is that as long as the kids go to bed
> when I tell them...
>
> But, no, I don't think so. Let me rephrase that. Scholars whom I trust
> to BE scholars, say there is no evidence of them.
Ah, ok. That's different.
> Bachofen, who popularised the idea, was enamoured of them. One of the
> things that has always made me smile about these Victorian idealists is
> that they thought that monogamy came in when men took over. Under the
> rule of the mothers, promiscuity reigned!
This to me seems to be a bit backwards...and I can point to the
patriarchial pre-Hebrew tribes in the Bible to disprove it....
> >Absolutely. Too bad so many Capitalist Countries are also Democracies,
> >and the Church has, worldwide avarage, less than 17% of the vote.
>
> I don't think the church has ANY of the vote...
>
> People in the church, do, though!
True, but the church only makes up 17% of the people...Which is sad...
> >H/g tribes of the primitiveness that Quinn is talking about haven't
> >exactly made the 9 month connection between sex and pregnancy yet. It
> >isn't important, anyway, as I used the wrong term. I should have said
> >most SURVIVABLE births...
>
> Ummmm.... there's dispute about that.
>
> For a good while, there was an idea that people didn't connect sex and
> birth.
>
> Now, there are anthropologists saying, "***". Well, they're basically
> saying, "get real, people could see animals and figure it out".
I'm not so sure that it's clear in ANY mamilian species. Most have at
least a 28 day separation between the two...And if your tribe doesn't
exactly get the concept of TIME yet...
> I don't know what the final outcome of THAT one will be, either!
>
> (But in some h/g socieities, women would begin having intercourse before
> they had periods, and in many such socieites, women had low enough body
> fat not to ovulate while breastfeeding, (THIS DOES NOT TEND TO WORK FOR
> WESTERN WOMEN, DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!!!), so the connections wouldn't
> necessarily have been as clear cut...) (and, incidentally, women might
> well have had far FEWER periods, thus leading to the idea of the
> sacredness of the whole process...).
That last bit, fewer periods....I've met women who claim that their cycle
is 40 days rather than 28, is that what you mean?
> >> Teach a man to fish...
> >
> >And with Quinn's argument, he fishes all the fish out of the lake, leaving
> >none to procreate the next generation.
This is really key, I wanted to point it out.
We're all familiar with the role that goats have played in the
desertification of the Sahara and the Middle East.
Is man heading the same way? Or are we smarter than that?
> >That last one, Quinn points out, is more a sign of having less food,
> >because we're buying other things with our money.
>
> No, don't buy that. The food is there, like it or not, buy it or not.
Hmm, what else other than ecconomics has changed then?
janet
>
>> >Inadaquacy of english. In Greek, one out of three forms of love (that I'm
>> >aware of) is called supernatural in that humans are unable to do it
>> >perfectly. Agape, in case you don't know which one I'm talking about (but
>> >why wouldn't you?)
>>
>> Grin.... I always get them mixed up and leave one out, so yes, thanks!
>>
>> Yes, I see what you mean... grin...
>>
>> Ted, I have an idea that you are as slippery a debater as I used to be,
>> (and that's from someone who wore the hard won title of Crisco Kid in
>> high school debating circles!). :)
>
>I must have improved since high school. I always lost debates back then.
>But one of my bills from Student Congress actually almost made it into law
>a few years back (with changes, they weren't willing to make it an
>Ammendment :(, so it ended up being just a shade of what it could have
>been).
>
Grin..... (It occured to me about 2 am that you might take the above as
an insult, I am VERY glad you didn't, it wasn't meant as one!).
[]
>> Now, how can I put this? This is NOT a slam, it's an explanation!
>>
>> I think that archetype is there to explain the world we see around us,
>> which includes pain as well as joy, death as well as life, suffering as
>> well as dancing... Yes?
>
>At least partially, yes.....But only partially.
Hmmm....
>
>> The reason I keep jumping ahead is that I think the archetype is ever so
>> slightly wrong.
>>
>> I think it is a response to the inherent need of the human soul, for
>> God, put there by God.
>>
>> However, the humans (us) couldn't figure out the wonder of God on our
>> own. That required revelation.
>>
>> I think revelation puts the archetype into the shade, because the
>> archetype is a way of trying to explain the cosmos WITHOUT the aid of
>> revelation, which is the only thing which CAN explain it.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>
>Ah, yes. but you can go too far the other direction as well. Denial that
>Hell exists can be as dangerous as believing that everyone goes there.....
>
Ack!
True! I'm not one of those who would deny the existence of hell!
(Although, was it Lewis or Chesterton who said, "We are bound to believe
that hell exists. We are not bound to believe that anyone is there"?)
:) (Yes, I know about Teresa of Avila, but no one is bound by a private
relvaltion....).
>> >Maybe. But it will have to wait until I decide where I'm going to take my
>> >graduate degree (And what field, I've got three major interests:
>> >Computers, theology, and politics).
>>
>> Combine them.
>>
>> I'm perfectly serious!
>>
>> Look, in another thread, I've mentioned the blind watchmaker programme.
>>
>> You COULD put all those together!
>>
>> Grin... just off the top of my head, "What are the implications for
>> theistic belief, in the face of the development of artificial
>> intelligence?"
>>
>> Ummmm, that leaves out the politics, but you could work it in!
>
>Especially since theocracies exist...Nah, would make a better sci-fi
>novella than a thesis....
>
>The Electronic Catholic Church, presided over by Patriarch XJ-511....who
>builds a Holy Cybernetic Empire....
Ohhhh, ick!
Ok, write that and then look at it and call it a Lit. thesis! (That's
not serious, I know nothing about lit. degrees...).
>
>> Now, just don't ask which department is going to supervise it! :) (I'm
>> always in trouble for coming up with interdisciplinary ideas...).
>
>That's the hard part. Philosophy, maybe....
>
I think you could do it in either philosophy or theology, to be honest.
[]
>
>> >What about the studies of the Native American h/g tribes? Are there any?
>>
>> Almost certainly.... I don't know about them, but, as the saying goes, I
>> know a woman who does! I'll ask...
>>
>> (There is an alt.native. (?american?) group... I don't know the full
>> name, but it might be worth finding out what it is and lurking...).
>
>Hmm, that's a thought that I didn't think of. Though I wonder, do they
>write in Cherokee (the only native tounge that has a well-developed
>transliteration to the Roman Alphabet?
>
No, it's plain English, I think.... (they have, apparenlty, their share
of trolls and one-way-ists... I can understand the one-way-ists, cause
being a "Native American Shaman" is an "in" thing to do in some
circles... yeah, right....).
>> >They're the ones I always turn to, rather than the "cave paintings" for
>> >one thing, they're a lot closer to home for me (being in the Pacific
>> >Northwest with Kwakiutal all around me).
>>
>> It would be worth finding out, then... I'll see what I can do!
>
>All I've had so far from them is a few interviews with medicine men from
>various tribes (Klamath, Klickitat, T'linkit, and T'Chinook). So many of
>the tribes out here died of diseases caught from the Russians before
>Americans settled the area....
Again, I think that ng might be worth lurking in, but when I hear from
someone else who knows about these things again, I will ask!
>
>> >Hmm, so it's your opinion that matriarchial societies didn't exist at all
>> >in Europe?
>>
>> MY opinion? Grin... my opinion is that as long as the kids go to bed
>> when I tell them...
>>
>> But, no, I don't think so. Let me rephrase that. Scholars whom I trust
>> to BE scholars, say there is no evidence of them.
>
>Ah, ok. That's different.
>
>> Bachofen, who popularised the idea, was enamoured of them. One of the
>> things that has always made me smile about these Victorian idealists is
>> that they thought that monogamy came in when men took over. Under the
>> rule of the mothers, promiscuity reigned!
>
>This to me seems to be a bit backwards...and I can point to the
>patriarchial pre-Hebrew tribes in the Bible to disprove it....
Patriarchal tribes which did not enforce female chastity?
>
>> >Absolutely. Too bad so many Capitalist Countries are also Democracies,
>> >and the Church has, worldwide avarage, less than 17% of the vote.
>>
>> I don't think the church has ANY of the vote...
>>
>> People in the church, do, though!
>
>True, but the church only makes up 17% of the people...Which is sad...
>
>> >H/g tribes of the primitiveness that Quinn is talking about haven't
>> >exactly made the 9 month connection between sex and pregnancy yet. It
>> >isn't important, anyway, as I used the wrong term. I should have said
>> >most SURVIVABLE births...
>>
>> Ummmm.... there's dispute about that.
>>
>> For a good while, there was an idea that people didn't connect sex and
>> birth.
>>
>> Now, there are anthropologists saying, "***". Well, they're basically
>> saying, "get real, people could see animals and figure it out".
>
>I'm not so sure that it's clear in ANY mamilian species. Most have at
>least a 28 day separation between the two...And if your tribe doesn't
>exactly get the concept of TIME yet...
Grin.... There seems to be some evidence, though, that women got the
idea of time fairly quickly, BECAUSE of that cycle... However, THAT'S
hard to square with the idea that women may not have had all that many
periods, so you pay your money and take your chances!
>
>> I don't know what the final outcome of THAT one will be, either!
>>
>> (But in some h/g socieities, women would begin having intercourse before
>> they had periods, and in many such socieites, women had low enough body
>> fat not to ovulate while breastfeeding, (THIS DOES NOT TEND TO WORK FOR
>> WESTERN WOMEN, DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!!!), so the connections wouldn't
>> necessarily have been as clear cut...) (and, incidentally, women might
>> well have had far FEWER periods, thus leading to the idea of the
>> sacredness of the whole process...).
>
>That last bit, fewer periods....I've met women who claim that their cycle
>is 40 days rather than 28, is that what you mean?
No, I mean... well, here.
Imagine you are a 12 year old Neolithic girl (Oh, go on...) :)
You may or may not have intercourse before your periods start, but you
probably DO experience some little amount of "adolescent sterility".
However, assuming all things are equal, you get pregnant fairly quickly,
a year or so.
Ok? No periods for 9 months.
Then you have this baby. You breastfeed said baby, cause it's the only
way the baby will survive. You are ALSO in a near susbsistence society,
with very little body fat, so you don't ovulate while breastfeeding, AND
you don't have periods.
Quite possibly for two-three years.
Depending on your group, you may or may not be having sex during this
time.
If you ARE, you are quite possibly pregnant BEFORE you have another
period, so you go another nine months, then another two years...
See? That's what I mean, and some of it is speculation, some of it is
observations made on subsistence societies today.
(I don't think anyone really knows about prehistoric cycle length,
though plenty of people will TELL you they do!).
(Oh, you can go back to being Ted, again.... grin....). :)
>
>> >> Teach a man to fish...
>> >
>> >And with Quinn's argument, he fishes all the fish out of the lake, leaving
>> >none to procreate the next generation.
>
>This is really key, I wanted to point it out.
>We're all familiar with the role that goats have played in the
>desertification of the Sahara and the Middle East.
>Is man heading the same way? Or are we smarter than that?
>
Wellllll, we've been around a LONG time...
(And medieval people did much the same, along with their Renassaince
cousins, to the trees in England).
>> >That last one, Quinn points out, is more a sign of having less food,
>> >because we're buying other things with our money.
>>
>> No, don't buy that. The food is there, like it or not, buy it or not.
>
>Hmm, what else other than ecconomics has changed then?
Colonialisation, industrialisation, communication?
Theodore M. Seeber
> >I must have improved since high school. I always lost debates back then.
> >But one of my bills from Student Congress actually almost made it into law
> >a few years back (with changes, they weren't willing to make it an
> >Ammendment :(, so it ended up being just a shade of what it could have
> >been).
>
> Grin..... (It occured to me about 2 am that you might take the above as
> an insult, I am VERY glad you didn't, it wasn't meant as one!).
I should tell all, however.
Back in 1988, in Student Congress, I presented a bill where everybody old
enough for a driver's liscense could vote. It was an amendment to the
constitution, as of course those under 18 cannot vote. My arguments were
the following three: 1. People who drive pay taxes and thus should be
represented on the Federal Level. 2. Most teenagers that drive do so to
work, and thus pay income taxes as well. 3. It would reduce paperwork
and record keeping to have the DMV do all the recordkeeping rather than
the counties/townships.
I did not realize at the time, but congress critters have staff members
that keep an eye on the student congress of their district. I have the
letter from Sen. Mark Hatfield asking if he could turn my third argument
into a bill.
Jump ahead a few years. Hatfield retires from Congress. The idea is
passed on to others. Eventually, the Moter/Voter bill is passed, in a
greatly weakened form. Basically, the counties/townships have the right
to pull voter information from the DMV Database, if the person getting the
license gives them the right to do so. Most state DMVs interpreted this
to mean: Keep a voter reg card stack in every office.
> >> I think revelation puts the archetype into the shade, because the
> >> archetype is a way of trying to explain the cosmos WITHOUT the aid of
> >> revelation, which is the only thing which CAN explain it.
> >Ah, yes. but you can go too far the other direction as well. Denial that
> >Hell exists can be as dangerous as believing that everyone goes there.....
> Ack!
>
> True! I'm not one of those who would deny the existence of hell!
>
> (Although, was it Lewis or Chesterton who said, "We are bound to believe
> that hell exists. We are not bound to believe that anyone is there"?)
> :) (Yes, I know about Teresa of Avila, but no one is bound by a private
> relvaltion....).
Very true, and I wasn't about to bring it up.
I do believe that Purgatory, Hell, and Heaven may all be the same place,
and which one it feels like to the individual soul depends on how much one
accepts God's Grace and forgiveness.
Not sure how that fits in with the five archtypes/gods/forces/whatevers.
> >Especially since theocracies exist...Nah, would make a better sci-fi
> >novella than a thesis....
> >
> >The Electronic Catholic Church, presided over by Patriarch XJ-511....who
> >builds a Holy Cybernetic Empire....
>
> Ohhhh, ick!
>
> Ok, write that and then look at it and call it a Lit. thesis! (That's
> not serious, I know nothing about lit. degrees...).
Neither do I, but it might make a nice novella for a new internet sci-fi
mag that I've been asked to contribute to.
Have to leave it in cyberspace, though, due to the fact that nobody's
figured out how to pack enough memory into a small, moveable robot for a
neural net, knowledge base, and embeded systems....
> >That's the hard part. Philosophy, maybe....
>
> I think you could do it in either philosophy or theology, to be honest.
Maybe. Will definately think about it.
> >Hmm, that's a thought that I didn't think of. Though I wonder, do they
> >write in Cherokee (the only native tounge that has a well-developed
> >transliteration to the Roman Alphabet?
>
> No, it's plain English, I think.... (they have, apparenlty, their share
> of trolls and one-way-ists... I can understand the one-way-ists, cause
> being a "Native American Shaman" is an "in" thing to do in some
> circles... yeah, right....).
Well, it did hold some attraction for me at one time. Until I saw the
pneumonia rates for Edison Village in Southern Oregon (yikes!).
> >All I've had so far from them is a few interviews with medicine men from
> >various tribes (Klamath, Klickitat, T'linkit, and T'Chinook). So many of
> >the tribes out here died of diseases caught from the Russians before
> >Americans settled the area....
>
> Again, I think that ng might be worth lurking in, but when I hear from
> someone else who knows about these things again, I will ask!
Will do. How much time I spend on it however is another thing entirely.
> >This to me seems to be a bit backwards...and I can point to the
> >patriarchial pre-Hebrew tribes in the Bible to disprove it....
>
> Patriarchal tribes which did not enforce female chastity?
Depends on how you define chastity. Monogamy, certainly not.
Ur had it's temple virgins (another, more descriptive term would be temple
whores).
Aberaham didn't exactly stay faithfull to one wife, though Sarah was the
love of his life.
etc.
> >> Now, there are anthropologists saying, "***". Well, they're basically
> >> saying, "get real, people could see animals and figure it out".
> >
> >I'm not so sure that it's clear in ANY mamilian species. Most have at
> >least a 28 day separation between the two...And if your tribe doesn't
> >exactly get the concept of TIME yet...
>
> Grin.... There seems to be some evidence, though, that women got the
> idea of time fairly quickly, BECAUSE of that cycle... However, THAT'S
> hard to square with the idea that women may not have had all that many
> periods, so you pay your money and take your chances!
True. Though, THAT wasn't the 28 day cycle I was talking about, more the
gestation period of certain breeds of mice.
> >That last bit, fewer periods....I've met women who claim that their cycle
> >is 40 days rather than 28, is that what you mean?
>
> No, I mean... well, here.
>
> Imagine you are a 12 year old Neolithic girl (Oh, go on...) :)
>
> You may or may not have intercourse before your periods start, but you
> probably DO experience some little amount of "adolescent sterility".
> However, assuming all things are equal, you get pregnant fairly quickly,
> a year or so.
>
> Ok? No periods for 9 months.
>
> Then you have this baby. You breastfeed said baby, cause it's the only
> way the baby will survive. You are ALSO in a near susbsistence society,
> with very little body fat, so you don't ovulate while breastfeeding, AND
> you don't have periods.
>
> Quite possibly for two-three years.
>
> Depending on your group, you may or may not be having sex during this
> time.
>
> If you ARE, you are quite possibly pregnant BEFORE you have another
> period, so you go another nine months, then another two years...
>
> See? That's what I mean, and some of it is speculation, some of it is
> observations made on subsistence societies today.
Ok, that makes sense.
> >This is really key, I wanted to point it out.
> >We're all familiar with the role that goats have played in the
> >desertification of the Sahara and the Middle East.
> >Is man heading the same way? Or are we smarter than that?
>
> Wellllll, we've been around a LONG time...
So have the goats :-) And man's been breeding goats in the fertile
crescent for upwards of 20,000 years.....
> (And medieval people did much the same, along with their Renassaince
> cousins, to the trees in England).
Yes. And American society uses 40 x the resources for each person as
third world societies do, accelerating the process in North America.
But we plant back.
How long before the land is so worn out that we can't plant back?
> >Hmm, what else other than ecconomics has changed then?
>
> Colonialisation, industrialisation, communication?
All of which would seem to indicate a rising population, when the opposite
is the case.
janet
>> >Hmm, that's a thought that I didn't think of. Though I wonder, do they
>> >write in Cherokee (the only native tounge that has a well-developed
>> >transliteration to the Roman Alphabet?
>>
>> No, it's plain English, I think.... (they have, apparenlty, their share
>> of trolls and one-way-ists... I can understand the one-way-ists, cause
>> being a "Native American Shaman" is an "in" thing to do in some
>> circles... yeah, right....).
>
>Well, it did hold some attraction for me at one time. Until I saw the
>pneumonia rates for Edison Village in Southern Oregon (yikes!).
>
I am reliably advised that alt.native would be a good place to start,
AND that lurking for a while is probably a very good idea!
[]
>
>> >This to me seems to be a bit backwards...and I can point to the
>> >patriarchial pre-Hebrew tribes in the Bible to disprove it....
>>
>> Patriarchal tribes which did not enforce female chastity?
>
>Depends on how you define chastity. Monogamy, certainly not.
>Ur had it's temple virgins (another, more descriptive term would be temple
>whores).
>Aberaham didn't exactly stay faithfull to one wife, though Sarah was the
>love of his life.
>etc.
>
Ah, but he expected her to be faithful to HIM.
The idea is that one needs to know whose children are ones' own.
For women, that's fairly easy... But for men, the ONLY way to know is to
enforce female chastity, at least for the women who will be bearing the
heirs.
[]
>
>> >This is really key, I wanted to point it out.
>> >We're all familiar with the role that goats have played in the
>> >desertification of the Sahara and the Middle East.
>> >Is man heading the same way? Or are we smarter than that?
>>
>> Wellllll, we've been around a LONG time...
>
>So have the goats :-) And man's been breeding goats in the fertile
>crescent for upwards of 20,000 years.....
And thus, has known about the relation between intercourse and babies
for at least that long...
>
>> (And medieval people did much the same, along with their Renassaince
>> cousins, to the trees in England).
>
>Yes. And American society uses 40 x the resources for each person as
>third world societies do, accelerating the process in North America.
>
>But we plant back.
>
>How long before the land is so worn out that we can't plant back?
>
>> >Hmm, what else other than ecconomics has changed then?
>>
>> Colonialisation, industrialisation, communication?
>
>All of which would seem to indicate a rising population, when the opposite
>is the case.
>Ted
Yes, which is why I think your author, and Malthus, are seeing a simple
problem when the reality is much more complex! :)
Theodore M. Seeber
> >Well, it did hold some attraction for me at one time. Until I saw the
> >pneumonia rates for Edison Village in Southern Oregon (yikes!).
>
> I am reliably advised that alt.native would be a good place to start,
> AND that lurking for a while is probably a very good idea!
Just added it to my list...
> >Depends on how you define chastity. Monogamy, certainly not.
> >Ur had it's temple virgins (another, more descriptive term would be temple
> >whores).
> >Aberaham didn't exactly stay faithfull to one wife, though Sarah was the
> >love of his life.
> >etc.
>
> Ah, but he expected her to be faithful to HIM.
True, to a certain extent. Except of course that time he needed her
influence, possibly sexual, with the Pharoah...
> The idea is that one needs to know whose children are ones' own.
Certainly, assumeing of course that those children are going to inherit.
> For women, that's fairly easy... But for men, the ONLY way to know is to
> enforce female chastity, at least for the women who will be bearing the
> heirs.
True.
> >So have the goats :-) And man's been breeding goats in the fertile
> >crescent for upwards of 20,000 years.....
>
> And thus, has known about the relation between intercourse and babies
> for at least that long...
That tribe has. In fact, any tribe that has advanced to the point that
they keep animals around rather than hunting should know this.
But not all human tribes have advanced to that point yet.
Don't worry though, we're quickly hunting down and killing those that are
left behind. :-(
> >How long before the land is so worn out that we can't plant back?
> >
> >> Colonialisation, industrialisation, communication?
> >
> >All of which would seem to indicate a rising population, when the opposite
> >is the case.
>
> Yes, which is why I think your author, and Malthus, are seeing a simple
> problem when the reality is much more complex! :)
That's the conclusion I came to.
janet
>
>
>> >Depends on how you define chastity. Monogamy, certainly not.
>> >Ur had it's temple virgins (another, more descriptive term would be temple
>> >whores).
>> >Aberaham didn't exactly stay faithfull to one wife, though Sarah was the
>> >love of his life.
>> >etc.
>>
>
>True, to a certain extent. Except of course that time he needed her
>influence, possibly sexual, with the Pharoah...
But he was still in control of even that...
>
>> The idea is that one needs to know whose children are ones' own.
>
>Certainly, assumeing of course that those children are going to inherit.
>
That's the idea....
>> For women, that's fairly easy... But for men, the ONLY way to know is to
>> enforce female chastity, at least for the women who will be bearing the
>> heirs.
>
>True.
Grin.... you DO realise that we have managed to agree on something, and
it traces back to Engels, don't you? :>
[]
Theodore M. Seeber
> >True, to a certain extent. Except of course that time he needed her
> >influence, possibly sexual, with the Pharoah...
>
> But he was still in control of even that...
Only by blowing the con....
> Grin.... you DO realise that we have managed to agree on something, and
> it traces back to Engels, don't you? :>
Yes.