Shakespeare an atheist?
RichD
instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
Although there are several references to the
Greek pantheon...
I wonder if he was a closet atheist... he was
certainly smart enough to question dogma
and superstition...
--
Rich
Mitchell Holman
f69398...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
In a country still divided between 2 camps
of religious extremists he was wise to not
mention religion at all.
Hard to tell what his real feelings were......
Arturo Magidin
> I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
Henry IV, Part 2, Act I, Scene II, Hume after entering. Just the first
one I found.
> Although there are several references to the
> Greek pantheon...
Usually either in historical context, or as metaphors.
> I wonder if he was a closet atheist...
Given the large number of mentions to Providence in the plays, it
seems that like many before you have found in Shakespeare what you
brought there yourself, in addition to everything he put in.
--
Arturo Magidin
Jimbo
Shakespeare's works contained a wealth of biblical and liturgical
allusions. However, his personal religion is still a matter of
scholarly debate. Based on mostly circumstantial evidence, some say
he was catholic, but there has never been any direct evidence for his
religion.
Jimbo
> RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3a808eb6-467a-4240-821b-
> f693983dc...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> > instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
> > Although there are several references to the
> > Greek pantheon...
>
> > I wonder if he was a closet atheist... he was
> > certainly smart enough to question dogma
> > and superstition...
>
> > --
> > Rich
>
> In a country still divided between 2 camps
> of religious extremists he was wise to not
> mention religion at all.
>
Agreed, in a culture where one could be dragged from their homes and
imprisoned or killed by the religious authority extant, one hd to be
careful what one wrote.
John W Kennedy
> I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
There are, in fact, quite a few.
> Although there are several references to the
> Greek pantheon...
I can't find any. There are good many references to the Roman pantheon,
though.
> I wonder if he was a closet atheist...
You have, of course, compared him to other playwrights of the period? Or
to Christian writers of /any/ period when writing non-religious works
(Dorothy L. Sayers' detective stories, for example)?
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
John W Kennedy
> Shakespeare's works contained a wealth of biblical and liturgical
> allusions. However, his personal religion is still a matter of
> scholarly debate. Based on mostly circumstantial evidence, some say
> he was catholic, but there has never been any direct evidence for his
> religion.
Well, it can be safely concluded that he was neither a fanatical RC (who
could not have written "King John" nor "Henry VIII") nor a fanatical
Protestant (who would not have worked in the professional theatre to
begin with).
--
John W. Kennedy
A proud member of the reality-based community.
Les Hellawell
Hamlet is much about lfe and death. There is the scene
where the Kings (who murdered his brother to gan the
crown, doing it for what was to him needed) considers his sins. He
says
"My fault is past, But, O, what form of prayer
Can serve my turn?
...
"May one be pardoned, and retain th' offence?"
Hamlet, observing, says
"Now I might do it pat, now he is praying ...
and so he goes to heaven.."
In other words killing him when he has confessed
isn't the right time to do it. He would send him
to heaven.
The King concludes
"My words fly up and my thoughts remain below;
Words without thought never to heaven go."
Much of Hamlet is enigmatic and I am never sure
whether this is a parody on the belief there is such
as god to forgive sins just through sincere prayer or not.
Can the King be forgiven or does he bear his
guilt til death? Does killing somebody immediately
after confession for a crime send them to heaven?
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
lackpurity
MM:
He was getting his message across cryptically. Obviously, if one
believes in Zeus, Venus, Adonis, Apollo, etc., he could not be called
an atheist, IMO. Marlowe did the same. He was never an atheist.
Shakespeare was at the source of all dogmas and doctrines.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3a808eb6-467a-4240-821b-
> f693983dc...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> > instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
> > Although there are several references to the
> > Greek pantheon...
>
> > I wonder if he was a closet atheist... he was
> > certainly smart enough to question dogma
> > and superstition...
>
> > --
> > Rich
>
> � In a country still divided between 2 camps
> of religious extremists he was wise to not
> mention religion at all.
>
> � Hard to tell what his real feelings were......
MM:
He made many references to spirituality. In fact, all the sonnets and
plays are based on it. Whitman knew it. He wrote in prose, "What
lurks behind Shaksper's Plays?"
It really takes a mystic to explain the mysticism in the canon.
Otherwise, the Gods and Goddesses might confuse many.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
In "As You Like It," he admitted that he was not writing, as he would
have preferred. The culture had its influence, as you mentioned, even
though Shakespeare was friends with the Queen, IMO. I believe the
Queen was a peripheral member of the Wilton cult, but even the Queen
had to be careful.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> On Oct 30, 9:15�pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> > instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
>
> Henry IV, Part 2, Act I, Scene II, Hume after entering. Just the first
> one I found.
>
> > Although there are several references to the
> > Greek pantheon...
>
> Usually either in historical context, or as metaphors.
MM:
Sometimes, he got away with mentioning them straightforwardly. He
knew when he could get away with that, and when he had to try to hide
it, to an extent.
> > I wonder if he was a closet atheist...
>
> Given the large number of mentions to Providence in the plays, it
> seems that like many before you have found in Shakespeare what you
> brought there yourself, in addition to everything he put in.
MM:
That's right. Due to past lives, some come to Shakespeare fairly
ready for the highest teachings. Some are not so ready, but
Shakespeare tried to give something for everyone. He was like an
unlimited ocean of spirituality, while others were tributaries,
seeking the ocean. Some came from melting snow. Some came from
springs in the ground. Despite the various backgrounds, they all
sought unity in Shakespeare.
> Arturo Magidin
Michael Martin
Brian E. Clark
jwk...@attglobal.net says...
[...]
> > Although there are several references to the
> > Greek pantheon...
>
> I can't find any.
Really? What the Hecate is wrong with you?
When I read the works of ol' Will, I can't help but notice
that he borrowed rather heavily from Greek mythology -- and
I'm not even counting the fact that _Two Gentlemen of
Verona_ itself references several Greek myths. :)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Brian E. Clark
f69398...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, r_delaney2001
@yahoo.com says...
> I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
Jesus is mentioned by name in the "ivvy" Henries: Henry IV
and Henry VI.
God is mentioned in many, many places.
> Although there are several references to the
> Greek pantheon...
>
> I wonder if he was a closet atheist...
Writers for the Catholic Church have wondered the same
thing on more than one occassion.
> he was certainly smart enough to question dogma
> and superstition...
We are such Stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
John W Kennedy
> In article <4aebb939$0$31264$607e...@cv.net>,
> jwk...@attglobal.net says...
>
> [...]
>
>>> Although there are several references to the
>>> Greek pantheon...
>> I can't find any.
>
> Really? What the Hecate is wrong with you?
Offhand, I cannot find any reference to Hecate (who is not an Olympian
to begin with) except in her Renaissance identity as queen of witches, etc..
> When I read the works of ol' Will, I can't help but notice
> that he borrowed rather heavily from Greek mythology -- and
> I'm not even counting the fact that _Two Gentlemen of
> Verona_ itself references several Greek myths. :)
That is no more than to say that (by the standards of his time) he was
ordinarily literate.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like That.
...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not because
it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because it is
violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"
Christopher A. Lee
The Midsummer Night's Dream is a fusion of pre-Christian British
mythology (Oberon, Titania, Puck, the faery) and Greek (Theseus,
Hippolyta) and and Middle-English itinerant players.
Christopher A. Lee
<brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>In article <3a808eb6-467a-4240-821b-
>f69398...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, r_delaney2001
>@yahoo.com says...
>
>> I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
>> instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
>
>Jesus is mentioned by name in the "ivvy" Henries: Henry IV
>and Henry VI.
>
>God is mentioned in many, many places.
>
>> Although there are several references to the
>> Greek pantheon...
>>
>> I wonder if he was a closet atheist...
>
>Writers for the Catholic Church have wondered the same
>thing on more than one occassion.
What he wrote gives an insight into his audience. It suggests that
religion wasn't as important to them as to the church leaders.
He gives several other cultural insights including respect and
disrespect for previous Kings who were and weren't in favour,
attitudes to Jews etc.
Including bawdy humour - "sweet Wall I kiss thy hole" and the line in
Henry VI where the Dauphin's horemanship / whoresmanship is praised.
Jimbo
> Jimbo wrote:
> > Shakespeare's works contained a wealth of biblical and liturgical
> > allusions. However, his personal religion is still a matter of
> > scholarly debate. Based on mostly circumstantial evidence, some say
> > he was catholic, but there has never been any direct evidence for his
> > religion.
>
> Well, it can be safely concluded that he was neither a fanatical RC (who
> could not have written "King John" nor "Henry VIII") nor a fanatical
> Protestant (who would not have worked in the professional theatre to
> begin with).
>
Agreed. If he had a religion at all, it was not of the fanatical, or
even close, variety.
Nomen Publicus
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:19:59 -0400, Brian E. Clark
> <brian...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <3a808eb6-467a-4240-821b-
>>f69398...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, r_delaney2001
>>@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>> I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
>>> instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
>>
>>Jesus is mentioned by name in the "ivvy" Henries: Henry IV
>>and Henry VI.
>>
>>God is mentioned in many, many places.
>>
>>> Although there are several references to the
>>> Greek pantheon...
>>>
>>> I wonder if he was a closet atheist...
>>
>>Writers for the Catholic Church have wondered the same
>>thing on more than one occassion.
>
> What he wrote gives an insight into his audience. It suggests that
> religion wasn't as important to them as to the church leaders.
"Will not a filthy play, with the blast of a trumpet, sooner call thither a
thousand, than an hour's tolling of a bell, bring to the sermon a hundred?"
-- John Stockwood, 1578
>
> He gives several other cultural insights including respect and
> disrespect for previous Kings who were and weren't in favour,
> attitudes to Jews etc.
>
> Including bawdy humour - "sweet Wall I kiss thy hole" and the line in
> Henry VI where the Dauphin's horemanship / whoresmanship is praised.
>
>>> he was certainly smart enough to question dogma
>>> and superstition...
>>
>> We are such Stuff
>> As dreams are made on, and our little life
>> Is rounded with a sleep.
--
Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.
Karla
wrote:
>RichD wrote:
>> I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
>> instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
>
>There are, in fact, quite a few.
>
>> Although there are several references to the
>> Greek pantheon...
>
>I can't find any. There are good many references to the Roman pantheon,
>though.
Sonnet 53
What is your substance, whereof are you made,
That millions of strange shadows on you tend?
Since every one hath, every one, one shade,
And you, but one, can every shadow lend.
Describe Adonis, and the counterfeit
Is poorly imitated after you;
On Helen's cheek all art of beauty set,
And you in Grecian tires are painted new.
Speak of the spring and foison of the year;
The one doth shadow of your beauty show,
The other as your bounty doth appear,
And you in every blessed shape we know.
In all external grace you have some part,
But you like none, none you, for constant heart.
Even so, the speaker is not the poet, necessarily. In Sonnet 54, the last
four lines certainly sound like Christian doctrine.
Sonnet 54
Not marble nor the gilded monuments
Of princes shall outlive this pow’rful rhyme,
But you shall shine more bright in these conténts
Than unswept stone, besmeared with sluttish time.
When wasteful war shall statues overturn,
And broils root out the work of masonry,
Nor Mars his sword, nor war’s quick fire shall burn
The living record of your memory.
'Gainst death and all oblivious enmity
Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room,
Ev’n in the eyes of all posterity
That wear this world out to the ending doom.
So till the judgment that yourself arise,
You live in this and dwell in lovers' eyes.
I think he's referring to himself as a god of this world (ll. 2, 8, 14) in
that he causes the addressee to live and dwell on while this world exists.
However, he's probably just wooing, not seriously blashemping.
Skipper
<kar...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
> But you shall shine more bright in these cont�nts
> Than unswept stone, besmeared with sluttish time.
> When wasteful war shall statues overturn,
> And broils root out the work of masonry,
> Nor Mars his sword, nor war�s quick fire shall burn
> The living record of your memory.
> 'Gainst death and all oblivious enmity
> Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room,
> Ev�n in the eyes of all posterity
> That wear this world out to the ending doom.
> So till the judgment that yourself arise,
> You live in this and dwell in lovers' eyes.
>
> I think he's referring to himself as a god of this world (ll. 2, 8, 14) in
> that he causes the addressee to live and dwell on while this world exists.
> However, he's probably just wooing, not seriously blashemping.
>
> >> I wonder if he was a closet atheist...
> >
> >You have, of course, compared him to other playwrights of the period? Or
> >to Christian writers of /any/ period when writing non-religious works
> >(Dorothy L. Sayers' detective stories, for example)?
"My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words without thoughts
never to heaven go." Hamlet (Act III, Scene 3)
Yeah, real atheist that. What a dumbass thread.
Peter Farey
"Skipper" wrote:
>
> "My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words without
> thoughts never to heaven go." Hamlet (Act III, Scene 3)
>
> Yeah, real atheist that. What a dumbass thread.
Shakespeare (and Marlowe before him) quite deliberately gave
his characters speeches in which opposing views were presented
as far as possible in an equally convincing way, leaving the
audience to think about which of the arguments was right. This
is why almost anyone can claim Shakespeare as supporting
their own point of view.
Unfortunately this also means that using the words of characters
in his plays to ascertain what Shakespeare really believed is a
course which (as you so amply demonstrate) only dumbasses
would pursue.
The Sonnets, however, are a different matter, since the poet
is (at least ostensibly) speaking as himself. On the other hand
one does need to understand that such poems were appar-
ently intended for eventual publication, and that some views
might therefore at that time need to be disguised somewhat,
particularly any which reflected religious unorthodoxy.
Sonnet 125 provides a good example. It is almost universally
taken to be a comment upon how precarious it is for courtiers
etc. to rely upon the patronage and support of great patrons.
If we examine the whole thing rather more carefully, however,
we see that no fewer than 11 of the 14 lines are closely conn-
ected with the Holy Communion part of the 1559 Book of
Common Prayer.
The first four lines of the Sonnet go like this:
Were't ought to me I bore the canopy,
With my extern the outward honoring,
Or laid great bases for eternity,
Which proves more short than waste or ruining?
The first two lines can be closely related to Holy Communion,
and the following quotation (in fact originally from 1 Timothy 6)
can be found in that part of the 1559 Book of Common Prayer:
"Charge them whyche are ryche in thys worlde, that they be
ready to give, and glade to distribute, laying up in store
for them selves a good foundacion, against the time to come,
that they may attayne eternal lyfe."
It really is hard to think of a better conversion into an
iambic pentameter of the words "laying up...a good foundation...
that they may attain eternal life" than "Or laid great bases
for eternity". Is it?
In which case, what does the poet really mean when he says that
it (eternity?) "proves more short than waste or ruining?"
Sounds pretty atheistic to me.
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Grand Mal
"Skipper" <skipSP...@yahoo.not> wrote in message
news:011120090749582652%skipSP...@yahoo.not...
And he would never put words into a character's mouth that he didn't believe
himself.
Les Hellawell
wrote:
Shakespeare like Socrates asks questions but in an entertaning way. I
suspect this passage, in which the King muses on whether he really can
just confess his sins and get away with it is one such question.
Hamlet decides to kill the King for murdering his father but then
changes his mind seeing the King has confessed. "Am I just sending him
to heaven? He asks? In other words is the Catholic belief that you are
somehow in a 'state of grace' if you sincerely beg forgiveness no
matter how henious the crime true? Would a vile murderer really go to
straight to heaven if killed? Or is the whole thing just nonesense.
This is not so much Shakespeare beleving something himself
but thinking aloud, asking questions, is this so?
Will Dockery
Good question... wonder if the great thinkers of a.a.p.c. have any
thoughts or recollection of this... sending it over so they can have a
look.
--
"Red Lipped Stranger & other stories" by Will Dockery:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Christopher A. Lee
Hamlet's soliloquy always seemed remarkably agnostic to me.
But I would say it doesn't just describe Shakespeare's thoughts but
reflects his audience.
Christopher A. Lee
<l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>Shakespeare like Socrates asks questions but in an entertaning way. I
>suspect this passage, in which the King muses on whether he really can
>just confess his sins and get away with it is one such question.
>Hamlet decides to kill the King for murdering his father but then
>changes his mind seeing the King has confessed. "Am I just sending him
>to heaven? He asks? In other words is the Catholic belief that you are
>somehow in a 'state of grace' if you sincerely beg forgiveness no
>matter how henious the crime true? Would a vile murderer really go to
>straight to heaven if killed? Or is the whole thing just nonesense.
>
>This is not so much Shakespeare beleving something himself
>but thinking aloud, asking questions, is this so?
Will Shakspere:
The tinyurl to avoid line wrap problems
Alan Hope
Turban Joe Balasootoe
Who could possibly know or would care?
lackpurity
> In article <o5lpe5hfoih6d5kd6nd6ieplbfb371k...@4ax.com>, Karla
>
>
>
>
>
> <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:12:45 -0400, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net>
MM:
Shakespeare was a Mystic Adept. There are three main steps in
mysticism.
1 --- Simran, or repetition of the Guru's Mantra.
2 --- Dhyan, contemplation of the Master's Form.
3 --- Dhun, listening to the inner, holy sound, i.e. holy spirit.
Now, Shakespeare was attempting his simran, but his mind had thoughts
of the world below. What a mystic needs to do, is visualize Master's
form, then the thoughts can ascend with the words to heaven.
Shakespeare was hinting to leave all worldly thoughts below, and
ascend to heaven in the company of the Master. Mysticism has two main
faculties, the power to see (Nirat) and the power to hear (Surat.)
Nirat is concentrated on visualizing the Master. Surat is listening
to one's repetition and then listening to the Holy Sound, when it
manifests.
Ordinary readers have been befuddled for 400 years on that one. That
is why it takes a mystic to explain Shakespeare.
Michael Martin
Skipper
<5b3955d0-2f5a-4d4a...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
lackpurity <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > ? ?In all external grace you have some part,
> > > ? ?But you like none, none you, for constant heart.
> >
> > > Even so, the speaker is not the poet, necessarily. In Sonnet 54, the last
> > > four lines certainly sound like Christian doctrine.
> >
> > > Sonnet 54
> >
> > > Not marble nor the gilded monuments
> > > Of princes shall outlive this pow?rful rhyme,
> > > But you shall shine more bright in these cont?nts
> > > Than unswept stone, besmeared with sluttish time.
> > > When wasteful war shall statues overturn,
> > > And broils root out the work of masonry,
> > > Nor Mars his sword, nor war?s quick fire shall burn
> > > The living record of your memory.
> > > 'Gainst death and all oblivious enmity
> > > Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room,
> > > Ev?n in the eyes of all posterity
> > > That wear this world out to the ending doom.
> > > ? ?So till the judgment that yourself arise,
> > > ? ?You live in this and dwell in lovers' eyes.
Well, there ya go. Him and Mohammad. Sure thing. Was it the 19 virgins?
lackpurity
> In article
MM:
His Master was Christopher Marlowe. He was actively seeking to regain
his spirituality, God-Realization. Marlowe was the forerunner, as
John the Baptist was the forerunner for Christ.
Michael Martin
Skipper
<887fddb5-3b17-4e58...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
lackpurity <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Shakespeare was a Mystic Adept. ?There are three main steps in
> > > mysticism.
> >
> > > 1 --- Simran, or repetition of the Guru's Mantra.
> >
> > > 2 --- Dhyan, contemplation of the Master's Form.
> >
> > > 3 --- Dhun, listening to the inner, holy sound, i.e. holy spirit.
> >
> > > Now, Shakespeare was attempting his simran, but his mind had thoughts
> > > of the world below. ?What a mystic needs to do, is visualize Master's
> > > form, then the thoughts can ascend with the words to heaven.
> > > Shakespeare was hinting to leave all worldly thoughts below, and
> > > ascend to heaven in the company of the Master. ?Mysticism has two main
> > > faculties, the power to see (Nirat) and the power to hear (Surat.)
> > > Nirat is concentrated on visualizing the Master. ?Surat is listening
> > > to one's repetition and then listening to the Holy Sound, when it
> > > manifests.
> >
> > > Ordinary readers have been befuddled for 400 years on that one. ?That
> > > is why it takes a mystic to explain Shakespeare.
> >
> > > Michael Martin
> >
> > Well, there ya go. Him and Mohammad. Sure thing. Was it the 19 virgins?
>
> MM:
> His Master was Christopher Marlowe. He was actively seeking to regain
> his spirituality, God-Realization. Marlowe was the forerunner, as
> John the Baptist was the forerunner for Christ.
>
> Michael Martin
Give me a break. Next thing I know you'll have the secret journals of
the School of Night. Marlowe was a very close friend but there was no
spiritual master relationship. If anything, Shakespeare was Marlowe's
counsel, and couldn't save him.
hypa...@comcast.net
> I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
> Greek pantheon...
>
> certainly smart enough to question dogma
> and superstition...
>
but with no other information.
hypa...@comcast.net
> On Oct 30, 9:15 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> > instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
>
> one I found.
>
> > Greek pantheon...
>
>
>
> seems that like many before you have found in Shakespeare what you
> brought there yourself, in addition to everything he put in.
>
particularly Shakespeare himself.
hypa...@comcast.net
<brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <3a808eb6-467a-4240-821b-
> f693983dc...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, r_delaney2001
Christopher A. Lee
No, but he doesn't read like somebody who took religion all that
seriously.
Or expected his audience to either, which gives an insight into the
general level of religiosity of Elizabethan England. Remember that her
father that thrown out Rome and not gone European-style Puritan
Protestant because the King had wanted to do his own thing and wasn't
really interested in running a church of which he was the head.
Christopher A. Lee
Literature like that reflects the culture. For example the attitude to
Jews as shown by Shylock.
Christopher A. Lee
I don't think so. His mother was definitely a Catholic and his father
reorted to be one. The translation is supposed to have been done by
members of the Church of England. Although at the time the CofE was
basically Catholic lite without the Pope.
Arturo Magidin
wrote:
So.... if there is no mention of Jesus in the plays by any speaker,
then this is indicative that perhaps Shakespeare was an atheist. The
doubts expressed by the people in the plays are to be attributed to
Shakespeare himself. Ah, but any specific mentions that would
undermine that view are just "the way the people in the play would
speak", and are not to be attributed to Shakespeare himself?
Pull the other one. It's got bells on.
--
Arturo Magidin
Skipper
Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
His own "thing"? You mean kill wives that didn't give him a son and get
another who might?
Of course he didn't want to run a church - demons never do.
Skipper
<bb09c35d-0896-4bac...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Arturo Magidin <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote:
Shhh! You'll stop the fools from prancing, and they're so entertaining.
Arturo Magidin
> In article <0ts5f5lkijq9bsn404bmqr8c56fdho4...@4ax.com>, Christopher A.
>
>
>
> Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:19:45 -0800 (PST), "hypati...@comcast.net"
> > <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >On Oct 30, 9:15 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> > >> instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
> > >> Although there are several references to the
> > >> Greek pantheon...
>
> > >> I wonder if he was a closet atheist... he was
> > >> certainly smart enough to question dogma
> > >> and superstition...
>
> > >I've read mentions of this possibility over the years,
> > >but with no other information.
>
> > No, but he doesn't read like somebody who took religion all that
> > seriously.
>
> > Or expected his audience to either, which gives an insight into the
> > general level of religiosity of Elizabethan England. Remember that her
> > father that thrown out Rome and not gone European-style Puritan
> > Protestant because the King had wanted to do his own thing and wasn't
> > really interested in running a church of which he was the head.
>
> His own "thing"? You mean kill wives that didn't give him a son and get
> another who might?
He only had two killed, and both for adultery; he was certainly easily
bored with women, but after Katharine he was able to simply anull the
marriage (as he did with Anne of Cleves). Boleyn and Howard were
beheaded for cheating on him, not for failing to give him a son (and,
with Howard, he already had one). And yes, very hypocritical, since
at the time he was probably either already cheating himself, or had
his eye on the next one (true with Boleyn for sure...)
> Of course he didn't want to run a church - demons never do.
Actually he did want to run a church: he wanted the money and lands
accummulated by the Church in England, and to not have *anyone* tell
him what to do. That required him to build and run his own church.
Which he did, declaring himself supreme head of the church in England,
and keeping the title of Defender of the Faith.
--
Arturo Magidin
Skipper
<5e4e95f7-be37-42c3...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Arturo Magidin <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote:
In short, a complete psychopath, demonic, self-absorbed, and evil.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
What a fucking moron.
Arturo Magidin
> In article
>
> In short, a complete psychopath, demonic, self-absorbed, and evil.
Only if by "in short" you mean "whatever, dude, I'll just repeat my
nonsense over again and pretend that you justified it."
Otherwise, sorry, but not just "no", but "hell no".
Now, if you do not actually have any interest in either thinking or
listening, do go away.
---
Arturo Magidin
Eva
>
> - Show quoted text -
Will I do not understand this place
Will Dockery
> On Nov 2, 1:55 pm, Turban Joe Balasootoe <ddca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 30, 9:15 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> > > > instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
> > > > Although there are several references to the
> > > > Greek pantheon...
>
> > > > I wonder if he was a closet atheist... he was
> > > > certainly smart enough to question dogma
> > > > and superstition...
>
> > > > --
> > > > Rich
>
> > > Good question... wonder if the great thinkers of a.a.p.c. have any
> > > thoughts or recollection of this... sending it over so they can have a
> > > look.
>
> > > --
> > > "Red Lipped Stranger & other stories" by Will Dockery:http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
>
> > Who could possibly know or would care?-
>
Hello, Eva... I can post the link to the FAQ (Frequently Asked
Questions) for alt.arts.poetry.comments but basically it is a free,
uncensored open forum for poets and their hecklers. Fools like the one
who posted above are here, as well as a few good people...
On the Shakespeare topic, I've been posting from the Sonnet-A-Day
mailings for a while now, and here's the one they sent me for today:
Sonnet #93
Posted:
XCIII.
So shall I live, supposing thou art true,
Like a deceived husband; so love's face
May still seem love to me, though alter'd new;
Thy looks with me, thy heart in other place:
For there can live no hatred in thine eye,
Therefore in that I cannot know thy change.
In many's looks the false heart's history
Is writ in moods and frowns and wrinkles strange,
But heaven in thy creation did decree
That in thy face sweet love should ever dwell;
Whate'er thy thoughts or thy heart's workings be,
Thy looks should nothing thence but sweetness tell.
How like Eve's apple doth thy beauty grow,
if thy sweet virtue answer not thy show!
-Wm. Shakespeare
Eva
>
> - Show quoted text -
Will, no that is ok. really don't like angry people.
Eva
>
> - Show quoted text -
Will, i have trouble with the dumb letters to type in/
Will Dockery
Yes, Eva, this place does have the good and bad elements... I'm here
for the poetry and the promotion of my poetry. I imagine it isn't for
everyone...
fasgnadh
> On Nov 5, 6:00 pm, Will Dockery <will.dock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 6:50 pm, Eva <purple13...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 2, 1:55 pm, Turban Joe Balasootoe <ddca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 2, 10:43 am, Will Dockery wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 30, 9:15 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm a Shakespeare fan,
clearly not a very well read one.
>>>>>> and I can't recall a single
>>>>>> instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
They do say drugs affects the memory...
>>>>>> I wonder if he was a closet atheist...
Ah, the classic basis of atheist self delusion...
speculation, imagineering, idle fancying, wondering,
pretending, fabricating... never ANY PROOF!!!! B^]
That is always provided by someone who punctures
one more Atheist UNPROVEN BELIEF:
>> On the Shakespeare topic, I've been posting from the Sonnet-A-Day
>> mailings for a while now, and here's the one they sent me for today:
>>
>> Sonnet #93
>> Posted:
>> XCIII.
>>
>> So shall I live, supposing thou art true,
>> Like a deceived husband; so love's face
>> May still seem love to me, though alter'd new;
>> Thy looks with me, thy heart in other place:
>> For there can live no hatred in thine eye,
>> Therefore in that I cannot know thy change.
>> In many's looks the false heart's history
>> Is writ in moods and frowns and wrinkles strange,
>> But heaven in thy creation did decree
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> That in thy face sweet love should ever dwell;
>> Whate'er thy thoughts or thy heart's workings be,
>> Thy looks should nothing thence but sweetness tell.
>> How like Eve's apple doth thy beauty grow,
>> if thy sweet virtue answer not thy show!
>>
>> -Wm. Shakespeare
>>
Ok.. all those atheists who believe that Heaven in his
creation Did Decree that Shakespeare is an atheist put your
hands up and sign your committment to a menatal institution here:
I ...RichD....................... am a self-d3eluding atheist nutjob!
I ............................... am a self-d3eluding atheist nutjob!
I ............................... am a self-d3eluding atheist nutjob!
I ............................... am a self-d3eluding atheist nutjob!
I ............................... am a self-d3eluding atheist nutjob!
I ............................... am a self-d3eluding atheist nutjob!
This is as hilarious as atheists claiming all babies are atheists
"because they have no conception of a God"
PROVE IT!? B^D
--
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
Skipper
Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
Well, that, too. And you'd know, given your family. :-)
Skipper
<47d84ec5-c404-46ea...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Arturo Magidin <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote:
Sorry, Arturo, contrary to the delusions of the little man who talks to
you in the mirror each morning and provides your daily instructions,
you do not run the Internet.
Arturo Magidin
> In article
>
>
>
> ArturoMagidin<magi...@member.ams.org> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 4:07 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <5e4e95f7-be37-42c3-a8e1-e82ab17c6...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
> Sorry, Arturo, contrary to the delusions of the little man who talks to
> you in the mirror each morning and provides your daily instructions,
> you do not run the Internet.
Sorry, dear, but I did not claim nor do I believe that I run the
internet. I simply expressed my opinion of your worth.
Oh, and to *you*, dear, it's "Dr. Magidin". Do learn to show some
respect to your betters. You'd think you'd be used to by now, given
how pretty much everyone is your better.
--
Arturo Magidin
Arturo Magidin
> In article
>
> Sorry, Arturo, contrary to the delusions of the little man who talks to
> you in the mirror each morning and provides your daily instructions,
> you do not run the Internet.
Sorry, dear; you are confusing your life with mine.
I do note that you tacitly admit that you have no interest in either
thinking or listening. I did not actually believe you *would* go away,
though hope springs eternal. I figured, given your stubborn stupidity
and ignorance, that you would also exhibit a stubborn desire to stay
here and show off just how big an idiot you are. And I was right.
Oh, one more thing, dear. To *you*, it's "Doctor Magidin". You really
should have learned already to show respect to your betters, seeing
how that's pretty much everyone you ever meet.
--
Arturo Magidin
Will Dockery
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
You seem to be getting the hang of it pretty well for your first day,
Eva... hope you'll stay with us.
--
"Absolute elsewhere in the stones of your mind..." -John Lennon
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Skipper
<fa7f4358-9a45-4eeb...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Arturo Magidin <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote:
WTF, Artie, I didn't know you were gay.
Skipper
<be8b7769-3cb5-45ee...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Arturo Magidin <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote:
Boy, that little blast of truth really fucked you up, huh? You had to
post your reply twice. Surely there must be a cleaners nearby that can
untwist your panties and clean 'em. Good luck!
Arturo Magidin
> In article
Ah, Skippy. Still going through life confusing condescencion for the
brain-damaged with signs of affection? You must think *everyone* is in
love with you...
--
Arturo Magidin
Arturo Magidin
> In article
> Boy, that little blast of truth really fucked you up, huh?
"Truth"? LOL.
>You had to
> post your reply twice.
Don't know much about newsreaders and missends, do you?
What am I saying? You don't know much. Period.
> Surely there must be a cleaners nearby that can
> untwist your panties and clean 'em. Good luck!
Still confusing your life with mine, huh? Tell you what, dear: if you
get a clue, give me a call. I won't hold my breath, though; not from
someone who "argues" that a particular piece of made-up "evidence"
supports a proposition, and when confronted with the idiocy of that
proposition, without batting an eyelash can claim that the same piece
of made-up "evidence" supports the *opposite* conclusion.
Oh, well. Takes all kinds, I guess, but surely the world would be
better if you weren't wasting its oxygen.
--
Arturo Magidin
Skipper
<4254a251-39ad-4134...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Arturo Magidin <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote:
Oh, you're just such a brilliant meanie, aintcha doctor?
Grab your dick again and piss on your monitor one more time, you'll
feel better I'm sure.
Skipper
<22ba6654-d7a5-4fc2...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Arturo Magidin <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote:
Boy, that sure got your trolling. Feel better, little boy?
Arturo Magidin
> > > > Oh, and to *you*, dear, it's "Dr. Magidin". Do learn to show some
> > > > respect to your betters. You'd think you'd be used to by now, given
> > > > how pretty much everyone is your better.
>
> > > WTF, Artie, I didn't know you were gay.
>
> > Ah, Skippy. Still going through life confusing condescencion for the
> > brain-damaged with signs of affection? You must think *everyone* is in
> > love with you...
> Oh, you're just such a brilliant meanie, aintcha doctor?
Well, to you, *everyone* must seem brilliant.
> Grab your dick again and piss on your monitor one more time, you'll
> feel better I'm sure.
Classic projection. It really must suck to be you.
--
Arturo Magidin
Arturo Magidin
> > > Surely there must be a cleaners nearby that can
> > > untwist your panties and clean 'em. Good luck!
>
> > Still confusing your life with mine, huh? Tell you what, dear: if you
> > get a clue, give me a call. I won't hold my breath, though; not from
> > someone who "argues" that a particular piece of made-up "evidence"
> > supports a proposition, and when confronted with the idiocy of that
> > proposition, without batting an eyelash can claim that the same piece
> > of made-up "evidence" supports the *opposite* conclusion.
>
> > Oh, well. Takes all kinds, I guess, but surely the world would be
> > better if you weren't wasting its oxygen.
>
> Boy, that sure got your trolling. Feel better, little boy?
Okay: so you don't know history, you don't know logic, and you don't
know what "trolling" means. Is there anything you *do*, know, Skippy?
Other than how to project your inadequacies on your betters, that is.
*That* we already know about.
--
Arturo Magidin
Skipper
<fbcda9a8-bdeb-4e5c...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Arturo Magidin <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote:
I love it when noodles like you loose a Usenet argument, instantly
reverting to the terrified "we" as though you speak for everyone in the
known universe. You might be fun if you weren't so predictable.
fasgnadh
hands up and sign your committment to a mental institution here:
>
> I ...RichD....................... am a self-deluding atheist nutjob!
>
> I ............................... am a self-deluding atheist nutjob!
>
> I ............................... am a self-deluding atheist nutjob!
>
> I ............................... am a self-deluding atheist nutjob!
>
> I ............................... am a self-deluding atheist nutjob!
>
> I ............................... am a self-deluding atheist nutjob!
>
>
>
> This is as hilarious as atheists claiming all babies are atheists
> "because they have no conception of a God"
>
>
> PROVE IT!? B^D
Poor Virgil has developed a stutter.. it was only necessary
to enter ONCE, Virgil, and in your case even that was redundant;
>
> I ...the futile......... am a self-deluding theist nutjob!
>
> I ...the futile......... am a self-deluding theist nutjob!
>
> I ... the futile......... am a self-deluding theist nutjob!
>
> I ... the futile......... am a self-deluding theist nutjob!
>
> I ... the futile......... am a self-deluding theist nutjob!
>
> I ... the futile......... am a self-deluding theist nutjob!
>
> I ... the futile......... am a self-deluding theist nutjob!
>
> I ... the futile......... am a self-deluding theist nutjob!
>
> I ... the futile......... am a self-deluding theist nutjob!
>
> I ... the futile......... am a self-deluding theist nutjob!
>
> I ... the futile......... am a self-deluding theist nutjob!
>
> I ... the futile......... am a self-deluding theist nutjob!
Arturo Magidin
> In article
>
>
>
> Arturo Magidin <magi...@member.ams.org> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 5:02 pm, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>
> > > > > Surely there must be a cleaners nearby that can
> > > > > untwist your panties and clean 'em. Good luck!
>
> > > > Still confusing your life with mine, huh? Tell you what, dear: if you
> > > > get a clue, give me a call. I won't hold my breath, though; not from
> > > > someone who "argues" that a particular piece of made-up "evidence"
> > > > supports a proposition, and when confronted with the idiocy of that
> > > > proposition, without batting an eyelash can claim that the same piece
> > > > of made-up "evidence" supports the *opposite* conclusion.
>
> > > > Oh, well. Takes all kinds, I guess, but surely the world would be
> > > > better if you weren't wasting its oxygen.
>
> > > Boy, that sure got your trolling. Feel better, little boy?
>
> > Okay: so you don't know history, you don't know logic, and you don't
> > know what "trolling" means. Is there anything you *do*, know, Skippy?
> > Other than how to project your inadequacies on your betters, that is.
> > *That* we already know about.
> I love it when noodles like you loose a Usenet argument, instantly
> reverting to the terrified "we" as though you speak for everyone in the
> known universe. You might be fun if you weren't so predictable.
Ah, yes; you are also incapable of distinguishing reality from your
fantasies. Fair enough. But do keep trying. Maybe one day you will
raise to the level of merely incompetent, instead of laughably stupid.
--
Arturo Magidin
Skipper
<62260392-5dbb-44c7...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Arturo Magidin <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote:
Gosh, Artie, we're getting to be so chummy. When you come down off the
absinthe, give a ring, will you?
Arturo Magidin
> In article
>
> Gosh, Artie, we're getting to be so chummy. When you come down off the
> absinthe, give a ring, will you?
Gee, Skippy. First you are under the delusion that you have engaged in
an argument, now you again confuse condescension with expressions of
affection? Your session with the shrink is going to be quite busy this
week, isn't it? Don't forget to mention those delusions of adequacy...
--
Arturo Magidin
Skipper
<f2798733-3178-4754...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Arturo Magidin <mag...@member.ams.org> wrote:
Glad I give you reason to live, Artie. Try to think of something clever.
lackpurity
> In article
>
>
>
>
>
> lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 10:51?am, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > > In article
>
> > > lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 1, 9:49?am, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > > > > In article <o5lpe5hfoih6d5kd6nd6ieplbfb371k...@4ax.com>, Karla
>
> > > > > <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:12:45 -0400, John W Kennedy
> > > > > > <jwke...@attglobal.net>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > >RichD wrote:
> > > > > > >> I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> > > > > > >> instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
>
>
> > > > > > >> Although there are several references to the
> > > > > > >> Greek pantheon...
>
> > > > > > >pantheon,
> > > > > > >though.
>
> > > > > > Sonnet 53
>
> > > > > > What is your substance, whereof are you made,
> > > > > > That millions of strange shadows on you tend?
> > > > > > Since every one hath, every one, one shade,
> > > > > > And you, but one, can every shadow lend.
> > > > > > Describe Adonis, and the counterfeit
> > > > > > Is poorly imitated after you;
> > > > > > On Helen's cheek all art of beauty set,
> > > > > > And you in Grecian tires are painted new.
> > > > > > Speak of the spring and foison of the year;
> > > > > > The one doth shadow of your beauty show,
> > > > > > The other as your bounty doth appear,
> > > > > > And you in every blessed shape we know.
> > > > > > ? ?In all external grace you have some part,
> > > > > > ? ?But you like none, none you, for constant heart.
>
> > > > > > Even so, the speaker is not the poet, necessarily. In Sonnet 54, the
> > > > > > last
> > > > > > four lines certainly sound like Christian doctrine.
>
> > > > > > Sonnet 54
>
> > > > > > Not marble nor the gilded monuments
> > > > > > Of princes shall outlive this pow?rful rhyme,
> > > > > > But you shall shine more bright in these cont?nts
> > > > > > Than unswept stone, besmeared with sluttish time.
> > > > > > When wasteful war shall statues overturn,
> > > > > > And broils root out the work of masonry,
> > > > > > Nor Mars his sword, nor war?s quick fire shall burn
> > > > > > The living record of your memory.
> > > > > > 'Gainst death and all oblivious enmity
> > > > > > Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room,
> > > > > > Ev?n in the eyes of all posterity
> > > > > > That wear this world out to the ending doom.
> > > > > > ? ?So till the judgment that yourself arise,
> > > > > > ? ?You live in this and dwell in lovers' eyes.
>
> > > > > > I think he's referring to himself as a god of this world (ll. 2, 8,
> > > > > > 14) in
> > > > > > that he causes the addressee to live and dwell on while this world
> > > > > > exists.
> > > > > > However, he's probably just wooing, not seriously blashemping.
>
> > > > > > >> I wonder if he was a closet atheist...
>
> > > > > > >period? Or
> > > > > > >to Christian writers of /any/ period when writing non-religious works
> > > > > > >(Dorothy L. Sayers' detective stories, for example)?
>
> > > > > "My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words without thoughts
> > > > > never to heaven go." Hamlet (Act III, Scene 3)
>
> > > > > Yeah, real atheist that. What a dumbass thread.
>
> > > > MM:
> > > > Shakespeare was a Mystic Adept. ?There are three main steps in
> > > > mysticism.
>
> > > > 1 --- Simran, or repetition of the Guru's Mantra.
>
> > > > 2 --- Dhyan, contemplation of the Master's Form.
>
> > > > 3 --- Dhun, listening to the inner, holy sound, i.e. holy spirit.
>
> > > > Now, Shakespeare was attempting his simran, but his mind had thoughts
> > > > of the world below. ?What a mystic needs to do, is visualize Master's
> > > > form, then the thoughts can ascend with the words to heaven.
> > > > Shakespeare was hinting to leave all worldly thoughts below, and
> > > > ascend to heaven in the company of the Master. ?Mysticism has two main
> > > > faculties, the power to see (Nirat) and the power to hear (Surat.)
> > > > Nirat is concentrated on visualizing the Master. ?Surat is listening
> > > > to one's repetition and then listening to the Holy Sound, when it
> > > > manifests.
>
> > > > Ordinary readers have been befuddled for 400 years on that one. ?That
> > > > is why it takes a mystic to explain Shakespeare.
>
> > > > Michael Martin
>
> > > Well, there ya go. Him and Mohammad. Sure thing. Was it the 19 virgins?
>
> > MM:
> > His Master was Christopher Marlowe. �He was actively seeking to regain
> > his spirituality, God-Realization. �Marlowe was the forerunner, as
> > John the Baptist was the forerunner for Christ.
>
> > Michael Martin
>
> Give me a break. Next thing I know you'll have the secret journals of
> the School of Night. Marlowe was a very close friend but there was no
> spiritual master relationship. If anything, Shakespeare was Marlowe's
> counsel, and couldn't save him.
MM:
I disagree with you. Shakespeare really had two Masters, Fulke
Greville and Christopher Marlowe. Sir Philip Sidney was the spiritual
Patriarch of the Wilton Mystic Cult. Greville was very fond of Master
Sidney. Countess Mary Sidney Herbert, sister of Sir Philip Sidney,
was also very nurturing regarding Marlowe and Shakespeare. Marlowe
knew the truth about his stellar disciple, Shakespeare, but he was the
forerunner.
If you read "Groatsworth of Wit," by Robert Greene, you get some idea
of the timeline. Marlowe was the leader, but Shakespeare was called
an "upstart crow," after Marlowe's death.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:27:01 -0800 (PST), "hypati...@comcast.net"
>
>
>
>
>
> <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 31, 12:19�pm, Brian E. Clark
> ><brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> In article <3a808eb6-467a-4240-821b-
> >> f693983dc...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, r_delaney2001
> >> @yahoo.com says...
>
> >> > I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> >> > instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
>
> >> and Henry VI.
>
> >> God is mentioned in many, many places.
>
> >> > Although there are several references to the
> >> > Greek pantheon...
>
>
> >> thing on more than one occassion.
>
> >> > he was certainly smart enough to question dogma
> >> > and superstition...
>
> >> � �As dreams are made on, and our little life
> >> � �Is rounded with a sleep.
> >�
> >Isn 't he supposed to have done some work on the King James Bible?
>
> I don't think so. His mother was definitely a Catholic and his father
> reorted to be one. The translation is supposed to have been done by
> members of �the Church of England. Although at the time the CofE was
> basically Catholic lite without the Pope.
MM:
Queen Elizabeth and King James were both associated with Shakespeare
and the Mystic Wilton Cult.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
Shakespeare believed in ONE GOD, and also Gods and Goddesses.
Mysticism has many levels, and that is why it might seem
contradictory, but he was MOST CERTAINLY NOT AN ATHEIST.
They claimed that his Master, Christopher Marlowe, was an atheist,
also, but he was not an atheist, either. Marlowe and Shakespeare were
tutored in spirituality by the Mystic Wilton Cult.
Michael Martin
> http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl...
>
> � "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
> � � � -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
> � �http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
>
> � �http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
>
> � "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
> � � � - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
>
> � �http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
>
> � �http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
>
> � "How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
> � � � - Lenin
>
> � �http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
>
> � �http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-fa...- Hide quoted text -
John W Kennedy
> Isn 't he supposed to have done some work on the King James Bible?
For one meaning of "supposed", yes.
But sane people know the idea is ridiculous in the ROTFLMAO degree.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have
always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"
lackpurity
> hypati...@comcast.net wrote:
> > Isn 't he supposed to have done some work on the King James Bible?
>
> For one meaning of "supposed", yes.
>
> But sane people know the idea is ridiculous in the ROTFLMAO degree.
MM:
Why would it be so ridiculous? He was a Mystic. He knew King James.
The Bible is a book with mystic teachings included. I'd say you
should try to explain this.
Michael Martin
Will Dockery
> MM:
> Shakespeare believed in ONE GOD, and also Gods and Goddesses.
> Mysticism has many levels, and that is why it might seem
> contradictory, but he was MOST CERTAINLY NOT AN ATHEIST.
>
> They claimed that his Master, Christopher Marlowe, was an atheist,
> also, but he was not an atheist, either. Marlowe and Shakespeare were
> tutored in spirituality by the Mystic Wilton Cult.
>
> Michael Martin
That's interesting, thanks Martin.
> > >> On the Shakespeare topic, I've been posting from the Sonnet-A-Day
> > >> mailings for a while now, and here's the one they sent me for today:
>
> > >> Sonnet #93
> > >> Posted:
> > >> XCIII.
>
> > >> So shall I live, supposing thou art true,
> > >> Like a deceived husband; so love's face
> > >> May still seem love to me, though alter'd new;
> > >> Thy looks with me, thy heart in other place:
> > >> For there can live no hatred in thine eye,
> > >> Therefore in that I cannot know thy change.
> > >> In many's looks the false heart's history
> > >> Is writ in moods and frowns and wrinkles strange,
> > >> But heaven in thy creation did decree
>
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > >> That in thy face sweet love should ever dwell;
> > >> Whate'er thy thoughts or thy heart's workings be,
> > >> Thy looks should nothing thence but sweetness tell.
> > >> How like Eve's apple doth thy beauty grow,
> > >> if thy sweet virtue answer not thy show!
>
> > >> -Wm. Shakespeare
>
> > Ok.. all those atheists who believe that Heaven in his
> > creation Did Decree that Shakespeare is an atheist put your
> > hands up and sign your committment to a menatal institution here.
Shakespeare Sonnet-a-Day
Sonnet #95
Posted:
XCV.
How sweet and lovely dost thou make the shame
Which, like a canker in the fragrant rose,
Doth spot the beauty of thy budding name!
O, in what sweets dost thou thy sins enclose!
That tongue that tells the story of thy days,
Making lascivious comments on thy sport,
Cannot dispraise but in a kind of praise;
Naming thy name blesses an ill report.
O, what a mansion have those vices got
Which for their habitation chose out thee,
Where beauty's veil doth cover every blot,
And all things turn to fair that eyes can see!
Take heed, dear heart, of this large privilege;
The hardest knife ill-used doth lose his edge.
Will Dockery
> Shakespeare believed in ONE GOD, and also Gods and Goddesses.
> Mysticism has many levels, and that is why it might seem
> contradictory, but he was MOST CERTAINLY NOT AN ATHEIST.
>
> They claimed that his Master, Christopher Marlowe, was an atheist,
> also, but he was not an atheist, either. Marlowe and Shakespeare were
> tutored in spirituality by the Mystic Wilton Cult.
>
> Michael Martin
Good summation.
Sonnet #96
Posted:
XCVI.
Some say thy fault is youth, some wantonness;
Some say thy grace is youth and gentle sport;
Both grace and faults are loved of more and less;
Thou makest faults graces that to thee resort.
As on the finger of a throned queen
The basest jewel will be well esteem'd,
So are those errors that in thee are seen
To truths translated and for true things deem'd.
How many lambs might the stem wolf betray,
If like a lamb he could his looks translate!
How many gazers mightst thou lead away,
If thou wouldst use the strength of all thy state!
But do not so; I love thee in such sort
As, thou being mine, mine is thy good report.
hypa...@comcast.net
> On Nov 3, 10:51 am, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <5b3955d0-2f5a-4d4a-8756-353377f7b...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 9:49?am, Skipper <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote:
> > > > In article <o5lpe5hfoih6d5kd6nd6ieplbfb371k...@4ax.com>, Karla
>
> > > > <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >RichD wrote:
> > > > > >> I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> > > > > >> instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
>
>
> > > > > >> Greek pantheon...
>
>
> > > > > >to Christian writers of /any/ period when writing non-religious works
> > > > > >(Dorothy L. Sayers' detective stories, for example)?
>
> > > > "My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words without thoughts
> > > > never to heaven go." Hamlet (Act III, Scene 3)
>
> > > > Yeah, real atheist that. What a dumbass thread.
>
> > > MM:
> > > mysticism.
>
> > > 1 --- Simran, or repetition of the Guru's Mantra.
>
> > > 2 --- Dhyan, contemplation of the Master's Form.
>
> > > 3 --- Dhun, listening to the inner, holy sound, i.e. holy spirit.
>
> > > Now, Shakespeare was attempting his simran, but his mind had thoughts
> > > form, then the thoughts can ascend with the words to heaven.
> > > Shakespeare was hinting to leave all worldly thoughts below, and
> > > faculties, the power to see (Nirat) and the power to hear (Surat.)
> > > to one's repetition and then listening to the Holy Sound, when it
> > > manifests.
>
> > > is why it takes a mystic to explain Shakespeare.
>
> > > Michael Martin
>
> > Well, there ya go. Him and Mohammad. Sure thing. Was it the 19 virgins?
>
> MM:
> His Master was Christopher Marlowe. He was actively seeking to regain
> his spirituality, God-Realization. Marlowe was the forerunner, as
> John the Baptist was the forerunner for Christ.
>
> Michael Martin
Are you the Michael Martin who wrote "Atheism: A Philosophical
Justification" and "Atheism: Morality and Meaning"?
hypa...@comcast.net
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:19:45 -0800 (PST), "hypati...@comcast.net"
>
> >On Oct 30, 9:15 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> >> instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
> >> Greek pantheon...
>
> >> certainly smart enough to question dogma
> >> and superstition...
>
> >but with no other information.
>
> No, but he doesn't read like somebody who took religion all that
> seriously.
I agree. But, not everything his characters said would
necessarily be his own beliefs.
>
> Or expected his audience to either, which gives an insight into the
> general level of religiosity of Elizabethan England. Remember that her
> father that thrown out Rome and not gone European-style Puritan
> Protestant because the King had wanted to do his own thing and wasn't
> really interested in running a church of which he was the head.
Henry started out very religious. He didn't want to be
a king at first. Then, he really got into it. But, the first
time he went against the Church, he ended up going
to Rome and getting on his hands and knees to beg
forgiveness. But, when it came to his having a son,
that all went out the window. He wanted a divorce,
so he had his own church formed which was pretty
much the English Catholic Church with him as an all
but absent Pope. It didn't really start to change until
Elizabeth became Queen.
hypa...@comcast.net
> On Nov 5, 7:21 am, "hypati...@comcast.net" <hypati...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 9:36 pm, ArturoMagidin<magi...@member.ams.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 30, 9:15 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm a Shakespeare fan, and I can't recall a single
> > > > instance where he mentions Jesus or Jehovah.
>
> > > one I found.
>
> > > > Although there are several references to the
> > > > Greek pantheon...
>
>
> > > > I wonder if he was a closet atheist...
>
> > > seems that like many before you have found in Shakespeare what you
> > > brought there yourself, in addition to everything he put in.
>
> > That's the way the people in the plays would speak, but not
> > particularly Shakespeare himself.
>
> So.... if there is no mention of Jesus in the plays by any speaker,
> then this is indicative that perhaps Shakespeare was an atheist. The
> doubts expressed by the people in the plays are to be attributed to
> Shakespeare himself. Ah, but any specific mentions that would
> undermine that view are just "the way the people in the play would
> speak", and are not to be attributed to Shakespeare himself?
>
> Pull the other one. It's got bells on.
>
I never said that, Arturo. What I said in my one
sentence was that Shakespeare was creating
fictional characters. As such, what they said
wouldn't necessarily reflect Shakespeare's own
beliefs but the beliefs of the characters themselves.
We have no way of knowing whether Shakespeare
was Christian or atheist, unless someday a hidden
letter shows up stating, "I, William Shakespeare,
playwright of Londontown, do hereby declare that I
have ever and anon been a nonbeliever. Now that I
have shuffled off this mortal coil, there is naught
ye can do about it."
hypa...@comcast.net
> In article
Yes, he was happy to see you show what a fool you are.
But, that's to be expected from someone using the
power name 'Skipper'. Do your humans call you Skippy?
ray heinrich
hypa...@comcast.net
> In article
Bad doggie, Skippy! Peeing over the Internet means no
doggie treats for you tonight.
hypa...@comcast.net
> In article
No, bad puppy. Arturo can speak for himself and I can speak
for myself. You, on the other hand, can only make yipping noises.
hypa...@comcast.net
> In article
Can you do anything besides make yipping noises?
John W Kennedy
> Are you the Michael Martin who wrote "Atheism: A Philosophical
> Justification" and "Atheism: Morality and Meaning"?
Not bloody likely. If this Michael Martin were an atheist, he'd vanish,
like Descartes in the old joke.
--
John W. Kennedy
"When a man contemplates forcing his own convictions down another man's
throat, he is contemplating both an unchristian act and an act of
treason to the United States."
-- Joy Davidman, "Smoke on the Mountain"
lackpurity
wrote:
MM:
No, he is someone else. I am the antithesis of atheist. I suppose
atheists and Anti-Strats are similar. Atheists deny God. Anti-Strats
deny Shakespeare. Very similar.
Michael Martin