So......

[Tone]

.... I'm really getting pissed off now with responses to questions that
start with the word 'So...'.

Having recently interviewed for radio an artist who began every answer
with the word 'So...' I have now edited out that word completely on the
replay, and it makes far more sense. More sense than he deserves,
actually, so I won't be using the interview at all, at all*.

What is it? Is it just a trend, or a few seconds more to think about the
answers to questions?

Shirley the only question that merits an answer beginning with 'So' is
'Why does....?' and add the word '... that.....'

It is now as annoying as hearing a word like 'Like', repetitively in one
sentence, like.

Tone, like

* Irish English for 'at all'.

[John Williamson]

On 11/11/2022 16:48, Tone wrote:
> .... I'm really getting pissed off now with responses to questions that
> start with the word 'So...'.
>
> Having recently interviewed for radio an artist who began every answer
> with the word 'So...' I have now edited out that word completely on the
> replay, and it makes far more sense. More sense than he deserves,
> actually, so I won't be using the interview at all, at all*.
>
> What is it? Is it just a trend, or a few seconds more to think about the
> answers to questions?
>

Erm, it's the new "Um, well...", like, know what I mean...


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

Absolutely! And I shall now evade the question by waffling on about what I
want to talk about, see?

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Richard Robinson]

"Perfect"


--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

[Peter]

Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in
news:tkm3tv$tg9e$1...@dont-email.me:

> Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 17:05:36 +0000
>> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/11/2022 16:48, Tone wrote:
>>> > .... I'm really getting pissed off now with responses to questions
>>> > that start with the word 'So...'.
>>> >
>>> > Having recently interviewed for radio an artist who began every
>>> > answer with the word 'So...' I have now edited out that word
>>> > completely on the replay, and it makes far more sense. More sense
>>> > than he deserves, actually, so I won't be using the interview at
>>> > all, at all*.
>>> >
>>> > What is it? Is it just a trend, or a few seconds more to think
>>> > about the answers to questions?
>>> >
>>> Erm, it's the new "Um, well...", like, know what I mean...
>>>
>> Absolutely! And I shall now evade the question by waffling on about
>> what I want to talk about, see?
>
> "Perfect"

"Look..."

--
Peter
-----

[Tone]

'That is a very good question!' should be followed by 'Now here's a
really crap answer that has nothing to do with your very good question'.

Tone

[Mike Fleming]

On 11/11/2022 16:48, Tone wrote:

> .... I'm really getting pissed off now with responses to questions that
> start with the word 'So...'.
>
> Having recently interviewed for radio an artist who began every answer
> with the word 'So...' I have now edited out that word completely on the
> replay, and it makes far more sense. More sense than he deserves,
> actually, so I won't be using the interview at all, at all*.
>
> What is it? Is it just a trend, or a few seconds more to think about the
> answers to questions?

Something that's caught on, innit.

There's legitimate uses for "So" to start a sentence (IIRC Frankie
Howerd regularly did it in Up Pompeii), but very rarely to start the
answer to a question.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:48:52 +0000
Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:

> * Irish English for 'at all'.

Not quite - one yellow line on the side of the road means no
parking at all, two yellow lines means no parking at all, at all.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

[RustyHinge]

On 11/11/2022 16:48, Tone wrote:

Taking the test, begorrah:

"What does a single yellow line in the road next bto a kerb mean?"

"No parking at all."

"Then what does a double yellow line men?"

"No parking at all at all."

Like

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

[RustyHinge]

On 12/11/2022 05:44, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:48:52 +0000
> Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> * Irish English for 'at all'.
>
> Not quite - one yellow line on the side of the road means no
> parking at all, two yellow lines means no parking at all, at all.

Rays Rays.

[Nicholas D. Richards]

In article <20221112054420.482d...@eircom.net>, Ahem A
Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> on Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 05:44:20 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote

>On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:48:52 +0000
>Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> * Irish English for 'at all'.
>
> Not quite - one yellow line on the side of the road means no
>parking at all, two yellow lines means no parking at all, at all.
>

Not a tall storey, a tall?

Just been to eTsco, 5 times I was not a tall boy, a tall, a tall.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Oů sont les neiges d'antan?"

[Nicholas D. Richards]

In article <jt85av...@mid.individual.net>, Mike Fleming
<mi...@tauzero.co.uk> on Fri, 11 Nov 2022 at 23:48:46 awoke Nicholas

from his slumbers and wrote

So, even more annoying is the historian who starts sentences with 'so'
and continues to talk about the past in the present tense.

[Brian Gaff]

At the end of the day, like you just hate the word So, as used by many, even
on the BBC?
I tend to edit these out in my mind as they come up, well worn phrases and
words that are redundant.
There do seem to be a lot of words being used that only have appeared
recently, as if actually saying their meaning has not been considered. My
pet one at the moment is Overarching. The overarching principals are applied
consistently throughout.

Well is another often used word, when its redundant of course. Well you
would expect that. Well, my take on this is. Well let me explain more fully.
Etc.
Stakeholders seems to actually mean nothing at all.
Well we informed all stakeholders of the overarching principal at the
start. So there should be no argument when we implement the strategy
globally.


You can as we know, say a lot of words but mean nothing at all.
So, what do you think we should do Like?
Brian
--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Tone" <to...@email.com> wrote in message news:tkludv$t1fi$1...@dont-email.me...

[Brian Gaff]

And I always thought the Bible was bad, it seems a lot of sentences start
with And

I might be slightly wrong, but Frank Muir wrote the party political sketch
for Peter Sellers had him say several times in the piece things like So, in
conclusion, let me say just this, I do not consider, existing conditions
likely.

Brian
--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Peter" <mys...@prune.org.uk> wrote in message
news:XnsAF4CD7DC9A...@88.198.57.247...

[Brian Gaff]

Seriously, though, many people have no constant opinion, and picking them up
on this fact can be very embarrassing for them. That can be bad in some
cases, if the persons job is going to affect policies of governments,
companies etc,, as they should think clearly. However, doe it really matter
for an artist, be that painter or singer or songwriter. Often people can
write songs using the opposite to their real beliefs merely to highlight
something.
I have just picked somebody up who moderates a forum about appearing to not
believe in the social model of disability, which he then protests at length
was not what he meant, he was merely stating the world is not built like
that, to which I agree, but it does no good to present the status quo as the
way things are if you want to change attitudes.

Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Tone" <to...@email.com> wrote in message news:tkmhko$v28u$1...@dont-email.me...

[Brian Gaff]

Yes enthusiasts in general do this as if their way is the one true way, and
everyone else is wrong. Since neither was around at the time, then there can
be no definitive answer. The story gets changed with every telling through
the ages, coloured to suit the beliefs of the writer or speaker.
Its almost propaganda.

Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Nicholas D. Richards" <nich...@salmiron.com> wrote in message
news:H1AeFYAI...@salmiron.com...

[Brian Gaff]

So there are zebra and pelican crossings, but I've never seen a zebra or
pelican crossing any of them.

Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"RustyHinge" <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tko84c$166ca$1...@dont-email.me...

[Julian Macassey]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:48:52 +0000, Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:
> .... I'm really getting pissed off now with responses to questions that
> start with the word 'So...'.
>
> Having recently interviewed for radio an artist who began every answer
> with the word 'So...' I have now edited out that word completely on the
> replay, and it makes far more sense. More sense than he deserves,
> actually, so I won't be using the interview at all, at all*.
>
> What is it? Is it just a trend, or a few seconds more to think about the
> answers to questions?

Harry Shearer a few years ago was on a "No So"
campaign. Starting a sentence with "So" was at one time creeping
into every interview.

https://harryshearer.com/about/

>
> Shirley the only question that merits an answer beginning with 'So' is
> 'Why does....?' and add the word '... that.....'
>
> It is now as annoying as hearing a word like 'Like', repetitively in one
> sentence, like.
>
> Tone, like
>
> * Irish English for 'at all'.

You could also try starting a sentence with the South'n
"Y'all".

--
“I think law enforcement should be difficult. And it should
actually be possible to break the law.” - Moxie Marlinspike,
March RSA Conf' 2016

[greymaus]

On 2022-11-13, Brian Gaff <brian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And I always thought the Bible was bad, it seems a lot of sentences start
> with And
>
> I might be slightly wrong, but Frank Muir wrote the party political sketch
> for Peter Sellers had him say several times in the piece things like So, in
> conclusion, let me say just this, I do not consider, existing conditions
> likely.

> Briana

The old testament was written in Hebrew, and some amaraic. Closely
related languages. The new testament was written in Greek, from data
that was told in Amaraic. (It was unlikely that country people in
Gallilee would have spoken the Greek of the time).

Hebrew, Amaraic, and Arabic of the past and present make great use 'wa'
(and) to connect groups of letters. `I came home. AND I had a bath.'

In translating the holy books, William Tyndale seems to have copied
words as they were in some of his sourses, instead of changing them into
English Idiom. The two languages (English and Aramaic) are very
different.

Some of our more fundemantal US friends seem to think that the King
James Bible is a genuine source, rather than a translation.

be sure that you have a good escape route.


--
grey...@mail.com

Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, I smell the stench of an Influencer.
Where is our money gone, Dude?

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On 13 Nov 2022 17:42:56 GMT

greymaus <grey...@dmaus.org> wrote:

> Some of our more fundemantal US friends seem to think that the King
> James Bible is a genuine source, rather than a translation.

Well of course, it is a matter of faith that the translation was
guided by God so even where it seems wrong to a scholar it must be God's
will. Got to love circular logic.

[Mike Spencer]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> writes:

> On 13 Nov 2022 17:42:56 GMT
> greymaus <grey...@dmaus.org> wrote:
>
>> Some of our more fundemantal US friends seem to think that the King
>> James Bible is a genuine source, rather than a translation.
>
> Well of course, it is a matter of faith that the translation was
> guided by God so even where it seems wrong to a scholar it must be
> God's will. Got to love circular logic.

Not to mention that King James I was, AIUI, a very creepy guy who
would be slagged to a cinder with nasty slurs by contemporary
fundamentalist Christians.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

[Sam Plusnet]

On 13-Nov-22 18:02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2022 17:42:56 GMT
> greymaus <grey...@dmaus.org> wrote:
>
>> Some of our more fundemantal US friends seem to think that the King
>> James Bible is a genuine source, rather than a translation.
>
> Well of course, it is a matter of faith that the translation was
> guided by God so even where it seems wrong to a scholar it must be God's
> will. Got to love circular logic.

Does that mean the original authors (whoever they were) were _not_
guided by god?
If the original version was right, then all that was needed was a decent
translation - not an 'inspired' one.

P.S. All those translators were part of the Church of England. If the
US fundies think they were guided by god, then surely the fundies should
have joined the CofE?

--
Sam Plusnet

[greymaus]

He stopped them fighting in England, which is always a good thing in a
ruler. It must be hard to be a normal person and a ruler.

[RustyHinge]

Wot? The Gaberlunzie Man? The very thought!

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:04:34 +0000
Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:

> On 13-Nov-22 18:02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On 13 Nov 2022 17:42:56 GMT
> > greymaus <grey...@dmaus.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Some of our more fundemantal US friends seem to think that the King
> >> James Bible is a genuine source, rather than a translation.
> >
> > Well of course, it is a matter of faith that the translation was
> > guided by God so even where it seems wrong to a scholar it must be God's
> > will. Got to love circular logic.
>
> Does that mean the original authors (whoever they were) were _not_
> guided by god?

No not at all, they were writing the pure word of God.

> If the original version was right, then all that was needed was a decent
> translation - not an 'inspired' one.

Translation is more of an art than a science - AIUI the original
word used to describe the young Mary could be translated as "young
unmarried woman", "maiden" or "virgin" but we have been left in no doubt
which was meant thanks to the God inspired translation.

Mind bleach please - that's an uncomfortable mindset.

[Mike Spencer]

RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> writes:

> On 13/11/2022 19:59, Mike Spencer wrote:
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 13 Nov 2022 17:42:56 GMT
>>> greymaus <grey...@dmaus.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some of our more fundemantal US friends seem to think that the King
>>>> James Bible is a genuine source, rather than a translation.
>>>
>>> Well of course, it is a matter of faith that the translation was
>>> guided by God so even where it seems wrong to a scholar it must be
>>> God's will. Got to love circular logic.
>>
>> Not to mention that King James I was, AIUI, a very creepy guy who
>> would be slagged to a cinder with nasty slurs by contemporary
>> fundamentalist Christians.
>
> Wot? The Gaberlunzie Man? The very thought!

That would be V, not IV/I, would it not?

[RustyHinge]

VI/I ITYF.

[RustyHinge]

Had biological knowledge been what it is now the word 'virgin' would not
have been used: virgin birth is known, but the offsprung is *always*
female, and IIRC a clone of the mother.

Howspomedever, the King James version is poetry, and written by
scholars. Other versions like the New English Bible are clumsy.

Mebbe more accurate in translation, but clumsy.

[John Williamson]

They are all second,third or fourth generation translations of the
original texts (Remembered from sermons?) anyway, and the New Testament
didn't exist until a few Centuries after the events it describes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Richard Robinson]

RustyHinge said:
>
> Had biological knowledge been what it is now the word 'virgin' would not
> have been used: virgin birth is known, but the offsprung is *always*
> female, and IIRC a clone of the mother.

She'd have to be, with no other genetic input, no ? Barring random
mutation, if that counts.

> Howspomedever, the King James version is poetry, and written by
> scholars. Other versions like the New English Bible are clumsy.
>
> Mebbe more accurate in translation, but clumsy.

But what is mere worldly poetry, compared with The Holey Worms of
Glod ?

<runs away>


--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

[Don Stockbauer]

I hear that the shed really likes for people to use Google groups.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:38:33 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> RustyHinge said:
> >
> > Had biological knowledge been what it is now the word 'virgin' would
> > not have been used: virgin birth is known, but the offsprung is
> > *always* female, and IIRC a clone of the mother.

Yes but Mary's pregnancy was a *miracle* which means all the rules
go out the window marked "Will of God" - she could have had a little lamb!

> She'd have to be, with no other genetic input, no ? Barring random
> mutation, if that counts.

Of course it counts, how else did sexual reproduction get started
in the first place.

[Richard Robinson]

I meant wrt being considered a clone.

[Peter]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in
news:20221114042035.00da...@eircom.net:

>
> Translation is more of an art than a science

I read an edition of Don Quixote a few years ago. It had been translated
into modern English (Penguin Edition), but the translator had taken a lot of
effort to convey the ambience as well as the sense of the original, and
provided contemporary background. It was excellent - a good read from all
perspectives.

--
Peter
-----

[Tone]

On 14/11/2022 14:23, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:38:33 -0000 (UTC)
>> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> RustyHinge said:
>>>>
>>>> Had biological knowledge been what it is now the word 'virgin' would
>>>> not have been used: virgin birth is known, but the offsprung is
>>>> *always* female, and IIRC a clone of the mother.
>>
>> Yes but Mary's pregnancy was a *miracle* which means all the rules
>> go out the window marked "Will of God" - she could have had a little lamb!
>>
>>> She'd have to be, with no other genetic input, no ? Barring random
>>> mutation, if that counts.
>>
>> Of course it counts, how else did sexual reproduction get started
>> in the first place.
>
> I meant wrt being considered a clone.
>
>

Having progressed from The Open Brethren in Scotland (same as The
Plymouth Brethren) who believe that the Bible is the absolute Word of
God*, through the Methodists and Baptists to where I am now, a modern
Quaker, where we more or less believe what we like, I now see the Bible
as a many-times-copied-by-hand, written record of hundreds of years of
mostly Jewish oral tradition.

I know how the words of songs change when learnt aurally. We call it the
Folk Process. I'm sure the books of the Bible have suffered the same.

But there are good bits in it, innit. I like most of the sayings of
Jesus (in context) and in the Apocrypha.

Of course the big NT question is, not did he die on the cross for our
sins**, but did the resurrection really happen? If it did, then it is
indisputable evidence of an afterlife.

Probably the greatest evidence of that is from Roman records of
Christians being thrown to wild animals in the arenas or being burnt to
death for entertainment, and going there joyfully!

https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/spectaclesintheromanworldsourcebook/chapter/executions-of-christians/

Something very positive gave them that kind of courage.

*And that only 144,000 will be saved (Ref. Revelation)

**Guilt is obviously not transferable, despite Paul's claims, and to
claim that 'God' needed to sacrifice his 'own son' in order to be able
to forgive the rest of us, makes Him no longer omnipotent. Paul can't
have it both ways.

But that is just my take on it, for now.

Tone

[Peter]

Tone <to...@email.com> wrote in news:tktqms$1ppe5$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> Probably the greatest evidence of that is from Roman records of
> Christians being thrown to wild animals in the arenas or being burnt
> to death for entertainment, and going there joyfully!
>
> https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/spectaclesintheromanworldsourcebook/chap
> ter/executions-of-christians/
>
> Something very positive gave them that kind of courage.

Like Islamic fundamenatlists blowing themselves up with their own bombs?

--
Peter
-----

[RustyHinge]

Not in English, but all four (five) Gospels did, and the Pauline letters
to name but a few.

In fact, I can't think of anything which wasn't pretty contemporanous.

Except, of course, the English language.

[RustyHinge]

On 14/11/2022 12:38, Richard Robinson wrote:
> RustyHinge said:
>>
>> Had biological knowledge been what it is now the word 'virgin' would not
>> have been used: virgin birth is known, but the offsprung is *always*
>> female, and IIRC a clone of the mother.
>
> She'd have to be, with no other genetic input, no ? Barring random
> mutation, if that counts.
>
>
>> Howspomedever, the King James version is poetry, and written by
>> scholars. Other versions like the New English Bible are clumsy.
>>
>> Mebbe more accurate in translation, but clumsy.
>
> But what is mere worldly poetry, compared with The Holey Worms of
> Glod ?
>
> <runs away>

Pursues:
Bnag!
BNAG!
bnag!
Bnag!

Bnag!
BNAG!


Bnag! Bnag! Bnag!

POP!

[greymaus]

On 2022-11-14, RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14/11/2022 04:20, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:04:34 +0000
>> Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13-Nov-22 18:02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On 13 Nov 2022 17:42:56 GMT
>>>> greymaus <grey...@dmaus.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Some of our more fundemantal US friends seem to think that the King

> female, and IIRC a clone of the mother.
>
> Howspomedever, the King James version is poetry, and written by
> scholars. Other versions like the New English Bible are clumsy.

I agree.

>
> Mebbe more accurate in translation, but clumsy.

I was in Syria before the civil war, and say how many of the people
live. Jesus would have lived like that, a very simple rural life.

All the portraits from the middle ages portrait him as an educated
(conditioned?) man, dressed well, and all that implied. Nonsense.

[Richard Robinson]

Both are evidence of a strong conviction. They neither of them say
anything about whether it's right.

(In the latter case, do they all get the same 72 virgins ? Still, after
all this time ? That's some pretty impressive self-defence skills, and
I'd say they're in for a big disappointment).

[greymaus]

What of Jesus's brothers, James and John?. According to some of the
christian sects, James was the leader of the church after Jesus, and
lived for many years after, and was followed until the siege of jerusalem , at least.

[Richard Robinson]

I was under the impression that they weren't written down until quite a
lot later, but I'm not sure.

I am sure that there were also a lot of other Gospels that left out
because they didn't suit the politics of the people who decided what was
Official.

"And Mary said unto Joseph 'We can't let him go out to play, for behold!
the little bastard strikes his mates dead when he loses his temper'"
- the Gospel of the Infant Jesus. Um, paraphrased from memory, but still.

> Except, of course, the English language.
>


--

[Richard Robinson]

RustyHinge said:
> On 14/11/2022 12:38, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> RustyHinge said:
>>>
>>> Had biological knowledge been what it is now the word 'virgin' would not
>>> have been used: virgin birth is known, but the offsprung is *always*
>>> female, and IIRC a clone of the mother.
>>
>> She'd have to be, with no other genetic input, no ? Barring random
>> mutation, if that counts.
>>
>>
>>> Howspomedever, the King James version is poetry, and written by
>>> scholars. Other versions like the New English Bible are clumsy.
>>>
>>> Mebbe more accurate in translation, but clumsy.
>>
>> But what is mere worldly poetry, compared with The Holey Worms of
>> Glod ?
>>
>> <runs away>
>
> Pursues:
> Bnag!
> BNAG!
> bnag!
> Bnag!
>
> Bnag!
> BNAG!
>
>
> Bnag! Bnag! Bnag!
>
> POP!
>

Turn me over to the secular arm, would you ?

[John Williamson]

On 14/11/2022 17:01, Richard Robinson wrote:

> (In the latter case, do they all get the same 72 virgins ? Still, after
> all this time ? That's some pretty impressive self-defence skills, and
> I'd say they're in for a big disappointment).
>
>

Quick job with a needle and some thread?

[John Williamson]

On 14/11/2022 16:57, greymaus wrote:
> On 2022-11-14, RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/11/2022 04:20, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:04:34 +0000
>>> Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13-Nov-22 18:02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>> On 13 Nov 2022 17:42:56 GMT
>>>>> greymaus <grey...@dmaus.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of our more fundemantal US friends seem to think that the King
>> female, and IIRC a clone of the mother.
>>
>> Howspomedever, the King James version is poetry, and written by
>> scholars. Other versions like the New English Bible are clumsy.
>
> I agree.
>
>>
>> Mebbe more accurate in translation, but clumsy.
>
> I was in Syria before the civil war, and say how many of the people
> live. Jesus would have lived like that, a very simple rural life.
>
> All the portraits from the middle ages portrait him as an educated
> (conditioned?) man, dressed well, and all that implied. Nonsense.
>>
>
>

They also portray him with, how can I put this politely? Ah, yes,
without a suntan, as if he'd spent his life indoors.

[RustyHinge]

More have been found, some fragmentally. Gospel according to St Thomas
is a case in point.

I think some accounts were amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls.

> "And Mary said unto Joseph 'We can't let him go out to play, for behold!
> the little bastard strikes his mates dead when he loses his temper'"
> - the Gospel of the Infant Jesus. Um, paraphrased from memory, but still.

AIUI he preferred associating with the learned - as when he got left
behind on a jaunt to Jerusalem and was found when someone went back to
find him, in discourse with scholars in the Temple.

They seemed to have survived without incident...

>> Except, of course, the English language.
>>
>
>



--

[RustyHinge]

I'd like to think they survived in an afterlife knowing they'd boobed
big-time.


"And please stop prodding me toward the furnace with that trident: it's
harram!"

[RustyHinge]

On 14/11/2022 17:02, greymaus wrote:
> On 2022-11-14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:38:33 -0000 (UTC)
>> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> RustyHinge said:
>>>>
>>>> Had biological knowledge been what it is now the word 'virgin' would
>>>> not have been used: virgin birth is known, but the offsprung is
>>>> *always* female, and IIRC a clone of the mother.
>>
>> Yes but Mary's pregnancy was a *miracle* which means all the rules
>> go out the window marked "Will of God" - she could have had a little lamb!
>>
>>> She'd have to be, with no other genetic input, no ? Barring random
>>> mutation, if that counts.
>>
>> Of course it counts, how else did sexual reproduction get started
>> in the first place.
>>
>
> What of Jesus's brothers, James and John?. According to some of the
> christian sects, James was the leader of the church after Jesus, and
> lived for many years after, and was followed until the siege of jerusalem , at least.

(Simon) Peter was chosen to inherit, according to the Gospels.

[Richard Robinson]

RustyHinge said:
> On 14/11/2022 17:02, greymaus wrote:
>> On 2022-11-14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:38:33 -0000 (UTC) Richard Robinson

>>>> RustyHinge said:
>>>>>
>>>>> Had biological knowledge been what it is now the word 'virgin'
>>>>> would not have been used: virgin birth is known, but the offsprung
>>>>> is *always* female, and IIRC a clone of the mother.
>>>
>>> Yes but Mary's pregnancy was a *miracle* which means all the
>>> rules go out the window marked "Will of God" - she could have
>>> had a little lamb!
>>>
>>>> She'd have to be, with no other genetic input, no ? Barring random
>>>> mutation, if that counts.
>>>
>>> Of course it counts, how else did sexual reproduction get
>>> started in the first place.
>>
>> What of Jesus's brothers, James and John?. According to some of the
>> christian sects, James was the leader of the church after Jesus, and
>> lived for many years after, and was followed until the siege of
>> jerusalem , at least.
>
> (Simon) Peter was chosen to inherit, according to the Gospels.

"He would say that, wouldn't he ?"

[RustyHinge]

On 14/11/2022 16:57, greymaus wrote:

> On 2022-11-14, RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/11/2022 04:20, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:04:34 +0000
>>> Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13-Nov-22 18:02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>> On 13 Nov 2022 17:42:56 GMT
>>>>> greymaus <grey...@dmaus.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of our more fundemantal US friends seem to think that the King
>> female, and IIRC a clone of the mother.
>>
>> Howspomedever, the King James version is poetry, and written by
>> scholars. Other versions like the New English Bible are clumsy.
>
> I agree.
>
>>
>> Mebbe more accurate in translation, but clumsy.
>
> I was in Syria before the civil war, and say how many of the people
> live. Jesus would have lived like that, a very simple rural life.
>
> All the portraits from the middle ages portrait him as an educated
> (conditioned?) man, dressed well, and all that implied. Nonsense.

It is believed by some scholars that Joseph was an architect of sorts
rather than a mere carpenter, but does it matter?

Jeshua (Jesus) was certainly educated.

[RustyHinge]

Indeed, and usually as fair-haired, which, though not unknown, would
have been unlikely.

And as for a halo...

[Bill Day]

"I have come to die for your sins" Jesus told a stooped figure
passing him on the road"
"Then what am I to die for?", the old man asked.
Jesus took a small notebook from his pocket and copied the question.
"If I may have your name and address," he said, "an answer will be
sent to you."

from "Jesus Christs" by A. J. Langguth

[Mike Spencer]

RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> writes:

> On 14/11/2022 04:33, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
>> That would be V, not IV/I, would it not?
>
> VI/I ITYF.

Yes. Has to have been a typo (or thinko) as I had groveled thru a
bunch of Wikedpedia pages to verify my notions just before I typed
that.

Mea culpa.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

[John Williamson]

On 14/11/2022 18:35, RustyHinge wrote:
> On 14/11/2022 17:28, John Williamson wrote:

<Jesus>

>> They also portray him with, how can I put this politely? Ah, yes,
>> without a suntan, as if he'd spent his life indoors.
>
> Indeed, and usually as fair-haired, which, though not unknown, would
> have been unlikely.
>
> And as for a halo...
>

A decent backlight does wonders if you have enough hair.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 14-Nov-22 16:34, Tone wrote:
<some snipping>

> Of course the big NT question is, not did he die on the cross for our
> sins**, but did the resurrection really happen? If it did, then it is
> indisputable evidence of an afterlife.

> **Guilt is obviously not transferable, despite Paul's claims, and to
> claim that 'God' needed to sacrifice his 'own son' in order to be able
> to forgive the rest of us, makes Him no longer omnipotent. Paul can't
> have it both ways.

It seem guilt is a form of currency that can be transferred quite easily.

Sins of the father - and all that.

Numbers 14:18
‘The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving
iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and
the fourth generation.’

(Exodus 34:7 is almost a copy and paste of that {or vice versa})

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

On 14-Nov-22 18:33, RustyHinge wrote:

> It is believed by some scholars that Joseph was an architect of sorts
> rather than a mere carpenter, but does it matter?

I read "architect" as "artifact".
It took things in a very different direction.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

On 14-Nov-22 4:20, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> Translation is more of an art than a science -

That does leave plenty of room for the approach:

"Well, I think that what he _ought_ to have said here was..."

"I'm sure that's what he intended to say."

P.S. Why do so many fundamentalist Christians hate gay people - when
(AIUI) Jesus never said a single word on the topic?

Old Testament maybe - but shouldn't someone waving their Christian
credentials in the air take their lead from what he said & did?

--
Sam Plusnet

[RustyHinge]

τὸν ἄλλον μαθητὴν ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς

[greymaus]

On 2022-11-14, RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14/11/2022 16:57, greymaus wrote:
>> On 2022-11-14, RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 14/11/2022 04:20, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:04:34 +0000

>> live. Jesus would have lived like that, a very simple rural life.
>>
>> All the portraits from the middle ages portrait him as an educated
>> (conditioned?) man, dressed well, and all that implied. Nonsense.
>
> It is believed by some scholars that Joseph was an architect of sorts
> rather than a mere carpenter, but does it matter?
>
> Jeshua (Jesus) was certainly educated.
>

I disagree. did and his family travel to Jerusalem and call into see the scribes meetings.
nonsense. To me, Jesus was a plain man, who preached to other plain
men. Peter also was an ordinary man. The message itself is simple and
plain.

When Christianity started to become a threat to the order of the Roman
Empire, there was a lot of effort made to attack the teaching of jesus.
A lot of that is still around, and when missionary work was started,
local legends were altered to accomodated to fit in with the new
religion.

There was even an attempt to `prove' that Constantine had given over
rulership of what was the Papal states to the popes, and that one of the
popes had met a hunnish invasion of Italy to stop them by force of
personality.

All Bull.

[greymaus]

as in someone we all know?.

[greymaus]

On 2022-11-14, Mike Spencer <m...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 14/11/2022 04:33, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>
>>> That would be V, not IV/I, would it not?
>>
>> VI/I ITYF.
>
> Yes. Has to have been a typo (or thinko) as I had groveled thru a
> bunch of Wikedpedia pages to verify my notions just before I typed
> that.
>
> Mea culpa.

Mea Maxima Culpo.

Perhaps King Charles is the Third, Rather than the Turd?

[Mike Fleming]

On 14/11/2022 16:34, Tone wrote:
>
> **Guilt is obviously not transferable, despite Paul's claims, and to
> claim that 'God' needed to sacrifice his 'own son' in order to be able
> to forgive the rest of us, makes Him no longer omnipotent. Paul can't
> have it both ways.

I have never understood the logic (or, for that matter, the meaning) of
dying on the cross to take away the sins of the world. If they got taken
away, they got brought back immediately, possibly as some distance
selling returns policy. If an omniscient omnipotent god wants to take
away the sins of the world, wouldn't the sensible thing to do be to make
everybody nice? And speaking of omnipotent omniscient gods, wouldn't
such a god be perfectly capable of doing away with blasphemers if they
were offensive to the deity in question?

[Richard Robinson]

Omnipotent & omniscient, maybe. But are there any religions that claim a
*sensible* god ? Intelligent, even ? Where is it written that the Lord
thy God is less thick than short planks to the number of two ?

[Tone]

Deep ends what 'visiting' means in this context.

Could mean it takes three or four generations for a family to get out of
the habit. I was an abused child. My father was an abused child. It's
highly likely that his father was an abused child.

But the buck stopped here. I was not a good father. I was seldom there
for them, being away in the RN or on the road, to my regret now as we
are not close.

But I never abused my two.

Tone

[Tone]

On 14/11/2022 23:14, Richard Robinson wrote:

> Mike Fleming said:
>> On 14/11/2022 16:34, Tone wrote:
>>>
>>> **Guilt is obviously not transferable, despite Paul's claims, and to
>>> claim that 'God' needed to sacrifice his 'own son' in order to be able
>>> to forgive the rest of us, makes Him no longer omnipotent. Paul can't
>>> have it both ways.
>>
>> I have never understood the logic (or, for that matter, the meaning) of
>> dying on the cross to take away the sins of the world. If they got taken
>> away, they got brought back immediately, possibly as some distance
>> selling returns policy. If an omniscient omnipotent god wants to take
>> away the sins of the world, wouldn't the sensible thing to do be to make
>> everybody nice? And speaking of omnipotent omniscient gods, wouldn't
>> such a god be perfectly capable of doing away with blasphemers if they
>> were offensive to the deity in question?
>

>

The stock answer to the above is 'freedom of will'. God doesn't want to
be worshipped by a bunch of robots.... well.... not the Christian One
anyway.

Tone

[Peter]

Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in
news:tkui56$1s1ni$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> Omnipotent & omniscient.

That opens up a whole can of worms that philosophers have been trying to
unrave for centuries.


--
Peter
-----

[Nicholas D. Richards]

In article <tkuq0r$1slo3$2...@dont-email.me>, Tone <to...@email.com> on
Tue, 15 Nov 2022 at 01:28:48 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote

OTOH there is another lot that believe that they are the 'chosen' and
'predestined' to heaven and as for the rest of us ....
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Oů sont les neiges d'antan?"

[Richard Robinson]

Yes, well.

Q:"If you assume that someone's in charge, what must that person be like,
to explain what we see ?"

A: Philosophical meltdown

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

I believe Goedel proved that you cannot have both omniscience and
logic.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:32:05 +0000
"Nicholas D. Richards" <nich...@salmiron.com> wrote:

> OTOH there is another lot that believe that they are the 'chosen' and
> 'predestined' to heaven and as for the rest of us ....

We get to ask what the big wall is all about when we get the guided
tour.

[RustyHinge]

Indeed: I find it blasphemously condescending of 'religious' zealots to
take for themselves defence of their 'omnipotent' object of worship.

[Richard Robinson]

If it's omnipotent, why can't it abolish lightning conductors ?

[RustyHinge]

On 14/11/2022 23:14, Richard Robinson wrote:

> Mike Fleming said:
>> On 14/11/2022 16:34, Tone wrote:
>>>
>>> **Guilt is obviously not transferable, despite Paul's claims, and to
>>> claim that 'God' needed to sacrifice his 'own son' in order to be able
>>> to forgive the rest of us, makes Him no longer omnipotent. Paul can't
>>> have it both ways.
>>
>> I have never understood the logic (or, for that matter, the meaning) of
>> dying on the cross to take away the sins of the world. If they got taken
>> away, they got brought back immediately, possibly as some distance
>> selling returns policy. If an omniscient omnipotent god wants to take
>> away the sins of the world, wouldn't the sensible thing to do be to make
>> everybody nice? And speaking of omnipotent omniscient gods, wouldn't
>> such a god be perfectly capable of doing away with blasphemers if they
>> were offensive to the deity in question?
>
> Omnipotent & omniscient, maybe. But are there any religions that claim a
> *sensible* god ? Intelligent, even ? Where is it written that the Lord
> thy God is less thick than short planks to the number of two ?

I think that's a given, if the workings of science and the natural world
are ascribed to Creation.

Just the way water contracts as it cools - until 4°C - and then expands
again until it freezes, points to either a fastidious attention to the
detail of consequences, or an amazingly fortuitous anomaly in the
workings of physics.

To name but one...

[greymaus]

Must be a shock when they get there.

[RustyHinge]

On 15/11/2022 01:28, Tone wrote:
>
> The stock answer to the above is 'freedom of will'. God doesn't want to
> be worshipped by a bunch of robots.... well.... not the Christian One
> anyway.

To which I retort that anyone who wants to be worshipped is flawed.
There's something bigger about life (and everything) than that.

[RustyHinge]

Moisten them - they'll unravel themselves.

[RustyHinge]

On 15/11/2022 10:40, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Peter said:
>> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in
>> news:tkui56$1s1ni$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>
>>> Omnipotent & omniscient.
>>
>> That opens up a whole can of worms that philosophers have been trying to
>> unrave for centuries.
>
> Yes, well.
>
> Q:"If you assume that someone's in charge, what must that person be like,
> to explain what we see ?"
>
> A: Philosophical meltdown

Mmmmmm! Virtual macaroni cheese!

[John Williamson]

If you assume this is not the only Universe, then the fact that we exist
is solely due to the laws of physics peculiar to this model of universe.
Change one "law of physics" and *we* would not exist, though some form
of life might.

[Richard Robinson]

John Williamson said:
> On 15/11/2022 11:53, RustyHinge wrote:
>> On 14/11/2022 23:14, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>> Omnipotent & omniscient, maybe. But are there any religions that claim a
>>> *sensible* god ? Intelligent, even ? Where is it written that the Lord
>>> thy God is less thick than short planks to the number of two ?
>>
>> I think that's a given, if the workings of science and the natural world
>> are ascribed to Creation.
>>
>> Just the way water contracts as it cools - until 4°C - and then expands
>> again until it freezes, points to either a fastidious attention to the
>> detail of consequences, or an amazingly fortuitous anomaly in the
>> workings of physics.
>>
>> To name but one...
>>
> If you assume this is not the only Universe, then the fact that we exist
> is solely due to the laws of physics peculiar to this model of universe.

Isn't that still true even without the assumption ?

> Change one "law of physics" and *we* would not exist, though some form
> of life might.
>


--

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 23:14:46 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> Mike Fleming said:
> > On 14/11/2022 16:34, Tone wrote:
> >>
> >> **Guilt is obviously not transferable, despite Paul's claims, and to
> >> claim that 'God' needed to sacrifice his 'own son' in order to be able
> >> to forgive the rest of us, makes Him no longer omnipotent. Paul can't
> >> have it both ways.
> >
> > I have never understood the logic (or, for that matter, the meaning) of
> > dying on the cross to take away the sins of the world. If they got taken
> > away, they got brought back immediately, possibly as some distance
> > selling returns policy. If an omniscient omnipotent god wants to take
> > away the sins of the world, wouldn't the sensible thing to do be to make
> > everybody nice? And speaking of omnipotent omniscient gods, wouldn't
> > such a god be perfectly capable of doing away with blasphemers if they
> > were offensive to the deity in question?
>
> Omnipotent & omniscient, maybe. But are there any religions that claim a
> *sensible* god ? Intelligent, even ? Where is it written that the Lord
> thy God is less thick than short planks to the number of two ?
>

"God is Mad" - AyLTP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_y_Lost_Trios_Paranoias

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[John Williamson]

On 15/11/2022 13:17, Richard Robinson wrote:

> John Williamson said:

>> If you assume this is not the only Universe, then the fact that we exist
>> is solely due to the laws of physics peculiar to this model of universe.
>
> Isn't that still true even without the assumption ?
>

Yes, but there is a chance that this is just one experiment out of many,
if you believe in a Creator.

[Tone]

On 15/11/2022 11:57, RustyHinge wrote:
>> The stock answer to the above is 'freedom of will'. God doesn't want
>> to be worshipped by a bunch of robots.... well.... not the Christian
>> One anyway.
>
> To which I retort that anyone who wants to be worshipped is flawed.

"Our word worship derives from the Old English weordhscipe meaning
'giving the recognition of deserved worthiness or meritoriousness'".

Nowt much wrong with that. Bet you've had a fair bit of it in your time
o rusty one.

> There's something bigger about life (and everything) than that.

Yes, that to me is the obvious answer. 'God' is the driving force behind
all that's good in the whirled.

But it does raise the question, 'Would God exist if we didn't'.

Tone

[Peter]

Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in

news:tkvqau$21ql0$1...@dont-email.me:

> Peter said:
>> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in
>> news:tkui56$1s1ni$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>
>>> Omnipotent & omniscient.
>>
>> That opens up a whole can of worms that philosophers have been trying
>> to unrave for centuries.
>
> Yes, well.
>
> Q:"If you assume that someone's in charge, what must that person be
> like, to explain what we see ?"
>
> A: Philosophical meltdown

I was thinking more alomg the lines of:
- Can the entity foresee the future?
yes, of course, it is omniscient
- can the entity change the future without limit?
yes, of course, it is omnipotent
- if the entity changes the future, will the future then be different to
the future the entity foresaw?
err, yes
- then the entity didn't foresee it

I can't remember who postulated that, but then there is Descartes' heavy
rock:
- can the entity create a rock so heavy it can't be lifted?
yes, of course, it is omnipotent
- can the entity lift that rock?
yes, of course, it is omnipotent
- so the rock *can* be lifted and the entity failed in its first task.

Of course these paradoxes can be resolved by placing condidtions, but once
we place conditions the "omni-" bit fails.


--
Peter
-----

[greymaus]

Life, Jim, but not as we know it. I liked the story that mammals are
descended from rat-like creatures that were living on alien spaceships,
and were cleared out during a stop that the ships made here.

[greymaus]

PTerry answered that. Is there something about a new book for next
mid-winter-event?

[Tease'n'Seize]

John Williamson wrote:

> If you assume this is not the only Universe, then the fact that we exist is
> solely due to the laws of physics peculiar to this model of universe. Change one
> "law of physics" and *we* would not exist, though some form of life might.

Anthropicwossname.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

Yebut weak anthropicwossname where we say that we have to be in a
universe that supports us or we wouldn't be here to ask the question or the
strong version that says the universe exists because it produced us to
observe it and thus bring it into reality.

Read Greg Egan's Distress and be confuffled.

[Sam Plusnet]

Is there any explanation on _why_ he should want to be worshipped in the
first place?
Does he really need to have his ego stroked all the time?

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

And, of course, viciously versa.

--
Sam Plusnet

[RustyHinge]

On 15/11/2022 11:08, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:32:05 +0000
> "Nicholas D. Richards" <nich...@salmiron.com> wrote:
>
>> OTOH there is another lot that believe that they are the 'chosen' and
>> 'predestined' to heaven and as for the rest of us ....
>
> We get to ask what the big wall is all about when we get the guided
> tour.

Heh! Good point.

[RustyHinge]

On 15/11/2022 11:52, Richard Robinson wrote:
> RustyHinge said:
>> On 14/11/2022 22:57, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>> On 14/11/2022 16:34, Tone wrote:
>>>>
>>>> **Guilt is obviously not transferable, despite Paul's claims, and to
>>>> claim that 'God' needed to sacrifice his 'own son' in order to be able
>>>> to forgive the rest of us, makes Him no longer omnipotent. Paul can't
>>>> have it both ways.
>>>
>>> I have never understood the logic (or, for that matter, the meaning) of
>>> dying on the cross to take away the sins of the world. If they got taken
>>> away, they got brought back immediately, possibly as some distance
>>> selling returns policy. If an omniscient omnipotent god wants to take
>>> away the sins of the world, wouldn't the sensible thing to do be to make
>>> everybody nice? And speaking of omnipotent omniscient gods, wouldn't
>>> such a god be perfectly capable of doing away with blasphemers if they
>>> were offensive to the deity in question?
>>
>> Indeed: I find it blasphemously condescending of 'religious' zealots to
>> take for themselves defence of their 'omnipotent' object of worship.
>
> If it's omnipotent, why can't it abolish lightning conductors ?

Mainly because 'lightning conductors' don't, directly.

What they do is to bleed the Erth's charge into the atmosphere in its
vicinity, which reduces the potential of any charged mass above it.

Dozen always jbex though: I unforget in the 1950s seeing a FO big
blue-bordered yellow/orange streak of wriggly lightning flash down and
melt/vaporise the 'conductor' on the pumping station at Redbridge in the
(then) County Borough of Wanstead and Woodford.

[Tone]

On 15/11/2022 21:19, RustyHinge wrote:
> Dozen always jbex  though: I unforget in the 1950s seeing a FO big
> blue-bordered yellow/orange streak of wriggly lightning flash down and
> melt/vaporise the 'conductor' on the pumping station at Redbridge in the
> (then) County Borough of Wanstead and Woodford.

York Minster 1984.

https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/17757662.video-remembering-york-minster-fire-35-years/

Tone

[Mike Fleming]

On 15/11/2022 01:28, Tone wrote:
> On 14/11/2022 23:14, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> Mike Fleming said:

>>> On 14/11/2022 16:34, Tone wrote:
>>>>
>>>> **Guilt is obviously not transferable, despite Paul's claims, and to
>>>> claim that 'God' needed to sacrifice his 'own son' in order to be able
>>>> to forgive the rest of us, makes Him no longer omnipotent. Paul can't
>>>> have it both ways.
>>>
>>> I have never understood the logic (or, for that matter, the meaning) of
>>> dying on the cross to take away the sins of the world. If they got taken
>>> away, they got brought back immediately, possibly as some distance
>>> selling returns policy. If an omniscient omnipotent god wants to take
>>> away the sins of the world, wouldn't the sensible thing to do be to make
>>> everybody nice? And speaking of omnipotent omniscient gods, wouldn't
>>> such a god be perfectly capable of doing away with blasphemers if they
>>> were offensive to the deity in question?
>

> The stock answer to the above is 'freedom of will'. God doesn't want to
> be worshipped by a bunch of robots.... well.... not the Christian One
> anyway.

But there is a considerable body of the many Christian cults that
believe in predestination, which means that either your actions are
predetermined and dictate your destination, or your destination is
predetermined regardless of your actions. The former means there is no
free will, the latter means that your actions are completely irrelevant
to your salvation or damnation.

And "freedom of will" doesn't explain the bollocks about taking away the
sins of the world, because they were all still there afterwards.

[Mike Fleming]

On 15/11/2022 16:09, Peter wrote:
> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in
> news:tkvqau$21ql0$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> Peter said:
>>> Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote in
>>> news:tkui56$1s1ni$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Omnipotent & omniscient.
>>>
>>> That opens up a whole can of worms that philosophers have been trying
>>> to unrave for centuries.
>>
>> Yes, well.
>>
>> Q:"If you assume that someone's in charge, what must that person be
>> like, to explain what we see ?"
>>
>> A: Philosophical meltdown
>
> I was thinking more alomg the lines of:
> - Can the entity foresee the future?
> yes, of course, it is omniscient
> - can the entity change the future without limit?
> yes, of course, it is omnipotent
> - if the entity changes the future, will the future then be different to
> the future the entity foresaw?
> err, yes
> - then the entity didn't foresee it

That fails though, because you didn't ask if the entity, in changing the
future without limit, would be able to foresee the consequence of any
changes made.

> I can't remember who postulated that, but then there is Descartes' heavy
> rock:
> - can the entity create a rock so heavy it can't be lifted?
> yes, of course, it is omnipotent
> - can the entity lift that rock?
> yes, of course, it is omnipotent
> - so the rock *can* be lifted and the entity failed in its first task.
>
> Of course these paradoxes can be resolved by placing condidtions, but once
> we place conditions the "omni-" bit fails.

I think the Descartes one is Schrodinger's Rock.

[Mike Fleming]

If asteroids are a way of cleaning out the experiment and starting
another one, expect Apophis any time soon.

[Mike Fleming]

And, indeed, blasphemous of them to presume that they know what their
god finds offensive.

[Nicholas D. Richards]

In article <tktcs9$1ojov$1...@dont-email.me>, Richard Robinson
<ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> on Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 12:38:33 awoke

Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote

>RustyHinge said:
>>
>> Had biological knowledge been what it is now the word 'virgin' would not
>> have been used: virgin birth is known, but the offsprung is *always*
>> female, and IIRC a clone of the mother.
>
>She'd have to be, with no other genetic input, no ? Barring random
>mutation, if that counts.

It depends upon how sex is determined within the species concerned.
Komodo Dragons are known, in extremis, to produce eggs by
parthenogenesis. Sex is determined by the WZ chromosomal system. This
applies to all birds, some reptiles, some fishes and so on. Female
members of species that use this method of sex determination have a WZ
diploid pair. Males have a ZZ pair of chromosomes (compared with
mammalian males who are XY to mammalian females who are XX).

It is not totally clear how the eggs are produced. The Meiosis process
should produce a haploid gamete for fertilization by a male gamete. At
least some of these female origin gametes double up their chromosomes.
By this process the eggs are diploid but only contain identical
chromosome pairs. So some eggs have an identical ZZ pair and develop
into males. The other eggs have a WW pair, these do not develop. The
Wiki article explains this better than I can.

Parthenogenesis, if it were possible, in humans would only produce
female offspring. Genetically it is unlikely to work for mammals, there
are genes which are only expressed where the gene has been inherited
from the male. Incidentally there are genes that are only expressed when
they are inherited from the female.
>
>
>> Howspomedever, the King James version is poetry, and written by
>> scholars. Other versions like the New English Bible are clumsy.
>>
>> Mebbe more accurate in translation, but clumsy.
>
>But what is mere worldly poetry, compared with The Holey Worms of
>Glod ?
>
><runs away>
>
>

--
0sterc@tcher -

"Oů sont les neiges d'antan?"

[Richard Robinson]

So if we assume Mary was human, that'd be a 'yes' ?

[Don Stockbauer]

So you guys don't like google groups?

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 15:05:31 -0000 (UTC)
Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> So if we assume Mary was human, that'd be a 'yes' ?

No because we're told her pregnancy was the result of divine
intervention which means there are no rules that apply except God's will,
If He wanted Mary to have a little lamb then that's what would happen.

This is where all attempts to think logically about God fall down,
omniscient and omnipotent are logically impossible which simply proves that
logic does not apply in the presence of them.