Health of the group.
Andy Wilkes
scanning the posts quickly. I remember the 'golden age' that was talked
about recently, when also I was able to spend more time in the group,
(though I have never been a regular poster*).
Last week Maria made a positive step in seeding the conversation with a
positive theme (favourite verses) which truly brought a moment of joy to
me. (Old softy). In short, the mood of the group is recovering despite the
disruption of recent months.
I often wonder what the group is for - or more usefully perhaps what good
can it do, and one important answer I think is that it is a place where
people can express themselves and find 'listeners' and acceptance. What a
pity that some posters have stretched a tolerant and accepting group of
people sometimes too far.
(*e.g. one by Andy Warhole)
--
Andy Wilkes
Maria
I've got another thread for the "Old Softies". Here goes:-
If Jesus was physically lurking on this ng for a day, what would you ask
Him?
a) personally
b) generally (Say to do with interpreting scripture, tradition or doctrine)
For me, I'd ask Him what exactly He had planned for me to be doing with my
mortal life.
I'd also ask Him how best to pray. Then I'd ask Him a load of stuff about
Catholic doctrine and interpreting the Old Testament.
God Bless
Maria
Andy Wilkes <andy_...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:t83m91c...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
Neil Davey
<mlmba...@spam.out.themodelshop.co.uk> blinked, reached for the
parchment and then scribbled the following:
>I've got another thread for the "Old Softies". Here goes:-
>
>If Jesus was physically lurking on this ng for a day,
Ummmm, he is, isn't he?
>...what would you ask
>Him?
>a) personally
>b) generally (Say to do with interpreting scripture, tradition or doctrine)
Same for both, I'd ask him to show me what the truth was and help me
lead my life in a way that was a) going to gain me ultimate prizes
such as eternal life and b) beneficial to others in a way that he
would be pleased with.
>For me, I'd ask Him what exactly He had planned for me to be doing with my
>mortal life.
>I'd also ask Him how best to pray. Then I'd ask Him a load of stuff about
>Catholic doctrine and interpreting the Old Testament.
They all sound like good things to me. :O)
Cheers
Neil
--
Neil Davey
The .patch seems to have failed, I'm still addicted to .sigs!
Nick Milton
<mlmba...@spam.out.themodelshop.co.uk> enhanced the collective
wisdom with:
>Andy,
>
>I've got another thread for the "Old Softies". Here goes:-
>
>If Jesus was physically lurking on this ng for a day
As Neil says, He is. Moer than lurking, He is a regular contributor.
He posts here regularly, using a variety of "ghost writers". You can
definitely hear his words within many of the articles. You have to
work out for yourself which bits come from Him, of course.
>what would you ask
>Him?
Assuming He is now omniscient? Not confined by earthly understanding
any more?
>a) personally
"How am I doing, Boss?"
>b) generally (Say to do with interpreting scripture, tradition or doctrine)
"Why? I mean life, the universe, everything(1) - why? What is it all
for? Why create the universe? Why are we here?"
Nick
1) No, He would not answer "42". Thst is the answer to the "how much"
question, not the "Why" question.
Alan Zanker
>............................................ You have to
>work out for yourself which bits come from Him, of course.
A bit like reading scripture?
Alan
--
Alan Zanker
Leeds
England
Alan Zanker
>If Jesus was physically lurking on this ng for a day, what would you
>ask Him?
>a) personally
What should I do, and not do, for the rest of this year?
What should I do, and not do, tomorrow?
>b) generally
Who *really* wrote that letter to the Ephesians?
(I rather think the answer would be: 'What is that to you? Follow
Me!')
Mark
> He posts here regularly, using a variety of "ghost writers". You can
> definitely hear his words within many of the articles. You have to
> work out for yourself which bits come from Him, of course.
That's why I said "physically". I mean as in posts from Jesus Christ. Reply
to J...@righthandofthefather.he :-)
God Bless
Maria
Richard Emblem
<mlmba...@spam.out.themodelshop.co.uk> writes:
>If Jesus was physically lurking on this ng for a day, what would you ask
>Him?
>a) personally
>b) generally (Say to do with interpreting scripture, tradition or doctrine)
a. What was the funniest thing that you recall from your life on earth?
b. Why is there so little humour in the Bible?
But then *I* would wouldn't I? :-)
--
Richard Emblem
The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
(Gerard Manley Hopkins)
_______________________
Dave Hyden
news:t83m91c...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> I often wonder what the group is for - or more usefully perhaps what good
> can it do, and one important answer I think is that it is a place where
> people can express themselves and find 'listeners' and acceptance. What a
> pity that some posters have stretched a tolerant and accepting group of
> people sometimes too far.
>
Whilst a NG can give support and acceptance one must also accept that many
views on the NG are of a controversial nature, even amongst fellow
Christians. Debate is thus inevitable and given the threat to self, that
debate is likely to become heated at times.Rather than seeing this in a
negative way I think it better to see conflict as a healthy growth promoting
situation.
Dave
Student
> In article <3a827...@news.netdirect.net.uk>, "Maria"
> <mlmba...@spam.out.themodelshop.co.uk> writes:
>
> >If Jesus was physically lurking on this ng for a day, what would you ask
> >Him?
> >a) personally
> >b) generally (Say to do with interpreting scripture, tradition or doctrine)
>
> a. What was the funniest thing that you recall from your life on earth?
> b. Why is there so little humour in the Bible?
*Cough* *Splutter* Lack of humour? Have you looked at the names in the
OT and all the plays on words? Admitedly these are more easily seen if you
know Hebrew and how it works. It also doesn't help that so many of the
translations of names are so distant from the originals. Also what about
Eutychus? That strikes me as fairly funny.
For another one, this one takes a bit more thinking, the woman at the
well. O.k. She goes back into the village. What does she say? "I've seen a
man!" So what is the reply? It has got to be something along the lines of
"Yeah, yeah" or "Another one?"; she replies "But this one is different!"
....... You can see how it is going to go. It may not be that explicit but it
is there.
Student, always amused that God would choose me.
Neil Davey
reached for the parchment and then scribbled the following:
>b. Why is there so little humour in the Bible?
If someone in the year 2301 decided to publish a book of the "Useful
Posts in UKRC: 1995 - 2005", would they keep the humourous posts or
would they just include the serious points and edifying messages? I
suspect that very little of the humour of this group would remain in
such a collection, which would cause the people in 4001 to wonder
whether we were just a tad too serious about life.
I've just had a mental image of Jesus and his Disciples sitting around
in Israel, putting their hands under their armpits and seeing who
could make the loudest farting sound! I apologise to those who may not
like such an idea but I see no reason why they didn't lark around a
bit and enjoy themselves, it's just that it wasn't included in the
"Important and Useful writing about Jesus & co.".
>But then *I* would wouldn't I? :-)
I should hope so. :O)
Bob Billing (AKA Uncle Bob)
> OT and all the plays on words? Admitedly these are more easily seen if you
I've always thought the story of Jehu rather amusing - even though a few
people get killed. It's rather the sort of graveyard humour perpetrated
by medical students. And the Rhoda gag in Acts - they are praying for
the release of Peter. Peter is released. Rhoda opens the door and says,
"It's Peter!" Everyone else calls her a nutter - it can't be Peter, he's
in prison. That's why we are having a prayer meeting to pray for his
release.
Compare and contrast...
Keefe forced Kelso into a chair, and looked straight down at him. "What
the hell did you do to Jane?" he thundered.
"I- I didn't, she broke in, when we were testing. I saw her on the
catwalk, but it was too late, the primer had fired and she died, it was
the primer-"
"You are lying, Kelso. Tell us what really happened on the catwalk, tell
us what you really did."
"I didn't do anything. Damn it, she's dead."
"You don't think that's going to stop me, do you?" said Jane with a
smile, as she slipped quietly into the room. "Really, you'll have to do
better than that, and this is the second time you've forgotten to bring
me any flowers. Oh, the uniform? Quite flattering, I think, if well cut,
and one has the figure for it. No, I'm not Jane Galland, the technician,
any more, I'm back to being lieutenant Jane Gould, of the Arcturian
Confederate Space Fleet."
"Damn you, you're dead! Dead! I killed you myself," screamed Kelso.
"Yes, I know," said Jane, sweetly. "And I can tell you that it puts me
in a most awkward position. One becomes so accustomed to being alive."
...and you'll know where I've pinched some of the best plot ideas from.
Jane is of course not dead but playing on Kelso's fear to get the truth
out of him.
(RftS Extract copyright)
--
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/
"It burned me from within. It quickened; I was with book as a woman
is with child." CS Lewis - Till we have faces, Ch 21.
Alec Brady
news:3A83B194...@myrealbox.com...
Aramaic for "camel" is "gamla", while the word for "gnat" is "galma." So it
seems that Jesus was a punster. It's nice to know that when he emptied
himself and became like us, he took on the lowest form of wit.
--
Alec Brady
Half the people you know are below average.
Richard Dudley
"Dave Hyden" <Dave....@care4free.net> wrote:
> Whilst a NG can give support and acceptance one must also accept that
> many views on the NG are of a controversial nature, even amongst
> fellow Christians. Debate is thus inevitable and given the threat to
self,
Dave - that's where I lose the plot. The threat is not to 'self', the
threat is to 'ego'. No-one's true self can be damaged in any way by a
debate. However the true self can go into hiding when directly
attacked, which is why any attacking of persons or expressed distrust
of motives is counterproductive ( read 'unloving' ). Whereas the direct
attacking of persons is largely contained by the charter, expressed
distrust of motives is widespread on this group and it is this that
hinders growth.
> that debate is likely to become heated at times.Rather than seeing
> this in a negative way I think it better to see conflict as a healthy
> growth promoting situation.
Conflict sure can promote growth when its handled in a loving way. I
agree with you totally that its only the seeing of the conflict
as 'negative' that hinders growth.
Richard
---
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Bob Billing (AKA Uncle Bob)
> I've just had a mental image of Jesus and his Disciples sitting around
> in Israel, putting their hands under their armpits and seeing who
> could make the loudest farting sound! I apologise to those who may not
There's nobody more irreverent than God. After all he's got nothing left
to prove.
Have you noticed that nobody in the NT and hardly anyone in the OT ever
goes to the loo? I've often been tempted to catch someone who insists
that Christians shouldn't do anything not mentioned in the NT and
challenge them to go without going for one calendar month.
Maria
>
> If someone in the year 2301 decided to publish a book of the "Useful
> Posts in UKRC: 1995 - 2005", would they keep the humourous posts or
> would they just include the serious points and edifying messages? I
> suspect that very little of the humour of this group would remain in
> such a collection, which would cause the people in 4001 to wonder
> whether we were just a tad too serious about life.
>
> I've just had a mental image of Jesus and his Disciples sitting around
> in Israel, putting their hands under their armpits and seeing who
> could make the loudest farting sound! I apologise to those who may not
> like such an idea but I see no reason why they didn't lark around a
> bit and enjoy themselves, it's just that it wasn't included in the
> "Important and Useful writing about Jesus & co.".
Do you think God has a sense of humour? I'm not sure.
I imagine God doesn't but Jesus, having been a man, does. Imagine the
picture, Jesus at His right hand trying to explain to His Father why
practical jokes are funny.
Just a mental image I have. Ha ha.
God Bless
Maria
Neil Davey
<uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> blinked, reached for the parchment and
then scribbled the following:
>Have you noticed that nobody in the NT and hardly anyone in the OT ever
>goes to the loo? I've often been tempted to catch someone who insists
>that Christians shouldn't do anything not mentioned in the NT and
>challenge them to go without going for one calendar month.
Been there, done that. They usually go quiet and then say something
like, "But I'm talking about our worship, not things like that". To
which a reply along the lines of, "Shouldn't our whole life be one of
worship?" usually makes them run off and put their heads in some sand.
Neil Davey
<mlmba...@themodelshop.co.uk> blinked, reached for the parchment and
then scribbled the following:
>Do you think God has a sense of humour? I'm not sure.
Yes, I have been on the receiving end of it! When I first became a
Christian I wasn't really getting into reading the Bible, going to
church or anything and I was starting to go out with my flatmate, the
lovely Lindsay. I asked God for a kick up the bum to get me going (1)
and three days later Lindsay came back from a conference saying that
God wanted us to split up! She had also been told the story of Abraham
and Issac, where Abraham had to show that God came first, and this was
appropriate. Of course they are allowed to get back together, (in a
manner of speaking) and after a couple of days of moping I felt the
same. I prayed that God would let us know when it was okay to get back
together and eventually he said it was okay. The day we got back
together was exactly 40 days and 40 nights after we had been told to
split, and I hadn't worked that out until after the event.
So yes, I reckon he has a sense of humour, (well if we do then he must
- we're made in his image after all).
P.S.
Thhhhrrrrrrpppppp!!!!! :OP
Yep, it's still funny. :O)
(1) Don't try this at home folks - unless you are willing to accept
the consequences. God *will* answer that prayer and you may find it
tough for a while, though the result will be worth it.
Dave Shield
|> Him?
|> a) personally
My answer (question) would be more or less the same as Nick's.
Have I understood you right?
(Though 'How am I doing, Boss' is snappier)
|> For me, I'd ask Him what exactly He had planned for me to be doing with my
|> mortal life.
The problem (for me) with that particular question, is either you get an
extremely detailed answer, which you'd then have to follow precisely come
what may,
or else you get a somewhat generalised answer, which you then have to
try and apply to your day-to-day existance.
We've already got a whole book full of the latter, so I really want to
know whether I've understood them properly!
And it's very much an emphasis on "understood" - I don't always manage to
put the guidelines into practise, but I *know* that so I can always try
to work on it. What I'd want to check was that my basic understanding was
generally correct, or whether I'd completely missed the point somewhere.
|> b) generally (Say to do with interpreting scripture, tradition or doctrine)
Ummm... that's really the same thing, I suppose.
So I'd ask Him again, just to check!
Dave
Pam
news:3a827...@news.netdirect.net.uk...
> Andy,
>
> I've got another thread for the "Old Softies". Here goes:-
>
> If Jesus was physically lurking on this ng for a day, what would you
ask
> Him?
> a) personally
> b) generally (Say to do with interpreting scripture, tradition or
doctrine)
Maria:
That's still an easy question for me. I'd ask him to please convince
me that God doesn't hate me and every other human being alive. Even
though I'm progressing, I'd really like to be 100% certain.
I realise this is wish-fulfilment and that this problem is for me
similar to the problem others have about doubting God's existence.
But you *did* ask.
Blessings,
Pam
Tony Gillam
news:3A83B194...@myrealbox.com...
> Richard Emblem wrote:
>
> *Cough* *Splutter* Lack of humour? Have you looked at the
names in the
> OT and all the plays on words? Admitedly these are more easily seen
if you
> know Hebrew and how it works. It also doesn't help that so many of
the
> translations of names are so distant from the originals. Also what
about
> Eutychus? That strikes me as fairly funny.
>
> For another one, this one takes a bit more thinking, the woman
at the
> well. O.k. She goes back into the village. What does she say?
"I've seen a
> man!" So what is the reply? It has got to be something along the
lines of
> "Yeah, yeah" or "Another one?"; she replies "But this one is
different!"
> ....... You can see how it is going to go. It may not be that
explicit but it
> is there.
>
up a Morecambe & Wise exchange.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://website.lineone.net/~tony.gillam - Home of TUCOWSAT
http://www.christians-r-us.org.uk - A Site for sore eyes
Hell - A place in which there isn't a hope
Richard Emblem
(Nick Milton) writes:
>"Why? I mean life, the universe, everything(1) - why? What is it all
>for? Why create the universe? Why are we here?"
>
>Nick
>
>1) No, He would not answer "42". Thst is the answer to the "how much"
>question, not the "Why" question.
<pantomime mode on> Oh no it isn't :-) <off>
martin
in king james) :-)
Blessings
Martin
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/martin.malocco1/
Nick Milton
<mlmba...@themodelshop.co.uk> enhanced the collective wisdom with:
>
>Do you think God has a sense of humour? I'm not sure.
He designed the platypus
And the Hippo
And sex
Nick
Kim
news:20010208191004...@nso-mc.aol.com...
> In article <3a827...@news.netdirect.net.uk>, "Maria"
> <mlmba...@spam.out.themodelshop.co.uk> writes:
>
> >If Jesus was physically lurking on this ng for a day, what would you ask
> >Him?
> >a) personally
> >b) generally (Say to do with interpreting scripture, tradition or
doctrine)
>
> a. What was the funniest thing that you recall from your life on earth?
> b. Why is there so little humour in the Bible?
> But then *I* would wouldn't I? :-)
> --
Of course you would!
But I think there is humour in the Bible; we are just so used to hearing it
solemnly read with a pulpit voice, we don't see it.
But if you read a lot of the stories and ask, what kind of street theatre
would this make? the humour starts to leap out - Jonah is an obvious
example (the repenting cattle!). The stories were originally oral
tradition, written to be performed, not read.
And what does a shepherd make of the Good Shepherd?
Kim
Cmdr Jameson
I think he must have, to have made folk like us! :)
heth. :)
Dave Hyden
news:960m5u$n5o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Dave - that's where I lose the plot. The threat is not to 'self', the
> threat is to 'ego'. No-one's true self can be damaged in any way by a
> debate.
I dont agree, cetrainly in my understanding of self. opposing ideas, no
matter how carefully expressed can be seen as attack on ones self and
percieved as threatening.
. Dave
Richard Emblem
<mlmba...@themodelshop.co.uk> writes:
>Do you think God has a sense of humour? I'm not sure.
Wasn't the camel cited as evidence for the humour of the Creator?
Richard Emblem
<alec....@virgin.net> writes:
>According to Robert Graves (not always a reliable source, I know) the
>Aramaic for "camel" is "gamla", while the word for "gnat" is "galma." So it
>seems that Jesus was a punster. It's nice to know that when he emptied
>himself and became like us, he took on the lowest form of wit.
"Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns; he should be
drawn and quoted."
--Fred Allen
Richard Emblem
writes:
>> b. Why is there so little humour in the Bible?
>
> *Cough* *Splutter* Lack of humour? Have you looked at the names in the
>OT and all the plays on words? Admitedly these are more easily seen if you
>know Hebrew and how it works. It also doesn't help that so many of the
>translations of names are so distant from the originals. Also what about
>Eutychus? That strikes me as fairly funny.
>
> For another one, this one takes a bit more thinking, the woman at the
>well. O.k. She goes back into the village. What does she say? "I've seen
>a
>man!" So what is the reply? It has got to be something along the lines of
>"Yeah, yeah" or "Another one?"; she replies "But this one is different!"
>....... You can see how it is going to go. It may not be that explicit but
>it
>is there.
OK there is *some* but stuff to provoke a wry smile but not much real laughter.
Richard Emblem
<ndavey...@postmaster.co.uk> writes:
>>b. Why is there so little humour in the Bible?
>
>If someone in the year 2301 decided to publish a book of the "Useful
>Posts in UKRC: 1995 - 2005", would they keep the humourous posts or
>would they just include the serious points and edifying messages? I
>suspect that very little of the humour of this group would remain in
>such a collection, which would cause the people in 4001 to wonder
>whether we were just a tad too serious about life.
Good point!
Andy Wilkes
essential perhaps - would the group have any attraction without debate of
strongly felt and wide ranging issues. I would never see it as a threat if
acceptance of one another (by which I mean all contributors) is worked at.
I keep using this word 'acceptance' - do you think that it is an act of
will (I do) or a character trait that comes easily to some, to accept
people, by which I mean to allow people to speak freely and not to judge
them?
Let me be candid - I lost patience with CD long ago when I saw the
consistent tone of his postings, and he was kill-filed (more than once!). I
felt that I had better ways to spend my time - as there did not seem to be
any 'debate' where he was concerned, nor anything approaching fellowship
(which I do not mean to be thought of as applying to Christians only).
Ta.
g'night
--
Andy Wilkes
"Dave Hyden" <Dave....@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:95vv4e$ifn$1...@lure.pipex.net...
furrylemming
I have to agree with Dave here - I've been part of debates where a part of
who I am was completely rubbished by other people and I've ended up trying
to pretend that part of me doesn't exist.
Helen
x
Eric Potts
>In article <qhh78tk2tr3fql5t7...@4ax.com>, Neil Davey
><ndavey...@postmaster.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>b. Why is there so little humour in the Bible?
>>
>>If someone in the year 2301 decided to publish a book of the "Useful
>>Posts in UKRC: 1995 - 2005", would they keep the humourous posts or
>>would they just include the serious points and edifying messages? I
>>suspect that very little of the humour of this group would remain in
>>such a collection, which would cause the people in 4001 to wonder
>>whether we were just a tad too serious about life.
>
>Good point!
And, of course, a lot of humour dates quickly, and becomes
incomprehensible to later readers. Commentaries may help, but you know
what they say about a joke that has to be explained.....
The whole Jonah story has me rolling on the floor. Try reading Jonah's
part in a John Cleese voice.....
Eric.
--
Eric Potts, Lowestoft, England
The EastPoint Faith Centre - now with a Worship resources Zone,
based on the Revised Common Lectionary. Click on
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ericpotts
Gareth McCaughan
> Wasn't the camel cited as evidence for the humour of the Creator?
It's also claimed to be "a horse designed by committee".
I'm not sure whether this is an argument for trinitarianism
or for polytheism.
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Richard Dudley
news:sz8h6.4227$zz4....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >matter how carefully expressed can be seen as attack on ones self and
> >percieved as threatening.
>
> I have to agree with Dave here - I've been part of debates where a part of
> who I am was completely rubbished by other people and I've ended up trying
> to pretend that part of me doesn't exist.
I've been there too ! But what you've said doesn't contradict what I'm
trying to convey in describing the 'ego' as apart from the 'true self'.
The concept of the 'ego' is a very tricky one to explain. What you've
expressed here is that your perception of who you are is a combination
of ( true self + ego ). This is quite normal, but it is not our natural
state.
If a person was in the condition of knowing herself to be without ego,
then no opposing ideas could ever been seen as attacking, since the
person would know that she herself was not the ideas held.
However, when we attach ourselves to particular ideas ( termed 'ego
investing' in the ideas ) that attachment can appear to be 'us'. So we begin
to define ourselves by our beliefs, and our sense of 'self' becomes wrapped
up in those ideas. So a person might define themselves as a 'Christian' -
and
that becomes part of their self-image. In this case, ideas which are
perceived
to oppose Christianity can be seen to be personally threatening.
To the ego-free person though, ideas are seen only as 'corresponding to
reality'
or 'not corresponding to reality', not as 'my ideas' - and a new idea can be
adopted easily if it's seen to correspond to reality as we experience it.
A person who is not ego-free has correspondingly greater difficulty in
detaching
himself from the ideas he holds, because his ego distorts his perception.
My explanation is probably woefully inadequate, so let me try an
example - I'll choose a fairly non-controversial one. The emotion of
embarrassment is one which is dependent on having an ego. If you
feel embarrassed, that's because you have an ego investment in how
others see you. Now, its observably the case that small children don't
know embarrassment. They're happy to run around naked without
any sense of shame. So the feeling of shame in respect of our own
bodies is not a natural condition, it is one which is learned. And
children learn shame about their bodies from adults, who in turn
learned it from theirs ( Larkin's poem comes to mind here ). So
the 'ego' could be described as the aggregation of all those ideas
we hold about ourselves which are 'second hand' - i.e. learned
from others, rather than directly experienced ourself.
Spiritual growth in one sense is all about diminishing the ego, for
it is the ego which limits our own personal freedom. So when
Paul talks ( in Gal 2:20 ) about 'No longer I, but Christ' ISTM he's
saying his ego has died. In this condition, he's no longer hemmed
in by what others think of him, and is free to experience his true
self.
Does any of this help ?
Richard
---
Dave Hyden
same meaning but using different terms. I dont follow Freudian psychology
myself being more interested in what might be called humanist psychology.
Hence the different terms.
Hoping you, your self and your ego have a nice day
dave-
David Anderson
> Have you noticed that nobody in the NT and hardly anyone in the OT ever
> goes to the loo?
That's because they were all constipated!
They were all, all constipated men
In the Bee Eye Bee Ell Eee...
er,
sorry
David Anderson
David Anderson
> I certainly agree that debate (and controversy) is inevitable. More - it is
> essential perhaps - would the group have any attraction without debate of
> strongly felt and wide ranging issues. I would never see it as a threat if
> acceptance of one another (by which I mean all contributors) is worked at.
> I keep using this word 'acceptance' - do you think that it is an act of
> will (I do) or a character trait that comes easily to some, to accept
> people, by which I mean to allow people to speak freely and not to judge
> them?
I believe character traits - at least ethical character traits - can be
learned, although some people will find some easier to learn than
others, and other people will find the other traits easier to learn than
the some. (If you see what I mean.) I don't really think acts of will
help. However, we can try to check what we're doing and maintain a
sense of perspective.
The most important points IMHO are always to assume that the other
person is honestly mistaken rather than deliberately irrational or
immoral, and to try not to say anything to which no answer can be
given.[1]
David Anderson
[1] Examples: quoting Bible verses to settle an issue, calling someone a
fundamentalist or bigot, telling someone that they're only angry because
they're projecting their issues onto you or that they're playing games,
telling someone that if they'd done a course in x they'd agree with you,
etc.
Neil Davey
reached for the parchment and then scribbled the following:
>But I think there is humour in the Bible; we are just so used to hearing it
>solemnly read with a pulpit voice, we don't see it.
>
>But if you read a lot of the stories and ask, what kind of street theatre
>would this make? the humour starts to leap out - Jonah is an obvious
>example (the repenting cattle!). The stories were originally oral
>tradition, written to be performed, not read.
Look at the headers above Acts 13 and 23:23. That book's all about
football, obviously! :O)
Neil Davey
reached for the parchment and then scribbled the following:
>Good point!
Indeed. I think so.
Marvellous.
Cup of tea anyone?
Richard Dudley
"Dave Hyden" <Dave....@care4free.net> wrote:
> Yes, and thanks a lot for your explanation. I think we are both
> talking the same meaning but using different terms. I dont follow
> Freudian psychology myself being more interested in what might be
> called humanist psychology.
> Hence the different terms.
I didn't know what I was spouting was Freudian - I've not read any of
his stuff direct from the source so to speak, but probably picked it up
from other people's writings. I'm more in the Jungian mold in my
understandings really - the true self being the 'collective
unconscious' or the 'universal daemon' of gnostic thought.
I'm definitely with you on the humanist psychology bit - do you read
Maslow ? I think he's a genius. I just finished 'Religions, Values and
Peak Experiences' which is a brilliant book. It sets the whole of
religious experience in a psychological context which sheds a lot of
light.
> Hoping you, your self and your ego have a nice day
Cheers !
Richard
---
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Richard Dudley
David Anderson <ea...@central.susx.ac.uk> wrote:
( Some examples of what not to say in debate, according to David : )
> [1] Examples: quoting Bible verses to settle an issue, calling
> someone a fundamentalist or bigot, telling someone that they're only
> angry because they're projecting their issues onto you or that
> they're playing games, telling someone that if they'd done a course
> in x they'd agree with you, etc.
Some of these look like very loose paraphrases to my responses to
Gareth on another thread recently :) What do you feel the appropriate
response is when someone intimates they don't have free will in respect
of adopting a particular stance ? As an example, those who take the
bible as 'inerrant' or even as 'inspired' ? These are both purely
arbitrary stances ISTM.
Colin Bell
>
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:34:11 -0000 "Kim" <kim....@virgin.net> blinked,
> reached for the parchment and then scribbled the following:
>
> >But I think there is humour in the Bible; we are just so used to hearing it
> >solemnly read with a pulpit voice, we don't see it.
> >
> >But if you read a lot of the stories and ask, what kind of street theatre
> >would this make? the humour starts to leap out - Jonah is an obvious
> >example (the repenting cattle!). The stories were originally oral
> >tradition, written to be performed, not read.
>
> Look at the headers above Acts 13 and 23:23. That book's all about
> football, obviously! :O)
There's a few others if you look carefully (all NIV):
Mt 12:42
Mal 4:6
Isa 40:31
Hos 9:17
Phil 2:1
Ex 29:15
Gen 33:13 (contrived)
Isaiah 41:7
Num 10:28 (moving down the league pyramid somewhat).
Any others?
Colin
Neil Davey
blinked, reached for the parchment and then scribbled the following:
>Neil Davey wrote:
>>
>> Look at the headers above Acts 13 and 23:23. That book's all about
>> football, obviously! :O)
>
>There's a few others if you look carefully (all NIV):
>
>Mt 12:42
Queen of the South
>Mal 4:6
Hearts
>Isa 40:31
Eagles (Crystal Palace) ?
>Hos 9:17
Wanderers
>Phil 2:1
United
>Ex 29:15
Rams (Derby)
>Gen 33:13 (contrived)
? Too contrived for me!
>Isaiah 41:7
Hammer (West Ham)
>Num 10:28 (moving down the league pyramid somewhat).
Haifa Tel Aviv play in that division I think!
>Any others?
2 Kings 20:20 Hezekiah was aLiverpool manager who helped them to early
successes, long before Bill Shankly.
As for any others, that would involve time that I don't have at the
moment. :O)
Colin Bell
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:02:02 +0000 Colin Bell <cr...@ntlworld.com>
> blinked, reached for the parchment and then scribbled the following:
>
> >Neil Davey wrote:
> >>
> >> Look at the headers above Acts 13 and 23:23. That book's all about
> >> football, obviously! :O)
> >
> >There's a few others if you look carefully (all NIV):
> >
> >Mt 12:42
> Queen of the South
> >Mal 4:6
> Hearts
> >Isa 40:31
> Eagles (Crystal Palace) ?
Indeed.
> >Hos 9:17
> Wanderers
> >Phil 2:1
> United
> >Ex 29:15
> Rams (Derby)
> >Gen 33:13 (contrived)
> ? Too contrived for me!
Ewes = 'U's (Cambridge, Colchester and no doubt many others).
> >Isaiah 41:7
> Hammer (West Ham)
I was thinking more of Spurs, but yours is good too.
> >Num 10:28 (moving down the league pyramid somewhat).
> Haifa Tel Aviv play in that division I think!
March Town (Jewson League). (I know where my coat is.)
> >Any others?
>
> 2 Kings 20:20 Hezekiah was aLiverpool manager who helped them to early
> successes, long before Bill Shankly.
Didn't know that.
> As for any others, that would involve time that I don't have at the
> moment. :O)
I was hoping to find a translation with 'Orient' in it (Matt 1 or 2),
but everybody rather boringly translates it as 'east'.
Colin
David Anderson
It may seem that way to you, but you should appreciate and respect that
it doesn't seem that way to them. Deal with their arguments as if they
are rationally held. If you can't, you have free will in respect to
continuing the argument:
let it lie.
David Anderson
Neil Davey
reached for the parchment and then scribbled the following:
>Ewes = 'U's (Cambridge, Colchester and no doubt many others).
Ahh!
>Neil wrote:
>>Colin wrote:
>> >Isaiah 41:7
>> Hammer (West Ham)
>
>I was thinking more of Spurs, but yours is good too.
:O)
>> >Num 10:28 (moving down the league pyramid somewhat).
>> Haifa Tel Aviv play in that division I think!
>
>March Town (Jewson League). (I know where my coat is.)
Well it does mention the Israelite Division, I'd guess that's where
HTA play. You should still get your coat.
>> >Any others?
>>
>> 2 Kings 20:20 Hezekiah was aLiverpool manager who helped them to early
>> successes, long before Bill Shankly.
>
>Didn't know that.
Oh yes, very famous Liverpool manager 2,500 years ago. Yup, yup. :O)
>> As for any others, that would involve time that I don't have at the
>> moment. :O)
>
>I was hoping to find a translation with 'Orient' in it (Matt 1 or 2),
>but everybody rather boringly translates it as 'east'.
Bound to be able to find something about Bath City in there if you're
going for local league teams. Jeremiah 50:25 has the only mention of
Arsenal in it but it's not appropriate.
Dave Hyden
> In article <9676ts$185$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
> "Dave Hyden" <Dave....@care4free.net> wrote:
.
>
> I'm definitely with you on the humanist psychology bit - do you read
> Maslow ? I think he's a genius. I just finished 'Religions, Values and
> Peak Experiences' which is a brilliant book. It sets the whole of
> religious experience in a psychological context which sheds a lot of
> light.
>
have another look. thanks for reopening old memories.
Dave
Dave Hyden
news:3A873CBB...@removethis.central.susx.ac.uk...
> The most important points IMHO are always to assume that the other
> person is honestly mistaken rather than deliberately irrational or
> immoral, and to try not to say anything to which no answer can be
> given.[1]
Lovely point.
>
Dave
furrylemming
Which is exactly what one would expect from a lovely person like Mr Anderson
:)
Helen
x
David Anderson
>
> Which is exactly what one would expect from a lovely person like Mr Anderson
> :)
Thank you. :)
David Anderson
Dave Hyden
If this is going to turn into uk.rel. david anderson I withdraw my initial
comment. It was not a wise thing to say but facile and stupid. Only a moron
would think of saying it.. :-)
Dave