On Feb 18, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote
(in article<5a09rjlblsbnqtq1gdf336en830oo215th@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 06:20, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 05:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?
No.
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?
No.
Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete. I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.
\
Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You’re in South Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to really like John Wayne.
If you can’t get the movies you like, and if they’re available elsewhere (Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get you the movies if you take Elon back. Please.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:57:38 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:37:54 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.
In the case of the Harry Potter series, however, it was gradual. Each
book is longer and has more padding than the last. It's one reason I
prefer the first three.
I agree with what Ted said about the kids growing older and seeing
more nuances in character and environment, but it was the length and
the padding that put me off.
Looking at the spines of the American (Scholastic) paperbacks, that
does not appear to be the case.
The widest is #5.
#4 and #7 appear to be very similar
#6 appears to be a bit less than #5.
It is true that #3 is wider than #1 or #2, but #4 is where they
/really/ get wide.
I should note that, in the books, there is, from the discovery of the Prophecy onwards, a deliberate attempt to make it unclear if it is
Harry or Neville who is the One. The films don't really do that,
although Neville is certainly present in them.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
The USA (or predecessor colonies) took out the buffalo (well, nearly)
and the passenger pigeon (permanently), but the DoDo and others were
the responsibility of others.
I don't feel bad about the dodo, which apparently tasted fishy and greasy, but the passenger pigeon was absolutely delicious we are told. And I will never have the opportunity to eat mammoth, sadly.
Howard Waldrop's _The Ugly Chickens_ is one of the best SF stories ever written but is not historically accurate regarding the flavour of dodo.
IOW, this is /not/ "particular about Americans". At least, not when
historical events are listed.
God may have given us dominion over the earth and the seas but that does
not seem to me to be a license to just wreck it all.
--scott
On 2/12/25 20:06, Judith Latham wrote:
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
Judith
What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What
does it even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6)
or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they
would be right, for the most part.
There are places where The Bible has been banned due to sex, violence,
rape, murder, slavery, and the like much to the Christian Taliban's
chagrin.
There are too many gray areas that this post does not color in for it to
be of any use.
On 18/02/2025 23:47, WolfFan wrote:seems to
On Feb 18, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote
(in article<5a09rjlblsbnqtq1gdf336en830oo215th@4ax.com>):
=20
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield=20
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 06:20, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 05:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?
No.
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?
No.
Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete. I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.
\
Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You=92re in = South
Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone =
you thereally like John Wayne.
=20
If you can=92t get the movies you like, and if they=92re available = elsewhere
(Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get =
movies if you take Elon back. Please.
Referring to Wikipedia, South African DVDs
are "Region 2" - like Europe and Japan -
and there may be a television standard
compatibility question. "Region 1" discs,
from U.S./Canada/Bermuda, typically won't
work. I think that shipping Elon Musk back
to South Africa also won't work, but just to
see the look on his face would be worth it.
On 20/02/2025 16:14, Paul S Person wrote:abrupt.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:57:38 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
=20
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:37:54 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be =
=20
In the case of the Harry Potter series, however, it was gradual. Each
book is longer and has more padding than the last. It's one reason I
prefer the first three.
I agree with what Ted said about the kids growing older and seeing
more nuances in character and environment, but it was the length and
the padding that put me off.
Looking at the spines of the American (Scholastic) paperbacks, that
does not appear to be the case.
=20
The widest is #5.
#4 and #7 appear to be very similar
#6 appears to be a bit less than #5.
=20
It is true that #3 is wider than #1 or #2, but #4 is where they
/really/ get wide.
=20
I should note that, in the books, there is, from the discovery of the
Prophecy onwards, a deliberate attempt to make it unclear if it is
Harry or Neville who is the One. The films don't really do that,
although Neville is certainly present in them.
I don't see that interpretation. A "prophecy"
was received before the main events of the
"Harry Potter" books took place, and as such
things go, it was typically uncertainly worded,
and insofar as "the One" is identified, only
their date of birth is given - but by the time
of the late chapter in each book where a teacher,
usually Dumbledore, explains the book's remaining
mysteries to Harry, when the prophecy comes up,
that matter apparently was settled.
I do have a couple of personal theories on the
subject: that Neville's silly uncle is a secret
Voldemort follower and is trying to assassinate
him throughout the series (drowning, defenestration,
exploding plant); and that several students,
including Neville, are assigned to a school "House"
whose ethics don't match their existing personality
but are directions in which they need to be pushed.
That Neville is a Gryffindor not born, but made.
And is better for it.
I believe I've heard that Christians believed
for a long time - along with a "young earth"
and creationism - that species extinction
didn't, wouldn't happen. That whatever God had
crested would continue to exist - unless he
changed his mind about that. And so species
didn't need to be protected from destructive
exploitation. God was protecting them.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 23:50:25 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 23:47, WolfFan wrote:
On Feb 18, 2025, Steve Hayes wrote
(in article<5a09rjlblsbnqtq1gdf336en830oo215th@4ax.com>):
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 06:20, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 05:33, Steve Hayes wrote:
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?
No.
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting >>>>>>> your favourite films?
No.
Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete. I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.
\
Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You’re in South >>> Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to >>> really like John Wayne.
If you can’t get the movies you like, and if they’re available elsewhere
(Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get you the >>> movies if you take Elon back. Please.
Referring to Wikipedia, South African DVDs
are "Region 2" - like Europe and Japan -
and there may be a television standard
compatibility question. "Region 1" discs,
from U.S./Canada/Bermuda, typically won't
work. I think that shipping Elon Musk back
to South Africa also won't work, but just to
see the look on his face would be worth it.
It's also in "Region B" rather than "Region A", so Blu-Ray discs (BDs)
would have the same problem.
I believe I've heard that Christians believed
for a long time - along with a "young earth"
and creationism - that species extinction
didn't, wouldn't happen. That whatever God had
crested would continue to exist - unless he
changed his mind about that. And so species
didn't need to be protected from destructive
exploitation. God was protecting them.
... after the New Jerusalem appears, the people left alive will live
forever and breed copiously, filling the earth forever and ever.
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I have seen references to "region-free players", but how legal they
are I have no idea. Some discs are also region-free, but that is no
help here as most are not.
In article <100r948$bvlu$1@dont-email.me>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
It's been a while, but it used to be pretty easy to get region-free
DVD players. Software developers hate that kind of thing, so they
would put hide cheat codes in the firmware to turn it off with a
special sequence you would key on the remote.
Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You=92re in = South=20
Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems = to=20
really like John Wayne.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:52:26 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
I have seen references to "region-free players", but how legal they
are I have no idea. Some discs are also region-free, but that is no
help here as most are not.
A "region free player" that is legal will cost more, because the=20 >distributor pays a licensing fee for each additional region, like,
$10 or $20 dollars. All the DVD players are capable of all regions
depending only on what the firmware/software allows.=20
I don't know how the PAL TV standards fit in. =20
In article <vcr33klj2s81v1fjjs210nvsgsiaiiftur@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
... after the New Jerusalem appears, the people left alive will live >>forever and breed copiously, filling the earth forever and ever.
Though that's an interesting megastructure, according to Revelation,
a cube approximately the size of Alaska on each side.
One wonders about gravitational effects ...
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe I've heard that Christians believed
for a long time - along with a "young earth"
and creationism - that species extinction
didn't, wouldn't happen. That whatever God had
crested would continue to exist - unless he
changed his mind about that. And so species
didn't need to be protected from destructive
exploitation. God was protecting them.
I strongly suspect God is pretty pissed about what we did to His
creatures.
In article <100r948$bvlu$1@dont-email.me>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
This is after the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Who can
say what their physics may look like?
<snippo -- if DVDs are obsolete, why to BD players play them?>
On Sat, 24 May 2025 23:55:28 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:52:26 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
I have seen references to "region-free players", but how legal they
are I have no idea. Some discs are also region-free, but that is no
help here as most are not.
A "region free player" that is legal will cost more, because the
distributor pays a licensing fee for each additional region, like,
$10 or $20 dollars. All the DVD players are capable of all regions
depending only on what the firmware/software allows.
I don't know how the PAL TV standards fit in.
The image <https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=%2ffCIQ6MW&id=AF8FA22CA223CD9E12C61B9C41332BE6A4D738A7&thid=OIP._fCIQ6MWRliLX_l5Wl0C3AHaDx&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.fdf08843a31646588b5ff9795a5d02dc%3frik%3dpzjXpOYrM0GcGw%26riu%3dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.brentonfilm.com%252fwp-content%252fuploads%252f2015%252f08%252fdvd-regions-worldwide.png%253fx18826%26ehk%3dDAEXvF1%252f23TpOqHWkTmYgMYUe0H0C7ss6ckBJeZRd%252fk%253d%26risl%3d%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=1019&expw=2000&q=dvd+region+map&simid=608005445640722497&FORM=IRPRST&ck=B81BC15DC06073C1E42486BBA67BAEE4&selectedIndex=0&itb=1&idpp=overlayview&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0>
shows that South Africa, like Greenland and the Middle East, are in
Region 1
with (most of) Europe (Europe ends at the Urals, so Belarus,
Ukrain, and Russia west-of-the-Urals are all in Europe but not in R2).
The include Great Britain. Which uses PAL. But I suppose that might
mean that the players intended for R2 have no problem with PAL or
(hopefully) NTSC.
Keep in mind that I have a DVD which is both R1 and PAL, so problems
can occur.
On Sun, 25 May 2025 02:48:02 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <vcr33klj2s81v1fjjs210nvsgsiaiiftur@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
... after the New Jerusalem appears, the people left alive will live
forever and breed copiously, filling the earth forever and ever.
Though that's an interesting megastructure, according to Revelation,
a cube approximately the size of Alaska on each side.
One wonders about gravitational effects ...
This is after the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Who can
say what their physics may look like?
A more recent book (it has a reference that only makes sense if it was written in the late 1930s) asserts that, when the New Jerusalem
appears, this means that Heaven and (the New) Earth are /joined/. This
was not by a premillenialist. I think he was an amillenialist (like Augustine, apparently) but he could be a postmillenialst. He believed
every true Christian that ever has or ever will exist is currently in
Heaven with Jesus ruling the World right now. He interprets all the
nastiness as ongoing from the Resurrection, and encompassing /all/ of science, technology, anything /not/ in (his) Chrstian tradition. So I
can see because cataract surgery is a part of God's wrathful
punishment of the world. According to him, anyway.
As I said, /lots/ of really weird ideas.
On 25/05/2025 16:59, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 23:55:28 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
=20
On Sat, 24 May 2025 08:52:26 -0700, Paul S Person=20
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
I have seen references to "region-free players", but how legal they
are I have no idea. Some discs are also region-free, but that is no
help here as most are not.
A "region free player" that is legal will cost more, because the
distributor pays a licensing fee for each additional region, like,
$10 or $20 dollars. All the DVD players are capable of all regions
depending only on what the firmware/software allows.
I don't know how the PAL TV standards fit in.
The image
= <https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=3DdetailV2&ccid=3D%2ffCIQ6MW&id=3D= AF8FA22CA223CD9E12C61B9C41332BE6A4D738A7&thid=3DOIP._fCIQ6MWRliLX_l5Wl0C3= AHaDx&mediaurl=3Dhttps%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.fdf08843a3164658= 8b5ff9795a5d02dc%3frik%3dpzjXpOYrM0GcGw%26riu%3dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.br= entonfilm.com%252fwp-content%252fuploads%252f2015%252f08%252fdvd-regions-= worldwide.png%253fx18826%26ehk%3dDAEXvF1%252f23TpOqHWkTmYgMYUe0H0C7ss6ckB= JeZRd%252fk%253d%26risl%3d%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=3D1019&expw=3D2000= &q=3Ddvd+region+map&simid=3D608005445640722497&FORM=3DIRPRST&ck=3DB81BC15= DC06073C1E42486BBA67BAEE4&selectedIndex=3D0&itb=3D1&idpp=3Doverlayview&aj= axhist=3D0&ajaxserp=3D0>
aka,=20 ><https://www.brentonfilm.com/blu-ray-and-dvd-region-codes-and-video-stan= dards>
shows that South Africa, like Greenland and the Middle East, are in
Region 1
Region 2, orange. Region 1 in very similar red
is the U.S.A., Canada, and Bermuda - the U.S.A.
including Hawaii and Puerto Rico - I think Bermuda
is too small for that map.
--=20with (most of) Europe (Europe ends at the Urals, so Belarus,
Ukrain, and Russia west-of-the-Urals are all in Europe but not in R2).
=20
The include Great Britain. Which uses PAL. But I suppose that might
mean that the players intended for R2 have no problem with PAL or
(hopefully) NTSC.
=20
Keep in mind that I have a DVD which is both R1 and PAL, so problems
can occur.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote or quoted:
This is after the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Who can
say what their physics may look like?
From a philosophy angle, miracles are possible, since all the
laws of nature come from stuff we have seen before and just
describe what happened back then. We can only guess those same
laws will hold up down the road, but we do not actually know for
sure. But for now, we have to stick with Occam's razor;=20
there is no real point in guessing about miracles happening later on.
Science laws are called "laws" because they describe the past,
not because they lay down rules for what has to happen next.
Still, so far, betting that the old laws keep working has
always paid off. Technically, the universe could just blink out
of existence at any moment. That would not really bother anyone.
On 25/05/2025 17:07, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 02:48:02 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
=20
In article <vcr33klj2s81v1fjjs210nvsgsiaiiftur@4ax.com>,=20
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
... after the New Jerusalem appears, the people left alive will live
forever and breed copiously, filling the earth forever and ever.
Though that's an interesting megastructure, according to Revelation,
a cube approximately the size of Alaska on each side.
One wonders about gravitational effects ...
This is after the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Who can
say what their physics may look like?
=20
A more recent book (it has a reference that only makes sense if it was
written in the late 1930s) asserts that, when the New Jerusalem
appears, this means that Heaven and (the New) Earth are /joined/. This
was not by a premillenialist. I think he was an amillenialist (like
Augustine, apparently) but he could be a postmillenialst. He believed
every true Christian that ever has or ever will exist is currently in
Heaven with Jesus ruling the World right now. He interprets all the
nastiness as ongoing from the Resurrection, and encompassing /all/ of
science, technology, anything /not/ in (his) Chrstian tradition. So I
can see because cataract surgery is a part of God's wrathful
punishment of the world. According to him, anyway.
=20
As I said, /lots/ of really weird ideas.
If you keep reading that stuff, you'll go blind. :-)
(What?)
Was he himself writing from Heaven - or from
New Jerusalem - or was he in different places
simultaneously? I'm sort of assuming that
this isn't the Antichrist writing, who may be
well informed but not authentically pious.
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
On 5/25/25 08:54, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo -- if DVDs are obsolete, why to BD players play them?>
Because we have lots of DVDs whcih we like to watch when we
have the time.
That is apart from the DVDs written from ISO files whixh we have
downloaded an written in the past to CDs and to DVDs of various FOSS >operating systems. Using the Flash Drives to keep these is another
matter entirely.
But if I take it into my head to watch "Yawara A fashionable Judo girl"
the DVD is waiting as others.
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world (universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
On 25 May 2025 17:09:01 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote or quoted:
This is after the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Who can
say what their physics may look like?
From a philosophy angle, miracles are possible, since all the
laws of nature come from stuff we have seen before and just
describe what happened back then. We can only guess those same
laws will hold up down the road, but we do not actually know for
sure. But for now, we have to stick with Occam's razor;
there is no real point in guessing about miracles happening later on.
Science laws are called "laws" because they describe the past,
not because they lay down rules for what has to happen next.
Still, so far, betting that the old laws keep working has
always paid off. Technically, the universe could just blink out
of existence at any moment. That would not really bother anyone.
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote or quoted:
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
However, have you heard of the "etymological fallacy," where
someone wrongly argues that a word's current meaning must be
the same as its original or historical meaning, ignoring the
fact that language evolves over time?
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world
(universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos.
Paul S Person wrote:on.
On 25 May 2025 17:09:01 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
=20
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote or quoted:
This is after the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Who can
say what their physics may look like?
From a philosophy angle, miracles are possible, since all the
laws of nature come from stuff we have seen before and just
describe what happened back then. We can only guess those same
laws will hold up down the road, but we do not actually know for
sure. But for now, we have to stick with Occam's razor;
there is no real point in guessing about miracles happening later =
Science laws are called "laws" because they describe the past,=20
not because they lay down rules for what has to happen next.
Still, so far, betting that the old laws keep working has
always paid off. Technically, the universe could just blink out
of existence at any moment. That would not really bother anyone.
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
That is certainly not the way the word is used by the religious people=20
I know.
I rather expect that the people down the road at the "Mountain of Fire=20
and Miracles Ministry" would also beg to differ.
So it is at the least an atheist/fundamentalist definition.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world
(universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos.
How do you know that a Universe /not/ corrupted by Sin is real?
The question cuts both ways. And "Myth-OS"es are everywhere.
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
This is why attempts to change other people's minds by "citing facts"
does not generally work: what is going on is all too often actually an attempt to convert them from one religion to another.
And, BTW, my statement clearly supports the validity of Science. But
only for the Universe we are in.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 15:36:00 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:on.
On 25 May 2025 17:09:01 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
=20
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote or quoted:
This is after the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth. Who can
say what their physics may look like?
From a philosophy angle, miracles are possible, since all the
laws of nature come from stuff we have seen before and just
describe what happened back then. We can only guess those same
laws will hold up down the road, but we do not actually know for
sure. But for now, we have to stick with Occam's razor;
there is no real point in guessing about miracles happening later =
Science laws are called "laws" because they describe the past,=20
not because they lay down rules for what has to happen next.
Still, so far, betting that the old laws keep working has
always paid off. Technically, the universe could just blink out
of existence at any moment. That would not really bother anyone.
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
That is certainly not the way the word is used by the religious people=20 >>I know.
I rather expect that the people down the road at the "Mountain of Fire=20 >>and Miracles Ministry" would also beg to differ.
So it is at the least an atheist/fundamentalist definition.
Or it was developed centuries before fundamentalism, as such, existed
and was adopted as traditional. Intellectuals, after all, existed from
long ago.=20
More assertions:
1. Jesus had something to say about those who sought "signs and
wonders". And it wasn't very nice.
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
More assertions:
1. Jesus had something to say about those who sought "signs and
wonders". And it wasn't very nice.
1) How do you know such a person actually existed?
2) How do you know that person, assuming he existed,
said anything about "signs and wonders"?
Don't point to the KJV - primary contemporaneous sources only.
On 27/05/2025 17:04, Paul S Person wrote:=20
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
=20
=20
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
It seems to match the Catholic definition, and they are after all the=
largest Christian denomination.
On 5/27/25 09:13, Paul S Person wrote:world
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
=20
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a =
chariots.=20(universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos.
How do you know that a Universe /not/ corrupted by Sin is real?
Because of the prevalence of death and change.
The standard interpretation is that prior ot the "original sin" of our
mythic parents they were immortal but with sin came death. However
death is universal for complex organisms as shown by countless fossils. >Therefore the myth and its standard interpretation are flawed at best
and likely wrong. Many deaths before homo sapiens evolved. And much
more time passed than allowed for in the standard interpretation of
the various scriptures apart from the Hindu which are very religiously >focused on battles of gods, their avatars and demi-gods in flying =
over very long periods of time.
Further homo sapiens sapiens evolved as shown by many fossils
and likely had its problems with large scale deaths which reduced our
genetic diversity. This may have been caused by plagues or perhaps
by catastrophic ocean rise when the various ice dams collapsed as
the previous Ice Age waned.
=09
attempting=20
The question cuts both ways. And "Myth-OS"es are everywhere.
=20
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
i do not believe Atheism is a religion. Anti-religious bigotry is=20
over-blown.
Secular humanism is a philosophy not a religion. Some people are =
to create an atheistic church which will depend on the community of =people
who are willing to identify as atheists which is problematic in many =areas.
In case you had not heard atheists are persecuted far more than
Christians or most other religions.
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
=20
This is why attempts to change other people's minds by "citing facts"
does not generally work: what is going on is all too often actually an
attempt to convert them from one religion to another.
=20
And, BTW, my statement clearly supports the validity of Science. But
only for the Universe we are in.
Well of course we have to specify the validity of science in this
Universe as presently we have no access except through the medium
of imagination. And that is the probably for the best in this world.
In article <whmZP.20802$WUcf.8194@fx01.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
More assertions:
1. Jesus had something to say about those who sought "signs and
wonders". And it wasn't very nice.
1) How do you know such a person actually existed?
2) How do you know that person, assuming he existed,
said anything about "signs and wonders"?
The Gospels were some of the later books of the New Testament
written. Of those, John was clearly written after the other
three; among other things, it has more of the concept that
Christianity was becoming something separate from a sect
of Judaism, and it names the disciple who cut off the chief
priest's servant's ear -- quite probably because the others
were written while Peter was still alive; John was written
after Peter was safely dead.
The Rylands manuscript, a fragment of the Gospel of John,
is reliably dated about 120 AD.
Much earlier writings are the various letters by Paul and
others, clearly written before 70AD.
The standards for reliability of ancient documents are:
1) Number of copies of the documents
2) How well the copies agree with each other
3) How close in time the earliest copies are to the events.
By all of these standards, compared to the New Testmanent,
how do, say, the works of Tacitus, Cicero, Julius Caesar rate?
Not remotely close. The works collected in the New Testament
blow them all away by these tests of reliability.
There is, of course, a fourth standard, which is never stated
by determinedly secular academicans, but is followed rigidly:
"Except Bible, we throw it all out if it's Bible."
Don't point to the KJV - primary contemporaneous sources only.
This is utter nonsense. Nobody (except a few ... non
mainstream types ...) thinks the Bible originated with
the translators hired by King James. I'm talking about
the originals, written mostly in Koine Greek, one or two,
I think may be written in Aramaic.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
More assertions:
1. Jesus had something to say about those who sought "signs and
wonders". And it wasn't very nice.
1) How do you know such a person actually existed?
2) How do you know that person, assuming he existed,
said anything about "signs and wonders"?
Don't point to the KJV - primary contemporaneous sources only.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 04:27:51 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt ><usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <whmZP.20802$WUcf.8194@fx01.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
More assertions:
1. Jesus had something to say about those who sought "signs and >>>>wonders". And it wasn't very nice.
1) How do you know such a person actually existed?
2) How do you know that person, assuming he existed,
said anything about "signs and wonders"?
The Gospels were some of the later books of the New Testament
written. Of those, John was clearly written after the other
three; among other things, it has more of the concept that
Christianity was becoming something separate from a sect
of Judaism, and it names the disciple who cut off the chief
priest's servant's ear -- quite probably because the others
were written while Peter was still alive; John was written
after Peter was safely dead.
The Rylands manuscript, a fragment of the Gospel of John,
is reliably dated about 120 AD.
Much earlier writings are the various letters by Paul and
others, clearly written before 70AD.
The standards for reliability of ancient documents are:
1) Number of copies of the documents
2) How well the copies agree with each other
3) How close in time the earliest copies are to the events.
By all of these standards, compared to the New Testmanent,
how do, say, the works of Tacitus, Cicero, Julius Caesar rate?
Not remotely close. The works collected in the New Testament
blow them all away by these tests of reliability.
There is, of course, a fourth standard, which is never stated
by determinedly secular academicans, but is followed rigidly:
"Except Bible, we throw it all out if it's Bible."
Don't point to the KJV - primary contemporaneous sources only.
This is utter nonsense. Nobody (except a few ... non
mainstream types ...) thinks the Bible originated with
the translators hired by King James. I'm talking about
the originals, written mostly in Koine Greek, one or two,
I think may be written in Aramaic.
He knows this. He is a common garden-variety atheist, and nothing
anybody says will change his mind, for he will defend his deeply-held >religious beliefs to the bitter end. As will most if not all of us.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 09:48:38 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 5/27/25 09:13, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world >>>>> (universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos.
How do you know that a Universe /not/ corrupted by Sin is real?
Because of the prevalence of death and change.
The standard interpretation is that prior ot the "original sin" of our >> mythic parents they were immortal but with sin came death. However
death is universal for complex organisms as shown by countless fossils.
Therefore the myth and its standard interpretation are flawed at best
and likely wrong. Many deaths before homo sapiens evolved. And much
more time passed than allowed for in the standard interpretation of
the various scriptures apart from the Hindu which are very religiously
focused on battles of gods, their avatars and demi-gods in flying chariots. >> over very long periods of time.
Further homo sapiens sapiens evolved as shown by many fossils
and likely had its problems with large scale deaths which reduced our
genetic diversity. This may have been caused by plagues or perhaps
by catastrophic ocean rise when the various ice dams collapsed as
the previous Ice Age waned.
And how do you know that the "mythic parents" and their condition was
not quite quite real -- until they fell, and everything changed?
IOW, what makes you think that you are not describing a corrupted
Universe? Are you assuming that there must be continuity between the
original form and the corrupted form? On what basis?
The question cuts both ways. And "Myth-OS"es are everywhere.
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
i do not believe Atheism is a religion. Anti-religious bigotry is
over-blown.
Secular humanism is a philosophy not a religion. Some people are attempting >> to create an atheistic church which will depend on the community of people >> who are willing to identify as atheists which is problematic in many areas. >> In case you had not heard atheists are persecuted far more than
Christians or most other religions.
Well, of course you don't. It is one of your deeply-held religious
beliefs. But reality is.
Persecuted for their religious beliefs. Lack of Freedom of Speech is a
bitch.
And you can't have Freedom of Speech without Freedom of Religious
Speech, as some Iranians a decade or so found out when they voiced disapproval of the government's policies. Those policies were the
Ayatollah's policies, and the Ayatollah's policies were Allah's
policies, so they were punished for blasphemy. Which, in Iran, is
quite severely punished.
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
This is why attempts to change other people's minds by "citing facts"
does not generally work: what is going on is all too often actually an
attempt to convert them from one religion to another.
And, BTW, my statement clearly supports the validity of Science. But
only for the Universe we are in.
Well of course we have to specify the validity of science in this
Universe as presently we have no access except through the medium
of imagination. And that is the probably for the best in this world.
And yet above you presume to regard the description of the World
(Universe) as God created it as "myth". Without any reason at all
except that you can't fit it into your deeply-held religious beliefs.
(The point here is not whether or not it is "myth". The point here is
that saying it is so reflects your beliefs, not facts, and certainly
not science.)
The standards for reliability of ancient documents are:
1) Number of copies of the documents
2) How well the copies agree with each other
3) How close in time the earliest copies are to the events.
By all of these standards, compared to the New Testmanent,
how do, say, the works of Tacitus, Cicero, Julius Caesar rate?
Not remotely close. The works collected in the New Testament
blow them all away by these tests of reliability.
This is utter nonsense. Nobody (except a few ... non
mainstream types ...) thinks the Bible originated with
the translators hired by King James. I'm talking about
the originals, written mostly in Koine Greek, one or two,
I think may be written in Aramaic.
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote or quoted:
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
However, have you heard of the "etymological fallacy," where
someone wrongly argues that a word's current meaning must be
the same as its original or historical meaning, ignoring the
fact that language evolves over time?
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world
(universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos.
How do you know that a Universe /not/ corrupted by Sin is real?
The question cuts both ways. And "Myth-OS"es are everywhere.
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
This is why attempts to change other people's minds by "citing facts"
does not generally work: what is going on is all too often actually an attempt to convert them from one religion to another.
And, BTW, my statement clearly supports the validity of Science. But
only for the Universe we are in.
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event thatJust because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
ps! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
that the definition does not change the reality.
Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
Nobody (except a few ... non
mainstream types ...) thinks the Bible originated with
the translators hired by King James.
Nobody who actually knows about the Bible, but you would be shocked to
see how many people in the various Southern Protestant traditions believe >that the KJV is the only possible translation and that the translators of
the KJV were able to correct errors in the documents they were working
from, because they were sustained by God.
There is a dramatic difference between people trained at the Yale School
of Divinity and the people trained at Hooterville Bible College.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
[Miracles and laws of nature]
More assertions:
1. Jesus had something to say about those who sought "signs and
wonders". And it wasn't very nice.
1) How do you know such a person actually existed?
2) How do you know that person, assuming he existed,
said anything about "signs and wonders"?
Don't point to the KJV - primary contemporaneous sources only.
In article <100r948$bvlu$1@dont-email.me>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
On 25/05/2025 03:52, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <100r948$bvlu$1@dont-email.me>,
Robert Carnegieÿ <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
I think that being seized and publicly burned
should meet a reasonable condition of "banned",
and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.
As for the year 2025, watch this space.
Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.
On 29/05/2025 9:01 p.m., Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 25/05/2025 03:52, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <100r948$bvlu$1@dont-email.me>,
Robert Carnegieÿ <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
I think that being seized and publicly burned
should meet a reasonable condition of "banned",
No, it doesn't. Banning is not merely hating or destroying. It's an institutional act, by a government, church, school board or whatever, decreeing that the book may not be sold/printed/possessed or whatever,
by persons within that institution's jurisdiction.
and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.
Couple of times in the US (within this century), and once in Poland,
judging by a quick search.
As for the year 2025, watch this space.
Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.
Around where you live, you mean?
I strongly disagree that atheism, for example, is a religion, ...
As for atheism and laws of nature, I see those
as two separate things.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:the
On Tue, 27 May 2025 18:24:27 +0100, Graham <zotzlists@gmail.com>
wrote:
=20
On 27/05/2025 17:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
=20
=20
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
It seems to match the Catholic definition, and they are after all =
largest Christian denomination.=20
They also have a special interest in making them as hard to find as
possible, to keep down the hucksters. And keep the number of new
Saints to a minimum.
=20
But they also have a tendency to keep quiet about popular miracles
that they know are not (by the definition given above) lest they
"disturb the faith of the laity" -- which is to say, the unwashed
masses.
As a matter of fact the 'three authentic miracles' to be performed
as a condition for Sainthood have been abolished,
from practical necessity and by popular demand.
The necessary production of fresh saints just couldn't be kept up,
On 2025-05-27 10:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
=20
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote or quoted:=20
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
However, have you heard of the "etymological fallacy," where
someone wrongly argues that a word's current meaning must be
the same as its original or historical meaning, ignoring the
fact that language evolves over time?
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
Feel free to prove that what you consider to be reality is factual.
On 5/28/25 08:15, Paul S Person wrote:world
On Tue, 27 May 2025 09:48:38 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
=20
On 5/27/25 09:13, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a =
New(universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is >>>>>> not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the =
newJerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a =
fossils.world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos.
How do you know that a Universe /not/ corrupted by Sin is real?
Because of the prevalence of death and change.
The standard interpretation is that prior ot the "original sin" of = our
mythic parents they were immortal but with sin came death. However
death is universal for complex organisms as shown by countless =
religiouslyTherefore the myth and its standard interpretation are flawed at best
and likely wrong. Many deaths before homo sapiens evolved. And much
more time passed than allowed for in the standard interpretation of
the various scriptures apart from the Hindu which are very =
focused on battles of gods, their avatars and demi-gods in flying = chariots.=20
over very long periods of time.
Further homo sapiens sapiens evolved as shown by many fossils
and likely had its problems with large scale deaths which reduced our
genetic diversity. This may have been caused by plagues or perhaps
by catastrophic ocean rise when the various ice dams collapsed as
the previous Ice Age waned.
=09
And how do you know that the "mythic parents" and their condition was
not quite quite real -- until they fell, and everything changed?
That is not the story told. They lived in ignorance in a garden and=20
tasted the
apple of the knowledge of good and evil. The apple tasted good so they=20 >became
aware of the taste of good things and the un-named individual ate a=20 >poisonous
something and died. Dying is evil and the body rots and stinks.
IOW, what makes you think that you are not describing a corrupted
Universe? Are you assuming that there must be continuity between the
original form and the corrupted form? On what basis?
Geology and fossils. Radioactivity used to date the various matter
The latest astronomical data from the extra-terrestial observational=20
devices usually
referred to as Telescopes which are able to look back in time before=20 >humanity could have existed.
facts"=20The question cuts both ways. And "Myth-OS"es are everywhere.
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
i do not believe Atheism is a religion. Anti-religious bigotry is
over-blown.
Secular humanism is a philosophy not a religion. Some people are = attempting
to create an atheistic church which will depend on the community of = people
who are willing to identify as atheists which is problematic in many = areas.
In case you had not heard atheists are persecuted far more than
Christians or most other religions.
Well, of course you don't. It is one of your deeply-held religious
beliefs. But reality is.
Reality is indeed.
=20
Persecuted for their religious beliefs. Lack of Freedom of Speech is a
bitch.
=20
And you can't have Freedom of Speech without Freedom of Religious
Speech, as some Iranians a decade or so found out when they voiced
disapproval of the government's policies. Those policies were the
Ayatollah's policies, and the Ayatollah's policies were Allah's
policies, so they were punished for blasphemy. Which, in Iran, is
quite severely punished.
=20
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
This is why attempts to change other people's minds by "citing =
andoes not generally work: what is going on is all too often actually =
Galaxy=20attempt to convert them from one religion to another.
And, BTW, my statement clearly supports the validity of Science. But
only for the Universe we are in.
Well of course we have to specify the validity of science in this
Universe as presently we have no access except through the medium
of imagination. And that is the probably for the best in this world.
And yet above you presume to regard the description of the World
(Universe) as God created it as "myth". Without any reason at all
except that you can't fit it into your deeply-held religious beliefs.
The authors of the scriptures referred to the heavens and the earth.
The heavens are not a place but a vast Universe full of billions of=20
stars and
galactic conglomerations But they did not know that at all so they told=20 >stories
about everything they could not begin to understand. We still used some
of the names they coined to tell the stories for example we call the =
we live in the Milky Way and Galaxy is the same word for the stars theythey
could see at night stretching across the sky. If g-d had inspired them =
would have had more truth in the scriptures.
They were talking about a ceramist god who breathed the breath of life=20 >into the=20
creation. The authors were enormously ignorant of nearly everything that=
did notwith
contribute to the survival of human persons and the gross facts of=20 >reproduction.
Well they had learned that women did not reproduce without intercourse =
men or gods(?).paranoia.
They knew nothing of DNA nor of proper nutrition, vitamins, or the true=20 >causes
of illness of all sorts. The prophets, some of them at least, likely=20 >suffered from
very poor diets which can lead to hallucinatory experiences and =
Oh and by the way it has been speculated that DNA which is the basis of=20
life on this planet and likely else where as well first came together in=
deposits
of clay. But it may have been an import from the previous generation
of stars and planets which died to make the Solar System including the=20 >Earth.
--=20(The point here is not whether or not it is "myth". The point here is
that saying it is so reflects your beliefs, not facts, and certainly
not science.)
On 27/05/2025 18:05, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
[Miracles and laws of nature]
More assertions:
1. Jesus had something to say about those who sought "signs and
wonders". And it wasn't very nice.
1) How do you know such a person actually existed?
2) How do you know that person, assuming he existed,
ÿÿÿ said anything about "signs and wonders"?
Don't point to the KJV - primary contemporaneous sources only.
I've read the book (mostly not KJV).ÿ I don't know
what Paul thinks is "not nice" about "miracles",
but I do remember the Jesus character doing plenty
of miracles and specifically saying that the purpose
of this was to persuade people to accept his
religious teaching.
Reasonably, his treatment of medical conditions
up to "being dead several days" with miracles
also can be interpreted as motivated by sympathy
for sufferers, except that Jesus also says that
people suffered these medical conditions in the
first place so that he could do the miracles
on them.
As for atheism and laws of nature, I see those
as two separate things.ÿ I see atheism as neither
a belief nor disbelief, but a choice of not
worshipping gods.ÿ In this, a person shouldn't
have to decide whether for instance a mysterious
invisible entity exists, or whether the Roman
Emperor is a god (conventionally yes when dead)
but only whether to propitiate gods.ÿ And if
a person is forced by other people to worship
a god, then, unwillingly, they are worshipping.
Clearly this is considered to have value,
otherwise what is the purpose of making them
do it?
If you want atheism to be a belief, then it
can be a belief that it isn't necessary to
worship gods.
Scientific knowledge mostly relies on presuming
that material substance behaves according to
consistent principles, which are called laws
of nature.ÿ It is usually assumed that this is
intrinsic to the material substance and not
continually performed by God, although philsophers
have flirted with the contrary idea.ÿ Amongst
problems of everything being miraculous are that
God then is morally responsible for everything
that happens, and that you are supposing that
God didn't and couldn't or wouldn't create
anything that would persist of its own accord,
which looks like hardly creating things at all.
But as I say, it's been talked of.
Religious miracles usually are understood as
a god causing matter to behave other than as by
the natural laws.ÿ But this doesn't require
that matter doesn't contain and obey laws of
nature the rest of the time.ÿ And while it
suggests that the god should be worshipped,
that remains a choice.ÿ And what if several
competing gods offer miracles for your
consideration?ÿ And some of them could be
faking it.ÿ There are "magic" tricks with no
supernatural element.
Also, as Arthur C. Clarke revealed to us,
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic."ÿ So for instance,
some miracles could be performed with concealed
magnets.ÿ Especially if someone doesn't know
that magnets exist.
On 25/05/2025 03:52, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <100r948$bvlu$1@dont-email.me>,
Robert Carnegieÿ <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
I think that being seized and publicly burned
should meet a reasonable condition of "banned",
and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.
As for the year 2025, watch this space.
Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.
On 2025-05-27 10:13, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
=20
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
I strongly disagree that atheism, for example, is a religion, ...
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
Nor is it a philosophy.
I don't believe that the world is being run by an intelligent giant=20
purple octopus either, and you would be hard put to describe that as=20 >either a religion or a philosophy.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 09:13:54 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
<apologies for any confusion, this is normal for this sort of thing>
On 5/28/25 08:15, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 09:48:38 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 5/27/25 09:13, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
How do you know that a Universe /not/ corrupted by Sin is real?
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world >>>>>>> (universe)/corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is >>>>>>> not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New >>>>>>> Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new >>>>>>> world (universe), freed from sin.
How do you know that what you are describing as a Universe
corrupted by Sin is real? You are living within the Xtian mythos.
Myth-OS is not a good place to start from whether Xtian, Jewish,
Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Norse. or other pagan mythos. >>>>>
Because of the prevalence of death and change.
The standard interpretation is that prior ot the "original sin" of our >>>> mythic parents they were immortal but with sin came death. However
death is universal for complex organisms as shown by countless fossils. >>>> Therefore the myth and its standard interpretation are flawed at best
and likely wrong. Many deaths before homo sapiens evolved. And much
more time passed than allowed for in the standard interpretation of
the various scriptures apart from the Hindu which are very religiously >>>> focused on battles of gods, their avatars and demi-gods in flying chariots.
over very long periods of time.
Further homo sapiens sapiens evolved as shown by many fossils
and likely had its problems with large scale deaths which reduced our
genetic diversity. This may have been caused by plagues or perhaps
by catastrophic ocean rise when the various ice dams collapsed as
the previous Ice Age waned.
And how do you know that the "mythic parents" and their condition was
not quite quite real -- until they fell, and everything changed?
That is not the story told. They lived in ignorance in a garden and
tasted the
apple of the knowledge of good and evil. The apple tasted good so they
became
aware of the taste of good things and the un-named individual ate a
poisonous
something and died. Dying is evil and the body rots and stinks.
That is nonsense. Are you sure you have actually /read/ the story?
Hints:
-- no "apple" (just "fruit")
-- no indication how it tasted and, no, this isn't about how good
things taste
-- all the participants have names (which, like most Hebrew names, are
also common nouns)
-- nobody dies in the Garden (the people are expelled, the Snake loses
its legs)
You last bit is true enough.
Still, it's not as bad as some versions I have read.
IOW, what makes you think that you are not describing a corrupted
Universe? Are you assuming that there must be continuity between the
original form and the corrupted form? On what basis?
Geology and fossils. Radioactivity used to date the various matter
The latest astronomical data from the extra-terrestial observational
devices usually
referred to as Telescopes which are able to look back in time before
humanity could have existed.
All of which is compatible with a corrupted reality and assumes
continuity with the uncorrupted reality. This is your deeply-held
religious belief resurfacing. None of it is relevant.
The question cuts both ways. And "Myth-OS"es are everywhere.
And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
i do not believe Atheism is a religion. Anti-religious bigotry is
over-blown.
Secular humanism is a philosophy not a religion. Some people are attempting
to create an atheistic church which will depend on the community of people >>>> who are willing to identify as atheists which is problematic in many areas.
In case you had not heard atheists are persecuted far more than
Christians or most other religions.
Well, of course you don't. It is one of your deeply-held religious
beliefs. But reality is.
Reality is indeed.
Persecuted for their religious beliefs. Lack of Freedom of Speech is a
bitch.
And you can't have Freedom of Speech without Freedom of Religious
Speech, as some Iranians a decade or so found out when they voiced
disapproval of the government's policies. Those policies were the
Ayatollah's policies, and the Ayatollah's policies were Allah's
policies, so they were punished for blasphemy. Which, in Iran, is
quite severely punished.
Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or even
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
This is why attempts to change other people's minds by "citing facts" >>>>> does not generally work: what is going on is all too often actually an >>>>> attempt to convert them from one religion to another.
And, BTW, my statement clearly supports the validity of Science. But >>>>> only for the Universe we are in.
Well of course we have to specify the validity of science in this
Universe as presently we have no access except through the medium
of imagination. And that is the probably for the best in this world.
And yet above you presume to regard the description of the World
(Universe) as God created it as "myth". Without any reason at all
except that you can't fit it into your deeply-held religious beliefs.
The authors of the scriptures referred to the heavens and the earth.
The heavens are not a place but a vast Universe full of billions of
stars and
galactic conglomerations But they did not know that at all so they told
stories
about everything they could not begin to understand. We still used some
of the names they coined to tell the stories for example we call the Galaxy >> we live in the Milky Way and Galaxy is the same word for the stars they
could see at night stretching across the sky. If g-d had inspired them they >> would have had more truth in the scriptures.
Which is all very well, but I don't see you getting upset because
Ptolemy and Copernicus believed much the same thing.
Your last sentence involves so many assumptions that I am not going to
bother listing them. I will, however, point out that even God must communicate with people in language they understand if He wants to be understood.
You can't have it both ways: either they /could/ have understood how
things are per science (you are taking it for granted, for example,
that we are not living inside a computer simulation), in which case
God could have used that knowledge, or they did not, in which God's
desire to be understood shaped how He put things. But you can't have
them ignorant and then claim that God's having to take this into
account proves anything. Well, except patience and adaptability.
They were talking about a ceramist god who breathed the breath of life
into the
creation. The authors were enormously ignorant of nearly everything that
did not
contribute to the survival of human persons and the gross facts of
reproduction.
Well they had learned that women did not reproduce without intercourse with >> men or gods(?).
They knew nothing of DNA nor of proper nutrition, vitamins, or the true
causes
of illness of all sorts. The prophets, some of them at least, likely
suffered from
very poor diets which can lead to hallucinatory experiences and paranoia.
All of which merely reinforces the prior remarks. Except to add that
here you appear to have abandoned the idea the God wrote it and
attributing it to Man -- who is born enslaved to sin, lives enslaved
to sin, and dies enslaved to sin. You are beating up on your fellow
slaves here.
Oh and by the way it has been speculated that DNA which is the basis of
life on this planet and likely else where as well first came together in
deposits
of clay. But it may have been an import from the previous generation
of stars and planets which died to make the Solar System including the
Earth.
There are lots of speculations and no real evidence. I expect that
eventually an explanation correct for a corrupted reality will be
found. It may take a few centuries. But it doesn't matter: DNA in a
corrupted universe is also corrupted. And there is /no/ reason to
believe that a universe not corrupted by sin would have DNA in it.
We simply do not know and cannot know. And that is the point: science
is limited to the present corrupted reality. It can say nothing of any
other reality, before or after this one.
That you appear to be unable to grasp the point speaks to the grip
your religious beliefs have on you.
(The point here is not whether or not it is "myth". The point here is
that saying it is so reflects your beliefs, not facts, and certainly
not science.)
Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
believeThis is utter nonsense. Nobody (except a few ... non
mainstream types ...) thinks the Bible originated with
the translators hired by King James. I'm talking about
the originals, written mostly in Koine Greek, one or two,
I think may be written in Aramaic.
Nobody who actually knows about the Bible, but you would be shocked to
see how many people in the various Southern Protestant traditions =
that the KJV is the only possible translation and that the translators =of
the KJV were able to correct errors in the documents they were working=20 >from, because they were sustained by God.
On 25/05/2025 03:52, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <100r948$bvlu$1@dont-email.me>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not=20
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
=20
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
I think that being seized and publicly burned
should meet a reasonable condition of "banned",
and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.
As for the year 2025, watch this space.
Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and--=20
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:04:20 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 18:24:27 +0100, Graham <zotzlists@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 27/05/2025 17:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make >>>>>> that the definition does not change the reality.
It seems to match the Catholic definition, and they are after all the >>>>> largest Christian denomination.
They also have a special interest in making them as hard to find as
possible, to keep down the hucksters. And keep the number of new
Saints to a minimum.
But they also have a tendency to keep quiet about popular miracles
that they know are not (by the definition given above) lest they
"disturb the faith of the laity" -- which is to say, the unwashed
masses.
As a matter of fact the 'three authentic miracles' to be performed
as a condition for Sainthood have been abolished,
from practical necessity and by popular demand.
The necessary production of fresh saints just couldn't be kept up,
Thanks for the update. I make no attempt to keep up with what they are
doing, so it takes something major, like an American Pope, to catch my
eye.
The case of John-Paul II is often cited as an example of the unseemly
haste of recent procedures, under popular demand. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatification_of_Pope_John_Paul_II>
It really is safer to do nothing for the first hundred years,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
There is a dramatic difference between people trained at the Yale School
of Divinity and the people trained at Hooterville Bible College.
There's a pretty big gap between those two extremes. There are
plenty of "considerably more conservative than I am" churches
that prefer New American Standard, or ESV, or NASB, but aren't
dogmatic about which translation.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:13:48 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
On 2025-05-27 10:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote or quoted:
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
However, have you heard of the "etymological fallacy," where
someone wrongly argues that a word's current meaning must be
the same as its original or historical meaning, ignoring the
fact that language evolves over time?
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
Feel free to prove that what you consider to be reality is factual.
Prove /what/ is factual? Please be specific.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:04:20 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 18:24:27 +0100, Graham <zotzlists@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 27/05/2025 17:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make >>>>>> that the definition does not change the reality.
It seems to match the Catholic definition, and they are after all the >>>>> largest Christian denomination.
They also have a special interest in making them as hard to find as
possible, to keep down the hucksters. And keep the number of new
Saints to a minimum.
But they also have a tendency to keep quiet about popular miracles
that they know are not (by the definition given above) lest they
"disturb the faith of the laity" -- which is to say, the unwashed
masses.
As a matter of fact the 'three authentic miracles' to be performed
as a condition for Sainthood have been abolished,
from practical necessity and by popular demand.
The necessary production of fresh saints just couldn't be kept up,
Thanks for the update. I make no attempt to keep up with what they are
doing, so it takes something major, like an American Pope, to catch my
eye.
The case of John-Paul II is often cited as an example of the unseemly
haste of recent procedures, under popular demand. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatification_of_Pope_John_Paul_II>
It really is safer to do nothing for the first hundred years,
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:21:14 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
On 2025-05-27 10:13, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
<here, I will try some snipping -- the reference was to a list of
religions that /do/ admit to being religions>
Feel free to disagree.And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
I strongly disagree that atheism, for example, is a religion, ...
Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all in the USA.
Not in the USA? Check your local laws.
Ah, so you don't believe that atheists are friends of wisdom.Note that many of these admit to being philosophies or evenNor is it a philosophy.
ideologies. But when those function as a "Myth-OS", they act as a
religion.
("Philosophy" is "friend (or lover) of wisdom").
But of course it is a philosophy. Theology was originally part of
philosophy, and "God doesn't exist" is a clearly theological
statement.
I don't believe that the world is being run by an intelligent giant
purple octopus either, and you would be hard put to describe that as
either a religion or a philosophy.
Nobody claims that it is. That's the problem with adopting a negative proposition as the basis of life.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:21:14 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca>
wrote:
I don't believe that the world is being run by an intelligent
giant purple octopus either, and you would be hard put to describe
that as either a religion or a philosophy.
Nobody claims that it is. That's the problem with adopting a
negative proposition as the basis of life.
As a matter of fact the 'three authentic miracles' to be performed as
a condition for Sainthood have been abolished, from practical
necessity and by popular demand.
On 2025-05-29 09:05, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:13:48 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
=20
On 2025-05-27 10:04, Paul S Person wrote:=20
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote or quoted:
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something >>>>>> worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
However, have you heard of the "etymological fallacy," where
someone wrongly argues that a word's current meaning must be
the same as its original or historical meaning, ignoring the
fact that language evolves over time?
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
Feel free to prove that what you consider to be reality is factual.
Prove /what/ is factual? Please be specific.
I already specified it. It's "what you consider to be reality".
And saying Reality is corrupted is a meaningless statement.
What Reality have you ever seen that is not corrupted, outside of
your imagination?
Reality is what it is and corruption is a doubtful term to apply
to the medium in which we take our temporary beings.
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:wrote:
On 2025-05-29 09:36, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:21:14 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> =
stop=20=20
On 2025-05-27 10:13, Paul S Person wrote:=20
On Mon, 26 May 2025 10:54:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 5/26/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
<here, I will try some snipping -- the reference was to a list of
religions that /do/ admit to being religions>
=20
Feel free to disagree.And you somehow left out: atheist, anti-religious bigotry, secular
humanism, and any other religion that denies its own nature.
I strongly disagree that atheism, for example, is a religion, ...
I do.
=20
Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all in the USA.=20
Not in the USA? Check your local laws.
The laws of Canada guarantee freedom of religion, but that did not =
andme from getting severe corporal punishment because I refused to=20
participate in the morning 'service', consisting of a bible reading =
a bowing of the head while the teacher recited the lord's prayer.
=20
Full details can be supplied on request, should you so desire.
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
On 30/05/25 01:36, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:21:14 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca>
wrote:
I don't believe that the world is being run by an intelligent
giant purple octopus either, and you would be hard put to describe
that as either a religion or a philosophy.
Nobody claims that it is. That's the problem with adopting a
negative proposition as the basis of life.
If an atheist adopted "there are no gods" as the _basis_of_life_, that >perhaps could be called a religious position; but that would be a very
rare atheist. The more typical position "gods, in the unlikely event
that any exist, are irrelevant to me" is not a "basis of life" kind of >statement.
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
J. J. Lodder <jjlxa32@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom to enjoy your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course many
of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to Holland to enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as well.
So they took themselves to America.
J. J. Lodder <jjlxa32@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom to enjoy your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course many
of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to Holland to enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as well.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
J. J. Lodder <jjlxa32@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing.ÿ You don't get freedom to
enjoy
your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this.ÿ But of course many
of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to
Holland to
enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want
religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as well.
This is a facet of history that gets lost.
A number of "repressed" denominations were not seeking toleration, but domination.ÿ I am not referring to any one group here - it might be the policy of one faction of religion X, but not of the rest.
At the end of the English Civil War, for example, the Presbyterians of
that time assumed that now *they* would be the established church in England.ÿ Cromwell convinced them otherwise.
On 30/05/2025 19:07, William Hyde wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
J. J. Lodder <jjlxa32@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing.ÿ You don't get freedom to
enjoy
your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this.ÿ But of course many >>> of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to
Holland to
enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want
religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as
well.
This is a facet of history that gets lost.
A number of "repressed" denominations were not seeking toleration, but
domination.ÿ I am not referring to any one group here - it might be
the policy of one faction of religion X, but not of the rest.
I suppose it is understandable.
With the exception of The Netherlands, it was the usual practice for the Monarch or government to define the particular form of religion to be followed in their lands.
They just wanted a place where they would be top dog.
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
J. J. Lodder <jjlxa32@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom to enjoy >> your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course many
of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to Holland to >> enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want
religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as well.
So they took themselves to America.
Ahem, you are confusing the Pilgrims (1620) with the Puritans (1630).
They were two different groups of people (the Puritans being more
numerous and more affluent).
"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the religions
that deny their own nature.
"Freedom from forced participation" is a valid concern, but why limit
it to religion? Why not include, say, pep rallies?
On 30/05/2025 17:05, Paul S Person wrote:
"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the
religions
that deny their own nature.
I don't really understand that, but I think it's freedom _of_
religion, in the Constitution.ÿ However, at least to some extent,
one implies the other.
Take the Supreme Court decision on abortion as an example.
Perhaps those judges with strong religious views in the subject
should have recused themselves.
The rest of us * now have to comply with their religion. Is that
not forced participation?
IMO you can't have freedom of religion without freedom from
religion.
anybody says will change his mind, for he will defend his deeply-held
religious beliefs to the bitter end. As will most if not all of us.
Nonsense.
I have no deeply held beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Your flawed theory that the lack of belief in the supernatural
is "religious" is complete nonsense and a typical response from
a rabid believer.
But I have a simpler definition: Any religion that denies it's own
nature.
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
This reminded me of a similar exchange in 2019:
Used to actually /identify/ religions when we see them.
All religions. Not just those (some) atheists are willing to recognize.
On 31/05/2025 02:06, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 30/05/2025 17:05, Paul S Person wrote:
"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the religions
that deny their own nature.
I don't really understand that, but I think it's freedom _of_
religion, in the Constitution.ÿ However, at least to some extent, one
implies the other.
Take the Supreme Court decision on abortion as an example. Perhaps
those judges with strong religious views in the subject should have
recused themselves.
That's a door we probably didn't want opened, but maybe if we tread lightly...?
The rest of us * now have to comply with their religion. Is that not
forced participation?
Is it your contention that all atheists are in favour of abortion?
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>snip
wrote:
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly, excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
On 31/05/2025 02:43, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 31/05/2025 02:06, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 30/05/2025 17:05, Paul S Person wrote:
"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the
religions
that deny their own nature.
I don't really understand that, but I think it's freedom _of_
religion, in the Constitution.ÿ However, at least to some
extent, one implies the other.
Take the Supreme Court decision on abortion as an example.
Perhaps those judges with strong religious views in the
subject should have recused themselves.
That's a door we probably didn't want opened, but maybe if we
tread lightly...?
The rest of us * now have to comply with their religion. Is
that not forced participation?
Is it your contention that all atheists are in favour of abortion?
Goodness no, not at all.
As an aside, I don't consider myself an atheist, more an agnostic
- I don't believe in any of theÿ established religions, afaict
they are mostly about controlling people rather than a search for
truth.
When I was younger I thought even being an agnostic rather than
an atheist was crapping out
- but as I get older I wonder, why is
there something - cogito ergo sum - rather than nothing?
As a physicist (I am not mainly a physicist, but) I can see that
the universe could arise from nothing - but then why should
physics, or mathematics, or philosophy, be that way?
Or is it just turtles all the way down?ÿ :)
Anywhoo, as to abortion. In the 60's it became a practical method
of birth control, though it had been possible earlier.
An ex-girlfriend had an abortion - not mine - and she still
thinks about it from time to time, 50 years later. At the time it
was probably the right decision for her. People die, people kill
each other - but is a fetus a people? I don't know.
What I do know is that many or most women want the freedom to
have an abortion, whether it is the right decision or not. And
while the freedoms in the Constitution do not specifically
mention that, the fact that there are supposed to be those sorts
of freedoms is .. important.
So if a Supreme Court Judge, while smoking a cigar and drinking
brandy at a dinner afterwards (it happened), says he decided
against that freedom on the basis of his religious belief that a
fetus is a people, I can't agree with that.
If he believes that for other reasons, ok, But for religious
reasons, no. That is forcing his religious beliefs on everyone else.
right decision for her. People die, people kill each other - but is a
fetus a people? I don't know.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
Immanuel Kant addressed this subject very effectively nearly two centuries ago, and his work is worth looking up. Schopenhauer expanded on it as
well. It's not worth rehashing on Usenet.
--scott
Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 30/05/2025 19:07, William Hyde wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
J. J. Lodder <jjlxa32@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom
to enjoy
your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course
many
of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to
Holland to
enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want
religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as
well.
This is a facet of history that gets lost.
A number of "repressed" denominations were not seeking toleration,
but domination. I am not referring to any one group here - it might
be the policy of one faction of religion X, but not of the rest.
I suppose it is understandable.
With the exception of The Netherlands, it was the usual practice for
the Monarch or government to define the particular form of religion to
be followed in their lands.
This was even defined as a principle "Cuius regio, eius religio" meaning "whose state, whose religion". Though as originally formulated it
applied only in Germany, and only to Lutheran or Catholic rulers,
Calvinists need not apply.
This was actually an improvement on the previous rule, which was that everyone had to accept the religion of the emperor. Under the new
principle the official religion and that of the ruler were more likely
to be the same.
Things got difficult in a state like Brandenburg, where the population
was Lutheran but the ruler Calvinist.
They just wanted a place where they would be top dog.
They already had one: Scotland.
The parliamentary army was largely Quakers and other independent
protestants. It should have been obvious that they were not fighting to establish yet another religion over their own. Even Presbyterian
elders would have been smart enough to see this, were they not blinded
by their faith and/or desire for power.
William Hyde
On 30/05/2025 at 16:53, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
Immanuel Kant addressed this subject very effectively nearly two
centuries
ago, and his work is worth looking up. Schopenhauer expanded on it as
well. It's not worth rehashing on Usenet.
--scott
But he was a real pissant, and very rarely stable.
On 31/05/25 21:37, Chris Elvidge wrote:
On 30/05/2025 at 16:53, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Personÿ <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, onlyÿ that >>>> I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
Immanuel Kant addressed this subject very effectively nearly two
centuries
ago, and his work is worth looking up.ÿ Schopenhauer expanded on it as
well.ÿ It's not worth rehashing on Usenet.
--scott
But he was a real pissant, and very rarely stable.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
OK Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't religion involve the supernatural?
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:centuries
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
Immanuel Kant addressed this subject very effectively nearly two =
ago, and his work is worth looking up. Schopenhauer expanded on it as
well. It's not worth rehashing on Usenet.
J. J. Lodder <jjlxa32@xs4all.nl> wrote:enjoy
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom to =
your religion without the freedom from mine.to
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course many
of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to Holland=
enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want=20 >religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as =well.
So they took themselves to America.
Yes, always the same with religions.
When a minority the demand tolerance,
once on top they oppress,
On 30/05/2025 17:05, Paul S Person wrote:
"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the religions
that deny their own nature.
I don't really understand that, but I think it's freedom _of_ religion,=20
in the Constitution. However, at least to some extent, one implies the=20 >other.
Take the Supreme Court decision on abortion as an example. Perhaps those==20
judges with strong religious views in the subject should have recused=20 >themselves.
The rest of us * now have to comply with their religion. Is that not=20 >forced participation?
IMO you can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
"Freedom from forced participation" is a valid concern, but why limit
it to religion? Why not include, say, pep rallies?
* the rest of you, actually, as thank Goodness, I am not an American.=20
But I have friends who are.
I read Kant when I read the collection known as /The Great Books of
the Western World/. It took a while, but eventually it became clear:
he was propping up Western culture on a secular basis. This is why he
ends up with the same-old same-old ethics.
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>snip
wrote:
=20
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly,
excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
=20
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ
version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
On 31/05/25 14:31, Titus G wrote:
This reminded me of a similar exchange in 2019:
And again.
On 14/04/20 4:25 am, Paul S Person wrote:recognize.
snip
Used to actually /identify/ religions when we see them.
Is your real name Paul S People?
All religions. Not just those (some) atheists are willing to =
The user of asynchronous communication as practised here does NOT make
the affirmative statement that synchronous communication does not exist.
An asexual person does NOT make the affirmative statement that sex does
not exist.
A Corvid-19 asymptomatic person does NOT make the affirmative statement
that a Corvid-19 symptom does not exist.
[But Paul S Person states:]
An atheist is an anti-religious fanatic.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:10:52 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>snip
wrote:
=20
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly,
excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
=20
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ >>version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
=46unny as that is, just in case, let me remind you that it is "One God
in Three Persons".
In article <101dplj$q5st$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 29/05/25 03:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
OK Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't religion involve the supernatural?
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
I have no hand in this fight, but if "the invisible hand of the market"
isn't supernatural,. I do0n't know what is.
--scott
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
J. J. Lodder <jjlxa32@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing. You don't get freedom to enjoy
your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this. But of course many >> of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to Holland to
enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want
religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as well. >>
So they took themselves to America.
Ahem, you are confusing the Pilgrims (1620) with the Puritans (1630).
They were two different groups of people (the Puritans being more
numerous and more affluent).
You are correct; that was a brain fart.
--scott
On 31/05/2025 04:07, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 31/05/2025 02:43, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 31/05/2025 02:06, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 30/05/2025 17:05, Paul S Person wrote:
"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the religions >>>>> that deny their own nature.
I don't really understand that, but I think it's freedom _of_
religion, in the Constitution.ÿ However, at least to some extent,
one implies the other.
Take the Supreme Court decision on abortion as an example. Perhaps
those judges with strong religious views in the subject should have
recused themselves.
That's a door we probably didn't want opened, but maybe if we tread
lightly...?
The rest of us * now have to comply with their religion. Is that not
forced participation?
Is it your contention that all atheists are in favour of abortion?
Goodness no, not at all.
You see the point, of course. If an atheist can decide for non-religious reasons that abortion is immoral, so can a religious person.
If you were to appoint me to the US Supreme Court (which would be a supremely bad idea for all kinds of reasons), I would cast my vote
against the taking of life, not because I'm a Christian (although I am)
but because I'm an Englishman, and we English root for the underdog.
On one side a tiny unborn child trying to mind her own business as she prepares to make her way in the world, and on the other side not only a hostile mother but an entire hospital full of scary kit employed by
giant doctors to hunt her down and fling her into the trash bin. No
fair! If you don't want a child, don't start one. And if Christianity mandated abortion, I would oppose it on this very ground.
As an aside, I don't consider myself an atheist, more an agnostic - I
don't believe in any of theÿ established religions, afaict they are
mostly about controlling people rather than a search for truth.
I think that's true, but I also think that a lot of truth has been found along the way. Religions have turned up a lot of nonsense over the millennia, but plenty of diamonds, too.
When I was younger I thought even being an agnostic rather than an
atheist was crapping out
My brother tells me that he's really an atheist, but he describes
himself as an agnostic because he doesn't want to hurt God's feelings.
- but as I get older I wonder, why is there something - cogito ergo
sum - rather than nothing?
We're all getting closer to finding out.
As a physicist (I am not mainly a physicist, but) I can see that the
universe could arise from nothing - but then why should physics, or
mathematics, or philosophy, be that way?
Or is it just turtles all the way down?ÿ :)
Or do those same turtles swim in an endless cloud of unknowing?
Anywhoo, as to abortion. In the 60's it became a practical method of
birth control, though it had been possible earlier.
An ex-girlfriend had an abortion - not mine - and she still thinks
about it from time to time, 50 years later. At the time it was
probably the right decision for her. People die, people kill each
other - but is a fetus a people? I don't know.
I would reason that we really ought to find out before we start killing them.
What I do know is that many or most women want the freedom to have an
abortion, whether it is the right decision or not. And while the
freedoms in the Constitution do not specifically mention that, the
fact that there are supposed to be those sorts of freedoms is ..
important.
Quoth the Constitution:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Due process of law includes the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The Constitution does not allow states to deny people
the protection of the law by letting them be killed without first being convicted of a capital crime.
So if a Supreme Court Judge, while smoking a cigar and drinking brandy
at a dinner afterwards (it happened), says he decided against that
freedom on the basis of his religious belief that a fetus is a people,
I can't agree with that.
Agreed.
If he believes that for other reasons, ok, But for religious reasons,
no. That is forcing his religious beliefs on everyone else.
Also agreed. But do we outlaw killing, say, a 6-year-old for religious reasons, or because to legalize it would make us evil bastards? After
we've answered that, we can talk about where to draw the evil bastard line.
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>snip
wrote:
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly,
excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ
version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
In article <101dplj$q5st$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 29/05/25 03:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
OK Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't religion involve the supernatural?
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
I have no hand in this fight, but if "the invisible hand of the market"
isn't supernatural,. I do0n't know what is.
--scott
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:10:52 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>snip
wrote:
=20
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly, >>>> excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
=20
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ
version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
=46unny as that is, just in case, let me remind you that it is "One God
in Three Persons".
Even in christianity, the question has been are the three one,
or is the one three? [Pointlessly silly] wars were fought over that
simple question.
On 30/05/2025 at 22:06, William Hyde wrote:
Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 30/05/2025 19:07, William Hyde wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
J. J. Lodder <jjlxa32@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Yes. Freedom of religion is fine,
but freedom from religion is far more important,
In the end, they are really the same thing.ÿ You don't get freedom
to enjoy
your religion without the freedom from mine.
Far too many religious people don't understand this.ÿ But of course >>>>> many
of the people who founded the country were Puritans who moved to
Holland to
enjoy religious freedom and discovered that they didn't actually want >>>>> religious freedom at all, so long as it meant freedom for others as >>>>> well.
This is a facet of history that gets lost.
A number of "repressed" denominations were not seeking toleration,
but domination.ÿ I am not referring to any one group here - it might
be the policy of one faction of religion X, but not of the rest.
I suppose it is understandable.
With the exception of The Netherlands, it was the usual practice for
the Monarch or government to define the particular form of religion
to be followed in their lands.
This was even defined as a principle "Cuius regio, eius religio"
meaning "whose state, whose religion".ÿ Though as originally
formulated it applied only in Germany, and only to Lutheran or
Catholic rulers, Calvinists need not apply.
This was actually an improvement on the previous rule, which was that
everyone had to accept the religion of the emperor.ÿ Under the new
principle the official religion and that of the ruler were more likely
to be the same.
Things got difficult in a state like Brandenburg, where the population
was Lutheran but the ruler Calvinist.
They just wanted a place where they would be top dog.
They already had one: Scotland.
The parliamentary army was largely Quakers and other independent
I thought Quakers were/are notoriously non-violent.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 10:14:59 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
<snippo>
Yes, always the same with religions.
When a minority the demand tolerance,
once on top they oppress,
Didn't the Bolsheviks follow the same pattern?
It is emergent behavior. If you are going to call that supernatural,
then chemistry is supernatural also.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
I read Kant when I read the collection known as /The Great Books of
the Western World/. It took a while, but eventually it became clear:
he was propping up Western culture on a secular basis. This is why he
ends up with the same-old same-old ethics.
I don't think that is bad if they are good ethics. =20
But I was not talking about his discussion of ethics, but his discussion
of reality vs. perception and the phenomenal vs. nouminal world.
Paul S Person wrote:=20
On Sat, 31 May 2025 10:14:59 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
=20
<snippo>
=20
Yes, always the same with religions.=20
When a minority the demand tolerance,
once on top they oppress,
Didn't the Bolsheviks follow the same pattern?
I don't think Lenin ever demanded mere toleration. He did a pretty good=
job of oppressing even when he was in the minority.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:commonly,
On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:10:52 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>snip
wrote:
=3D20
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more =
Godexcludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
=3D20
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ >>>version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
=3D46unny as that is, just in case, let me remind you that it is "One =
in Three Persons".
Even in christianity, the question has been are the three one,
or is the one three? [Pointlessly silly] wars were fought over that
simple question.
Of course, that's assuming one accepts the dogma.
Didn't the Bolsheviks follow the same pattern?
I don't think Lenin ever demanded mere toleration. He did a pretty good
job of oppressing even when he was in the minority.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 16:19:40 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 10:14:59 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
<snippo>
Yes, always the same with religions.
When a minority the demand tolerance,
once on top they oppress,
Didn't the Bolsheviks follow the same pattern?
I don't think Lenin ever demanded mere toleration. He did a pretty good
job of oppressing even when he was in the minority.
He never complained of the Tsar's secret police? He never expressed a
wish for more freedom?
Well, perhaps not. "Russian Communist" might have been better that "Bolshevik", as being more inclusive and perhaps extending further
back in time than Lenin's arrival in Moscow.
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Didn't the Bolsheviks follow the same pattern?
I don't think Lenin ever demanded mere toleration. He did a pretty good
job of oppressing even when he was in the minority.
I think Lenin believed in democracy and in his slogan of "All power to
the soviets" but things didn't work out quite the way he expected and
running a country was much harder than he had thought it would be.
He started out with a lot more toleration than Kerensky but then it all
went pear-shaped.
Some of his associates, though, were very open about wanting to replace
the old oppressor and become a new one.
They are not good to be around.
On 29/05/25 05:04, J. J. Lodder wrote:
As a matter of fact the 'three authentic miracles' to be performed as
a condition for Sainthood have been abolished, from practical
necessity and by popular demand.
I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. The quality of the miracles
had become questionable.
An Australian saint was proclaimed not long ago. (I think she's the only Australian saint.) The required three miracles were three cases of
people with serious illnesses who prayed to her and were cured. In
making that judgement, the investigators ignored
- the very many who prayed to her and were not cured;
- the unknown number who didn't pray to her and were cured.
This is yet another case where a statistician should have been consulted.
On Thu, 29 May 2025 14:33:57 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
On 2025-05-29 09:05, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 16:13:48 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
On 2025-05-27 10:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On 26 May 2025 15:53:04 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote or quoted:
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",However, have you heard of the "etymological fallacy," where
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something >>>>>>> worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day". >>>>>>
someone wrongly argues that a word's current meaning must be
the same as its original or historical meaning, ignoring the
fact that language evolves over time?
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
Just because the intellectuals and atheists won the battle to make
that the definition does not change the reality.
Feel free to prove that what you consider to be reality is factual.
Prove /what/ is factual? Please be specific.
I already specified it. It's "what you consider to be reality".
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
In article <101dplj$q5st$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 29/05/25 03:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
OK Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't religion involve the supernatural?
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
I have no hand in this fight, but if "the invisible hand of the market"
isn't supernatural,. I do0n't know what is.
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
As for atheism and laws of nature, I see those
as two separate things.
Even in the most exact science, physics, there are still "miracles"
today, just a different word gets used for it: "singularities."
Let's roll back the clock! We bump into a singularity! In physics,
this means "something where the known laws of nature just don't
cut it anymore."
And that's directly tied to the question: "Why is there anything at
all instead of nothing?" One of the biggest mysteries out there!
"What is consciousness?" - physical laws don't have an explanation
for that one. It's a singularity!
"How do we resolve the measurement problem in quantum physics?" -
another head-scratcher for today's physicists.
"What happens inside a black hole?" - Why, it's a singularity!
When Christians say, "God created the world", a physicist today can't
exactly dismiss that; they can only say, "Maybe. We don't know enough
about what went down in the first 10^-44 seconds after the big bang
to make any solid claims." - but the physicist could add: "Interesting
theory! What kind of experiments could we run to put that theory to the
test, one way or the other?"
On 29/05/2025 9:01 p.m., Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 25/05/2025 03:52, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <100r948$bvlu$1@dont-email.me>,
Robert Carnegieÿ <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
I think that being seized and publicly burned
should meet a reasonable condition of "banned",
No, it doesn't. Banning is not merely hating or destroying. It's an institutional act, by a government, church, school board or whatever, decreeing that the book may not be sold/printed/possessed or whatever,
by persons within that institution's jurisdiction.
and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.
Couple of times in the US (within this century), and once in Poland,
judging by a quick search.
As for the year 2025, watch this space.
Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.
Around where you live, you mean?
On 29/05/2025 12:15, Ross Clark wrote:
On 29/05/2025 9:01 p.m., Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 25/05/2025 03:52, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <100r948$bvlu$1@dont-email.me>,
Robert Carnegieÿ <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
I think that being seized and publicly burned
should meet a reasonable condition of "banned",
No, it doesn't. Banning is not merely hating or destroying. It's an
institutional act, by a government, church, school board or whatever,
decreeing that the book may not be sold/printed/possessed or whatever,
by persons within that institution's jurisdiction.
and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.
Couple of times in the US (within this century), and once in Poland,
judging by a quick search.
As for the year 2025, watch this space.
Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.
Around where you live, you mean?
People are put in jail for possessing some
of these, yeah.
You can't actually "roll back the clock", though.
Stephen Hawking proposed considering an apparent
beginning of time in the sense that at the Earth's
South Pole, there is a beginning of land. A place
which is so south, that everywhere else is north
of it. But if you go there, you don't see a
singularity. You just see land all around the
South Pole. You can walk back and forth across it.
It's only our standard of measurement that implies
that a singularity exists there.
I have trouble conceiving a situation in which
that question has any answer - if we rule out
saying "God made everything" and not allowing
the question to include "why does God exist?"
As reasonably, "nothing" also means "no God".
Consciousness is the special thing that important
entities possess (humans, the government) and others
do not (animals, plants, artificial intelligence,
immigrants). This special thing has not been shown
to exist, in my opinion.
"How do we resolve the measurement problem in quantum physics?" -This may be only a mental problem, as physics seems
another head-scratcher for today's physicists.
to work, whether you think that you understand it,
or not.
What happens inside a black hole, stays inside a
black hole! So don't worry about it!
The physicists seem to have settled how the earth,
sun, moon, and stars came to be, anyway. That is
all long after the big bang. Thus is the book of
Genesis disposed of.
That is really not the impression I have of him. He was a man of
incredible intellectual arrogance, utterly convinced that he was right,
and that he alone knew what was to be done and that no sacrifice was too >costly to eliminate what he considered to be the ultimate evil.
Democracy was fine provided people voted the right way - consider the >example of Georgia I gave an another post.
One one occasion in the civil war Stalin had executed many "opponents"
in a given area and thought he had done enough. He said as much to
Lenin who told him to keep on killing. Unlike Stalin, Lenin took no >pleasure in killing, but he could be more ruthless.
On 30/05/2025 16:37, Paul S Person wrote:
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
If you consider it to be reality then you
presumably regard it as provable.
By the way - in that bible - there's a bit
about God creating things, including plants
on land, animals in the waters - but no plants
to live in water. They seem to be around now,
!though. Just a point to consider. Did I
overlook that, or did God? Did he fix it later
when no one was watching?
I thought Quakers were/are notoriously non-violent.
begin fnord
Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net> writes:
I thought Quakers were/are notoriously non-violent.
Nixon was a Quaker.
There are singularities that are just "coordinate singularities".
All that means is our coordinate system falls apart at a certain spot,
but it does not necessarily mean the physics breaks down there. You
can just switch to a different coordinate system and clear that up.
With a black hole, the general consensus is that any singularity at
the horizon is just a coordinate singularity, but the singularity
in the center of the black hole is a real physical singularity.
As far as I know, people say the Big Bang is also a real singularity,
not just something that comes from the coordinate system.
In article <m2cybm6trf.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>,
Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> wrote:
begin fnord
Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net> writes:
I thought Quakers were/are notoriously non-violent.
Nixon was a Quaker.
ObSF: The Quakers in Still Forms on Foxfield feel the need to distance themselves from RMN, despite being on a different planet, more than a
century later.
freedom on the basis of his religious belief that a fetus is a people, I can't agree with that.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 04:07:26 +0100
Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
freedom on the basis of his religious belief that a fetus is a people, I
can't agree with that.
ObAUE: 'a person'
'people' to me, implies several.
begin fnord
Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net> writes:
I thought Quakers were/are notoriously non-violent.
Nixon was a Quaker.
In article <101dplj$q5st$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 29/05/25 03:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
OK Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't religion involve the supernatural?
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
I have no hand in this fight, but if "the invisible hand of the market"
isn't supernatural,. I do0n't know what is.
--scott
On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:10:52 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>snip
wrote:
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly,
excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ
version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
Funny as that is, just in case, let me remind you that it is "One God
in Three Persons".
Note: there are many heresies involved with this topic. You may have
touched on Tritheism in your third statement, but it is too incoherent
to be sure. (1/3 of 1 of 3 would be 1/9 of the whole.)
On Sat, 24 May 2025 00:15:33 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2025 16:14, Paul S Person wrote:
[The "Harry Potter" novels]
I should note that, in the books, there is, from the discovery of the
Prophecy onwards, a deliberate attempt to make it unclear if it is
Harry or Neville who is the One. The films don't really do that,
although Neville is certainly present in them.
I don't see that interpretation. A "prophecy"
was received before the main events of the
"Harry Potter" books took place, and as such
things go, it was typically uncertainly worded,
and insofar as "the One" is identified, only
their date of birth is given - but by the time
of the late chapter in each book where a teacher,
usually Dumbledore, explains the book's remaining
mysteries to Harry, when the prophecy comes up,
that matter apparently was settled.
By "discovery" I meant the discovery by Harry and so the reader. The
prophecy itself was much older and was known to some persons.
But not to Voldemort -- at least not the entire prophecy.
Both lost their parents to Voldemort's prior efforts. They are the
same age.
I do have a couple of personal theories on the
subject: that Neville's silly uncle is a secret
Voldemort follower and is trying to assassinate
him throughout the series (drowning, defenestration,
exploding plant); and that several students,
including Neville, are assigned to a school "House"
whose ethics don't match their existing personality
but are directions in which they need to be pushed.
That Neville is a Gryffindor not born, but made.
And is better for it.
I'm going to have to reread the books to rediscover Neville's silly
uncle. Is it Neville that is beeing drowned/defenestrated/exploded or Voldmort?
Although the film didn't say it, the fact that he pulls the Sword of Gryffindor out of a hat shows that he is as true a son of Gryffindor
as Harry is (who did the same thing in the Chamber of Secrets). Still,
you may be correct about his being made one. So may Harry, for that
matter -- Gryffindor was, after all, the Sorting Hat's second choice
for him.
My point, I think (it's been a while since I wrote the above) was that
the books did this and the films did not. Thus, Harry seeing Neville
with his parents while in the hospital is not in the film because it
is not important to the main story, in Harry is indeed The One.
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 03:16:02 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 16:37, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo nonsense question I am responding to, and what led up to it>
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
If you consider it to be reality then you
presumably regard it as provable.
I think you are missing the thread here. Or maybe I am.
The question appears to be about "reality" as such. Not "the reality
of this" or "the reality of that" or even "the existence of reality",
but just "reality" -- and, even then, only what I consider to be
reality.
As I said, all that appears to be provable is that what I consider to
be reality really is what I consider to be reality. Since I make no
statement that it actually /is/ reality, what else is there to prove?
<snip-a-bit>
By the way - in that bible - there's a bit
about God creating things, including plants
on land, animals in the waters - but no plants
to live in water. They seem to be around now,
!though. Just a point to consider. Did I
overlook that, or did God? Did he fix it later
when no one was watching?
This is where one of Robert Graves suggestions comes in handy:
that the various sets of things created were assigned by the pagans to various deities, and the account in Genesis is intended to say "no,
God, the God of Israel, did that".
In that case, the lack of aquatic vegetation mignt be taken to mean
that there was no pagan deity responsible for having created it.
Alternately, we could discuss the problems with scribes hand-copying manuscripts -- for example, drop-outs.
There are (IIRC) two versions of this account (one in Psalms, one in
Proverbs -- IIRC) but, IIRC, they end early in the process (Earth,
Sun, Moon, Stars) and say nothing about days. This raises the
possibility of later additions in Genesis 1 to the original account.
On 2/06/2025 3:08 p.m., Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 29/05/2025 12:15, Ross Clark wrote:
On 29/05/2025 9:01 p.m., Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 25/05/2025 03:52, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <100r948$bvlu$1@dont-email.me>,
Robert Carnegieÿ <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".
I think that being seized and publicly burned
should meet a reasonable condition of "banned",
No, it doesn't. Banning is not merely hating or destroying. It's an
institutional act, by a government, church, school board or whatever,
decreeing that the book may not be sold/printed/possessed or
whatever, by persons within that institution's jurisdiction.
and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.
Couple of times in the US (within this century), and once in Poland,
judging by a quick search.
As for the year 2025, watch this space.
Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.
Around where you live, you mean?
People are put in jail for possessing some
of these, yeah.
Could you safely give an example?
On 24/05/2025 17:01, Paul S Person wrote:the
On Sat, 24 May 2025 00:15:33 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
=20
On 20/02/2025 16:14, Paul S Person wrote:
[The "Harry Potter" novels]
I should note that, in the books, there is, from the discovery of =
=20Prophecy onwards, a deliberate attempt to make it unclear if it is
Harry or Neville who is the One. The films don't really do that,
although Neville is certainly present in them.
I don't see that interpretation. A "prophecy"
was received before the main events of the
"Harry Potter" books took place, and as such
things go, it was typically uncertainly worded,
and insofar as "the One" is identified, only
their date of birth is given - but by the time
of the late chapter in each book where a teacher,
usually Dumbledore, explains the book's remaining
mysteries to Harry, when the prophecy comes up,
that matter apparently was settled.
By "discovery" I meant the discovery by Harry and so the reader. The
prophecy itself was much older and was known to some persons.
=20
But not to Voldemort -- at least not the entire prophecy.
=20
Both lost their parents to Voldemort's prior efforts. They are the
same age.
To clear this up a little now - in the "Harry Potter"
novels, Harry is born while the hidden world of magic
is being terrorized by the evil Voldemort and his
followers. Both Voldemort, and a vigilante faction
who oppose him, come into possession of a magic prophecy
do the birth of one person who can defeat Voldemort.
Or vice versa. (At least, we're told that's what it
means, and it is.) Voldemort apparently has read the
"Evil Overlord List" of must-do and not-dos for
evil overlords, or possibly a bit in the bible about
King Herod, and he sets out to kill one of the two
children that the prophecy could refer to, Harry Potter,
straight away. Due to what I'll call his carelessness,
this time the unmatchable Voldemort is disintegrated.
However, he isn't dead (magic), although nearly
everybody believes that he is - he vanished. But
really ending the conflict takes the rest of the
seven books.
I don't see why the prophecy isn't simply an incomplete
foretelling about Harry Potter - however, the wise teacher
Dumbledore seems to say in his explaining bit at the end
that Harry wasn't the one "one" until Voldemort attacked
Harry in a way that made it possible later for Harry to
defeat him. Which pretty much happened because of the
prophecy. So what if Voldemort hadn't done that? But
he did, so...
Anyway, Neville Longbottom is the other child who
could have been the person in the prophecy. But
according to Dumbledore, that ended when Voldemort
went after Harry Potter and blew himself up.
But Dumbledore doesn't always tell the truth, or
all of it - particularly to young students.
I do have a couple of personal theories on the=20
subject: that Neville's silly uncle is a secret
Voldemort follower and is trying to assassinate
him throughout the series (drowning, defenestration,
exploding plant); and that several students,
including Neville, are assigned to a school "House"
whose ethics don't match their existing personality
but are directions in which they need to be pushed.
That Neville is a Gryffindor not born, but made.
And is better for it.
I'm going to have to reread the books to rediscover Neville's silly
uncle. Is it Neville that is beeing drowned/defenestrated/exploded or
Voldmort?
Oh, it's Neville. The early attempts apparently are
because infant Neville appears not to be a wizard,
which is extremely shameful, and Great-Uncle Algie
believes that Neville's magic will appear under
stress. But I privately think that he was actually
trying to kill Neville, then and later. Alternatively,
Algie is extremely irresponsible, and so is anyone
who allows Algie to interact with children.
What he did /could/ have killed Neville.
Although the film didn't say it, the fact that he pulls the Sword of
Gryffindor out of a hat shows that he is as true a son of Gryffindor
as Harry is (who did the same thing in the Chamber of Secrets). Still,
you may be correct about his being made one. So may Harry, for that
matter -- Gryffindor was, after all, the Sorting Hat's second choice
for him.
=20
My point, I think (it's been a while since I wrote the above) was that
the books did this and the films did not. Thus, Harry seeing Neville
with his parents while in the hospital is not in the film because it
is not important to the main story, in Harry is indeed The One.
It's important to our understanding of Neville's
story, though. You're right about the sword,
although I think the corresponding book has that
scene as show-don't-tell as well. Neville's
storyline is mostly off-stage - like the
sixth book and I assume film where Draco Malfoy
has a long-running project that we don't see
happening - but it may be as psychologically
complex as Harry's - if these books were that
kind of story. As it is, a lot of that is what
you put into the story while you experience it.
And of course Voldemort isn't obsessed with
killing Neville, even if Uncle Algie is.
On 02/06/2025 16:15, Paul S Person wrote:that
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 03:16:02 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
=20
On 30/05/2025 16:37, Paul S Person wrote:=20
<snippo nonsense question I am responding to, and what led up to it>
=20
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only =
=20I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
If you consider it to be reality then you
presumably regard it as provable.
I think you are missing the thread here. Or maybe I am.
=20
The question appears to be about "reality" as such. Not "the reality
of this" or "the reality of that" or even "the existence of reality",
but just "reality" -- and, even then, only what I consider to be
reality.
=20
As I said, all that appears to be provable is that what I consider to
be reality really is what I consider to be reality. Since I make no
statement that it actually /is/ reality, what else is there to prove?
=20
<snip-a-bit>
=20
By the way - in that bible - there's a bit=20
about God creating things, including plants
on land, animals in the waters - but no plants
to live in water. They seem to be around now,
!though. Just a point to consider. Did I
overlook that, or did God? Did he fix it later
when no one was watching?
This is where one of Robert Graves suggestions comes in handy:
=20
that the various sets of things created were assigned by the pagans to
various deities, and the account in Genesis is intended to say "no,
God, the God of Israel, did that".
=20
In that case, the lack of aquatic vegetation mignt be taken to mean
that there was no pagan deity responsible for having created it.
=20
Alternately, we could discuss the problems with scribes hand-copying
manuscripts -- for example, drop-outs.
=20
There are (IIRC) two versions of this account (one in Psalms, one in
Proverbs -- IIRC) but, IIRC, they end early in the process (Earth,
Sun, Moon, Stars) and say nothing about days. This raises the
possibility of later additions in Genesis 1 to the original account.
Do you mean Psalm 104? That has a bit that
I had lost track of - that God is responsible
for stopping the sea tide from flooding the
land - again - and keeping it where it belongs.
On biblical truth, I'll just point out that
we do see the waters of the sea flooding over
land from time to time.
Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> wrote:involvement
begin fnord
Chris Elvidge <chris@internal.net> writes:
I thought Quakers were/are notoriously non-violent.
Nixon was a Quaker.
And, as much evil as Nixon was involved in, he DID end American =
in the Vietnam War. Likely in part due to Quaker influences, although =by
that time it was getting pretty hard to defend involvement.
At a funeral service for a dear friend under Quaker auspices I =discovered
that Quakers talk too much. Quakers are non-violent unless the =provocation
such as freeing slaves or keeping their property in very important and =no
president should be elected who holds fast to the principles of=20 >non-violence.
Nearly all governments use violence as the ultimate way to enforce their==20
rules.
To the extent that they use violence in accordance with the laws of that >government and society they are either a nation rules by laws or a =nation
under a Fascist rule.
On 02/06/2025 19:04, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:people, I
On Sat, 31 May 2025 04:07:26 +0100
Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
=20
=20
freedom on the basis of his religious belief that a fetus is a =
can't agree with that.=20
ObAUE: 'a person'
'people' to me, implies several.
Twins, presumably.
On 02/06/2025 06:56, Ross Clark wrote:
On 2/06/2025 3:08 p.m., Robert Carnegie wrote:
People are put in jail for possessing some=20
of these, yeah.
Could you safely give an example?
Well, this sort of thing, unspecifically - in England. ><https://www.westmidlands.police.uk/news/west-midlands/news/news/2025/ja= nuary/birmingham-teen-jailed-for-terrorism-offences/>
Shaan Farooq was done for "possessing terrorism
material" and "intentionally distributing terrorism
material", which refers to "extremist material and
images which supported the banned organisation
Islamic State", in digital document form.
Six months (sentence) for possession - you might
get out sooner, but probably not if you tell anyone
what you're there for? It's confusing.
On 1/06/25 03:18, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article <101dplj$q5st$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 29/05/25 03:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
OK Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't religion involve the supernatural?
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
I have no hand in this fight, but if "the invisible hand of the market"
isn't supernatural,. I do0n't know what is.
--scott
Was there supposed to be a smiling emoji at the end there?
The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it is inside the
minds of buyers and sellers, their idea of the price of goods or
services at which they are prepared to buy or sell.
On 17/02/25 07:57, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 14/02/25 08:21, D wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had
lost its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read
once" book.
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.
I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been >disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".
More than just species, an ecosystem.
Massive use by the USA of 'Agent Orange' and other defoliants in Vietnam
is another good candidate for an attempt at ecocide,
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:16:08 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 17/02/25 07:57, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 14/02/25 08:21, D wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Judith Latham wrote:
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Excellent! Will read again.
I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had
lost its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read
once" book.
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.
I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been
disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".
Catch-22 is one of the few books I've read the book and seen the
movie. Unlike *M*A*S*H* which came out around the same time, Catch-22
was a far better book than movie. In *M*A*S*H* my favorite line was
"Get that dirty old man out of my operating" "OK but if the
congressman's son gets an infection because you came in here you'll
never hear the end of it..." and of course the shower scene with the
brass band as the curtain was pulled down (which both the movie and TV
show did - the movie version was better)
In general many great books have made horrible movies - I still can't
believe that in the last Lord of the Rings movie they actually shot
the Death of Saruman scene but left it on the cutting room floor while spending a whole 1/2 hour on the Grey Havens (which I thought was a
minor appendage to the book).
I'd love to see a Foundation flick but I have no idea how they'd film Foundation and Empire effectively either the downfall of Bel Riose or
the flight across the galaxy and the climactic scene when the Darrells realize their passenger was the Mule. And I'm pretty sure some of the
scenes in Second Foundation with Arkady Darrell and the Warlord of
Kalgan (who was basically a dirty old man) would have a tough time
getting rated particularly when he reveals he had lustful designs on
her which given she was 15 at the time was a huge no no especially
when it was written.
On 2025-06-02 23:43, Titus G wrote:<noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/06/25 03:18, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article <101dplj$q5st$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G =
market"On 29/05/25 03:48, Scott Lurndal wrote:
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
OK Humpty Dumpty. Doesn't religion involve the supernatural?
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
I have no hand in this fight, but if "the invisible hand of the =
isn't supernatural,. I do0n't know what is.=20
--scott
Was there supposed to be a smiling emoji at the end there?
=20
The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it is inside the
minds of buyers and sellers, their idea of the price of goods or
services at which they are prepared to buy or sell.
We don't do emojis in AuE
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:16:08 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been >>disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".
Catch-22 is one of the few books I've read the book and seen the
movie. Unlike *M*A*S*H* which came out around the same time, Catch-22
was a far better book than movie. In *M*A*S*H* my favorite line was
"Get that dirty old man out of my operating" "OK but if the
congressman's son gets an infection because you came in here you'll
never hear the end of it..." and of course the shower scene with the
brass band as the curtain was pulled down (which both the movie and TV
show did - the movie version was better)
In general many great books have made horrible movies - I still can't
believe that in the last Lord of the Rings movie they actually shot
the Death of Saruman scene but left it on the cutting room floor while >spending a whole 1/2 hour on the Grey Havens (which I thought was a
minor appendage to the book).
I'd love to see a Foundation flick but I have no idea how they'd film >Foundation and Empire effectively either the downfall of Bel Riose or
the flight across the galaxy and the climactic scene when the Darrells >realize their passenger was the Mule. And I'm pretty sure some of the
scenes in Second Foundation with Arkady Darrell and the Warlord of
Kalgan (who was basically a dirty old man) would have a tough time
getting rated particularly when he reveals he had lustful designs on
her which given she was 15 at the time was a huge no no especially
when it was written.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:16:11 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:SNIP
On 2025-06-02 23:43, Titus G wrote:
On 1/06/25 03:18, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Was there supposed to be a smiling emoji at the end there?
The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it is inside the
minds of buyers and sellers, their idea of the price of goods or
services at which they are prepared to buy or sell.
We don't do emojis in AuE
Or humor, apparently.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:51:53 +0000, jerry.friedman99@gmail.com >(jerryfriedman) wrote:Hey, at least they admit that it /was/ their territory.
Thanks, I didn't know that. But I was thinking of
what Jan called ecocide, killing wild species.
I get frustrated with people who say "the bears have been here a
minimum of 10000 years" - it's BEAR territory not HUMAN since I live
in a subdivision literally on the edge of the forest.
Now every home in our area was built in the 1970s which is well beyond
the lifetime of any living bear so while it may have been bear
territory once, it certainly hasn't been so during any bear's lifetime
- and my next door neighbor had an 8' section of his fence taken down
by a bear while I myself have had a yearling bear (we think) take out
two adjacent boards in our fence which we believe our dog who was in
the back yard managed to get out of our back yard onto our street -
which is a major bus route.
So yeah - I >DO< have "skin" in this game.--=20
(Aerial Google Maps image of my neighborhood available on request
<grin>)
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 10:00:35 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/06/2025 16:15, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 03:16:02 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 16:37, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo nonsense question I am responding to, and what led up to it>
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that >>>>> I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
If you consider it to be reality then you
presumably regard it as provable.
I think you are missing the thread here. Or maybe I am.
The question appears to be about "reality" as such. Not "the reality
of this" or "the reality of that" or even "the existence of reality",
but just "reality" -- and, even then, only what I consider to be
reality.
As I said, all that appears to be provable is that what I consider to
be reality really is what I consider to be reality. Since I make no
statement that it actually /is/ reality, what else is there to prove?
<snip-a-bit>
By the way - in that bible - there's a bit
about God creating things, including plants
on land, animals in the waters - but no plants
to live in water. They seem to be around now,
!though. Just a point to consider. Did I
overlook that, or did God? Did he fix it later
when no one was watching?
This is where one of Robert Graves suggestions comes in handy:
that the various sets of things created were assigned by the pagans to
various deities, and the account in Genesis is intended to say "no,
God, the God of Israel, did that".
In that case, the lack of aquatic vegetation mignt be taken to mean
that there was no pagan deity responsible for having created it.
Alternately, we could discuss the problems with scribes hand-copying
manuscripts -- for example, drop-outs.
There are (IIRC) two versions of this account (one in Psalms, one in
Proverbs -- IIRC) but, IIRC, they end early in the process (Earth,
Sun, Moon, Stars) and say nothing about days. This raises the
possibility of later additions in Genesis 1 to the original account.
Do you mean Psalm 104? That has a bit that
I had lost track of - that God is responsible
for stopping the sea tide from flooding the
land - again - and keeping it where it belongs.
Perhaps; there are several other references that are often considered
related to the Gen 1 creation story (including the crocodile and
hippopotamus in Job) and, if this isn't what I was thinking of, it
could still be related.
On biblical truth, I'll just point out that
we do see the waters of the sea flooding over
land from time to time.
And we see them retreating and then staying where they belong for a
while afterwards.
But the version I found online appears to be referring to the initial corralling of the water, so that the dry land appeared.
Keep in mind that the Psalms were songs to be sung, and so "poetic
license" might be playing a role. Or not.
<snippo reference to Jesuits which, frankly, appears to be
unnecessarily argumentative here; "jesuitical thinking" generally
refers to being able to justify /any/ action if you think about it
long enough and hard enough, not explanations of Ps 104 -- if it is Ps
104 in the RC bible and not Ps 103 or Ps 105. Psalm numbers vary a
bit.>
On 6/4/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:16:11 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:SNIP
On 2025-06-02 23:43, Titus G wrote:
On 1/06/25 03:18, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Was there supposed to be a smiling emoji at the end there?
The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it is inside the >>>> minds of buyers and sellers, their idea of the price of goods or
services at which they are prepared to buy or sell.
We don't do emojis in AuE
Well that is too bad! ;^)
Or humor, apparently.
Really I thought it was sort of dry but no humor what so ever. :^(
That is very sad. But not even puns?
bliss who remembers when we had lots of emoji but in more subtle ways than icons.
On Sat, 31 May 2025 02:06:47 +0100, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 17:05, Paul S Person wrote:
"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the religions
that deny their own nature.
I don't really understand that, but I think it's freedom _of_ religion,
in the Constitution. However, at least to some extent, one implies the
other.
The part you removed without notice distinguished between the two.
"Freedom from religion" is quite commonly heard from certain groups.
Take the Supreme Court decision on abortion as an example. Perhaps those
judges with strong religious views in the subject should have recused
themselves.
/That/ is a very hard question. The actual issue was whether abortion
was allowed under a particular Amendment. At the time, some pointed
out that it might still be allowed under a different Amendment, but
that legal theory has yet to be tested.
The rest of us * now have to comply with their religion. Is that not
forced participation?
Only in Republican-controlled States. In the sane States, we have to
comply with a secular religion that allows abortion -- with whatever
limits, if any, that religion desires.
IMO you can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
If you check back, you will see that my assertion is that pretty much everying has a religion. Some have a religion that denies it's own
nature, so they believe (as an article of their religion) that they do
not have one.
The bigger point is that, when these people try to convince people
acting and believing explicitly based on religion by claiming to
produce "facts" instead of "fantasies", it doesn't work because
religious people recognize religion, even when it denies itself, and
resist conversion.
I am, IOW, trying to determine /why/ all those efforts to convince
people of really good ideas fail. And I think I have found it.
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 20:56:02 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:51:53 +0000, jerry.friedman99@gmail.comHey, at least they admit that it /was/ their territory.
(jerryfriedman) wrote:
Thanks, I didn't know that. But I was thinking of
what Jan called ecocide, killing wild species.
I get frustrated with people who say "the bears have been here a
minimum of 10000 years" - it's BEAR territory not HUMAN since I live
in a subdivision literally on the edge of the forest.
Here, we get discussions on NextDoor about whether or not coyotes are invasive.
Now every home in our area was built in the 1970s which is well beyond
the lifetime of any living bear so while it may have been bear
territory once, it certainly hasn't been so during any bear's lifetime
- and my next door neighbor had an 8' section of his fence taken down
by a bear while I myself have had a yearling bear (we think) take out
two adjacent boards in our fence which we believe our dog who was in
the back yard managed to get out of our back yard onto our street -
which is a major bus route.
Which might suggest that /some/ bears think it still /is/ theirs.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 20:59:19 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
More than just species, an ecosystem.
Massive use by the USA of 'Agent Orange' and other defoliants in Vietnam
is another good candidate for an attempt at ecocide,
The objective was to remove cover for guerillas. In WW1 they used
artillery over most of Belgium and much of Northern France to
"achieve" much the same result (that area was in 1918 described as >'moonscape')
"Opinions" are not the same as "religion".
Even unreasonably firmly held opinions.
Most but not quite all religions consist of
systems of behaviour to appease gods and
obtain favourable treatment from them.
Individual religious leaders differ on
whether that leaves concerns such as climate
change, pandemic disease, economics, and
abortion laws as problems for us to deal
with, or whether those matters are reserved
to the gods, as well. Gods whose ideas
are unavoidably old-fashioned.
On 6/4/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:16:11 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:SNIP
On 2025-06-02 23:43, Titus G wrote:
On 1/06/25 03:18, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Was there supposed to be a smiling emoji at the end there?
The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it is inside the >>>> minds of buyers and sellers, their idea of the price of goods or
services at which they are prepared to buy or sell.
We don't do emojis in AuE
ÿÿÿÿWell that is too bad! ;^)
Or humor, apparently.
ÿÿÿÿReally I thought it was sort of dry but no humor what so ever. :^(
ÿÿÿÿThat is very sad.ÿ But not even puns?
bliss who remembers when we had lots of emoji but in more subtle ways
than icons.
That interpretation disregards Noah's flood.
Psalm 104 also describes a fixed earth, so you
could take it as a catalogue of its author's
ignorance of the natural world. And history. 🙂
The NET Bible has God in Psalm 104 shouting to
make the water go away.ÿ While in Genesis 8:1,
"God caused a wind to blow over the earth and
the waters receded."ÿ Maybe that's the same
event.ÿ In a modern understanding of the world,
where the waters went is a problem.ÿ Water
doesn't compress.ÿ Its volume varies with
temperature, a little.
Why? Do you really need emojis to tell you when someone is joking?
There's plenty of humour in AuE, for those that have been around
longer than this thread.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 20:59:19 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
More than just species, an ecosystem.
Massive use by the USA of 'Agent Orange' and other defoliants in
Vietnam is another good candidate for an attempt at ecocide,
The objective was to remove cover for guerillas. In WW1 they used
artillery over most of Belgium and much of Northern France to "achieve" >>much the same result (that area was in 1918 described as 'moonscape')
The original intention for napalm was similar, before they started using
it as an anti-personnel thing. Problem is that if you want to expose
the HCM trail, you first need to know where it is... and secondly you
need to know where they moved it to after you exposed it. It turned
into a giant game of whack-a-mole and the jungle and the people in it
were the losers.
--scott
On 03/06/2025 16:46, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo a lot more>
But the version I found online appears to be referring to the initial
corralling of the water, so that the dry land appeared.
=20
Keep in mind that the Psalms were songs to be sung, and so "poetic
license" might be playing a role. Or not.
That interpretation disregards Noah's flood.
Psalm 104 also describes a fixed earth, so you
could take it as a catalogue of its author's
ignorance of the natural world. And history. :-)
The NET Bible has God in Psalm 104 shouting to
make the water go away. While in Genesis 8:1,
"God caused a wind to blow over the earth and
the waters receded." Maybe that's the same
event. In a modern understanding of the world,
where the waters went is a problem. Water
doesn't compress. Its volume varies with
temperature, a little.
On 04/06/2025 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:beyond
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 20:56:02 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
=20
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:51:53 +0000, jerry.friedman99@gmail.comHey, at least they admit that it /was/ their territory.
(jerryfriedman) wrote:
Thanks, I didn't know that. But I was thinking of
what Jan called ecocide, killing wild species.
I get frustrated with people who say "the bears have been here a
minimum of 10000 years" - it's BEAR territory not HUMAN since I live
in a subdivision literally on the edge of the forest.
=20
Here, we get discussions on NextDoor about whether or not coyotes are
invasive.
=20
Now every home in our area was built in the 1970s which is well =
lifetimethe lifetime of any living bear so while it may have been bear
territory once, it certainly hasn't been so during any bear's =
- and my next door neighbor had an 8' section of his fence taken down=20
by a bear while I myself have had a yearling bear (we think) take out
two adjacent boards in our fence which we believe our dog who was in
the back yard managed to get out of our back yard onto our street -
which is a major bus route.
Which might suggest that /some/ bears think it still /is/ theirs.
Indeed, why does it cease to be bear territory
when some humans set up camp there?
Is this political?
On 5/06/25 14:16, lar3ryca wrote:
Why? Do you really need emojis to tell you when someone is joking?
In that specific case, yes, I did.
Urban ecology is fascinating, in some ways. The dinosaur-descendants
are also interesting, even the tiny ones.
A casual check online reveals no photos of before-and-after evidence
of the use of defoliants; just a few stock images of planes flying
over trees dispersing some foggy stuff.
In article<6ud34kde5lu015vj0j6b9vl37fju2g54ic@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Urban ecology is fascinating, in some ways. The dinosaur-descendantsAt work, I encountered a squirrel trying to activate a self-opening
are also interesting, even the tiny ones.
door. No luck, but the fact it tried at all means it's either smart
enough to have deduced from watching humans that that button would
open that door, or there's a door somewhere on campus where that
trick works.
On 6/5/2025 11:54 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article<6ud34kde5lu015vj0j6b9vl37fju2g54ic@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Urban ecology is fascinating, in some ways. The dinosaur-descendantsAt work, I encountered a squirrel trying to activate a self-opening
are also interesting, even the tiny ones.
door. No luck, but the fact it tried at all means it's either smart
enough to have deduced from watching humans that that button would
open that door, or there's a door somewhere on campus where that
trick works.
Videos online that show animals who have learned how to use the door entering convenience stores and stealing food. Also a stray dog that
watched people handing over pieces of paper at a food stand and getting
food so it picked up a leaf, went up to the counter and dropped. It was rewarded with a bite so now does it daily.
On 2025-06-04 23:57, Titus G wrote:
On 5/06/25 14:16, lar3ryca wrote:
Why? Do you really need emojis to tell you when someone is
joking?
In that specific case, yes, I did.
Fair enough, but the point still stands. When humour is intended,
we in AuE never telegraph our intention by, in effect, saying
"this is a joke".
On 6/5/25 8:56 PM, Jay Morris wrote:getting=20
On 6/5/2025 11:54 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article<6ud34kde5lu015vj0j6b9vl37fju2g54ic@4ax.com>,=20
Paul S Person<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Urban ecology is fascinating, in some ways. The dinosaur-descendantsAt work, I encountered a squirrel trying to activate a self-opening
are also interesting, even the tiny ones.
door. No luck, but the fact it tried at all means it's either smart
enough to have deduced from watching humans that that button would
open that door, or there's a door somewhere on campus where that
trick works.
Videos online that show animals who have learned how to use the door=20
entering convenience stores and stealing food. Also a stray dog that=20
watched people handing over pieces of paper at a food stand and =
was=20food so it picked up a leaf, went up to the counter and dropped. It =
=20rewarded with a bite so now does it daily.
I just saw a short item today that some cockatoos in Sydney have figured=
out how to use a drinking fountain. They grip the handle with their feet==20
and lean forward.
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 21:55:32 -0400, Tony Nance <tnusenet17@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/5/25 8:56 PM, Jay Morris wrote:
On 6/5/2025 11:54 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
In article<6ud34kde5lu015vj0j6b9vl37fju2g54ic@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Urban ecology is fascinating, in some ways. The dinosaur-descendants >>>>> are also interesting, even the tiny ones.At work, I encountered a squirrel trying to activate a self-opening
door. No luck, but the fact it tried at all means it's either smart
enough to have deduced from watching humans that that button would
open that door, or there's a door somewhere on campus where that
trick works.
Videos online that show animals who have learned how to use the door
entering convenience stores and stealing food. Also a stray dog that
watched people handing over pieces of paper at a food stand and getting
food so it picked up a leaf, went up to the counter and dropped. It was
rewarded with a bite so now does it daily.
I just saw a short item today that some cockatoos in Sydney have figured
out how to use a drinking fountain. They grip the handle with their feet
and lean forward.
IIRC, somewhere in Australia (or was it New Zealand?) the locals are
waging a virtual war with birds who, whatever the people do to try to
prevent this, always figure out how to open the garbage bins and do
their thing.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:00:40 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 20:59:19 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
More than just species, an ecosystem.
Massive use by the USA of 'Agent Orange' and other defoliants in
Vietnam is another good candidate for an attempt at ecocide,
The objective was to remove cover for guerillas. In WW1 they used
artillery over most of Belgium and much of Northern France to "achieve"
much the same result (that area was in 1918 described as 'moonscape')
The original intention for napalm was similar, before they started using
it as an anti-personnel thing. Problem is that if you want to expose
the HCM trail, you first need to know where it is... and secondly you
need to know where they moved it to after you exposed it. It turned
into a giant game of whack-a-mole and the jungle and the people in it
were the losers.
--scott
A casual check online reveals no photos of before-and-after evidence
of the use of defoliants; just a few stock images of planes flying
over trees dispersing some foggy stuff.
On 6/5/2025 3:50 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:00:40 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 20:59:19 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
More than just species, an ecosystem.
Massive use by the USA of 'Agent Orange' and other defoliants in
Vietnam is another good candidate for an attempt at ecocide,
The objective was to remove cover for guerillas. In WW1 they used
artillery over most of Belgium and much of Northern France to "achieve" >>>> much the same result (that area was in 1918 described as 'moonscape')
The original intention for napalm was similar, before they started using >>> it as an anti-personnel thing. Problem is that if you want to expose
the HCM trail, you first need to know where it is... and secondly you
need to know where they moved it to after you exposed it. It turned
into a giant game of whack-a-mole and the jungle and the people in it
were the losers.
--scott
A casual check online reveals no photos of before-and-after evidence
of the use of defoliants; just a few stock images of planes flying
over trees dispersing some foggy stuff.
Here's one:
https://images.theconversation.com/files/187265/original/file-20170924-17241-1e6jns9.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip
from
https://theconversation.com/agent-orange-exposed-how-u-s-chemical-warfare-in-vietnam-unleashed-a-slow-moving-disaster-84572
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, this sort of thing, unspecifically - in England. >><https://www.westmidlands.police.uk/news/west-midlands/news/news/2025/ja= >nuary/birmingham-teen-jailed-for-terrorism-offences/>
This is in Britain.
I don't think we've reached this point in the USA.
OTOH, possession of child pornagraphy is a crime.
On 1/06/25 04:09, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:10:52 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>snip
wrote:
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly, >>>> excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ
version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
Funny as that is, just in case, let me remind you that it is "One God
in Three Persons".
So no one died?
Note: there are many heresies involved with this topic. You may have
touched on Tritheism in your third statement, but it is too incoherent
to be sure. (1/3 of 1 of 3 would be 1/9 of the whole.)
A third of three,
Is coherent to me.
On 2025-06-04 10:00, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 6/4/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:16:11 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:SNIP
On 2025-06-02 23:43, Titus G wrote:
On 1/06/25 03:18, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Was there supposed to be a smiling emoji at the end there?
The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it is inside the >>>>> minds of buyers and sellers, their idea of the price of goods or
services at which they are prepared to buy or sell.
We don't do emojis in AuE
ÿÿÿÿÿWell that is too bad! ;^)
Why? Do you really need emojis to tell you when someone is joking?
Or humor, apparently.
ÿÿÿÿÿReally I thought it was sort of dry but no humor what so ever. :^(
ÿÿÿÿÿThat is very sad.ÿ But not even puns?
bliss who remembers when we had lots of emoji but in more subtle ways
than icons.
There's plenty of humour in AuE, for those that have been around longer
than this thread.
On 03/06/2025 06:43, Titus G wrote:
On 1/06/25 04:09, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2025 15:10:52 +1200, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 31/05/25 04:11, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:00:32 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> >>>>> wrote:snip
Most atheists are more focused on reality than fantasies.
A reality which, in their belief, includes no gods. Or, more commonly, >>>>> excludes /one/ God, because as good members of a traditionally
Christian culture, they only know of one God to not believe in.
What is this "one God" nonsense? Are you of Jewish Faith?
Didn't we nail a third of the three Christian Gods to a tree?
Or am I confusing that with some Speculative written fantasy Fiction
that I have read? Back on topic. (Might have been the authorised KVJ
version or perhaps a bootleg by Kilgore Trout.)
Funny as that is, just in case, let me remind you that it is "One God
in Three Persons".
So no one died?
Is it ok if we don't try to settle this in
groups rec.arts.sf.written and alt.usage.english ?
Note: there are many heresies involved with this topic. You may have
touched on Tritheism in your third statement, but it is too incoherent
to be sure. (1/3 of 1 of 3 would be 1/9 of the whole.)
A third of three,
Is coherent to me.
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 03:16:02 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 16:37, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo nonsense question I am responding to, and what led up to it>
OK. Why would what I merely /consider/ to be reality have to be
factual? It isn't as if I am claiming it really is reality, only that
I consider it to be. Or do you want me to prove that I really do
consider to be reality what I consider to be reality?
If you consider it to be reality then you
presumably regard it as provable.
I think you are missing the thread here. Or maybe I am.
The question appears to be about "reality" as such. Not "the reality
of this" or "the reality of that" or even "the existence of reality",
but just "reality" -- and, even then, only what I consider to be
reality.
As I said, all that appears to be provable is that what I consider to
be reality really is what I consider to be reality. Since I make no
statement that it actually /is/ reality, what else is there to prove?
<snip-a-bit>
By the way - in that bible - there's a bit
about God creating things, including plants
on land, animals in the waters - but no plants
to live in water. They seem to be around now,
!though. Just a point to consider. Did I
overlook that, or did God? Did he fix it later
when no one was watching?
This is where one of Robert Graves suggestions comes in handy:
that the various sets of things created were assigned by the pagans to various deities, and the account in Genesis is intended to say "no,
God, the God of Israel, did that".
In that case, the lack of aquatic vegetation mignt be taken to mean
that there was no pagan deity responsible for having created it.
Alternately, we could discuss the problems with scribes hand-copying manuscripts -- for example, drop-outs.
There are (IIRC) two versions of this account (one in Psalms, one in
Proverbs -- IIRC) but, IIRC, they end early in the process (Earth,
Sun, Moon, Stars) and say nothing about days. This raises the
possibility of later additions in Genesis 1 to the original account.
Graves links this with the Greek legend of the Swan's Egg (it opens
and the Earth is revealed) and /enuma elish/, which was recited at the
start of each new year (Marduk is featured). That the Genesis 1
account is a Jewish version to be read at the start of each year is
possible.
On 05/06/2025 03:16, lar3ryca wrote:
On 2025-06-04 10:00, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 6/4/25 08:37, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 14:16:11 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:SNIP
On 2025-06-02 23:43, Titus G wrote:
On 1/06/25 03:18, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Was there supposed to be a smiling emoji at the end there?
The invisible hand of the market is invisible because it is inside >>>>>> the
minds of buyers and sellers, their idea of the price of goods or
services at which they are prepared to buy or sell.
We don't do emojis in AuE
ÿÿÿÿÿWell that is too bad! ;^)
Why? Do you really need emojis to tell you when someone is joking?
Or humor, apparently.
ÿÿÿÿÿReally I thought it was sort of dry but no humor what so ever. :^(
ÿÿÿÿÿThat is very sad.ÿ But not even puns?
bliss who remembers when we had lots of emoji but in more subtle ways
than icons.
There's plenty of humour in AuE, for those that have been around
longer than this thread.
Those are emoticons.
An emoji is arbitrary, non-typographic artwork
inserted inline in text.
To adapt from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon>,
"An emoticon is a pictorial representation of
a facial expression using type characters -
usually punctuation marks, numbers and letters."
There is overlap apparently in the field of
"portrait emoticons", but Wikipedia explains
these poorly, and Google's AI tries to tell me
the difference between emoticons and emoticons,
which weakens my confidence in the validity of
the term I asked about and the validity of
Google's AI.
Instead, the nearest I can make sense of it,
is that non-typographic artwork that corresponds
to a human facial expression typographic emoticon,
is s portrait emoticon.ÿ Let me put it this way:
If you make your face into the expression of
a facial emoticon, and you photograph your face
doing that, then that is a portrait emoticon.
If you draw :-) on your face, that's just
an emoticon.
But as for exceptions, the link above, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon>
describes hand gestures in the "portrait
emoticon" section, and
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons>
includes various other wildlife, and banknotes,
which are typographic artwork but arguably not
emoticons, not facial emoticons anyway.
"List of emoticons" also shows emoji which
correspond to emoticons.ÿ I think that an emoji
which corresponds to a facial emoticon is within
the definition of "portrait emoticon".
Also, as of the Unicode Standard 6.0, dated 2010,
codings exist labelled as "Emoticons" (faces mostly,
some gestures, some cat faces), and also "Supplemental
Symbols and Pictographs" (emoji).
I argue that these are not "type", since they are
not drawings of writing, they only exist as drawings
of faces - and of very many other things.ÿ And if not
type, then not emoticons in the stricter sense.
Consider :-) and ☺ and 🙂 - the same emotion
(on my screen if not on yours), so the second and
third examples are graphical "portrait emoticons".
I'm tempted to exclude @ from "type" as well.
There's a plausible argument that in describing
quantities of traded goods, it's a stylised
drawing of an ancient Roman amphora (very loosely,
a jug, with a stopper).
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 09:36:40 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 17:01, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 00:15:33 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2025 16:14, Paul S Person wrote:
[The "Harry Potter" novels]
I should note that, in the books, there is, from the discovery of the >>>>> Prophecy onwards, a deliberate attempt to make it unclear if it is
Harry or Neville who is the One. The films don't really do that,
although Neville is certainly present in them.
I don't see that interpretation. A "prophecy"
was received before the main events of the
"Harry Potter" books took place, and as such
things go, it was typically uncertainly worded,
and insofar as "the One" is identified, only
their date of birth is given - but by the time
of the late chapter in each book where a teacher,
usually Dumbledore, explains the book's remaining
mysteries to Harry, when the prophecy comes up,
that matter apparently was settled.
By "discovery" I meant the discovery by Harry and so the reader. The
prophecy itself was much older and was known to some persons.
But not to Voldemort -- at least not the entire prophecy.
Both lost their parents to Voldemort's prior efforts. They are the
same age.
To clear this up a little now - in the "Harry Potter"
novels, Harry is born while the hidden world of magic
is being terrorized by the evil Voldemort and his
followers. Both Voldemort, and a vigilante faction
who oppose him, come into possession of a magic prophecy
do the birth of one person who can defeat Voldemort.
Or vice versa. (At least, we're told that's what it
means, and it is.) Voldemort apparently has read the
"Evil Overlord List" of must-do and not-dos for
evil overlords, or possibly a bit in the bible about
King Herod, and he sets out to kill one of the two
children that the prophecy could refer to, Harry Potter,
straight away. Due to what I'll call his carelessness,
this time the unmatchable Voldemort is disintegrated.
However, he isn't dead (magic), although nearly
everybody believes that he is - he vanished. But
really ending the conflict takes the rest of the
seven books.
I don't see why the prophecy isn't simply an incomplete
foretelling about Harry Potter - however, the wise teacher
Dumbledore seems to say in his explaining bit at the end
that Harry wasn't the one "one" until Voldemort attacked
Harry in a way that made it possible later for Harry to
defeat him. Which pretty much happened because of the
prophecy. So what if Voldemort hadn't done that? But
he did, so...
My memory is that Voldemort only heard /part/ of the prophecy, hence
the attempt to get the whole thing and see what else it said.
The formula "what I consider to be reality"[More snipping]
does look like an assertion that what it's
referring to is real. Though perhaps without
saying what it is.
<snip-a-bit>
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 08:07:56 +0100
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
[]
[More snipping]
The formula "what I consider to be reality"
does look like an assertion that what it's
referring to is real. Though perhaps without
saying what it is.
<snip-a-bit>
Reality's a dream, (oh-oh oh)
Thing's ain't what they seem (oh-oh oh)
There's a verse, I think just before the snake
shows up, which looks to this critic like someone
inserted a line, contradicting my "too holy to fix"
argument, to say that there wasn't rain in the
newly created world, and therefore, the natural
phenomenon of a rainbow didn't happen then. God
creates a rainbow in the Noah story. Evidence
that it happened. :-)
Was he himself writing from Heaven - or from
New Jerusalem - or was he in different places
simultaneously? I'm sort of assuming that
this isn't the Antichrist writing, who may be
well informed but not authentically pious.
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world >(universe) /corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote or quoted:
1. That is an intellectualist/atheist definition of "miracle",
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "something
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
However, have you heard of the "etymological fallacy," where
someone wrongly argues that a word's current meaning must be
the same as its original or historical meaning, ignoring the
fact that language evolves over time?
I have my dictionary right here, and it says, "An event that
appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to
be supernatural in origin or an act of God".
Oops! Sorry, I was being an "intellectualist" again!
(I voted for this, because I am able to distinguish between secular
marriage and religious marriage. Alternately, since Reality did not,
in fact, curl up and die as a result, it seems possible that God
simply does not recognize them as marriages. Since the statement
claimed as "God's definition of marriage" is clearly matrilocal [the
man leaves his mother, the woman goes nowhere] and so
multigenerational, it may be that /all/ nuclear marriages fail "God's >definition" and so may be equally offensive.)
The Gospels were some of the later books of the New Testament
written. Of those, John was clearly written after the other
three; among other things, it has more of the concept that
Christianity was becoming something separate from a sect
of Judaism, and it names the disciple who cut off the chief
priest's servant's ear -- quite probably because the others
were written while Peter was still alive; John was written
after Peter was safely dead.
The Rylands manuscript, a fragment of the Gospel of John,
is reliably dated about 120 AD.
Much earlier writings are the various letters by Paul and
others, clearly written before 70AD.
The standards for reliability of ancient documents are:
1) Number of copies of the documents
2) How well the copies agree with each other
3) How close in time the earliest copies are to the events.
By all of these standards, compared to the New Testmanent,
how do, say, the works of Tacitus, Cicero, Julius Caesar rate?
Not remotely close. The works collected in the New Testament
blow them all away by these tests of reliability.
There is, of course, a fourth standard, which is never stated
by determinedly secular academicans, but is followed rigidly:
"Except Bible, we throw it all out if it's Bible."
Don't point to the KJV - primary contemporaneous sources only.
This is utter nonsense. Nobody (except a few ... non
mainstream types ...) thinks the Bible originated with
the translators hired by King James. I'm talking about
the originals, written mostly in Koine Greek, one or two,
I think may be written in Aramaic.
Remember too that the Medieval Catholic Church did not
want the Bible in the hands of the laity.
But it still got away from the priesthood .
What you describe is called the instrumentalist view of prayer.
(if only you pray enough you deserve a reward)
AFAIK the catholic church is firmly against all this,
but some kinds of American protestants still firmly believe in it,
At the end of the English Civil War, for example, the Presbyterians of
that time assumed that now *they* would be the established church in >England. Cromwell convinced them otherwise.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 11:20:07 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
What you describe is called the instrumentalist view of prayer.
(if only you pray enough you deserve a reward)
AFAIK the catholic church is firmly against all this,
but some kinds of American protestants still firmly believe in it,
Not the ones I know.... one of the key facets of Protestantism is
personal dependance on the grace of God on a daily basis. And that the
volume of one's own prayers doesn't enter into it as one simply cannot bludgeon God into doing something. (I've actually heard that argument
made)
On Thu, 29 May 2025 09:55:09 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, as Arthur C. Clarke revealed to us,
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic." So for instance,
some miracles could be performed with concealed
magnets. Especially if someone doesn't know
that magnets exist.
You mean anybody in the time of the Roman Empire (aka 'the life and
times of Jesus') knew what a magnet was?
I think most of us as children did all kinds of things with magnets to >impress our friends. My favorite trick was holding a magnet under a
piece of paper to make another magnetic jump into the air (typically
no more than 1 or 2 inches) by means of repulsion.
My favorite magnets were the 3/4" round magnets (by roughly 3/16"
thick) that were suitable for the above types of tricks.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 08:37:19 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "somethingIn fairness, "something you don't see every day" includes things like
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world >>(universe) /corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New >>Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
me picking my daughter up from the airport (which I'm actually doing >tomorrow) which to be fair isn't something people make life changing
steps in their life the way conversion to a faith they didn't
previously belong to.
The Christian view of heaven is "The New Jerusalem where all suffering
and pain will be banished forever - to be inhabited only by the just
which is defined by those who have accepted the teachings of the
faith. Other faiths have other definitions.
It certainly isn't anything remotely miraculous like parting the Red
Sea or resurrection from the dead.
As for events like the Last Judgement that's pretty easy to bring
about >IF< you believe in an omnipotent creator who has an interest in
this world and completely absurd if you don't.
"Something worth looking at" can involve fairly mundane but uncommon
things such as my daughter arriving home from seeing her sister in the
UK. Which while unusual (in terms of 'not happening every day') and is >something I am looking forward to doesn't come close to any
Christian's view of seeing heaven for the first time (or alternately
choose an analogous event in some other faith) which is expected to be
their happiest event ever.
In other words I understand your point but your description is a
fairly powerful understatement.
On Sun, 25 May 2025 09:07:16 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
A more recent book (it has a reference that only makes sense if it was >>written in the late 1930s) asserts that, when the New Jerusalem
appears, this means that Heaven and (the New) Earth are /joined/. This
was not by a premillenialist. I think he was an amillenialist (like >>Augustine, apparently) but he could be a postmillenialst. He believed
every true Christian that ever has or ever will exist is currently in >>Heaven with Jesus ruling the World right now. He interprets all the >>nastiness as ongoing from the Resurrection, and encompassing /all/ of >>science, technology, anything /not/ in (his) Chrstian tradition. So I
can see because cataract surgery is a part of God's wrathful
punishment of the world. According to him, anyway.
Hmmm and I'm scheduled for cataract surgery in two months time. The
surgeon is Jewish so you can grok what I think of THAT "tradition".
(With me it's mostly about zapping "cataract precursors" before they
have a chance to grow to become real cataracts...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:21:32 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 08:37:19 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
intended to show that none exist. The actual meaning is "somethingIn fairness, "something you don't see every day" includes things like
worth looking at". Or perhaps "something you don't see every day".
2. Science is very good (as far as we can tell) at describing a world
(universe) /corrupted by sin/. It can say nothing about one that is
not. It is, IOW, limited in a way it cannot even detect because
nothing it studies is not corrupted. The situation in which the New
Jerusalem descends is generally considered to taking place in a new
world (universe), freed from sin.
me picking my daughter up from the airport (which I'm actually doing
tomorrow) which to be fair isn't something people make life changing
steps in their life the way conversion to a faith they didn't
previously belong to.
The Christian view of heaven is "The New Jerusalem where all suffering
and pain will be banished forever - to be inhabited only by the just
which is defined by those who have accepted the teachings of the
faith. Other faiths have other definitions.
It certainly isn't anything remotely miraculous like parting the Red
Sea or resurrection from the dead.
As for events like the Last Judgement that's pretty easy to bring
about >IF< you believe in an omnipotent creator who has an interest in
this world and completely absurd if you don't.
"Something worth looking at" can involve fairly mundane but uncommon
things such as my daughter arriving home from seeing her sister in the
UK. Which while unusual (in terms of 'not happening every day') and is
something I am looking forward to doesn't come close to any
Christian's view of seeing heaven for the first time (or alternately
choose an analogous event in some other faith) which is expected to be
their happiest event ever.
In other words I understand your point but your description is a
fairly powerful understatement.
/The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/, published
1969, does have the intellectualized definition as "1.". But then it
has:
2. A person, thing, or event that excites admiring awe.
This, of course, is the definition I am referring to.
But 1969 is a long time ago. Perhaps this meaning has disappeared over
time.
As to the New Jerusalem, it is Revelation's view of the matter. The
second /Ice Age/ film showed a Saber-tooth Squirrel Heaven at the end
which is a good representation of what most people I have encountered actually think Heaven to be, golden fence/gate, green grass, and all.
Not to mention the One True Acorn, of which all lesser acorns are but
images.
Note that CS Lewis goes for this sort of thing in /The Last Battle/,
which knows nothing of a New Jerusalem. And where, indeed, would he
put it? Earth or Narnia?
I do find it odd that various evil types should be mentioned as not
allowed to enter -- not that they can't enter, but that they /exist/.
Only a bit earlier, these were said to /all/ have gone into the Lake
of Fire. So how is it they are still around? Surely after everything
has been destroyed and renewed human beings will no longer have the
knowledge of good and evil and so be restored to their original state
as well. There appears to be some confusion here. Probably mine, to be
sure.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 14:07:42 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
At the end of the English Civil War, for example, the Presbyterians of
that time assumed that now *they* would be the established church in
England. Cromwell convinced them otherwise.
Which given that most Presbyterians in the UK then as now are in
Scotland and Northern Ireland isn't exactly shocking.
That said Cromwell wouldn't have defeated the Stuarts with his
Scottish friends.
On 6/24/25 09:30, Paul S Person wrote:
As to the New Jerusalem, it is Revelation's view of the matter. The
second /Ice Age/ film showed a Saber-tooth Squirrel Heaven at the end
which is a good representation of what most people I have encountered
actually think Heaven to be, golden fence/gate, green grass, and all.
Not to mention the One True Acorn, of which all lesser acorns are but
images.
=20
Note that CS Lewis goes for this sort of thing in /The Last Battle/,
which knows nothing of a New Jerusalem. And where, indeed, would he
put it? Earth or Narnia?
No with the Diety of your choice "further in and deeper in" as was=20
recounted
in one volume when the end of the Narnian world happens.
=20I do find it odd that various evil types should be mentioned as not
allowed to enter -- not that they can't enter, but that they /exist/.
Only a bit earlier, these were said to /all/ have gone into the Lake
of Fire. So how is it they are still around? Surely after everything
has been destroyed and renewed human beings will no longer have the
knowledge of good and evil and so be restored to their original state
as well. There appears to be some confusion here. Probably mine, to be
sure.
Perhaps Lewis;a diety of choice wants all to be eventually returned to
Grace as he understood it. So they suffer in the "Lake of Fire" to be=20 >purified
so that like humans in Purgatory they can eventually enter into Heavenly=
bliss.
Yes I read the Narnian books quite some time back along with themeans
extraterrestrial adventures of Ransom.
In Christian Mythos as in Tolkienian adaptation the Evil One corrupts
but only the Diety of choice creates. Melkor was powerful but by no =
did he create Dragons, Orcs or Trolls which by the scheme of things are >creations of the one which he bent to his will. And despite his great =power
he was forced back into the Void by the others whom Ainu had set to =guard
his creation. Sauron was far less powerful but managed to further =corrrupt
men and orcs.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:11:17 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 6/24/25 09:30, Paul S Person wrote:
<snippo>
As to the New Jerusalem, it is Revelation's view of the matter. The
second /Ice Age/ film showed a Saber-tooth Squirrel Heaven at the end
which is a good representation of what most people I have encountered
actually think Heaven to be, golden fence/gate, green grass, and all.
Not to mention the One True Acorn, of which all lesser acorns are but
images.
Note that CS Lewis goes for this sort of thing in /The Last Battle/,
which knows nothing of a New Jerusalem. And where, indeed, would he
put it? Earth or Narnia?
No with the Diety of your choice "further in and deeper in" as was
recounted
in one volume when the end of the Narnian world happens.
Which, IIRC, is /The Last Battle/.
But thanks for confirming my point.
I do find it odd that various evil types should be mentioned as not
allowed to enter -- not that they can't enter, but that they /exist/.
Only a bit earlier, these were said to /all/ have gone into the Lake
of Fire. So how is it they are still around? Surely after everything
has been destroyed and renewed human beings will no longer have the
knowledge of good and evil and so be restored to their original state
as well. There appears to be some confusion here. Probably mine, to be
sure.
Perhaps Lewis;a diety of choice wants all to be eventually returned to >> Grace as he understood it. So they suffer in the "Lake of Fire" to be
purified
so that like humans in Purgatory they can eventually enter into Heavenly
bliss.
I apologize for being less clear. The Lake of Fire precedes the New
Jerusalem in the Biblical book Apocalypse. Not in Lewis.
CS Lewis had two versions of Hell: one was a place from which God, in
His mercy, withdrew his presence so that those who would suffer if
subjected to it could avoid it; the other was that everyone went to
the same place, but those not prepared (by the Church) for it would
feel the presence of God as painful.
Luther, at one point, agrees with a Scholastic school that the damned,
while indeed in Hell and while indeed in pain are not in pain because
of the fires of Hell but because of the absence of God's presence.
Yes I read the Narnian books quite some time back along with the
extraterrestrial adventures of Ransom.
In Christian Mythos as in Tolkienian adaptation the Evil One corrupts >> but only the Diety of choice creates. Melkor was powerful but by no means
did he create Dragons, Orcs or Trolls which by the scheme of things are
creations of the one which he bent to his will. And despite his great power >> he was forced back into the Void by the others whom Ainu had set to guard
his creation. Sauron was far less powerful but managed to further corrrupt >> men and orcs.
Not a bad interpretation of the final form of the material. In the
first form, the dragons (at least) were mechanical. The later is a bit ambiguous: some of his followers simply liked being on his side, some
may or may not have been genetically engineered from innocuous forms,
but, yes, none were created.
Melkor was weakened enough to be banished because he also inserted his "stuff" (no, literally, "Melkor-stuff") into Arda. So that everything
was corrupted by it. There was a theory that Man, by living a short
time and dying, was removing it as a result and so helping to purify
Arda.
At one point, the difference between Melkor and Sauron (other than
strength) was clarified: Melkor wanted to destroy all of Eru Iluvatar' creation -- and had he succeeded in reducing it to atoms, would still
have been unhappy because the atoms still existed.
Sauron, OTOH, wanted to rule Arda. Or at least Middle-Earth.
Note: This relies on a very large set of very large books collectively
called /The History of Middle-Earth/, by his son Christopher (CJRT).
These provide JRRT's other writings, edited by CJRT. It includes a
subset on how /The Lord of the Rings/ was written.
There is a separate 2-volume set on /The History of The Hobbit/, which
deals with how /The Hobbit/ was written. Some of it is pretty
interesting: that the Shire map is the Beleriand map rotated 90
degrees; that the Arkenstone was, in fact, a Silmaril.
On Sun, 25 May 2025 23:52:43 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
Was he himself writing from Heaven - or from
New Jerusalem - or was he in different places
simultaneously? I'm sort of assuming that
this isn't the Antichrist writing, who may be
well informed but not authentically pious.
Supposedly St John wrote the Revelation when he was exiled to the Isle
of Patmos which is one of the small islands in the Aegean between
Greece + Turkey. He says he had visions and recorded what he saw.
Christian sources figure he was at least 80 if not 90 years old when
he wrote it and that it was the last book of the New Testament to be
written.
On 23/06/2025 22:24, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 23:52:43 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
=20
Was he himself writing from Heaven - or from=20
New Jerusalem - or was he in different places
simultaneously? I'm sort of assuming that
this isn't the Antichrist writing, who may be
well informed but not authentically pious.
Supposedly St John wrote the Revelation when he was exiled to the Isle
of Patmos which is one of the small islands in the Aegean between
Greece + Turkey. He says he had visions and recorded what he saw.
Christian sources figure he was at least 80 if not 90 years old when
he wrote it and that it was the last book of the New Testament to be
written.
Per <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation>
it's probably someone else called John. But John of
Patmos, I infer, isn't a "Saint" because if he is,
then he may be St John after all.
As usual, he was writing shortly before the end of
the world. But I was asking about a reviewer of
Revelation, who seems to think that "Revelation"
now has happened, and all true Christians are safely
in Heaven with God. I wondered how, in that case,
he got a book published about it down here on Earth.
Yes I have read some of those but I take the final form from J.R.R.=20
Tolkien
in Lord of the Rings triology and the Hobbit to be Canon and the stuff=20 >that came
later as attempts to increase income. But some parts taken from=20 >J.R.R.T.'s first
versions are very good. If some of material had been moved to the LOTR=20 >then
it might have come off as less sexist.
I used to try to write explanations of the series but it is basically a==20
religious work=20
depending on suspension of disbelief with a more coherent plot than most=
scripture.
That is because it is from one brilliant writer rather than assembled=20
from bronze age
stories passed down orally.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 8 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 107:04:19 |
| Calls: | 161 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 78,633 |
