Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #38490 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-01-14 12:17 -0500 |
| Last post | 2013-02-28 09:42 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 149 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Apple Is Doomed! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-01-14 12:17 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-14 09:57 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-15 00:23 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-15 08:53 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-15 07:10 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "Rollo" <rogerl@gmail.com> - 2013-02-28 09:39 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-16 09:54 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-16 10:54 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-16 13:48 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-16 20:25 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-17 09:24 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-16 16:59 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2013-01-17 15:26 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-17 14:14 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-17 15:19 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-17 14:29 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "Thomas R. Kettler" <tkettler@blownfuse.net> - 2013-01-17 17:36 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-17 18:13 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-18 06:14 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-18 23:33 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-17 17:37 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2013-02-27 23:24 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-01-18 12:49 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-18 10:59 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "Thomas R. Kettler" <tkettler@blownfuse.net> - 2013-01-18 13:36 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-19 19:56 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-18 03:33 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-18 06:23 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-17 18:12 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-17 17:38 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-17 16:56 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Juan Anonly <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-17 18:06 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-18 06:30 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-19 09:34 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-19 08:15 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-20 10:21 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-20 11:08 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-20 14:36 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-20 15:11 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-20 18:56 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-20 18:33 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-20 22:52 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-21 08:33 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-21 11:59 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-21 22:51 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2013-01-20 19:59 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-20 23:08 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-01-18 12:43 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-19 09:36 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-18 06:26 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-18 10:39 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-18 11:05 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-18 13:22 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2013-01-18 10:38 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-18 14:11 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-19 19:53 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2013-01-19 11:19 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-20 09:27 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2013-03-04 21:51 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-03-05 18:55 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 15:20 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-18 14:34 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-18 17:25 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-18 18:59 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-18 18:01 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-18 20:33 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-18 19:02 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-19 10:09 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-19 19:44 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Juan Anonly <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-19 19:00 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-19 23:29 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-20 10:23 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Juan Anonly <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-20 10:57 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-20 22:58 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-20 23:10 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2013-01-21 22:43 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-21 22:53 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-21 21:04 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-22 13:32 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 09:31 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-23 13:32 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 13:28 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG - 2013-01-23 01:18 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-23 07:34 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 09:33 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 12:30 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-23 16:16 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 15:16 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-23 19:06 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-23 16:17 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 13:39 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-24 16:13 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-24 08:26 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-01-23 23:55 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 17:01 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-01-24 01:32 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 18:29 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-23 20:01 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 09:53 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-24 11:56 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-24 16:00 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-24 14:15 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 12:20 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-24 16:57 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-24 18:02 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-24 16:57 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-24 19:18 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 19:08 -0600
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-24 18:43 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-24 16:36 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG - 2013-01-25 12:00 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-25 08:02 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-24 18:16 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-26 21:01 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-01-28 17:19 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-28 18:16 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-28 19:22 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-30 23:00 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-30 23:13 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG - 2013-01-23 17:51 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 13:40 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-22 23:40 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 09:34 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2013-01-22 18:10 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-22 23:31 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-23 08:05 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 09:26 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-01-23 22:51 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2013-01-23 23:06 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2013-01-23 21:37 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-24 05:59 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2013-03-04 21:55 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-18 15:54 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-18 17:20 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2013-01-21 22:48 +0000
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-23 22:44 +0100
Re: Apple Is Doomed! nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) - 2013-01-23 20:05 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-23 21:23 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2013-01-14 13:36 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-01-15 11:09 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-01-14 21:24 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2013-02-27 23:20 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-02-27 23:29 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-03-01 11:47 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-03-01 11:47 -0700
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-03-01 14:49 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-03-01 13:02 -0800
Re: Apple Is Doomed! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-03-01 16:23 -0500
Re: Apple Is Doomed! "Rollo" <rogerl@gmail.com> - 2013-02-28 09:42 -0500
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 13:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <51002cd3$0$20989$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #38793 |
On 13-01-23 12:31, gtr wrote: > I'm not aware of them actually *changing* old-testament fluff in the > new testament. Do they lift restrictions on shell-fish and pork > somewhere? The apostles lifted the requirement that christian males get a big snip on their 8th day of life. That came from old testament, removed in new testament after Jesus left. And at some point, pork was made legal for christians (not sure if apostles or later) > I think it makes sense to glean from the famous ancient tomes anything > of value to you, and then use selectively it to beat heathens/pagans > over the head with. I think it makes the same "sense" as any other > political tool. The problem with that is that you have thsoe "Born again" types who read the bible literally and do not have sufficient judgement to realise what is social fluff and what is truly "religion". And you have some muslim areas who go out of their way to misinterpret the Koran (especially with regards to treatment of women) and refuse to change to adapt to modern times. But in asia/south pacific, muslim areas tend to be much more pragmatic and move with the times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 13:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2013012313285359555-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #38797 |
On 2013-01-23 18:32:50 +0000, JF Mezei said: > On 13-01-23 12:31, gtr wrote: > >> I'm not aware of them actually *changing* old-testament fluff in the >> new testament. Do they lift restrictions on shell-fish and pork >> somewhere? > > The apostles lifted the requirement that christian males get a big snip > on their 8th day of life. That came from old testament, removed in new > testament after Jesus left. And at some point, pork was made legal for > christians (not sure if apostles or later) My question was--do these corrections of the old testament appear as corrections in the new testament? Just a point of curiousity. >> I think it makes sense to glean from the famous ancient tomes anything >> of value to you, and then use selectively it to beat heathens/pagans >> over the head with. I think it makes the same "sense" as any other >> political tool. > > The problem with that is that you have thsoe "Born again" types who read > the bible literally and do not have sufficient judgement to realise what > is social fluff and what is truly "religion". Not so: They say they read it literally but my subjective findings is that they don't read it at all. And the "judgement" you refer to is the judgment of others, pastors, televangelists, and radio hosts that *confer* judgments on them to memorize and recite. Quizzing individual Christianists on what "Thou shalt not kill" means, literally, when they support capital punishment produces real-time morphing before my eyes. One dismissed it as "old testament--Jewish stuff". Another that they weren't personally *doing* the killing, the justice system did that and they were only "supporting" their legal right to do so. Did God created the world in 6 days? Yes, 24 hours, said one "literalist" interviewee. Then later he validated Bushtorture as "an eye for an eye". I said wait a minute--that's "literally" about eyes and teeth, right? He went all "relative" on me until I reached for my literalist ammo. His cheeks actually turned red. It was sad. > And you have some muslim areas who go out of their way to misinterpret > the Koran (especially with regards to treatment of women) and refuse to > change to adapt to modern times. But in asia/south pacific, muslim areas > tend to be much more pragmatic and move with the times. Clearly humans come up with goals first, then we defend them with books, literally or figuratively. Failing this, blatant lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 01:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <00ACDC66.0D372112@SendSpamHere.ORG> |
| In reply to | #38760 |
In article <50fedb59$0$63312$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: >On 13-01-22 00:04, gtr wrote: > >> Why would an athetist go to the trouble to edit a bible down to just >> the word's Christ purportedly said, I wonder. > >In the old testament, you have the words of god and then a whole bunch >of fluff around that. Much of that fluff is really about hygiene (kosher >cooking rules to increase average lifetime without refrigiration in an >area without much water). Another edict is that one has to kill someone >whose had sex with an animal. This makes sense in that it greatly >reduces the chance of a deadly virus being transmitted from animals to >humans. However, those lifestyle edicts in the bible have nothing to do >with religion, they have to do with educating people of the middle east >on how to increase chances of survival and success of the species in >those days. Those are akin to day's government public service ads about >sneezing into your arms instead of hands, or wearing condoms when you >have sex. So the governmentt is saying it's OK to have sex with animals as long as one wears a condome? >Similarly, in new testament, you have what jesus said, and then you have >the fluff that came out of his entourage (some camm them the apostles). > >jesus didn't really change the core of the jewish religion. He just >re-affirmed it. The apostles changed much fo the fluff around it (such >as eating restrictions) when they wanted to expand beyond the middle >east and try to convert romans, greeks etc who lived in a different >weather, had more available water etc etc. So it was then safe to eat pork but not on Friday. >So in a way, it does make sense to remove all the lifestyle fluff form >the bibles to retain only what god/jesus said. The lifestyle stuff has >to adapt to different regions of the world and evolve with technology. >With refrigiration, eating pork is no longer considered dangerous. But religion is still dangerous. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 07:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NaCdnYktXJVTRWLNnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #38778 |
In article <00ACDC66.0D372112@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote: > > So the governmentt is saying it's OK to have sex with animals as long as > one wears a condome? Since some states are requiring companies to provide health coverage to various partners regardless of sexual preference, it should be no time 'til my HMO puts on a large-animal veterinarian. > -- America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 09:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2013012309333865362-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #38778 |
On 2013-01-23 01:18:06 +0000, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG said: >> So in a way, it does make sense to remove all the lifestyle fluff form >> the bibles to retain only what god/jesus said. The lifestyle stuff has >> to adapt to different regions of the world and evolve with technology. >> With refrigiration, eating pork is no longer considered dangerous. > > But religion is still dangerous. I know of nothing inherently dangerous about religion itself. There is only the danger among those who use it as a weapon against others. In this respect it is no different that any other idelogical weapon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 12:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <230120131230232256%jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #38794 |
In article <2013012309333865362-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: > On 2013-01-23 01:18:06 +0000, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG said: > > >> So in a way, it does make sense to remove all the lifestyle fluff form > >> the bibles to retain only what god/jesus said. The lifestyle stuff has > >> to adapt to different regions of the world and evolve with technology. > >> With refrigiration, eating pork is no longer considered dangerous. > > > > But religion is still dangerous. > > I know of nothing inherently dangerous about religion itself. There is > only the danger among those who use it as a weapon against others. In > this respect it is no different that any other idelogical weapon. > There is the danger of believing and acting upon things which are not true but what others have told you to be true. If you refuse to eat meat on Friday or won't eat pork at all because you think that that is what your god wants, then you are only hurting yourself, although you may be denying your immediate family their nutritional needs. If, however, you refuse to get an abortion or allow someone else to get one on religious grounds, you may be doing great harm to yourself, another person, or the unwanted child. If you happen to be president of a world power and invade another country "because god told me to" with the subsequent loss of life of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the expenditure of trillions of dollars, and the destruction of a vibrant society, then you are evil incarnate and a danger to civilization as we know it. -- Jim Gibson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 16:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NuKdnV3gYaKKzp3MnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #38800 |
In article <230120131230232256%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If, however, you refuse to get an abortion or allow someone else to get > one on religious grounds, you may be doing great harm to yourself, > another person, or the unwanted child. > You want to try this again. It seems as though you are suggesting (when you refuse to get an abortion) that someone else should be able to make the decision for you. I am fairly certain that isn't the point you were trying to make. > If you happen to be president of a world power and invade another > country "because god told me to" with the subsequent loss of life of > hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the expenditure of trillions > of dollars, and the destruction of a vibrant society, then you are evil > incarnate and a danger to civilization as we know it. God told me to is just another convenient excuse to do what you were going to do anyway. -- America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 15:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <230120131516543331%jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #38801 |
In article <NuKdnV3gYaKKzp3MnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <230120131230232256%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, > Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > If, however, you refuse to get an abortion or allow someone else to get > > one on religious grounds, you may be doing great harm to yourself, > > another person, or the unwanted child. > > > > You want to try this again. It seems as though you are suggesting (when > you refuse to get an abortion) that someone else should be able to make > the decision for you. I am fairly certain that isn't the point you were > trying to make. I am suggesting that if you would benefit from getting an abortion but do not because people you trust have told you that it is against your religion, then you are doing yourself a disservice. If you oppose other people getting abortions for the same reason, then you are doing them harm. There is no evidence that there is a god who opposes abortion (because there is no evidence of god at all). Therefore, people who think abortion is against "god's law" only do so because other people have told them it is so. They are letting other people make their decision for them. Some people oppose abortion on moral grounds having nothing to do with religion. I have no issue with those people or that decision, although I disagree with their choice. -- Jim Gibson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 19:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JKudnfbot-Nv553MnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #38812 |
In article <230120131516543331%jimsgibson@gmail.com>,
Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am suggesting that if you would benefit from getting an abortion but
> do not because people you trust have told you that it is against your
> religion, then you are doing yourself a disservice. If you oppose other
> people getting abortions for the same reason, then you are doing them
> harm.
>
I would say that disservice is not your call to make outside of your
own person skin. I'd agree with the others.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 16:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5100535e$0$15297$c3e8da3$9f400e27@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #38800 |
On 13-01-23 15:30, Jim Gibson wrote: > If you happen to be president of a world power and invade another > country "because god told me to" with the subsequent loss of life of > hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the expenditure of trillions > of dollars, and the destruction of a vibrant society, then you are evil > incarnate and a danger to civilization as we know it. And ironically, most wars are linked in one way or another to religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 13:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2013012313394373323-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #38800 |
On 2013-01-23 20:30:23 +0000, Jim Gibson said: > In article <2013012309333865362-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: > >> On 2013-01-23 01:18:06 +0000, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG said: >> >>>> So in a way, it does make sense to remove all the lifestyle fluff form >>>> the bibles to retain only what god/jesus said. The lifestyle stuff has >>>> to adapt to different regions of the world and evolve with technology. >>>> With refrigiration, eating pork is no longer considered dangerous. >>> >>> But religion is still dangerous. >> >> I know of nothing inherently dangerous about religion itself. There is >> only the danger among those who use it as a weapon against others. In >> this respect it is no different that any other idelogical weapon. > > There is the danger of believing and acting upon things which are not > true but what others have told you to be true. Acting on things that ARE true can be just as problematic. > If you refuse to eat meat on Friday or won't eat pork at all because > you think that that is what your god wants, then you are only hurting > yourself, although you may be denying your immediate family their > nutritional needs. > > If, however, you refuse to get an abortion or allow someone else to get > one on religious grounds, you may be doing great harm to yourself, > another person, or the unwanted child. If you do such things based on non-religious grounds the result is no different. > If you happen to be president of a world power and invade another > country "because god told me to" with the subsequent loss of life of > hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the expenditure of trillions > of dollars, and the destruction of a vibrant society, then you are evil > incarnate and a danger to civilization as we know it. I have no religion, so I'm certainly not pimping for the cause, but I think that religion provides a lot of anguished people a lot of solace. I don't think religion, in and of itself, causes any harm any more than any other ideas do. Used as a weapon, a bible, or a baseball bat or a screwdriver is not longer a book, toy or tool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 16:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nospam-4826A2.16130024012013@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #38806 |
In article <2013012313394373323-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: > I have no religion, so I'm certainly not pimping for the cause, but I > think that religion provides a lot of anguished people a lot of solace. Coming from a religious family, I have seen that and that is why I refuse to go religion bashing in an aggressive way. > I don't think religion, in and of itself, causes any harm any more than > any other ideas do. Used as a weapon, a bible, or a baseball bat or a > screwdriver is not longer a book, toy or tool. On the other hand, coming from a religious family, perhaps more particularly the church my parents attended, things could get quite vicious if you didn't toe the line. -- Paul Sture
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 08:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2013012408261490875-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #38865 |
On 2013-01-24 15:13:00 +0000, Paul Sture said: > In article <2013012313394373323-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: > >> I have no religion, so I'm certainly not pimping for the cause, but I >> think that religion provides a lot of anguished people a lot of solace. > > Coming from a religious family, I have seen that and that is why I > refuse to go religion bashing in an aggressive way. > >> I don't think religion, in and of itself, causes any harm any more than >> any other ideas do. Used as a weapon, a bible, or a baseball bat or a >> screwdriver is not longer a book, toy or tool. > > On the other hand, coming from a religious family, perhaps more > particularly the church my parents attended, things could get quite > vicious if you didn't toe the line. When vicious is called for any prop will do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 23:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <CD262906.24F26%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #38800 |
> In article <2013012309333865362-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: > >> On 2013-01-23 01:18:06 +0000, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG said: >> >>>> So in a way, it does make sense to remove all the lifestyle fluff form >>>> the bibles to retain only what god/jesus said. The lifestyle stuff has >>>> to adapt to different regions of the world and evolve with technology. >>>> With refrigiration, eating pork is no longer considered dangerous. >>> >>> But religion is still dangerous. >> >> I know of nothing inherently dangerous about religion itself. There is >> only the danger among those who use it as a weapon against others. In >> this respect it is no different that any other idelogical weapon. Really? You don't see anything inherently dangerous in people believing in "truths" that are transcendentally important? More important than life itself? More important than /other peoples/ lives? So important that killing people "for the good of their souls" is an act of benevolence? -- Bill Findlay with blueyonder.co.uk; use surname & forename;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 17:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2013012317014768747-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #38816 |
On 2013-01-23 23:55:50 +0000, Bill Findlay said: >> In article <2013012309333865362-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: >> >>> On 2013-01-23 01:18:06 +0000, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG said: >>> >>>>> So in a way, it does make sense to remove all the lifestyle fluff form >>>>> the bibles to retain only what god/jesus said. The lifestyle stuff has >>>>> to adapt to different regions of the world and evolve with technology. >>>>> With refrigiration, eating pork is no longer considered dangerous. >>>> >>>> But religion is still dangerous. >>> >>> I know of nothing inherently dangerous about religion itself. There is >>> only the danger among those who use it as a weapon against others. In >>> this respect it is no different that any other idelogical weapon. > > Really? You don't see anything inherently dangerous in people believing in > "truths" that are transcendentally important? Not in the abstract, I don't. > More important than life itself? You need a complete sentence to make tha work. I don't find it inherently dangerous that people believe it "truths that are more important than life"? No, I don't give a damn what truths they believe in, the truths, even hypothetically, aren't dangerous: Humans acting on truths as well as UNTRUTHS is the problem. Actions, not philosophical fables or mountain-top tablets. > More important than /other peoples/ lives? So important that killing > people "for the good of their souls" is an act of benevolence? Sorry, I can no longer reconstruct this as a question. In any case I think you get where I'm coming from regarding beliefs and actions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 01:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <CD263FC4.24F34%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #38819 |
On 24/01/2013 01:01, in article 2013012317014768747-xxx@yyyzzz, "gtr" <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: > On 2013-01-23 23:55:50 +0000, Bill Findlay said: >> >> Really? You don't see anything inherently dangerous in people believing in >> "truths" that are transcendentally important? > > Not in the abstract, I don't. There is nothing abstract about crusades, autos da fe, witch burnings and jihads. Those that learn nothing from history learn nothing from history. >> More important than life itself? > > You need a complete sentence to make tha work. I don't find it > inherently dangerous that people believe it "truths that are more > important than life"? No, I don't give a damn what truths they believe > in, the truths, even hypothetically, aren't dangerous: Humans acting on > truths as well as UNTRUTHS is the problem. Actions, not philosophical > fables or mountain-top tablets. Ah, this is like the "guns don't kill people" argument, and equally jejune. How do you distinguish the effect of "truths" from the behaviour of those who act on them as they believe they are commanded to do? You are making a distinction without a difference. >> More important than /other peoples/ lives? So important that killing >> people "for the good of their souls" is an act of benevolence? > > Sorry, I can no longer reconstruct this as a question. In any case I > think you get where I'm coming from regarding beliefs and actions. No, I really don't. Belief is the enemy of humanity, precisely /because/ it results in murderous actions putatively for the "benefit" of the murdered. -- Bill Findlay with blueyonder.co.uk; use surname & forename;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 18:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2013012318293964984-xxx@yyyzzz> |
| In reply to | #38820 |
On 2013-01-24 01:32:52 +0000, Bill Findlay said: > On 24/01/2013 01:01, in article 2013012317014768747-xxx@yyyzzz, "gtr" > <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: > >> On 2013-01-23 23:55:50 +0000, Bill Findlay said: >>> >>> Really? You don't see anything inherently dangerous in people believing in >>> "truths" that are transcendentally important? >> >> Not in the abstract, I don't. > > There is nothing abstract about crusades, autos da fe, witch burnings and > jihads. No, and had you cited them I would have responded to those examples. Religion didn't do any of these things; humans, for various purposes, used religion as an excuse to do these things. > Those that learn nothing from history learn nothing from history. Religion=Bad is not the lesson to be learned. Have there been no brutalities within the "godless" states of the USSR and China? So nothing to be learned there? > Ah, this is like the "guns don't kill people" argument, and equally jejune. It is the same argument, but the intent of the "guns don't kill people" argument is about making money by distributing weapons as wide as possible, so it's utility is radically different. It's true that guns don't kill people, people do, but on the other hand guns were invented specifically for killing. On the other hand, religious nuts may kill people, but their religion was not explicitly invented for that purpose. Hopefully you see the distinction between those differences. > How do you distinguish the effect of "truths" from the behaviour of those > who act on them as they believe they are commanded to do? Quite easily: In the context you've chosen, they are not commanded--by religion--to kill or torture anyone. Most of these religions preach just the opposite of the behaviour that power- and money-hungry leaders use to manipulate "the flock" while pursuing their greed. >> I think you get where I'm coming from regarding beliefs and actions. > > No, I really don't. I'm surprised. > Belief is the enemy of humanity, precisely /because/ it results in > murderous actions putatively for the "benefit" of the murdered. These actions are the results of the perversion of those beliefs and the manipulation of the gullible to kill others for personal gain. People can be manipulated by fear without religion, but certainly religion does allow a hierarchy of perceived faith in leaders and institutions which shouldn't be trusted. But the crimes of the Catholic church can hardly be blamed on the religion of Christianity. Christianity is being really contorted and maniuplated now by Republican ideology, their intent only to get voters frightened enough to do what they are told. I'm hoping they'll co-opt Christianity entirely in the USA. Hopefully this will rid us of much of its potential for menace over the next few generations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-23 20:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-2E327A.20015423012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38800 |
In article <230120131230232256%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote: > If you refuse to eat meat on Friday or won't eat pork at all because you > think that that is what your god wants, then you are only hurting > yourself, although you may be denying your immediate family their > nutritional needs. I don't eat pork at all because I just don't like it. I can't see how that's hurt me. > If, however, you refuse to get an abortion or allow someone else to get > one on religious grounds, you may be doing great harm to yourself, > another person, or the unwanted child. If you refuse to get an abortion yourself, you're probably not hurting anyone. If you prevent someone else from getting an abortion, on whatever grounds, you're hurting that person. If you force a person to get an abortion, for whatever reason, you're hurting that person. -- Ignore this sig.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 09:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <240120130953565084%jimsgibson@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #38823 |
In article <michelle-2E327A.20015423012013@news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > In article <230120131230232256%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, > Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If you refuse to eat meat on Friday or won't eat pork at all because you > > think that that is what your god wants, then you are only hurting > > yourself, although you may be denying your immediate family their > > nutritional needs. > > I don't eat pork at all because I just don't like it. I can't see how > that's hurt me. Yes, that's you. But what if you liked pork, you would eat it if you could, it was readily available in your area, and it would be a significant portion of your diet, but you didn't eat it because of religious prohibitions. Then you would be hurting yourself. > > > If, however, you refuse to get an abortion or allow someone else to get > > one on religious grounds, you may be doing great harm to yourself, > > another person, or the unwanted child. > > If you refuse to get an abortion yourself, you're probably not hurting > anyone. If you prevent someone else from getting an abortion, on whatever > grounds, you're hurting that person. If you force a person to get an > abortion, for whatever reason, you're hurting that person. What if a cocaine-addicted woman refuses to have an abortion and instead gives birth to a cocaine-addicted baby that suffers mightily throughout its short life? Is that not hurting somebody else? -- Jim Gibson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-7A9309.11561724012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38878 |
In article <240120130953565084%jimsgibson@gmail.com>, Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't eat pork at all because I just don't like it. I can't see how > > that's hurt me. > > Yes, that's you. But what if you liked pork, you would eat it if you > could, it was readily available in your area, and it would be a > significant portion of your diet, but you didn't eat it because of > religious prohibitions. Then you would be hurting yourself. If I didn't eat it because of religious convictions, I most likely would never have eaten it, so wouldn't know know whether I liked it. Well, maybe if I had converted to that religion after eating and liking pork, and then gave up pork because of those religious prohibitions. That means that I would have believed the religious convictions were more important than eating pork, and if I had continued to eat pork, that would be hurting me more than giving it up. Pork is not an essential element of any diet; abstaining from it doesn't diminish one's health, so giving it up for any reason, so long as there are other sources of protein, is not harmful to ones self. > > If you refuse to get an abortion yourself, you're probably not hurting > > anyone. If you prevent someone else from getting an abortion, on > > whatever grounds, you're hurting that person. If you force a person > > to get an abortion, for whatever reason, you're hurting that person. > > What if a cocaine-addicted woman refuses to have an abortion and instead > gives birth to a cocaine-addicted baby that suffers mightily throughout > its short life? Is that not hurting somebody else? What if I don't move from my house, and a meteor falls on it and kills me? Did I commit suicide? -- Ignore this sig.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web