G.K. Chesterton:

Post #227,279 by ubernostrum 9/30/05 9:46:30 AM Reply	G.K. Chesterton: From the introduction to The Everlasting Man: \r\n\r\n \r\n They will suddenly turn round and revile the Church for not having prevented the War, which they themselves did not want to prevent; and which nobody had ever professed to be able to prevent, except some of that very school of progressive and cosmopolitan sceptics who are the chief enemies of the Church. It was the anti-clerical and agnostic world that was always prophesying the advent of universal peace; it was that world that was, or should have been abashed and confounded by the advent of universal war. As for the general view that the Church was discredited by the War -- they might as well say that the Ark was discredited by the Flood. When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do. \r\n --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #227,430 by Ashton 9/30/05 8:43:54 PM Reply	Yes, it is a silly place we inhabit Humankind cannot bear very much reality TS Eliot ('There is no method but to be very intelligent.')
Post #227,469 by warmachine 10/1/05 7:39:03 AM Reply	So much for the Age of Enlightenment When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do. When I first read that, I thought "The church is justified because its members breaks their own rules. That doesn't make sense." Then I read the underlying assumption: the church is the only source of moral behaviour, even if its member don't always follow it. So much for separation of church and state, rational humanism or just acknowledgement of other religions. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #227,563 by Ashton 10/1/05 10:32:31 PM Reply	Best model for this behaviour I've heard is still: the effects of opiates upon the human jelloware. Once I Believe has reached/exceeded some (individual bias level?) - an er 'overlay' is applied to all deductive and/or emotional process, hence. Yes, it's too stupidly-'logical' an idea (too) - but I recall another person using the phrase (to try to explain a certain 'meditative' result.. to another) Think of it as an overlay on the pain process.. ('Course that works well.. only with people who ever made overlays for PDP-8s and such arcane BS.) Organized Religion in its various and countless hues - is assuredly a Pandemic. No intellectual process seems apt to greatly ameliorate its effects - re utterly predictable Warz, pogroms, mutilations (female pudenda, foreskins or other). Not without some Shock [of a sort which none can now Imagine] umm occurring. (Maybe the nuking of NYC, London, Mecca - would be - just enough? or Too-much?). Clearly though - 'natural' would seem to be a more efficacious Event. Meanwhile, we simply join the Man from La Mancha because - - well, it seems like something to do with your hands? For us there is only the trying. The rest is not our business. TSE
Post #227,631 by ubernostrum 10/2/05 7:23:29 PM Reply	No... According to the Church, God is the only source of moral behavior. Human beings, by virtue of original sin, are actually incapable of leading perfectly moral lives and are only redeemable by God's grace and forgiveness. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #227,634 by Another Scott 10/2/05 7:33:59 PM Reply	I guess religion is doomed then. (Sorry.)
Post #227,646 by ubernostrum 10/2/05 8:58:53 PM Reply	Well. Chesterton does have a point. The Church has been extremely consistent on that whole "original sin, man is fallen" thing, and, honestly, if you take any period of human history and look closely at what's going on, you do tend to find a lot of nasty brutishness making life short. Meanwhile, various philosophies have come and gone, promising to reform us, make us all good and moral, end all the wars, etc. etc. And that doesn't seem to be working out so well. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #227,642 by warmachine 10/2/05 8:46:05 PM Reply	The quotation mentions the church, not god. As this god entity deigns not to visibly communicate with humanity, it is the church that claims the moral authority to speak on his behalf. Whether they claim their source is divine or not, it is still the church claiming that it and only it is the ideal and correct. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #227,645 by ubernostrum 10/2/05 8:53:33 PM Reply	The quotation says that the Church says that people will go astray. In fact, it ridicules exactly the position you're trying to take. Do read it again. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #227,682 by warmachine 10/3/05 2:35:05 AM Reply	Read it again. Still mentions church, not god. Still states that the church is justified despite its members sinning. That still only makes semantic sense if the church is the only source of moral guidance, whether they claim it's divine or not. Still completely fails to mention other moral sources, such as other religions or humanism. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #227,683 by ubernostrum 10/3/05 2:50:33 AM Reply	Nothing whatsoever to do with moral guidance Here's how it works: \r\n\r\n \r\n Secular critics of the Church say: "See? The Church didn't prevent the War, therefore the Church is a load of BS! Listen to us instead!" \r\n Chesterton responds: "Well, the Church never said it could prevent the War. In fact, the Church has been saying all along that people tend to do this sort of thing, so really when you think about it, that whole Great War thing kind of bolsters their argument." \r\n \r\n\r\n Where in this does it matter who your source of moral guidance is? \r\n --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #227,687 by warmachine 10/3/05 3:18:35 AM Reply	A reasonable argument if only one religion existed An imperfect church is better than no church at all is a reasonable argument except there are alternatives to the church. Hinduism, buddhism, islam or humanism could also be substituted into the quotation. The author fails to acknowledge these even exist, let alone assert that the catholic church is the preferred choice. I'd argue in favour of humanism but that's another thread. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #227,694 by boxley 10/3/05 8:13:15 AM Reply	so humanism is a religion? Even the secular branch? glad one of you finally admits it. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #227,695 by warmachine 10/3/05 8:18:20 AM Reply	Fulfils the same functions without the supernatural ****. I thought I was the pedantic one here. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #227,812 by ben_tilly 10/3/05 4:29:54 PM Reply	Who has denied it? You may be confused by the fact that humanism is not atheism. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,815 by boxley 10/3/05 4:35:53 PM Reply	those that practice it in the classroom deny its a religion "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #227,824 by ben_tilly 10/3/05 4:54:32 PM Reply	Which of us does that? You said, "one of you", and don't seem to have been talking to anyone here... Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,830 by boxley 10/3/05 5:07:45 PM Reply	one of you, as in one of you secular humanists as in one of you christians, not the figurative use, one of the people in this thread but in the general usage, one of you NFL Monday Night Fans as a local unsanctioned representative. Lot of folks in America are unhappy that the religion of Secular Humanism is taught in the public schools while christianity is barred at the door. Actually I would prefer that both should be taught in a comparative religion class and no where else. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #227,842 by ben_tilly 10/3/05 5:35:15 PM Reply	Interesting use of code words there When I say "secular humanism", I'm referring to a specific atheistic philosophy of tolerance. When you say "secular humanism" you're almost definitely talking about the theory of evolution. As a result we talk past each other. I strongly object to barring the teaching of what is accepted in science because there happens to be a secular religion that borrows some of the tenents of that science. Like it or not - and I know you don't - evolution is a basic part of the scientific consensus. Leaving it out of the scientific curriculum because we are kowtowing to religious prejudice does a serious disservice to both science and students. By all means, schools should not be teaching an atheistic theory of universal tolerance for all. But my support for that should not be twisted into support for removing evolution from the science curriculum. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,872 by boxley 10/3/05 8:43:52 PM Reply	my what a giant code word in your eye I have said many times that the teaching of evolution should take place in the public schools, I was not talking about evolution at all, I am very comfortable with that theory. when I speak about secular humanism I am speaking about When I say "secular humanism", I'm referring to a specific philosophy of tolerance forced down a student's throat regardless of common sense or prevailing science like recycling. Perhaps a deep draught of read me in my posts is in order :-) thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #227,879 by ben_tilly 10/3/05 9:01:34 PM Reply	Sorry... I just googled for the phrase and ran across a number of Creationist sites ranting about secular humanism and really talking about evolution. Then jumped to a wrong conclusion. As I said, I'm fine with not teaching secular humanism. I'm even mildly in support of that. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #227,751 by ubernostrum 10/3/05 12:41:44 PM Reply	Ah, so you're taking it as a dilemma when there is none. Responding to a secular criticism of the Church with "well, you're wrong and what you cited actually strengthens the Church's position more than yours" does not in any way imply "secular humanism and the Catholic Church are the only choices which exist for moral guidance". --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #227,770 by warmachine 10/3/05 1:54:24 PM Reply	Wot, no philosophies that aren't to blame? Claiming the church is less to blame than the secular philosophies in charge is not an unreasonable argument except the author still failed to acknowledge other philosophies, let alone assert that catholicism was better than them. As catholicism suffers blame, just less than the incumbent systems, this suggests that, say, buddhism could be adopted. It seems the author is too blinkered to see that other philosophies even exist. Which is a red flag as far as I'm concerned. This leads to the question: which philosophy should be adopted? Another thread, perhaps. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #227,826 by ubernostrum 10/3/05 4:55:49 PM Reply	OK, seriously. What the hell does this have to do with the original quote? If someone launches an attack on Roman Catholicism, and someone else responds by pointing out flaws in the criticism, why do you think the respondent is under any sort of obligation to talk about other faiths? Here's how this apparently goes in your world: \r\n\r\n \r\n Critic: Yar, the Church is stupid because of foo and bar. \r\n Chesterton: Actually, the Church never made claims about foo, and bar strengthens the Church's position more than yours. \r\n You: Ah-HA! You didn't mention Zoroastrianism in your defense of the Church! You lose! \r\n \r\n\r\n WTF, mate? --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #227,844 by warmachine 10/3/05 5:39:42 PM Reply	The church was not strengthened, it was weakened less. It is not much of an argument to say that catholicism was better than fascism or imperialism because much less mud stuck to it. Other philosophies became automatically better. An obvious conclusion leading to an obvious question, which the author should have addressed if he wanted to maintain that catholicism is still better. After all, the statement "I'm a multimillionaire" can be automatically dismissed as delusional if I fail to address the obvious question "So, why do you work as a computer programmer?" Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #227,907 by ubernostrum 10/3/05 11:58:46 PM Reply	I see. Let me try it this way. First I'll take a small quote from one of your posts: \r\n\r\n After all, the statement "I'm a multimillionaire" can be automatically dismissed as delusional if I fail to address the obvious question "So, why do you work as a computer programmer?"\r\n \r\n\r\n Now, I must say that I'm disappointed in you; this quote, which constitutes one part of one post out of the many that you've written, does not comprehensively and specifically address each and every philosophy which has ever existed among humanity or which might ever exist at some point in the future, and therefore I find you ideologically blinkered and intellectually without merit. You really ought to do better if you hope ever to convince anyone. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #227,914 by warmachine 10/4/05 2:57:28 AM Reply	More illustrative example Suppose you met someone at a party who said "You've heard me. Yes, I am a burglar but I'm nowhere near as bad as the guy you just avoided." Being less immoral than someone else is not a convincing argument. Such a person need not compare himself to every individual in the room, just state some general, comparative, redeeming feature to suggest it's better to talk to him then the other strangers. Anything positive, such as "These guys don't hear half the stories I hear!", might be a start. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #227,916 by ubernostrum 10/4/05 3:33:43 AM Reply	You still don't get it. My reason for posting the quote in the first place was not to provide a comprehensive argument which establishes the moral superiority of the Catholic Church, yet you persist in assuming this. The reason was to point out in humorous fashion the irony and contradiction of a common argument against the Church, something which appears to have been entirely lost on you. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]
Post #227,668 by imqwerky 10/3/05 12:26:48 AM 10/3/05 12:30:23 AM Reply	Skip this...go to next post. Goofed! Oh Freddled Gruntbuggly! Edited by imqwerky Oct. 3, 2005, 12:30:23 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #227,670 by imqwerky 10/3/05 12:29:22 AM Reply	Original Sin: "I poked a badger with a spoon!" From Eddie Izzard's HBO special. Original sin is not the fact the fruit was eaten. It is the fact that Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent. The Sin is: Not taking reponsibility for one's actions. Had Adam and Eve defiantly said," Yeah, we ate it and we're not sorry for doing it", well, things would have been totally different. Or would it? Piece of mental chewing gum, Anybody? Amy Oh Freddled Gruntbuggly!
Post #227,673 by Andrew Grygus 10/3/05 12:44:41 AM Reply	Eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, . . "Behold, he has become as We, knowing the difference between Good and Evil". Mankind was turned out of the Garden of Eden (the grace of God) because he was no longer of the animals but entering the realm of the demi-gods - responsible for his own actions. The Jews and much more the Christians and way much more the Moslems have been trying to return that responsibility to God ever since. 'Tain't gonna work folks. Ya can't get the tootpaste back into the tube. The eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a transition to be celebrated, not denied. The responsibility is to be accepted with honor. Sin is in trying to dodge it, thus the Catholic Church (and the rest of 'em) has sinned. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #227,690 by Ashton 10/3/05 6:28:37 AM Reply	Dunno about that 'Celebration' Especially if this rather popular metaphor is absurdly (or laughably) Backwards (?) It portrays a putative Original Unity == the Creator + the newly Created. The "knowledge of good and evil" postulates creation of an (this) illusion of Opposites - Good/Bad, Right/Wrong. (hmmm digital first rears its head: and a pretty ugly head - when it's about human(oids) and not just, switching-junctions for fun and profit). Given that metaphysics is mainly about returning one's 'consciousness' to that State of Unity (as might also be called say, The Real?) -- a neutral observer (!) would have to call the "reward" for eating this bloody figurative apple: a Fall from (Grace, Unity, Oneness yada). Clearly it is a lesser 'State' Why might a single Real (asexual == let's keep it nonhysterical) Entity 'need' to create critters? Long before JC - it was suggested that this might be the only means by which: The Absolute might come to 'know itself'. Thence, within the illusion - human ego, desire for Power over other humans, that tendency to evade the hard work of deep thought / any serious exploration 'within': Got us to where we are today. Hey, it's All in our minds, but - never mind; most prefer the game over any silly idea of 'peaceful unity'. We now return you to the perpetual religious warz, for your comfort and bemused entertainment.
Post #227,684 by warmachine 10/3/05 2:52:44 AM Reply	Yes, he'd have retrofitted nastier DNA changes. According to the story, this god entity removed the legs from the talking serpent and its descendents. Inflicting cruelty at the DNA level. As I've said before, a wanker according to his own PR. By this reasoning, if Adam and Eve were unapologetic, he'd have removed the legs from mankind. However, that'd be nonsense to the original audience. If the author created a defiant Adam and Eve, god would have to be less spiteful. The old testament would be a lot less nastier. Instead of satan arguing with god about being able to turn Job, it'd be a (human) king arguing with god. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #227,696 by boxley 10/3/05 8:19:11 AM Reply	you still have no understanding of Job he was an ungracious, cowardly piece of shit, satan thought he was an easy mark, gawd said even though he is an ungracious cowardly shit you cannot turn him. Satan lost. Instead of always quoting Job, why dont you read the story in the bible so you might have a clue about what really happened? He gave his daughters to be raped to death because he didnt want to get his own ass reamed.... Oh yeah, thats my biblical hero... not. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #227,848 by Ashton 10/3/05 5:59:27 PM Reply	"About" "What" "Really" "Happened" sez it all; it's a FABLE!
Post #227,873 by boxley 10/3/05 8:44:27 PM Reply	that much sex and violence? prolly fact based "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #227,884 by Ashton 10/3/05 9:25:14 PM Reply	{chortle} - ya Got moi!
Post #227,850 by Another Scott 10/3/05 6:14:54 PM Reply	Let's look at a more complete excerpt. [link\|http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html#intro\|The Everlasting Man]: The point of this book, in other words, is that the next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it. And a particular point of it is that the popular critics of Christianity are not really outside it. They are on a debatable ground, in every sense of the term. They are doubtful in their very doubts. Their criticism has taken on a curious tone; as of a random and illiterate heckling. Thus they make current and anti-clerical cant as a sort of small-talk. They will complain of parsons dressing like parsons; as if we should be any more free if all the police who shadowed or collared us were plain clothes detectives. Or they will complain that a sermon cannot be interrupted, and call a pulpit a coward's castle; though they do not call an editor's office a coward's castle. It would be unjust both to journalists and priests; but it would be much truer of journalist. The clergyman appears in person and could easily be kicked as he came out of church; the journalist conceals even his name so that nobody can kick him. They write wild and pointless articles and letters in the press about why the churches are empty, without even going there to find out if they are empty, or which of them are empty. Their suggestions are more vapid and vacant than the most insipid curate in a three-act farce, and move us to comfort him after the manner of the curate in the Bab Ballads; 'Your mind is not so blank as that of Hopley Porter.' So we may truly say to the very feeblest cleric: 'Your mind is not so blank as that of Indignant Layman or Plain Man or Man in the Street, or any of your critics in the newspapers; for they have not the most shadowy notion of what they want themselves. Let alone of what you ought to give them.' They will suddenly turn round and revile the Church for not having prevented the War, which they themselves did not want to prevent; and which nobody had ever professed to be able to prevent, except some of that very school of progressive and cosmopolitan sceptics who are the chief enemies of the Church. It was the anti-clerical and agnostic world that was always prophesying the advent of universal peace; it is that world that was, or should have been, abashed and confounded by the advent of universal war. As for the general view that the Church was discredited by the War--they might as well say that the Ark was discredited by the Flood. When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do. But that marks their mood about the whole religious tradition they are in a state of reaction against it. It is well with the boy when he lives on his father's land; and well with him again when he is far enough from it to look back on it and see it as a whole. But these people have got into an intermediate state, have fallen into an intervening valley from which they can see neither the heights beyond them nor the heights behind. They cannot get out of the penumbra of Christian controversy. They cannot be Christians and they can not leave off being Anti-Christians. Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith. He's a bright guy, no doubt, but he seemed to be pretty good at building strawmen. At least in this introduction. I'll admit to not having read much more of him than this paragraph. Cheers, Scott.
Post #227,888 by Ashton 10/3/05 9:49:46 PM Reply	But not complete-enough? ~Sorta cute but, still begs a couple Big issues - not merely re the Catholic variants and their antagonists. Issues - 1) As to "effects of the countless duelling religio sects, contemporary and historical" - and the putatve effect their duelling has, in catalyzing the nuts within each one's Gaussian: to Act Violently to suppress / eliminate heretics / opposition / even Moderation itself. 2) More particularly: the tendency of a great many of these extant sects to use the phrase ... to believe the phrase ... thence to Believe! [some variation of] MINE (Ours!) is The One Truth, Set-in-Concrete For All Time ..and also, BTW - [And, I assert that this most often: Is taken as inseparable corollary] - all Others are not merely less-true or less-True: They. Are. Wrong. I might add a 3) but it's too much work. It would be about the ignorant-hubris thus sanctimony of so much of what passes for 'religion' in 'the West' + the tolerated Delight in that ignorance of so much else that has been discovered: all as manifest in the sorts of barely-religio- smarminess of the Usual Tee Vee suspects; then the rampant Godliness-on-sleeve of the present Trotskyites and their oozing Judgmental Righteousness cha cha cha But I won't go into that. The first two shall have to suffice ;-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!