Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 00:53
lazarus corporation wrote:sorry, am I taking this too seriously? very very drunk, you see. I'll put some music on and do the hippy hippy shake.Loki wrote:@ Laz - Step back and have a Shimmy and a Shake.
Page 3 of 4
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 01:01
Hey Paull it's cool. Loki for you ...lazarus corporation wrote:I'll put some music on and do the hippy hippy shake.
"For goodness sakes
I got the hippy hippy shakes
yeah I got the shakes
I got the hippy hippy shakes
I can't sit still
with the hippy hippy shakes
yeah I get my fill now
with the hippy hippy shake
yeah it's in the bag
the hippy hippy shake
well I've been shakin' to the left
shakin' to the right
you do the hippy shake shake
with all of your might
oh baby yeah come on shake
oh it's in the bag
the hippy hippy shake
[cue squealing guitar feedback solo]
well I've been shakin' to the left
shakin' to the right
you do the hippy shake shake
with all of your might
of baby yeah come on shake
oh it's in the bag
the hippy hippy shake
the hippy hippy shake
the hippy hippy shake"
You really are shaking and shimmying in the wrong direction. Should you chose to shake and shimmer.
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 09:41
Because on a different thread we concluded that we can't simply give the public what they want because they are inconstant and prone to forming lynch mobs.canon docre wrote:And why is someone who believes, someone to look up to?andymackem wrote: You're not forced to agree with him, but to try to at least realise that he is acting in accordance with what he believes and give him some respect for that.
Not that anyone here is struggling with inconsistent thought processes. Which is re-assuring.
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 09:46
Yes we are, but they tend to be those of other people, and for heartlanders, that's generally their boss...
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 09:50
When did you last adapt or update your beliefs, Laz? Or does this refer solely to other people adapting right up to the point where they agree with us?lazarus corporation wrote:are we talking about the Pope or Adolf Hitler, I've lost trackandymackem wrote:You're not forced to agree with him, but to try to at least realise that he is acting in accordance with what he believes and give him some respect for that.
I'll respect people based on what their beliefs are, not on whether they follow them unquestioningly.
Any idiot can be consistent. Rocks are consistent. Even my father is consistent. Intelligence and ethical considerations are something completely different, and frequently require that you adapt or update your beliefs.
But criticising the head of the Catholic Church for remaining consistent to the teachings of his church is a ridiculous attack. The problem is with the church, not with the man.
Isn't there a danger of adapting and updating our beliefs to the point where we start to accept the 'unacceptable'? I think someone said 'moral turpitude' on another thread ...
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 10:01
From this other thread you mention, I draw the conclusion that they have tasty seal steaks over there in Iceland, no?andymackem wrote:Because on a different thread we concluded that we can't simply give the public what they want because they are inconstant and prone to forming lynch mobs.canon docre wrote:And why is someone who believes, someone to look up to?andymackem wrote: You're not forced to agree with him, but to try to at least realise that he is acting in accordance with what he believes and give him some respect for that.
Not that anyone here is struggling with inconsistent thought processes. Which is re-assuring.
Or was that another case of inconsistent thought prosess?
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 10:03
the church is made up of men such as he.
men. not women.
one of the reasons i left the church is that i bitterly resent being told what not to do with my body by celibate males.
men. not women.
one of the reasons i left the church is that i bitterly resent being told what not to do with my body by celibate males.
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 10:10
See, Ems has seen sense.emilystrange wrote:the church is made up of men such as he.
men. not women.
one of the reasons i left the church is that i bitterly resent being told what not to do with my body by celibate males.
Now we just need to update Catholicism to v2.0 with support and free upgrades for those using old and obsolete versions, compatibility for gay users and those using contraception firewalls... uhh.. I mean...
I'll get me trenchcoat...
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 10:19
Well... There's some good ideas in there. Catholicism needs a bit of a relaunch. Just bring it inline with the times and keep the Catholics we've already got safe and well before anyone starts trying to recruit more.Dark wrote:See, Ems has seen sense.emilystrange wrote:the church is made up of men such as he.
men. not women.
one of the reasons i left the church is that i bitterly resent being told what not to do with my body by celibate males.
Now we just need to update Catholicism to v2.0 with support and free upgrades for those using old and obsolete versions, compatibility for gay users and those using contraception firewalls... uhh.. I mean...
I'll get me trenchcoat...
All that blood, death, sacrifice and guilt... you're bound to get ill doing that. it's the new sex, drugs and rock and roll. Trust me...
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 10:29
Ems applies a nail to the head again.
If you don't like the church's teachings, leave. If you remain within the church, accept its teachings.
Since the church can be defined as any place where two people gather in the love of Christ you don't need a pope to embody your faith.
But the Catholic church, as a multi-national corporation of faith, needs a CEO to keep a billion-strong organisation in order. And not surprisingly they want him to deliver the party line on a belief system that has been intact for hundreds of years.
If you don't like the church's teachings, leave. If you remain within the church, accept its teachings.
Since the church can be defined as any place where two people gather in the love of Christ you don't need a pope to embody your faith.
But the Catholic church, as a multi-national corporation of faith, needs a CEO to keep a billion-strong organisation in order. And not surprisingly they want him to deliver the party line on a belief system that has been intact for hundreds of years.
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 10:41
oh yes. politics is the new religion, and it alwasy has been vice versa.
i do in fact agree with some of the church's teachings, but that could go for any religion, i suppose. my morality, which is actually very strict on some issues, is probably born out of that and plain basic common sense.
sex drugs and rock and roll are approved in varying degrees and priorities, with caveats.
i do in fact agree with some of the church's teachings, but that could go for any religion, i suppose. my morality, which is actually very strict on some issues, is probably born out of that and plain basic common sense.
sex drugs and rock and roll are approved in varying degrees and priorities, with caveats.
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 10:45
andymackem wrote:Ems applies a nail to the head again..
was that what you meant to say?
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 10:48
What about the people who try to change something within the church?andymackem wrote: If you don't like the church's teachings, leave. If you remain within the church, accept its teachings.
(Not that I m one of them, though. I generally keep far away from both zealots and blind sheeps.)
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 11:02
some of us would have to change sex first, to be heard, and that's not allowed.
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 11:59
But the church reflects the divine word of God, who is infinite, omnipresent etc etc. How can that be changed, when it is written in tablets of stone?canon docre wrote:What about the people who try to change something within the church?andymackem wrote: If you don't like the church's teachings, leave. If you remain within the church, accept its teachings.
(Not that I m one of them, though. I generally keep far away from both zealots and blind sheeps.)
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 12:01
Errremilystrange wrote:andymackem wrote:Ems applies a nail to the head again..
was that what you meant to say?
You know what I meant.
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 12:43
"Eppur si muove."andymackem wrote:But the church reflects the divine word of God, who is infinite, omnipresent etc etc. How can that be changed, when it is written in tablets of stone?
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 13:16
no. the church reflects man's interpretation of the word of god, and as such is inherently flawed.andymackem wrote:But the church reflects the divine word of God, who is infinite, omnipresent etc etc. How can that be changed, when it is written in tablets of stone?canon docre wrote:What about the people who try to change something within the church?andymackem wrote: If you don't like the church's teachings, leave. If you remain within the church, accept its teachings.
(Not that I m one of them, though. I generally keep far away from both zealots and blind sheeps.)
if you want to look at it that way, which i dont usually, but for the purposes of this discussion i shall, mankind cannot possibly grasp the notion of what gods word is. it is too vast & too alien to us - it is by definition "of loftier matters". we, by contrast, are limited to what we can comprehend and what we can imagine. and what we can read into stuff.
and we are also a rather corrupt and self-serving species.
i may or may not believe in god, or a godhead of some form, but i certainly dont believe that The Church represent "god's word" in any literal sense.
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 13:21
ie... they believe in him, but he may no longer believe in them..
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 13:52
Hardly written in tablets of stone either. I'm not as well-up on the Old Testament, but of the various copies of New Testament scripts that come down to us now:
No two copies of any one book of the bible from before about 1000AD have exactly the same words, so the "unalterable word of God" is susceptible to change by mere copying errors
The earliest surviving copy of any book of the NT is no earlier than a copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy... etc. It's hard to be sure but IIRC 6th or 7th generation is about the size of it.
Books back then were propagated by something very much like our weeding; except of course each had to be copied out by hand.
There's reason to believe that a lot of "copying errors" are in fact deliberate interpolations; frequently in all innocence, a scribe would put a marginal note explaining the meaning of an obscure word in the original Koine Greek, and the next scribe would take this up into the body of the text...
None of the Gospels actually claims an author; the "Matthew, Mark, Luke, John" attributions are a later Christian tradition. (IIRC Eusebius, the early Church father (c260-c341) has the first mention of the Gospels by these names) None of the Gospels claims to be eye-witness testimony (indeed as "Mark's" Gospel has clear references to the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in it, it can't be earlier than 72(?)AD, and GMark is commonly believed to be the earliest of the four)
The earliest Christian writings, peculiarly enough, are near the end of the Bible, and come from someone who never even claimed to have met Jesus; St. Paul. If any one person has a claim to have started Christianity, I think the church as we have it now owes more to Paul's teachings than those of Jesus himself. (If we can even discern any genuine information about Him from the New Testament, which is debatable...)
Where the feck am I going with all this? I dunno. Warbling on again. Does anyone actually read my posts? Or is it a case of "Oh bl**dy hell, Mark's off on one again"?
No two copies of any one book of the bible from before about 1000AD have exactly the same words, so the "unalterable word of God" is susceptible to change by mere copying errors
The earliest surviving copy of any book of the NT is no earlier than a copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy... etc. It's hard to be sure but IIRC 6th or 7th generation is about the size of it.
Books back then were propagated by something very much like our weeding; except of course each had to be copied out by hand.
There's reason to believe that a lot of "copying errors" are in fact deliberate interpolations; frequently in all innocence, a scribe would put a marginal note explaining the meaning of an obscure word in the original Koine Greek, and the next scribe would take this up into the body of the text...
None of the Gospels actually claims an author; the "Matthew, Mark, Luke, John" attributions are a later Christian tradition. (IIRC Eusebius, the early Church father (c260-c341) has the first mention of the Gospels by these names) None of the Gospels claims to be eye-witness testimony (indeed as "Mark's" Gospel has clear references to the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in it, it can't be earlier than 72(?)AD, and GMark is commonly believed to be the earliest of the four)
The earliest Christian writings, peculiarly enough, are near the end of the Bible, and come from someone who never even claimed to have met Jesus; St. Paul. If any one person has a claim to have started Christianity, I think the church as we have it now owes more to Paul's teachings than those of Jesus himself. (If we can even discern any genuine information about Him from the New Testament, which is debatable...)
Where the feck am I going with all this? I dunno. Warbling on again. Does anyone actually read my posts? Or is it a case of "Oh bl**dy hell, Mark's off on one again"?
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 13:56
Of course, but the church believes that it is the guardian of God's word. Therefore the church is unlikely to feel it can start amending the word of god willy-nilly to reflect the zeitgeist.
I'd beg to differ, but my opinion is unlikely to materially alter their views.
We're up against an issue of faith here, people. The only way to dilute that sort of power is to remove oneself from the organisation involved. Down with corporate religion of all creeds!
I'd beg to differ, but my opinion is unlikely to materially alter their views.
We're up against an issue of faith here, people. The only way to dilute that sort of power is to remove oneself from the organisation involved. Down with corporate religion of all creeds!
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 14:29
I've changed my beliefs before - back in 1997 I believed that Tony Blair was a good guy. I may have been naive in this (along with many many others), but I've reconsidered my views based on experience and updated (and changed) my beliefs. So no, I don't mean just wanting other people to change their views to become closer to mine (although obviously I think this would be good), but also allowing and accepting that my own daily experience will, by necessity, change my own beliefs. There have been other changes since then, but that's one that at least a few of us should be able to identify with.andymackem wrote:When did you last adapt or update your beliefs, Laz? Or does this refer solely to other people adapting right up to the point where they agree with us?lazarus corporation wrote:are we talking about the Pope or Adolf Hitler, I've lost trackandymackem wrote:You're not forced to agree with him, but to try to at least realise that he is acting in accordance with what he believes and give him some respect for that.
I'll respect people based on what their beliefs are, not on whether they follow them unquestioningly.
Any idiot can be consistent. Rocks are consistent. Even my father is consistent. Intelligence and ethical considerations are something completely different, and frequently require that you adapt or update your beliefs.
That wasn't what I was doing - going back to the original post of yours which said "...but to try to at least realise that he is acting in accordance with what he believes and give him some respect for that." my response was basically that acting in accordance with what you believe is not by default a 'good thing' as the beliefs being acted upon may be unethical.But criticising the head of the Catholic Church for remaining consistent to the teachings of his church is a ridiculous attack. The problem is with the church, not with the man.
As for your actual quote above, anyone who binds themselves to the dogma of an organisation (whether it's the Catholic Church, the SWP, the BNP etc) has made a conscious choice to be associated with, and by their membership, directly supportive of, the ideology of that organisation. The problem therefore is with the members of the organisation - because without them, there is no organisation.
With people's beliefs that's always a danger. However, it also allows for a BNP member to update their beliefs to what we might find 'acceptable'. Is that moral turpitude?Isn't there a danger of adapting and updating our beliefs to the point where we start to accept the 'unacceptable'? I think someone said 'moral turpitude' on another thread ...
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 14:30
moral corruption.
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 14:36
I second QB on this one thoroughly:
and Andymackeem on that one too:no. the church reflects man's interpretation of the word of god, and as such is inherently flawed.
Seems, we are not so far apart, or?The only way to dilute that sort of power is to remove oneself from the organisation involved. Down with corporate religion of all creeds!
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 17:52
The Parish priest came to supper once and my father asked him "Why do you keep going back to South America? The Parish priest replied "Because the people there think I'm God"