Does the Pope visit the MURC?

[SCompRacer]

Some interesting theories regarding the Bible.

A) It's true.

B) It's partially true.

C) It was written by the best writers at the time, paid for by the ruling class to give the masses "faith" in their suffering. Over countless years, why not?

I have no proof either way, but considering how distorting the truth is not a modern invention, I can't dismiss it.

Yeah, I know, Ye have little faith.....but thats the glue that holds religion together, isn't it?

[paulcs]

Actually, Jorden, the Sin of Onan is often looked upon as a proscription against the "self love" you referenced.

Onan "spilled his seed upon the ground," in vain, "and therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing."

(This was most likely coitus interruptus, although the principle is suppose to be the same.)

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[Himself]

I think love has really little to nothing to do with religion at the fundamental level, other than the religions that try to tie it in. People get generally screwed up about love and are more willing to suspend disbelief and logic, the tie in makes coversion/recruitment easier, IMO.

In fact I am not sure that love is an actual thing outside of the human imagination. It's great when all the factors come into alignment, don't get be wrong, but I think it's more about chemistry and dependency than anything else. Not that anybody should care about the guy behind the curtain, knowing how the special effects in movies are done doesn't spoil movies for anybody either, but I don't think it's necessarily the force behind the universe and I don't give it impetus outside of the human imagination.

As for a God posessing the quality, I think it's just as absurd as the rest of the projection of human qualities on the critter.
You'd think God was the pet dog they way it is described. I don't think we could ever comprehend the nature of a being that could create existance and still be human. The very concept that it has to be a single entity is a falacy in itself, religions tend to grossly underestimate the possibilities, but they tend to make stuff up anyway. Of course, God could always be a turtle in the deep blue sea somewhere, but I have yet to find a compelling reason to be overly interested in the being or what it thinks or does.

Like I said before, religions tend to outlive their usefulness as the societies they were targeted for evolve. I think people spend way too much time on the subject myself, outside of idle chatter it's a rather pointless exercise.

[paulcs]

Love is electro-chemical. It feels electro-chemical. Given how much we know about this stuff, it takes away none of its mystery.

Your right. It doesn't spoil the movie for me.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[The PIT]

well this thread is still going so God must love it.

[merchant2112]

and your point is?

[Himself]

Re: animals

How do you say "love" in cow speak?

God (the true (??) God)

More babble. Yak, yak, yak.

[Jorden]

Oh dear, it's going into one-liners

Would TP like this thread to be struck by lightning, as a wrath of God? If so, the servers will go even slower

In fact I am not sure that love is an actual thing outside of the human imagination.

Ofcourse not, just look at the animal life. Eliphants staying together for all those years, dolphins, whales, orang-utangs, most birds and plenty more. They stay together for whole their natural life. Isn't that a sort of love there? Or would you just call that instinct?

God: The very concept that it has to be a single entity is a falacy in itself, religions tend to grossly underestimate the possibilities, but they tend to make stuff up anyway.

God (the true (??) God)

Maybe your answer is there, Himself.

Jord.



[This message has been edited by Jorden (edited 23 May 2000).]